A Critique of Philosophical Thought in Pakistan
Mohammad Gill February 1, 2005
#25 Posted by kaurasach on February 2, 2005 10:22:17 am
....various levels of symapthy exist in the larger Muslim societies for the zeal, principles and modes of operation of these elements. Therefore, the societies have taken no steps to single out, isolate, marginalize or weed out these elements from within......
Far from weeding out these weeds, these factions are exalted and worshipped by large number of coreligionists
The world is bored with the ``hijacking of Islam`` conspiracy theory, amongst other rumors that these people want the world to gulp without questioning.
Far from weeding out these weeds, these factions are exalted and worshipped by large number of coreligionists
The world is bored with the ``hijacking of Islam`` conspiracy theory, amongst other rumors that these people want the world to gulp without questioning.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#24 Posted by Freddy_Krueger on February 2, 2005 10:10:10 am
Romair and Mantolives:
While you both are partly right that my last post relied heavily on the midset of a certain segment of Islamic societies but you must also remember that various levels of symapthy exist in the larger Muslim societies for the zeal, principles and modes of operation of these elements. Therefore, the societies have taken no steps to single out, isolate, marginalize or weed out these elements from within.
However, the gist of my contention seemed to have lost to both of you. I contended that a system (religion or civilization) does not have to be perfect to succeed. It is the edge in certain important areas that matters now as it always mattered. None - Islam, West, Hinduism, Christianity etc - are perfect but West enjoys edge in education, technology, social contract and generating wealth areas. Similarly Hinduism has been enjoying edge over Islam in education and the role of women in society in subcontinent for almost 2 centuries now. Islam also enjoyed edge in certain areas like raising large faithful, dedicated and determined soldiers which helped creating empires and territorial expansion. Islam still enjoys the edge over others just as it once enjoyed during the so-called golden age of Islam in the same areas of able to bring forth large number of able male to defend in addition to low rate of pre-marital or ``illegitimate`` sex. But the Islamic edge in modern times is not only meaningless/ obsolete but detrimental also due to their effects on the society.
What I just wrote is not rejected only by the hardcore fundametalists as you people suggested but almost by all of the mainstream Muslims would object to edge theory over perfect/ inherent goodness theory. The belief that Islam, in its original form, is all good and perfect. Islam mukammal zabita-e-hayat hae (in Urdu): Islam hamara deen hae; Wordly success is not important compared to eternal bliss in heaven and hense, following Islam in its purest form guarantees eternal bliss. Are these the beliefs of hardcore fundamentalists and mullah omer or majority of Muslims?
The perfection of original Islam is infallable for Muslims because it is linked with the message of all good and powerful god directly. Perfect Islam means its edge in all important areas which is just not true in the real world. Muslims must accept that Islam is not perfect like every other system, to begin with and stop this nonsense of corruption by mullah and elites theory. They must agree unconditionally that four wives per man, lightly beating your wives and them relegating to half a witness status is absurd and stop making excuses to justify these absurdities. They must also agree that for generating wealth, interest-free banking is crazy idea with no empirical data to support it in addition to accepting the fact that Islam is heavy with rituals costing much more time and energy per person per week, per month, per year and per lifetime thus leaving comparably less time per person to succeed in wordly matters. Well, I have just laid out few imperfections in the original, pure and inherently good Islam - key to eternal bliss in heavens. These are just tip of the iceberg. Once you start looking at it critically, you can write a book about inherent imperfections.
In modern times to succeed, the edge to have is same for all faiths, nations and people. Muslims are wrong to believe that once inherently good, original, pure and perfect Islam is implemeted, they would enjoy edge over the rest. Rest of the world is just not stupid to not know the areas where edge matters. The edge for all of humanity lies in education, technology, generating wealth, civil liberties and most important edge going forward from here would be enjoyed by the people who lead the way in accepting (and practicing) women to absolute equal level with men.
So, stop the mantra of Islam is perfect and Muslims are imperfect due to corrupting Islam.
#23 Posted by soysauce on February 2, 2005 9:50:10 am
#8 Freddy,
Sameer, is it - i liked your big picture. It is a rather devastating comment that - assuming you`re right - that it was women pilots who rained down bombs on a masculine army in afghanistan.. The conflict is multidimensional.
Sameer, is it - i liked your big picture. It is a rather devastating comment that - assuming you`re right - that it was women pilots who rained down bombs on a masculine army in afghanistan.. The conflict is multidimensional.
#22 Posted by ShoreSahib on February 2, 2005 9:30:51 am
Re: # 21
I agree with most of your repudiation of Freddy`s points. Very well said, but one comment of yours is puzzling. I would appreciate it if you would explain it further.
````When Akbar S. Ahmed says, ``I see Islam everywhere in USA but no Muslims and Islam nowhere in Islamic countries but mostly Muslims`` he is essentially saying the same thing that Iqbal said in his Reconstruction of Islamic thoughts and the excerpt from his speech...``
Sounds like a cop-out to me. Basically, they see a successful West, in particular technologically and economically powerful. Then they go on to attribute every and all things good to it. Thus, the first thought that comes to mind is that if we walk the walk just like they do, then perhaps we can be successful like they are. Of course, success has little to do with how you walk.`` Vertex
I agree with most of your repudiation of Freddy`s points. Very well said, but one comment of yours is puzzling. I would appreciate it if you would explain it further.
````When Akbar S. Ahmed says, ``I see Islam everywhere in USA but no Muslims and Islam nowhere in Islamic countries but mostly Muslims`` he is essentially saying the same thing that Iqbal said in his Reconstruction of Islamic thoughts and the excerpt from his speech...``
Sounds like a cop-out to me. Basically, they see a successful West, in particular technologically and economically powerful. Then they go on to attribute every and all things good to it. Thus, the first thought that comes to mind is that if we walk the walk just like they do, then perhaps we can be successful like they are. Of course, success has little to do with how you walk.`` Vertex
#21 Posted by vertex on February 2, 2005 8:52:56 am
Freddy,
``Actualy the reasons are not that complicated to understand. As the author pointed out and I repeat here are simply the result of mytholigizing Islam, Islamic history, Islamic dogma and absolute belief in the inherent goodness of Islam.``
If one were to objectively analyze Western philosophers, then you will see that they do not engage in the questioning of certain fundamentals. There is a Western mythos, a special emphasis on Western history, a dogma of sorts surrounding axiomatic notions such as freedom, and a belief that the West is not only inherently good, but the best. There are definitely more `intellects` in the Muslim world who criticize Islamic thought than Western intellects who take stock and seriously challenge the academic establishment in the West.
Why? Because this is how it works. You have a body of work, and a paradigm for thinking. Paradigm shifts are few and far between. But what is important about Western thought is that it is self contained, and does not (in a paranoid fit) compare itself to any others. In fact, there is a complete obliviousness of any other world view. This is good and neccessary to come up with a self-consistent mode of thought. Muslim Intellects (especially the secular ones) are too busy ``reconciling`` to do any original thinking. The religious ones do it only in reference to their own mode of thought, and so obviously Western thought will loose out since it can`t bridge the conceptual gaps that are taken as established truisms. Vice versa, for that matter.
``When Akbar S. Ahmed says, ``I see Islam everywhere in USA but no Muslims and Islam nowhere in Islamic countries but mostly Muslims`` he is essentially saying the same thing that Iqbal said in his Reconstruction of Islamic thoughts and the excerpt from his speech...``
Sounds like a cop-out to me. Basically, they see a successful West, in particular technologically and economically powerful. Then they go on to attribute every and all things good to it. Thus, the first thought that comes to mind is that if we walk the walk just like they do, then perhaps we can be successful like they are. Of course, success has little to do with how you walk.
The problem here is that it will take lots of work, and not just changing the way we ``think`` which is rather easy and takes but seconds to do. Further, it implies that we can do nothing unless we all think a certain way, and act in unison. More rubbish. There is a common good that can be worked towards, even if you are working along side someone who`s ideology you despise. This, however, never happens in our part of the world. NEVER. And this is the true strength of the West.
``First it assumes with 100 percent certainty that there was a golden age of Islam (which was actually measured in territorial and power terms than anything else) and then it links it without proof to the inherent goodness of Islam.``
Bzzzt. Wrong. The idea is that we were once ``leaders`` in the various fields of study, and in economics...and we can be again. It was, in fact, a golden age. Not exactly the best political set-up, certainly nothing to emulate today. But worthy of remeberence, and not to shy away from. If I only had a dime for eveyrtime someone who is so dissociated from Muslim thought that they would actually think this is some kind of valid point...
``However, if this is the extract of inherent goodness responsible for the golden age of Islam, it is absolutely useless in modern times of technology, education and brain power.``
Oh, and if I had a penny every time someone brought this up as if it was a novel idea. DUH!
``Muslims, more than any other nation or people believe in the reversibility of time and coming back of the so-called golden age of Islam.``
Nope. See above. The idea is we were once great, we can be again. That`s just useless sloganeering, though. Fact is, every Muslim knows they don`t know what to do...and that no one else really has a good idea either. What they do take for granted is that in order to ``succeed`` we need to be left alone. So what you have, in fact, is a growing xenophobia....very difficult for a missionary people to reconcile btw. It is this shutting out the world that is doing us harm...
``Are all of these people today dreaming about recreating the golden age?``
You`ve obviously NOT talked to a Persian or a Greek lately. Or an Italian, for that matter. The pride is undeniable. The fact is, they are now a part of the EU, so they have a sense of progress. So they don`t need to fallback on memories of the past to assuage their contemporary feelings of hopelessness.
``It sounds funny but promotion of native languages and cultures could actually help change philosophical thoughts. For example, Islamic madrassah system is not available in most Pakistani native languages. There are no equivalent words of murtid, mulhid, dehriya etc in Punjabi. Most punjabis use them as such from Arabic or Urdu and most uneducated villagers dont know the meanings of these words. ``
No, Pakistani native cultures are primitive and not very cosmopolitan. The fact is, it is a sure fire way to have the state disintegrate. Promotion of the native cultures over any concept which transcends them (whether it is Pakistani nationalism, or Islam, or whatever) will encourage racism and sectarianism. This is foolish. Swallow your pride and look at India, not the West.
``Actualy the reasons are not that complicated to understand. As the author pointed out and I repeat here are simply the result of mytholigizing Islam, Islamic history, Islamic dogma and absolute belief in the inherent goodness of Islam.``
If one were to objectively analyze Western philosophers, then you will see that they do not engage in the questioning of certain fundamentals. There is a Western mythos, a special emphasis on Western history, a dogma of sorts surrounding axiomatic notions such as freedom, and a belief that the West is not only inherently good, but the best. There are definitely more `intellects` in the Muslim world who criticize Islamic thought than Western intellects who take stock and seriously challenge the academic establishment in the West.
Why? Because this is how it works. You have a body of work, and a paradigm for thinking. Paradigm shifts are few and far between. But what is important about Western thought is that it is self contained, and does not (in a paranoid fit) compare itself to any others. In fact, there is a complete obliviousness of any other world view. This is good and neccessary to come up with a self-consistent mode of thought. Muslim Intellects (especially the secular ones) are too busy ``reconciling`` to do any original thinking. The religious ones do it only in reference to their own mode of thought, and so obviously Western thought will loose out since it can`t bridge the conceptual gaps that are taken as established truisms. Vice versa, for that matter.
``When Akbar S. Ahmed says, ``I see Islam everywhere in USA but no Muslims and Islam nowhere in Islamic countries but mostly Muslims`` he is essentially saying the same thing that Iqbal said in his Reconstruction of Islamic thoughts and the excerpt from his speech...``
Sounds like a cop-out to me. Basically, they see a successful West, in particular technologically and economically powerful. Then they go on to attribute every and all things good to it. Thus, the first thought that comes to mind is that if we walk the walk just like they do, then perhaps we can be successful like they are. Of course, success has little to do with how you walk.
The problem here is that it will take lots of work, and not just changing the way we ``think`` which is rather easy and takes but seconds to do. Further, it implies that we can do nothing unless we all think a certain way, and act in unison. More rubbish. There is a common good that can be worked towards, even if you are working along side someone who`s ideology you despise. This, however, never happens in our part of the world. NEVER. And this is the true strength of the West.
``First it assumes with 100 percent certainty that there was a golden age of Islam (which was actually measured in territorial and power terms than anything else) and then it links it without proof to the inherent goodness of Islam.``
Bzzzt. Wrong. The idea is that we were once ``leaders`` in the various fields of study, and in economics...and we can be again. It was, in fact, a golden age. Not exactly the best political set-up, certainly nothing to emulate today. But worthy of remeberence, and not to shy away from. If I only had a dime for eveyrtime someone who is so dissociated from Muslim thought that they would actually think this is some kind of valid point...
``However, if this is the extract of inherent goodness responsible for the golden age of Islam, it is absolutely useless in modern times of technology, education and brain power.``
Oh, and if I had a penny every time someone brought this up as if it was a novel idea. DUH!
``Muslims, more than any other nation or people believe in the reversibility of time and coming back of the so-called golden age of Islam.``
Nope. See above. The idea is we were once great, we can be again. That`s just useless sloganeering, though. Fact is, every Muslim knows they don`t know what to do...and that no one else really has a good idea either. What they do take for granted is that in order to ``succeed`` we need to be left alone. So what you have, in fact, is a growing xenophobia....very difficult for a missionary people to reconcile btw. It is this shutting out the world that is doing us harm...
``Are all of these people today dreaming about recreating the golden age?``
You`ve obviously NOT talked to a Persian or a Greek lately. Or an Italian, for that matter. The pride is undeniable. The fact is, they are now a part of the EU, so they have a sense of progress. So they don`t need to fallback on memories of the past to assuage their contemporary feelings of hopelessness.
``It sounds funny but promotion of native languages and cultures could actually help change philosophical thoughts. For example, Islamic madrassah system is not available in most Pakistani native languages. There are no equivalent words of murtid, mulhid, dehriya etc in Punjabi. Most punjabis use them as such from Arabic or Urdu and most uneducated villagers dont know the meanings of these words. ``
No, Pakistani native cultures are primitive and not very cosmopolitan. The fact is, it is a sure fire way to have the state disintegrate. Promotion of the native cultures over any concept which transcends them (whether it is Pakistani nationalism, or Islam, or whatever) will encourage racism and sectarianism. This is foolish. Swallow your pride and look at India, not the West.
#19 Posted by MantoLives on February 2, 2005 8:42:41 am
Freddy Kreuger (a.k.a SameerJB?)
I suggest you read what Romair is saying closely. If you can look past his attrocious simplicity... perhaps you will see that what he says in real terms might not be so bad.
For years now we have been frustrated by his obfuscation and strawman fallacy of Islam vs. secularism (Islamic Republic vs. Secular Republic, as if any secular Republic ever made ``Secular`` the part of their official name).
But the fact is that we should accept his definition as is... for this is how he chooses to define the two. The fact of the matter is that when Romair says he is more interested in Waris Shah or the cotton crop in South Punjab ... he is actually accepting the twin headers of your ideology... 1) Punjabi literature 2) The very secular Agricultural Economics.
I accept it... but I also hope that some one will pay some attention to institutional discrimination that exists against minorities in Pakistan. I am sure Romair does not support the constitutional discrimination against them.
-YLH
I suggest you read what Romair is saying closely. If you can look past his attrocious simplicity... perhaps you will see that what he says in real terms might not be so bad.
For years now we have been frustrated by his obfuscation and strawman fallacy of Islam vs. secularism (Islamic Republic vs. Secular Republic, as if any secular Republic ever made ``Secular`` the part of their official name).
But the fact is that we should accept his definition as is... for this is how he chooses to define the two. The fact of the matter is that when Romair says he is more interested in Waris Shah or the cotton crop in South Punjab ... he is actually accepting the twin headers of your ideology... 1) Punjabi literature 2) The very secular Agricultural Economics.
I accept it... but I also hope that some one will pay some attention to institutional discrimination that exists against minorities in Pakistan. I am sure Romair does not support the constitutional discrimination against them.
-YLH
#18 Posted by MantoLives on February 2, 2005 7:44:09 am
I have recently had the good fortune of discussing issues with Raza Kazim, Pakistan`s leading lawyer, who has dedicated a considerable amount of his time, wealth and and effort to philosophy. He does not fall into the same trap. He speaks of a ``dialectics of the mind``... and in doing so manages to go beyond the existing parameters as we know them in philosophy.
Allama Iqbal was a great poet philosopher, but he was the poet of the middle class, and a philosopher concerned with Islam and its role in the modern world. Mr. Kazim`s philosophy goes beyond it, as it does not suffer any such pretensions.
#17 Posted by Romair on February 2, 2005 7:18:24 am
Freddy_Krueger #8: I think you have some valid points. But you are exaggerating quite a bit also. I think you are greatly mixing the views of a small minority of religious activists in Pakistan with the general population. If the specimen in your study is Mullah Umar, then your views are accurate. If it is a normal Pakistani, then they are not. My guess is because you are letting your personal opinions interfere with an objective analysis. It is impossible to carry out a balanced analysis on an issue, if one has an open dislike of it. Such an analysis would be ignored completely by people whom you are attempting to communicate with. It will only be accepted by those who already agree with you.
My guess is that the hamidm/NHKs etc will agree with you emphatically. While Urstruly/Naqshbandis will disagree with you. Each will abuse the other, as usual. And nothing productive will have been accomplished.
People who want to rid the world of religion need to do just two things a) Provide an answer on the meaning of life: why were we born? b) Provide information on what will happen after death. Once those two are answered, religion will finish. Until then, religion will survive (and continue to grow), because it is the inherent nature of an inquisitive mind to attempt to find answer for these two questions.
Another factor is that the poorer a person happens to be, the more fatalistic he/she becomes. It is very easy for you and I to accept and unaccept philosophies, as we wish. We have nothing else to worry about, financially. However, a person who has been born weak, poor and disenfranchised has to have some hope in an aftrer-life that will balance out the injustices that he/she is facing in this life. If that does not exist, then the world is (or would seem to the disenfranchised) to be an extremely unfair place, for him/her.
Most of the discourse on religion on this site, and in the Pakistan press, is dominated by two types of individuals: those who consider religion to be the solution to everything and those who consider it the problem for everything. These two groups, in reality, are a small minority of Pakistanis. In every survey I have read on Pakistan, the theories of these two groups enjoy very little importance. Pakistan’s condition will not improve, if everyone started going to a madrassah, nor will it improve if everyone started speaking Punjabi and stopped going to madrassahs (with no other options available to them). These are mostly pipe-dreams pushed by people who have a different agenda, i.e. not the improvement of conditions in Pakistan but the removal or institutionalization of religion in a society.
I don’t think too many people long for a revival of 7th century Islamic civilization. I work for an NGO in Pakistan, which provides scholarships to needy students at levels starting from high-school to college. It gets a lot of applications from the remotest parts of Pakistan. These are from individuals who cannot even afford a couple of hundred to a thousand rupees for their education. I have yet to see a single application for any madrassah. They are all for places like Hasan Abdal school, UET, Fatima Jinnah Medical, Govt. run primary schools, etc. Why haven’t any of them applied for a madrassah (many of which are actually free) if your theory of people longing for the historical greatness of Islamic civilization are true?
If the govt. builds an Beaconhouse school next to every community of madrassah, where do you think the people will send their kids?
Muslim countries, specifically Pakistan, have been harmed far more by individuals who went to Oxford, Harvard and Sandhurst, then by individuals who went to a madrassah. The madrassah-goers have yet to gain power over Muslim countries. Who knows what they will do? But one cannot conveniently pass on the failiures of the former (who have been running every country from Morocco to Indonesia) onto the later. It is nothing more than a case of denial.
People long for economic growth. For personal security. For jobs. For infrastructure. For education for their children. For entertainment. This is what drives every person. It is what even drives animals, what to talk of people. This is what the main discourse of any successful society should be on. Unfortunately, on this site, we have an overdose of articles on why religion is the solution and why it is the problem, i.e. the views of two minorities dominate the views of the majority.
If everyone had spent a 1/10 of their energy on debating economic theories, educational policies, how to build a canal, how to introduce electricity to a village, how to finance a school, the strengths and deficiencies of the Karachi Stock exchange, the standard of IT in Pakistan, how to improve fertilizer delivery to farmers etc., that they spend on useless debates on how the madrassahs are the problem, and Punjabi is the solution, all of us here on Chowk would be much well-informed and enlightened…….
I think Chowk should now think of doing away with articles that repeatedly debate religion and secularism and religion and secularism and religion and secularism. They are a waste of time, because they are generally written by people who barely understand these philosophies in detail. Hence it is impossible to debate anything with them, since they will never acknowledge the deficiencies in their respective theories. Most have an agenda, they are pushing. And the ones who do understand the philosophies seem to be convinced that most people in Pakistan seem to give religion and/or secularism the same importance that they do………
Personally, I would be much more interested if you could provide us with the details of Waris Shah or on how to improve the cotton crop in Southern Punjab than on why Islam is the problem or the solution. And if surverys are anything to go by, so would an overwhelming percentage of Pakistanis………..
My guess is that the hamidm/NHKs etc will agree with you emphatically. While Urstruly/Naqshbandis will disagree with you. Each will abuse the other, as usual. And nothing productive will have been accomplished.
People who want to rid the world of religion need to do just two things a) Provide an answer on the meaning of life: why were we born? b) Provide information on what will happen after death. Once those two are answered, religion will finish. Until then, religion will survive (and continue to grow), because it is the inherent nature of an inquisitive mind to attempt to find answer for these two questions.
Another factor is that the poorer a person happens to be, the more fatalistic he/she becomes. It is very easy for you and I to accept and unaccept philosophies, as we wish. We have nothing else to worry about, financially. However, a person who has been born weak, poor and disenfranchised has to have some hope in an aftrer-life that will balance out the injustices that he/she is facing in this life. If that does not exist, then the world is (or would seem to the disenfranchised) to be an extremely unfair place, for him/her.
Most of the discourse on religion on this site, and in the Pakistan press, is dominated by two types of individuals: those who consider religion to be the solution to everything and those who consider it the problem for everything. These two groups, in reality, are a small minority of Pakistanis. In every survey I have read on Pakistan, the theories of these two groups enjoy very little importance. Pakistan’s condition will not improve, if everyone started going to a madrassah, nor will it improve if everyone started speaking Punjabi and stopped going to madrassahs (with no other options available to them). These are mostly pipe-dreams pushed by people who have a different agenda, i.e. not the improvement of conditions in Pakistan but the removal or institutionalization of religion in a society.
I don’t think too many people long for a revival of 7th century Islamic civilization. I work for an NGO in Pakistan, which provides scholarships to needy students at levels starting from high-school to college. It gets a lot of applications from the remotest parts of Pakistan. These are from individuals who cannot even afford a couple of hundred to a thousand rupees for their education. I have yet to see a single application for any madrassah. They are all for places like Hasan Abdal school, UET, Fatima Jinnah Medical, Govt. run primary schools, etc. Why haven’t any of them applied for a madrassah (many of which are actually free) if your theory of people longing for the historical greatness of Islamic civilization are true?
If the govt. builds an Beaconhouse school next to every community of madrassah, where do you think the people will send their kids?
Muslim countries, specifically Pakistan, have been harmed far more by individuals who went to Oxford, Harvard and Sandhurst, then by individuals who went to a madrassah. The madrassah-goers have yet to gain power over Muslim countries. Who knows what they will do? But one cannot conveniently pass on the failiures of the former (who have been running every country from Morocco to Indonesia) onto the later. It is nothing more than a case of denial.
People long for economic growth. For personal security. For jobs. For infrastructure. For education for their children. For entertainment. This is what drives every person. It is what even drives animals, what to talk of people. This is what the main discourse of any successful society should be on. Unfortunately, on this site, we have an overdose of articles on why religion is the solution and why it is the problem, i.e. the views of two minorities dominate the views of the majority.
If everyone had spent a 1/10 of their energy on debating economic theories, educational policies, how to build a canal, how to introduce electricity to a village, how to finance a school, the strengths and deficiencies of the Karachi Stock exchange, the standard of IT in Pakistan, how to improve fertilizer delivery to farmers etc., that they spend on useless debates on how the madrassahs are the problem, and Punjabi is the solution, all of us here on Chowk would be much well-informed and enlightened…….
I think Chowk should now think of doing away with articles that repeatedly debate religion and secularism and religion and secularism and religion and secularism. They are a waste of time, because they are generally written by people who barely understand these philosophies in detail. Hence it is impossible to debate anything with them, since they will never acknowledge the deficiencies in their respective theories. Most have an agenda, they are pushing. And the ones who do understand the philosophies seem to be convinced that most people in Pakistan seem to give religion and/or secularism the same importance that they do………
Personally, I would be much more interested if you could provide us with the details of Waris Shah or on how to improve the cotton crop in Southern Punjab than on why Islam is the problem or the solution. And if surverys are anything to go by, so would an overwhelming percentage of Pakistanis………..
#16 Posted by hamidm2 on February 2, 2005 7:02:08 am
sameerjb,
......... great post as usual ......... but what is it with the freddy handle ?......... first it was ylh and now you ?......... it is disconcerting ....... can you go back to being sameer - we liked him.........
......... great post as usual ......... but what is it with the freddy handle ?......... first it was ylh and now you ?......... it is disconcerting ....... can you go back to being sameer - we liked him.........
#15 Posted by vivek on February 2, 2005 6:02:04 am
Freddy,
Since you seem to know a lot about religions, I have a question - what would have happened if paganism had survived, and all the abhrahamic religions had lost out?
Since you seem to know a lot about religions, I have a question - what would have happened if paganism had survived, and all the abhrahamic religions had lost out?
#14 Posted by ballukhan on February 2, 2005 2:14:01 am
Philosophy in India suffered from a similar predicament in the early part of post partition era....however, thanks to the standard British Philosophy Courses students did read a lot of Plato, Aristotle, Locke and Russell. Only a few Buddhist or Sankhya-Vedanta Courses were added in the post graduate courses.
Fortunately, in the early 70-s when the courses were revised some Universities did add a Analytical Philosophy and Existentialism or Phenomenology.................Now a major part of the university courses include Western Philosophy and Logic apart from Indian Hinduistic Philosophies.........So, Philosophy in India is a good mixture of the contemporary as well as the Religious PHilosophies.
Infact, some of the IIT`s maintain a Philosophy department with emphasis upon the Philosophy of Mind, Advanced Logic (De-Ontic etc), Philosophy of Science ( Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend and others).
Some PHilosophers of Science have also published books with good publuishers like RKP.........and the number of students working on Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of Language, Semantics and AI are increasing in the Indian Universities...........besides the fact that most of the good ones move abroad to pick up their Phd`s in foreign universities.Although the number of students picking up a full Philosophy Course is small, yet the number of serious ones who take some courses in Western and non-religious Philosophy appears to be healthy....
Fortunately, in the early 70-s when the courses were revised some Universities did add a Analytical Philosophy and Existentialism or Phenomenology.................Now a major part of the university courses include Western Philosophy and Logic apart from Indian Hinduistic Philosophies.........So, Philosophy in India is a good mixture of the contemporary as well as the Religious PHilosophies.
Infact, some of the IIT`s maintain a Philosophy department with emphasis upon the Philosophy of Mind, Advanced Logic (De-Ontic etc), Philosophy of Science ( Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend and others).
Some PHilosophers of Science have also published books with good publuishers like RKP.........and the number of students working on Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of Language, Semantics and AI are increasing in the Indian Universities...........besides the fact that most of the good ones move abroad to pick up their Phd`s in foreign universities.Although the number of students picking up a full Philosophy Course is small, yet the number of serious ones who take some courses in Western and non-religious Philosophy appears to be healthy....
#13 Posted by Azure on February 2, 2005 2:05:20 am
Mr. Nazar Hayat Khan sahib, can you please give me your e-mail address or contact me at azure3d at yahoo.com? I want to talk to you about a few things. Thank you very much.
#12 Posted by nazarhayatkhan on February 1, 2005 11:33:26 pm
Freddy # 8
You have said some good things.
Let the local cultures & languages flourish unhindered. Out of this would come the softness and respect for other cultures. And an unhindered philosophical thought. And the Dogma could be pushed back at its right place - a personal matter.
nhk
#11 Posted by Azure on February 1, 2005 10:48:00 pm
Good work Gill sahib! I was waiting for this article.
In Pakistan, thinking is considered a sin! Philosophy is simply out of the question. If you think, you`re confused. If you don`t think, you are a hero! So it`s better not to waste time discussing the ignorant. The governing philosophy in Pakistan is that one should mind his or her own business.
Keep writing!
- MF
In Pakistan, thinking is considered a sin! Philosophy is simply out of the question. If you think, you`re confused. If you don`t think, you are a hero! So it`s better not to waste time discussing the ignorant. The governing philosophy in Pakistan is that one should mind his or her own business.
Keep writing!
- MF
#10 Posted by Azure on February 1, 2005 10:46:50 pm
Good work Gill sahib! I was waiting for this article.
In Pakistan, thinking is considered a sin! Philosophy is simply out of the question. If you think, you`re confused. If you don`t think, you are a hero! So it`s better not to waste time discussing the ignorant. The governing philosophy in Pakistan is that one should mind his or her own business.
Keep writing!
- MF
In Pakistan, thinking is considered a sin! Philosophy is simply out of the question. If you think, you`re confused. If you don`t think, you are a hero! So it`s better not to waste time discussing the ignorant. The governing philosophy in Pakistan is that one should mind his or her own business.
Keep writing!
- MF
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- dost_mittar: Shahji: I make the same... Muslim Ghettoisation
- Shah2: Re: # 369 D.M. sb... Muslim Ghettoisation
- bubba: Re: # 375 Posted... Muslim Ghettoisation
- pinku: bubba, Hindu came from... Muslim Ghettoisation
- bubba: Re: # 310 Posted... Muslim Ghettoisation
- pinku: add to #371, another example:... Muslim Ghettoisation
- bubba: Can anyone explain where... Muslim Ghettoisation
- pinku: replying #339 Posted by... Muslim Ghettoisation
