WHAT IS A RIGHT

A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others. The concept of a right carries with it an implicit, unstated footnote: you may exercise your rights as long as you do not violate the same rights of another—within this context, rights are an absolute.

A right is universal—meaning: it applies to all men, not just to a few. There is no such thing as a "right" for one man, or a group of men, that is not possessed by all. This means there are no special "rights" unique to women or men, blacks or white, the elderly or the young, homosexuals or heterosexuals, the rich or the poor, doctors or patients or any other group.

A right must be exercised through your own initiative and action. It is not a claim on others. A right is not actualized and implemented by the actions of others. This means you do not have the right to the time in another person’s life. You do not have a right to other people’s money. You do not have the right to another person’s property. If you wish to acquire some money from another person, you must earn it—then you have a right to it. If you wish to gain some benefit from the time of another person’s life, you must gain it through the voluntary cooperation of that individual—not through coercion. If you wish to possess some item of property of another individual, you must buy it on terms acceptable to the owner—not gain it through theft.

Alone in a wilderness, the concept of a right would never occur to you, even though in such isolation you have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In this solitude, you would be free to take the actions needed to sustain your life: hunt for food, grow crops, build a shelter and so on. If a hundred new settlers suddenly arrive in your area and establish a community, you do not gain any additional rights by living in such a society nor do you lose any; you simply retain the same rights you possessed when you were alone.

A right defines what you may do without the permission of those other men and it erects a moral and legal barrier across which they may not cross. It is your protection against those who attempt to forcibly take some of your life’s time, your money or property.

Animals do not have rights. Rights only apply to beings capable of thought, capable of defining rights and creating an organized means—government—of protecting such rights. Thus, a fly or mosquito does not possess rights of any kind, including the right to life. You may swat a fly or mosquito, killing them both. You do not have the right to do the same to another human being, except in self-defense. You may own and raise cows, keep them in captivity and milk them for all they are worth. You do not have the right to do the same to other men, although that is what statists effectively do to you.

There is only one, fundamental right, the right to life—which is: the sovereignty to follow your own judgment, without anyone’s permission, about the actions in your life. All other rights are applications of this right to specific contexts, such as property and freedom of speech.

The right to property is the right to take the action needed to create and/or earn the material means needed for living. Once you have earned it, then that particular property is yours—which means: you have the right to control the use and disposal of that property. It may not be taken from you or used by others without your permission.

Freedom of speech is the right to say anything you wish, using any medium of communication you can afford. It is not the responsibility of others to pay for some means of expression or to provide you with a platform on which to speak. If a newspaper or television station refuses to allow you to express your views utilizing their property, your right to freedom of speech has not been violated and this is not censorship. Censorship is a concept that only applies to government action, the action of forcibly forbidding and/or punishing the expression of certain ideas.

Statists have corrupted the actual meaning of a right and have converted it, in the minds of most, into its opposite: into a claim on the life of another. With the growth of statism, over the past few decades, we have seen an explosion of these "rights"—which, in fact, have gradually eroded your actual right to your life, money and property.

Statists declare you have a "right" to housing, to a job, to health care, to an education, to a minimum wage, to preferential treatment if you are a minority and so on. These "rights" are all a claim, a lien, on your life and the lives of others. These "rights" impose a form of involuntary servitude on you and others. These "rights" force you to pay for someone’s housing, their health care, their education, for training for a job—and, it forces others to provide special treatment for certain groups and to pay higher-than-necessary wages.

Under statism, "rights" are a means of enslavement: it places a mortgage on your life—and statists are the mortgage holders, on the receiving end of unearned payments forcibly extracted from your life and your earnings. You do not have a right to your life, others do. Others do not have a right to their lives, either, but you have a "right" to theirs. Such a concept of "rights" forcibly hog-ties everyone to everyone else, making everyone a slave to everyone else—except for those masters, statist politicians, who pull the strings and crack the whips.

Actual rights—those actions to which you are entitled by your nature as man—give you clear title to your life. A right is your declaration of independence. A statist "right" is their declaration of your dependence on others and other's dependence on you. Until these bogus "rights" are repudiated, your freedom to live your life as you see fit will continue to slowly disappear.

(http://www.freerepublic.com)

The above write may have omitted certain important facts about "right" but it is still an interesting article. Below is another interesting article on the subject by Andrew P Napolitano.

In the continually harsh public discourse over the President’s proposals for federally-managed healthcare, the Big Government progressives in both the Democratic and the Republican parties have been trying to trick us. These folks, who really want the government to care for us from cradle to grave, have been promoting the idea that health care is a right. In promoting that false premise, they have succeeded in moving the debate from WHETHER the feds should micro-manage health care to HOW the feds should micro-manage health care. This is a false premise, and we should reject it. Health care is not a right; it is a good, like food, like shelter, and like clothing.

What is a right? A right is a gift from God that extends from our humanity. Thinkers from St. Thomas Aquinas, to Thomas Jefferson, to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., to Pope John Paul II have all argued that our rights are a natural part of our humanity. We own our bodies, thus we own the gifts that emanate from our bodies. So, our right to life, our right to develop our personalities, our right to think as we wish, to say what we think, to publish what we say, our right to worship or not worship, our right to travel, to defend ourselves, to use our own property as we see fit, our right to due process – fairness – from the government, and our right to be left alone, are all rights that stem from our humanity. These are natural rights that we are born with. The government doesn’t give them to us and the government doesn’t pay for them and the government can’t take them away, unless a jury finds that we have violated someone else’s rights.

What is a good? A good is something we want or need. In a sense, it is the opposite of a right. We have our rights from birth, but we need our parents when we are children and we need ourselves as adults to purchase the goods we require for existence. So, food is a good, shelter is a good, clothing is a good, education is a good, a car is a good, legal representation is a good, working out at a gym is a good, and access to health care is a good. Does the government give us goods? Well, sometimes it takes money from some of us and gives that money to others. You can call that taxation or you can call it theft; but you cannot call it a right.

A right stems from our humanity. A good is something you buy or someone else buys for you.

Now, when you look at health care for what it is, when you look at the US Constitution, when you look at the history of human freedom, when you accept the American value of the primacy of the individual over the fleeting wishes of the government, it becomes apparent that those who claim that healthcare is a right simply want to extend a form of government welfare.

When I make this argument to my Big Government friends, they come back at me with…well, if people don’t have health insurance, they will just go to hospitals and we will end up paying for them anyway. Why should that be? We don’t let people steal food from a supermarket or an apartment from a landlord or clothing from a local shop. Why do we let them take healthcare from a hospital without paying for it? Well, my Big Government friends contend, that’s charity.

They are wrong again. It is impossible to be charitable with someone else’s money. Charity comes from your own heart, not from the government spending your money. When we pay our taxes to the government and it gives that money away, that’s not charity, that’s welfare. When the government takes more from us than it needs to secure our freedoms, so it can have money to give away, that’s not charity, that’s theft. And when the government forces hospitals to provide free health care to those who can’t or won’t care for themselves, that’s not charity, that’s slavery. That’s why we now have constitutional chaos, because the government steals and enslaves, and we outlawed that a long time ago.

December 19, 2009

Andrew P. Napolitano , a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at the Fox News Channel. His next book is Lies the Government Told You: Myth, Power, and Deception in American History, (Nelson, 2010).

http://www.lewrockwell.com

Forum : Measure Of Success

Me : "Judge your success by what you had to give up in order to get it." If this saying be true, if you are naturally brilliant and success comes easy, would it  not be  much of a success then? Is success then relative to where everyone else is?

A : Wow....this is a very interesting. I'm really sleepy but this really has opened up my eyes.

I answer, yes. It's  really a yes.

Naturally brilliant is always called by the name, genius, and naturally not brilliant is always known as, drop out.

I've been thinking so much about this.When I was a child, I always wanted to be a genius, but when I got older, I started to look like a drop out. Hence I

started to appreciate the life of a drop out.

When I see a naturally genius, and naturally drop out, I see the "NATURALLY" as not fair. So I started to think what is the measure of success that is  most fair.

Now, I know who is a real genius. A real genius is, when he/she encounters difficulties, he/she tries  his/her best....no matter if he/she is a natural genius or a natural drop out....and result is not important.

Hamizao, am I fair enough?

B : "If this saying be true, if you are naturally brilliant and success comes easy, would it  not be  much of a success then? Is success then relative to where everyone else is?"

I don't agree. This is of the no pain, no gain mentality. You see, we equate struggle with deservingness, with success. 

I might even go as far as saying only effortless success is meaningful.

C : For me, it's not about YOU....It is about people around you who benefits from what you give up.

D : "So if you are naturally brilliant and success comes easy, is that not much of a success? Or is it relative to where everyone else is? "

You would probably want to look at the matter on hand this way Hami- if a gal is naturally brilliant then  her success is measured by the quantity of awards she has etc if we are taking the word success as literally as possible. I  am of the opinion that a person's success  would be best measured by the degree of importance of the field she is venturing into her research etc etc and the impact  - the degree of the  impact of her success to the ummah (community). Coz we live to contribute , right?

Then the question arising would be whether the impact of the success is basically - relative - to everyone else? So, if that person is brilliant she would have acquire a success of the highest degree within the class of her own, same level of playing field, right Hami? This is also fair as the difficulty or the challenges would be equating to the brain capacity, right?

Say -  a gal with an IQ of 156  does not have to give up anything , it lies in the way she  goes about things, the  way she adopts in tackling the challenges, the perception etc etc ..... So I go for the impact , not how much she needs to lose to achieve it.

Then again Hami, heheheh your statement could be plausible in certain situation ....or else there can't be such a saying : work smart not hard , right?

E : Success is a state of mind and it is very subjective. To me success is when one is happy with what he has and has no complaint about it  ..

Me : "A real genius is, when he/she encounters difficulties, he/she tries  his/her best....no matter if he/she is a natural genius or a natural drop out. The result is not important." 

Generally, I believe the measure of success  ought to be the actual achieved against expectation with a degree of "difficulty" thrown in - hence you may have  big success or small success. It can be relative too. To a genius, he may consider his success as small while to the normal , it is pretty big.

F : Any task completed is a success, self judgemental.

Me : ...and a task is naturally work, challenge overcame.

D : Hmm? How's that so Hami ?

B : It's not about whether you're brilliant or not.

It's how effortless can you succeed. Effort comes from ego. Look how I suffer, therefore I'm worthy, I'm noble. Get rid of that. This is my story. Look how I suffer. I am the hero. It's their fault. etc...

With effort, you strengthen ego. So, by succeeding  effortlessly, you transcend ego, you go beyond them, you break them.

D : So Hami ...success can be perceptively (subjectively) measured and objectively measured. But then with all the argument laid out now, why does one's piousness ( piety) also being taken as the yardstick? By God, right? i wonder actually....

Me :  Hmm... Well, people perceive that a pious person must also be this and that......a mere preconception I must say which may not be accurate all the time.

 D : That's why .. when the society (which society and from which groups?, is it) dictates what a pious person or perempaun Melayu terakhir (last Malay woman) should  be like, that's when  trouble starts .....after all we do not know how a person's success is best measured  what yardstick and the rationales behind it.

Me : Objectively , I like to use the analogy to;

  

work = force x displacement x cos theta 

force = effort

displacement = change

theta = synchronization betwixt effort and change.

As for the preconception, it does effect judgement. I am usually careful about such things as there are many factors in play.

D : Luv you when you talk physics.

 

FORUM : LOYALTY

Me : Someone said it is "the holiest virtue in the human heart". It anchors a marriage and binds a friendship and yet people are saying this is a fast disappearing virtue. Is this so? If so, why?

If truly an ounce of loyalty is worth a pound of cleverness and if " it is better to be faithful than famous" - Theodore Roosevelt, AND if "those who faithfully observe their trust and their covenants will inherit Paradise" - The Quran.....

...are we then becoming less divine, less clever, having problems with our commitment , allegiance and devotion to the people and entity that we say we love such that finding worthy partners and friends may soon become a thing of the past?

Loyalty diminishes because of egotism.....

Me : That may be true...

A person's loyalty says much about that person. If you are loyal to someone, you would always preserve his/her good name no matter what. It is a moral necessity which reflects your understanding and acceptance of the person or institution you are related with.

They say a loyal person has character. Real loyalty endures inconvenience, withstands temptation and does not cringe under assault.

It is also said that only those who are special and exceptional may have the capacity to be truly loyal and true loyalty may be seen only when challenged. It would appear that many had succumbed to the challenges it attract!

Why is it so difficult to be loyal, or is being "normal" men just an excuse? After all, normalcy is supposed to be acceptable.

You say they have become more self-centered. Why have they become so?

Self-centredness is a prerequisite of survival. However, as you grow and mature, survival should also be balanced up with other values in life....

Why? Even the education system of the country recognises the limit of human IQ

which is basically hinging on the ability of the individual.

The nature of loyalty is dependency

Me : Individual achievement is important to feel good about yourself. However, loyalty may still be upheld so long as it does not compromise your honour. Otherwise it is blind loyalty. My thought reflects the Tuah-Jebat "brotherhood".

William J. Bennet suggests that loyalty needs the understanding of truth and what is right. As such, children should be educated in values which may improve the ability to think when empowered under any situation. At times young people tend to give up easily.... and they resort to becoming jumping frogs for the sake of RM100-200 more. Employers see this as a loyalty issue.

Loyalty has it's limitation... it should not be to the extent of being being led by the noose.

I do not deny it's positiveness and implications, but then at times it destroys oneself from within. It would be worst if it destroy others too. For example, blind loyalty. I think loyalty is linked to love.... we dare not confront the person whenever he makes a mistake, or worst we defend him ... all in the name of loyalty and love. In true loyalty and love one should be able to discuss such thing.

All things must have limits

Me : Thanks for mentioning this aspect, interestingly, it underlines the dependency of loyalty.

Agreed that loyalty must have it's limitations but nonetheless it does not change the characteristics of loyalty itself. It should be limited by ethics. For example, an abused wife should not allow the abuse to continue in the name of loyalty towards her husband. Loyalty ceases to be a virtue when we need to sacrifice our self respect to preserve it. This may be a little subjective as it depends on what one terms as self respect. How would you know when your self respectability is being compromised?

Only those capable of sacrifice may be loyal

Me : It is true that loyalty does have the element of sacrifice - a responsibility that transcends normal obligation whilst preserving the interest of those we have relationship with such as the husband-wife, employee-employer, citizen-nation, father-son......there will surely exist a certain expectation of loyalty, allegiance, fidelity and devotion .

It is a silent expectation.

I am LOYAL to those who deserved to be LOYAL to.

Interesting, who in your analysis should deserve it?

The thing is I am thinking that we don't necessarily give our loyalty to any Tom, Dick or Harry for no apparent reason. We give it to those whom we have come to be bonded to say, by employment or marriage, family tie or by any means of formal or informal contract.

It is something abstract, actually...can't put a finger to it...we can only follow a hunch...if we misplace it...we can always 

pull it back and give to those most deserving...most sincere...

Me : I am unsure of how to respond to this. You gave the notion that loyalty is something you may chose to give and then pull back and then give it to someone else.....You follow your hunch in this decision. Do correct me if I am wrong.

So my question would be what kind of hunch/feeling would you consider qualified for loyalty giving?

My thoughts are, once you decide on a bond or relationship with someone or entity, it goes with a commitment which, amongst others, would include an understanding/ expectation of some degree of loyalty. By an large, loyalty becomes the right thing to do and is therefore given willingly. If for some reason you find the bond no longer meaningful, then you may decide to break the bond and hence you become no longer bound to be loyal. That is why they say that the test of loyalty is when the bond is under stress. Loyalty therefore goes with the bond. I feel that it is not possible for you to remain bonded to someone and yet not be loyal to that person unless you choose not to be steadfast in your bond or attachment.

Sort of you need to test the loyalty that you give out...like Sayembara

Me : Sayembara"? What is it?

But still interesting........ Usually people would want to test the loyalty received. So what does it mean when you test the loyalty you give to others? Are you really expecting a "return" for the loyalty?

It's a contest a literary term. Nothing is 'free' nowadays, it seems...

Me : Oh thanks .....Cari dictionary says " prize contest" . Gee, it's pretty scary when I come to think of it. If you are not loyal in your friendship, what kind of a friend would that make you?

Due to a lot of bad things happenning to me in the past, my loyalty is given only to those who deserve it.

I think self-preserverence is the answer for this. Be defensive, follow your hunches and justify the badness in people, then you can get loyalty from someone

Me : Would you still remain in the same relationship as before even when you are no longer loyal to him/her/whatever?

There is no use to stay when there is nothing to commit to...I am an all-giver. If I can't be of help, I don't think I should be around at all. It would make me look useless. The same goes to him...whoever he is. my utmost strict policy on relationship is, the guy has to be super loyal and committed because i am. I may sound too firm ..huhu

Me : You make absolute sense. If you cannot commit do not get into a relationship. Any relationship demands self-sacrifice.

Hehehe... so how, while women may fake orgasm, men can fake a whole relationship!

In that case, should I say, mutual understanding? 

You do that, then I'll do this lah. Hihih, but in serious light, I see that both parties have to be clear about things like this. Communication is vital! no normal human being is born with psychic ability, especially men. Women mags have sheded some light on this and also relationship consultants have produced books to tell the public how should we do it in a most subtle way.

What do you think if, in a family situation, the mother is usually constrained to be loyal to the family only for the sake of the children when the daddy has commited adultery/affairs with another (showing he is being unloyal)....vice versa too, if the wife commits an affair with another.

Me : Generally, this calls for shared values. You know in my days the akad nikah(marriage solemnization) was done beyond the earshot of the bride. I always wondered why women were excluded from may things. Was it considered better if they knew less??

Cannot agree with you more. Maybe a proper agrement may be better....terms are clear cut...? I do wonder why the most important contract on earth is really without a proper agreement!

Definitely a problem of commitment which may be caused by various reasons. Something is missing in the bond.............Perhaps it was never real after all.....

OF PRIDE

Some people have beliefs such as no pain, no gain. As much as most people think that it's true, I must say that this is a clear demonstration of pride.
I would usually associate this pain with the level of success. It kind of reminds me of a quote from Genghiz Khan...."There is no glory without pain..." something like that... But then that was the age of romance. These days people are more pragmatic. Why then they say "necessity is the mother of invention". People are finding better ways of doing things. I think there are enough challenges out there for all... not to worry, they would find you too.... but to simply look for the more painful thing, I think that had it's time and place.

Poor self esteem? Yes. Having pride in suffering? Yes. Could both exist at the same time? Yes.
I am a bit confused here, dear Agul. I am of the mind that there really is no pride in being subjugated.( If there is no choice then you take it with your chin up). Why do nations cry for independence then?

"Hidden pride" Well, I only know that we often learn not to express pride too effusively when others may be chellenged or offended by it or especially when you are expected to be humble.


We're talking about the kind of pride that hold you back. That ...
My take is true and authentic pride is that which results in goodness such as genuine self esteem and agreeableness etc in the person. It may and may not be displayed. For example, you may observe a mother's pride by the way she beams..............To me pride is all about self preservation.

However, there are other categories of emotions such as contempt, false modesty, stubborn pride, hubris or self-aggrandizing self-esteem and so on that can really put up bigger challenge to the self.

What you label as true and authenthic pride is nearer to courageousness.

In sedona we have emotions that falls on lower scale such as apathy, grief, fear, lust, anger, pride...
On higher scale we have Courageousness, Acceptance and Peace.

Of course we have other method of classification, but I'm using this.

I know you want to buy that book...
If I may elaborate.........true/authentic pride is pride that is well placed. It builds a bonding attitude......"crown of the virtues ," said Aristotle. It should be of good action on our part, done without any base motive. Am rather aware of the various ways pride is defined but to avoid confusion I favour the above. I see pride as one of a host of human emotions like those you mention. Whilst the human emotions are so very essential for self-preservation, the uncontrolled emotions can also be his nemesis. That's why such emotions are referred to as "negative" emotions. They cause destabilization in the function of the human body. If we cannot cope with it, it can cause mental or physical diseases. e.g. anger raises cholesterol levels and heart attack risk by 300%. Wah, am sounding like mbfcsf now!

I gather "negative" pride is usually referred to as false pride. It is different from true pride. It is usually associated with depression and depressed people are often thought to have low self-esteem. There are also those who think depressed people have a high opinion of themselves. So you just need to understand.

What is the difference between pride and this so called self - fulfilling prophecy? In associating this with self - insecurity , I think would be relevant for us as it will affects the way a manager's /leader's governance of a system. That's why they introducing auditing ....this is a good topic related to PRIDE. Hami ..any take on this??? Do you think it is the experienced ones...kinda of interested to know your views on this.
Somehow, I do not see the link between PRIDE and SELF-FULFILLING PROPHESY (SFP)....
To my understanding, SFP has to do with something that's false(on the day) but giving the perception that it is true and somehow ending up as being true. Oh dear, I hope you can fathom that!

It is a play on people's perception. Once the idea (false) is perceived people react to it and consciously or unconsciously cause the "prophecy" to come true. In Malay I think "mulut masin" ( salty mouth) seems to be pretty close.

Sometimes a person my utter such thing with arrogance (not pride). Perhaps this is where some may link it to pride.

Talking about the leader's method, I reckon SFP may, to an extent, be skillfully used to control people. ...much like using the power of imagery to destroy or heal people in the olden days. Ah, that is worth another thread!

SFP could actually be a hindrance in upgrading or towards reaching an effective governance.
Normally, I believe SFP is referred to something bad. If it is good they call it foresight. I guess in modern days people would prefer leaders with foresight.

False humility.Sometime pride can masquarade as false humility.
You know how some people take pride in being humble.
IMHO, someone who has false humility is even worse than someone who's openly prideful.
I once said that TRUE PRIDE is pride well-placed. However, common ethics and religious laws demand that we remain humble because before God we are all nothing. No one is better than the other. I am giving only a general idea here . So, there is humility. As I understand it humility is humility........spiritually. Otherwise it is not.

So, here is false humility .............like pretending to be humble to impress others, say. How does one do this? Is it by aggrandising one's humble actiions?

It's semantic, Hami. So the false humility is not actually humbleness. It is actually a sense of holier than thou, which is a bad kind of pride.
Hmmm............yeah, I have always thought that "holier than thou" attitude is indeed pride....misplaced that is. Same general idea I guess. Such people would hesitate to befriend theless religious.

How can we draw the line between "PRIDE" - and being humble and honest while at the same time you 'd also want to comply with the society's norms etc etc etc ?
Truely, I look at PRIDE in a positive light.....well placed. For example, a mother's pride when her child did her best. We should allow her to have her moment...we feel happy for her too. You know the saying, even "to a mama monkey , her child is a gazelle." So we must understand this mother-child bond. So if PRIDE is well placed there is nothing to frown upon.

I am also aware that some people think mothers (perhaps fathers too) tend to go overboard with their pride such that their "my son this..." and "my son that..." antics may get to the nerves of others. Well I would usually just offer them the remarks "Gee, I am sure you must be very proud of your son". There is no harm in allowing her her moment. She would usually get the messagelah.............

In being humble sometime this is what people tend to display to others even though they are fill with pride. Being snooty is different.....Sometimes it doesn't work to be too humble. So, you must know when to show it and just how much. When you are uncertain, take the medium............You would soon learn.

Here is a story I'd like to share:

The Reducing Ransom - A Saudi Arabian Folk Tale
A bedouin, who had business in the cattle market of a town, lost his young son in the confusion of the place. He hired a crier to shout through the streets that a reward of 1,000 piastere was offered for the return of the child.

The boy's kidnapper heard the crier but greed had opened his belly and he hoped to earn an even larger sum. So he waited and said nothing.

The following day, the crier was sent through the streets again. This time the sum offered was 500 piasters. The kidnapper still held out. To his surprise, on the third day the crier offered a mere 100 piasters. He hurried to return the boy and collect his reward.

Curious, he asked the father why the reward had dwindled from day to day. The Father said,

"On the first day, my son was angry and refused to eat your food. Is that not so?"

"Yes," agreed the kidnapper.

"On the second day he took a little, and on the last he asked for bread of his own accord," said the father.

It had been so, the kidnapper agreed.

"Well," said the father, "as I judge it, that first day my son was unblemished as refined gold. Like a man of honour, he refused to break bread with his captor. To bring him back with his pride untarnished; I was ready to pay 1,000 piasters.

"On the second day, when hunger made him forget the conduct of a nobleman, he accepted food at your table, and I offered 500 piasters for him."

"But then he had been reduced to begging humbly for food, his return was worth but 100 piasters for me."


ENJOY THE STORY THINKERS!

FORUM : WHAT PRICE HONOUR

Me : I have been reading this book about how much family honour is being placed on the shoulders of the women of their community. As such I am tempted to find out what people understand about "honour" and how they go about treating it or defending it.

Priceless

Me : You mean .....like it is everything? Would you then sacrifice ANYTHING and EVERYTHING for the sake of it?

Sometimes you never know when giving back is the best thing you do in life..you feel good about it and never regret and surely very proud of it.

Counting it is simple. Assume that your monthly pay is RM1500. Total working hours per day is 8 for 25 days per month. That gives you RM7.50 per hour.

Me : Oh, a very interesting view...honour is equivalent to self worth in monetary sense?

In my view Hami dear, the honour for me is more on how I try my best to upkeep my family's standing in the eyes of the community.

In trying to achieve this, how we go about presenting ourselves is what matters most. Honour in this day and time is what the Chinese say to be, waterface. Try not to do anything that can bring shame and thereby dragging our family name through the mud.

While it's never easy to satisfy people in the community to accept us for what we are, there is no harm in trying to do good in whatever we do, and to take into account that whatever we do, there is a chain of reactions. How the chain unfolds depends largely on what we do.

Me : The book I read was "In The Name Of Honour" depicting the story of Mukhtar Mai from a very remote village in Benazir Butto's country. Though the scene was around tribal values which put a lot of restrictions on the females, the bastion of family honour, yet when the perpetrator is a male, revenge is taken out on the female relative of the male. An eye for an eye - so the saying goes. So if one's honour is contravened, you do the same towards the others by taking away their's and it goes on and on.

My hubby thinks this is only western journalism trying to mock or spread lies. But then I have also read another book on Poolen Devi The Bandit Queen from Nehru's country............a similar trait exist more because of the caste system which transcends all religious groups.

The discussion is not so much on the truth in those books but rather on our own perceptions of this word "honour".

My own view on "honour" is like what Dutchy said, waterface. But somehow, I cannot agree if one person is beholden to the honour of everyone else in the family. Sure we share the pride when a member of the family does well and hopefully share the remorse when in sadness too. Sure parents are responsible for nurturing their children, but in the final analysis a person ought to be responsible for his/her own actions and  take account of it. If  he/she makes the wrong choice, why should others be taken down as well? Are we still living by the so called tribal mentality or values? Say, If my parents had a fall out with someone, should I carry on the battle and should my children and their children too? My opinion is we fight our OWN battles not other's.

I concur with your views on 'honour', especially family/tribal honour.

These honour constituted by the society they live in and the individuals are expected to follow the way they are told to live. Say, in our culture the women are expected to look after the husband and kids, if they don't do that they defy their ancestors' belief thus brings down the honour of the family, or;

Say, the working sculptor/carpenter dad is famous for his sculptures and handiwok. His offsprings especially the sons are expected to take over the dad's work. If the kids simply decline or not comparable to his father's work quality he has simply 'dishonored' the family.

That is my own analogy for honor. Anymore ideas?

Tribal honours, family honours, office honours...What about defiance? Honourable defiances? Breaking free, blasting through. Is there such a thing?

Me : To me honour is personal integrity, allegiance to moral principles. Some of these principles are already enshrined in the legal codes of the country but where society is far in the hinterland or untouched by development and progress it may still adhere to traditions. While some traditions may have good reasons for them being there some are just an expression of power. Like, lock up your women and do not teach them too much least you cannot keep them under control. Girls are to be seen but not heard. In some societies women are to look ugly so as not to attract men. So they must cover up from head to toe in black. When her hubby dies she must throw herself into the pyre. Another one - the widow must leave camp and freeze herself in the winter night. They would say that that is their way.

I do not believe that traditions cannot change. It should go in hand with acceptance of change in the way people think and do things. Some people are afraid of change 'cause they know not what is at the other end. So I believe it all boils down to knowledge and need. The concept of liberty and equality took a while and by god how it erupted. It wa perhaps driven by need of the poor and suppressed.Yes, it took defiance to blast through. If it is in defence of what you believe is a God given right, then yes I think it is an honourable defiance.

Me : What about Roman honour?

'A good man' was hence a man deemed worthy by others, a man deemed honourable. But so too, in the Roman mindset honourable was only what was actually honoured. Glory or honour were also measured only in the recognition it drew from others.'

Hmmm......would what others say be a criterion. This seems to be no stranger in our society. If it's negative then it would be lack of honour.....even shame perhaps? Honour is about value but that value can't really be valued.

Me : Agree that it is based on people's values ....it's price may be valued as how much you would do to defend it. Would you agree to that  then?

Can't agree more.

Note: Hamizao (Hami for short) is my pseudonymn

FORUM : WHAT IS KNOWLEDGE

What is knowledge?
At this point in my search, I would say that knowledge is TRUTH. The ultimate TRUTH belongs to GOD.

What is rationality?
It is a passage or means to acquiring knowledge. It is related to the function of the mind - thinking - rather than intuition or emotion and is therefore subject to human capacity for inquiry. Knowledge would therefore grow and develop with man's capacity for rational thinking.

Is there such thing as knowledge?
Yes.

Is rationality the ultimate source of knowledge?
Ultimate source of knowledge is GOD. Rationality is only a way to acquire knowledge and a very important one too.

Truly, my very own thoughts...

In my humble attempt at defining "knowledge", I am looking at it from the other direction. Putting it simply....whatever is "true" - then it is "knowledge", otherwise it is just a notion. It is true that the general meaning of knowledge may be defined as any info that you know...but am trying to look at it in a more philosophical way without resorting to bygone great philosophers.

Are you implying that something that is not confirmed true cannot be accepted as knowledge?
That's my drift.

How do you define truth as this is also subjective. even if you define it as something from God as above, there are a lot of things that are not explicitly defined as from God - does it mean that it is not true? is H20 equals to water? Is my dream real?
My perception is, TRUTH may be proven by man.

Let us take fire as an example. Given the right conditions as per it's natural laws or essence , it would burn. However, whether it would actually or ultimately burn.......that eventuality is in God's hands.

I am a believer in God, the Creator and as such, the so-called natural laws or essence of things are the way they are created . They would therefore continue to behave accordingly within the universe, henceforth allowing the rational man the opportunity to make the right choices in life. Unfortunately, man's ability is often hindered by limitations such that the ultimate TRUTH is often obscure.

I hope I have not confused anyone. Thank you both for your interest.

What about legends and folk stories? are they knowledge as well?
To me, legends and folklore are notions or just beliefs that need to be proven.

Let's take a police investigation. On TV we often hear them say "what do we know about the case so far". This suggests the knowledge of facts that have been proven in the course of the investigation.

In the case of Hang Tuah which appears in Sejarah Melayu which has various versions about him and his origin. Then again it needs corroboration by other sources. At best his character still remains a legend perhaps in as much as in the case of Robin Hood. It is the time that made romance grow.

2 + 2 = 4. Real? true? false?
I can prove that 2 = 1.

Let , a=b
Multiply both sides by a:
a^2=ab
Subtract b^2 from both sides:
a^2 - b^2 = ab - b^2
Factoring:
(a + b)(a - b) = b(a-b)
Divide both sides by (a - b):
a + b = b
Substitute b for a:
2a = a
Divide both sides with a:
2 = 1

So, what happens when you substitute 1 for 2 in the equation 2 + 2 = 1 + 1 = 2.

So, 2 + 2 is not always = 4
Is it?

Cor .....just me feeling sleepy ...that's all.

What a wicked trick. We can also conclude that 2 = 1, so 1 = 1/2 so 1 = 2 = 1/2
or trivial, 2a = a works if a = 0
BTW you just prove that numbers can be very deceiving.

Interesting! In philosophy there is no absolute answer. The Number 2 is meaningless if it stand by itself, a mere symbol cold and dumb. 2+2 may not be 4 to me because I might perceive your 4 as 5.
I catch your drift....that is as far as numbers go.....

It is said that maths is not a "reality" but rather a description of reality which the human can only approximate . Some of you may have your own take on this. I would be interested to hear it. For me, I haven't even started to ponder what "reality" means.

Now, there are other ways to show that 2 + 2 not = 4, which I better not elaborate!. Does it mean that the description is false? My take on this is, it requires a further identification. So what does it tells us? That justification requires limits and boundaries????:

Thanks for taking us through the brief history of epistemology, if I may say so. I sense that your conclusion is somewhat parallel if not congruous to my own. At least that is how I perceive "justified true belief".

Truths and Beliefs are two independent entities. When Beliefs(my Notions) have been Justified( my Proven) then they become Knowledge. As human become more developed in the various departments, say, mind, senses and what have you, then more Beliefs/ Notions may be Justified/Proven or eliminated or replaced. There is a whole wide opportunity here for people to expound their ideas. Hence resulting in many Theories. My stand is, there is a lot more Truths out there to be Justified/Proven much of which transcends normal human faculties to comprehend. Some people may be blessed with the ability to comprehend more than others. This "unknown" area had in the past become the "playground" of the more powerful. We fully note that in certain era, no new Ideas were expounded while in another era and place there seemed to be so many new ideas surfacing. These new Ideas are the Beliefs/Notions/Perceptions which may be "Duplicates of the imperfect Truths". Heheheheh...some may be utterly outrageous and need to be eliminated!

Why are Truths imperfect..? Is it because they are always changing.....in the state of Flux? Who or what is controlling it?

I shall sign off here for now to ponder on this.....

i am sorry to butt in your conversation but I'm just curious to know if you consider yourself a logical positivist?
At this stage, I am not really concerned about engenreing (gee, I hope there is such a word) myself least it might limit my thoughts. However, I would say that much of what little thoughts I have on the subject seem to be in tandem with it. Some of it's principles are still beyond me.

I said: Why are Truths imperfect..? Is it because they are always changing.....in the state of Flux? Who or what is controlling it?
I recall Thamrong mentioned about the imperfect truth. If by that he means that truth is always changing, no........I think Truth does not change. You see, what has happened, has happened and that is the Truth. You can never change that. Imagine if ultimate Truth is also changing, then man would never ever comprehend let alone reach it.

I said: For me, I haven't even started to ponder what "reality" means.
I read somewhere that "ultimate reality" is "truth".............Real things are things that exist....some say it includes the essence (what it is) and some say it doesn't as essence exist in the mind. I think for a thing to exist it has to have the essence. Essence alone cannot prove the thing exists....heheh .. as it exist only in the mind! For example , if we describe the sphinx is an animal that has a human head and the body of a lion(the essence)......but does it exist? So it cannot be real.

Aaaah.........I have said too much!

No No .You did well on this topic. No need to hold back. On the contrary to you, I am just questioning other people all time. So, you are absolutely ok.

From your given answer, I assume that you are saying that you cannot completely agree with logical positivism? Is that true? If it's true, then it seems to me that you also believe in something that is left unverifiable, far from proven to be true. Is that what you are saying or is it just me think like that?
Bull's eye buddy. That's my ultimate Truth.

So far man are mostly verifying things through the five senses and the brain they are linked to within the central nervous system.. That is why man are so limited. Do note that we should not rule out the existence of all others just because we have not found a way to justify them yet. I think there has to be another way to approach the ultimate Truth...otherwise the whole purpose of mankind would be futile. That is still my search.

Some suggest replacing it with "faith" . Ah well, who knows what tomorrow's experience would bring! Hehehe....I may have to pitch my goal posts elsewhere!

So you believe in something that is called ultimate truth? and not everybody in this world are capable of accepting/accessing this so called ultimate truth aka "you-definition-of-knowledge" because our senses are limited? and that (limitation) also explains why we keep changing our "generally-accepted-idea-of-knowledge" (what we know about something) since our sense are not perfect?

Is that what are you saying?

When someone said: Only god knows. Does he or she is accepting the idea that God knows everything, including things that are out of our reach/comprehension?

Faith!! I like the connection of this word with your explanation.
(Hmm..what happened to my response?)

As a layman with little brain I attempted to read Nietzsche's works. It does not take very long because I have to return it to the bookshelf before I go crazy.
Heheheh.....I surmise that the guy must have lived his life to the fullest and probably died of it too! You did well to let him be least he dragged you down with him .......insane. Poor soul .....no wonder he thought that life was nothing more than a meaningless business of suffering and striving. Oh, if only he had seen the wisdom of it all!

He said that " God Is Dead" so let's drink to it.

Metaphysics. Most simply, the study of the most basic (or "first') principles. Traditionally, the study of the ultimate reality, or "Being as such" (Ujud maka itu). Popularly, any kind of very abstract or obscure thinking. Most philosophers to day would define metaphysics as the study of the most general concepts of science and human life, for example,reality?,existence?,freedom?,God?,soul?, action?,mind? In general we can divide metaphysics into ontology (theory of being-theori ada), cosmology, and concerning God and immortality of human soul.
Metaphysics.....I read somewhere that the term is somewhat a misnomer and no wonder that word always put a bomb in my brain!!

At this point I am of the view that it 's subject is on a different plain compared to physics.......it is more ethereal rather than physical....more surreal rather than real , the soul not the body................celestial and spiritual. I read somewhere that to attain the true understanding of the matter requires a 6th sense. Someone had told me that to understand this, revelations would have to be processed both by the mind AND the "hati". In this context I am using the same word "hati" as a representative of the seat of the 6th sense. At this point in my search, I reckon that the understanding/justification would manifest in something that you would "feel" e.g. the feeling of inner peace, enlightenment. ..........Could that be faith??
I take that you are assuming 'reality' as something we can be perceived with our senses, a 'substance', worldly and physical.
There is probably a confusion on my part . My apology and thanks for pointing it out. I was in fact thinking in terms of :

Real + Surreal = Total Reality

but got screwed up in the process....

On the ilmu rasa? No comment.
I should add that some people have been reported to also "see" and therefore "experience" it. I'd rather not delve further into it and I shall take my rest on this issue.........

I remembered when my class first introduced to him (Nietzsche)by my professor, almost everybody in my ethics class including myself despised his idea of good and bad until my professor pointed out what he actually thinks. If you look at his writing positively, you will find some good points. Of course I do not buy all his arguments but there are few good things that I've learned from him.
You are one lucky chap .............I am just plodding on my own ....heheheh...

It really means the death of our belief in God.
I think Nietzche's preoccupation could have been more into societal challenges kind of things. He saw a lot of sufferings and striving(strife) and his foremost question was,...................... how best to live in a "godless and meaningless "world. Amongst his thoughts are the need for a value system that should change to meet new challenges and analysis of morality.

He distinguished morality into (1) Master Morality and (2) Slaves Morality. Of course what is good and evil in one is the opposite in the other. He found that the slave morality was predominant in Christianity. Hence his onslaught on the Judeo-Christian religion.

On the value system, in order to meet new challenges new basis should be sought to support new values. In other words values including culture need not be preserved. He promoted supremacy of the man ( not any particular race. Feel free to correct me if you think otherwise) who is the best, healthiest and strongest in character. This brought emphasis on toughness in the face of misery, a character often taken out of context and tyrants have drawn some inspiration from it but understood him only superficially. Well, fortunately for him, he did not live long enough to see the political development in his country.

I found out that he actually became a Swiss citizen and spent many years in Switzerland and Italy until his death(?)

Can a person without religion be moral?
In every person there exist a natural need to self preserve. For that matter even animals do have it too. Therefore, anyone can still have their own ideas about good and bad, right and wrong behavior even at the most simplest level of social organization.

Hehe...just my 2 cents

FORUM : WHAT IS KNOWLEDGE

Me : What is knowledge?

At this point in my search, I would say that knowledge is TRUTH. The ultimate TRUTH belongs to GOD.


Putting it simply....whatever is "true" - then it is "knowledge", otherwise it is just a notion. It is true that the general meaning of knowledge may be defined as any info that you know...but am trying to look at it in a more philosophical way without resorting to bygone great philosophers .


What is rationality?


It is a passage or means to acquiring knowledge. It is related to the function of the mind - thinking- rather than intuition or emotion and is therefore subject to human capacity for inquiry. Knowledge would therefore grow and develop with man's capacity for rational thinking.


Is there such thing as knowledge?


Yup.


Is rationality the ultimate source of knowledge?


Ultimate source of knowledge is GOD. Rationality is only a way to acquire knowledge and a very important one too.


A :I tend not to agree with your position. Because if I think that what we learn in school and college can be regarded as knowledge, many of them are merely theories. Thoeries are just assumptions which are made out of conducted experiments and studies.  There is no absolute truth to them.  For example, the theory of evolutuon by Charles Darwin, which you can learn in college.  Scientists are still continuing to look for evidence to support this claim but the thoery itself is already taught in colleges. I am not a supporter of Darwin's evolution but I still regard it as a kwowledge. It's fun to learn too. Just like philosophical and ethical theories. They are not completely wrong or right. And theories are frequenlty changed over time. So does syllabus in school and college. I am not saying your position is wrong. It's just a matter of one own's perspective. I think that way and you think the other way.


Me : You are most welcome to comment, aishiteru.

In my humble attempt at defining "knowledge", I am looking at it from the other direction. Putting it simply....whatever is "true" - then it is "knowledge", otherwise it is just a notion.  It is true that the general meaning of knowledge may be defined as any info that you know...but am trying to look at it in a more philosophical way without resorting to bygone great philosophers. Cheerio.


B : Hope you are okay with my queries below - sincerely interested in the topic.

Are you implying that something that is not confirmed true cannot be accepted as knowledge?  is it just the object of the knowledge or is it applicable at the meta-level as well - e.g. knowing of a lie?

Secondly, how do you define truth as this is also subjective.  even if you define it as something from God as above, there are a lot of things that are not explicitly defined as from God - does it mean that it is not true?  is H20 equals to water?  Is my dream real?


A : I think the way he or she is saying it is like whatever TRUE is knowledge, otherwise, it is just a notion or assumption, not necessarily a kind of knowledge to him or her. BTW it is the best to leave to him or her to explain it further..


Me : My perception is, TRUTH may be  proven by man. 

Let us take fire as an  example. Given the right conditions as per it's natural laws or essence, it would burn.  However, whether it would actually or ultimately burn.......that eventuality is in God's hands.

I am a believer in God, the Creator and as such, the so-called natural laws or essence of  things are the way they are created . They would therefore continue to behave accordingly within the universe, henceforth allowing  the rational man the opportunity to make the right choices in life.  Unfortunately, man's ability is often hindered by  limitations  such that the ultimate TRUTH is often obscure.

I hope I have not confused anyone. Thank you both for your interest.


A : What about legends and folk stories? are they knowledge as well?

C : ...legends and folk stories...u learn something from them too don't u???....tho they may not be of any benefit or applicable to u...but u do noe something about those legendary heroes...villains...monsters...so...dont u think that the things that u got from all these legends and folk stories are considered as knowledge??? 

A : I think it's very difficult to decide whether or not they are knowledge.

Think about hikayat Hang Tuah for example. we do not know whether Hang Tuah is real or the story is merely a creation of Tun Seri Lanang (if i'm making a mistake here, please correct me). okay let say Hang Tuah is very close between real or not that is very tough to be determined, then we may accept it as knowledge, becuase it is quite possible for him to actually exist. another example that I really like is dragon. the creature does not only appears in chinese legends but also in other culture such s malay, persian, and western. we cannot quite say wether dragon actually exist or not, but it can be very close to be between real or not. someone might say dragon might be dinasour. so we might accept dragon as knowledge too, though we are not sure if dragon is fact or fake. but what i want to point out is some of the folk stories, myths or legends can be so unreal to some extent, it's just very hard for us to believe. i dont know, maybe the story of Raja Sakti yang lahir dari buluh betung. do you believe a human could be born from buluh betung? I do not even know what type of buluh is buluh betung. it sounds so ridiculous hehe.


Me : Mind if I join in?

To me, legends and folklores are notions or just beliefs that need to be  proven. 

Let's take a police investigation. On TV we often hear them say "what do we know about the case so far". This suggests the knowledge of facts that have been proven in the course of the investigation.

In the case of Hang Tuah which appears in  Sejarah Melayu which has various versions about him and his origin. Then again it needs corroboration by other sources. At best his character still remains a legend perhaps in as much as in the case of  Robin Hood. It is the time that made romance  grow.

D : To day it is almost impossible, sometimes utterly confusing,  to dig up any real definition of knowledge. The simple reason is because if you are a student of philosophy, for the sake of completeness, the subject of knowledge is called epistemology [Gr.,=knowledge or science]. It is a  branch of philosophy that is directed toward theories of the sources, nature, and limits of knowledge. What is important is not what you put in your brain but the essence of knowledge itself. Since the 17th century epistemology has been one of the fundamental themes of philosophers, who were necessarily obliged to coordinate the theory of knowledge with developing scientific thought. R?? Descartes- I think therefore, I am- and other philosophers (e.g., Baruch Spinoza, G. W. Leibniz, and Blaise Pascal) sought to retain the belief in the existence of innate (a priori) ideas together with an acceptance of the values of data and ideas derived from experience (a posteriori). This position was basically that of rationalism. Opposed to it later was empiricism, notably as expounded by John Locke, David Hume, and John Stuart Mill, which denied the existence of innate ideas altogether. The impressive critical philosophy of Immanuel Kant had immense effects in an attempt to combine the two views.  This was a compromise between the rationalist dan empirist. In later theories the split was reflected in idealism and materialism. The causal theory of knowledge, advanced by Alfred North Whitehead and others, stressed the role of the nervous system as intermediary between an object and the perception of it. The methods of perceiving, obtaining, and validating data derived from sense experience has been central to pragmatism, with the teachings of C. S. Peirce, William James, and John Dewey. Sir Karl Popper developed the view that scientific knowledge rests on hypotheses that, while they cannot be positively verified, can be proven false and have withstood repeated attempts to show that they are. Philosophers in the 20th cent. have criticized and revised the traditional view that knowledge is justified true belief. A springboard for their research has been the thesis that all knowledge is theory-laden.....cogito ergo sum....

"At this point in my search, I would say that knowledge is TRUTH. The ultimate TRUTH  belongs to GOD." - I feel like you have just put a bullet in between my eyes. Ultimate truth transcends human knowledge. Plato's theory of idea tells us that what we perceive as reality or true knowledge are mere duplicate and imperfect truth.

A : 2 + 2 = 4  real? true? false?


Me : I can prove that 2 = 1.

Let , a=b
Multiply both sides by a:
a^2=ab
Subtract  b^2 from both sides:
a^2 - b^2 = ab - b^2
Factoring:
(a + b)(a - b) = b(a-b)
Divide both sides by (a - b):
a + b = b
Substitute b for a:
2a = a
Divide both sides with a:
2 = 1
So, what happens when you substitute  1 for 2 in the equation 2 + 2 = 1 + 1 = 2.

So, 2 + 2 is not always = 4
Is it? Cor .....its just me feeling sleepy ...that's all.

A :  What a wicked trick.

we can also conclude that 2 = 1, so 1 = 1/2 so 1 = 2 = 1/2 

or trivial, 2a = a works if a = 0

BTW you just prove that numbers can be very deceiving 

Me : Thamrong,

Thanks for taking us through the brief  history of epistemology, if I may say so. I sense that your conclussion is somewhat parallel if not congrueous to my own. At least that is how I percieve "justified true belief" :

Truths and Beliefs are two independent entities. When Beliefs(my Notions)  have been Justified( my Proven) then they become Knowledge. 
As human become more developed in the various departments, say, mind, senses and what have you, then more Beliefs/Notions may be Justified/Proven or eliminaded or replaced. There is a whole wide opportunity here for people to expound their ideas. Hence resulting in many Theories. My stand is, there is a lot more Truths out there to be Justified/Proven much of which transcends normal human faculties to comprehand. Some people may be blessed with the ability to comprehand more than others. This "unknown"  area had in the past become the "playground" of the more powerful. We fully note that in certain era, no new Ideas were expounded while in another era and place there seemed to be so many new ideas surfacing. These new Ideas are the Beliefs/Notions/Perceptions which may be "Duplicates of the imperfect Truths". Heheheheh...some may be utterly outrageous and need to be eliminated!

Why are Truths imperfect..? Is it because they are always changing.....in the state of Flux? Who or what is controlling it?

I shall sign off here for now to ponder on this. 

D : Interesting! In philosophy there is no absolute answer. The Number 2 is meaningless if it stand by itself, a mere symbol cold and dumb. 2+2 may not be 4 to me because I might perceive your 4 as 5. What guarantee that your color yellow which you perceives  is yellow to me?

Me : I catch your drift....that is as far as  numbers go.....

It is said  that maths is not a "reality" but rather a description of reality which the human can only approximate . Some of you may have your own take on this. I would be interested to hear it. For me, I haven't even started to ponder what "reality" means.

Now, there are otherways to show that  2 + 2 not = 4,  which I better  not elaborate!. Does it mean that the description  is false?  My take on this is, it requires a further identification. So what does it tells us? That justification requires limits and boundaries???? 

A : Am sorry to butt in your conversation but i'm just curious to know if you consider yourself a logical positivist?

Me : At this stage, I am not really concerned about engenreing (gee, I hope there is such a word) myself least it might limit my thoughts. However, I would say that much of what little thoughts I have on the subject seem to be  in tandem with it. Some of it's  principles are still beyond me  though.

D : "For me, I haven't even started to ponder what "reality" means."-Me too..Philosophy is a tough nut to crack.

Me : I recall thamrong mentioned about the imperfect truth.  If by that he means that truth is always changing, no........I think Truth does not change. You see, what has happened,  has happened and that is the Truth. You can never change that. Imagine if ultimate Truth is also changiing, then man would never ever comprehand let alone reach it.

I read somewhere that "ultimate reality" is "truth".............Real things are things that exist....some say it includes the essence (what it is) and some say it doesn't as essence exist in the mind. I think for a thing to exist it has to have the essence. Essence alone cannot prove the thing exists....heheh ..  as it exist only in the mind! For example , if we describe the sphinx is an animal that has a human head and the body of a lion(the essence)......but does it exist? So it cannot be real.

Aaaah.........I have said too much!

A : "At this stage, I am not really concerned about engenreing (gee, I hope there is such a word) myself least it might limit my thoughts. However, I would say that much of what little thoughts I have on the subject seem to be  in tandem with it. Some of it's  principles are still beyond me  though".

TRUE!

It's no fun to stick to one concept all time. 

As for me, I yet find a philosopher/ philosophical thoery that I can completely agree or disagree with - well I do not study all of them of course.. When I read arguments from Friederich Nietzsche, I thought at first I completely disgree with his position, but after reading it thoroughly, I find that he makes some good points in his arguments. And I really like them too.

Excuse me for getting off-topic for a while. Now back to the topic. 

Please let me know if I sound like a little agrressive to you HEHE. I hope I am not. I like this topic and look forward to hear more from you. Coz seem like you give your heart to this topic as well. I hope I am right by saying this. If I am not, correct me.  From your given answer, I assume that you are saying that you cannot completely agree with logical positism? Is that true? If it's tue, then it seems to me that you also believe in somehitng that is left unverfiable, far from proven to be true. Is that what you are saying or is it just me think like that?

Me : "From your given answer, I assume that you are saying that you cannot completely agree with logical positivism? Is that true? If it's tue, then it seems to me that you also believe in somehitng that is left unverfiable, far from proven to be true. Is that what you are saying or is it just me think like that?"

Bull's eye buddy. That's my ultimate Truth. 

So far man are mostly verifying things through  the five senses  and the brain they are linked to within the central nervous systom.. That is why man are so limited. Do note that we should not rule out the existence of all others just because we have not found a way to justify them yet.  I think there has to be another way to approach the ultimate Truth...otherwise the whole purpose of  mankind would be futile. That is still my search. 

Some  suggest replacing it  with "faith" .................

Oh well............who knows what tomorrow's experience would bring! Hehehe....I may have to pitch my goal posts elsewhere!

D : To keep the pot boiling I am getting back to basic. I was lost in the maze for the last couple of days.

This topic can be aptly called the theory of knowledge or epistemology.   In other word it is called 'treatment of the subject of knowledge'. In the history of western philosophy  one of the earliest proponents of the 'theory of knowledge' was Plato with his concept of 'idea' or 'form'.

Accounts of knowledge usually do not take the form of a theory in the manner like the studies of gravitation or production of baby when parents slept in the same bed. The issue to be addressed is what knowledge is, weather we have the knowledge, are we human, animal or my keyboard are capable of having knowledge, the conditions under which we have any knowledge, what is the scope of knowledge etc. etc.

A : So you believe in something that is called ultimate truth? and not everybody in this world are capable of accepting/accessing this so called ultimate truth aka "you-definition-of-knowledge" (refer to page 1) because our senses are limited? and that (limitation) also explains why we keep changing our "generally-accepted-idea-of-knowledge" (what we know about something) since our sense are not perfect?

Is that what are you saying?

When someone said: only god knows, is he or she  accepting the idea that God knows everything, including things that are out of our reach/comprehension?

Faith!!  I like the connection of this word with your explanation.

I would like to know if plato's theory is in accordance with hamizao's argument of knowledge.

D : The  Knowledge of the  existence of God :

Ultimate truth or knowledge transcends everything else, including human knowledge. How about God? Through reasoning, can the existence of God be proven?

Rene  Descartes (Cogito Ergo Sum), protagonist of the modern philosophy, broke away from the theological thinking of the Scholastic school and he offered a very elegant proof of the existence of God using rationalist methodology.

He found within himself that idea of God, that is, an entity which is infinite completely perfect, omnipotent, omniscience, and all-knowing. Next question is this cannot emanate from nothingness, nor can it originate within himself. He is finite, imperfect, weak and full of doubt and ignorance, and if the idea originated within him, the effect would be superior to the cause. This is impossible. Consequently, the idea of God must have been placed within him by some superior and higher entity which attain the perfection of that idea, that is, by God himself.

To spice  up Hamizao's Justified true Believe I wish to add some elaboration. This is something I cooked up from one of the sites.

"The Tripartite Theory of Knowledge

There is a tradition that goes back as far as Plato that says that three conditions must be satisfied in order for one to possess knowledge. This account, known as the tripartite theory of knowledge, analyses knowledge as justified true belief. If you believe something, with justification, and it is true, the tripartite theory says, then you know it; otherwise, you do not.

Belief
The first condition for knowledge, according to the tripartite theory, is belief. Unless one believes a thing, one cannot know it. Even if something is true, and one has excellent reasons for believing that it is true, one cannot know it without believing it. Knowledge, quite clearly, requires belief.

Truth
The second condition for knowledge, according to the tripartite theory, is truth. If one knows a thing then it must be true. No matter how well justified or sincere a belief, if it is not true that it cannot constitute knowledge. If a long-held belief is discovered to be false, then one must concede that what was thought to be known was in fact not known. What is false cannot be known; knowledge must be knowledge of the truth.

Justification
The third condition for knowledge is justification. In order to know a thing, it is not enough to merely believe it; one must also have a good reason for doing so. Lucky guesses cannot constitute knowledge; we can only know what we have good reason to believe."

Bertrand Russell wrote something about imperfect truth, which I may recall, which is related to sense perception, flux and substance. Plato highlighted that what we perceive is imperfect image or copies of the reality. I am assuming metaphysical truth is reality and you are free to disagree with me. Taking a horse as an example there can never be two horses which are alike (color, shape and sub species) but the idea of a horse as an animal with four legs is immutable. Taking another example, a triangle can be draw in several shapes, however, all shall meet the criteria of sum of all angle is equal to 2 rights angles.

A : Thumb sup to you for bringing the thoery up, Thamrong!

I hear the word metaphysic often yet I could not grasp its meaning quite thoroughly. Anybody here willing to explain it to me a little bit?

D : "When I read arguments from Friederich Nietzsche, I thought at first I completely disgree with his position, but after reading it thoroughly, I find that he makes some good points in his arguments. And I really like them too."

As a layman with little brain I attempted to read Nietzsches' works. It does not take very long because I have to return it to the bookshelf before I go crazy.

Me : Heheheh.....I sumise that the guy must have lived his life to the fullest and probably died of it too! You did well to let him be least he dragged you down with him .......insane.     Poor soul .....no wonder he  thought that  life was nothing more than a meaningless business of suffering and striving. Oh, if only he had seen the wisdom of it all!

A :  I remembered when my class first introduced to him by my profesor, almost everbody in my ethics class including myself despised his idea of good and bad until my professor pointed out what he actually thinks. If you look at his writing positively, you will find some good points. Of course I do not buy all his arguments but there are few good things that I've learned from him.

D : This is another word which drive me nut

There are several definitions and one I am most comfortable is by Robert C, Solomon. 

Metaphysics. Most simply, the study of the most basic (or "first') principles. Traditionally, the study of the ultimate reality, or "Being as such" (Ujud maka  itu). Popularly, any kind of very abstract or obscure thinking. Most philosophers to day would define metaphysics as the study of the most general concepts of science and human life, for example, ?eality,?existence,?freedom,?God,?soul,?action,?mind.? In general we can divide metaphysics into ontology (theory of being-theori ada), cosmology, and concerning God and immortality of human soul.

D : "It is said  that maths is not a "reality" but rather a description of reality which the human can only approximate . Some of you may have your own take on this. I would be interested to hear it. For me, I haven't even started to ponder what "reality" means."

A very interesting comment.

I take that you are assuming 'reality' as something we can be perceived with our senses, a 'substance',  worldly and physical. This mode of thinking may compel you to the limitation and the pitfall suffered by the scholastic thinkers. The ceiling of philosophical study was brought to such a low level that the thinking mind cannot go beyond theological arguments.

I am suggesting that you should break yourself from that mental bondage and go beyond that. Take 'reality' as an 'idea' which is all perfect, beautiful, permanent and immutable then life will be more interesting. Take for an example; parallel lines only meet at infinity which is valid in physical world. However, infinity can never be realized because it is only an 'idea'. Another example, I remember reading Sir Mohd Iqbal about the notion of 'Hell and heaven'  which he suggested that it should not be treated as a locality instead thinks it as a 'concept'.

Me : Metaphysics.....I read somewhere that the term is somewhat a misnomer and no wonder that word always put a bomb in my brain!! :

At this point I am of the view that it 's subject is on a different plain compared to physics.......it is more ethereal rather than physical....more surreal rather than real , the soul  not  the body................celestial and spiritual. I read somewhere that to attain the true understanding of the matter requires  a 6th sense. Someone had told me that to understand this, revelations would have to be processed both by the mind AND the "hati". In this context I am using the same word "hati" as a representative of the seat of the 6th sense. At this point in my search, I reckon that the understanding/justification  would manifest in something that you would "feel"  e.g. the feeling of inner peace, enlightenment. ..........Could that be faith??

D : To strengthen my argument  I put forth  herewith  Pluto stands on the concept of reality. I am  a strong advocate of rationalism and I put it that empirical methods as subordinate to  it. As a layman and no formal training my path towards understanding reality  is a hazardous and painful trip, however, it is worth taking  and very satisfying. 

Plato, the pupil of Socrates, carried the Socratic teaching into the region of metaphysics. If knowledge through concepts is the only true knowledge, it follows, says PIato, that theconcept represents the only reality, and all the reality, in the object of our knowledge. The sum of the reality of a thing, is therefore the Idea. Corresponding to the internal, or psychological, world of our concepts is not only the world of our sense experience (the shadow-world of phenomena....you would be familiar with the concept of the caveman or katak bawah tempurong), but also the world of Ideas, of which our world of concepts is only a reflection, and the world of sense phenomena, a shadow merely. That which makes anything to be what it is, the essence, as we should call it, is the Idea of that thing existing in the world above us. In the "thing" itself, the phenomenon presented by the senses, there is a participation of the Idea, limited, disfigured and debased by union with a negative principle of limitation called matter. The metaphysical constituents of reality are, therefore, the Ideas as positive factors and this negative principle. From the Ideas comes all that is positive, permanent, intelligible, eternal in the world. From the negative principle come imperfection, negation, change, and liability to dissolution. Thus, profiting by the epistemological doctrines of Socrates, without losing sight of the antagonistic teachings of the Eleatics and of Heraclitus, Plato evolved his theory of Ideas as a metaphysical solution of the problem of change, which had a baffled his predecessors.

D : "At this point I am of the view that it 's subject is on a different plane compared to physics.......it is more ethereal rather than physical....more surreal rather than real , the soul  not  the body........"

One this issue, I think, we are standing on a common ground.

A : I think Nietzche's preoccupation could have been more into societal challenges kind of things. He saw a lot of sufferings and strivings and his foremost question was,...................... how best to live in a "godless and meaningless "world. Amongst his thoughts are the need for a value system that should change to meet new challenges and  analysis of morality.

He distinguished morality into (1) Master Morality and (2) Slaves Morality. Of course what is good and evil in one is the opposite in the other. He found that the slave morality was predominant in Christianity. Hence his onslaught on the Judeo-Christian religion.

On the value system, in order to meet new challenges new basis should be sought to support new values. In other words values including culture need not be preserved. He promoted supremacy of the man ( not any particular race. Feel free to correct me if you think otherwise) who is the best, healthiest and strongest in character.  This brought emphasis on toughness in the face of misery, a character often taken out of context and tyrants have drawn some inspiration from it but understood him only superficially. Well, fortunately for him, he did not live long enough to see the political development in his country.

I found out that he actually became a Swiss citizen and spent many years in Switzerland and Italy until his death(?)

E : If absolute truth is the existence of God, than the sanctity of human existence is govern by morality molded in religions. If religion is part of knowledge and educates humans than it would safe to say that practising one would allow a person to be moral under a certain set of morality.

Now, my question is what about people who are without religion but still exercise a set of behaviour that protects human sanctity. Can a person without religion be moral? For instance, a nurse in Africa who does  her/his chores purely for the sake humanity and does not hold to any particular belief.

Can we be moral without religion? Can a baby be brought to adulthood be moralwithout religion?

D : This is no longer hypothesis. Natural law advocates morality, honor and good ethics. Case in point most pagan rulers and all ancient thinkers advocate morality and righteousness.

Me : In every person there  exist a natural need to self preserve. For that matter even animals do have it too. Therefore, anyone can still have their own ideas  about good and bad, right and wrong behavior even at the most simplest level of social organization.

Hehe...just my 2 cents

"Cogito Ergo Sum"    - Rene  Descartes