Post by jmodglin on Nov 8, 2015 19:00:31 GMT
Why are Fariq Chands experiences important in understanding the projective nature of religious visions and miracles?
Fariq’s experience and much more than that, his explanation and the insight he gained from that experience, are important in understanding the projective nature of religious visions due to his ability to succinctly describe what he and others saw and how they were made to feel by these visions, in fact some even putting him upon a stage and worshiping him due to their visions of him saving them during a war in 1919 in modern day Iraq. His visions of his guru giving him sage advice and providing him with the wisdom to avoid certain death at the hands of rebels he and his unit were fighting at the time, gives us insight into how stress can manifest itself into what one would describe as a real experience much the same experience that or dreams provide us in our unconscious state. Upon his returning to Baghdad and being told that it was he who was speaking to others in their visions at the same time he was speaking to his guru made him realize in the end that what we view as universal visions of religious significance are merely “impressions that are in truth unreal” to all that is except the believer.
What is meant by the phrase “philosophy done well is science; philosophy done poorly remains philosophy.”
To me what this means is quite simple, philosophy is the pursuit of understanding of the self and the world around the self and ultimately to explain ones purpose or place within that world. In the end philosophy is the first step towards empiricism, by that I mean to say that when one begins to ask the questions that lay beyond the standard necessities of existence, food, shelter and the like, such as “why does the fire war our bodies’ rather than simply feeling its warmth and being satisfied with that knowledge, one begins to enter a world that requires further study and in many cases empirical evidence in order to satisfy ones philosophical inquiry. I think P. Churchland in her interview put the above mentioned question into proper perspective when she stated “Well, I think that philosophy is continuous with science, and I think that it always has been.” So philosophy done poorly could be likened to a baseball player who is trying to hit a fast pitch by simply swinging over and over randomly and erratically expecting to hit the ball because at some point the ball should pass over the space that the player is swinging that bat in and out of, this is done out of ignorance of the mechanics of the entire hitting process and with hopes that simply swinging the bat will overcome this ignorance, which I think we would all agree is a bad batting as well as philosophical technique. Philosophy done right is more likened to un-wrapping a tinker toy set along with a model of the human genome and the instructions on how to begin to build it leading to the next step in the process, action and empirical study.
Fariq’s experience and much more than that, his explanation and the insight he gained from that experience, are important in understanding the projective nature of religious visions due to his ability to succinctly describe what he and others saw and how they were made to feel by these visions, in fact some even putting him upon a stage and worshiping him due to their visions of him saving them during a war in 1919 in modern day Iraq. His visions of his guru giving him sage advice and providing him with the wisdom to avoid certain death at the hands of rebels he and his unit were fighting at the time, gives us insight into how stress can manifest itself into what one would describe as a real experience much the same experience that or dreams provide us in our unconscious state. Upon his returning to Baghdad and being told that it was he who was speaking to others in their visions at the same time he was speaking to his guru made him realize in the end that what we view as universal visions of religious significance are merely “impressions that are in truth unreal” to all that is except the believer.
What is meant by the phrase “philosophy done well is science; philosophy done poorly remains philosophy.”
To me what this means is quite simple, philosophy is the pursuit of understanding of the self and the world around the self and ultimately to explain ones purpose or place within that world. In the end philosophy is the first step towards empiricism, by that I mean to say that when one begins to ask the questions that lay beyond the standard necessities of existence, food, shelter and the like, such as “why does the fire war our bodies’ rather than simply feeling its warmth and being satisfied with that knowledge, one begins to enter a world that requires further study and in many cases empirical evidence in order to satisfy ones philosophical inquiry. I think P. Churchland in her interview put the above mentioned question into proper perspective when she stated “Well, I think that philosophy is continuous with science, and I think that it always has been.” So philosophy done poorly could be likened to a baseball player who is trying to hit a fast pitch by simply swinging over and over randomly and erratically expecting to hit the ball because at some point the ball should pass over the space that the player is swinging that bat in and out of, this is done out of ignorance of the mechanics of the entire hitting process and with hopes that simply swinging the bat will overcome this ignorance, which I think we would all agree is a bad batting as well as philosophical technique. Philosophy done right is more likened to un-wrapping a tinker toy set along with a model of the human genome and the instructions on how to begin to build it leading to the next step in the process, action and empirical study.