|
Post by maina on Apr 7, 2006 8:03:36 GMT 3
Death Philosophy I was surpassingly compelled to express my humble views here based on comments and analyses of various writers within the Kenyan realm (like the scandal sheets and also right here in Jukwaa), who are forcefully and incautiously trying to debunk the notion of a personal faith-based approach to life and politics at a time of increasing social pressure and worriment that is of course actuated and attributable to the onrushing general elections! This construction is therefore a personal interpretation of the rationale and argument behind the convictions of the angst that is manifestly explicated by the customary mwananchi both overtly (like the journalists and accusers in the media), and vaguely and deceitfully (like right here in Jukwaa whereby some folks construct grandiloquent pronouncements in the auspices of backing their grandstander-darlings) in this age of secularism and when relativism of ethics "legitimizes" itself in the process. I first burrowed into the field of Philosophy after taking a course in the philosophy of mathematics which directly exposed me to the prima donnas: Euclid, Pythagoras, Plato’s ontology, et cetera. It was the study of the absolute nonconformists like Paul Erdős, Kurt Gödel, Leonhard Euler, Bertrand Russell, Hillary Putnam, Eugene Wigner, Gregory Chaitin, Stephen Wolfram, et cetera, who were not only awfully thorough in their indoctrination, but entrancingly freaky in their reasoning and assumptions that absolutely fascinated me. Take for instance the Argentine off shoot, Gregory Chaitin, who in his big brain in mathematics, made important contributions in algorithmic information theory but, in the epistemology of mathematics, he claims that his findings in mathematical logic and algorithmic information theory show there are "mathematical facts that are true for no reason, they're true by accident. They are random mathematical facts". Chaitin proposes that mathematicians must abandon any hope to prove those mathematical facts and adopt a quasi-empirical methodology. You see this mode of thinking completely got me hooked to studying philosophy and its philosophers and I began to focus my attentiveness of the subject on the philosophy of the mind and thought, singularly as a way of examining and interpreting reason and meaning. I needed to know why someone like Chaitin with all his brains ended being so purposeless in life in the end! I also mused and questioned how a great man like Euler, who in his day worked out proofs and envisioned the Minima and Maxima concepts of Multivariate Calculus as well as Number Theory (which I so enthusiastically studied, duly for my love of Mathematics and Statistics) that are awfully characteristic of his brilliance, could on the hand, in his consummate eccentricity and freakishness lose much of his vision due to observing the sun without filtering out the excessive radiation! But despite this handicap, he continued to be productive, perhaps due to his extraordinary powers of memory and mental calculation. It is reported that once he let his assistant calculate a series to 17 summands and noticed an error in the 50th digit! He even underwent an operation to restore his sight, but he ended up thoroughly blind due to too harsh use of the recovered faculty. What’s even more befogging is the way he died! The annals of philosophy are brimming with numerous accounts and events of the above mentioned philosophers’ espials and authentications. Big fish in big waters, with big brains to find no unity in life in a world of diversity! Yet, the institutions within which they functioned are the Universities and amazingly, the word University means unity, in diversity! They just never seemed to define unity and in their pursuit of meaning and reason, and instead they ended up contradicting meaning and reason, and then somewhat somehow, they died in awfully strange circumstances! But why? That was the bold question I asked Kai Nielsen, my professor of philosophy. He earned his worldly fame at the University of Calgary, although he travels all over Canada and the United States as an adjunct professor. He taught metaphysics and ethics, and quite frankly, he worried me with his freakishness! You see folks, when a person unabashedly denies God and His existence, that person begins to lose meaning and reason in life! Nielsen publicly declared that God does not exist and that it is ridiculous to think God indeed exists, plainly because science defines existence and is thus meaningful. He believes in atheistic evolution where everything on earth exists as a result of matter, time and chance! He believes in atheism and its idea of culture when science clearly points out through archeology that there has never been a people in the world who did not conform themselves to some form of worship in some form of a shrine at any time in history! He also believes in values and not facts! Now do you know where the word "values" came from and in what context it was introduced in philosophy? It was clearly invoked by Friedrich Nietzsche in his Preface to “Daybreak” when he attacked morality. I also read books on the philosophy of chance and it is just as ridiculous as it sounds. If you doubt, please be my guest and give a shot! It makes no logical or mathematical sense even though it is inferred to mean and involve Probability in mathematics. It is insane to comprehend the concept of chance with respect to reality since Probabilities are not characterized by chance but on their events themselves. For instance, one cannot go to the window and look outside and point at "chance", whereas in Probability, the likelihood of getting a heads/tails (the event) when a coin is tossed (no matter the number of times) is a half; the difference is crystal clear! Can you then imagine a human being today entrancingly believing that his mind is/was created as a result of matter, time and chance, and then categorically calling that truth? Isn’t that insane? If matter, time and chance are never constant at any one time, how then does one boldly purport to call that truth when it is not absolute, and when truth as we know it by definition, is exclusive? You see folks, mine is not to solve the world’s problems. I am not even purporting to be a philosopher either, or even to reason out or rationalize the world's problems. No, not at all! I am just a Christian, masquerading in this life as a social mathematician. But in all my studies and experiences, I can passionately confirm that knowledge is a critical element of human life, but when there are no rules it becomes our best enemy! That happens because we as humans have always needed a transcendent view on things. The moment we deny God and His existence, we automatically begin to seek more knowledge in our pursuit to be like God and we end up completely losing meaning and reason in life in the process. "If there is no God, someone has to play God." Malcolm Muggeridge is uninvited. You see God is the only Being Who exists within Himself and that is why He is perfect! All other beings exist outside of themselves, and that is basically why we need God in our lives to understand reason and the true meaning of life! Secularism affords us the opportunity to debunk our religious ideas, institutions and interpretations and we end up beautifully creating a crisis of reason in this age of relativism, where there is no shame in society because we lose the point of reference for objective moral values. As Kenyans, we need to recognize this fact and fight for our self-preservation. We are a religious nation with morals and our faith as a nation has always had an explicit and direct influence in our personal and public lives. Maina -unedited-
|
|
emmo
New Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by emmo on Apr 7, 2006 9:29:04 GMT 3
Who are you talking to Mr Mathira? I thought we all believed in God, your poor keyboard had to go through all that but it was just a misunderstanding. Alex is a very strong believer,in God at least.
I also study mathematics, and do a lot of probability although I hate it. Yes, I do nknow that Mathematics and Logic prove the existence of a designer, but religion really has no place in public life. Like Jesu said, unto Caesar....
|
|
|
Post by Onyango Oloo on Apr 7, 2006 9:39:42 GMT 3
maina:
there is a lot that some of us can say about religion, philosophy and politics.
my intention in responding to the subject matter of this thread is not to fuel a religious controversy. over here in jukwaa as you know, we have christians, muslims, hindus, buddhists, animists, atheists, agnostics and everyone in between. the asssumption is that every person is free to follow their conscience, spiritual path, religious beliefs or secular convictions.
what i want to do this morning is to challenge some of your sweeping assumptions and rhetorical, content free assertions.
OFFICIALLY kenya IS a SECULAR state- our religious themed national anthem notwithstanding. there is NO STATE RELIGION in kenya. one of the few things i admired about first president mzee jomo kenyatta (apart from his eloquence and oratory in kiswahili) was his ecumenical approach to spiritual matters. was he himself a believer, let alone a christian? he kept everyone guessing.
in defacto terms however, all the subsequent leaders- moi most notoriously and kibaki quite insidiously- the top leadership of this country has attempted, with a great deal of success one may add, to IMPOSE christianity as the official religion of kenya.
you saw daniel arap moi hypocritically going to church- after members of his own cabinet plotted and executed the murders of their own ministerial colleagues; we see mwai kibaki wearing his catholicism on his sleeve- while his inner circle loots the state coffers.
ndingi mwana a nzeki is part of kibaki's kitchen cabinet; in the last referendum the likes of reverend musyimi came out clearly as state propagandists.
i get amused when i see christians rankled when SOME of them are critiqued for their far right views. yet it is open season on muslims almost every single day in the country. it is ok to call muslims "terrorists" and all kind of derogatory names. people will hit the roof when the born again christian called george bush is ID'd as a terrorist for his wanton killing of thousands upon thousands of iraqi innocents.
what are the facts on the ground about the confluence of religion and politics in kenya?
the facts on the ground is that organized religion- be it christianity or islam- has made strenous efforts to infuse our national politics with overtly religious based ideological precepts.
this happens almost every day with the daily programming of faith based radio, television and print media outlets- not speaking of the political pronunciamentos in the churches and mosques.
even at the highest levels- during the bomas constitution making exercise for example, we saw the two major organized religions in kenya UNITE to curtail the rights of kenyan women when it came to matters of reproductive, health, social and other matters. there was a ecumenical/multi-faith consensus that led to the smuggling of the notoriously neanderthal pro-life clause into our constitution regarding the definition of when life begins. this was a highly undemocratic and fascist measure yet many so called kenyan democrats do not see that they are still living in the medieval period by celebrating this "life begins at conception" dubious credo.
do you remember the aftermath of the far right produced melodrama about the abandoned fetuses in nairobi?
very few people paid attention to the views of the late dr. katini ombaka who suggested that the fully formed fetuses MAY HAVE BEEN PLANTED BY PRO-LIFE CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS to cynically sway public opinion regarding the national debate on abortion and reproductive choice. Instead a very gullible Kenyan public was then manipulated to participating in the obscene ritual of "burying" the fetuses in micro coffins complete with mini crosses and what not.
as an added icing to this noxious fundamentalist anti-choice cake, we saw media outlets like the standard lead the pro-life cacophony which set the stage for the arrest, indictment and trial on MURDER charges of one kenyan doctor and two kenyan nurses based on the spurious grounds that they carried out abortions-even though under kenyan law performing abortions IS NOT YET a CAPITAL offence.
as if that was not enough, there was a veritable united front between politicians like charity ngilu, lucy kibaki and amos wako on the one hand and religious leaders like ndingi mwana a nzeki denouncing the pro-choice movement in this country. many christian leaders actually transformed this issue into a POLITICAL ISSUE by stating that the church would conduct some kind of moral audit and blacklist all MPS who supported a woman's right to choose whether she wanted to terminate a pregnancy or carry it to full term.
in the november referendum, a section of the christian community- de anchored from the mainstream churches- i am talking of the evangelical, fundamentalist formation dubbed the "Kenya Church" made anti-Muslim bigotry their POLITICAL PLATFORM for voting against the wako draft. I remember circulating on this forum their sickening, hateful propaganda against a significant section of kenyans- a hate fuelled by the sole fact that these other kenyans practised the Islamic faith.
some of us who happen to be atheists and agnostics have put up, for far too long with the assumption that all kenyans must pray before entering a class room, starting a public or business meeting, eating a meal and so on. we do it on the understanding that on the vast majority of cases, this is nothing more than a temporary INCONVENIENCE lasting at most HALF AN HOUR (yes i have endured prayers that LOOONG!) not because of a supposition that kenyans are inherently religious people.
maina, some of us will continue to debunk the religiously coated POLITICAL and IDEOLOGICAL underpinnings of the kalonzo musyokas and the george dubyas upende usipende.
Onyango Oloo Nairobi, Kenya
|
|
|
Post by aeichener on Apr 7, 2006 12:49:37 GMT 3
do you remember the aftermath of the far right produced melodrama about the abandoned fetuses in nairobi? very few people paid attention to the views of the late dr. katini ombaka who suggested that the fully formed fetuses MAY HAVE BEEN PLANTED BY PRO-LIFE CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS to cynically sway public opinion regarding the national debate on abortion and reproductive choice. Very likely so, OO. For this also was my immediate feeling when I read about the circumstances of the alleged "finding". Thanks for mentioning Dr. Katini Ombaka. She was a great Kenyan woman. I remember her radiance strongly; it still warms and inspires me. *wistful sigh* Alexander
|
|
|
Post by maina on Apr 8, 2006 7:25:45 GMT 3
Oloo, The problem with cyberspace is that one cannot (obviously) see the other to ascertain whether s/he is joking or teasing, particularly when some dubious comments call for the need to analyze the writer’s emotions. Nonetheless, one thing is brilliantly clear; you are a Philosopher in your own right! The other matter that you beautifully explicate through your response here is that you understand that there is an imminent social crisis. It is important to acknowledge it; I really appreciate that!
Now Oloo, you must understand that I am not in this to knock down any type of faith or even persecute its congregants. No! I humbly seek to analyse the issue of faith and its influence and subsequent impact on society because in Kenya, upenede usipende, we are going to have to deal with this issue in the near future!
Firstly, you postulate that Kenya is a "SECULAR state". What an unquestionable distortion! Oloo, isn’t it documented that 80% of the Kenyan population is religious? And speaking of Jomo Kenyatta, wasn’t he an elder member of a church – the Independent Church of Kenya? Furthermore, of Moi and Ndingi, is it altogether appropriate to attack the religious worldview, the most esteemed and popular worldview in the world based on what is demonstrated by a number of notables in Kenya? Are you categorically intimating that they represent the rest of Kenyans? Do you have proof to show that the religious worldview supports their no good deeds for you to smoothly insinuate that here by including the likes of Nyayo, et al? These are not partisan questions. You must be joking seriously here! Or maybe not; maybe you’re presenting the fashion of the foreign bird with a local walk!
The 19th century writer George Macdonald once said, "To give truth to him who loves it not is but to give him plentiful material for misinterpretation." Indeed, I maintain and argue that the ideas of rationalism and agnosticism and the institution of the media have altered our social landscape, such that belief in God's revelation seems wholly implausible for many individuals. Without such an understanding, proclamation is pointless! And when proclamation is pointless, the New Age Movement prevails as today’s dominant and legitimate worldview.
The New Age Movement is the most powerful expression of the human being today that secularism leads to emptiness. America, Canada and Europe for example, know that in their heart of hearts, secularism has left them with a spiritual bankruptcy. It is a way for man to have his spiritual cake and live out his physical fulfillment too. You see man knows that he needs a transcendent view on things. In other words man needs something in which he can rise above himself. There is a popular parable of some hippies who are stranded in an island and all of a sudden they see a bottle floating towards them and they become excited thinking that it is some form of help, and so they open the bottle only to find out that it is a message they themselves had put in the bottle three weeks earlier, and it had just floated back; it was a message from themselves to themselves! This also explains why secular rock music produces such despair; it is a message from themselves to themselves! Therefore, man needs to be semi-transcendent but not fully transcendent where he can rise completely above himself.
When one goes back to philosophy years ago, one remembers the philosophy of people like Rene Descartes. Descartes is the character that said, "cogito, ergo sum" – I think, therefore I am, in his philosophy of Rationalism. The important thing to note is what Descartes was looking for; Rational Certainty. But because most of us forget that characters like Descartes, Kant, et al, were theists, we categorically misunderstand Rational Certainty to think that Descartes therefore thought that the senses are completely undependable, even though they themselves said that the senses can be deceptive. Rene Descartes, in his freaky philosophy amounted that I think, therefore I am; which in turn effected somebody else to go one better and declare that: all I can say is that I think, therefore thinking exists; with a third fellow denouncing that and invoking: I think, therefore something exists................... A screwy sequence, but before you and I know it, one doesn’t even know whether they really think! Now do you see the problem with this Philosophy? Do you see the way philosophers become doodlers with words? Have you ever noticed how big their books are on meaninglessness? Isn;t it true that philosophers write monuments on the meaninglessness of everything? Why not just simply and plainly ask the author if the book is meaningful?
You see all these philosophers were looking for Rational Certainty – the indubitable nature of the mind. The more they pursued this end, the more they found out that there is very little one can be absolutely certain about with respect to reality! The American Constitution for instance, talks about truths that are self-evident, truths that are beyond debate. However, we find that they are not beyond debate today. Lord McCauley stated, "'The constitution is so powerful, it’s excellent and I love it.................but down the road they will find out it is all sail and no anchor.'" That is an interesting critique because the only anchor one can ultimately find is in God, otherwise you’ll be blown away by the wind of the next Supreme Court judge!
Rational Certainty then led to despair. In the 1960s, the philosophers would sit outside their universities smoking pot; Rationalism had failed. Interesting is the fact that the word "University" means to find unity, in diversity.
"Is there one truth that unifies all truths?" A question was asked by an early philosopher when it was discovered that there were four essences: earth, wind, water, fire, and he needed to know the unifier – the fifth essence – the Quintessence.
When Rational Certainty led to despair, it gave rise to Existentialism – the philosophy of living life with a passion for the now. The champions of Existentialism were the likes of Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus, among others. Of note is that Sartre was an atheist and a leading protagonist of atheism but gradually, he became a Marxist! Ever wondered why? Still, and of more significance is the documented evidence that on his death bed he lamented, "'My atheistic philosophy has failed me and maybe there is need to believe in a transcendent Being and a God.'"
You see Sartre and his affinity class realized that they couldn’t escape the arraignment and signification of a moral law. As their way of dealing with morality, they adapted Marxism to deal with the underprivileged and the oppressed of the world. They desperately wanted to hold on to a moral law, but atheists do not believe in it! So they wormed in through the backdoor of Marxism; the utopist dream and hoop-la which pretty much prescribed to eliminating oppression, and Existentialism categorically became the philosophy that was born in the face of the fact that sheer Rationalism had failed. This being true, it is then crystal clear how the New Age worldview was conceived. To interpret it decorously, New Age, is the smuggled mystical viewpoint man has created to retain that passion for the now and simultaneously bring some sense of the transcendent for the future! New Age is the prevailing worldview today; the foreign bird with a local walk! We need to shoot down this bird and fight for our self-preservation.
Maina
-unedited-
|
|
|
Post by kichwambaya on Apr 8, 2006 17:11:26 GMT 3
Maina,
The oldest type of religion is animism-the belief in spirits. Although now we think this type of thinking was unsophisticated but to think of the world as being more than you can touch feel and see must have taken a tremendous feat of imagination. In between, there has been many ideas of religion. In India, the Upanshads, believed in the interconnectdness of an eternal, "uncreated univese" and the notion that the world is a "Brahman's dream"-everything the senses tell us is delusive or illusory and to reach reality, we have to escape the constraints of matter. Equally powerfull, in its implications was the idea of reincarnation.
The Jewish thinking about religion certainly has had a disproportionate place in the history of the world when you take into the account the jews small numbers and the modest place they occupied in the world of the first Millennium BC.
The extraordinary story of how their tribal deity became a unique and universal God is still hard to understand. Exile seem to make their God more special as they saw their suffering as a test of faith and failing to acknowledge their God's uniqueness as a sin.
From the strength of conviction of God's uniqueness arose the most powrfull new thought of the age: the idea of a God who can create something out of nothing. It is interesting to note that earlier, this idea had been considered but dismissed as illogical. It has now become the world's most widespread and popular characterization of God.
Also, Christ view of human nature as redeemable by divine grace made christianity very attractive. Also the vigorous and sometimes aggressive tradition of recrecruitment by christians has been very successfull. Over a period of two thousand years, christianity has became the world's mosts widely diffused religion because the massage has proven itself to be remarkably adaptable to all sorts of cultural and political environments.
Also when prophet Muhammad studied Judaism and Christianity and incorporated the jewish understanding of God into his own religion, the combined tradition of this jewish idea of God has attracted over a third of the world's population.
However, alongside religion, the problems of epistemology, logic, politics and science, now termed "secular" not only continue to exist but have inspired new ideas that are as significant in their way as those of religion. The teachings of Christ, Muhammad and Buthda were represented by their followers as revelations from God. The problem has been how to reconcile revelation and scripture with the other great sources of knowledge and truth. Christian thinkers at certain pereiods were very successful in conciling jewish doctrines with the philosphical ideas of the ancient Greeks and Romans. At a certain time some christians recoiled from an excessive reliance on resaon to defend faith and from establishing science as the basis of understanding the truth about God. To them this confined God.
Back to understanding Maina's sweeping statements, in the 20th century religious fundamentalism started when some theologians tried to make christianity scientific by making a verifiable and dependent on biblical texts. This way people could turn to the Bible and see clearly whether a theological proposition was valid or not, as much as you could validate a scientific hypothesis by appealing to the results of an experiment.
Personally I think that the religious fundamentalism Maina is preaching is just one idea among many which has shaped and continue to shape the history of mankind. To claim that this is the final truth is ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by Onyango Oloo on Apr 8, 2006 19:58:31 GMT 3
First of all a secular state is NOT a secular country simply because a STATE is not synonymous with a COUNTRY or a NATION although there are some people who use the words interchangeably. That is why you can find a country like India for instance where the majority of the population profess the Hindu faith, but whose state is a SECULAR one as laid out in its constitution. Same with the United States- even though religious lobbies are working very hard to change that. When I say that OFFICIALLY Kenya is a SECULAR STATE I am by no means imputing that the vast majority of Kenyans are secular because the facts point in the opposite direction. What I am saying that unlike the Islamic Republic of Iran or the State of the Vatican, Kenya does not have an official state religion- even though it is the fervent wish of many religious people in Kenya that this reality is erased. The implications of a state religion are odious and menacing. Imagine if President Kibaki declared tomorrow that Catholicism was the official faith of the country- we would be having Christian Talibans in Nairobi imposing the wearing of the cross and carrying of the rosary on every Hindu, Jew, Muslim, animist, atheist in Kenya. Or imagine if there arose a religio-political underground movement whose SOLE GOAL was to impose this or that sect as the official religion/ideology of the country.... Further imagine if an ultra-leftist guru rose up to reincarnate the ideas of Enver Hoxha- the late Albanian ruler who declared in 1967 that Albania had succeeded in becoming the world's first atheist state- even though the underground Muslim and Christian services mocked this claim.... The beauty of what we have in Kenya-with all its problems- is that so far the existence of a majority Christian population does not interfere with the religious rights of Muslims and people of other non-Christian belief systems. A secular state is one of the sine qua nons of a democratic society- where religious belief and expression is celebrated in diversity. For example, the existence of literally hundreds if not thousands of Cathedrals in my former residential city of Montreal has never stopped Communists and Socialists from using their Sundays for exclusively secular preoccupations... For more on Secularism, click on the link below: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism Onyango Oloo Nairobi, Kenya
|
|
|
Post by Onyango Oloo on Apr 8, 2006 20:22:18 GMT 3
...I told you throughout the sessions, with a little more liberty, what I think, what I feel, my deepest convictions; I told you broadly, very briefly: some essential ideas, the way we see what is going on in the world right now and what we think is going to happen in the future, not based on utopias or magic, nor trying to be soothsayers, but simply consulting our experience, analyzing and meditating about the facts and about the events.
I have deep convictions about the course the world is taking, about that globalization we have talked about and which we have baptized; just to give an idea and to synthesize in one phrase what we designate as neoliberal globalization, which does not deny the globalization process, which is inevitable, which is inexorable, and which has to be deeply studied.
I exhorted you to meditate on this topic, to research, delve deep into it; to help, advise, disseminate, as an essential thing, truthfully, without any dogmas; I repeat, without any kind of dogmas, and with broadmindedness, listening to every one, without thinking that we are the owners of the absolute truth. On the contrary, if we believe something, we're interested in enriching and substantiating what we believe. If we have a conviction, we are interested in delving deeper into that conviction, and even in rectifying any idea, in correcting it, perfecting it, and that can only be really done with great broadmindedness, gathering and synthesizing ideas, knowledge and information.
If something we believe in or think about is shared by others; that is, if this were true, only the effort and the intelligence of many would be able to corroborate it, to draw conclusions that no one would be able to refute and determine the role that man can play in historic events.
There will no longer be one single thinker. Hundreds of thousands, millions of thinkers can make up the thinker our times need. Names do not matter. There were times in which humankind was limited to one tenth of what it is today, and men who wrote for a few millions who knew how to read and write, of which only a part was able to get to know their work.
Humankind today reaches the figure of 6 billion people, and, as I was saying this morning, many millions know how to read and write, and there are a lot of media to disseminate ideas. Given the struggle of ideas at a world level, oftentimes there is no access to the mass media controlled by the big transnationals, or there is no access to the large television or information chains. But there is always a way to make the message reach the world, there is always a possibility, and the more communications develop, the more this will be possible.
Well, a device with such a small volume and so relatively inexpensive—when I say relatively I'm thinking of someone with very little resources—a computer connected to Internet is now a possibility to make a message, a thought, reach millions of people in the world.
As they say, and it's true, and they are calculating how many people have it now, I understand that around 100 million people are signing up or can connect with Internet, and this process will continue. We have to speak to the peoples, we have to speak to everyone, we have to speak mainly to those who can influence others, and if instead of one there are 100 transmitting this way, and if instead of 100 there are 1,000, and if instead of 1,000 there are one million, then, if the ideas are just and they're solid, there will always be the possibility, even for the most modest economists or scientists, to transmit their message, that message that has to be the fruit of the intelligence of so many. If we want to win over people's opinion, this is indispensable.
As a result of one of the exchanges, Christ was mentioned in this meeting. I said that he sought out 12 fishermen who did not know how to read and write and he instilled in them his ideas so that they could disseminate them throughout the world; afterwards these ideas appeared written, in a very coherent way. I sometimes wondered: If those fishermen did not know how to read and write, how was it possible to write what appears in the Gospels? It is that others came afterwards and wrote it, others who became imbued with these ideas. Due to their human content, and within a dominant empire with its oppressive and exploited classes, those ideas soon became the religion of the slaves, the oppressed and poor people of that society. Christ himself had driven the rich merchants of the time out of the temple with a whip.
Of course, Christianity is not the only religion that has spread throughout the world where man tries to find explanations for his existence and consolation to the sufferings he has been subjected to more by the social systems existing to date than by nature.
There are the Jews, the Moslems, the Hindus, the Buddhists, the Animists and other religions. I was calling this to mind in my speech on the occasion of the Pope's visit, when I was praising the ecumenical spirit of his preaching which stemmed from the famous Vatican Council II, summoned by John XXIII, which really introduced changes even in the liturgy, a new way of thinking and the concern for the problems of the poor, of the exploited who had been forgotten by the high hierarchy for centuries throughout history.
I feel a great respect for all religions. The Christian religion was the one I best knew, for I spent 12 years —as some of you probably did too—as a boarding student in religious Catholic schools, in a sort of apartheid, as I call the separation we were subject to, since coeducation did not exist. We were over there, secluded, we couldn't even go out in the street, and the girls were also secluded in other similar schools for our privileged class, they couldn't even go out in the street.
Actually, those schools were more like a convent than a school, because that was the type of life we led, for which I'm even glad today, because it taught me discipline, stoicism, spirit of sacrifice, many positive things that later helped me throughout my life.
In our culture, as part of the so-called western world, there are undoubtedly components of Christian values. I think that among those values there are ethical and humane principles that are applicable to any epoch.
If instead of being born and elaborating his ideas when he did, Christ had been born in these times, you can be sure—or at least I am—that his preaching would not have differed much from the ideas or the preaching that we revolutionaries of today try to bring the world. With the communication possibilities that science gives us, more than three centuries would not have to elapse before even the emperors would be able to understand the falsehood of their untenable conceptions. Actually, it won't be through persuasion that the emperors of these times will welcome with open arms our demands and our aspiration for justice and equity in this world, neither can the world wait 300 years. It will have to wait a lot less for the changes that must take place to do so.
As I told you, new ideas to prepare the peoples for the future are needed, but we must start struggling right now. Beginning today, we must start building awareness, a new awareness, I would say. It is not that the world lacks awareness today; but such a new and complex epoch as this one requires principles more than ever and requires a lot more awareness, and that awareness will be built, by adding together, we might say, the awareness of what is happening and the awareness of what is going to happen. It has to be built by adding together more than just one revolutionary thought and the best ethical and humane ideas of more than one religion, of all authentic religions, I would say —I am not thinking of sects, which of course exist, created for political ends and for the purpose of creating confusion and division by those who do not hesitate to even use religion for definite political objectives—; the sum total of the preaching of many political thinkers, of many schools and of many religions.
We have even spoken here of some of the eminent theoreticians of this century who have played a role and whose ideas may have certain validity; but we must bring together the ethical and humane sense of many ideas, some of which emerged in very remote times of man's history: Christ's ideas with the scientifically founded socialist ideas, so just and profoundly humane, of Karl Marx, the ideas of Engels (Applause.), the ideas of Lenin, the ideas of Martí, the ideas of the European Encyclopedists who preceded the French Revolution and those of the forefathers of the independence of this hemisphere, whose most outstanding symbol was Simón Bolivar, who was capable, two centuries ago, to even dream of a united Latin America, when the horse was the fastest existing means of land transportation, on which a messenger might very well take three months to get from Caracas to Lima, or to Ayacucho, or to Bolivia. What primitive means they used in their struggle! There were no telephones, or communications, or radio, and they had the impetus and energy to travel all over a continent and dream of a united Latin America. Yes, those sentiments, that projection, those ideas must also be taken up in our ideas of today.
When Bolivar spoke about the unity of the continent, what today is the United States was a nation located near the Atlantic coast, very far east from the Mississippi River, a nation which later would extend west at the expense of the Indians' lands and the lands of the Spanish and Indian descendants that inhabited them —that story is well known—and that is why he spoke about the hemisphere. He did not exclude the United States, of course; but the United States then was not the United States that we know today, it was the 13 colonies that had recently freed themselves from British colonialism.
|
|
|
Post by aeichener on Apr 9, 2006 1:36:27 GMT 3
Oloo, I have never before seen such mild-minded avuncular patience with you... what has happened?
Ts ts...
Aleander
|
|
|
Post by roughrider on Apr 9, 2006 11:53:38 GMT 3
Maina,
I think your post is in order. We live in times when sworn atheists have no scruples hurling epithets and constructing conspiracy theories to attack ‘far right Christianity’ or ‘Christian fundamentalism’. If there is any lesson that history has taught us, it is that we must forever be tolerant to views and beliefs other than our own. Philosophy, I need to remind you, is less about providing answers and more about questioning answers. There are very strong philosophical arguments for belief in supernatural being and the hereafter just as there are philosophical views that deny these very things. It is at the moment not a settled question and we must not pretend that it is so. But matters of faith and matters of reason belong to different realms.
My only quibble with you is the manner in which you make your arguments – a roundabout way, burdening your readers with unnecessary lexical density. I might oalos argue on minor points of philosophy; I might claim, for example, that in Africa it is more ‘I feel therefore I am’ rather than ‘corgito ergo suum’ – but these are trifles, really
Oloo:
I think you are absolutely right on secular state theory. Your views make a lot of sense except on one sore score. For heavens sake, our secularism has survived, because we have avoided snide attacks at other religions however much we abhorred them. Kenyans and especially Christians have lots of respect for what others believe in or what they do not believe in; atheists, agnostics – the whole kit and caboodle. Is it too much to ask similar considerations from non believers?
This website – at its Info Centre - proclaims, rather pompously, that it shall observe ‘ZERO Tolerance for: Trash talkers, tribalists, racists, sexists, homophobes, religious bigots and cyberstalkers.
What exactly does this mean? Who, for instance, will be the judge of ‘trash talk’? At what point does a reasoned disdain for unnatural sex become ‘homophobia’, something that is allegedly criminal. When does a legitimate discussion on religion and secularism fall into the abyss of religious bigotry? Is it when, pardon the word please, alarmist claims are made against ‘far right Christian fundamentalists’ who kill babies and bury them in ridiculous micro coffins? Aren’t these claims not only extremely provocative but openly insulting to the sensibilities of Christians who genuinely practice their faith, the best way they know how?
Let us not judge Christianity or Islam by the failings of Christians and Muslims. So what if Moi murdered and went to church the next day? Or if Kibaki stole and visited the Basilica? Does that give anyone the right to disparage Christians or Christianity? Whence this disturbing intolerance?
I do not wish to cast aspersions on a dead and respectable woman like Katini-Ombaka but I see that others are not similarly gracious.
I suppose that for every far right, there is an equally obnoxious far left.
|
|
|
Post by aeichener on Apr 9, 2006 13:26:30 GMT 3
Roughrider,
I feel you have made very important and well-expressed statements here, admonitions with which I can fully agree, with only a little bit of necessary textual modification:
"We live in times when sworn Christian fundamentalists have no scruples hurling epithets and constructing conspiracy theories to attack ‘terrorist Islam’ or ‘godless secularism'. If there is any lesson that history has taught us, it is that we must forever be tolerant to views and beliefs other than our own. The greatest danger to such tolerance (towards believers and non-believers alike) in Kenya is posed by the raving, rabid Christianity that we cen see everywhere today."
"Kenyans and especially Muslimin have lots of respect for what others believe in or what they do not believe in; atheists, agnostics – the whole kit and caboodle. Is it too much to ask similar considerations from Christians?"
Alexander
|
|
|
Post by job on Apr 9, 2006 23:02:30 GMT 3
Folks,
The matter of seperation of church and state should be particularly important in Kenya,...... partly due to our religious diversity and varied beliefs on many social/moral issues.
Theocrats and Religious extremists must not impose 'their' views upon an entire nation that is quite diverse. Likewise, far left Christianophobes must not unilaterally dictate the calibrations of our moral or social parameters and values. In a nutshell, I'm calling for tolerance towards each other.
The recent 2005 referendum (constitution) campaigns clearly brought forth the realization of strong differences in social viewpoints,....... regarding matters such as abortion and homosexuality.
There are clearly people on both ends,....the conservative right (including far right Christian fundamentalists),......and of course the left which comprises a spectrum ranging from simple believers of the doctrine of -seperation of church from state,....all the way to the far left Christianophobic extremists.
It has been noted from the last US Presidential elections that conservatives could trigger passionate and emotional debate on social values deemed "traditional",........in an effort to rally a solid conservative political base of voters. That alone proved to be a major factor in Bush's electoral victory.
Values such as; opposition to abortion / being pro-life,...opposition to same sex marriages of gays and lesbians,.....resistance to access of sexually explicit materials & pornography,...opposition to teaching of sex education in schools,.......promotion of the concept of pre-marital sexual abstinence & opposition of condom use amongst the youth,..... support for public funding of religious charities,......promotion of the teaching of creationism (Biblical) versus evolution,......unquestioned support for the State of Israel based on Biblical prophesy or doctrines (religious beliefs determining Foreign Policy),.......regulation of biotechnology in areas of human cloning & stem cell research using human embryo's,....etc etc
Remember that this is notwithstanding the actual faith and values held by the politicians themselves,.... since saying that one is "a born again Christian" doesn't necessarily mean exactly that.
George W. Bush who professes to be a born again Christian since 1986, when he quit alcohol,...was seen drinking alcohol in a video released showing him (Bush) slurring his words as he criticised others for not drinking and smoking more (like himself) during a 1992 wedding.
While not claiming to be the spiritual judge of George dubya,....I'm suggesting that you could rally a society behind certain beliefs you personally don't hold, through deceipt,....by affiliating yourself and portraying yourself in a certain way.
In Kenya's case,.....true,....When packaged on the political platform (as done by Kalonzo et al during the referendum),....the alarmist language used to sell the conservative viewpoint actually elicits some real emotional passions. When you term certain people ABORTIONISTS, PAGANS, FEMINISTS, GAYS and LESBIANS,.......anybody (average Kenyan) considering voting for "them" may sometimes wanna think it over afresh. That could be a potential political card for creating confusion.
Let me clarify however that I have no problem at all with Kalonzo's desire for the Presidency. I'm still studying aspects of his political character and assessing his leadership skills between now and the next elections, like all other potential candidates.
If Kalonzo Musyoka is calculating on conservative right wing political activism as his ace card,.....then we may be in for a very interesting political front, .....whereby moral values may attempt to overshadow ethnicity in political contests for the first time in our history.
What I know is that Kalonzo's 2005 referendum campaign, hinged strongly on using soundbites like the Wako draft being "pro-abortion", "pro-gays", and "pro-lesbians" and ....."against 'our' values",...."against Christianity" and such Christianophilic viewpoints.
However, it is also possible that Kalonzo may alternatively not go the radical or fundamental path,...but rather take a middleground or moderate position, whereby his religious affiliation may only be used as a boost for his personal integrity and trustworthiness; traits key for the presidency.
How successful that strategy could work is unknown to me, but I still think ethnicity binds more Kenyans during electoral contests than any other issue,....at least based on previous elections.
Clever politicians have moved a notch higher more recently and introduced the concept of ethnic voting blocs, led by tribal chieftains, working in alliances or "coalitions" with other such entities.......and thus dictating the shape of politics in contemporary Kenya. I'll say something about this first, before I get back to secularism & christian fundamentalism.
I predict that this concept which threw Moi off balance,...(actually caught him off guard) will continue to dominate Kenyans political landscape for a while,...and those already adjusted to it's reality, clearly have an upper hand in dictating the politics of our near future (just an opinion).
Those fighting against (or those who have actually rejected) the concept, like Moi, & those still lagging behind, befuddled with this reality,.......may continue being shocked further by resultant emerging trends along those lines.
Moi may have started his battle against ethnic alliances a little too late,....and may soon realize that his own ethnic community is one such populous voting bloc,.....earmarked for a yet (or soon) to be formed alliance or coalition.
Don't get me wrong here,...Moi has absolutely got the capacity to reverse this trend in Rift Valley before 2007,...but only IF conditions were made favourable or if he worked in cohoots with the current President Kibaki. They apparently read from different scripts,...and their political savviness may actually belong in different leagues. Their intelligence gathering skills or political responses to the same, also seem to be at great variance, ....with one apparently being very alert, swift and sensitive,...the other either non-existent, too slow or quite inappropriately unresponsive.
Kibaki and his advisors have repeatedly frustrated Moi's efforts very directly in matters I'll not indulge in here,.......and I may actually say that Kibaki has ALREADY shaped the future voting patterns of Rift Valley towards a CERTAIN direction,...or rather, AWAY FROM a certain direction.
The failure of the first FORD party to remove Moi from power in 1992, was primarily due to egotistic and uncompromising grandstanding by tribal chieftains. Moi easily beat the two Ford factions, along with Kibaki's DP twice,.....winning by just paltry numbers in the 30's %. In 2002, Moi expected the same patterns. But he was wrong, a new concept had arrived in Kenya. It involved formation of tribal alliances aka coalitions. Trustworthiness and keeping to promises by the tribal chieftains was key to it's success.
The tribal chieftains declined to run in 2002, and threw their weight behind one man they deemed Tosha, ...Mwai Kibaki, who won by landslide and ironically,......... introduced another concept of grand-betrayal post electoral victory,....another hallmark in Kenya's politics.
Moi still resents against "those tribal alliances",......but for him, it is possible he is trying to bolt the stable door after the horse has bolted. Kibaki has already thrown a spanner into the works of that very spirit of ethnic alliances by introducing the parameter of mistrust/betrayal & suspicious phobias to some personalities.
Ethnicity is still a factor in Kenya. Under Kibaki, ethnicity has been accentuated passionately. But the spirit of ethnic alliances in politics will continue for a loooong time in Kenya.
The trouble with introducing another passionate social matter,..... by religious conservatives,...may only create further division in the country,..towards levels similar to that experiened in countries such as Nigeria.
Attempts at using women rights (eg of reproductive choice), gay rights, reaction to evolving moral standards, and seperation of religion and government by either proponents or critics could be another explosive terrain we are slowly walking into. Watch out for both the Theocrats and Christianophobes alike.
unedited.
Job
|
|
|
Post by aeichener on Apr 10, 2006 0:01:08 GMT 3
Hm. Do not overlook that theocrats produce christianophobes. In many parts of the world, I have no reason to be ashamed to be what I am, namely a Christian; in Africa however, I am deeply ashamed. And it's African Christians who have themselves posed to be my enemies, not African muslimin or African atheists, mind you.
Alexander
|
|
|
Post by maina on Apr 10, 2006 8:36:26 GMT 3
Kichwambaya, The gist of your argument is quite fascinating. Kumbe behind this computer in the realm of cyberspace there happens to be some serious Kenyan philosophers, huh! As I type, I am trying to configure my mind to formulate coherent cardinal points in response to your words above because you have introduced a number of concerns that are quite frankly diverse in their scope. I will however deal with the issues that are relevant and meaningful to us as Kenyans, in a winning country that is religious, but today propelled to conform to pluralism by tumid socialist proponents, who in their frightening ill-advised belief in relativism of ethics, progress in the auspices of what they (these socialists) today term "impartiality". Mind you, what I just wrote must not be misconstrued to mean that you raised meaninglessness through your response. Otherwise, Habari gani?
Firstly, I’ll deal with your befogging analysis of animism. Now where did you hear or learn that animism is "oldest type of religion"? Are we taking about the same concept of belief that was described in the 18th century by one Georg Ernst Stahl and referred to as Panpsychism in philosophy? If it is, then it is not a religion but a view; a worldview that was sequentially misconceived by many scientists who argued that can be seen as an alternative way to bridge the more extreme positions of crude reductionism and crude holism – a complete crisis of comprehending meaning by applying reason as wonderfully revealed by God in His magnificent revelation of Himself and His presence, through creation?
Secondly, and just like I politely informed Oloo, I will make plain again the very fact that I am not in this for any spiritual gain. It would also be ridiculous for me to begin knocking down other people’s faiths while I hide behind mine. But you have attempted to compare various religions and their signification on their believers as well as the categorical accompaniment of their impact in society.
Nevertheless, if you asked me to explain why man’s life is so complex today, I’d swiftly inform you that it is because man worships himself because he finds worshipping God way too costly and will therefore do anything to ensure that he maintains a transcendent view on things! To conceptualize this better, conjure up the image of child and watch the child grow under ordinary circumstances until s/he becomes an adult at the age of 18 years. You see that child will not doubt the existence of God until s/he begins to get educated. Still, during this period of growth, the child experiences the same love that s/he would experience in the prior/subsequent periods of maturity. Now do you know that all religions understand and comprehend this fact? Then why do their adherents remain disunited even though this is a foundational and material fact of their faiths?
Okay, with that in mind, now consider this second scenario;
......................in Hinduism, there are over 300 million deities! But in order to be fully cognizant of the Hindu faith, one has to be in total devotedness and abstemiousness from worldliness while in the eternal search of the Cosmic Spirit, as predicated in the Vedas. However, Shankara, the leading Hindu philosopher clearly says that one cannot interpret the Vedas unless they are born a Brahman!
......................in Islam, Muslims whose fundamental concept is the oneness of God – Tawhid, do not believe in any miracles, besides the very miracle of the Qur’an itself. The Qur’an was singularly revealed to the prophet Muhammad, exclusively in Arabic.
With the above in mind, figure in this question: to understand the very Truth of the Qur’an, the very miracle itself, one has to be sophisticated in Arabic, the very language of the miracle itself? Now conjure up to mind the image of a meeting between a Hindu and a Muslim…..where do they begin? Now couple in Christianity, Buddhism, Confucianism, Marxism, Nihilism, et cetera!
Do you see the diversity in the world today?
Nonetheless, man is always looking for Unity in his diversity. The problem with man is that through knowledge, he begins to doubt God and replace Him with himself by believing his (man’s) cooked up perceptions which resultantly culminate in his diversity. That is the major problem with human beings, in my opinion, and the more and more we persist in the pursuit of worldly knowledge, we will never find Unity. The other problem is that by going to planet Pluto in our pursuit for more knowledge, we will also be carrying our man-made inequities with us and creating more diversity. It is intrinsic in us as humans.
Now back to Kenya.......................
With the above cognition in mind, how can we begin to solve Kenya’s problems? At least, most humans in the world today believe in the very existence and revelation of God. That is why the majority of people in the world today are religious; because of the very evidence of the superiority of the Being of God through His magnificent creation.
Lastly and still on Kenya, is it then safe to conclude that religion has a major part to play in politics, because of its crucial implications of a moral law?
Maina
-unedited-
|
|
|
Post by maina on Apr 10, 2006 8:38:53 GMT 3
Oloo, Oloo, you are really interesting. To be surpassingly honest with you, I really admire both yours and Roughrider’s headwork. I am quite fascinated by the way you defend your convictions. But let’s put them through reality tests without making a paradigm shift of any sorts.
You see in the search for meaning and reason, there are three (3) tests any System/Idea (be it a worldview, logic, reasoning, appraisal, et cetera) must submit itself to: a) Logical consistency b) Empirical adequacy c) Experiential relevance That means that when you move through the logic, the empirical test and the experience of your system/worldview, you find its consistency, its adequacy and its relevance.
Halafu, the above three (3) tests have to be put to four (4) questions that each system/worldview must answer (whether it likes or not): i) origin ii) morality iii) meaning iv) destiny Each of these four (4) areas must individually correspond to reality as we know it and test it. That means that individual questions must correspond to reality in order for your System/Idea to adhere together! So when you raise a question of any other position, it is important to note that the same question applies to the questioner! That is REALITY!!!!!!!!
Now may I ask (kindly and compassionately) that you test your worldview and subject it to reality as I have beautifully illustrated above before you blindly become its exponent in the future? You can actually begin with Fidel’s above and actualize whether he does not contradict himself “reality-wise” in his first paragraph! Please, Oloo, reality is reality……………………I believe you know that!
Maina
-unedited-
|
|
|
Post by maina on Apr 10, 2006 8:40:40 GMT 3
Job, First of all Job, you need to stop confusing yourself; only theists have the moral authority to "unilaterally dictate the calibrations of our moral or social parameters and values" because they are the only ones that live within the context of a moral law! That, by the way, is a very serious fact! The other thing is that you seem to be rudely and recklessly inferring pluralism to mean relativism of ethics. No wonder you sound so incoherent; so many ideas everywhere and anywhere, making one conjure up to mind a brewing social crisis...............ugh!
Also, please desist from the intemperate dialectic contradictions; quite frankly, the contradictions are making you sound lost! There is no way in reality that two worldviews can blend together ati because you have wonderfully thought it up in your mind and it looks rosy and democratic................Ugh! Just ask Marx!
Maina
-unedited-
|
|
|
Post by kipsang on Apr 10, 2006 9:04:08 GMT 3
"You see in the search for meaning and reason, there are three (3) tests any System/Idea (be it a worldview, logic, reasoning, appraisal, et cetera) must submit itself to:"
Maina, the three test are subjective and may or may not be true depending on whoever is immersed in philosophical study of meaning; can you expound on this further?
|
|
|
Post by aeichener on Apr 10, 2006 10:13:25 GMT 3
Job, First of all Job, you need to stop confusing yourself; only theists have the moral authority to "unilaterally dictate the calibrations of our moral or social parameters and values" because they are the only ones that live within the context of a moral law! That, by the way, is a very serious fact! Wish-thinking of a confused mind himself, and not a fact. As if Buddhism did not have a very elaborate moral system. Alexander
|
|
|
Post by maina on Apr 10, 2006 17:59:13 GMT 3
Job, First of all Job, you need to stop confusing yourself; only theists have the moral authority to "unilaterally dictate the calibrations of our moral or social parameters and values" because they are the only ones that live within the context of a moral law! That, by the way, is a very serious fact! Wish-thinking of a confused mind himself, and not a fact. As if Buddhism did not have a very elaborate moral system. Alexander Oh boy! What shall I do with your unconsciousness? Ati now your idealistic mind has this time around brainstormed that Buddhism is some form of theism? The problem with you idealists is that whenever you come downstairs from your Ivory Towers, you are very apt to walk straight into the gutter! For you information Alexander, In Buddhism, a Buddha is any being that has become fully enlightened, has permanently overcome anger, greed, and ignorance, and has achieved complete liberation from suffering. Now, does that make sense to you? Can the soul and body be one? Is the world infinite and eternal? Does the Buddha exist after death? Ever wondered why these questions are not answered in Buddhism? Also, in Buddhism, anything 'exists' only because of the 'existence' of other phenomena in a complex web of cause and effect. For sentient beings, this amounts to a never-ending cycle of rebirth (samsara) according to the laws of karma and vipaka. Because all things are thus conditioned and transient (anicca), they have no real, independent identity (anatta) and so do not truly ‘exist’, although to ordinary minds they do appear to exist. Now Alexander, do you exist by default to warrant an existence of a moral law that also does not truly 'exist' duly because things in your world have no real and independent identity? Do you see the chaos here? Can one then define reality so as to adopt a moral law? Can a moral law exist in a world with no reality? Didn't the intricate and discursive influence of the Nirvana concept, do away with the moral law and adopt cryptic and questionable principles like the law of karma. Or is that what a moral law is to you? And speaking of morals, how can you have morals with no absolutes? On what basis does one determine what is moral if the mind and soul are one? Besides, have you ever heard of what Buddhists do for sacrifices or how a person gets punished? Or is this the elaborate moral system you are possibly imagining? To avoid getting confused in the future, please kindly note that an atheist is a person who has invisible means of support – fact!!!!! Atheists do not believe in a moral law, period! Maina -unedited-
|
|
|
Post by aeichener on Apr 10, 2006 20:14:46 GMT 3
Maina: there is nothing wrong with being ignorant on some matters. You are thoroughly ignorant on Buddhism (cut-and-paste from Google counteth not), I am ignorant on livestock raising.
Nothing intrinsically wrong with either. You would just better keep your trap shut, instead of embarrassing yourself publicly here.
Alexander
|
|
|
Post by mossad on Apr 10, 2006 22:10:51 GMT 3
Well, i think religionism(christianity and Isalm) is the most successful propaganda ever brought to africans. Infact, Louis Farakhan says" They came to africa with a message of crucifiction and they crucified us by their actions".
That's quite right...
Mossad.
|
|
|
Post by kipsang on Apr 10, 2006 22:19:35 GMT 3
maina, you lift most of your info from lecturers and writings of Dr. Ravi, exept for the dense lexical acrobatics. I would follow your aguments well if they were original.
|
|
|
Post by maina on Apr 10, 2006 22:34:21 GMT 3
"You see in the search for meaning and reason, there are three (3) tests any System/Idea (be it a worldview, logic, reasoning, appraisal, et cetera) must submit itself to:" Maina, the three test are subjective and may or may not be true depending on whoever is immersed in philosophical study of meaning; can you expound on this further? Kipsang, Habari! Let us try and analyze the New Age movement for instance. Elliot Miller, a hippie of the 1960s, who was always drugged out and freaked out, got so stressed out that he became a believer of Christ and began to see New Age from a Christian perspective. He described it as follows: "An extremely large, loosely structured network of organizations and individuals bound together of by common values, based in mysticism and monism – the worldview that all is one, and a common vision of a coming new age of peace and mass enlightenment; the age of Aquarius." New Age is probably the most under guarding force today. It is a definite worldview that we need to contend with in our lives today! Actually one of the best books by a new-ager is Mark Satin’s book; New Age Politics. It is worth buying the book if no other reason, his bibliography (i.e., the annotated bibliography) at the end of the book which critiques 265 New Age publications, is an outstanding treatment coming from the defensive viewpoint of New Age although he (Mark Satin) does an awfully shady and shoddy job in his philosophical arguments! But let’s look at the terms of New Age that are of course forcefully used by its worshippers in its defense. They are: network, organization, individual, bound together and common values. How often do you hear these words today? Come to think of it, just read through the thread and I bet you it won’t be difficult to distinguish the New Agers of Jukwaa, yes, honourable Kenyans! But do you know who used the word values instead of the word morality? It was Nietzsche! Now do you see how his ghost haunts the 20th century, so much so that even Kenyans in Jukwaa can’t run from him? Nietzsche is the character that used the word values for the first time because he said that man has to be redefined. In other words, man has to revalue that which has no value because, as he said, "God is dead"! And if "God is dead", then, ".....................someone has to play God," said Malcolm Muggeridge. And what do you see today? Isn’t it either megalomania or erotomania; the drive for power or the drive for pleasure, the clenched fist or the fallace, Hitler or Hugh Heffner? If you still doubt me, please kindly summon up to mind the old series of popular humanist "quips". If you do not remember, they are as follows: in the 1960s, "God is dead" (Time Magazine cover); in the 1970s, "Marx is dead" (Time Magazine cover). This was what made some college fellow in the 1980s to quip, "If God is dead and Marx is dead, I am not feeling too well myself"! Do you see what I saying here? The college fellow did this because he was all of a sudden bemused about where he was going to get his value from? God said from above, Marx said from below but according to the ages, they were both dead! Now this fellow had to revalue himself starting from scratch – enter New Age. That is simply and plainly why New Age is an organization, comprising of individuals with commonly bound values in mysticism and monism. Now do you see this manenos? Monism is the philosophy that ascribes to all being one and it comes from the very word monos meaning, one. Monism means one reality, while pantheism means that one reality is divine. So when New Agers talk of pantheistic monism, they are basically saying that everything that exists is one! Therefore there is no I, and you! That is why a true monist should not pray, because the moment a monist prays, s/he is talking about someone else other than themselves! That’s why in monism, they meditate; it’s idolatry according to Christianity, because it is basically navel-gazing – one just keeps looking inward till they find that outward belief of the transcendent union with the divine. This is basic definition of New Age. Please also notice that it is described very carefully as a loosely structured network. If you remember, when Existentialism was born, it did not want to be systematized. Actually, Jean Paul Sartre ridiculed critics who "put him in a box" because his whole philosophy was about doing what he wanted to do. Actually, Existentialism is smoothly the philosophy of living life with a passion for the now! New Age is doing the same thing right now! But give ‘em time, they will be in a "box" because its whole concept has an irresistible draw to systemization. Now let’s analyze the three (3) concepts of common value of New Age. Please also remember that New Age apparently has the best scientific argument that is very difficult to answer (from a Christian point of view), and I will discuss the lynchpins of its worldview and arguments. For instance, if you examine almost all universities today, you’ll find The Tao of Physics, the book by the self-avowed New-ager Fritjof Capra, on the library shelves! Capra gives New Age major scientific strength through his book. Anyhow, their (the New-agers) three values that they hold on to, are as follows: a) The consciousness movement; a way of expanding human possibilities (rock n roll movements, gay parades, stem cell debates, et cetera) b) The holistic movement; nature, ecology et cetera. For instance, have you noticed the acidic antagonism towards anything that threatens ecology and the animal world like in England where it is almost illegal not to wear furs? You see with Christians (in Romans 1) we are advised against being "worshippers of the creature and the four-footed beast" and forgotten the dignity and essence of man? c) The human potential; energy channeling, et cetera. But what about their sociological starting-points? This is where you put the New Age through the questions of: origin, condition, salvation and destiny (as I pointed out in my previous thread); In other words, the System/idea you are analyzing has to answer the following questions: where do I come?; why am I the way I am?; how do I change myself?; where do I ultimately go? Every worldview, religion, et cetera must explain all of these four aspects and remain consistent with reality as we know it and test it, within the explanation! So let’s examine the question of condition with respect to New Age, for an example. In his New Age Politics, Mark Satin says, "Man lives in a six-sided prison." Thus, the New Age Movement, in terms of condition describes man as being part of a "six-sided prison". The first "prison" is that “there are patriarchal attitudes in life". Now when the New-agers use the term "patriarchal", they are basically referring to a male dominated society. That is why their (the New-agers) answer to this is the rugged feminist movements we have today (like the screwy new-fangled anti-skivvies of San Francisco)! Do you get my drift now? Unaona how they’re trying to revalue everything and in the process, they’re completely loosing it? Therefore Kipsang, every idea, be it a philosophy, worldview, religion, (whatever you call it), must be put analyzed by answering questions of reality as we know it and test it. But you’re right in that various individuals are in some form of enchanted mode and find themselves believing and subsequently proselytizing ridiculousness like Nietzsche, Descartes and Marx! Could the problem be that we as humans are thinking way too much? If that’s the case, what/where then is the absolute? How do we effect it in Kenya? Isn’t self-preservation fundamental in Kenya? Maina P.S. Kipsang, Ravi is the only person I know in this world who defends the Christian faith from a philosophical perspective. I think he is awesome! -unedited-
|
|
|
Post by maina on Apr 10, 2006 22:35:10 GMT 3
Maina: there is nothing wrong with being ignorant on some matters. You are thoroughly ignorant on Buddhism (cut-and-paste from Google counteth not), I am ignorant on livestock raising. Nothing intrinsically wrong with either. You would just better keep your trap shut, instead of embarrassing yourself publicly here. Alexander Alexander, I didn’t know you were ignorant but you can now rest assured that I won’t spend another moment trying to figure out how to make you understand essentialities, because like you beautifully said, you are an ignorant one. Phew! Actually, I pasted some of those facts from wikipedia.org and not google.com! But anyways, I did it because I needed to make it very elementary for you to comprehend! You see Alexander, I didn’t know you were ignorant like you beautifully confessed, but you can be now certain that I never doubted it! No need stressing about it, you can rest assured that my posts will remain subjective with little or no recognition for you and your tastes because like you said, you are ignorant! So all I can say is that I feel sorry you are ignorant! I am actually empathetic – fact!!!! Maina -unedited-
|
|
|
Post by job on Apr 10, 2006 23:40:25 GMT 3
Maina,
Pay attention to what Kipsang told you,....... be original and straightforward. Pasting stuff from wikipedia or Dr. Ravi's works (& not quoting them) may not necesarily be what originality is about. You know exactly what that is. It also doesn't necessarily make one look brilliant.
Back off from unwarranted and meaningless arrogance. You are impressing no one but yourself, with your intolerant attitude to others opinions. Must you always pick personal quarrels with all who express themselves at jukwaa, simply because those opinions don't originate from wikipedia.com?
Pass and move on,....especially on trivial matters. If you do not get my simple straighforward points,...then ignore them,......rather than displaying hateful attitudes in wordy & boring posts.
Not everyone in Jukwaa studied philosophy like yourself. Teach us some of the things you know in a more scholarly & interesting manner, observing traditional tenets like academic tolerance and patience with novices like myself or Alex.
After all you proclaim philosophy & social mathematics is your field of speciality. Are we out of bounds with our two cent opinions from this dormain? Or should we just shut up and listen to "Professor" Maina. -No pun intended,....just illustrating my point. Doesn't make you sound brilliant for your information. I will not bring my SCHOLARLY professional discussions into Jukwaa for egotistical or other reasons.
Your authority in any field will be revealed just by how simple you portray complex messages for the appreciation of all, including laymen & your peers. What you have succeded in demonstrating so far is your arrogance & undeserved contempt for others opinions, ...which makes me ask whether your'e really an expert authority in the field,.......or are you just trying to impress someone here for some ego/personality reasons . You may be only impressing yourself,.......seriously Maina, I mean it.
peace and learn to move on.
unedited.
Job
|
|