Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'philosophy'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • GENERAL
    • WHAT'S HAPPENING?
    • GURBANI | HISTORY
    • GUPT | ANONYMOUS
  • COMMUNITY
    • POLITICS | LIFESTYLE
    • SAKHIAN | BOOKS
    • CLOSED TOPICS

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Website URL


Location


Interests

Found 8 results

  1. This was written by Parveen Babi a bollywood actress who had mental illness, schizophrenia. I have no idea what she was trying to write! lol the whole thing just went over my head. She wrote this in 1997. her mental illness was quite bad and she accused Amitabh Bachchan, Bill Clinton and Prince Charles of threatening her! The Age of Philosophy: A Critique of Pure Reason By Parveen Babi Our contemporary society erroneously defines a philosopher as any individual who conducts a logical analysis of existing and apparent reality. This perhaps is proof that contemporary society no longer produces true philosophers. Rationalist philosophers from Aristotle to Bertrand Russell have given philosophy methods of conducting syllogistic inferences and logical analysis and down the ages, these techniques have become so synonymous with philosophy, and the practice of true philosophic explorations so rare, that today, the practice of logical analysis has erroneously been taken to mean the practice of philosophy. Philosophy is man's search for aspects of his existence hitherto unknown to him, regarding which his curiosity is naturally aroused, and his answers to this search, holding true universally. A philosopher is one who with his thought and intuition changes the course of mankind and takes human consciousness one step forward. A philosopher is thus an individual with a curiosity about certain aspects of human existence. He possesses a certain extraordinary and irrepressible original substance which compels him to become curious, to search, and to make a statement about his search and its answer. My above statements give rise to another question: Is it necessary for philosophy always to be based on pure reason? I would like to ask another question in reply to the above: What if the philosophy of pure reason is discovered to be lacking? Should the modern world, even then, continue to follow the philosophy of reason? If the philosophy of reason was true and perfect unto itself, then it would have led the human race to perfection. But today, after centuries of following the philosophy of reason, corruption and moral decay are rampant in society. The proof of the validity of a civilisation's philosophical system comes from its effect on that civilisation. And our modern civilisation's philosophy of reason has only created chaos and corruption. Reason, evidently, seems to be able to conduct perfect calculations by itself, but these seemingly perfect calculations are perfect merely in their deductive capacity. Deductive logic, though capable of conducting perfect deductive calculations, lacks wisdom and the universal positive values required to reflect on the ultimate aspects of human existence. Pure logic in philosophy has yet to come up with a technique of inference which is faultless. Pure mathematical and scientific logic, while possessing the capacity for deductive and analytical calculations, has led man to his destruction by inventing scientific and technological phenomena which give him the capacity to destroy himself. And since science deals in pure reason and scientists conduct their enquiries and inventions without the involvement of universal positives their actions have invariably been conducted in the negative direction of giving a few individuals the supreme power: the means of destroying the human race. In fact, after a few inceptional enquiries, most of the significant scientific endea-vours of the 20th century have been conducted with a destructive motive. The division of the atom was conducted in order to create the apparatus of the atomic bomb. Even the invention of computer technology has been conducted with the motive of creating a supreme deductive intelligence to be used for warfare, political power and control. It is time that we adopted what the greatest philosophers of mankind Jesus Christ, Mohammad and Buddha taught the highest order of reason combined with belief — belief in the positive, the truth, a higher reality, which helped them attain perfection, and which helped them lead humanity towards the attainment of perfection. It is not necessary to limit philosophy to reason and separate it from spiritual philosophy. Belief is the capacity, nurtured in human individuals, to recognise and acknowledge the ultimate truth — God. Belief was first inculcated in human beings by God providing evidence to them of his self and his positives. However, the majority of humanity is not capable of (true) belief. If they were capable of (true) belief, then they would not be able to subscribe to the gross corruption of human society. Because belief — the capacity for the positive — is also the incapacity to subscribe to the negative, corruption. Belief is generated only out of the reasonably refined, evolved substance. When the individual's substance becomes reasonably refined, then it generates both belief and healthy reason. Healthy reason is reason which is reined in by belief, which is supported by belief, which is combined with belief, and which is incapable of negative. I also believe that the function of human philosophy today ought to be to solve the existentialistic problems of man, instead of getting self-involved, and intensely microscopic about abstractions or epistemological and syllogistic explorations about the perception of reality. The purpose of man's thought — his philosophy — according to me is to help him attain fulfilment in his worldly existence and lead him to perfection of the self and the species. And, of course, the ultimate function of man's thought is to lead him to God perfection and to help himself realise Godhood."
  2. Guest

    Gurmat & Vedanta

    Are Gurmat and Advaita Vedanta similar? What are the major points that differentiate Gurmat philosophy from Advaita/other schools of Vedanta?
  3. Guest

    GURU NANAK's MARRIAGE

    Ok so i live in Amritsar, i try to be good sikh evryday by trying to understand the bani logically, because, we know evrything in SGGS is logical and nothing is Chamatkar and all, I never knew that we celebrate Guru Nanak's Marriage in Batala at gurudwara Kandh Sahib, did'nt know we even have Melas and all on his marriage. Sp the questions are :- Why Do we celebrate only Guru Nanak's Marriage ? why not other guru's marriages ? Is the story about Kandh sahib historically accurate ? ( please mention your sources if you know something ) and Why does the dates changes evry year ? if its because of NanakShahi Calender, does it follow hindu calander ? but when we reject everything hindu, then why not calender ?
  4. ਜੇ ਸਾਰੀ ਖੇੜ ਕਰਮਾ ਦੀ ਹੈ , ਤੇ ਫੇਰ ਰਹਿਮਤ ਕਿਥੇ ? Its an established axiom in indian faiths (that includes sikhism) that whatever we sow, we shall reap. Accordingly , good karams fetches happiness , bad karams fetches suffering. This raises some particularly interesting question, especially when related to sikhism. Sikhism unlike other indian religions stress on rehmat of god , more than individual action. In this regard , its more similar in thought to sufi kalaam. Sikh gurus have even stressed to an extent that one cannot do anything , god is "kartaa" of everything. So , if effect of karams cannot be extinguished except by bearing it (either by happiness or sorrow) , then in such an automatic system of universe, where does waheguru's rehmat / kirpa comes into pic ?
  5. Has the Sikh community lost its sense of sarbat da bhalla by becoming to focused on 'panthic' issues?
  6. how can one reply to this arguement: "If a mystic admits that the object of his vision is something which cannot be described, then he must also admit that he is bound to talk nonesense when he describes it." - Ayer
  7. If you accept the way something is, it doesn't necessarily mean you agree with it or does it?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use