Science and mathematics are not ethically neutral universal achievements. They are utterly inextricable from the social-political-economic history of the West, and as contemporary science and mathematics have been embraced by non-Western countries, those countries have assimilated major elements of Western ethico-political thought into their indigenous culture.

This is up to debate and l haven't reached a conclusion on this topic. We know the role of the Moors in triggering the enlightenment and historians have challenged the narrative that early 16 century scientific revolution had no precedent in history in terms of method and content. Other civilization could have developed a very different world if the scientific revolution took in their midst.

Can a non-western civilization adopt scientific thinking and not borrow the ideological content which is glued to it, ie the rejection of supernatural-otherworldly revelation, transcendental truths etc. If this is the case, then the other world is better off in its rejection of science-technology but if this is not the case, then they can separate the hard ideologically empty content of science from the value laden social sciences-cum-humanities of western civilization.

I am inclined towards the latter point of view.

Nietzsche said that all philosophy is autobiography. I think that is true of politics and religion as well.
I’m wondering if there is something in your biography that may be making you inclined to project your personal issues onto an abstraction , the so-called ‘global situation’.
What is your relationship with your neighbors in your local community? Do you relate to their outlooks or are you as alienated from them as you are from the modern world as a whole? If you are happily ensconced within your own little corner of the world , why should it matter to your peace of mind what happens in places far from you? And if you are not happy in your own community , do you mean to tell me that you cannot think of anyplace in the entire world where you could find common ground with others on the basis of your religious, political or ethical values?
If you can’t run far enough to escape a world of suffering and pain, perhaps it is becuase you’re trying to run away from yourself.

Before Nietzsche, there was Kierkegaard, a deeper thinker. His famous slogan "truth is subjectivity" doesn't undermine the objective angle with which we can examine truth or see how it's shared between people. Truth is experienced individually and reinforced collectively. We can definitely disagree on the qualitative nature of objectivity and for me personally, l think we should not understand spiritual-social-political-economic problems with a scientific lens ONLY to the exclusion of other methods

I can't tell if you are trying to psychoanalyze me to see why I'm so butthurt over civilization but l can convince you, my worldview actually takes its foundation in a book followed by 1.6 billion people, not a small number by any means. This number obviously doesn't imply it's the truth but I'm not alone or isolated in my worldview. I'm sure many Christians and Jews (orthodox) also share my perspective with their own twist. Btw l don't follow anarcho-primitivism. I believe we can fix the world, civilization is neccessary but it can definitely be improved by halting the advance of scientific-technological development and by reinforcing the importance of the sacred, by clinging to a transcedental truth ( morality ). We need to change the paradigm of modern western civilization from progress to morality.

Here l will quote the words of God,

"And there is no city but that We will destroy it before the Day of Resurrection or punish (chastise) it with a severe punishment (chastisement) . That has ever been in the book inscribed" (17:58)

This is a western, science-based forum, my friend... Accurate as your panopticon vision is, it will be met with fierce resistance, as the above comments show. Two of the comments pointed to the Eden story. Which in a modern interpretation could be viewed as a paradise that got lost after biting the apple of scientific knowledge. A knowledge compared to which the knowledge of good and bad shrinks into insignificance.

Don't forget: I'm on your side!

I hope people never conflate my criticism of modern western civilization with the hatred of westerners. Everyone who shares a similar viewpoint as me, he's my brother, a friend, my own kind in this terrible world. The color of the skin, the language doesn't matter. I haven't lost hope in the goodwill of people living in the west or east.

Btw, science and mathematics (esp) is a shared heritage of mankind. Every civilization has a played a decisive role in its advancement and STEM will take care of itself. I'm more concerned with the ethical- social-political-economic side of the equation.

It is difficult, if not impossible, to measure the misery of the present age with that suffered in the past. A fair amount of the testimony suggests that Ecclesiastes was right in saying that it is the Same Day, just different shit.

The present world order is terrible, unjust, and insane but I will take it over the Hundreds of Years of religious wars and the slavery of subsistence living.

Oh wait, we are still doing all of that. But not so much. And not being convinced that there was a Golden Age of simplicity lets me appreciate the benefits and freedom of movement denied to previous generations, at least to the point where I am not burned for being a heretic. The process that made that less likely surely owes a lot to the Enlightenment. It is as if a certain group of people got together and wondered how to constrain the power of these simple people so assured of their own righteousness.

I think we can agree to the fact that people face the greatest danger (physical and psychological) in a war. World War 1 changed the historical narrative people had of war, it's barbarism destroyed the notion of heroism, honor in war. It was the deadliest war in history until WW2. I think the nukes are the perfect cure and when they will be used, people will wake up and see if the present world order is really safe and conducive to civilization. All we need is a WW3, to wake the world up. The philistines can warn people of the dangers of nukes and try to sign a million nuclear non proliferation treaties to keep the world safe, it will come to pass one day.

As for slavery and poverty, the economic system of western civilization has pushed more people into poverty , to working in sweatshops than slave owners could ever dream of in the past. Modern slavery doesn't require chains, you can trap countries in debt traps and sanction them to death. What a wonderful world, so much better.

What makes you think we don't have heretics these days? The heretics who fight neo-imperialism .Have you forgotten Abu Gharib or the Guantanamo Bay, the US gov so effortlessly runs with impunity. We still have witch hunts with drones and what's even better is you can kill innocent people in collateral damage. Great improvement !!!

I would give everything l have to live in the Abbasid era or in Andalusia during its peak. I guess we have different taste but don't tell me it's better today

Then be a shepherd.

I should walk the talk but l won't be surprised to see myself crucified. I am under surveillance already ( confirmed by third parties). I am apparently the radical

F*** those who want to ruin the world and who don't even have the balls to tolerate dissenting opinion. They can go to hell.

This seems like the expulsion from eden story retold. You praise the intellectual insights obtained via the development of Western culture and yet claim to be alienated from that culture. Your having been born in a non-Western country adds to your feeling of alienation. But is the solution a return to Eden, that is , a return to the ‘blissful’ ignorance of pre-modern society? You say you “don’t see any ancient civilization giving birth to an alternative world order in the foreseeable future”. Does that mean you would wish for such a prospect even if you don’t think it is likely to happen? If you acknowledge legitimate insights contributed by modern thought, do you think these can be ignored even if we want to return to a simpler world?

I've heard people make this and similar arguments for decades - I can't imagine anyone but a modern person, who is bathed in sentimental understanding of the past and a particularly slanted representation of the present, make it. It's the old 'back to Eden' trope. There was a book called Humanism The Wreck of Western Culture by sociologist John Carroll that provided a similar academic version of this thesis.

Prosperous modern people have often moved to the country or joined communes, or decided to live off the grid as a 'remedy' for the present era. I understand the power of this idea and acknowledge that it might provide some peace, if not boredom. I suspect that the recent and enduring cult of authenticity and hipster artisanal products is another expression of this impulse. As was Transcendentalism in the 19th century.

I'm definitely not the first person to take this stance and l won't be the last one. I use the tools/understanding developed by western civilization to criticize itself as it's more accessible and understandable. However, this doesn't undermine my criticism as many people have criticized western civilization from an alien point of view ( in the perspective of westerners ) and reached a similar conclusion .l can go down that line easily as l am familiar with my own civilization but it will create resentment, tribalistic opposition... as it often happens. You can nevertheless take my criticism as a product of postmodern or post post modernism etc


My solution ( anarcho primitivism or whatever they will call it ) isn't THE solution in demand though it can offer temporary relief, it's more of a cry. We will never go back to Eden and that's not the real source of discomfort. The present world order is a nightmare from every perspective, surely we can do better. For westerners, l would advise them to reconstruct a new historical vision from pre-enlightenment era to the present before it's too late. The Confucian civilization and the Islamic civilization should not bow down before the world order, they should revive their past in the present and construct a new world order to provide a way out of the present mess and humanity as a whole can work together to see which works best.

I can't predict the future but humanity will destroy itself and its not a matter of "if" but of "when". The present nightmare will seem like a beautiful vision compared to the future. You can't turn a blind eye to deep social-political-spiritual problems, they will multiply, deeply entrench themselves in society and destroy the social fabric eventually


PS : I think both of you have a similar perspective, you can correct me if l am mistaken

Funny (ridiculous) propaganda from Sky News

None of that makes the denazification claim valid, because those neo-Nazis are not representative of the people, of the elected government, or even of the military, and yet it is the people, the government, and the country as a whole that is being attacked. The claim is a pretext for aggressive domination, with a view to extending Russia's hegemony in the region, in competition with the EU and NATO. The idea (perhaps not held by you but nonetheless widespread among defenders of the Russian state's line) that the invasion is humanitarian or moral is naive. Those are never the motivations for Russian military action. What the Russian rulers care about is power in the region and on the world stage. They're old-fashioned that way.

The primary motive for the Ukrainian invasion from the perspective of Putin is obviously out of a security concern and the threat of further NATO expansion. Since Putin isn't stupid or an irrational lunatic ( contrary to western propaganda), the benefit of an invasion outweighs the cost here (economic sanctions, isolation etc). I don't side with Russia or NATO in this matter as each side is considering its own interests. However, we have a lot of evidence to suggest the existence of state sanctioned racism against Russians in Ukraine and the Azov battalion being a part of the National guard isn't a trivial fact. If Putin succeeds in his venture, the denazification of Ukrainian government would be a secondary effect.

I hope people stop seeing this conflict as good vs bad. If anything, both sides are at fault for not reaching a compromise through dialogue/diplomacy

The Denazificatiom claim of Putin is valid. The Azov battalion is a neo-nazi right wing militia and an actual unit of the Ukrainian national guard. In the eastern Ukraine, the neo nazi battalion was deployed without reservation to quell pro Russian sympathizers and by "quell", l mean torturing separatist, killing children, forcing people to speak Ukrainian and spreading Russophobia.

Here are two short documentaries on the neo nazi problem of Ukraine from western media before the invasion

That's not a criteria for being a hinge proposition.

Many a novice has been flabbergasted by castling, and nonplussed by en passant.

"Here's a hand" might be might well be disbelieved by a non-english speaker, or by yourself at a magic show.

By reasonable l mean someone who is mentally sane and for a hinge proposition, there's a mutual understanding between people, a shared practice of taking it as a given to even begin to make sense.

As for your magic show, let's get serious. In a magic show, the language game is different, we expect ourselves to get fooled but the very idea of getting fooled presupposes an ordinary language game where we don't get fooled. Where , here's a hand is taken as a hinge proposition

I have been thinking of a hierarchy of language games, some languages games can be embedded in a more broadly practiced language game. Think of a group of people who have a common form of life and a subtype amongst them have their own "mini" form of life.

I think the non English speaker would say, I don't speak English. He will refuse to play along

What's interesting is that Wittgenstein believed that some beliefs (religious beliefs, moral beliefs, etc.) could not be expressed as facts in the world. This, it seems, is why Wittgenstein was against arguments about the existence of God, there are no facts of metaphysics ("the world is all that is the case"), no facts that correspond to metaphysical propositions. I believe he was wrong about this.

There's actually a big disagreement between Wittgensteinian philosophers here ( esp, whether religious statements are cognitive or non-cognitive). Most religious people use religious statements to make statements about the world, Wittgenstein knew this but he wants us to looking for what's going on with religious statements in addition, and this extra dimension of religious statements could help us see why they are not ordinary statements about the world.

A religious person saying "the tree spoke with the saint", is thinking of the respect nature ought to have for a friend of God and his emotional attachment grows to such an extent, he also makes a statement about the world simultaneously.

I have a big problem with non-cognitive moral statements as they suffer from frege-geach problem. I haven't found a nice solution yet from a philosopher. You may read on Quasi realism to see if you agree with it.

It seems that just as chess needs the rules, the board, and the pieces, in order for there to be a game of chess, so too, do we need these hinge, bedrock, or foundational beliefs (I think of them as special beliefs, not as propositions) in order to have a language, especially the language of epistemology. This includes the language of doubting. They have a special place between the mind, the world, and our language, and that place is related to our actions in the world.

The problem with using the word "belief" is it implies the bedrock hinge statements are epistemic. It's a matter of being a part of a form of life. People don't doubt hinge propositions, they avoid playing the game by not being a part of a community.

But how does belief fit in a language game, l still need to figure this out ?

But the use of the word ‘God’ among the religious will
likely include doubt, since God would imply faith , which requires doubt.So I think the hinge proposition God likely includes all of this. Only in a situation where the non-religious had never heard of the concept of God could there be no shared language game.

Doubt in religious game is not the same doubt you have when you are doing a scientific experiment in a lab or when you are guessing. The problem with non-religious people participating in religious game is that, they are using statements in a complete different sense. This isn't a simple confusion that can be removed if both parties sit together and decide the terms. Religious people and non-religious people live in a different world. Any supposed agreement between them will be based on a new misunderstanding.

In another discourse, they are called axioms.

An axiom, postulate, or assumption is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. The word comes from the Greek ἀξίωμα (axíōma) 'that which is thought worthy or fit' or 'that which commends itself as evident'.[1][2]

The term has subtle differences in definition when used in the context of different fields of study. As defined in classic philosophy, an axiom is a statement that is so evident or well-established, that it is accepted without controversy or question.[3] As used in modern logic, an axiom is a premise or starting point for reasoning

Axioms are self evident true statements we use for a foundation. This is meaningful for mathematics but l am not sure if we call hinge propositions self evident true statements ( true statements have epistemic relations) . A mathematical system is still meaningful if you remove certain axioms, but it's not the same for hinge propositions. Axioms in the true sense should stand on their own, they live in a logical space independent of any mathematical system and we can freely pick them. This isn't the same for a hinge propositions, every hinge proposition comes in a package with a langauge game, separating them is meaningless.

Searle points out that hinge propositions set out what something counts as for the purposes of the game. Moving the bishop diagonally counts as a move in chess. It sets up what it is to move the piece in the game. It rules many possible moves - putting the piece back in the box, for example - as not being moves in the game. Of course such moves might be moves in some other game or activity - tidying up.

"God exists" does not have the structure of a constitutive proposition in the requisite sense. Some interpretations might make it so.

I think the problem with taking "God exists" a hinge proposition is that, every reasonable person doesn't take this as a given. Whereas the statement "Here's a hand" is taken as a given by every single person on the planet and doesn't have any epistemic relation. However, religious people ( who are fit for participating in religious games as they live the life form) expect every sane person to take the conceptual scheme of God as a given/bedrock in religion game. So, it's still a hinge proposition.

But it's not simple, I wouldn't argue for a non cognitive religious game. Religious game is very special as it makes statement about reality ( the world ) + value statement + emotive statements as one whole. Religious statements are often multidimensional in their usage. Philosophers should bridge the divide between cognitive and non-cognitive statements here. I find religious language very interesting, and we will discover more about language studying the role/meaning of religious statements.

A zero-dimensional point rather than a concrete entity (or fact), ergo wholly imaginary .

You don't get my point. You are still concerned with dimensions. The concept of dimensions doesn't apply to God. That's why l used the word "transcendent". If you want to question the meaningfulness of religious language. The concept of God is meaningful in religious language games (using linguistic philosophy ) or the classical explanation : You don't need to know "how" in order to believe in a "what" and the attributes we assign to God are clearly meaningful.

Such as the Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC)? :pray:

The law of non contradiction isn't necessary or justified for every system. If you want a inconsistent system (this does exits), you can remove the law of non-contradiction . You see, we pick and choose whatever we want to believe/use as our foundation.

Just 'making shit up to console yourself', Eskander, amounts to little more than a drug habit (i.e. philosophical suicide ~Camus); to wit: Thou Shalt Not Question The Questionable (and the corollary Thou Shalt Defend The Indefensible In The Name Of Believing The Unbelievable).

No, I have my own intuition telling me there is a God. I don't have a mathematical proof or a experiment l can perform for you all. The existence of a order in the universe (scientific laws, mathematical truths ) POINTS to the existence of a God. You can reject this intuition but theism arguably requires less blind faith than atheism. Camus was another arrogant philosopher who could not think beyond the "intellectual" atmosphere of 20 century post WW2 Europe. His greatest problem in philosophy was "the question of suicide", it doesn't get more ridiculous. That's what you end up with once you abandon the clear intuition in your head for a gloomy doomy, woe is me, mommy I am hurt nihilism.

2. Boringly: Indirect asceticism. Immerse yourself in worldly pleasures. You'll eventually get bored. Renounce the world.

The second is far from boring, but it's definitely more meaningful as you have pointed out. Asceticism should not be caused by a sour grapes mindset. This way, you are not a passive observer in life, you are actively renouncing pleasure.

"God"? Please make clear what that is, or what you mean by it. It appears to be an important part of your OP. And I'm afraid that if you don't, no one else will know what you're talking about, and if you cannot, then you don't either.

God, the creator of everything. A Transcendent being, who isn't confined by spacetime. I described God in my OP as the source of peace and contentment, it is better for us to describe God using attributes. It is impossible to understand how God exists but it's possible to see understand him with attributes we have a good understanding of. (The most merciful, The Wisest, The most Just ) etc.

I don't believe there are god's or that there is any meaning to life - except for the one you make yourself and for decades have practiced a form of minimalism (which stops short of asceticism). I take the view that objects own you, not the other way around. They are an unnecessary distraction. By choice I own minimal belongings and always look to cut back further. I know several atheists who hold a similar jaundiced view of materialism

I don't see how nihilism as a philosophy is practical, it leaves you with nothing. "Life has no meaning", now what ? Where do we go from here and is it even possible to give meaning to your life ? Guaranteed, most of us need to feel a sense of purpose in life, which prevents us from suicide. I don't see any point in proving the existence of God with philosophical arguments, theism gives you hope and a positive outlook on life. Atheism on the other hand paints the image of the universe as a cold, indifferent organism. I can cite studies while has shown how theism helps you psychologically in life.

The general atheist response to theism is pathetic, "we need evidence", "not convinced by philosophical arguments". Every metaphysical system is grounded in unjustified beliefs (you can always reduce it) , What's wrong with believing in a God without evidence and taking it as a starting point of your worldview. I hope one day, we will get rid of our pretentiousness and stop giving epistemology undue importance.

As for practicing minimalism, I think the Nietzschean response to nihilism is more vigorous and conducive to life if you are an atheist. But l don't see how Nietzsche is helpful for most people. His philosophy is for the elite class of mankind ( who truly have the potential to impose their worldwide on the world ). Most of us are incapable of such feats.