Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
alhabeeb

Objects Or Intentions, What Is Primary?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

AsSalaam

When we see things are we seeing the objects or just the intentions of people. For example, I am looking at my laptop. The laptop has a shape and colour and function. Are these things that are commonly understood to be seen by our eyes really there? or are we perceiving the intentions of people?

What do I mean when I say are we perceiving the intentions of people? I mean that the laptop is black and silver because the person(s) that made it intended for it to be that colour, so now what am I seeing is it their intentions or the laptop itself? i.e. is the world just a series of intentions decoded by the nafs, or does it really exist as we see it?

and what effects do the brothers and sisters think that this understanding has on our lives? and particularly in purification of the nafs?

AsSalaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AsSalaam

When we see things are we seeing the objects or just the intentions of people. For example, I am looking at my laptop. The laptop has a shape and colour and function. Are these things that are commonly understood to be seen by our eyes really there? or are we perceiving the intentions of people?

What do I mean when I say are we perceiving the intentions of people? I mean that the laptop is black and silver because the person(s) that made it intended for it to be that colour, so now what am I seeing is it their intentions or the laptop itself? i.e. is the world just a series of intentions decoded by the nafs, or does it really exist as we see it?

and what effects do the brothers and sisters think that this understanding has on our lives? and particularly in purification of the nafs?

AsSalaam

what about the stars and the heavens and the mountains?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

asSalaam

They are nothing but manifestations of Allah (SWT)s names primarily, the eyes of the body see them as they do due to their inability to witness His names (AWJ). Only the heart of the Pure ones can witness the names that manifest to the eyes as the sun and mountains etc...

asSalaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

asSalaam

They are nothing but manifestations of Allah (SWT)s names primarily, the eyes of the body see them as they do due to their inability to witness His names (AWJ). Only the heart of the Pure ones can witness the names that manifest to the eyes as the sun and mountains etc...

asSalaam

salaam

Thank you. And this would go not only for mountains, rivers, and trees.. but aslso for things which are created by humans. right?

:) ws wr wb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

asSalaam

I think that it would apply to the creations of human beings as well, however because human beings have choice anything they create would not transmit the light of Allah (SWT)s perfection in all of its aspects, but more imperfection due to the Kindness and Justice of Allah (SWT) granting them choice and our lack of ability to live up to our covenant with Allah (SWT) to make the right choices.

thank you

asSalaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as western philosophy goes I belive what you're describing is simply a empircistic view that focuses on sensory perception as a means to gain knowledge or expierence about the physical world.

I think you're orignally concern was more of an epistemic query, that is to say it's a question over knowledge;

correct me if I'm mistaken but I intrepretated your post to differ between the question of "Is the object to which my intention is oriented truely there?"

but more the question of "Do I have knowledge of the fact that the object to which my intention is oriented is truely there?" And again the 'truely there' part suggests all the qualative notions we put into 'truely'; i.e.

the structure, extension, color, form, shape, size, etc. or any given object. Now if you're limiting knowledge to the state of mere sense preception then that has metaphysical consequences such as a idealistic or phenomenal worldview. Simply stated idealism states all there exists

I also think embedded in your query is a problem of language.rather than saying "intentions of people", I think you're actually refering to your own "sense data" albeit with human constructs and constraints within language.

I' would add more and clarify the concepts in more detail but I'm running late for class right now and I just wanted to leave this comment because your question is something I've been thinking on and of about for a couple years. Quick shout out to David Hume; he was a empircist who eventually lead a path down to skepeticism.

And Also a shout out to Immanuel Kant; a philosopher who tried to answer Hume's skepetcism by defining reality in two parts: the phenomenal and the noumenal.

I'll post a little something about how these two guys relate to your earlier post. Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...Immanuel Kant; a philosopher who tried to answer Hume's skepetcism by defining reality in two parts: the phenomenal and the noumenal.

I'll post a little something about how these two guys relate to your earlier post. Peace

I look forward to this post. I may write something after you. My last notes (or next to last) when these things were my concern were upon the problem of perception (G.E. Moore provoked them). Although - we may be straying from the issue raised at the beginning of the topic. He asked about a particular epistemology (are our perceptions of actual objects or intentions of individuals). I do not see how anyone could possibly hold that we only perceive intentions. A laptop is black and silver not purely because someone - the maker of the laptop - intended it to be. It is black and silver because he made it (or had it painted) black and silver. You see his intentions in that he has suceeded in bringing them to effect; it is unnecessary to speak of his intentions regarding our perceptions though. We less perceive what he has done than we do the object itself, as it is at the time of our perceiving it, irrespective of who made it or whose intention to make it that it was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are seeing the objects which were intended to be created and were created.

is the world just a series of intentions decoded by the nafs, or does it really exist as we see it? and what effects do the brothers and sisters think that this understanding has on our lives? and particularly in purification of the nafs?

It doesn't really matter what we are seeing or what is decoded. The fact is that we are seeing them like this and God has put us in this situation and has told us to obey his orders and he will punish and reward us likewise using the same system.

I don't think this understanding will have much effect on purifying the nafs but I know for a fact that if you keep on going like this you will have a lot of problems purifying your nafs because of the paranoia that this question is creating for you (no offense).:wub:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AsSalaam

When we see things are we seeing the objects or just the intentions of people. For example, I am looking at my laptop. The laptop has a shape and colour and function. Are these things that are commonly understood to be seen by our eyes really there? or are we perceiving the intentions of people?

What do I mean when I say are we perceiving the intentions of people? I mean that the laptop is black and silver because the person(s) that made it intended for it to be that colour, so now what am I seeing is it their intentions or the laptop itself? i.e. is the world just a series of intentions decoded by the nafs, or does it really exist as we see it?

and what effects do the brothers and sisters think that this understanding has on our lives? and particularly in purification of the nafs?

AsSalaam

Salaam Aleikum,

I recommend you to read Bertrand Russell work called The Problems of Philosophy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AsSalaam

When we see things are we seeing the objects or just the intentions of people. For example, I am looking at my laptop. The laptop has a shape and colour and function. Are these things that are commonly understood to be seen by our eyes really there? or are we perceiving the intentions of people?

What do I mean when I say are we perceiving the intentions of people? I mean that the laptop is black and silver because the person(s) that made it intended for it to be that colour, so now what am I seeing is it their intentions or the laptop itself? i.e. is the world just a series of intentions decoded by the nafs, or does it really exist as we see it?

and what effects do the brothers and sisters think that this understanding has on our lives? and particularly in purification of the nafs?

AsSalaam

Someone's been reading too much of that Ibn Arabi nonsense.

Even as someone who loves philosophy, I find myself saying;

Brother gimme some of what you've been smoking. :P

Edited by JawzofDETH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
look forward to this post

Man I really wish you hadn't said that, I'm kind of a chronic procrastinator; in fact I failed out my Kant course for this very reason...

I had a strong hesitation from making any corrections or make any additional posts on this; But let's just see...

So we've establish that this is an epistemic query; whether our knowledge is directed to physical objects or intentions.

Okay so I agree with you Peccator when you said "I do not see how anyone could possibly hold that we only perceive [other's] intentions".

I gather you mean other people's intentions and not one own's. Well maybe, actually I'm not sure, I night be mistakingly equating perception with intention.

Although there are those who hold the metaphysical existence of intentional realms; I'm guessing you meant more along the lines of its usage in common

speak and its reference to the author's/artists's original intention.

So let's clear up a little confusion when we talk about intention. What do we mean exactly? I think the OP's original use of the term can be expressed in three

different ways. He might have intended a somewhat aesthetic mode of interpretation; maybe something along the lines of how closely our experience matches

an artist's original intention i.e. artist's intention=object=our intention of said object. I mean artist here in the broadest sense of the term; it can include laborers, technicians, engineers, etc...

Or perhaps he was worried about intentionality as its mediated through language; it imposes on us restrictions/meanings outside of our own invention; the rules

are objective, the meaning universal in a sense yet reference from objects to meanings has a [Edited Out] load of problems.

Or by intention he rather meant perception; like I stated earlier "sense data" so the question maybe rephrased to "Is my experience of objects limited to my sensations?"

So which way you wanna go mang?....

is the world just a series of intentions, or does it really exist as we see it?

Side not to self talk about phenomenalism, logical postivism and Kant here.

Exercise for the OP:

List out all the different mediations that take place between you and an object:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...