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

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, Flying_Eagle said:

good academic definition of logic, but I have come to know that he used to refute philosophy and philosophers use logic and everything which you have today including literature of any religion which is being defined by its  taught in Madrasas and Masajid. Probably, he was not that much oppose to some kind of philosophy, if not all

So what is your objection exactly? His criticism toward philosophy came from spirituality. Philosophy lacks spirituality on many ways. That doesn't mean a philosopher can't be spiritual, but it does mean that philosophy does not in itself lead to spirituality, not to mention religion.

Or do you think that this above mentioned logic can be used to attain the highest form of religiousness?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Aragaia said:

So what is your objection exactly? His criticism toward philosophy came from spirituality. Philosophy lacks spirituality on many ways. That doesn't mean a philosopher can't be spiritual, but it does mean that philosophy does not in itself lead to spirituality, not to mention religion.

Or do you think that this above mentioned logic can be used to attain the highest form of religiousness?

I think that he is is considering bad-ideas to be philosophy, and he refers to it by saying that philosophy lacks spirituality. He should have said bad-ideas lack spirituality and not true philosophy, The problems which we face today is because we never understood philosophy of Islam. Besides, he was never pondered over Qur'an and Hadith like philosophers would do, he read it with outward eye and made everything halal and haram according to his own intellect and never thought over the words of Qur'an which asks us to think and ponder. Probably, because he did not read books from good scholars and used his own brain or he could not understand it or his teachers distorted philosophy before he began to think upon it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Flying_Eagle said:

I think that he is is considering bad-ideas to be philosophy, and he refers to it by saying that philosophy lacks spirituality. He should have said bad-ideas lack spirituality and not true philosophy, The problems which we face today is because we never understood philosophy of Islam. Besides, he was never pondered over Qur'an and Hadith like philosophers would do, he read it with outward eye and made everything halal and haram according to his own intellect and never thought over the words of Qur'an which asks us to think and ponder. Probably, because he did not read books from good scholars and used his own brain or he could not understand it or his teachers distorted philosophy before he began to think upon it

Amazing how little you think of him. Philosophy and religion don't go together. Try as you may. I wouldn't rely on people who hate him to tell you the truth of him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Aragaia said:

Amazing how little you think of him. Philosophy and religion don't go together. Try as you may. I wouldn't rely on people who hate him to tell you the truth of him.

lolz, Through Philosophy you find true religion. I do not agree with what you have said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

I was just wondering if someone here who is well versed with aristotelian logic could explain to me if Ibn Taymiyya's arguments were sound and valid and if in fact Ibn Taymiyya did indeed prove that logic can indeed not bring certainty. 

If it is true that deduction cannot bring certainty, then I do not see how we can have certainty in the existence of God.

I have read Ibn Taymiyyah's work many years ago and many arguments he brings in it are valid and even other logicians and philosophers acknowledged these critiques later. However, over the later centuries and especially today, there has been a lot more extensive advancement in these discussions, especially in the field of epistemology and while some of those critiques he does are still valid, there have been other ways to justify the value of logic and especially deduction.

Wasalam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

I have read Ibn Taymiyyah's work many years ago and many arguments he brings in it are valid and even other logicians and philosophers acknowledged these critiques later. However, over the later centuries and especially today, there has been a lot more extensive advancement in these discussions, especially in the field of epistemology and while some of those critiques he does are still valid, there have been other ways to justify the value of logic and especially deduction.

Wasalam

Do contemporary arguments justify how one can attain certainty with deduction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

Do contemporary arguments justify how one can attain certainty with deduction?

The problem isn't inherently with deduction. The problem is with the majority of premises used in deduction and that they do not provide the type of certainty that the philosophers are actually trying to seek. Even Shahid Sadr has critiqued this extensively, hence he had to come up with his induction-based certainty (in his work Logical Foundations of Induction).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anon
2 hours ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

The problem isn't inherently with deduction. The problem is with the majority of premises used in deduction and that they do not provide the type of certainty that the philosophers are actually trying to seek. Even Shahid Sadr has critiqued this extensively, hence he had to come up with his induction-based certainty (in his work Logical Foundations of Induction).

But, doesn't inductive reasoning, by its nature, produce probabilistic conclusions as opposed to certitude? For example, every house I have observed on a particular street is red, therefore the next house I see  on the street is also probably going to be red. In contrast, deductive arguments, which are sound and valid, provide certain conclusions, like mathematical truths.

In light of this, I'm curious to know how induction can provide certitude.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...