Omnes and Sangalli in their text,  Quantum Philosophy (Princeton University Press,  1999)   speak about “the fracture”  which occurred within the realms of philosophy,  logic, and science,   forever designating Aristotlean thinking as “classical” while quantum philosophy is termed as “formal”.  Their fine text  engages in a comprehensive study,  the details of which go beyon the scope of this article.  But I open with a quote from another work by Roland  Omnes:  ”. . . the deepest forms of questiong arise. . . from quantum physics”.    As Omnes rightly assets,  the line between quantum sicence and philosophy is a blurred one.  When I speak of the need for a cohesive theory,  I am speaking of one that will appeal to the general,  intelligent public, and not specialized academic theories,  which nonetheless are the origins of popular ones.

My interest is in applied philosophy:  That which it has to offer the culture,  in ethics,  counseling, and popular theoretical discourse.  A robust theory which could speak to general interests in an elegantly simple way would be the best beginning.  Much of current “New Age”  theory is so sloppy,  soft,  sentimental,  and plain silly so that the rift between science and philosophy in academia,  and popular culture would seem to be widening irrevocably.  When I first read Anthony Peake in 2007,  it was an accidental encounter.  A random search on the internet showed his essay,  Cheating the Ferryman:  A New Pardigm of Existence? Leaving aside personal bereavement issues and a background in Nietzsche studies which made Peake extremely appealing to me ,  I was taken by his ability to fuse quantum physics with one of the central docrtines of Nietzsche:  the eternal return of the same.

I have often wondered if the popular culture could be made to leave its juxtaposition of old world religious ideas and new fangled new age fantasies.  Peter Novak made an excellent start in The Division of Consciousness.  But matters did not unfold well:  Novak became pre-occupied both with reincarnation and Armageddon.  In Anthony Peake,  I thought I saw a better Novak.  One more subtle and less given to mania.  Of course Peake has had to go it alone in many senses:  He has been labled by turns as a pseudo-scientist, a solipsist,  an author whose key role is to engage in sophistry,  an afterlife theorist,  and a new age icon.  What he has not been taken seriously as is a theorist who has much to offer Nietzschean philosophy ,  and by association ,  the thinking of Heidegger,  Schopenhauer,  Jaspers,  and Kierkegaard.  Is Peake an existential messenger?  I think so.  But rather than expounding on his ideas here,  I welcome New Yorkers,  whether they be academics,  readers,  or journalists,  to come hear hims on August 3 at the Roosevelt Hotel,  in a public lecture hosted by Gnosis Arts Multimedia.  Peake’s lecture will begin at 6 p.m.m and there will be a complimentary bar and buffet for attendees, in the Broadway Suite. ( Madison Avenue @ E 45,  NYC 10017).

Omnes and Sangalli in their text,  Quantum Philosophy (Princeton University Press,  1999)   speak about “the fracture”  which occurred within the realms of philosophy,  logic, and science,   forever designating Aristotlean thinking as “classical” while quantum philosophy is termed as “formal”.  Their fine text  engages in a comprehensive study,  the details of which go beyon the scope of this article.  But I open with a quote from another work by Roland  Omnes:  ”. . . the deepest forms of questiong arise. . . from quantum physics”.    As Omnes rightly assets,  the line between quantum sicence and philosophy is a blurred one.  When I speak of the need for a cohesive theory,  I am speaking of one that will appeal to the general,  intelligent public, and not specialized academic theories,  which nonetheless are the origins of popular ones.

My interest is in applied philosophy:  That which it has to offer the culture,  in ethics,  counseling, and popular theoretical discourse.  A robust theory which could speak to general interests in an elegantly simple way would be the best beginning.  Much of current “New Age”  theory is so sloppy,  soft,  sentimental,  and plain silly so that the rift between science and philosophy in academia,  and popular culture would seem to be widening irrevocably.  When I first read Anthony Peake in 2007,  it was an accidental encounter.  A random search on the internet showed his essay,  Cheating the Ferryman:  A New Pardigm of Existence? Leaving aside personal bereavement issues and a background in Nietzsche studies which made Peake extremely appealing to me ,  I was taken by his ability to fuse quantum physics with one of the central docrtines of Nietzsche:  the eternal return of the same.

I have often wondered if the popular culture could be made to leave its juxtaposition of old world religious ideas and new fangled new age fantasies.  Peter Novak made an excellent start in The Division of Consciousness.  But matters did not unfold well:  Novak became pre-occupied both with reincarnation and Armageddon.  In Anthony Peake,  I thought I saw a better Novak.  One more subtle and less given to mania.  Of course Peake has had to go it alone in many senses:  He has been labled by turns as a pseudo-scientist, a solipsist,  an author whose key role is to engage in sophistry,  an afterlife theorist,  and a new age icon.  What he has not been taken seriously as is a theorist who has much to offer Nietzschean philosophy ,  and by association ,  the thinking of Heidegger,  Schopenhauer,  Jaspers,  and Kierkegaard.  Is Peake an existential messenger?  I think so.  But rather than expounding on his ideas here,  I welcome New Yorkers,  whether they be academics,  readers,  or journalists,  to come hear hims on August 3 at the Roosevelt Hotel,  in a public lecture hosted by Gnosis Arts Multimedia.  Peake’s lecture will begin at 6 p.m.m and there will be a complimentary bar and buffet for attendees, in the Broadway Suite. ( Madison Avenue @ E 45,  NYC 10017).

Consolation of Philosophy

"Entirely faithful to Boethius' Latin; it makes the philosophy of the Consolation intelligible to students; it gives equal weight to the poetry -- in fact, Relihan's metrical translation of Boethius' metra are themselves contributions of the first moment to Boethian studies. Boethius finally has a translator equal to his prodigious talents and his manifold vision."-- Joseph Pucci, Brown University. Joel Relihan is Associate Professor of Classics, Wheaton College.Unjustly imprisoned and waiting t

List Price: $ 14.00 Price: $ 8.00

Free learning from The Open University www.open.ac.uk — Professor Russell Stannard asks how can we ever understand the relationship between consciousness and the physical brain. (Part 1 of 10) — Articles by Professor Russell Stannard on OpenLearn www.open.ac.uk Study ‘Philosophy and the human situation’ with the OU www3.open.ac.uk Explore qualifications in Arts and Humanities with the OU www3.open.ac.uk —

Oluwayomi.O.Oluwadara,

School of Technology,

St Patrick’s College,

W1F 8FS,London

1st June 2010.

This piece clearly highlights the philosophy behind the field of natural Computation. It goes further to evaluate some basic computational architectures that are nature inspired

Background

The present day computing has provided solutions to almost every task man can think of except for the “tomorrow world”-the stage of ubiquitousness. Sequel upon this, the challenge of the future is to harness all it takes to make natural computing work for us. Proponents of natural computing has discovered that the present day Alan Turin-Von Neumann architecture (classical model) enclosed in its silicon casing alone can not take us to the envisioned “tomorrow world”. As a result of this, attention was shifted from this architecture to that of natural computing. It must be stressed that this current classical model has tried reaching this “tomorrow world” with the . Products of their effort have resulted in Neural Networks (Simulating the functionality of the brain), Evolutionary Computing (Emulating the nature), Quantum Computing (has to do with the universe) and DNA computing. These asides, researches are still on going on how the current classical model could be abandoned in order to achieve al the goals of natural computing.

In essence, computer scientists are trying to achieve the “tomorrow world” using the current classical model in diverse areas, while there are on going efforts to abandon this classical model for some other ones in order to achieve the goal of ubiquitousness.

 

Why Natural Computing

Only natural computing seem to proffer a lasting solution to the human desire for the overwhelming desire to achieve a perfect digitalized world which I will seldomly refer to as tomorrow world. According to De Castro (2006), natural computing is the terminology introduced to encompass these three types of approaches, named, respectively: 1) computing inspired by nature: 2) the simulation and emulation of natural phenomena in computers: and 3) computing with natural materials.

A major reason that substantiates the idea of further study and research in natural computing is not far fetched. There must be a solution for complex tasks that could not be readily computable .For example, task of making human decisions, task of making food in the kitchen e.t.c As a result of this, the simulation of how nature solves this kind of problem is helpful: this is where natural computing comes in. For the sake of brevity, natural computing can be described as a way of employing nature to solve ambiguous problems.

 

The Evolution of Natural computing.

I would say that natural computing has evolved the era of Alan Turin- Von Neumann architecture for solving complex problems the stage of Computational Biology. Scientist, after various researches concluded that the tomorrow world could be achieved by the complex interaction of Biology and Computer. As indicated by Lyngso (2001), computational biology is concerned with the use of computers for biological problems, most prominently problems in evolutionary and molecular biology. This area is also referred to as bioinformatics and these two terms are often used interchangeably. It can therefore be inferred that the combination of natural knowledge from nature-Biology coupled with computing will definitely provide an alternative to the existing architecture.

 

Simply put, natural computing is the act of building a computational model for problem solving that is nature inspired. As stated earlier, based on the current architecture, science has tried its hardest to compute naturally and based on this great effort, they have achieved success in the below application areas:

-Evolutionary Computing

-Neural Computing

-Swarm Computing.

 

Evolutionary Computing: This can be described as the computational solution method that is based on the finding of the renown biologist-Charles Darwin. Eiben and Smith (2007), claimed that Evolutionary Computing is the collective name for a range of problem-solving techniques based on principles of biological evolution, such as natural selection and genetic inheritance.  These techniques are being increasingly widely applied to a variety of problems, ranging from practical applications in industry and commerce to leading edge scientific research. One can infer from the author of this book that science has adapted the findings of the great Darwin to solve complex present day problems. It must also be recalled however that this experimentations are being carried out on “old” classical model. Derivatives and merits that arose as a result of evolutionary computing involves genetic algorithm, genetic programming, evolutionary hardware, artificial life and artificial immune system.

]]>

Neural Network /ComputingNeural networks are based on the parallel architecture of human brain. Basically, they are formed to simulate how the neurons in the human body work by transmitting signals from one to the other. A major difference between the human neurons and neural networks is that the former just take action naturally while the latter has to be trained. Mathematics has discovered the learning rate of training the neural network. It has been proved that if the error result is zero or so close to zero, neural network has learnt. As it turns out to be, they can also be described as some form of multiprocessor computer system with simple processing elements with a high degree of interconnection. Plus, they have got a simple scalar messages and adaptive interaction between elements. Neural Networks, because of their ability to learn (using certain learning algorithms) has been applied in diverse field in human endeavors. Common among them are face, voice and motion detection.

Recently, Jain (2010) proved that neural networks have also been widely synergized with other machine learning and complementary techniques to achieve improvements in robustness, adaptivity, and applicability.

 

Swarm IntelligenceSwarm intelligence can be likened to the scenario whereby the behavioral attitudes of social insects (ants, bees, termites e.t.c) are being computerized. A swarm has been defined as a set of (mobile) agents which are liable to communicate directly or indirectly (by acting on their local environment) with each other, and which collectively carry out a distributed problem solving. Based on this generalized concept of a swarm, French researchers have actually been able to simulate the termite’s nest-building behavior on a computer by applying a very simple “stigmergic algorithm”Deneubourg et al. (1992).

It can therefore be inferred that swarm intelligence is a design framework based on social insect behavior. These social insects are unique in the way these simple individuals cooperate to accomplish complex difficult tasks. The idea behind this fact has been used to design certain algorithms that can be used to solve human complex problems. Currently the application of swarm intelligence is helping in resolving issues in mobile ad-hoc networks.

 

Classification of Natural Computing.

Although there are on-going research in natural computation, but experts has identified three major classes. They are computing with natural materials, simulation and emulation of natured inspired by computing and computing inspired by nature. It must be noted that each of them has gotten different application areas.

 

Nature Inspired Computing (NIC): In this scenario, solution to problems are designed after, or inspired by nature. It must ne noted that the solution, probably some kind of algorithm is implemented using the current architecture. As Indicated by world of computing, (2010), Nature Inspired Computing (NIC) is one that aims to develop new computing techniques after getting ideas by observing how nature behaves in various situations to solve complex problems. Research on NIChas opened new branches such as evolutionary computation, neural networks, artificial immune systems, swarm intelligence, and so on.

A primary subset of NIC is known as Biology Inspired Computing. Relative to normal computing, there are significant differences in biology inspired computing. The biological system seems to respond quite slowly but they do implement much higher-level operations. To justify the effort of researchers in this endeavor, an algorithm, inspired by ant colonies that exhibit swarm intelligence has already been developed. Apart from swarm intelligence algorithm. It must also be noted that NIC has also made measurable success in Genetic algorithms, Neural Networks, Artificial Intelligence systems and cellular automata.

As a recap, NIC-solution that are nature inspired are; according to World of Computing (2010); flexible that they can be applied to wide range of problems, so adaptable that they can deal with unseen data and capable of learning, so robust that they can handle incomplete data. They have decentralized control of computational activities.

 

Simulation and Emulation of nature by means of Computing

As the name implies, this branch of natural computing imitates the way nature solve problems and tend to apply computing to it. It simulates the biological solution to complex problems and solves real life problems by their corresponding computing solutions. Again, De Castro (2006) stated that there are two main approaches to the simulation and emulation of nature

I hope it will challenge, provoke & maybe even enlighten. Give it a go. If it does arouse something in you, please feel free to drop me a line & let me know what you think.

We all take part in this thing we call martial arts, but at the end of the day, what is the real point in the activity? What is it within man’s psyche which seeks to control something as harrowing as being attacked by another?

The martial arts are necessary to mankind, since every person has a built-in fear of attack. This is proved in the very existence of Adrenaline, a Fight or Flight hormone. It is part of a law of self-preservation & self-protection. Evolution has built every creature with this quality, which conforms to the natural law.

It is a sad truth that potential harm could be caused to you by another human being. There is no manner of protection you can give yourself, but to prepare for the worst. It makes no difference how big or strong you are, how intelligent you are, or how fast your reactions. You alone will not be enough to defend a gang, & therefore the fear is always present.

In that famous philosophical & political text, the Leviathan (1651), Hobbes argued this case most succinctly. He stated that although some men may be stronger or more intelligent than others in their natural state, none are so strong as to be beyond a fear of violent death. This consequently justifies self-defence as man’s highest necessity.

This necessity, though slightly pessimistic is at the same time realistic. Even those with a “Love thy neighbour” philosophy recognise the natural necessity for self-defence. Evidence even suggests that Jesus himself was said to have believed in the need for self-defence. In the Gnostic gospel[EN-1] of St. Thomas, Jesus tells Thomas; “Fortunate is the man who knows where the brigands will enter, so that he may get up, muster his domain, and arm himself before they invade.“

So the case for self-defence as a necessary human endeavour is apparent. It does not matter how much money you have, how many bodyguards you surround yourself with, the fear of being attacked is a homo-psychological “ball & chain”.

How many people have actually considered Bruce Lee’s ideas & taken them further? Let us not forget the death of this legend, but also let us remember that he died whilst many of his theories were still evolving. As great as he was, (which I do not disagree with) he was a single man who was a part of the evolution of martial arts as Newton was to physics & his ideas were evolving continuously. Lee himself stated that:

“The founder of any branch of Chinese gung fu [or any form of martial arts] must be more ingenious than the common man. If his achievement is not carried on by his disciples of the same ingenuity, then things will only become formalized and get stuck in a cul-de-sac; whereby breakthrough and progress will be almost impossible.“

In other words, Lee has pinpointed the reason for crystallization and tradition in the martial arts (or indeed any subject). The fact that truly innovative & ingenious people are rare, means that if it is carried on by people with less ingenuity (not to be confused with intelligence[EN-2]), through the attempt to retain the innovation, the system is taught in a formalised way, lest any secret be lost in digressing. Eventually, the system becomes stale & hence “breakthrough and progress will be almost impossible”. Lee’s concepts were like the prism to a beam of light. His concepts showed the spectrum of colour present in light. But he did not invent light.

We must remember, that as innovative as Lee’s ideas are; they can always be improved upon. The danger lies in when people are satisfied, or accepting of the ideas & unwilling to challenge them [EN-3]. This is the very reason for martial arts becoming crystallised and traditionalised. When no fluidity & flexibility is present, death commences.

“Seek not to follow in the footsteps of great people; but seek that which they themselves had sought”

-My philosophy

There are many different paths which will lead to enlightenment. However, mastery can extend from understanding the path which so-called “Enlightened ones” have taken. The secret is not to assume it’s impossible because you find it hard. But to recognise that if it’s humanly possible, you can do it too [EN-4]. Basic psychology tells us that in most situations, under the same stresses, people act & react in much the same way. Therefore, given the same impetus as Lee had, taking the same course of study & reading the same books as Lee, you will come to realise that which Lee realised. For that reason, my philosophy is not to blindly follow Lee’s method, but to study that which he himself had sought. Furthermore, this resonates in the understanding of anything. I read that which Aristotle read, so that I may come to the same conclusions as Aristotle. Given the same impetus, most people will come to the same conclusions. Everything in the world manifests itself.

The secret of realising the so-called secrets of martial arts is to look at what is in your sight. The secret is that there are no secrets. Consider that the secrets descend from the founder of the style. The founder of the art discovered the truth, & naturally, after his passing this truth was protected by his followers in order to keep control of the school. However, if the founder discovered it in his own path, you may follow the path to reach the same conclusion [EN-5]. In the words of the Greek philosopher Meno, “by a process of mere questioning, will he attain a true science, knowledge in the fullest sense by the recovery of such science out of himself.”

]]>

Only then will what was once hidden become plain to you. Others will recognise the innovation of your thought, because they realise it has always been there – but they were unaware of it. Gravity has always been present on the earth, but the innovation of Newton was that he brought it to people’s attention. If gravity had always been present, what did he truly say that was innovative? He simply saw what was in his sight (the apple falling) & what was once hidden (the existence of gravity) became plain to him.

Lee looked at what was plain to him; the movements of the human body & their application to fighting – and what was out of sight became visible. His own teaching of this path was what he called Jeet Kune Do. By looking at what is in your sight; what is unknown will become evident to you. That was the purpose of JKD. “Again let me remind you Jeet Kune Do is just a name used, a boat to get one across, and once across it is to be discarded and not to be carried on one’s back.”

So consider those basic techniques you practice over & over. Do not wish for more, for you have the secrets already. When you can truly understand this, then you too will have the secret of ingenuity.

Bruce Lee once stated: “The Truth in Combat is different for each individual.”

To critique this statement, we must first look at what “truth“ is. To the philosophical Pessimism movement in Western philosophy, no truth can ever be known, because our entire understanding of the world around us is constructed by what our senses tell us (and our senses can often be mistaken).

For example, our perspective of fire tells us that it is hot & causes pain & damage; but if we were to view it from the perspective of granite, fire would not cause any damage at all. It’s powers of destruction are purely relative depending upon the subject receiving its effects. Therefore, we can only know anything from a human perspective.

The meaning of truth was summed up perfectly by a Greek philosopher named Parmenides who stated that one should “…view the world with an independent, or true view (that is independent of time and position, the accidents & peculiar view point of the receiver)”. This is a much better explanation than that which the dictionary gives; “that which is not False…conforming with reality”.

It stands to reason that in any situation, there will be many different sides, but there remains only one truth. What happened, happened – that is the fact & the truth. But ask any observers & each version will be slightly different. Thus, the very meaning of the truth, suggests that an individual truth is impossible – a mere illusion.

The truth lies in seeing passed the “versions”; the perception, to see the totality; the truth. Each martial art is a version of the truth, a perspective. Tae Kwon-Do teaches that kicks are the answer, Judo demonstrates that throwing is the answer; Muay Thai promotes elbow & shins as the answer.

Lee had the right idea in “taking what is useful & discarding the rest”. With this idea, Lee infers that martial arts have elements that are useful, but they also have parts that have missed the point. This is true since all martial arts are a “version” of the truth. In the same way as a police officer will ask all the witnesses to build up a true picture of the event, or an historian who will look at all the sources in context. It is your faculty in discovering the truth to identify that which is useful as separate from that which is useless. What is useful is universal.

The law of attraction was first published in the book the science of getting rich and states that you get what you think about. This philosophy is centered on the idea that your thoughts and emotions control your destiny. The science of getting rich was written in the year 1910 by Wallace D. Wattles and has inspired a successful film called the secret. At the very core of the movie the secret is the law of attraction philosophy which reveals a whole new perspective on reality: we attract those things in life that we focus on. You can find out all the information you need on this fascinating subject at law-of-attraction-beyond.com.

The law of attraction, also the central idea of the movie the secret, tells us that we are the ones that create our very own reality. Our thoughts and feelings are closely related to our existence and what we get in life. The reality around us depends on the positive or negative things that we choose to focus on. For example, if we only see the negative parts in something we will never see anything positive that might be there right in front of us. If someone repeatedly states that he hates his job he will never see any of the satisfying aspects. The law of attraction is as simple as that. Just wanting something isn’t enough if we are obsessed with not having it. The result of a negative mentality will be blocking out our true desires.

The science of getting rich, and later on the secret lead to an unprecedented phenomenon. Especially after viewing the secret people were thirsty for more information on the Universal Laws. They were eager to find out how to make the most of their natural capabilities. The movie made them feel tired of attracting negatives and become prepared to embrace a completely new mentality. It is important to realize that attracting wellbeing and abundance is knowledge to a certain extent. This knowledge has become available to anyone by means of the science of getting rich and the law of attraction.

There are many different types of personalities and each person has its own way of manifesting. Some people are better at manifesting than others and they sometimes seem to really be the lucky ones. These people look like they have everything they want in life and they put so little effort into obtaining it. This may be a consequence of the fact that they were born with the knowledge of manifesting already intact. However, not being born with extraordinary capabilities doesn’t mean you can’t practice and even surpass the talent manifested by another person. People who are so efficient in attracting the positive have usually trained their minds into completely focusing on their desires. They sometimes attract without even realizing that they do so, because they have already learned the power of their own thoughts so well. If someone came to such a person and suggested that they couldn’t have something or don’t deserve it, this person wouldn’t even pay attention. Not deserving is not part of their reality anymore. Completely eliminating negatives and barriers can do wonders for your life and you can experience an incredible feeling of liberation. Understanding how the law of attraction truly works can be the first step to a life filled with accomplishments and abundance.

Your thoughts control what you get in life. The law of attraction as described in the science of getting rich tells us to make the most of our lives by exploring our own natural capabilities. Whatever we want in life we can obtain with the proper mentality and approach to things. The secret has opened people’s minds to the Universal Laws and brought them a brand new perspective on their existence. Wallace D. Wattles introduced the world to the science of getting rich and brought great changes into many people’s lives around the world. At law-of-attraction-beyond.com you will find all the information you need to start making a change in your life.

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

Thomas S. Kuhn's classic book is now available with a new index.

"A landmark in intellectual history which has attracted attention far
beyond its own immediate field. . . . It is written with a combination
of depth and clarity that make it an almost unbroken series of
aphorisms. . . . Kuhn does not permit truth to be a criterion of
scientific theories, he would presumably not claim his own theory to be
true. But if causing a revolution is the hallmark of a superior
List Price: $ 13.00 Price: $ 4.90

Willard Van Orman Quine, Professor Emeritus at Harvard University, has been described as the greatest living English-speaking philosopher. In this series, he takes part in an in-depth personal interview, and a penetrating analysis of his life’s work in six panel discussions with some of today’s leading philosophers. In discussions with some of today’s leading philosophers. In discussions on his most important theses, Quine defends his views against the major criticisms—past and recent—to bring his position right up-to-date. The Block Panel Professor Ned Block is chairman of the philosophy department at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He specializes in philosophy of science, philosophy of mind and philosophy of psychology and his main area of current study concerns, he says, what we can learn about consciousness from neuropsychology. He has published widely in his fields, and has co-edited with Gerald Dworkin The IQ Controversy. He has written Imagery and edited two volumes of the Readings in Philosophy of Psychology. In this program Professor Quine is questioned about his views on some of the major topics in philosophy of mind. His linguistic behaviorism is carefully examined and compared with programs in linguistics and neuroscience, and his gives his opinions on the field of cognitive science. The program concludes with Quine’s views on the topics of mental causation and consciousness.

I restrict myself here in discussion on the Engel’s dialectics of nature, to two chapters of his book, which has the following nine articles, in which the 80% of the content is evolved in and around the science subjects, through which the dialectics of both living and non-living objects were discussed and tried to apply the principles of sciences in mixture in both scientific and in philosophical manner to convince the readers of all fields globally

1) Introduction

2)  Dialectics

3) Basic form of motion

4) Measure of motion- work

5) Heat

6) Electricity

7) Tidal friction-Kant and Thomson-trait on the rotation of the earth and lunar attraction

Part played by labour in transition from ape to man

9) Natural science and spirit world.

 

.Of course it had been succeeded in neglecting the human-based humanities, by leaving most of the other sciences of his time out of its fold due to unknown reasons. This book could not be seen in the world without Karl Marx without whom Engel’s identification could not seen separately as he himself claimed many times

.

In my previous writing,’ why did Frederick Engel deviate from the concept of Karl Marx on dialectics of nature? In which, I described the doctors’ real story in some remote

Village was only to claim that the subject expert has only locus standi in modern days from whom the people in common want to learn more in his related observations only. Engle was really a science student and his strong association with the scientists

Was not a secret and open to all those who were familiar with his contributions in helping Karl Marx at that time.

 

 Actually the dialectics of nature, a set of articles was incomplete form in the life time of both Karl Marx and Frederic Engel. Much later it had been brought out in German in English languages, in 1925. Karl Marx had some little difference on the foundational prepositions from the ‘foreign’ elements in these articles to get support of the claim what Engel had in mind at that time

 

. Actually he had a thought to write a complete book on science with his findings in comparison with the other contemporaries as one of the equals, but it was unfortunately not possible for an unmatchable pair of world who has contributed a lot to the poor as a light in the hands to live with dignity and respect.   

 

I thing why does not all the acts of the same individuals not possible in the most similar way in all repeated acts, if they have been asked to repeat in the same conditions and in same situation without change of any connected objects for the practical purposes to form an idea about how does human behaviors and social sciences or in other word if anybody ask the validity to add the term ‘science’ to the humanities, are differed from the each from its minor branches besides its main branches of the divisions of the subjects, viz physical sciences, biological sciences and humanities without moving further into its branches and sub-branches in depth. For simple answers to the following questions what I like to say that all the answers very relevant to bifurcate the subjects discussed in the dialectics of nature into two main branches for the living and non-living primarily

.

1) Can anybody hit all sixes in 12 balls at least?

2) Can any good spinner make all the team out continuously in two or in three over?  

3) Can any man sign on the paper in the same way without any difference?

4) Why does not of them take the wounded persons to hospital in any accident from the spot?

5) Why does not get all convicted in all the cases booked by the police in any state?

 

6) Why does not vote the entire citizen to one candidate in any democratic state in the world?

7) Why did warren buffet and bill gates contributed all his assets in past?

What was the need of Osama bin laden to leave his wealthiest life and why did he engage in war games with the mighty forces of America and its allied forces

]]>

9) Why was Saddam Hussein uncompromised with his stand against the American forces and lost his life,along with thousands of thousands of people from both sides?

10) Why 1.5 million Cambodians were lost their lives in the war.

 

While answering to all these questions, the mind would go towards the humans only but not towards non-living things in nature. Because they are number of contradictions in the human society. The first of its kind was the man and the nature. The nature has its own contradictions with all of its elements which play a key role in molding it into further developments. In the nature, important players are, fire, water, forest, terrain, temperature, and rain falls

 

.On the other side, wild animals, poisonous insects, and friendly animals form another part. The humans and their origin with descendents, development, have another part. Each of the part with its branches including its components and players would never play another part as a set flexible to merge into its all rules. In essence where the players of the specific field it have its own set of laws and its principles for the different acts to play within its circle. Where the players are different the rules and laws also differ from the earlier field.

 

Hence the principles of the physics and chemistry do not constitute a single set of laws. At the same time, biology, astronomy and mathematics do not constitute a single set of law because its players are different and their rules are different from other branch of laws. In single set of the planetary laws the humans have the predominant role in molding the nature in changing the conditions like global warming and change of climate

 

. The consequences and influences of the acts of the humans in consolidations either throgh the men or through the machinery the conditions of the globe are changing. To change the laws of any branch it has the role of the players inside if I say in computer’s languag the specific software for a specific work is applicable and applied. No other software is allowed to perform the different work in windows only

 

The present soft-wares are developed by one or two individuals with their sound knowledge on the subjects and they felt that these soft wares are useful for making money in the global market either through their companies or through themselves only.

 

 On the other side, the computers were invented and developed for the convenience of the peoples’ works.  So that they invented and developed all these useful soft wares for the global market as well as for them selves also.. Here another question, Charles Babbage whose idea was behind invention of the computer, and the same idea was materialized through, proper Eckert & Mauchly. Now most of the people are using the computers in the globe. And it looks in the world that the computers are doing every work and the humans are the next and have been guiding by the computers

 

. From a distant look on the human-computer relations, it is common to understand that the humans are depended on the computers and the computers are the guiding force to humans. And those who are in writing the history of the present society in future really would write in such a way what they saw from out side. Just like the case of Engel’s writings on dialectics of nature.  As a matter of invention and writing a new thing about the present society it is common to write about the past which correspond to the visible elements to their logical conclusions, they only believe and write

.

 The basic and important issue in the name of Marxism, the dialectics of nature, if it is part of Marxism, upon which the entire structure is raised by other contributors for the development of Marxism, by Lenin, and after Moa. But all these contributions do not form one only in the name of Marxism, but all these isms have risen on the same structure of the philosophization in one form including all subjects and its contributors.

Following is the set of laws, Engel got from the writings of Hegel, and described about its functioning in his book.

“It is therefore, from the history of nature and human society that the laws of dialectics are distracted. For they are nothing but the most general laws, of these two aspects of historical development, as well as the thought itself and indeed they can be reduced in the main to three.

1) The law of transformation

2) The law of interpretation

3) The law of negation of the negation’

These laws basically extracted from the writings of Hegel and how had been applied to the dialectics of nature has been described in detail all. Here I take the reference where the human laws are described with comparison of other physical and biological and other subjects I add the argument with clarity of relevancy to disassociate the human laws from the laws of non-living things in the nature. At the same time, no one should have any objection for the description of the laws of all science and where as the laws of humans and human natures are discussed,it is the duty of every one to dislocate the laws of humans from the list of laws of all science in the interest of the broad human societies which are badly damaged by believing that the human laws are very scientific and based on science that will save the human society for peace and prosperity in the universal law of brotherhood with all respects, guaranteed by the charters of the human rights. Here is the following assertions on the subjects what he had mixed with each other for preparing a universal set of

How should the science be treated in Islam? slam and science has been an oft quoted term for thinkers, writers and common people. It has created so many new interpretations, sometimes positive and sometimes negative. Here our contention is to provide you the basic concepts in Islam to make the idea clear. Islam is a philosophy as well as science, only point to understand is how strong the link is between these two. Has there been any link or not? And if there is to what extent is it practical? We see number of people around us who do not consider science important and therefore do not bring it in their lives arguing that it is a materialistic approach towards life. Is this true for their lives? There have been so many Articles and lectures written on this specific topic and here our purpose is to show you the real picture and let you decide what the reality in Islam is.

Before going into any further detail it is important to know what science really means. There are so many interpretations and here is one of those, “Science basically is an understanding of a particular thing that exists physically and the use of the principles of that understanding for the benefit of the humanity”.

After reading the definition one can understand that it is not a new thing because its existence has been long since the beginning of humanity. Man has always tried to make things easier and simpler for his domestic and industrial life. Before Islam great names like Aristotle and Plato are examples for the great work that also highlights the importance of philosophy. Now we will discuss science after the existence of Islam.

Most of scientists and thinkers believe that arrival of Muhammad (SAW) and Quran was the most important and boasting point for science. It is basically arrival of reality that helps to understand the universe and purpose of its creation. In fact that was the period when science got new spirit despite of the fact that philosophical explanations were made continuously. Quran and Hadith describe their position openly and clarifies that there is no clash between Islam and science rather it is wrong explanation of science that has made it suspicious. First we look at the life of Muhammad (SAW). His life is true explanation of the basic of the science in which He rooted out superstitions and old traditions and told the people reality. He knew the importance of knowledge and made it compulsory for every men and women. He raised the degree of learning seventy times higher than prayer to prove that for the understanding of religion, knowledge about universe is important.  Is this not the purpose of science? Science also rejects superstitions and makes people aware of true facts of the universe. After Allah Almighty He is the only person who knows everything about this universe and to prove this He spent a practical life and gave principles with logics on all fields of life. Here a question rises, “Did He invent something?” The answer is no, because science is an awareness it does not require invention. Yet His teachings and philosophy are becoming theories of science day by day.

]]>

Now we come to Quran, almost every person believes that Quran is the only authentic and sacred book of this universe because books of other Prophets are either changed or not present today. The whole Quran is science in itself and calls the people to discern the hidden realities of the universe. It is said hundreds of times in Quran that there are signs for those who think and understand. Quran explains every field of science and predicts even those things that man does not know. From the creation of this world and man and to the destruction of this universe, Quran explains everything. To prove this following statement is enough, “There is no discovery or invention of the science which is against the basic teachings of Quran and Hadith,” Therefore Muslims, Christians, Hindus and Jews, they all know that Quran is the only book of this world that can guide them to find the hidden realities of this universe.

Then where the problem is? This is the real question and here is its answer. Islam says, “We should explore nature and universe to believe in oneness of Allah and to get the blessings of Muhammad (SAW).”  It means that the ultimate result should be the formation of a society where, by new discoveries, positive changes come and people becomes obedient to Allah Almighty. This is also the purpose of our creation and science makes it clear for us to be obedient to Allah and Prophet Muhammad (SAW).

What we have done is our wrong approach towards science. We have started to use science with materialistic approach which means we believe only those things that happen before our eyes or that have physical existence. This phenomenon makes us materialist. Basically this concept is against the construct of science because science can only predict something. It is true that there are so many theories that are considered final but on the other hand it is also true that they are not final verdicts. With the progress of science theories change time to time. Take the example of Biology that after every fifty years changes completely. Atom was considered undividable but now it has more than hundred sob-atomic particles. It is because Quran is final verdict not the science and Quran does not require any scientist. Science supports spirituality and those things that do not exist physically. With the scientific discoveries we can predict that there is Heaven and Hell, and that there is life after death. How strange it is that we believe Newton’s Gravitational Law and do not believe that if gravitation force is pulled out nothing will survive on the earth.

To make it short, Islam does not believe the materialistic approach towards science rather it takes science as an instrument to guide the people and to make the Quran and Hadith clearer for humanity. Its predictions are and discoveries, if we take them in their real sense, do take us near to Allah and show us the authority of Almighty. How strange it is that Quran that is sent for all the humanity, does not has the link with an ordinary field science.

(Your questions and comments are always welcomed by IQRA. You can send your comments or ask questions on svmnom@yahoo.com)

Philosophy of Science: An Anthology (Blackwell Philosophy Anthologies)

Philosophy of Science: An Anthology assembles some of the finest papers in the philosophy of science since 1945, showcasing enduring classics alongside important and innovative recent work.
Introductions by the editor highlight connections between selections, and contextualize the articles
Nine sections address topics at the heart of philosophy of science, including realism and the character of scientific theories, scientific explanations and laws of nature, singular casusation, and the

List Price: $ 66.95 Price: $ 29.00

Very interesting debate about God, evolution, free will, consciousness and death. Daniel Clement Dennett is a prominent American philosopher whose research centers on philosophy of mind, philosophy of science and philosophy of biology, particularly as those fields relate to evolutionary biology and cognitive science. He is currently the co-director of the Center for Cognitive Studies and the Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy at Tufts University. Dennett is also a noted atheist and advocate of the Brights movement. Robert Wright is an American journalist, scholar, and prize-winning author of best-selling books about science, evolutionary psychology, history, religion, and game theory, including Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny, The Moral Animal, and Three Scientists and Their Gods: Looking for Meaning in an Age of Information. He is a visiting scholar at The University of Pennsylvania and Schwartz Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation.
Video Rating: 4 / 5

I have read a lot of books on self help, success, and other topics related to personal growth. It wasn’t until I read “The Science of Getting Rich” that all I had read really started to make sense.

Although Rhonda Byrne, the author of “The Secret” says that “The Science of Getting Rich” is was one of the books she was influenced by, she missed some crucial points about what Wallace Wattles had to say.

1. The Science of Getting Rich is practical.

It’s not about thinking positive thoughts, and it doesn’t matter if you are a positive person or a negative person. This book is about getting rich first. It’s about following specific principles. It’s not about dealing with your baggage or changing your mindset in a way that you become a more positive person.

2. This is not a study of metaphysics, and you don’t need to know how it works to make it work.

It’s like using a computer. You learn how to use a computer, but you don’t have to know what hardware or software is in order to make it work. You also don’t need to know the internal workings of a computer to learn how to operate your computer.

3. Faith is a crucial part of the process.

The Bible tells us in Hebrews 11:1 “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

]]>

In order to make the “Science of Getting Rich” work, we first have to have faith. We have to believe something is true before seeing it come true. God won’t violate our free will. If we don’t believe, if we don’t have faith first, then what we want can’t become a reality.

This goes against conventional wisdom which says “seeing is believiing.” Wattles says you must first see it in your mind before you see it in reality.

4. To understand the underlying philosophy of the “Science of Getting Rich” you may read the writers he recommends.

Although Wattles doesn’t mention it, Wattles was a minister. He was Christian. He studied philosophy, as well as the Hindu religion. Wattles doesn’t say that much of the universal human truth outlined in his book is in the Bible.

What he does say is that you don’t have to study philosophy or Hinduism and its influence on Western culture in order to understand what he is trying to say.

5. It’s more important to read “The Science of Getting Rich” than to read the philosophy behind it.

Although reading the philosophy will help you understand how Wattles arrived at his conclusions, doing what the book tells you to do is the real secret to finding true riches in life.

Wattles approaches riches from the point of view of the mind, body, and spirit. We must satisfy all three areas of our lives to enjoy the riches we attain. If any area of our lives is out of balance, it will affect our happiness and create obstacles to our enjoyment of life.

6. The “Science of Getting Rich” is scientific not metaphysical.

I mentioned metaphysics earlier. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality. Wattles isn’t concerned with this. Wattles is concerned with how the rules of the universe operate and how to use those rules to become rich.

Whereas metaphysics deals with theories about reality, the rules of the universe have been tested and are a fact. This brings Wattles into the realm of science, with proven rules and processes that work. By applying these rules and processes to our lives, we achieve measurable results.

7. Action is crucial to success.

If you don’t take action, nothing will happen. Wattles says to read the book and do exactly what it tells you to do. Ultimately, this book becomes a blueprint for achieving what you want.

A Historical Introduction to the Philosophy of Science (OPUS)

Designed for first-time readers of the subject, this stimulating introduction offers a historical exposition of differing views on the philosophy of science. With concise profiles presenting the major philosophers whose contributions are discussed in this book, Losee explores the long-argued questions raised by philosophers and scientists about the proper evaluation of science. This new edition incorporates contemporary developments in the discipline, including recent work on theory-appraisal, e

List Price: $ 50.00 Price: $ 30.45

The second section (of three) of the fourth part of my series on the philosophy of science. In this video I cover the rise of logical positivism. I describe the basic concepts and ideas that constitute logical positivism. Up next: the fall of logical positivism. My History and Philosophy of Science playlist (so far): www.youtube.com
Video Rating: 4 / 5

                                                        PHILOSOPHY                                                                                                                                                                                                                The field is concerned with the study of ultimate reality and the first principles of thinking, knowledge and truth. The term Philosophy cannot be given a precise definition that will command a general acceptance. Almost every philosopher would give his own definition of philosophy. To avoid this difficulty involved in defining philosophy some scholars may resort to tracing the etymological root meaning of the concept.                                    The term philosophy is derived from two Greek words namely “Philo” meaning love and “Sophia” meaning wisdom. A philosopher can therefore be said to be one that loves wisdom. But this definition is debatable due to the fact that the Greek word “Sophia” which is literally translated into English as “wisdom” had a much wider application than the modern English word; wisdom. Homer for example used “Sophia” to refer to the skill of a carpenter, while Herodotus used the verb “Philosophein” in the context in which is meant as the desire to find out. I used the word “Sophia” as the ability of every thing, and every one. For instance, I would say ‘the Sophia of love towards man is inevitable, be it good or of evil’. In a connection, it has been stated that “Philosophia” connotes the love of exerting ones curiosity or intelligence, but I would say this same word is and should be the love of exerting ones curiosity and a fixed borrowed intelligence. Be it that, the exerting of ones curiosity or intelligence doesn’t make him a philosopher, so does the ones love of wisdom never make him a philosopher. Using the term “fixed borrowed intelligence” rather than “ones intelligence” is because every man is born with an ability of possessing intelligence, even at his or her young age, and grows acquiring his and some borrowed intelligence from genetic traits, but even with these, man is still limited to intelligence. He could get as much as he expects, but never as much as he wishes. The tendency of man trying to know about unthinkable situations is no intelligence of its kind. The origin of God is a perfect example. But in some cases whereby man has answers to such questions is not from his intelligence, but from is ability to borrow intelligence from is creator which becomes fixed or permanent as his. Moses would never have written the book of Genesis if he was not motivated and inspired, which gave him the ability of borrowing intelligence from his creator. I see no philosophy as the love of wisdom, no matter the kind of wisdom. Every man on earth loves wisdom, not all acquires wisdom, doesn’t make them a philosopher. I would rather take the definition of K.A. Ojong who stated that “the exerting of ones curiosity or intelligence isn’t merely an aesthetic disposition, rather it is an exercise that yield knowledge which in some way is useful in the solution of problems” he ended up stating that “the concept of philosophy should be simply defined as the theoretical vision that guides human action in every field of human endeavor”. As a general definition, I do not accept the definition. I hereby define the term philosophy as not the love of wisdom, but the wisdom of love. The term love in my definition no longer refers to an enthusiasm, or a feeling, or the act of a Secadone (sex), but is referred and illustrates a person, this person is God. The solidarity of man towards the explanation of the origin of God hasn’t made much progress and this gives man not so much belief most especially philosophers, and makes man a certain extent ignorant about their creator and their God. Basically, the answering of such a question tends to be possible.                                                                          Love in a plain English could be an affection, enjoyment e.t.c, in other perspective love could be a and whatnot, but I say love is classified into differentiations, and because of the eccentricity and abstracts of some they do not have an opposite.                      My first class of love is called Consanguinity or a hood. This class of love is the strong bond a family share, this class of love involves a lot of care and honesty. The term care, I defined to be a counter shading arithmetic rhythm of enthusiasm.                                                The next class is called the Laepi. The term Laepi was used over a thousand years ago to describe a courtship, celebration towards one and other. Laepi is definitely said to be the relationship and love a thing has towards others. This word originated from the association of symbiosis. Whereby a very close relationship exists between two different species or living organisms, making both species benefit, or one benefit and the other is unaffected or harmed. An example is also how the avatars do most of things together, and the connection between one and other is essential. Major examples are the love we share for pets and animals, the love we share to friends and brethrens. The opposite of Laepi is fear. Not all opposite of love would mean hatred.                                                                                  Another class would be self being; this is the love we have for ourselves. Sometimes we tend to hate the type of life we live either due to the things we do, frustration, inferiority complex and fear. These have made lot of people commit atrocities against their self, e.g. suicide. The opposite of self being is self-hate.                                        The next class is said to be the most practiced, this class is called love-like. A love-like affair is absolutely different from Laepi, though they have things in common, but nevertheless, a love-like affair is also the love we have for one another, things like career, Painting, medicine, art, drawing and is part of your fun time, like watching movies, sports, play pranks, a trip, e.t.c. The love-like affair is also used for the love we have for beast of friends and people you care most about. The opposite of this is hatred.              A good class worth to be touched is a class I call Fancidom. This class is said to be a great admiration that could also lead to true love, at the same time such admiration can be mistaken to be love, this is assumed to fade away easily if not worked on. Major example of a Fancidom is a love at first sight, this type of love isn’t lost, and was very practiced during the time of old. Adam went into Fancidom immediately he arose and saw eve, some tribes prepares a marriage for two people who has never met, this people don’t start a marital life hating their selves, and they always start with a Fancidom. The opposite of this is lost. Lost is an imaginary work, which tends to have a personality added to it. When in lost, you only think about the physiognomy and sex life of a mate. You will tend to be only interested in romance or in taking the mate to bed.                                    Momentarily, man feels a sudden dart, that sting is heart and causes a bond between him and he or she, which he tends to admire and be of interest. This bond is set in him or her psychologically. Then we say he or she nurtures this bond as an emotion. This might have originated as a Fancidom, a love-like affair, Laepi, even from the hood. But whatsoever it originated from has gradually then eventually turned into a true love; I call this stage a kre- circle (Ken’s rapid emotion). According to astrology, this phase of love is started by a cupid (god of love), and compatible, being that a particular Zodiac sign is more or most compatible to another. A kre-circle is then defined as a lured oriented visual enthusiasm. With the word “enthusiasm” meaning a huge interest in your emotion that tends to draw you closer to whosoever this emotion favors, having care, affection and no fear. Getting to such a phase of love man might have experience the Fancidom, were lured by her physiognomy, or man might must have been lured through his or her character and speech. Basically, a visual is necessary, which increases the emotions, get him or her thinking when he or she is gone, dreaming and also increases the admiration, because in the looks beauty is found. Even a blind man, has a sharp instinct to figure out the way he or she might look, through the touches alone. The adaptation of the thoughts, vision, situation e.t.c, keeps the emotion going, this is known as the orientation. The opposite of this love isn’t hate, that’s why it is possible to have a love-hate relationship. The opposite of true love is lost. If a true love can be giving in return, a love affair can be formed, which in the process may lead to another aspect of love, this I call Secadone.                                                                                                                                          Secadone is a type of love, this love comprises of three parts. In the parts we will lost as the first phase of a Secadone. In every

: The Greek Philosopher, Aristotle(384-323 B.C.) remarked long ago that man is a social animal. Human beings are gregarious and so associate with their fellows in manifold forms of activity. The mutual relations that grow up between them are the very bonds of society. From various points of view these social relations can be made the subject-matter of a systematized study. The knowledge derived from each point of view, when properly co-ordinated forms a distinct science. The sciences which treat of man as a social and spiritual being and study his activities and operations as such, may be designated as social sciences.

: Social Sciences are to be distinguished from Natural Sciences. Man being a product of nature may be studied as such. The scientific knowledge of man as a mere physical being, without regard to his specific nature as a moral and social being, is the subject-matter of the natural science of human biology or physiology. The physical scientist is concerned, however, not so much with man as with natural phenomena. He has to explain the actual occurences in nature and this he does by establishing that, a certain event is the necessary consequence of another event. The physical scientist conceives phenomena of nature as united by an irrefrangible law of causality. By means of natural laws discovered by him a physical scientist is able to predicate what actually happens in a given conjunction of events.

: In the social sciences we are concerned with man as a moral or social being and have to arrange human acts according to the relation of means and purposes. The social scientist has to investigate what means should be adopted to answer certain social purposes and prescribe suitable rules of human conduct. Rules of human conduct enforced by political authority are laws. Jurisprudence as a social science addresses itself to those who study law as a system of knowledge. It treats of the activity of man in society from the point of view of its legal significance.

: The most general of the social sciences is sociology. It deals with the general principles underlying man’s thought and action at all stages of social development and in every relation of life. That branch of this science which treats of primitive man and his social institutions is designated Anthropology. Juristic science or Jurisprudence is chiefly, though not exclusively, concerned with man in a well-ordered social organisation, in an advanced stage of civilisation. Anthropological research, however, has shed much light on many juridical questions and has enabled us to penetrate to the origin of many legal institutions.

: Ethics is another social science. It expounds the principles and moral considerations which affect man’s conduct and which constitute his criterion of right and wrong. Closely allied to Ethics is Theology in which the principles inculcated are presented as immutable and eternal principles endowed with divine sanction and as matters of unquestioning belief and implicit obedience. Juridical science too is concerned with human conduct, but its principles are changeable, being man-made, and have no claim to divine sanction differing, however, from ethical precepts in that their enforcement may be compelled by human authority.

: Psychology is yet another social science. It treats of man’s mental states and processes, his emotions, thoughts and sensations. Jurisprudence is concerned with man’s external conduct and not with his thoughts and mental processes, but important branches of it, such as Penology, have benefitted much from the knowledge made available by psychological research.

: Social relations may be studied from the point of view of man’s activity in satisfying his wants, in producing and distributing wealth. This is the subject matter of the science of Economics. The intimate relationship between Economics and Jurisprudence was first noticed by Karl Marx (1818-1883) and the interpretation of jural relations in the light of economic factors is receiving the serious attention of jurists.

: Societies have developed compex organisations for their government. We may study the principles on which societies are governed and by which the relations between men and their governmental organisation should be regulated. The result of this study is the science of Politics. In a politically organised society there exist regulations, which may be called Laws, authoritatively laying down what men may or may not do. The study of the fundamental principles underlying these laws is the science of Jurisprudence. The closely allied science of Legislation deals with the principles by which the improvement of law may be effected.

: 

: Etymologically, as we have already seen, Jurisprudence means ‘Knowledge of Law’. The celebrated Roman Jurist, Ulpian (180-228) defined Jurisprudence as ‘The observation of things human and divine, the knowledge of the just and the unjust’. This definition is too broad and might well apply to religion, ethics or philosophy.

]]>

: Salmond defines Jurisprudence as the “Science of the first principles of the civil law”. Jurisprudence thus deals with a particular species of law, viz., civil law or law of the State. This kind of law consists of rules applied by courts in the administration of justice. It has characteristic features that distinguish it from law of every other kind. Of laws which govern the conduct of man in society we have three kinds: the laws of the theologian, the moralist and the jurist. It is with the jurists law only that Jurisprudence is concerned. The laws of the theologian or religious laws derive their authority from a divine or super human source. They are intended to regulate human conduct as well as beliefs and are enforced by spiritual rewards or penalties in the other world, that is, by utra mundane sanctions. The laws of the moralist are man-made. They exist in societies, the most primitive as well as the most civilised, and are enforced by no determinate authority save public opinion which visits the contravention of those ridicule social ostracism and the like uncertain penalties. The laws of the jurist are easily distinguishable from those of the theologian and the moralist. They regulate external human conduct only and not the inner beliefs, therein differing from the laws of the theologian. In their mature condition they exist in politically organised society, that is, a society which has an organised system of Government for its members who occupy a defined territory and over whom it can exercise an unlimited amount of control. They are enforced by courts or judicial tribunals of the society which apply a variety of sanctions ranging from capital punishment to a fine. The certainty of the sanctions and the existence of a dterminate authority for enforcement distinguish the jurist’s law from that of the moralist. It is the jurist’s law or, as Salmond calls it, civil law, that is the fit subject of Jurisprudence.

: Austin refers to jurisprudence as “the philosophy of positive law”. By Positive Law or Jus positivism, he means the law laid down by a political superior for controlling the conduct of those subject to his authority. “Positive Law” as used by Austin is thus identical with “Civil Law”. The term “Philosophy” used by Austin in describing Jurisprudence is somewhat misleading. Philosophy deals with the most general theories about things, human and divine, while Jurisprudence restricts itself to the general theory of man-made law.

: Sir. Thomas Erskine Holland has defined Jurisprudence as the “Formal Science of Positive Law”. A formal science, as distinguished from a material science, is one which deals not with concrete details but with the fundamental principles underlying them. Jurisprudence in this view should concern itself with the general portion of legal doctrine. It should deal with the general conceptions and pervading principles that constitute the basis of any mature system of law. In every system of law there are certain fundamental conceptions and broad principles which serve as the basis for the concrete details of the law. Notions of property, contract, possession, etc., are basic to any well-developed legal system. Jurisprudence separates these ideas and frames out a scheme of their purposes, methods and principles without going into the specific rules relating to them in any particular legal system. As Holland says: “Jurisprudence deals with the human relations which are governed by rules of law rather than with the material rules themselves”. Specific rules are the appropriate subject-matter of legal exposition or compilation rather than of juristic science. Since jurisprudence deals only in a “formal or abstract way with those relations of mankind which are generally recognised as having legal consequences”. Dr. Holland calls it a formal science.

: Prof. Gray in ‘The Nature and the Sources of the Law’ and Dr. Edward Jenks in ‘The New Jurisprudence’ have objected to the description of Jurisprudence as a formal scence. Prof. Gray remarks: ‘The relation of Juriisprudence to law depends not upon what law is treated, but how law is treated. A treatise on jurisprudence may go into the minutest particulars or be confined to the most general doctrines and in either case deserves its name; what is essential to it is that it should be an orderly, scientific treatise in which the subjects are duly classified and subordinated’. In this view a scientific treatise on any department of the law may be described as ‘Jurisprudence’. Such usage is by no means uncommon, but if we understand by jurisprudence ‘the science of law in general’, we must admit it to be a misapplicattion of this ponderous quadrisyllable. Prof. Gray’s criticism cannot, therefore, be