You are welcome!
Clown puppets have only a singular moral function: 'to be pitied'. They can not be ultimately loved or hated, angered or cheered-up by, and even objected to or by. After all they are just puppets. Their sole existential function is for us to exercise our pity meanwhile through that pity for them, be magnanimous. Their theatrics only provides us with opportunity that if we cared and if we had the time to stop for a while and practice our pity on them. They are not to be taken more serious than that.
This is correct. If you cared to remember, I had made this point long ago while debating with you. In chizi hast keh onayei keh fekr mikonan, agar jayeh jomhori eslami democracy faransavi bood ya agar shah mondeh bood ya agar mossadegh 30 saal nokhst vazir mimond, Iran behesht mishod; bayad beh khodeshon tafhim konan. Kesai keh fekr mikonan agar Ahmadinejad va Jalili 40 saal royeh kar mimondan ya agar mosavi 95 saal digeh hakem mamlekat mishod ya agar Iran yeh faza-navard dasht ya agar agar agar va baz ham agar jor digari bood, moshkelat ma hal mishodan, bayad in noktaro befahman. I already know it. And I am stoic about it.
Rahe 3000 saal tafakor ro ba avaz kardan shalvar ya poshidan daman kotah nemisheh dar yek shab raft. Onam dar shabi tarik va payeh piadeh.
Again for 20th time, I have to re-emphasize, that education system ALSO is one of their inventions. As is that philosophy. As is everything else. Yani oon system amozeshi seh hezar saal pish beh ina elham keh nashodeh bood. Peyghambar keh beheshon nagofteh bood keh in karha ro anjam bedan. It was their untiring desire to understand more and in a deeper sense which guided them towards creating those systems. Their desire to learn (from universe) did not come as a result of attending Gymnasium or Lyceum but rather the Gymnasium, Lyceum and Modern Universities were invented by them to satisfy their original desire to study the universe around them.
You see, this is what pains me. That we are still stuck between Zoroaster and Sophist traditions and still our predominant form of thought consists of hamina hamrahe yekam eteghadat mazhabi emrozemon keh beyneh maraajeh kalami va ahmaghai akhbari navasan mizaneh.
Maybe I should put a very short simplified history of philosophy here in order to make it more clear.
Basically the story of thinking, philosophy and sciences starts with Zoroaster. He puts forward a philosophy (as part of his religion) that we humans have something called human nature and this human nature is oscillating between lie and truth. The goal of humanity is to find the truth and uphold it but he does not entirely clarify what that truth is or how to uphold it, except that he promises of a great reward on final day of judgement if we did uphold the truth.
This idea spreads and finds its way into West. There, Sophists teach arete to make humans virtuous. For them truth is not absolutist in nature and everyone and every nation can have its own version of truth since truth of an object under our study is dependent on us and how we perceive that object and how much we know about that object. The sky becomes light and warm during the day and goes dark and cold during the night, and this happens every day. This is a Sophist truth. In a nutshell it is our knowledge that defines the truth of an object and gives us wisdom and virtue. Therefore it was the humans which "defined" the truth as they deemed it fit according to their knowledge.
This Sophist knowledge makes you virtuous and wise since you know after night, there will be a day and after dark it will be light. Sophists were powerful orators who could use language and colorful arguments to defend their views, naturally with such qualities they had become very powerful as they could convince people of their views and the importance of the "virtues" they brought to the society. Mesleh hamin naghdi, abbasi, ziba-kalam ya democracy-talaban-gharbzadeh va baghieh hamin chert goyan khodemon bodan, kholaseh.
In vasat, yek pire mardi shoro mikoneh to kocheha bacheharo doreh khodesh jam kardan and arguing against Sophism. He puts forward the proposition that the truth is deeper than ourselves, deeper than the object under our study, and deeper than the knowledge we have of that object. He puts forward the idea that everything has an essence and we can not fully understand an object without contemplating about this essence. Moreover, this essence representing the truth is separate from the object itself.
This dude whose name was Socrates believed the truth is universal and as narrated by his students for example Plato, he (and Plato) believed that the essence or the truth of objects resided somewhere in the cosmos (not on earth) and these perfect forms or divine forms then caused the truth of the beings on earth. He called that place where these perfect forms reside, topos noetos. For him and his students the education of masses (by philosophers, naturally) was important because it was only through this education that the masses could learn about the truth and topos noetos, as beautifully narrated by Plato in
allegory of cave. The Sophists naturally went mad with rage and condemned Socrates to death.
Later on the ideas of Socrates and Plato are expanded and modified by their student Aristotle to create a body of philosophy which would play a foundation stone for West. Aristotle comes to conclusion that the topos noetos does not really exist but the idea of the essence of objects and beings becomes the subject of his study as the inherent truth of those objects. No longer it is the knowledge of us that determines the truth about objects but the truth becomes an entity onto itself irrespective of us knowing anything about it or not.
Aristotle makes it our duty to contemplate about the idea and essence of the world around ourselves. And this contemplation unlike in Sophism happens not because of the knowledge we have learnt or accumulated about the world but goes further than that. This contemplation asks: "what is sky?". Sophist could only say it goes light and dark. But this is not what Socrates or Aristotle are asking. The question of what sky is, becomes more fundamental. It forces one then to think deeper about what something is, that we call and identify as sky. It forces one to wander into unknown rather than remaining in the known sphere of knowledge (coming through ages of wisdom, which was Sophism).
Molahezeh kon. Shoma hanoz beh Aristotle narisidi. Hanoz dargireh zartosht va sofestanian hasti. Yani yek "doktara" dar pezeshki ya bargh ya mekanik migiri va mesleh toti baghieh omret dar "tadris" hamon "Wisdom" keh yad gerefti migzareh, bedon inkeh betoni fekri az khodet dashteh bashi ya saval koni va chizi beh in elm ezafeh koni. Hanoz nemitoni hata beporsi in bargh chieh. Joratesh ham nadari.
And this is just the start. Later on after a lull, comes new findings in West. Findings such as those of Copernicus and Galileo who bring into question Aristotle's view of the world. So then Descartes puts forward another philosophy in order to replace the Aristotle's system. He puts forward the idea that it is ok to doubt. He separates human to body and mind and proposes mind-body dualism.
He gives you the permission to doubt Aristotle. To doubt the world. To doubt sard o garm. To doubt whether sky exists or not. To doubt everything. Even to doubt the existence of your own body (does your body really exist? Are you sure?). Even to doubt God. Through this doubt, you dominate the world around yourself since everything is now under your doubt. You doubt them, therefore you dominate them. But this doubt is not limitless. Descartes does not give you the permission to doubt the mind. That is, though you can doubt everything including your own body, you can not doubt your own mind which is doing the doubting. Since it is the mind that is thinking and doubting. And therefore his famous saying that: "I think (doubt) therefore I am (exist)". Descartes philosophy then expands on universalism of the essence and ideas and becomes the foundation stone for humanism, human rights, individualism, and modern sciences.
And again this is just the beginning. Spinoza comes and says, it is really ridiculous to believe in a God and pray to Him. He calls into question your love for God and praying at the same time. He sees prayers as a ridiculous request to God by humans to change the working of the universe in order to please you. As per Spinoza only a stupid narcissist would go on expecting God to bend the laws of physics and the mathematics of the Universe in order to answer your prayers (eg. God please cure my daughter's cancer! God please save me from plane crash! Oh, God, make me rich!).
Instead of prayers, Spinoza says, the duty of mankind to God is to learn the truth of the universe by discovering as many of its laws and understand the workings of the nature. And then on, accept that the Universe is too big and too beautiful to be halted/bent by God in order to satisfy your small narcissistic desires. Rather than praying and asking God to break His laws for you, thence you should spend your life in awe of the nature, if you truly love God. And through this stoicism be happy and content.
And then comes Hume who brings forward another philosophy based on empiricism. He proposes that the truth can only come from experimentation. That the idealism of essence in continental European philosophy is wrong. It is only when we experiment and learn through experience that we can discover the truth. This brings Hume into conflict with the rest of the philosophy.
Then comes Kant who unifies continental idealist philosophy with the empiricism of Hume. He does this by, arguing that the foundation of truth is experimental but not all truth can come from experiments and creates the idea of apriori.
And then and between come many many more. Thinkers like Nietzsche who reincarnates Zoroaster in order to tell the mankind, this time around, another 'truth' that the God has died and that the mankind is now alone and needs to perfect itself even more regardless. Then comes Popper who ties the loose ends of the philosophy of science by providing the powerful tool of falsification. And after 3000 years and many many thinkers, many of whom never even got mentioned here from Hegel to Aquinas, comes Fukuyama who borrowing from German philosophers announces that the historical duty of thinking and philosophy has come to an end.
That the philosophy as a subject has been completed. That the aim of philosophy has been achieved, and delivered and from now on what remains is re-interpenetration of what has been thought already (there will be no more new thinking, modernism is over as we have entered the post-modernism). That from now on it is the duty of arts and sciences to strive for completing their subject matters since philosophy has already done so.
Deghat kardi. Yani ina beh gofteh khodeshon karo tamom kardan. Mosabegharo bordan va alan tamashachi shodan. Neshastan shoma aghab-mondeha ro negah mikonan keh saro kaleh ham digeh mizanin, yekiton miad to BBC mishineh dahaneh gondasho vaz mikoneh va migeh ma democracy mikhaim
, ma hoghogh felan mikhaim
va yeki digash to televizion Iran sokhanrani mikoneh migeh ma mosalmon hastim, dar sakht zip shalvar khod-kafa shodim
, chand miliard dollar dadim beh Siemens Alman va alan karkhoneh toorbin saazi darim
, honar kardim va az in harfa.
I just laugh.
Yani engar na engar keh seh hezar saal tool keshideh keh gharb beh inja bereseh, badesh cheh velayat-madara, cheh tarafdarhai rahbari shorayii va cheh gharb-parastan va shahollaia va baghieh khodeh mellat fekr mikonan keh mitonan dar 10 saal Iran ro Alman ya Canada konan. Ma hata agar aramesh kamel dashtim, khatar shoresh, eghteshash, jang va tajzieh mamlekat nabod va in raho fast forward berim, az eshtebahat gharb dars begirim va posht kar mellati mesleh Japan ro dashteh bashim (beh onvan yek mellati keh az gharb amokht va pishraft kard), baz ham hadeh aghal yeh 100 saal tool khahad keshid ta ma beh ina beresim.
Tazeh agar beresim. Chonkeh chizai keh ina alan daran rosh sarmayeh gozari mikonan va rosh kar mikonan, shomaha hanoz na esmasho shenidin va na dar khab ya filmai hollywoodi didin.
no need for counseling after all
and moreover since my childhood my lovely mother has kept telling me about the consequences of such a marriage that's way whomever I've met (gal) the first Q is "Do you have minor thalessemia?" if the answer is affirmative I would ran away other way I would end in coffee shop ... kidding ..
, Asad's government (both the dad and son) were freely elected by the Syrian people.
, consider a case where a patient is brought with a hope of less than one percent of surviving, no one would ever blame a doctor if he chose to use all the means to dig for that near zero probability, as the same as no one would ever be found not to blame an engineer if he chose to perform to save a near crumbling building with a one percent chance of surviving.
