Do you believe in philosophy? I mean you seem to confirm the belief in philosophy that the masses are not a great point of reliance, as they are sitting ducks to be manipulated, propaganda subjected and induced, and that has always been the unsolved problem through all the history.
You know, your statement above isn't true unless you stand for the idea that the lack of thinking could be considered a respected way of thinking.
And also for the part:
I have to say that we both know the answer to that question. There are contradictions (You know where and what I mean), some real, deep contradictions, and I believe you know clearly, that the matter wasn't a political game play.
That's definitely the feature I like the most, but to have such a claim in beliefs, one should also respect some principles, what are those? a primitive one would be to see a phenomena by it's achievements, results and effects at the end of the day.
Witnessing, what we are observing today, isn't enough for you to start judging the whole picture?
Yes, I believe in philosophy as long as it is in the domain of useful knowledge.
My views on it are highly applicable and practical and not for the fun of it. I guess I fall more on the spectrum of Dr Feynman's view of philosophy.
Masses do not have a mind. Do they? Can they think? Can they reason? Individuals can. Masses can not. Only a least common denominator brings the masses together and often this LCD is unknown to the masses themselves and is created by their leaders/politicians/philosophers etc etc. Theoretically for a mass of an altruistic, highly thoughtful individuals with lofty morals, this LCD might take the form of a good common cause. Human history tells a different story.
Here, I must pause for a while, in order to drop in a suggestion, if you allow me to. When in an intellectual debate, it is a good idea, not to invoke over-simplified derivatives and generalizations about what the other debater is saying, which often impedes the progression of thought and reason. Take this statement of yours:
You know, your statement above isn't true unless you stand for the idea that the lack of thinking could be considered a respected way of thinking.
This way of phrasing, is unhelpful in a logical debate since it is taking the form of a logical fallacy.
But on the topic, I would disagree with your generalization (or rather the opposite) of my argument. The lack of thinking is not a respected way of thinking. But it is a way of life and it is as old as history of humanity. Whether it is respected or not, is a subjective derivative. I personally do not think it is. Others might disagree. What is important though is not to disregard its existence. Or its abundance. Rather its over-abundance
.
I have to say that we both know the answer to that question. There are contradictions (You know where and what I mean), some real, deep contradictions, and I believe you know clearly, that the matter wasn't a political game play.
Actually I genuinely don't. I am not being courteous or shy here. The only thing I know for sure, is that duality I told you about. I do not even see it as contradiction that is why I said duality. Take the instance of opposition to granting voting rights to women in West. Were these opponents playing politics to keep power a masculine affair or did they in sincerity believe that women do not have the intelligence to be trusted with such power? I genuinely do not know in case of every individual who was opposing this reform. Because I can not know what was going through their minds.
The only thing I can know for sure, is that they did oppose and that they had a following in society (for a very very long time). Or take the example of Shah who did give voting rights to women, but in an interview with a foreign journalist, he basically could not bring himself to admit that women are as intelligent as men. Did he really believe that? Or was he as the leader of masses could not exceed their LCD? We do not know. The same is the case here. I am sure Ayt. Khomeini did grapple with duality of Western Enlightenment and Islamic Conservatism. That is for sure. Did he really believe that he could keep women away from voting booths or was he appealing to LCD of majority of Iranians at the time who ACTUALLY did agree with him, is unknowable. At least for me, since I prefer not to look at, with prejudice and keep it astutely a philosophical matter (which really should be).
That's definitely the feature I like the most, but to have such a claim in beliefs, one should also respect some principles, what are those? a primitive one would be to see a phenomena by it's achievements, results and effects at the end of the day.
Witnessing, what we are observing today, isn't enough for you to start judging the whole picture?
Well, if you are referring to me here, then I must admit that I have no lofty claims. I am just stating the reality (or the lack thereof its perception). You should not forget that reality is not today. To see the big picture, you have to see beyond today and 40 years ago. A good start to see the big picture would be to look at Iran from about 3000 years ago onwards, since we are so much influenced today by the history of this past 3000 years. I do not subscribe to simplistic notions.
See
@Abii , like many others, thinks there are two Iran-s. One that he sees as per his desires, the one it deserves to be and even how it could have been and the other one that is the current reality. Many Iranians think similarly. That a 'topos noetos' of a prosperous Iran exists somewhere and is very much 'real', almost near delivery, highly achievable and even more important than the reality itself we are facing today. That the reason, this has not happened yet, is because of IR, Shah, Qajar, Akhonds, bad managers, corrupt bureaucrats, and so on, you name it. Only if we could remove these, then Iran will be a bastion of prosperity and a manifestation of heavenly life on earth.
I do not see it this way. Iran is at the best it can be, right now. The reason is, very simple. Chaotic systems reach the equilibrium they deserve. Iran is no different.
You might ask then why some equilibrium are more prosperous than others based on your "primitive phenomena of achievements, results and effects at the end of the day"? This is where that big picture comes in. The reality of the past 3000 years.
Since you seem to be interested so much in thinking, and since you did not take part in debate but rather ma ro saval pich kardi, I would like here to drop in some, not really questions, but just thought provokers to make a point, that Iran has always been like this and will remain so until a process of completely domestic enlightenment (not a Western imitation) brings it out of darkness. Lets go back 3000 years to see the big picture:
When Homer, Plato, Socrates etc etc were walking on periphery of Iranian empire, who was walking in Iran that you can claim to be of the same statue as these?
How come democracy is invented in Greece a relatively weak and small combination of city states, rather than in Iranian empire or for that matter the Chinese empire?
How come none of these giants in philosophy who often lived mediocre lives in their city states and even were subjected to prosecution (eg. Socrates) never chose to seek refuge in Iranian empire?
Gymnasium was a publicly funded institution of sports training and intellectual learning very much similar to modern universities today. It had a very liberal atmosphere as the name attests. Was there an equivalent in Iranian empire?
Knowledge was central to Greek and later on, to Western civilization. You could not be considered a free citizen unless you had passed through trivium and quadrivium. Was it the way in Iran too?
Do you believe in a 'topos noetos' of Iran? Why do you?
Or let me rephrase, why do you deserve better? (In an strictly philosophical sense of course, no need to get offended
)
