-
Pragmatic Vs Practical Knowledge- Skepticism
How can we hold that we ‘know’ something. How can we be sure that the Eiffel Tower is real? Sure we see pictures- but they may be doctored. Sure I can go to France and see it for mysel- but who is to say I’m not hallucinating. How can I be sure I’m not a brain in a vat. (Forgive the crudeness and humour) How can I be sure I am not just a part of some higher life form’s school project? How can I be sure- that you- reading this right now, actually exists? Please refer to matrix for more info
-
26 Replies
-
Pragmatic Vs Practical Knowledge- Skepticism
updated 3 years, 8 months ago
5 Members
·
26
Replies
-
I think, therefore I am NOT 🦧
-
I remember Ghamidi sb. once said something along the similar lines, if you excuse my paraphrasing, ‘we know about our conscious self / our existence more than anything else that we’re aware of. Not even our appearance, in order to see our outer look we need to use a mirror, but this “self” of ours, we don’t need any gadget or anyone else for that matter to tell us that it exists or to know how real it is’.
-
@UmerQureshi What is the difference betweeb Aql, Fitrat, Iqhlaqi wajood, Insaani shaksiaat?
Is there some type of overlap?
-
@Sohail sb.
Again in paraphrased words of Ghamidi sb. as I understood them, ‘Aqal is a tool / mirror that helps us see / connect to that fitrat of ours which includes ‘iklaqi wajood as well’. Take ‘aqal’ away from a person and you can clearly that his abililty to see that fitrat has been taken away.
And in my humble opinion, insaani shaksiyat is an overall combination of all these factors, aqal, ikhlaqi wajood etc.
-
Is it Aql that guides fitrat or fitrat that guides Aql?
-
Fitrat has been revealed (ilham) to humans by God but aqal helps us see it or communicate with it. I think.
-
What if Aql and Fitrat are same things? Why do they have to be separate? What tools of knowledge were used to identify X is Aql and Y is fitrat? How did we learn this?
-
Religion is the source to know about fitrat when it talks about nafs and about good and evil revealed alongside that. Aqal and fitrat could be same, but I am more inclined toward it being a tool to see and use that fitrat. Take any insane man for example, his ilhami fitrat is there inside him but his aqal stopped working the way it was supposed to work. As a result, the person stopped seeing / using that fitrat within him.
-
In this example of insane person, you assumed its the Aql that stopped working but fitrat was intact (capable to figure out right and wrong).
But it is quite possible fitrat and Aql are same things and both stopped working. Why fitrat cannot go insane?
-
As per Quran, fitrat can’t. That’s why I went after Aqal.
-
How come fitrat of Asians (Chinese for example) gets messed up (maskh) if it always stays intact (example insane person) as it relates to their dietary situation?
If Asians can have maskh’ed fitrat why not the insane person?
-
Perversion from nature and insanity are two different things. Perversion can can be talked through and sorted out but not insanity.
-
ok, so fitrat can be perverted into eating dogs, bats and other junk but same perverted fitrat in those same people know what is right and wrong.
Fitrat is not operating at 100% it seems?
How exactly culture/urf (or custom) impacts fitrat which should have been ilhaamed by the God? As in this perversion of ilhaam in fitrat is mainly seen in Asians.
Something else is going on here?
-
It operates exactly the same way the ilham of the fact that there is a creator of this universe operates. The ilham is there within everybody. The same way that ilham collects dirt around it because of environment, customs, upbringing and the kind of education one receives at times; similarly the ilhaam of that other fitrat gets buried under the heap of all the same factors. There will always be dialogue and discussion to remind people of their forgotten fitrat which lies somewhere deep within them.
Take the example of Alcohol at the time of Prophet. The same was part of their customs or maskhshuda fitrat. All that Quran did was it gave voice to their real fitrat within by reminding them that they knew it is an evil and sinful deed. & after some time the same fitrat started to respond and Arabs got rid of organized intoxication at a societal level. Had any prophet been sent to China instead, he would’ve reminded them of the same fitrat within them, which if heeded to, would repel all the khabais that they are eating.
-
Wait so am I right? 😅
-
-
I think we digressed from the topic a bit. What is the soultion to this skeptic way of thinking?
-
In my opinion, it is a debate of What is. Vs. What if?
What is = Eiffel Tower exists
Based on all the available evidence and consensus of people (ijma) to an extent that its practically impossible for all of them to agree on a lie. We carry on our daily lives based on this kind of evidence with all reliability and so far our experience tells us that it hasn’t betrayed us.
What if = Eiffel Tower doesn’t exist?
As long as it stays a topic of debate and doesn’t get mingled up with ‘What is’ category, it’s totally fine. Because we don’t have any concrete evidence in comparison to ‘What is’ approach that supports this proposition. Nevertheless, let’s keep looking.
-
-
So it’s a game of probability in the end?
-
I think calling it only a game of probability would be downplaying it.
-
Referring to Ghamidi sb’s Zavia series: Experience, Inference and Established History are the necessary components that help us in affirming any given truth.
Wouldn’t it be kind of embarrassing to myself completely dismissing all three of these, if i reach a given truth making use of them?
-
-
But of course one with a quite clear skew
-
@UmerQureshi the Eiffel Tower existing pre supposed this world exists. Ok the Eiffel Tower may exist in this world. But the actual world existing- no human has found any conclusive proof to disprove the notion we are brains in vats. What to say here?
-
I think nothing can be proven exhaustively.. truth is only what humans can perceive..
Let me take example of third umpire helping decisions in cricket for close run-outs. Before this technology, batsmen were given out/not-out based on the limited eye capability of the on-field umpire.. was that truth ? No.. but the best tool available to know the truth was trusting the eye and mind of the umpire, as to what he saw. Now any batsman can claim that how the umpire is sure ? He can’t be sure, but that is the best tool available with us.
Knowing truth is dependent on what we can perceive and observe and logically extrapolate.. if these tools are doubted, then truth definition is also doubted.
-
Yes- I think to doubt stuff like this is descending into madness . Let’s take the blue pill- but what if the blue pill is the red pill. But what if it’s not even a pill it’s a chicken leg. But what if what we think what a chicken is is actually a Star Wars spaceship. It think if we want to go crazy we should go big or go home- because it is – in fact- going crazy
-
ha ha.. yes. That’s why I always discuss things in human perceivable/logically extrapolated world ..
-
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
