-
Hot Vs Cold, Right Vs Wrong?
I hold a cup of tea in the Arctics, it is warm. The same cup, for an Arabian is cold.
The same way, for most humans, murder is wrong, for a few tribes, it is fine.
How could the fitrah then exist? When it is just dependend on climate, society, and the concepts built upon those two arbitrary situations
-
20 Replies
-
Hot Vs Cold, Right Vs Wrong?
updated 3 years, 7 months ago
2 Members
·
20
Replies
-
Murder is fine for a few tribes is news to me. Do they also hang signs on their front doors that read “I’m away for work. Please come in and feel free to murder my children.”?
The degree of hot and cold is based on sensory perception which could be affected by various factors. But are there any humans who are unaware of the concept of heat?
-
Sorry I gave a bad example from information I heard a long itme ago.
‘The degree of hot and cold is based on sensory perception which could be affected by various factors. But are there any humans who are unaware of the concept of heat?’
If I say
The degree of cleanliness and morality is based on evolution and society which could be affected by various factors. But are there any humans who are unaware of the concept of cleanliness and morality?
What is the differences between the subjectivity of (heat and cold) and (cleanliness and morality)
-
I think you’re not being able to appreciate the point that I have been trying to drive across in my responses to your various questions about fitrah. The point is that the existence and application of any knowledge are two different things. When we say fitrah, we’re talking about existence of certain ingrained information that all humans naturally have at birth. It is not acquired through experience, and experience can’t change it. Once we have this information, the next phase is that of application. Depending on the circumstances and other human experience, the application can vary. Liking cleanliness is a-priori – it’s universal and it’s not time bound. How much cleanliness is enough after we use the restroom is the application of such information, and it can vary in time and space.
-
Sorry for my misunderstanding.
But cleanliness may not be a priori. Prehistoric humans would be like animals, in the sense that they don’t care. Then after they evolved they started to find out certain things cause sickness, like excretion- so they developed this idea and conscioussness of cleanliness. It wasn’t present before. It is now in all humans because they all evolved. Unless it had taken place in the humanoids before Adam AS
-
What you stated regarding prehistoric humans is just an assumption – there’s no evidence for it. Of course it’s possible, but until it has any evidence, it’s not something that I like to spend my time and energy on – unless of course if I’m in the mood for fiction.
-
What is your theory regarding it being a priori?
-
All evidence we presently have suggests that sense of cleanliness is a-priori.
-
What evidence?
-
-
Empirical evidence from my own self, inductive evidence from everyone that I know, further inductive evidence from people all over the world regardless of time and space, and then a confirmation from the word of God – everything points to cleanliness being part of human fitrah. When there’s enough evidence for me to weigh the other opinion, I’ll think about it then. At this time, if I even entertain the idea of prehistoric people not being partial to cleanliness, then I will also have to entertain the idea of a Santa Claus.
-
How do you know the source of your own ideas? How do you know they didn’t develop? How do you know the source and cause of these ideas is a priori?
The evidence is that life forms seem to have evolved physically and mentally.
Santa clause doesn’t have much going for him. We can see simple life forms even today.
-
That “how do you know” line of thought unfortunately doesn’t land us anywhere. If we extend it further back, then we don’t even know if we actually exist. Let alone that, I even doubt my own analytical skills. If I’m evolving then how do I know that my logic is not only half evolved? This is the point in metaphysical and ontological inquiry where philosophy fails us because it’s far removed from the reality. I need to have a worldview that tells me why I’m here and where I’m going so that I can figure out how I’m supposed to prioritize my day today. I have the evidence upon which I can comfortably form such a worldview. If and when my data changes, I’ll adapt.
There’s indeed interesting evidence of the physical attributes of life form evolving, but we’re yet to find even a single specie transforming into another. Also evolution of physical attributes doesn’t necessarily mean the evolution of nafs or consciousness as well.
There are sound minded adult people out there who actually believe that Santa is real. Neither do they have any evidence for their claim, nor those who might say that cleanliness is an evolved attribute in humans.
-
Existence of yourself, at least, is a self evident reality. Existence of other people is technically not.
If you have to doubt your skills because of evolution that doesn’t mean that evolution is wrong.
I am also planning what I should do. Should I give any importance to this disgust- is it just an emotion with no ground in reality? Etc etc
You need a worldview like that- but it doesn’t mean it is true.
The nafs? Why can’t the brain and it’s tendencies evolve? Of course the people who are more careful genetically due to chemicals will survive and through the ages they will be the only ones left. Same way as a survival tactic, our brain associates ‘uncleanliness’ with things that cause harm, or things that resemble those things etc.
They are not sound minded then, are they?
And you have no evidence to my knowledge that there is any ‘a priori’ knowledge. Your claim had the same foundation as mine- assumption.
-
We may have a priori knowledge, but I am saying the source of that could be evolution- and it seems likely. The term then, a priori would not fit the definition fully though. It would better be described as a generic disposition due to natural processes and environment.
-
And please- I want to meet some of these adults who believe in Santa, they seem like they would be fun to hang around with
-
Ahmed we can’t base any knowledge and subsequently our actions on ideas like “doesn’t mean it’s not true” and “doesn’t mean it’s true”. All we have is empirical evidence (both inside and outside of ourselves), intellect that helps us with inductive reasoning, as well as established history that we can’t deny. Everything else is a delusion. What one chooses to base their worldview on is completely up to them.
-
That is exactly what I’m trying to ask sir. What is this intellect and evidence that a priori knowledge is based on?
The concepts of genes and survival of the fittest as I wrote above can be taken as empirical evidence for one concept.
What is the empirical evidence for a priori knowledge?
-
I have already answered that.
-
‘Empirical evidence from my own self, inductive evidence from everyone that I know, further inductive evidence from people all over the world regardless of time and space, and then a confirmation from the word of God – everything points to cleanliness being part of human fitrah.’
What exactly are you referring to? The fact that you- a developed human being who has been fully ingrained into one society, has a priori knowledge? The only way we could maybe test this is we get a baby, and see if he cares if he gets filth on him.
-
No, the baby experiment only tests the application. All this has been explained in fitrah videos by Ghamidi sahab – I suggest that you watch that series again. The other way you can grasp better understanding of it is by going through cases of a priori knowledge as they’re presented by various philosophers, most notably Immanuel Kant. But I think that Ghamidi sahab has summed it up very well in his videos. Not only that, but since the Farahi approach is also a bit unique in understanding of fitrah, so watching those videos again will be time well spent.
-
Insha’Allah sir
-
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
