A Critique of Philosophical Thought in Pakistan

Chandala:36

Interesting `fun` execise! This Rg Veda

..``strand of scepticism..``?

Then who knows it could also titled ``Hymn of Destruction``. How do we know that instead of having been CREATED we are really going through a SHREDDER. The button that was pressed was REWIND & my son is really my father--TIMEWARP with MINDWARP!

and the last line of the hymn tells us even He doesn`t know.

If Doubt is the Belief then so shall it be. To each his own. Some people might enjoy the masochism of perpetual Doubt & some might love the cocoon comfort of Belief.

So is comfort bad? is work good? is efficiency, progress worthwhile or is ecology and conservation bad? Are vacations or weekends better or are those who slog through 5-days to wait for a weekend or vacations really Anti-Progress Terrorists or sleeper-cells of Al-``Happy Days``-Quaeda``?

Such ``philosophic`` musings are called lethargic eastern mumbo-jumbo, fakir-talk, yogi-bullshit, swami-musings, Peer Saadhoo brain-idlings--a roadblock to market manouverings or arms-wrestlings. It does NOTHING to RESOURCES. Does not spread PEACE, FREEDOM, and DEMOCRACY!

The thuggs start getting edgy.

---

L`kuum deenakuum vlai deen [To you your religion, to me mine]--Al-Qura`an al Hakeem.

Re: # 38
``..``strand of scepticism..``?

Then who knows it could also titled ``Hymn of Destruction``. How do we know that instead of having been CREATED we are really going through a SHREDDER. The button that was pressed was REWIND & my son is really my father--TIMEWARP with MINDWARP!

and the last line of the hymn tells us even He doesn`t know.``
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Before knowing the answer, you have to know what the question is. Besides, only a true poet knows the delight of poetic imagery and language, and only a true intellectual can appreciate the delights of speculation. I think this is the central issue that is being debated.

There is a Sanskrit poem by Bhartrihari which says that tides arise only in the ocean, not in a well.

Re: # 43
juar bhata jo samundar mein uTThta hain kuyaiN mein nahin;
kuyaiN ke menDak kuyaiN ke talabgar hotein hain samundar ke nahin.
How is that for poetic imagery ;)

There`s an interesting strand of scepticism in Hindu thought. This is from the Rg Veda

Hymn of Creation

Then even nothingness was not, nor existence.
There was no air then, nor the heavens beyond it.
What covered it? Where was it? In whose keeping?
Was there then cosmic water, in depths unfathomed?

Then there were neither death nor immortality,
nor was there then the torch of night and day.
The One breathed windlessly and self-sustaining.
There was that One then, and there was no other.

At first there was only darkness wrapped in darkness.
All this was only unillumined water.
That One which came to be, enclosed in nothing,
arose at last, born of the power of heat.

In the beginning desire descended on it --
that was the primal seed, born of the mind.
The sages who have searched their hearts with wisdom
know that which is kin to that which is not.

And they have stretched their cord across the void,
and know what was above, and what below.
Seminal powers made fertile, mighty forces.
Below was strength, and over it was impulse.

But, after all, who knows, and who can say
whence it all came, and how creation happened?
The gods themselves are later than creation,
so who knows truly whence it has arisen?

Whence all creation had its origin,
he, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
he, who surveys it from all from the highest heaven,
he knows -- or maybe even he does not know.

tr. A.L. Basham The Wonder that was India

Re: # 36 And here is some hope in the words of Bashir Badr for you:
sisakate aab me.n kis kii sadaa hai
ko_ii dariyaa kii tah me.n ro rahaa hai

savere merii in aa.Nkho.n ne dekhaa
Khudaa charo taraf bikharaa huaa hai

sameTo aur siine me.n chhupaalo
ye sannaaTaa bahut phailaa huaa hai

pak gehuu,N kii Khushbuu chiikhatii hai
badan apanaa suneharaa ho chalaa hai

haqiiqat surKh machhalii jaanatii hai
samandar kaisaa buu.Dhaa devataa hai

hamaarii shaaKh kaa nau-Khez pattaa
havaa ke ho.nTh aksar chuumataa hai

mujhe un niilii aa.Nkho.n ne bataayaa
tumhaaraa naam paanii par likhaa hai

.............................................
...............................................
.................................................
while taking bows in front of echoboom.......``aapki sheeren sukhan hain warna ghulam kiss qabil...``

Shaphyzx:34

Good stuff.!
Your post alongwith humour & shaeri is most appreciated

..``aur kuchh bichaaroaN pUr tO aisaa bijoag pURRa kay mashrab kay saath saath mashroob bhee badal diyaa, yaa`ani saadaa paani pee pee kar lURRkhRRaanaiN lUgay..`` ( Yoosafi)

``Vaaez suuboot laaey jo mai kay jUvaaz meiN
Iqbal ko yeh zidD hai kay peena bhee chhoaRR dey``

Well then how is it that you assume that there does not exist a philosophy in the `cultural-existence.`[long live Sokal]. There could be a philosophy of economy of words [let us face it, we are talking of Pakistani philosophers]. The only vividly discussed and talked philosophy just happens to be a philosophy of `religious peg`. I do sympathicize with your complaint as any one feels intoxicated after two pegs anyway[imagine these words in Imran Khan accent for full reading pleasure]. This philosophy is not talked about or discovered yet. You might be first sober `non-peg-ian` liberator [ abhii ishq ke imtihaa.N aur bhii hai.n ].After all as Iqbal said:tuu shahii.n hai parwaaz hai kaam teraa
tere saamane aasmaa.N aur bhii hai.n .

Or just let it be for I hear philosophy speak in words of Faraaz:

sholaa thaa jal-bujhaa huu.N havaaye.n mujhe na do
mai.n kab kaa jaa chukaa huu.N sadaaye.n mujhe na do

jo zahar pii chukaa huu.N tumhii.n ne mujhe diyaa
ab tum to zindagii kii duaaye.n mujhe na do

aisaa kahii.n na ho ke palaTakar na aa sakuu.N
har baar duur jaa ke sadaaye.n mujhe na do

kab mujh ko aiteraaf-e-muhabbat na thaa `Faraaz`
kab mai.n ne ye kahaa thaa sazaaye.n mujhe na do

Mr. shaphyzx:

I appreciate your feedback. You said in it, ``the article...but assumes that the functional philosophy must be exact mirror of the western counterparts.`` I didn`t assume any such thing. My objective was to try to release our philosophical thinking from the religious peg.

Sitaron sey a`agay jahan aur bhee hain. (Iqbal)

But there is no harm in learning what the western philosophers thought and developed. When you develop a new idea, you ought to know what other ideas have already been developed. The first chapter almost in every research thesis is the review chapter. You don`t have to reinvent the wheel. And there is no harm to give credit where it is due.

My objective was and still is to illustrate how we got trapped into the monotony of the religious metaphysics. We need to move away from that peg and do other meaningful things also. I never suggested to discard religion or religious metaphysics. All I am saying is that there are many other valueable fields of knowledge also; we should not lose sight of them

Nobody has said the final word on any thing. One should not be overwhelmed by the veneration for the authority and accept every thing blindly and uncritically. Regards,

Mohammad Gill

Re: # 33

What are the number of research papers on Philosophy of Science/Mind/Language/PM published viz a viz the Religious /theological papers in PAkistan?
How many of the faculty have a doctorate in the ``secular`` Philosophical topics than on IQbal etc.???

That would be good enough to prove your point???

Philosophic ideals develops as a function of void, injustice and resources present in the society. Philosophy in this environment may take different route and evolve in their due time. Their ideas may vary greatly with what the likes of Karl Marx , Nietche, Hegel, Karl Popper or Wittgenstein have to say. This article does well in identifying the each of the dependent variables but assumes that the functional philosphy must be `exact` mirror of the western counter parts. Or perhaps we are , as the past hundred or so years have shown us, in a time where we should not concern with producing something indigenous .
Mustapha Kemal set the `tone` in harmony of future development of any `muslim` state. Following Kemalian [ no pun intended] tone, why stop at the constitution which was based on wetsern model, Pakistan should `allocate resources` send some students abroad to learn philosophy and come back and breath life into stagnant situation. After all Pakistan has scholarships for students studying nuclear physics and rocket science [I have personally met with at least a couple of such nationally, as opposed to naturally, endowed individuals ]. But such policies do not seem to be in allignment with national policy. As far as individuals are concerned they are tied to `khudi of `roti` rather than love of knowledge viz:philoophy.

khudi ko bus parrha aisey
ki har nokri sey pehley
khud aa aur khud hi pooch
`beta meri meri `roti` kahan hai?`

Freddy #24: At an abstract level, your theory is correct. However, at the specific level, in regards to Muslims, it may or may not be, for the following reasons: You have based your theory, regarding Muslims, on the following two premise:

- Muslims are trying to revive the ancient golden centuries of Islam
- The main reason the Muslims are not advancing is that they are lost in trying to revive their golden age

Nowhere in your thesis, have you provided any facts to back up these two assumptions. You have just assumed them to be true. If either of them turns out to be false, then your argument becomes null and void. How do you know that Muslims are lost in reviving 7th century Islam? Is there a survey that you can point us to? How do you know that is what is keeping them back, even if they are trying to revive their golden age? Maybe it is making them work harder and having the opposite effect? Maybe it isn’t. How can one even quantify such an assumption?

This is why I keep saying that your thesis will not have any affect on anyone else, other than those who already agree with your assumptions. Unquestioning agreement with your train of thought and opinion, is a pre-requisite for agreeing with your thesis. Thus it will have no effect on those who do not agree with your assumptions.

A solid argument is one that cannot be discredited and disputed, even by those who want to disagree with it. Such an argument that is based on logic and on provable statistics. Otherwise it is nothing more than an opinion, which more than likely is biased.

I think the factors that relate to the advancement of a civilization have more to do with what you mentioned at the end of your last reply: “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.”

However, I cannot agree with your premise, “Muslims are wrong to believe that once inherently good, original, pure and perfect Islam is implemeted, they would enjoy edge over the rest.” until your provide more factual information justifying that most Muslims actually think this. For example, I don`t think it is even possible to implement any kind of Shariah, even if one tried. And in Pakistan, there never has been one. In fact, there is hardly any Muslim country in the world that has one. Yet, barring a tiny minority, the Muslims aren`t trying to implement one. And even where they are trying, it is more due to the failure of all other options that have ruled over them.........

I think most Muslims are worry about same things others are worried about: jobs, health care, security, education, prosperity etc. This is what is indicated in every survey that I have read in Pakistan. This is what is indicated by the migration patterns also. I have never seen return to 7th century Islam as a top priority. Discussions on this topic are limited to those on the fringes, who keep attacking each other on this issue, because of their personal feelings about religion………

So you need to substantiate your assumptions to justify that Muslims actually think the way that you say they do………And even if they do, this is what is keeping them back..........

In addition, some of your historical information is inaccurate. For quite a few centuries, scientific thought was actually dominated by Muslim scientists. I believe it was much more than, “raising large faithful, dedicated and determined soldiers which helped creating empires and territorial expansion.” Though that is a different debate.

As I have always stated, you have a lot of knowledge, from which everyone could benefit.. But much like Urstruly, you tend to let your biased opinions on religion and its perception amongst Pakistanis cloud your views and thesis..........

Who better to learn from than the immensely successful, highly respected, belonging to the ``elite`` people of the WEST ( who have no NEED for anything or anyone); The ones who know the TWO worlds, East & West, much better than the * The crow/swans, number 2 maal, the fakes, the imitations, the copy-right infringers, the patent purveyors, or the trade-mark thieves*

*In short: The Ba Ba Blacksheep of the Ummah*

Can`t love them,
Can`t leave them.

``Am I a Yo-Yo?
or a pendulum
This back and forth
and up and down
is shaking up my brain``

No matter how much science I do
I just can`t stop thinking of their `God`

Am I still in His control?
Am I still with unfree-thoughts?
Echoboom say renounce or announce
But its God always that I denounce.

O Allah! why are You so much in my thoughts?
H--E--L--P!``

---

Snippets from (mostly) MarmaDuke Pickthall


The standard of Islam in every sphere of human action or human intercourse, is certainly not lower than the highest standards of today. It is Muslims who fall short of the Islamic standard today. This downfall and decay, far from shaking the face of Muslims in the Shari`ah , have strongly confirmed it. For they now see clearly that the cause of their humiliation has been neglect of some of the injunctions of the Sacred Law:

* ``To obtain education is a religious duty for every Muslim, male and female.``
* ``Seek knowledge even though it be in China.``
* ``An hour`s contemplation and study of God`s creation is worth a year of adoration.``
* ``Trust in God but tie your camel.``

and many other sensible and plain commands.

Muslims now see clearly that the material success of western nations is due to their adoption of that part of the Shari`ah which guards material progress and prosperity, and which the Muslims have so foolishly neglected.

which were present in Islam from the beginning, and are embodied in the Sacred Law - have gradually one by one, become accepted by the people of the West. The duty of free-thought and free-inquiry; the duty of religious tolerance; the idea that conduct not creed or class distinction must be the test of a man`s worth in law and social intercourse; woman`s right to full equality with men before the law, her right to property; the license to divorce and remarry; the duty of personal cleanliness; the prohibition of strong drink - all these well-known ingredients of the Sacred Law of Islam, which were all anathema [obscenities] to Christian in Europe. They are still regarded by the church as either irreligious or purely secular, that is, outside the purview of religion and have been incorporated in the ideology of western civilisation.

It can be proved, and has been proved by Christian writers, that all these modern ideas were derived from the Muslims of a bygone day. But they were of course adopted by the Europeans on the strength of daleel-aqli (the argument of reason alone), not on [al-daleel al-shara`i] (the argument of divine sanction); which alone commended them at first to Muslims.

The Muslims, from belief in their divine sanction, proceeded to acknowledge the arguments of reason in favour of these ordinances. Is it possible that having accepted them on the evidence of reason that the West may come to eventually believe in their divine sanction? I hardly think so, until the West can recognise the divine sanction which is behind human reason Until the people come to know that all these things (which the Christians rank as `secular,`) are of such vast importance to the welfare of mankind, and form part and only part of an existing code of religious Law and claim to be of divine revelation. Until they come to realise their need for the remaining portion of the Shari`ah, the part which Muslims still hold firmly, the part which guards political and social stability and progress.


This the Muslims have held tenaciously on the strength of (divine) shariah only for the past two or three centuries; but human reasoning alone can bring non-Muslims to adopt it, and human reasoning today is lacking in the only form in which it could appeal to the materially-minded - a bright example of the whole Islamic polity [nation] and practice, upon modern lines.

Freddy,

``Comparison with the better is an incentive for striving whereas comparison with the worse off is meant to feel good, proud and satisfied. If you and ShoreSahib wish to feel good, proud and believing in the perfection of Islam, I have no problem in stating that Islam is inherently good and perfect religion compared to savage lifestyle of neanderthals``

To paraphrase Westerners, the philosophy espoused by Islamic thinkers may not be perfect, but it is the best for Muslims.

The very notion that one can compare two philosophies without even a common frame of reference to conduct this comparison is absurd. The fact is, when such comparisons are done, it is with a preconceived answer in mind...`to feel good` as you put it. There is no honesty in that. You seem to recognize this when Muslims do it, but yet have no problem when you do it.

Vertex:

In the light of the topic and contents of the article by Mohammad Gill, a comparison with the west and the rest is the most appropriate mean of discussion on this subject. A debate about suffocation and arrest of philosophical thoughts in Pakistan against null background is only meant to transfer the blame to anybody but Islam and Muslims and Urstruly is master of doing it. Comparison with the better is an incentive for striving whereas comparison with the worse off is meant to feel good, proud and satisfied. If you and ShoreSahib wish to feel good, proud and believing in the perfection of Islam, I have no problem in stating that Islam is inherently good and perfect religion compared to savage lifestyle of neanderthals.

echoboom:

.....ba ba black sheep....have you any wool? Where is the beef? Where is the edge? How does covering head with hijab by all Muslim women and growing beards without moustache by all Muslim men create an edge over the rest in any spehre of interest? May be thick padded/ insulated hijabs, like helmets, absorb the lightly beatings on the head from husbands?

Romair:

I hope you understand the difference between all good, inherently good and perfect from that of having an edge. Here is an example you should understand well. Pakistan military establishment has an edge over civilians and politicians due to trained and professional army with weapons. However, not all would agree that they were perfect to rule and inherent goodness urged them to overthrow civilian governments in Pakistan.

I see nothing wrong in accepting not having an edge and not perfect yet be happy, content and even proud of being a Muslim for you. Islam is a religion and being a Muslim becomes part of your identity. As in my case, I have no doubt that Punjabi language has no edge over English in my situation and it is not perfect becasue it lacks expressing scientific and technical world, but I am happy and content with this being my identity of choice instead of any other identity related to subcontinent. You just dont let anything not having an edge and not perfect to stand in the way of lawful persuit of happiness and success.

Q:``Why not question``?
A:Because there IS no question!

This is what the preface/preamble says.
``The Book (Qura`an Al-`furquan is for those who have not an iota of doubt`` ( zaal`i Kal kitaab--``)

No need to proceed any further. You`ve been cautioned! Caveat emptor! Read No further! Scram!

You have a CHOICE!
``Announce or Renounce``!--echoboom.
[Its a `free` country--is`nt it)

---

``The Muhammadan Law, which is binding on all from the crowned head to the meanest subject, is a law interwoven with a system of the wisest, the most learned and the most enlightened jurisprudence that ever existed in the world.``

- Edmund Burke ``Impeachment of Warren Hastings``

....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.