We have previously explored Reology and Quantum Mechanics, Sensory Physiology, and the Three Grand Illusions. What about the Philosophy of reality? Many great ideas and arguments have evolved over the last several thousand years to explain reality, from the ideas of Plato and Aristotle’s Metaphysics to the current Simulation Hypothesis credited to Hans Moravec (which several popular science fiction movies were based upon). While this is by no means an extensive review of Philosophy, there are some philosophical views worth noting.

 

What is especially fascinating is how some Philosophers, based upon their own logic, reasoning, and insights postulated the nature of reality without benefit of our present scientific knowledge and understanding of the laws of nature. For example, Democritus created the word Atomos (later Atom) to describe the fundamental component of the material world around 450 BCE. The idea of atoms actually dates back to 6th Century India. Al-Ghazali, a gifted Muslim Theologian and Philosopher (1058-1111 AD) had incredible insight into the instantaneous nature of reality and the limitations of mathematical proofs being valid only for what appears physical. Coincidentally Quantum Mechanics is struggling with mathematical proof of reality at the quantum level of existence where nothing is physical. He also postulated we could not exist if not for the constant involvement of God supporting reality. He believed the only things that are “real” are the atoms of Democritus and perception!

 

How did these and other ancient great thinkers arrive at their ideas and conclusions, when they had no scientific evidence to support their ideas? There doesn’t even seem to be any valid reason for these great thinkers to have had such ideas to begin with. Consider the philosophy of George Berkley (1685-1753).  He postulated that matter is an illusion; that all experience is 100% subjective. What we perceive as physically real is actually us perceiving what is in God’s Thoughts about His creation and makeup of our physically appearing experience. His reasoning is that we are incapable of experiencing anything in any way other then the idea of it. He was at the same time an empiricist, also believing knowledge is only gained through the physical senses. This of course appears to be a tremendous contradiction. If Berkley were alive today however, he would have what was not available to him in his day; ample evidence of just how close to correct he might actually have been.

 

The vast majority of Philosophers and their Hypotheses however are based upon assumptions that physical reality is in one way or another absolute, whether created by God or some other force of nature. The Cosmological and Teological Arguments argue for a “First Cause” and “Intelligent Design” respectively for existence, but neither disputes the validity of things physical in our reality. The Ontological Argument explains reality by attempting to prove the existence of God. Developed by Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) and expanded upon by Descartes (1596-1650), both men assume their physical identity and ability to perceive reality is absolute. How else can one conceive any idea without seeing themselves as central to that idea? Logic dictates we are each inseparable from what we experience, yet this in not possible Reologically. (See the previous articles in this series.)

]]>

 

Naturally, for every philosophical concept favoring one set of ideas, there is an opposing philosophy just as seemingly credible. To prove, contrary to popular opinion, that the oldest profession in the world is that of being a critic (expertise for which is considered everyone’s birthright), The Ontological Argument’s distracters included Gaunilo of Marmoutiers, David Hume, Mullah Sadra, Immanuel Kant, Bertrand Russell, and Richard Dawkins among others. Again, in each of these opposing views, the assumption is that physical reality is absolute; it is real, it exists, and it is an integral part of any explanation or understanding of reality. Who would dare dispute this? Reology.

 

The point of this article is how at least certain philosophies created by acknowledged credible thinkers actually alluded to what science has presently discovered about our existence and our perception of it. There would seem to be some inherent insight we might each posses that, if we are open to it despite how illogical it first seems or how contradictory it is to our accepted convictions, allows us a glimmer of truth.

 

Is it possible there is some latent or ignored awareness in our own psyche that contains knowledge of our perceptive awareness from creation? Would it not be something that would be reflected in our philosophy, such as the insights of the Philosophers above, or even in our art, mythology, and fiction? Again, there are no really valid reasons based either on the laws of nature or the academic convictions of those times for these men to have had such ideas and not be labeled mentally deficient. The same may apply to some of the impressionistic art created by man, and the folklore and mythology ancient cultures devised to explain reality. In these endeavors however, no one is expecting things to “make sense”. On this basis, concepts that fly in the face of science, while not taken seriously, do get accepted.  Is it unreasonable to consider all these were based on some insight of truth of the actual means creation came to be, despite how illogical they may seem?

 

How do we comprehend Biblical Scriptures that specifically state that God is spirit, and that He created this reality with His thoughts, His invisible attributes. Even Science has come to the point of discovering that matter is only physical appearing in the instant of observation. When no observation is occurring, matter exists as energy in every possible variation. Observation is what forces this energy to appear as matter in one specific state out of all its variables. Since we each see ourselves made of this matter, who observes us into existence then? If there is no such Observer, then how do always appear as ourselves when Science claims we exist in a countless variety of forms? Further, a concept called entanglement definitively shows that all the states of matter are aware of and coordinate with all other states of matter instantaneously. This “communication” occurs without any limitations. The biology of our sensory functions confirms this “instant” of observation is the only way we have any recognition of anything physical. We have direct evidence of this in every experience we have as physical beings in physical reality. It’s so obvious, it is ignored. It is ignored because it seems so totally absurd to the ideas we’ve developed about our reality, what it consists of, and how it all works.

 

We discover the ideas that describe physical laws and limitations. It is only natural to assume these discoveries are absolute, because they are provable and consistent. How could we legitimately consider that this reality and the laws that govern it are actually illusions instead?  Obviously mainstream scientific thinking can’t. Perhaps this should change however. Not in a manor indicative of any mysticism or new age type conjecture, but based on the ideas and evidence we have of an “unseen” reality that gives rise to our physical one as described by the Bible, numerous ancient to modern Philosophies, and now finally in Science itself through Quantum Mechanics.

 

http://www.therealitycode.com

 

I am going to start, by giving you a quick historical perspective, in so far as, in our world culture and writing link has begun to unravel, we cannot stop letters to continue. But they do like a progressive displacement.

If you look French through ages, you will quick understand that that knowledge is obviously connected to the conditions that are culturally ours. Well, we should be aware that it is what we recently said: “In the Middle Ages, there were French texts which were worth. There was, for example, the Roland’s song, etc.” Medieval university has completely ignored these French texts, even those produced by Rutebeuf or Villon. And, why did the Middle Age deliberately put aside these texts? Because this was not made to know, but, as Nietzsche very nicely said: it was the “gay science,” or the anti-science, the science used to protest, not recognized by the university: the science of that time, and until the XVI century, was Latin, French and these sciences were not more than a gay science.

When was the first displacement, which led the birth of “French literature,” effectuated? In the Renaissance, when the “Modern Times” were appearing with Rabelais. If Rabelais is ludicrous, “Gallic,” a pig and everything you want, it is because he was just rehabilitating the medieval gay science, but in French. It was a very great revolution: before, French texts had any status, from now on, they have one. Of course, there were a few years that it was being prepared. There was a pre literature, a “protohistory” literature, if I can say, represented by those that has been called the major Rhetoric men, which rhyme in French and who began to try to place their productions into the refined society. But Renaissance is a breath of oxygen; it is the French all fronts, the gay science carefully promoted.

But what has done this gay science promotion? At the beginning, it was liberation, with all the excesses that all liberation has: a real passion! However, little by little, the passion had decreased, and this was the birth of what we have called “literature,” which consisted to express even the most serious things in French, things of that time, the science of that time. But this was not the science of the university, which continued to be expressed in Latin, but, in some way, a science for university, which was passed in French. In these circumstances, you understand that texts such as those of Madam de La Fayette, the tragedies of Racine, or the comedies of Moliere were literature, as well as the speech of the Descartes’ method, the thoughts of Pascal or the spirit of the laws of Montesquieu. When we see Descartes’ writings included in the XVII° manuals of literature, we can see this: “What can the speech of the method do for literature?” Well, the answer is that because Descartes expressed his method in French. It was the same, with Pascal. There are certainly many illegible things on his writings, but it was the theology in French. Do you understand now that what makes good a tragedy of Racine, Descartes, Pascal or Montesquieu, was that these authors expressed in French a science that, since the middle age to the XVIII° siècle, would not interest anybody, because the science was written in Latin. We must see the “French literature,” as a phenomenon in the margin of university, and almost in conflict with it. If you want to see like this, university was the science of the “right,” and literature, the science of the “left””: this literature consisted to speak like a “decent man,” and not like an old grimoire reader, and this was not a science the same as the one of the university. You understand, in these circumstances, why the ancestors of our current “human sciences” are the psychological novelists, the classical theater, the moralists’ writers, etc. We see these texts as works of art. They had certainly this character-here too, but they had mainly this particular nature of represent a science in separation with the University of that time, and not only one that was worth as a university science but one that had hoped too well exceeds it.

When was the second displacement, which superintended the birth of our “human sciences,” effectuated? In the XIX°, that was the époque of Balzac and the realism. From the realistic movement, things are starting to evolve. Literature becomes a “literature of message.” From that time, who has worked with sociology for example? Zola. It is the thesis message, if I dare to say: novel to thesis, theater to thesis, written by philosophers (at university, at this time there was a long time that we haven’t think!)

And we are in the third displacement, this means: the culmination of thoughts (this means the end of literature), like Sartre: read what he tells in Situations of the “committed literature.” From the moment where literature has been committed, this is no more than a war weapon, this is no more than a gay science (it is even terribly sadder!) and this is no more literature, it became another thing (it belongs to you to name this as you want). “And after Sartre, you will ask me, what remains of the French literature?” The answer is: nothing. It is Byzantine; I mean the “new novel”, the “absurd theater,” the “new criticism.” Nothing! One day, someone asked me what is left of the French literature since the end of the second war (1945) to now. My first reaction was, precisely, to answer “nothing!” And then, after a carefully thought, I replied: “perhaps the words of Sartre, and the memories of Hadrian of Marguerite Yourcenar.” You must admit that this is not very much! You must conceive that French literature is dead, when the Science of men born.

This does not mean that it does not present any interest. Because, who spoke of the man, until the middle of the last century? Well, literature did. For the reason that since Bacon, it was born what he called the naturalist philosophy by the time of the Renaissance, and from this philosophy it comes the issues of our “nature sciences.” And to make a science of Man (with a capital letter!) this creature quasi divine, was excluded. Consequently, literature (history and philosophy included), has filled the historic role of conservatory of the man (“pre human sciences,” or, the gay science of Modern Times). People sometimes ask me this question: “How is it that, after having done your humanities studies, then you devoted to linguistics, and then to anthropology?” You understand that the only thing that I was interested in life was the answer to this question: What is a man (with a tiny letter)? Literature gave me the first answers, then I started to be engaged to what are the highest antiquities and the first real science of Man (thinking that language was natural in men), to be exact it is grammar, called “linguistic” when I was teaching, linguistics took me, logically, to anthropology. You see that there is, in my route, an intellectual and a perfect consistency. I close parenthesis here and I return to my business.

You understand that when somebody says to you, “I teach French literature” (from Rabelais to Sartre!) It became completely clichéd (it is good to be on museum) and, above all, how would you like to put all of these works in the same cart? This is ridiculous!

In the other hand, we must see that the texts we continue to call “literary” are a mass of determinisms. That is what I blame to my childhood teachers because instead of deconstruct the text, they took it globally (it was the famous “text explanation”), but it should have different specialists who would have treated those texts with different methods: there is, indeed, in the literary text the sociologist works, the psychoanalyst, the historian, the psychologist, the linguist, etc. In a single literary text there is a lot for what to devote a full year, the year which would be more informative as the exam, more or less intuitive of a series of “chosen pieces.” But it is true that such as education would require, of the professor in French Literature, a series of knowledge and a synthesis gift which is quite unusual! You can believe me, this is what I have tried to practice while I was a student (a superior student, it is true). But, believe me, I do not regret this: I am proud to believe, I am proud of passionate my students of License while explaining them… “The rabbit and the turtle”! I have never stopped to teach them to read, but wearing another glasses (already!) This is why I have always thought, and continue to believe that the question of programs and schedules have no interest (this is the kitchen ones.) The content, in a general way, have too little to do with the spirit formation. What really counts are the glasses, this means what some people call the method. That is why I think that literary texts cannot be successfully used in higher education.

]]>

Is it necessarily to remove the teaching of French Literature in our secondary education like some people, not without reason, want? I will answer: “no”, for the simple reason that, nobody (only a barbarian) is going to burn files. But if we do, we should also burn all our museums! But a museum, we can range that, we can range a few stops before to select certain oeuvres. I could take another example: the metropolitan. You go in the train and you browse the line, with the intention to stop in a few stations. Take again, these small tourist trains you make the “historic” tour of a city marking the time of stops before that or that monument. You all are going to laugh, but when I arrive in a city that I do not know; I borrow these small tourist trains and then I return to visit that or that monument which interested me the

Few centuries ago Laplace, Bacon and Descartes depicted the criterion of science and scientific method. They drew out for us how should we think scientifically.

They have established certain specific laws for science and scientific reasoning. Ever since science has advanced and progressed in a certain factual framework. This framework drew out the limits of accepting things as they are, investigating into the sensible. The intelligible is accepted, according o the scientific way of thinking, in as far as the hypotheses and theories can be proven.

Scientific thinking accepts things as true if they can be subject to verification. The absence of the criterion of verification annuls the validity of scientific truth. Everything, in order to be accepted, an entity for example, ought to be reduced to its last details, and every detail must be verified and proved, by repetition of phenomena. Then the details are reconstructed into a whole.

Such conclusions, reached by induction and deduction must be accepted by all scientific observer. The Newton law of gravity for example shows this clearly. The force of gravity found in the atom being part of its physical constants is absolutely necessary for the existence and structure of the universe, its moment, its dilution and its life manifestations.

]]>

This represents the edge razor perspective where gravity is applied in one particular aspect of our universe and without it nothing would ever exist.

Any modulation or change in its perspective and the whole fine tuning of the structure of the universe and its evolution would be catastrophic, and life would not be possible, maybe at a very simple bacteria level.

The edge of razor also is applicable to where we leave science and depart into the intelligible unseen, or the unobservable and non-verifiable. Science is all too well to explain how a phenomenon is made but it never ventures in why a phenomenon is made. It is limited to what our minds and senses can experience but does not go beyond to see whether or not a creating-cause is at the heart of it.

So if science deals with what is verifiable philosophy of the science deals with the non-verifiable. The non-verifiable is none sense for the scientist and hence he does not accept it as valid. Everything in the universe must be produced at the level of his laboratory, being subject to mathematical, physical and chemical as ell as biological proof. Metaphysical philosophy is not acceptable to scientific proof and hence is discarded by scientists.

In this, scientists miss the most important and most interesting part of their game: a creator-cause that made them and their subjects of investigation.

The short coming of all sciences is its collapse at the big bang singularity zero point!

Neither science, nor philosophy, nor metaphysics can produce a proof for God’s existence yet everything in science, philosophy and metaphysics indicate such God. Einstein, as a foremost scientist, believed in God as a mysterious mystic figure that is at the heart of the universe. Science and belief do not contradict one another!

 

 

 Philosophy is primarily the pursuit of wisdom; An academic discipline that seeks truth through reasoning rather than empiricism; A comprehensive system of belief; A view or outlook regarding fundamental principles underlying some domain. Thus philosophy is an amalgamate of two Greek words; “philier” meaning, the one who desires, and “sophia”, meaning, wisdom. Thus philosophy means the one who desires wisdom.  It is a means of gaining wisdom through an intellectual method that includes observation, questioning, research, argumentation and final conclusion. Although philosophy does not have any definite answers to questions, and answers keep changing with more research and scrutiny into the matter. Thus philosophy is the investigation of nature, the cause and effect relationship and the working of nature.

Philosophy aims to identify the causes and principles of Reality. It draws a line between appearance and reality and weighs the value of things with reference to these two principles. Philosophy, as considered by many people, is not a rambling of the ,ind or a hypothetical kind of a subject. It based on thorough intellectual investigation and conclusions drawn with effection argumentation. It not only focuses on events, but critical study of fundamental assumptions. Thus it is grounded in logical thinking, facts and reasoning.

 

WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY? Is a broad based question. We can understand it better if we analyse the different stages through which it has had to pass. The ancient, medieval, renaissance, early modern and late modern and the contemprary philosophy have existed through ages. Because in all ages people were curious about their beginning and end. The subjects under scrutiny have been rationalism, existentialism,( later followed by literary writers such as Tom Stoppard and Eugene Ionesco in 1950′s) skepticism, idealism, pragmatism etc. human nature and politics as well as morality have long remained the subjects of discussion. Thus, metaphysics, ethics, philosophy of language, religion and mind as well as epistemology are all parts of it.  These questions are indispensable to being alive.

 

Socrates is quoted to have said that,

 

 

“A life without the critical examination of the “self” is not worth living”

 

Philosophy through its fundamental methods of intellectual investigation forms a better understanding of the world around us. That comprises culture, politics, attitudes and ideas around us. Although philosophy is independent of religion and deems it out of its realm, but in many of its applications to the worldly life, religion comes into play and certain linkages can be formed between the two. Yet, philosophy operates at an individual level, thus it is not limited by religious dogma or certain belief system.

 

In philosophy we talk about metaphysical matters that cannot be handled by physical and natural sciences alone. Therefore we have subjects like social sciences and humanities that tackle existentialist issues. Philosophy too unearths matters of greater consequence to human life and existence in this world and the eventual end of human beings. Thus we identify the truth and Reality behind the created world.

 

Philosophers have had different ideas about everything. The more we read their philosophies, the more we know about our ignorance. The way Socrates said that the more I discover, the lesser I know. Some said that the world was made on water and keeps changing form. While others exemplifies and simply elaborated this.

 

Comprised of six basic pillars, philosophy deals with knowledge, Reality, truth, science, sense of good and bad as well as religion. All these ideas merge and converge at one single point known as the methodology. Thus these all help us explore the multifaceted realm of philosophical thought.  

 

Talking about religion and philosophy, the work of Allama Muhammad Iqbal known as “Reconstruction Of Religious Thought In Islam” has left a mark on the philosophers and historians alike, in discovering the inextricable connection between religious thought and its manifestation in philosophy and vice versa. Following is an extract that gives a clearer meaning to this interconnection.

 

 

 

  

 

 Broadly speaking religious life may be divided into three periods. These may be described as the periods of ‘Faith’, ‘Thought’, and ‘Discovery.’ In the first period religious life appears as a form of discipline which the individual or a whole people must accept as an unconditional command without any rational understanding of the ultimate meaning and purpose of that command. This attitude may be of great consequence in the social and political history of a people, but is not of much consequence in so far as the individual’s inner growth and expansion are concerned. Perfect submission to discipline is followed by a rational understanding of the discipline and the ultimate source of its authority. In this period religious life seeks its foundation in a kind of metaphysics – a logically consistent view of the world with God as a part of that view. In the third period metaphysics is displaced by psychology, and religious life develops the ambition to come into direct contact with the Ultimate Reality. It is here that religion becomes a matter of personal assimilation of life and power; and the individual achieves a free personality, not by releasing himself from the fetters of the law, but by discovering the ultimate source of the law within the depths of his own consciousness. As in the words of a Muslim Sufi – ‘no understanding of the Holy Book is possible until it is actually revealed to the believer just as it was revealed to the Prophet.’1 It is, then, in the sense of this last phase in the development of religious life that I use the word religion in the question that I now propose to raise. Religion in this sense is known by the unfortunate name of Mysticism, which is supposed to be a life-denying, fact-avoiding attitude of mind directly opposed to the radically empirical outlook of our times. Yet higher religion, which is only a search for a larger life, is essentially experience and recognized the necessity of experience as its foundation long before science learnt to do so. It is a genuine effort to clarify human consciousness, and is, as such, as critical of its level of experience as Naturalism that is of its own level.                                                                         

 

The aspect of knowledge refers to that of God, people, issues and the Universal implications of human actions. Reality is the key factor that distinguishes the material world from the real world. Thus we see a gaping difference between realism, idealism and materialism in today’s age. These ideas have transformed and manifested themselves in several different panoramas, and demand equally different approach on an individual level. Each individual thinker and philosopher has to discover these phenomena and come up an argument of personal development. Because what might be modernity for one will not hold the same meaning for the other.

 

Some people believe in scientific investigation to chart a belief system for themselves while other go by religious dogma. While philosophy in Russell’s work is

“A no man’s land between religion and science.”

Thus none of the two can command definite control over philosophical thought. The truth is that the knowledge of all is within us, it only needs to be identified, rehearsed through observation and investigation.   

 

50 Years of the Center for Philosophy & History of Science Creating the Disciplinary Space of Philosophy of Science: A History of the PSA Before 1970 by Heather Douglas, Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Tennessee. The Boston University Center for Philosophy & History of Science was founded in 1960 as an interdepartmental, inter-university forum on the nature of science. Hosted by the Center for Philosophy and History of Science on October 22, 2010.
Video Rating: 5 / 5

 

Masonry has been one of the major topics about which people have been curious and bewildered. That is because the organisation’s activities are kept confidential and thus its real philosophy and objections are subject to much controversy. In their public disclosures, freemasons extensively refer to “human love, tolerance, universal fraternity, the way to science and wisdom…”, concepts with an instant appeal to heart. However, freemasonry is a dark organisation with its atheist and even anti-religious features.

 

The most interesting aspect is that the concepts referred by freemasons in their public disclosures and the accusations against them regarding being “irreligious” do not have much difference in essence. At this stage, one might raise the question “Why?” After all, none of these concepts seem adverse; love, tolerance and other similar “Humanist” concepts do not seem to be anti-religious at first sight. Even, many people think these concepts are among the moral teachings religions introduce. However what truly matters is the content attributed to these concepts.

 

Freemasons often speak about fraternity, tolerance and universal peace.  They resort to the rhetoric that men are responsible for others. These are actually words rendering consolidation among people and thus there is nothing wrong with them. But what about a person’s responsibilities towards Allah?

 

This question discloses the actual face of the Masonic philosophy. That is because, the “love for human”, as referred by Masonic philosophy, is not the love sourced from the fact that human beings are the creations of Allah, as also approved by On the contrary, freemasons hold that all human beings came into existence as an end of an evolutionary process. This is, however, an ultimate expression of denial of Allah.

 

In brief, the philosophy defined as “humanism”, which is the backbone of freemasonry, solely foresees the love shown to people and not to Allah. This distorted philosophy is expressed in the official reports of Turkish Freemasonry lodges which was published in 1923:

 

(Selamet Mahfili- Third conference, page 51)

 

The definition of humanism, which lays the basis of freemasonry, indicates that this philosophy is of an anti-religious nature. Julian Huxley, the leader of the humanist movement in the 20th century founded a new religion, “Evolutionary Humanism” in the guidance of Darwin’s evolution theory. He stated the meaning rendered by this new religion as follows:

 

“When I use the word “humanist”, I mean that a human being is a natural creature such as a plant or an animal.  In other words, the human body, mind and soul have not been created by a supernatural power but created as a result of the evolution.  Therefore, the human being should not believe in the control nor the guide of a supernatural power but his sole existence and sole power.” (American Humanist Association Brochure)

 

John Dewey published a “Humanist Manifesto” in 1933. The manifesto underscored the idea that it was high time to eliminate divine religions and replace them with a new age of scientific improvement and social cooperation.

 

The second Manifesto published in 1973 explained all the threats against human kind. In this Manifesto, an outline is given regarding how this philosophy denies the existence of Allah;

 

Masonic ideology is also based on the same Humanistic principles.  All the warming words used in the ideology are of a deceptive nature when one truly looks into their meanings.  Once detached from the existence of Allah, words such as love, fraternity and peace will be meaningless. The sole existence of mankind is to worship Allah, as Allah states in the following verse:

 

If mankind will deny this duty and rebel against Allah, He might never attain salvation.

One could never truly love another unless he has faith in Allah.  This is why the term “human love”, which is frequently used in the Masonic ideology is entirely divorced from reality; all ideologies based on denial will strengthen the wicked side in people and will therefore give rise to bloodshed and torture. During the 20th century, due to the existence of irreligious ideologies such as communism and fascism, hundreds of millions of people suffered from genocide while billions were subjected to torture and pressure.  It is also important to remember that The French Revolution, a Freemason-supported movement, derived its strength from the motto  “Freedom, Equality and Fraternity” but ended up with tens of thousands of dead executed under guillotine.

 

As with the case of the concepts of “human love” interpreted within the framework of Humanism, “science” and “rationalism” are also taken up in anti-religious contexts by Freemasons.

 

For a Muslim, science is the tool to observe the universe Allah created and to understand the secrets underlying the way it functions.  Rational thinking, on the other hand, is a way of worship Allah commands in the Qur’an and a sign of faith. However, in the Masonic terminology, these concepts are used with totally different connotations. In the According to Masonic thinking, science is not a tool to analyse the beings created by Allah. On the contrary, having faith in science is being associated with being an atheist. Under the guise of science, hoaxes such as Darwinism are indoctrinated to societies. Masonic teaching wages a war against religion by means of the hoax of Darwinism, which is actually refuted by the science itself. In a journal published by Turkish Freemasons, the responsibility of Freemasons to make the propagation of non-religiousness under the mask of “science” is stated as follows:

  

Believing that this is the best and single way in terms of evolution, our main Masonic duty is not to deviate from positive sciences and wisdom, to propagate this belief among people and to raise the public in the guidance of sciences. The following words of Ernest Renan is significant:

 

The following statements of Lessing also support the same argument:

This is the Masonic approach to religion. 

 

 

Philosophy of Science (Text with Readings)

This new anthology, which integrates explanatory text, primary source readings, and case studies, provides students of any major (philosophy, science, or other) with an accessible and comprehensive introduction to the philosophy of science.   The anthology is organized around a unique “three-pronged” approach: the metaphysical (what), the epistemological (how), and the axiological (why).  The coverage of issues builds coherently and logically: from issues of scientific method to ethical

List Price: $ 86.60 Price: $ 70.00

Bryan Magee talks with Hilary Putnam about the philosophy of science. Section 1: www.youtube.com Section 2: www.youtube.com Section 3: www.youtube.com Section 4: www.youtube.com Section 5: www.youtube.com
Video Rating: 4 / 5

 

In 1986, Njoroge and Bennaars, published Philosophy and education in Africa; an introductory text for students of education. Since the publication of this textbook there has been an intellectual aridity in this area of educational philosophizing in Kenya. This is in spite of the said textbook being merely introductory or prolegomenon. More importantly is the model proposed and formulated in this textbook intended as a conceptual framework for developing an African philosophy of education (1986; 92). This model has remained un-attempted. 

My paper will argue in the affirmative while distinguishing should as a non-moral normative imperative and can as a question of ability. While indeed we should develop African philosophy of education this imperative remains unachievable until we have experts with requisite scholarly abilities.

 

Experts in philosophy of education are called educational philosophers. They should be trained in technical philosophy and educational sciences. The two disciplines must meet in one. To ‘meet in one,’ means that an educational philosopher should integrate both technical philosophy and educational sciences as an integral area of academic specialization. Educational philosopher is the middle term between technical philosophy and educational sciences. In other words one should have academic qualification as a technical philosopher and as a trained professional teacher.

 

Lack of this ‘meeting in one’ of the two areas is to blame for lack of resources in this area. It means persons who are lesser than the ideal are teaching this discipline. There are two types of categories of teachers of philosophy of education in Africa who are lesser than the ideal.

The generalists and the specialists, the former are professional educators without philosophical footing. The latter are academic philosophers without educational training. Both as Plato would say must be debarred and be made to give way for educational philosopher.

 

Generalists make philosophy of education be about general principles, aims and goals of education. The technical philosopher makes philosophy of education too abstract and unrelated to everyday concerns of professional teacher in schooling. The latter stand accused of arm chair speculation, the latter stands accused of generality.

Pedagogy of Sagacity stands on two feet – one foot is planted in Sage philosophy and the other in Pedagogy of Oppressed – both feet are rooted in the conceptual model for developing African philosophy of education as articulated by Njoroge and Bennaars (1986, 88-89).

Pedagogy of Sagacity or Sagacious Pedagogy is developed as an attempt to transcend the original impetus of the project of Sage philosophy of Nairobi School. As Gail Presbey states,

 

I suggest that the original impetus for starting the sage philosophy project – the defense against Euro-American skeptics who thought Africans incapable of philosophizing – has been outgrown. The present need for studies of African sages is to benefit from their wisdom, both in Africa and around the world. I also suggest that the title ‘sage’ has to be problematized. While there were good reasons to focus earlier on rural elders as overlooked wise philosophers, the emphasis now should be on admiring philosophical thought wherever it may be found-in women, youth, and urban Africans as well. In such a way, philosophy will be further relevant to people’s lives, and further light will be shed and shared regarding the lived experience in Africa.

Gail concludes by pointing out that

Whether, and in what way, sage philosophy continues and grows will be determined in part by the ideas of those who have the will to continue it; their works will help define the terms “sage” and “sage philosophy” in the future.

Pedagogy of Sagacity is contemplated here as a possible contribution to the development of Sage philosophy in terms of African philosophy of education. Njoroge and Bennaars (1986, 98) have formulated

 

…a basic framework within which philosophical thinking about African education must be located. Within this model we identified four distinct areas of concern each reflecting a specific function of Technical Philosophy, a specific approach in educational Philosophy and a specific trend in African Philosophy. These areas of concern are: the Ethnophilosophy of Education, the Phenomenology of African Education, the Critique of African Education and the Philosophical analysis of African Education.

 

The authors (1986, 88) intend this to be a normative ‘framework within which to locate educational philosophy in Africa.’ Thus they state that (1986, 89),

 

…we can now establish what ought to be the major features or concerns of an African Philosophy of Education; thus we may arrive at a MODEL that brings out the specific features of a truly African Philosophy of Education.

 

For this model to be realized two criteria or conditions must be fulfilled, namely technical and African. As regards the former criterion ‘an African Philosophy of Education, to be recognized as truly technical, (it) must display similar functions and approaches as the Technical Philosophy of Education’ (1986, 89). There are four functions of technical philosophy namely, critical, rational, phenomenological and speculative (1986, 23-24). Corresponding to these four functions respectively are four approaches to philosophy of education namely, implicational, existential, critical and analytical approaches (1986, 89).

 

With regard to the second criterion or condition African philosophy must be African that is ‘it must reflect the trends characteristic of philosophical thinking in Africa’ (1986, 89). Njoroge and Bennaars (1986, 83-89) have delineated four trends in African philosophy namely, ethno-philosophy, cultural philosophy, political philosophy and formal philosophy. Each of these trends is paired with a corresponding function from the four technical functions of philosophy. The resulting combinations are four distinct approaches to African philosophy of education these are; ethno-philosophy paired with speculative function results in implications approach in African philosophy of education; cultural philosophy paired with phenomenological function results in existential approach; political philosophy paired with critical function results in critical approach; and lastly formal philosophy paired with analytical function results in analytical approach (1986, 89).

We can therefore identify ‘four major areas of concern, which may be called the basis … of a truly African Philosophy of Education.’ These are ethno-philosophy of education; phenomenology of African education; critique of African education; and philosophical analysis of African education.[1] In Aristotelian causality technical functions of philosophy are the formal causes while trends in African philosophy are the material causes. Formal and material causes are co-constitutive principles of substantial being, the substance of African philosophy of education is possible within the framework of Njoroge and Bennaars. As Wittgenstein states (1981;2.14) ‘what constitutes a picture is that its elements are related to one another in a determinate way,’ this is ‘the pictorial form’ of reality (2.15). In a pictorial form of reality ‘a picture … attached … to reality … reaches right out to it’ so that the picture is the measure of what reality should be. (2.1521). The framework of Njoroge and Bennars is the measure of what is to be regarded as African philosophy of education.

 

The model proposed by Njoroge and Bennaars has not yet been worked out in practice. This could be due to lack of experts who are ‘extremely rare’ (1986;78) with the right combinations namely, training in technical philosophy and training as professional educators (B.Ed). Further still development of African educational philosophy requires experts with knowledge and skill in African philosophy. The requirement that African philosophers of educators be doubled edged experts in technical philosophy and professional educators (1986; 77-80) is akin to Plato’s (Republic Book, V. 473d) observation that

Cities will have no respite from evil … unless philosophers rule as kings in the cities, or those whom we now call kings and rulers genuinely and adequately study philosophy, until, that is, political power and philosophy coalesce, and the various natures of those who now pursue the one to the exclusion of the other are forcibly debarred from doing so. Otherwise the city we have been describing will never grow into a possibility or see the light of day.

To paraphrase Plato in the framework of Njoroge – Bennaars we can state that: Kenya will have no African philosophy of education unless philosophers teach and research in educational foundations, or those who teach philosophy of education genuinely and adequately study philosophy; until, that is, technical philosophy and educational sciences coalesce in African educational philosophers and the various scholars who now pursue one to the exclusion of the other are forcibly debarred from meddling in this area. Otherwise the proposed model of African philosophy of education will never develop into a possibility or see the light of day. Plato in the cited place provides a middle term which logically links technical philosophy and educational sciences in philosophy of education in Africa. The middle term is a technical African philosopher who is also a professional philosopher i.e. a scholar

Today’s era predominates with a high intellect. Every aspect of our life is fully influenced by the modern scientific principle of proof and sound logic. As a result world humanity requires both proof and logic as far as philosophy is concerned too. Only after testing it thus will they deign to accept its usefulness. Truth and Reality will be imbibed only after it is tested via logic and scientific proof. This insistence of ‘proof’ has greatly challenged the very existence of Spiritual Sciences. Man’s glory and social arrangement has its roots in high leveled faith that encompasses both sacred ideals and principles. Sheer intellectualism with its emphasis on direct proof has truly harmed man’s faith potential. Logic and proof says that faith is ‘blind’. Hence today’s need of the hour is to test Spiritual Values like faith, trust, ideals etc on the basis of scientific logic and principles along with its utility and proof of its very existence. For this those very scientific research need to be deployed which are today being used by Modern Material Science.

Today everyone fully accepts the importance of Material Science. Its utility and importance have always remained in vogue because it tests itself on the basis of logic, experimentation and research. In addition to this it never wavers when it is required to give up beliefs that are not scientifically sound and rational. Of course it is a well known fact that scientific findings do tend to change every now and then. If for the first time some proof is found it is not necessary that it will remain eternally correct. This is because when newer discoveries and inventions unfold the previous conclusions are renounced. Thus scientific findings at a particular point in time are accepted as true only until new findings later disprove their veracity. Hence the previous finding henceforth does not hold true as it did previously. It is this yearning for truth that helps Modern Science retain its importance and utility.

The attainments of Spiritual Science are infinitely more than those of Material Science. Hence its importance too is n-fold more than modern science. Thus it is most required that greater attention be paid to it. Since in ancient times Spiritual Science was given a lot of importance man’s overall glory too reached high peaks. But later the more man’s soul force weakened the more he headed towards both a material and spiritual degradation. Hence if we wish to herald in a radiant future in the 21st century optimum usage of soul principles are the need of the hour. Thus keeping this in mind it is most required that Spiritual Sciences be researched in a modern scientific manner and place them in front of all so as to imbibe them in their pristine purity.

It is Spiritual Philosophy that is the foundation stone of human thought/viewpoint. It is the very life force of spirituality. Man’s wholesome thinking or otherwise is totally dependent on the beliefs of social norm that are in vogue at a particular time. The basis of high leveled thought flow during the Rishi Era was Spiritual Philosophy that was in vogue. It ceaselessly inspired human beings to strive for supremacy as far as wholesome thought and activity was concerned. As a result heavenly situations manifested and divinely human beings took birth. Serious questions regarding the soul, God’s existence, God’s glory, fruits of ones past/present/future actions, creation of this world and the aim behind it can only be answered by Spiritual Philosophy.

During varying times and circumstances great Rishis of yore gave us philosophical tenets to suit those times and requirements. As long as the Rishi Yuga existed, this tradition continued thus creating heavenly situations for world beings. But later during the Middle Age a fairly long time span of darkness and gloom prevailed. Since in this dark period unruliness and anarchy took over philosophy, righteousness and spirituality were totally ignored by one and all. During such dire times it is most required that one is alert enough to gauge what is apt and what is not apt. Thus we should develop an intellect which leans towards research so as to understand what is true and what is its day to day usefulness.

Ancient and very useful spiritual principles need to be put forth to world humanity in such a way wherein there remains no room for doubt as far as its utility and veracity is concerned especially in today’s Jet Age.

Great Rishis elucidated various behavioral depending on each circumstance and its requirement. Smritis clearly depict such differences in norms laid down. The different norms laid down by great seers during various points in world history were not because there was hatred, differences etc amongst these seers. In fact they were forced to lay down different social norms simply because the requirements during various phases of world history required specific norms for each and every phase.

The basis of past progress, analysis of downfall and goal setting for the future is an intellect which yearns for facts and reality. In spiritual parlance it is called Ritambhara. According to Brahman scriptures this is what Prajapati says while elucidating Divine Wisdom or Self Realization: When during cosmic annihilation (Pralaya) everything in this world is destroyed at that time too one Rishi remains alive to reveal the truth. His name is ‘Tarka’. Over here Tarka is not some dry and superficial argument but it is a divine intellect full of profound wisdom. It is with its help that one can attain Self Realization. An intellect that is open to accept truth shies away from prejudiced fanatical beliefs. The wheel of time is such that situations faced by us all are bound to change again and again. And it is because of this that the methods of solving various problems too change when situations change. No doubt we revere saints and seers of the past and the spiritual endeavors demarcated by them. And yet it is not necessary that these endeavors can help in today’s times since situations of those times and today differ a great deal. Hence it is most required that spiritual practices of those times that can be used today be imbibed wholeheartedly and renounce those which are not suitable for modern times (but were apt for past times).

As mentioned previously in the Middle Age of darkness and ignorance a lot of distortions plagued the spiritual arena. Such disparity was seen in the principles, methods and social execution of Spiritual Philosophy that even a common thinking intellect would refuse to trust its veracity and utility. In the dark Middle Age sacred scriptures got ‘adulterated’ so as to say. This resulted in the degradation of the lives of so called religious and spiritual “leaders”. Thus majority of world humanity rightly refused to trust them and follow in their footsteps.

There was a time many centuries back when Rishis’ speech and the sacred gospel of our scriptures were thought to be beyond doubt. Today because intellectualism and logic/proof is the in thing, scriptural precepts will not be gulped down solely on the basis of faith. The philosophy of faith can only be reinstated today on the firm foundation of its utility, proof and veracity. Today the need of the hour is that the principles and day to day execution of Spiritual Science be put forth in a form that is wholesome and acceptable to this present generation of the Computer Age. Those very spiritual tenets faithfully and wholeheartedly imbibed by seers of yore must be presented today in a manner that is acceptable to the highly intellectual human beings of modern times. The gist of the teachings of great thinkers and sages of ancient times is unanimous wherein human beings love each other selflessly, imbibe the wealth of sacred thinking, grow the flowers of wholesome actions and develop a great character. How will al this happen? The answer is one without a second and that is faith towards Spiritual Sciences be imbibed deeply in ones psyche.

For this a 2-pronged effort has been designed wherein distortions that have entered Spiritual Science are being rooted out and to prove with sound scientific arguments the futility to pursue materialism that does not have a firm substratum of spiritual values. For this in the gigantic library of the Brahmavarchas Research Institute’s highly experienced scholars are re-analyzing every religious scripture in a scientific manner. Every scripture is scrutinized minutely for its useful tenets and without any prejudice or bias renounce all precepts that are not useful/applicable in today’s 21st century. We must have deep faith that just as when the mythological churning of the ocean took place and 14 jewels emerged from it so too our scientific research will definitely unearth those spiritual jewels that will be acceptable the world over.

It is also the need of the hour to combat the rat race like material pursuits (one could say it is a by product of Modern Science) devoid of spiritual and human values. The very foundation of ethics has been shattered because of laying emphasis solely on direct visible proof and material utility. Die hard materialists refuse to accept the existence of the soul and God. As a result the attitude of ‘why even deign to think about good deeds/merits, spiritual goals, renunciation, sacrifice etc’? Charvak said: Rinam Kritvaa Gridham Pibait. It means keep borrowing money and thus eat, drink and be merry. He also said: Yena Kena Prakaarena, Yaavajjeevait Sukham Jeevait. It means beg, borrow or steal and continue to live a life of sense merriment. If one looks around and analyzes the life style of the highly materialistic intellectual class it certainly appears as though they are

According to Oxford Dictionary, history is “the study of past events.” It is important that the citizens of a country have knowledge of the important past events that have taken place in the country. In the same vein every student of philosophy is expected not only to have knowledge of the history of philosophy but a first class knowledge of it, if he or she desires to become an outstanding philosopher. As a division of studies, the History of Philosophy tries to investigate the past of men in their rational venture. According to William Turner the History of Philosophy is “the exposition of philosophical opinions and of systems and schools of philosophy.” The History of Philosophy does not only deal with the positions, systems and schools of philosophy, but also gives considerations to the lives of philosophers, the common link of the systems and schools of thought, moreover, it also makes an effort to trace the route of philosophical progression and retrogression.

The general conception, even among professional philosophers, is that Greece is the cradle of philosophy. Therefore, almost all the available histories of philosophy, and philosophers themselves, agree that the so-called Pre-Socratics were the first or earliest philosophers, at least, in the Western world. Unlike the early thinkers of India and China, the Pre-Socratics did not think exegetically out of ancient scriptures or poems, but they spoke “as disrespectfully of the greatest poets they did to each other.” The most excellent reason for this popular conception is that first known philosophers in history lived among the Greeks. According to some authors in history of philosophy, the pre- Socratics were Greeks. Indeed, no one has ever succeeded in writing a complete history of philosophy; for philosophy like the works of arts, are intensely personal things. Our aim is to attempt a justification on why Greece may not necessarily be the cradle of philosophy.

Now, in dealing with ancient philosophy, we are wholly confined to written records, which are usually fragmentary and are often second handed unreliable and doubtful information. Apart from lack of first hand information, the greatest obstacle we have to surmount is the mass of scholastic explanations and dogmas, which favour the Greek origin of philosophy found in the available histories of philosophy. To clear that away is perhaps the greatest service that can be rendered to philosophy. However, all we intend to do is to point out the way, and warn others off tracks that have already been confirmed to lead nowhere.

The aim of this paper therefore is to trace the origin of philosophy. To achieve this aim, we shall proceed first by defining the term philosophy. Then, we shall give a consideration to the origin of civilization and science. After that, we shall highlight the positions of some philosophers who maintained that philosophy began with the Greeks and those who are of the view that that philosophy originated outside Greece.  From there, we shall proceed to evaluate our work and finally draw up a conclusion.

The word philosophy is generally believed to be of Greek origin (?), precisely a combination of the two Greek words that goes thus, ‘philo’ meaning love and ‘sophia’ meaning wisdom. Since it is almost generally accepted that the word philosophy is etymologically of Greek origin, then, it is easy for beginners in the study of philosophy to conclude that philosophy has its origin in Greece and it began with the Greeks. In the study of philosophy, the beginners of this study even before knowing what philosophy is all about, are already acquainted with the names of Greek philosophers like Thales, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. While some people maintained that Greece is the cradle of philosophy, others do not.

In the first place philosophy is not mythology. According to Pythagoras (0), whose scientific studies had an enormous influence on the development of philosophy, the word philosophy means the love of wisdom. To philosophize then is to pursue wisdom through a consistent effort of reflection, which in itself entails definite ethical requirements; for indeed no man can philosophize and indulge in such ways of life as are incompatible with philosophical thinking. By the word “philosophy”, we mean a critical science of being in general. This does not only involve the initial knowledge of existent, common to all men and beginning from infancy, but a mature and organic knowledge with a method surpassing those of the other sciences (Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry and Biology) in intensity and comprehension. Philosophy is not only limited to the quantity of beings as in mathematics, or to mass and movements of beings as in physics, or to life and nature as in Biological sciences; but a constant effort to acquire wisdom.

Let us try to look at some of the numerous attempts made to define Philosophy. Hence, we shall be looking at Philosophy in the loose sense and philosophy in the strict sense.

Here, philosophy can be said to be an individual’s belief or approach to the issues of life, hence, various people have their various life philosophies depending on the way individuals view things. This definition is very much in line with the etymological conception of the term.

The etymology of the term philosophy belongs to its conception in the loose sense. Most philosophers are of the opinion that the word philosophy is of Greek origin, that is, from the two Greek words that go thus: ‘philo’ which means love, and ‘sophia’ which means wisdom. From this we can infer that philosophy is the love of wisdom. According to its classical definition, “wisdom is the knowledge of the first principles and the first causes. It includes the knowledge of many other things as well. But in so far as one is using his wisdom, a philosopher knows all the rest, or at least, knowledge of things related to the first principles and the first causes. Thus every time one succeeds in substituting some principles and causes of knowledge for knowledge itself, one is already on his way to finding wisdom, at least in part. The earliest known philosophers are philosophers in this sense. Philosophy as love of wisdom is a reflective activity that searches for answers to the basic questions that arise in men’s hearts as they ponder on human experience or reality in general. Philosophy, therefore, as Aristotle conceived it, begins from wonder, for wonder is the feeling of the philosophers.  When, for instance, man looks at himself or the world in which he lives, he is filled with wonder and many questions arise in his mind. When he ponders on these questions in an attempt to find rational answers to them, he is said to be philosophizing.   To this extent, we can infer that philosophizing begins with and is inherent in our daily activities or experiences such as eating or drinking; birth or growth; and death or decay to mention but a few. An experience like drinking is sufficient enough to make us philosophize. For instance, one may ask the following questions in the course of drinking, what should I drink? What quantity of drink should I take? Irrational beings are incapable of asking such questions. Perhaps, such questions are asked because what we drink and the quantity of drink we take can affect the pleasure we derive from drinking. For instance, if one drinks to the point of getting intoxicated, the purpose of drinking (happiness) will be defeated. Philosophizing as seen in the case of drinking above is not only limited to drinking, it is also true of other realities. From the above illustration we can infer that all human beings are philosophers in the loosed sense of the word and as a matter of fact, there is no age without philosophy even prior to the development of Greek thought, since philosophy began from wonder and man has always wondered about the things around him and human experience.

In the strict sense, philosophy does not have a generally accepted definition. There are as many definitions of the term as there are many philosophers. A novice who may ask the question, “What is philosophy?” for the first time would be struck with astonishment to discover that the definition of philosophy is not even agreed upon by those who are specialist in the discipline. For instance, if one is to pick ten different philosophers from ten different schools of philosophy and ask them what philosophy is, one is likely to have a record of ten different answers. The following definitions are the conceptions of what philosophy is by different philosophers:

Jacques Maritain conceives of philosophy as a wisdom which is characterized with knowing, this knowledge must be known with assurance. Still according to him, one must give reasons why one maintains that something is this and not otherwise. However, these reasons must command the assent of the intellect.

Meanwhile, Aristotle regards philosophy as the awareness of the truth

Epicurus’ view about the term philosophy is that it is an occupation which guarantees happiness through the means of conversation and exchange of views.

Although philosophy does not have a universally accepted definition, it must however be “critical, rigorous, open to criticism and as a truth it must be tentative and acceptable only on the basis of clear evidential support.”Thus, for a philosopher to be critical means that his position must have a rational basis. A philosopher being rigorous means that his position must have being carefully and well thought out. No matter how wonderful a philosophical thought is, such a thought must only be held tentatively and only on the basis of clear evidential proof, that is, it must be held only for as long as there are no contrary evidences negating the position. This particular

Advaita will be the philosophy of Oneness, or Monism.

Dvaita means dualism, so Advaita signifies Non-dualism, or Oneness. It is certainly one of the 3 schools of Vedanta Philosophy.

Vedanta Philosophy of Hinduism is determined by the Upanishads, or Vedantas. Vedantas are so known as simply because these are identified on the finish of your Vedic guides (anta=end). The Vedanta philosophy is the oldest religious philosophy on earth, being around 5000 years previous, from about 3000 BCE.

You’ll find three schools of Vedanta philosophy:

Dvaita or Dualism.
Vishista-Dvaita or certified monism
Advaita or Monism.

In Advaita, all is mentioned to become One, there isn’t any aside from this Oneness. This Oneness is named Brahman. All that exists, both with out, the Object, and inside, the Subject, is but Brahman. There’s no other existence aside from Brahman.

Taking into consideration the object 1st, in Advaita, it can be deemed the exterior globe has no fact of its very own. Allow us take into account a candle that’s burning and alterations into burnt wax, smoke, ashes and gives off power as heat and light. Now in this shifting of your candle from one kind to one more, we know that it was make a difference from the kind of molecules and power which was frequent. It had been this matter-energy which existed initial since the candle, then as smoke, ashes and dissipated vitality. For your kinds like candle, ashes, etc. it’s the matter-energy that’s the truth behind these different forms. Analyzing more, we know from modern-day science that make any difference and energy are equivalent, from the equation E=MC2. Make any difference and vitality are like two ends of a spectrum, two types of something much more standard. For this reason there should be some thing that’s the absolute for your types of make a difference and power also. In this way, there must be something which is probably the most simple truth behind all this everchanging phenomena of the planet.

Yet again, we understand that time-space is connected to matter-energy, and we also know that time-space has only relative actuality. Hence this one thing which varieties the absolute fact of all phenomena should be something which is past time-space.

This Absolute, which forms the basis of all of the phenomena of this globe, is the only long term truth on the earth.

Now, thinking about the topic, our personal consciousness, Advaita says that if we similarly analyze our consciousness, we’ll discover that we can’t uncover any absolute actuality in the specific consciousness alone. Our individual consciousness is made up of a constant flow of thoughts, sensations, etc. none of which are in on their own permanent. But within this ceaseless flow of person consciousness, there exists the Absolute which holds it jointly. The thoughts and sensations by themselves would not stand together, it really is this Absolute which supports it and close to which our person consciousness wraps itself, so to say.

Then Advaita helps make the final conclusion. There might be only one Absolute over and above this universe, along with the Absolute which lies as the base of our consciousness will be the identical Absolute which lies since the base of the phenomena of your universe.

It is this Absolute that’s known as Brahman.

Brahman may be the assistance of this entire universe, and the help of our consciousness also. All phenomena and our consciousness have only impermanent, relative actuality and it is only Brahman that’s Real.

Therefore this means that our’I’ is the Absolute Brahman alone. It can be a mistake for us to contemplate our identification, our’I’ to be our puny personal consciousness. We are actually this Absolute Brahman all along. We need only to break out of the grip of our thoughts and sensations and then we are going to break out of identifying ourselves as our individual consciousness and understand that actually we’re nothing at all aside from Absolute Brahman. That is our true identity, and this can be what we’ve got constantly been.

It is this spiritual awakening that’s our objective in Advaita Vedanta.

P.J. Mazumdar could be the author with the bestselling guide,” The Circle of Fire – the Metaphysics of Yoga.” To examine some excerpts in the book and associated content articles on Advaita and spiritual awakening, you are able to visit the book’s website: The Circle of Fire.

The Circle of Fire” is often a book on Advaita Vedanta and Yoga which solutions to the get in touch with of modern times in conforming to each science and logic. The prime challenge from the book is always to existing Advaita Vedanta as being a philosophy for the existing occasions, to show how modern day science in reality supports and strengthens Advaita, and in the exact same time to present that much more esoteric ideas like Reincarnation are not essential for that core of Advaita.

As Alan Jacobs, President Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK says in his review,”I am confident that this guide will serve as an indispensable manual for all these earnest readers keen to comply with and realize the vital wisdom with the significant Upanashadic Truths, even now relevant more than ever for your modern-day gentleman and woman.”

Philosophy of Science: An Historical Anthology (Blackwell Philosophy Anthologies)

By combining excerpts from key historical writings with commentary by experts, Philosophy of Science: An Historical Anthology provides a comprehensive history of the philosophy of science from ancient to modern times.

Provides a comprehensive history of the philosophy of science, from antiquity up to the 20th century
Includes extensive commentary by scholars putting the selected writings in historical context and pointing out their interconnections
Covers areas rarely seen in philos

List Price: $ 59.95 Price: $ 37.25

There was so much commotion caused with two of my videos that I thought I’d dedicate a few to setting the record straight. Sit back, and let’s talk about the Philosophy of Science.
Video Rating: 4 / 5

At a point in history that is saturated with self help books, get rich gimmicks, and exercise infomercials, it is no wonder that Budokon yoga purposed to emerge in our culture. Budokon yoga is philosophy, science, and art for the spirit, body, and soul. It’s literal Japanese translation is  “ way of the spirit warrior’ and it represents a conscious decision to no longer chose “more of the same”.  It is said, “In the beginner’s mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert’s there are few”. The merging of yogic and martial movements combined with limbic re-integration techniques enables the human species to engage in health and wellness not known since the human movement potential era. It far exceeds the sum total of components needed for fitness and enables the whole person to awaken to a new potential organically. It has been heralded as “the most intelligent practice on the planet”; it is indeed a functional revolution.

 

So much time and energy is exhausted plotting how to look, feel, and get better. The emphasis is on the quantity and not the quality, on doing something instead of being something, as if there is a boundary separating the thought, the word, and the action. “How much can I shove into my day because I am busy getting somewhere”, is how most of us live our lives, and it is said that, “the way we do anything is the way we do everything.” The structural and functional differential states that quanta filters into sensation, then e-motion, into belief, and finally into expression, in other words our perception of “other” or our circumstances predicate our movement. When the pressure starts to mount in life or on the mat how do we keep the drama or the functional differential at bay? What if there was a way to approach all of our personal ideals as if they were already available in the form of latent potential waiting to be unearthed? Budokon is a system of somatic awareness that presents itself in the yogic, martial, and living arts with a premise of self-accountability, patience, and mastery by practicing just to practice. Weight loss, tone body, clear mind, better coordination, increased strength are not goals of Budokon, they are benefits. The nervous system that governs the functional differential does not normally change quickly but progressively by diligent, attentive practice it changes slowly and subtlety.  Practice just to practice. It encompasses the components of nutrition, fitness, health and wellness desired by our culture and ultimately navigates each person to a more authentic expression, a functional evolution.

 

The movement science of this practice is purposed to cultivate bio-mechanic potentials that are consistent with structural and functional ideals. What distinguishes Budokon yoga movement from all other yogic or martial systems is its recognition and subsequent utilization of the spinal engine. The spinal engine theory suggests that all biomechanical movement, walking, running, yoga, etc… originates in the small muscles of the spine that initiate movement. The origin and insertion of these tissues initiate and accommodate movement in the sagital, frontal, and transverse planes, thus when the activation for movement begins it expresses from the spine, through the core, into the appendicular. Since we are designed to live in a dynamic, fluid filled body it makes perfect sense that a practice cultivate uninhibited movement in all three planes with flexion-extension, side bend, and rotation. Movement in life is the sum total of all three primary planes and associated movements in these planes operating synergistically, so our practice is more fruitful if it acknowledges these potentials. Budokon also provides a dynamic approach to medial/internal and lateral/external rotation of the pelvic and shoulder girdles, with core activation enabling the spinal engine to transmission into full expression extending in to an open or closed kinetic chain. The kinetic chain is an energetic potential that transmissions from the spine, core, or Mu into the appendicular or limbs of the body. If a limb is grounded the chain is closed, sending system wide signals of stabilization and containment and if a limb is not grounded but extended with direction into infinity it is open. The nervous system is designed to operate in terms of survival and predictability and activation can be voluntary or involuntary. The limbic brain is where the body houses these maps of movement predictability for survival and as we discussed earlier its change is slow and subtle or sub-cortical. These changes happen when they are discovered not discussed so it seems that when one allows the opportunity to play with movement as an exploration into something new and unfamiliar as apposed to analyzing and repeating something taught, that spontaneous change can happen. Limbic re-integration is a vital component to Budokon yoga that enables each individual to play and explore bio-mechanic potentials buried under the yoke of cultural and social stigmas. Gorilla, kimodo dragon, bull frog, panther, lion, crocodile, spinning monkey, and many others can provide a gateway to a new movement potential by offering the opportunity to play with homologous, homo-lateral, and contra-lateral movements.

 

Philosophy plus science equals art. The artistic value of Budokon yoga emerges through movements like rolling wave, floating frog, dancing dog, flying warrior and dancing lion. Budokon is a yogic and martial system teaching basic movements that can augment into a more advanced expression by making movement fun, exploratory, and efficient. The merging of the yogic and martial movements into a practice is a way for complete new comers to engage in learning and exploring basic stand up and ground budo with out the threat of failure. Art is adaptation and although there is form that is essential to efficiency of movement, it is the exploration of innovating the form that creates the fertile ground for artistic value. Budokon yoga instructors are specific to teaching form while allowing the opportunity to play, explore, and innovate. When movement is sloppy and unrefined it is not innovation it is laziness, it is the predictable pattern of movement that is no longer desired and Budokon yoga will not enable more of the same. It will provide the framework for a new potential and allow each individual to create a different and more satisfying option.

 

 

There is so much more that can be written in an attempt to discuss Budokon yoga and its life altering benefits, but again true change can not be discussed it has to be experienced. To list and identify all of the components of Budokon and the practice would create a lengthy article and it is not the focus of this article to overwhelm the reader with everything but just enough of the philosophy, science and art so that an individual can make an informed decision to no longer chose more of the same.

 

Budokon yoga and the Certified Rolfing Ten Series have the ability to reduce pain and release tension in the connective and myofascial tissue of the body associated with TMJ, CTS, RLS, Fibromyalgia, Sciatica, Fascitis, Bunions, Scoliosis, and Cerebral Palsy. Fascial asymmetries can cause foot, leg, knee, hip, back, shoulder, neck, arm, hand, and head pain; integration therapy is necessary. Orthopedic, Chiropractic, Physical, and Massage Therapist recognize Rolfing and Rolf Movement as premium pain management utilizing Structural, Functional, and Postural Integration. Before and after photo’s of some of my clients proven results available only on my website.