"Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-incurred immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one’s own understanding without the guidance of another..."


Immanuel Kant,[An Answer to the Question: ‘What is Enlightenment?’],p1.

< ዘመናዊነት ማለት ከድሮው ባህልና አስተሳሰብ መነጠል ሳይሆን፣ እንዲያውም የድሮው ባህሎችና እሴቶች እንደገና እንዲያብቡ ማድረግ ነው >

Mesay Kebede, Survival and Modernization: Ethiopia's Enigmatic Present.1999,p..243-244

ውድ የዚህ ቻናል ተከታታዮች :

አንድ ውይይት የሚያጭር ሀሳብ እነሆ :
ነገረ መለኮታዊ ፍልስፍና (Theological Philosophy) የሚባል ነገር አለ ወይ? ... ካለም ከሌለም ማስረጃችሁ ምንድነው ? ...

በምዕራቡ ዓለም ፍልስፍናዊ ነገረ መለኮት (Philosophical Theology) የሚባል አለ ? ይሄስ መኖር ይችላል ወይ ? ... ካለም ከሌለም ማስረጃችሁ ምንድነው ?

ከሁለቱ መንገዶች የትኛው የተሻለ ነውስ ብላችሁ ታስባላችሁ ? ... ሀሳቡ ገዳቢ ሆኖ ከተሰማችሁ ከጠየቅኩት ወጣ ብሎ ጠይቆም መሟገት የተፈቀደ ነው ።

በሩ ለውይይት ክፍት ሆኗል ። መቀጠል ይቻላል ።

"ዘመናዊነት የሚደረስበት የታሪክ ደረጃና ቅደም ተከተል አይደለም። ይሄም ማለት ዘመናዊነት <<ዘመነ ትንሣኤ>> እና <<ዘመነ አብርሆት>> የሚባሉትን የታሪክ ምዕራፎች አልፈን የምንደርስበት የጋራ መድረሻ(Shared destination) ሳይሆን በየትኛውም የታሪክ ምዕራፍ ላይ ያሉ ህዝቦችን ሁሉ የሚያስተሳስር ዓለም አቀፍ ሐሳብ ወይም የጋራ ባህል(Shared Culture) ነው። ዘመናዊነት <<ዓለምአቀፍ ሐሳብ ነው>> ሲባል ህዝቦች በግድም ሆነ በውስጣዊ ትግል ይገቡበታል ለማለት ነው።"

ፕ/ር አንድሪያስ እሸቴ ስለ ዘመናዊነት,የፍልስፍና ትምህርት ቅጽ-1 የሰው ልጅ የሐሳብ ታሪክ

በዚህ የውይይት ክፍላችን ከዮሐንስ ሙሉጌታ ጋር በመሆን የአዲሱ አስተሳሰብ እንቅስቃሴን ምንነት ፣ ይዘት ፣ ፍልስፍናዊ መሠረት እና በኦርቶዶክሳዊ አስተምህሮ እሴቶች (Orthodox values) ላይ የሚያደርሰውን ዘመን ዘለቅ ጉዳት ለማጤን ሞክረናል።

1) የአዲሱ አስተሳሰብ እንቅስቃሴ ምንድር ነው?

2) ፍልስፍናዊና ርእዮተ ዓለማዊ መሠረቶቹ ምንድር ናቸው?

3) የዚህ እንቅስቃሴ መዛመት ለምን ይገደናል?

4) የአዲሱ አስተሳሰብ እንቅስቃሴ የመንፈሳዊነት መገለጫዎችና ኦርቶዶክሳዊ መንፈሳዊነት ምን እና ምን ናቸው?

5) መምህራን እየደገፉት መሆኑ ምን ይነግረናል?

ከላይ የተጠቀሱት ርእሰ ጉዳዮች በውይይቱ መጠነኛ ዳሰሳ ተደርጎባቸዋል ፣ ለወዳጆችዎ ያጋሩ።
https://youtu.be/2l_wtlQvHxs

"The society of positivity, from which negativity has disappeared, is a society of bare life, which is exclusively dominated by the concern to make sure of survival"

Byung-Chul Han, The Agony of Eros

Metaphysics and Faith
By christos yannaras
           Part 1
When we say today Metaphysics and faith to be mean or think about some thing different than the ideology?
this is his question to all of you very straight forward.
When we speak today about Metaphysics and faith do we mean something other than ideology or solely something ideological?
  an important thinker and theologian of our times metropolitan john Pergamon say today the ontology is replaced by psychology in our discussion we are not intersted or concerned about the question what really is truly is or what does it mean that something exists or it doesn't exist instead of requesting or searching for an answer to this question we are creating a sort of conviction in which we invest our own psychological needs and that's how we substitute really indeed in reality when in the psychological invest am i right?do you correct me?
  This question just to encourage us to begin our discussion because to it's meant to be a discussion let me add something else,also when we today say word faith if am not wrong i believe that the great majority of people understands assumes that faith is about individual convictions but the word faith in its initial meaning doesn't refer to that bad to trust.when i believe that means that i trust i am in confidence there fore trust means a relationship.If i trust somebody i have to know him i have to establish a communication with him.fortunately this meaning of faith still functioning in the market we say somebody has credit in the market that means that market or people from marke know this person and because they know him they have trust in him they know him.

So do you understand that such sunction of the word 'faith'?
  today is the opposite of the Concept of Confession as we today have it related to faith  faith as confession. so to belong to a certain Confession presupposes that i individually have choosen as i choose or elect that i trust or the newspaper that i read.that's how i choose grammaly my metaphysical convictions. so in culture of individual choices it is absolutely natural to have this plethora of church's that we encounter in the united States.endless number and such one them has the name church so the question that is emerges in the American society the question is whether Metaphysics is identity with ideology if that is the case then how can it be different from what we call in philosophy "Meaning of reality".Can you remember do you remember the famous phrase from Wittgenstein "The meaning of the world must be outside of the world".if the meaning of the world is to be found within the world then it would have the relativity of an accidental then meaning of the world.

ትርጉም

ዲበ አካል እና እምነት

በክሪስቶስ ያናራስ : ክፍል ፩

ዛሬ ዲበ አካል(የእውነታ ትርጉም) እና እምነትን ስናወራ ከአስተሳሰብ ለይተን የምናስባቸው ነውን ? ይሄ ቀጥታ ለሁላችሁም የጠየቀው ጥያቄ ነው ።

ዛሬ ላይ ስለዲበ አካል (የእውነታ ትርጉም) እና ስለእምነት ስናወራ አስተሳሰባዊ ርእዮት ወይም ስለርእዮታዊነት እያወራን ነውን ?

በእኛ ዘመን ያለ አንድ ድንቅ ተፈላሳፊ እና ነገረ መለኮት አዋቂ ሊቀ ጳጳስ ዮሐንስ ጴርጋሞን እንዲህ ይላል : " ዛሬ ላይ የማንነት ጥናት በሥነ ልቡና ጥናት ተተክቷል ። በጥያቄዎቻችንም ሆነ በውይይቶቻችን ውስጥ በእርግጥ እውነት ስለሆነው ነገር ወይም አንድ ነገር ሕልው ነው ወይስ አይደለም ብለን የምንጠይቅ አይደለንም ፤ ይልቁንም የራሳችንን ሥነ ልቡና ጥም እንዲያረካልን የሆነ የራሳችንን አቋም በመያዝ እንጠመዳለን ። እውነታውን በእውነት ከመፈለግ ይልቅ ለምንጠይቀው ጥያቄ የያዝነውን አቋም ልክ ነው ? ወይስ አይደለም ? በማለት እንወሰናለን ።

ይሄ ጥያቄ ውይይታችንን ለመክፈት ይረዳን ዘንድ ያነሳሁት ነው ። ሌላም እንዲሁ ልጨምር : " እምነት " የሚለው ቃል ዛሬ ላይ ካልተሳሳትኩ አብዝኃው ሰው የሚረዳው የግልን አቋም መያዝ አድርጎ ነው ። " እምነት " የሚለው ቃል ግን በራሱ ጥንታዊ ትርጉሙ ይህንን አያመለክትም ። እኔ አምናለሁ ማለት እኔ እተማመናለሁ(Trust) አደርጋለሁ እያልኩ ነው ፤ በዚህም መተማመን ግንኙነታዊ እንደሆነ ያሳያል ። እኔ አንድን ሰው ከተማመንኩት ያንን ሰው ማወቅ አለብኝ ፣ ከእርሱ ጋርም መግባባት አለብኝ ። ይህ የእምነት ትርጉም አሁንም ድረስ በንግድ ቦታ ይገኛል ። አንድ ሰው ገበያ ሄዶ በዱቤ የሚገዛው ነጋዴዎቹ ያንን ሰው ስለሚያምኑት ነው ። የሚያምኑት ደግሞ ስለሚግባቡት እና ስለሚያውቁት ነው ።

ስለዚህ አስተዋላችሁን ? ዛሬ የእምነት ትርጉም ምስክርነትን ከመስጠት በተቃራኒ ያለ ነው ። እምነትን እንደምስክርነት እንረዳዋለንና ። የሆነ ምስክርነትን መያዝ ማለት እኔ የማምነውን እመርጣለሁ ፣ የማነበውን ጋዜጣ እለያለሁ ማለት ነው ። በዚህ ነው እኔ የኔን ዲበ አካላዊ(የእውነታን ምንነት) አቋም የምመርጠው ። ስለዚህ ግለሰባዊ ምርጫ ባለበት የበዙ የቤተ ክርስቲያን አይነቶችን ባለንበት በአሜሪካ እንኳ ማግኘት ተፈጥሯዊ ነው ። ማኅልቅት የሌላቸው እልፍ አእላፍ የሆኑ ነገር ግን ቤተ ክርስቲያን የሚል ስም የያዙ ሊገኙ ችለዋል ። ስለዚህ ለዚህ አሜሪካ ማኅበረሰብ የምንጠይቀው ጥያቄ

: ዲበ አካል ማለት ከርእዮተ ዓለም ጋር አንድ መሆን ነውን ? ከሆነ በፍልስፍና ከምናውቀው " የእውነታ ምንነት " ጋር በምን ተለየ ?

ከ ዊትገንስታይን የተወሰደች ታዋቂዋን አባባል ታስታውሳላችሁን ? " የዓለም ትርጉሟ ከዓለም ውጪ መሆን አለበት ። " የዓለም ትርጉም በዓለም ውስጥ የሚገኝ ቢሆን ኖሮ ድንገታዊ የዓለም ትርጉም በአንጻራዊነት ሊነሳ ይችል ነበር ።

It’s clear that man cannot know this on his own. The human mind does not acquire any idea except by experience. Experience can teach us neither what was before our existence, nor what happens after, nor what animates our present existence. How were we given life? How is it maintained? How does the brain hold ideas and memory? How do our limbs instantly obey our will? We don’t know. Is this the only world with life? Was it made after other worlds or in the same moment? Does each species of plant originate from a first plant? Is every species of animal descended from an original two of its kind? The greatest philosophers don’t know more on these matters than the most ignorant. We must return to the popular proverb: “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” The proverb is unsophisticated, but it confounds the wisest who know nothing about first principles without supernatural assistance. "

[Francois-Marie Arouet(Voltaire) : (French Philosopher , Writer) : From " Poem on Lisbon Disaster"]

“Either human intelligence ultimately owes its origin to mindless matter; or there is a Creator. It is strange that some people claim that it is their intelligence that leads them to prefer the first to the second.”

[(John Lennox) : Professor of Mathematics]

David you believe in God and argue for God's existence part of that is attacking those who would deny God's existence atheist so when you hear a theistic arguments what are your reactions to them?
David Bentley Hart: it depends on how good they are in recent years we've we've seen a little cottage industry spring up in in marketing very bad arguments for atheism so then my reaction is ill-concealed scorn let's differentiate let's start with the the bad arguments what are some of those I mean the sort of arguments you you you say you would find in Richard Dawkins in which you know he clearly misunderstands claims about ontological contingency and thinks you can conjure them away by having a sufficiently comprehensive cosmology you know or that he when he says something like evolution answers the question of existence is it that that's actually something he says I mean you realized there that you're dealing with category errors so so profound that they verge on the infinite so those are bad arguments and in general I my list of fine atheist philosophers in the twentieth century is a small one Macke would probably be it really was so Bowl that would be they in the english-speaking world I think there was a greater age of atheism in the 19th century profounder arguments simply because they were based on a deeper knowledge of what what was what they were attacking Nietzsche Nietzsche understood Christianity not every aspect of it I mean he had a distinctly Protestant view of it generally but his attacks were an attack directly on the ethos and the self understanding of Christianity on the whole though I think the only really solvent atheist argument isn't one from modal logic or or from any of the sort of questions what the the are typically classified in philosophy of religion as being about the existence of God I think it's the argument from evil you know that's the one that I don't think can be shown to be internally incoherent that you know we we exist in a world of monstrous evil and monstrous suffering and the theists traditions as one tell us that behind all this is a God of infinite justice mercy love and intellect and there seems to be such an implausible contrast between experience and that claim that that if nothing else even if logically that doesn't do away with the notion of an absolute it certainly seems to do away or could do away potentially with vast regions of the typical theistic picture of God.


and in that the argument from evil which is the atheistic argument it would be both naturalistic Evo which is is non sin if you will who is earthquakes but when a child dies with cancer right right or or if you go back further animal suffering during hundreds of billions of years of evolution it was a continuous pain and suffering for for animals and so you have to deal with both of those and so what's how do you deal with that?
David Bentley Hart: generally try to avoid it.but...

shows it's a good argument if you try to avoid it?


David Bentley Hart: well you see as I say it succeeds not at the level of the logic of ontology say but it definitely succeeds at the level of devotion and moral theology all traditions all of them start from the assumption that there's something broken something has gone wrong in creation and its relation to God that has are there a moral or a spiritual root I mean I'm no patience for fundamentalists so obviously I don't believe that 6000 years ago there was a specific transgression involving a snake but I do believe that that and the other legends of the fall which is sort of a universal human type of story do touch upon a sense that that leaks the reality we experience and all of its dimensions even in those that in terms of cosmic history preceded the human have to do with an original alienation from God the nature of which is impossible to understand except in light of its negation which would be reconciliation with God but it's not an argument I ever tried to slight or pass all is this the one argument I never pretend can be swept away or defeated and it's the one I for which I

hold the greatest respect and the one that I find intermittently convincing my self..

“Most people learn nothing from experience, except confirmation of their prejudices.“

— Bertrand Russell, The Lessons of Experience, 23 September 1931

When you find human society disagreeable and feel yourself justified in flying to solitude, you can be so constituted as to be unable to bear the depression of it for any length of time, which will probably be the case if you are young. Let me advise you, then, to form the habit of taking some of your solitude with you into society, to learn to be to some extent alone even though you are in company; not to say at once what you think, and, on the other hand, not to attach too precise a meaning to what others say; rather, not to expect much of them, either morally or intellectually, and to strengthen yourself in the feeling of indifference to their opinion, which is the surest way of always practicing a praiseworthy toleration. If you do that, you will not live so much with other people, though you may appear to move amongst them: your relation to them will be of a purely objective character. This precaution will keep you from too close contact with society, and therefore secure you against being contaminated or even outraged by it. Society is in this respect like a fire-the wise man warming himself at a proper distance from it; not coming too close, like the fool, who, on getting scorched, runs away and shivers in solitude, loud in his complaint that the fire burns. ~Arthur Schopenhauer

(Book: Essays and Aphorisms https://amzn.to/3KUHaI1)

(Art: Photograph by Kees Scherer)

" The aim of Philosophy is to Clarify and The aim of Literature is to mystify. The novelist is trying to creat an illusion while the Philosopher is trying to destroy an illusion. Literature tries to involve the writer and the reader ; while Philosophy is a narrowly intellectual activity. Literature is emotion inclusive while Philosophy is emotion - exclusive. "

[Bryan Mage : British Philosopher , Politician and Author : Interview with Iris Murdoch , Philosophy Vs Literature.]

For Hegel ...

" Human beings cannot have an identity without Social or Cultural background. Human beings are social creatures that depend on others to be who they are. The only way we could see ourselves is through our reflection in others. ....

The sense that we want acknowledgement, status , appreciation , ... shows that our human nature has social core. "

[G. W. F. Hegel on Human Nature : German Philosopher]

The world that scientists, who stand on the position of physicalist objectivism, speak about turns out to be not an objective world at all, i.e., a world independent of human consciousness, but an intersubjective world, i.e., the world of intersubjectively experienced objects. The objects of scientific research are intersubjective objects, and scientists do not know and cannot in principle know any other objects, just as the whole of humanity cannot know any other objects.

— Yaroslav Slinin on Husserl’s transcendental idealism/phenomenology

Socratic Method ....

A method used by the Great Philosopher Socrates. " Socratic Method " is used by Socrates to enable a person to reflect his ideas. Socrates asks sharp questions to help him dig out the deepest belief of a given person on a certain subject and most of the time the person might find his deepest ideas conflicting with his initial ones.

(From Philosophy Overdose)