How has 2018 gone so far?

[Omar del Sur]

Depends on my interest. I was interested in political alignments as it pertains to economic policies, so I read a book about Keynes vs Hayek last week. The book outlined their positions as influential economists of the 20th century. By the end of it, I was left more confused and disappointed. It did however explain why economic policies are stupid. I generally prefer non-fiction.

I want to understand economics from an Islamic perspective. Keynes and Hayek are sort of gibberish to me. I got a book by Thomas Sowell who is of Hayek's school and I thought the Sowell book was gibberish. All that stuff is gibberish to me. I think the Hayek types are extremely hypocritical. They attack the Keynes types for being "ideological". But the Hayek types are super ideological. They have their own ideology which they are deadset upon as The One Truth.

Both of them are kaffir schools of thought as I see it, both arrive from kaffir premises and I dislike both. Intellectuals need to start from Quran and Sunnah.

Otherwise, where on earth will we derive our premises from? I have studied a little logic and anyone who has studied it understands the importance of premises. The whole chain of argument is dependent on premises. Logic needs solid premises or it all falls apart.

And how do we arrive at solid premises? Quran and Sunnah : )

And without Quran and Sunnah, we're lost. People's minds get scrambled. Hence things like postmodernism.

Also, I'm with you on reading non-fiction. I kind of think of reading fiction as a female thing. I think mostly it's women who read fiction. Guys tend to read non fiction.

 

[YourBroMoe]

I want to understand economics from an Islamic perspective. Keynes and Hayek are sort of gibberish to me. I got a book by Thomas Sowell who is of Hayek's school and I thought the Sowell book was gibberish. All that stuff is gibberish to me. I think the Hayek types are extremely hypocritical. They attack the Keynes types for being "ideological". But the Hayek types are super ideological. They have their own ideology which they are deadset upon as The One Truth.

Both of them are kaffir schools of thought as I see it, both arrive from kaffir premises and I dislike both. Intellectuals need to start from Quran and Sunnah.

Otherwise, where on earth will we derive our premises from? I have studied a little logic and anyone who has studied it understands the importance of premises. The whole chain of argument is dependent on premises. Logic needs solid premises or it all falls apart.

And how do we arrive at solid premises? Quran and Sunnah : )

And without Quran and Sunnah, we're lost. People's minds get scrambled. Hence things like postmodernism.

Also, I'm with you on reading non-fiction. I kind of think of reading fiction as a female thing. I think mostly it's women who read fiction. Guys tend to read non fiction.

You do know I'm non-religious right?

 

[Omar del Sur]

You do know I'm non-religious right?

Yes but I want you to be aware Allah has no partners.

Allah is God alone, having no partners. SubhanAllah!

Allah is our Creator.

If Allah wills, Allah will guide you! Then you'll be a Muslim : )

How could secular thought be satisfying? It lacks foundation!

 

[YourBroMoe]

Yes but I want you to be aware Allah has no partners.

Allah is God alone, having no partners. SubhanAllah!

Allah is our Creator.

If Allah wills, Allah will guide you! Then you'll be a Muslim : )

How could secular thought be satisfying? It lacks foundation!

Technically, my perspective is that religions are man made. As a result, the foundation you propose to exist for your worldview was constructed by man. As a result, man can construct another foundation.

However, I'm not interested in religious debates here. I just like to chill. I've grown past my argumentative phase.

 

[Omar del Sur]

Technically, my perspective is that religions are man made. As a result, the foundation you propose to exist for your worldview was constructed by man. As a result, man can construct another foundation.

However, I'm not interested in religious debates here. I just like to chill. I've grown past my argumentative phase.

To each their own. I just don't see how secular thought can have a foundation for knowledge. Hence why I don't think the Keynes/Hayek debate goes anywhere.

 

[kickz]

-Continued to stay consistent on Salaat
-Got a better engineering job
-Read the Quran completely twice
-Paid off my car loan

 

[YourBroMoe]

To each their own. I just don't see how secular thought can have a foundation for knowledge.

Simple, through our senses and reason, we lay the foundation to observe and absorb information. This compiled content, creates context for useful information. This is what we consider knowledge.

The scientific method, as well as numerous philosophical schools of thought are completely devoid of faith and religion.

They tackle everything from:

The elements of our universe.
How to gain knowledge.
How to live a good life.
How to treat others.
How to be a more informed citizen on a political level.
How to learn logic to ensure you're not fooled into things.

 

[SanDheer_Landheer]

Technically, my perspective is that religions are man made. As a result, the foundation you propose to exist for your worldview was constructed by man. As a result, man can construct another foundation.

However, I'm not interested in religious debates here. I just like to chill. I've grown past my argumentative phase.

One would argue that man made foundations are susceptible to collapsing as opposed to the absolute truth that is Islam. lol I'm not that religious but like to argue. It tests how far your logical pathway can go and could potentially help you solve a problem but you're right it definitely can get tiring easily and something you grow out of.

 

[YourBroMoe]

One would argue that man made foundations are susceptible to collapsing as opposed to the absolute truth that is Islam. lol I'm not that religious but like to argue. It tests how far your logical pathway can go and could potentially help you solve a problem but you're right it definitely can get tiring easily and something you grow out of.

Exactly. I have no problem arguing. It just has to be under controlled circumstances.

If I'm in a thread about a guy getting dumped and crying about it on youtube, then I don't want someone to quote me asking why I don't believe in conservatism.

 

[Omar del Sur]

One would argue that man made foundations are susceptible to collapsing as opposed to the absolute truth that is Islam. lol I'm not that religious but like to argue. It tests how far your logical pathway can go and could potentially help you solve a problem but you're right it definitely can get tiring easily and something you grow out of.

Well I think there's different subtypes of atheists. You have your militant athiests and your more laid back types.

 

[SanDheer_Landheer]

Well I think there's different subtypes of atheists. You have your militant athiests and your more laid back types.

You highlighted militant athiests, what do you mean by this? Whats the difference between the ones that are overtly vocal when criticising religion and the local dawah man shouting at his stand and bringing other people to Islam.

 

[Omar del Sur]

Simple, through our senses and reason, we lay the foundation to observe and absorb information. This compiled content, creates context for useful information. This is what we consider knowledge.

The scientific method, as well as numerous philosophical schools of thought are completely devoid of faith and religion.

They tackle everything from:

The elements of our universe.
How to gain knowledge.
How to live a good life.
How to treat others.
How to be a more informed citizen on a political level.
How to learn logic to ensure you're not fooled into things.

I don't see it as I'm trying to debate like in a super militant way. Sort of more as I sort of wandered into a philosophical discussion about epistemology. Maybe a dialogue, like in those reprehensible works of Plato.

Ahem.

So empiricism? How can you argue empiricism? Eh.

Empiricism is..... empiricism cannot really be a foundation for knowledge.

Empiricism is itself unempirical. And furthermore, it can't account for ethics. You can't empirically prove a thing is moral or immoral. Empiricists tend to cite some form of utilitarianism but this already implies the correctness of utilitarianism which cannot even be deduced from empiricism.

Honestly, I think postmodernists appear to be the consistent atheists. They basically reject the whole quest for knowledge, morals or anything. They don't even pretend they can arrive at premises (except for their self-contradicting dogmatic premise that there are no real premises). But then based on the aforementioned contradiction, even they're not consistent. Empiricism is itself unempirical.

I think only by arriving at some sort of horrifying general intellectual agnosticism which is contrary to the psychological needs of the human mind can atheists really be consistent.

 

[Omar del Sur]

You highlighted militant athiests, what do you mean by this? Whats the difference between the ones that are overtly vocal when criticising religion and the local dawah man shouting at his stand and bringing other people to Islam.

I don't think Muslims who do dawah shout or should be shouting.

My post didn't mention Muslims. I was merely mentioning how there are militant atheists and more laidback ones.

Richard Dawkins I would consider as a militant example. Douglas Adams was a self-described militant. Muslims are another topic.

Muslims are different than atheists. Those are very different communities. I wasn't discussing Muslims.

 

[SanDheer_Landheer]

.

I don't think Muslims who do dawah shout or should be shouting.

My post didn't mention Muslims. I was merely mentioning how there are militant atheists and more laidback ones.

Richard Dawkins I would consider as a militant example. Douglas Adams was a self-described militant. Muslims are another topic.

Muslims are different than atheists. Those are very different communities. I wasn't discussing Muslims.

lol you're right I went off on an argumentative tangent that didn't really go anywhere.