|
These philosophical
reflections are my thoughts on; truth, success, purpose, death, thinking,
and worldview. They were written
with the intention to express my initial thinking that led to my current
conclusions on life. I have
deliberately ended on questions rather than answers, as I wanted to provide
a conceptual framework for readers who may not share my worldview, and to
seek the answers for themselves.
Relevant Quranic verses have been included as introductory literary
devices to evoke thought and set the mental scene. This approach is a major theme in the
Quran, as it frequently mentions, “Do you not reflect?”
There is an African
proverb that states “He who asks questions, cannot avoid the answers”, so I
hope these reflections will evoke thought and facilitate guidance for all
those who seek it.
Truth
“The truth is from your Lord, so on no account be among the
doubters.” (Quran 2: 147)
“Do not mix the truth with falsehood, or hide the truth when you know
it.” (Quran 2: 42)
The question of truth
has perplexed the mind of nearly every human being that has lived on this
planet. What is truth? How do we get
to know truth? Is there such a thing as truth? This type of thinking dates
back to the ancient Greek Philosopher Socrates, as a young man he endlessly
questioned and sought after the truth.
However, in our day and age we do not really think about concepts
such as truth. We may have argued,
“tell me the truth!” if we suspect our friends of betrayal, or we “swear to
tell the truth” in a court of law, but when it comes to our existence, and
questioning what it means to be a human being, we forget about truth and
adopt skepticism as a philosophy.
Skepticism answers in
the negative the following question: can we know anything? It essentially
implies the belief that the truth about life and the universe will never be
known. Founded by Pyrrho of Elis,
Skepticism was advocated and put into writing by the Greek Philosopher
Sextus Empiricus who was the first to detail and codify the doctrine. This school of philosophy is common in
today’s society, however, its approach regarding truth is unwarranted
because we can discover it, and the only way to do that is by endless,
insistent questioning. Socrates was
great at questioning and by doing so he would bring his opponents to
realise the truth, and this is because he believed the truth was already
within us. For example, there are
many universal principles that we can never deny, and to deny them would
deny knowledge itself. For instance,
take two planks of wood that are equal in length: do we know they are equal
because they are the same length or do we know what the concept of equality
is prior to our experience? It is because we have the innate, inbuilt
concept of equality that enables us to see that the planks of wood are the
same length. Also, we know that half
of something is less than its whole, and we know the truth of the fact that
all fathers are men. These innate
ideas and concepts are known in epistemology as a priori, which means
knowledge independent from experience.
From a practical
perspective the skeptic’s position is untenable, because we know the truth
of the laws of physics that enable bridges to withstand heavy loads,
including the laws that keep boats afloat.
If a skeptical position was assumed when building our houses, would
we agree to implement the architect’s design? The Polish Philosopher Leszek
Kolakowski writes,
“We might say: well,
since we know nothing, what is the point of constructing theories that have
no foundation? But if philosophers and scholars had seriously attempted to
achieve such self-satisfied serenity, would they have been able to build
our civilization? Would modern physics have been invented?”
So there are some
universal truths that we can feel secure in accepting, and the way to find
out further truths is to use these universal truths as a starting point,
which is called epistemic foundationalism in the language of philosophy.
The importance of truth
has been emphasized by many thinkers past and present. Plato the ancient Philosopher said “And
isn’t it a bad thing to be deceived about the truth, and a good thing to
know what the truth is? For I assume that by knowing the truth you mean
knowing things as they really are.” So why is the search for truth
important? The significance of truth is not only intuitive; it is something
that gives us a sense of reality, that things are real. In absence of truth life on occasions can
seem unreal and illusory in a certain sense. Additionally, many psychologists have
acknowledged that human beings want to be right and seek to learn from
social norms when they are unsure about things, this psychological process
is known as ‘Normative and Informational Social Influence’. In this view the search for truth is very
important as it has the possibility of shaping who we are or the person we
want to be.
Another way of looking
at this is that not searching for truth is tantamount to lying to
ourselves, or even accepting a lie, because anything other than truth will
be accepting it’s opposite. So the
search for truth would be a means of trying to be more sincere with our own
existence, as we would be seeking to establish the truth of who we are and
the life we are living. Finally,
holding on to the skeptical view that there is no truth is self-defeating,
because the claim that there is no truth is actually a truth claim, so how
can anyone claim that skepticism is true but everything else is not? This
is the inconsistency of the skeptical view; a skeptic would claim the truth
of skepticism but would deny all other truths! Consequently no matter what
position we hold we still have to accept a truth, and in this light, let
the search for truth begin!
Success
“…they are the ones who are successful.” (Quran 7:157)
“Truly, this is the supreme success!” (Quran 37:60)
PhilosophicalReflections2.jpgOne
of the best definitions I have found of success is “the completion of what
is intended”. For example, if I were
to intend to learn how to drive, and I passed my driving test, that would
be a success. As human beings we
intend to achieve things all the time; to get a promotion; to be our own
boss; to be a good father and husband; to travel the world or to write a
book. If we achieve or complete our
aims and objectives then it can be argued we have been successful. However is this view of success
meaningful? I would argue it is not.
If we live our lives to
complete the things that we intend to achieve, without even questioning the
intention of our own existence, we will have not found any ultimate meaning
to our own lives. Therefore our view
of success is almost baseless and devoid of real value. If each person completes his life by intending
to achieve all of the things we mentioned, and he or she didn’t even
complete the intended meaning for his or her life, then can we call their
lives successful? We can even ask: does it really matter whether they ever
existed at all? His or her life may be of some importance relative to the
things they want to complete, but what is the ultimate significance of
completing their own lives?
Let’s look at it from a
scientific perspective, our children, our actions, our loved ones and
everything we do are just arrangements of molecules. Carbon and other atoms in various
combinations make up our lives and even the things we intend to
complete. From this perspective
mankind is thus no more significant than a swarm of flies, or a herd of
sheep, for their makeup is all the same.
Also, if we follow the scientific line of thought our end is also
meaningless, we just die and that’s it.
This is true for each individual person. The amazing achievements of the scientist
to the advancement of human thinking, the on-going research of bio-medicine
to find the cure for cancer, the efforts of the politician to establish
justice and peace in the world, all these come to nothing. Even if human beings were to exist
forever, the mere infinite duration of our lives would not make them any
more meaningful, there would still be no ultimate significance.
Existentialists such as
Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus understood the meaningless reality of
life in absence of acknowledging the intention of our existence. This is why Sartre wrote of the “nausea”
of existence and Camus saw life as absurd indicating that the universe has
no meaning at all. The German
Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche argued in clear concise pronouncements that
the world and human history does not have any meaning, any rational order
or aim. Nietzsche argued that there
is only a mindless chaos, a directionless world tending towards no end.
If we found the
intention of our existence, thereby giving our lives ultimate meaning, and
we were to achieve and complete what was intended – that would indeed be
true success. In contrast to this
type of thinking someone may contend by stating that this whole discussion
assumes that some metaphysical entity created the whole universe with some
sort of purpose. This is true, but
by removing this assumption we will only be presuming atheism to be
true. Additionally, the logical
conclusion of atheism is that our very existence is pointless, which is a
conclusion not many atheists would like to follow through due to it being
at odds with our innate nature and psychological disposition. So the following questions naturally
follow, what is the intention of our existence, and what outlook would make
sense of our continuous search for ultimate meaning and success?
Purpose
“So where are you going?” (Quran 81:26)
“Our Lord! You have not created all this without purpose” (Quran
3:190)
“God did not create all these without a true purpose; He explains His
signs to those who understand.” (Quran 10:5)
The Austrian
philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, who inspired two of the 20th century’s
principal philosophical movements, once said, “I don’t know why we are
here, but I’m pretty sure that it is not in order to enjoy ourselves.”
Wittgenstein did not have the answer to the perennial question of what is
humanity’s purpose, but he did indicate that there must be one, even if the
answer could not be discovered intuitively.
However, it can be argued that the assumption that there is a
purpose may be false, and if it is false, then there is nothing to be
bothered about, and we should all just carry on living. As Albert Camus, the French Algerian
philosopher and journalist, who was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature,
explained “You will never live if you are looking for the meaning of life”. Camus’ point is not ontological, it
doesn’t probe into the nature of reality, and his concern seems to be an
existential one, meaning that the important thing is how life works for
you, the life of individual; regardless of any truth behind existence. So in light of this we must ask: is it
reasonable to believe we have a purpose?
To answer this, take
the following points into consideration:
You are probably
reading this in your bedroom sitting on your chair, and you are definitely
wearing some clothes. So I ask you a
question: for what purpose? Why are you wearing the clothes and what
purpose does the chair fulfill? Since these are rhetorical questions you
don’t have to answer, because we all know the answer. The chair’s purpose is to allow us to sit
down by supporting our weight, and our clothes fulfill the purpose of
keeping us warm, hiding our nakedness and making us look good! Now from
your bedroom let me transport you to a forest somewhere in the world, now
this forest obviously has trees and on a particular tree there is a
moth. This moth is on this tree
drinking its sap, underneath that moth there is another moth and its role
is somewhat bizarre, it drinks the excrement of the first moth. This is because the first moth almost
instantaneously removes its waste while drinking the sap. You are probably thinking where I am
going with this, well; firstly let us discuss what the purpose of the
second moth is. Its purpose is to
clean up the excrement of the first moth in order to prevent it trickling
down the tree so that ants, and other insects, would not be encouraged to
travel up the trail and in consequence eat the first moth. So in simple terms the second moth is the
first moth’s insurance policy!
Now take this into
consideration, you probably didn’t know anything about this moth three
minutes ago, in fact if moth genocide were to occur, you wouldn’t really
care – well most of you anyway.
However, we attribute purpose to such an insignificant creature, and
coming back to our clothes and the chair, which are inanimate objects with
no emotional and mental faculties, we attribute purpose to these too!
Still, we do not attribute purpose to our own existence? Is this not
absurd?
Believing that we have
no purpose is not only irrational, it is practically problematic because it
presents an indication that a lot of the things we have achieved as humans
beings most probably would not have happened as many of the people who have
accomplished amazing achievements, including the discovery of penicillin, would
not have had the drive to attain what they did. This is because these very people had a
purpose driven approach to life, without which we would be just like
animals obeying our instincts, in other words chemical robots wandering
around waiting for the battery acid to dry up! The realities of a
purposeless existence was also highlighted by the Philosopher Arthur
Schopenhauer who claimed that the world is bankrupt and there is no reason
to rejoice in its existence, he even argued that it would be better if it
did not exist and questioned whether suicide was a plausible solution.
So why is it
irrational? Well, it is irrational because if everything complex and
designed that we discover seems to have a purpose, including the
insignificant moth, as well as the things we develop and create, then it
logically follows that we have a purpose too. To deny this would be tantamount of
believing in things without any evidence, as there is no evidence to say we
have no purpose, on the contrary we have evidence to say that things have a
purpose and we can infer that about ourselves too. Even scientists indicate that it is
irrational to assert that our universe is impersonal and the product of
blind chance. Interestingly they
have explained that the physical processes in the universe have some sort
of purpose, for instance the Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle described the
universe with the attributes of God, and the physicists Zeldovich and
Novikov asked why did nature choose to create this universe instead of
another?
Finally, we can argue
that without a purpose we do not really have a deeper profound meaning to
our life. For instance if we take
the logical conclusion of an apathetic scientific view on our existence, we
are on a sinking ship. This ship is
called the universe, because according to scientists the universe is going
to suffer a heat death, and one day the Sun will destroy the earth. Therefore this ship is going to sink, so
I ask you, what is the point of reshuffling the deck chairs or giving a
glass of milk to the old lady? As Fyodor Dostoyevsky, the Russian writer
and essayist said, “Without some goal and some effort to reach it, no one
can live.”
Various contentions can
follow from this discussion; firstly a purposeless worldview gives us more
freedom to create purpose for ourselves.
To further explain, some existentialists have argued that our life
is actually based on nothing, and from this nothingness we can create a new
realm of possibility for our lives, and therefore create purpose for
ourselves. This philosophy rests on
the idea that everything is meaningless and that we should create a new
language for ourselves in order to live fulfilling lives. The flaw with this approach is that it
uses meaning to claim meaninglessness; it also represents a self-delusion
as they deny purpose but create one for themselves. Additionally it implies that there are no
objective moral values and truths because an ontological foundation is
absent. This is counter-intuitive
and opposes our cross-cultural consensus of our moral thinking. The philosophy of war is a good example
to show this type of moral consensus.
For 2,500 years there was a cross-cultural agreement that poisons
should not be used in war, even if you were being defeated. Although in practice people did not
always conform, but they did however agree to this rule.
Another contention
includes the evolutionist’s stance that our purpose is to propagate our
DNA, as Richard Dawkins in his publication ‘The Selfish Gene’ states that
our bodies have been developed to do just that. The problem with this analysis is that it
relegates our existence to a random accident via a lengthy biological
process, in essence the value of our life loses its meaning and morality is
relegated to individual taste, as Michael Ruse a Philosopher of Science
states,
“Morality is a
biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth… Morality
is just an aid to survival and reproduction and any deeper meaning is
illusory.”
The evolutionary
perspective creates more problems than it solves as it cannot provide an
adequate explanation for consciousness and the presence of our rational
faculties. Taking consciousness as
an example, how can a subjective immaterial reality come from a material
substance? Consciousness is not a physical thing; it is not contained in
any cell or biological structure.
The most unchallenged and intuitive reality is that we are all
aware, but we cannot describe or explain what this awareness is. One thing that we can be sure of is that
consciousness cannot be explained biologically or chemically, the main
reason for this is that evolution doesn’t discover consciousness; it’s
actually the other way round. For evolution
to try and explain the truth of consciousness would be tantamount to
arguing in a circle! Even scientists recognise this, the physicist Gerald
Schroeder points out that there is no real difference between a heap of
sand and the brain of an Einstein.
If those advocating a physical explanation for consciousness, bigger
questions would need answering such as ‘how can certain bits of matter
suddenly create a new reality that has no resemblance to matter?’
So if consciousness
cannot be explained physically then the next question must be asked, ‘how
did it come to be?’ The history of the universe indicates that
consciousness just spontaneously arose and language emerged without any
evolutionary forerunner. Even the
neo-atheists have failed to come to terms with the nature of consciousness
or its source, because no physical explanation is coherent enough to
convince. Even the neo-atheist
Richard Dawkins admits defeat concerning consciousness, he states “We don’t
know. We don’t understand it.”
In conclusion there are
more reasons to believe that we have a deeper purpose rather than the other
options of purposelessness and the cold valueless propagation of our
DNA. Realising that we have a
purpose is the best explanation via the inferences we make concerning the
universe and the things around us.
Even the Scottish Philosopher David Hume was attributed of saying “A
wise man proportions his belief to the evidence”, so in this case, it would
be wiser to conclude that human beings must have a purpose, and let us not
forget that it nourishes us with a more significant explanation for our
existence. However, the following
question naturally arises: what is our purpose?
Death
“Every soul is certain to taste death.” (Quran 21:35)
“Death will overtake you no matter where you may be” (Quran 4:78)
Death is something we
as living beings do not enjoy thinking about. It creates the realisation within us that
all of the attachments we have built in this world are no longer going to
be. Significantly, it awakens us to
the brutal fact that we will no longer exist on the planet. There have been many philosophies on
death, for example thinkers discussed that death is an interruption to
life, like sleep or a disease, only permanent. Others explained that death is to be
considered as part of life, something which every person has to come to
terms with in order to live well; part of what is involved in accepting our
finitude. Some thinkers claimed
death is to be considered as a transition from this life to an afterlife,
the eternal life of bliss or pain.
Whatever our views on
death are, one thing we can all agree on is that it is something that we do
not think about enough. This may
sound morbid but there is a profound value of reflecting on death, it
brings about the actualisation that we are all human beings with a short
life. Our egos will no longer seem
that important, our attachments and desires to the material world are put
into perspective, and our lives are questioned; all of which is a source of
great benefit, as the 11th century Theologian and Philosopher al-Ghazali
said, “…in the recollection of death there is reward and merit.”
Contemplating about death provokes thought and give us that window in our
lives to really reflect on the ephemeral nature of our existence.
In light of death, how
should we view life? What does it tell us about the importance we attach to
things, and how does it deliver meaning to our existence? If we view life
through the lenses of death we seem to be in an emotional and intellectual
space where we can really assess our situation on this planet. How did I come to be? What should I be
doing here? Where am I going? Death is the driving force behind these
critical questions, because the moment we recognise that this life is short
and that we will breathe our last one day, it puts everything into
perspective.
So let us reflect on
death; imagine you are here one minute and the next you are no more. You have probably experienced loved ones
that have passed away; how did you feel? Was there not a sense of
loneliness, emptiness and lack of attachment to the things we used to take
so seriously? Now if you were to taste death right now, as every human
being will, what would that mean to you? What would you want to have done
differently if you were given the chance to go back? What thoughts and
ideas would you take more seriously? And what would your outlook be if you
could re-live your life once experiencing the tragic reality of death?
The sad thing about
death is that we can’t go back to change our perspectives, or to think about
life, or to challenge our outlook and detach ourselves from the empty
nature of worldly life. The good
thing though, something that we can begin to do is to take the brave step
to deeply reflect on death, and best of all we could make all of these changes
now, right this minute.
Thinking
“…for
those who reflect.” (Quran 10:24)
“…and he taught Adam the names of everything…” (Quran 2:31)
“Do they not use their minds?” (Quran 6:32)
“Do they not reflect within themselves?” (Quran 30:8)
How should we think?
How can we understand the world around us? What methods should we use to
gain a true understanding of the world? These questions have puzzled the
minds of many great thinkers throughout history. Our human tradition is full of debates
and discussions trying to find answers.
The likes of Locke, Hume and Kant, and many others have tried to
provide answers to shed light on the perennial debate concerning our
understanding of the world. Some of
these thinkers, such as Locke, claimed that our knowledge of the world is
limited to our perceptions only, in other words knowledge is dependent on
our sense experience, also known as a posteriori in epistemology, which
forms the empiricist tradition in philosophy.
Locke argued that our
minds were a blank sheet, a tabula rasa, waiting to be written on by
experience. Other thinkers like
Leibniz argued, in his ‘Nouveax Essais sur l’entendement humain’, that as
human beings we have innate concepts and ideas that are necessary to
understand the world around us, known as a priori in epistemology, which
means that knowledge can be gained independent of sense experience, and
forms the rationalist tradition in philosophy. Leibniz’s view seems to be a stronger
position as it is makes more sense, however some philosophers and
scientists deny this and claim that you can’t think of examples of things
we can know independent of our sense experience. This is not true; take the following
examples into consideration:
· Circles have no
corners.
· 4+4 = 8.
· Time is irreversible.
· Everything that begins
to exist has a cause.
· The whole is greater
than its half (just eat half an apple!)
· Causality
Let’s take causality as
an example to illustrate that we can’t just rely on sense experience. Causality can be known without experience
because we bring it to all our experience, rather than our experience
bringing it to us. It is like
wearing yellow-tinted glasses, everything looks yellow not because of
anything out there in the world, but because of the glasses through which
we are looking at everything. The
contention that this is just an assumption is not true because without
causality we would not be able to have the concept of the real world, and
we would not understand our sense experience. Take the following example into
consideration; imagine you are looking at the White House in Washington
DC. Your eyes may wander to the
door, across the pillars, then to the roof and finally over to the front
lawn. Now contrast this to another
experience, you are on the river Thames in London and you see a boat
floating past. What dictates the
order in which you had these experiences? When you looked at the White
House you had a choice to see the door first and then the pillars and so
on. However with the boat you had no
choice as the front of the boat was the first to appear.
The point to take here
is that you would not have been able to make the distinction that some
experiences are ordered by yourself and others are ordered independently,
unless we had the innate idea of causality.
In absence of causality our experience would be very different from
the way it is. It would be a single
sequence of experiences only: one thing after another.
So it seems that the
correct way of forming conclusions is by using our innate ideas and the
experiences of the world around us, in other words using rational thought
or what some people call reason.
Just relying on our experience of the material world would not be
sufficient as a method of thinking as it would not be able to confirm
political truths, moral truths, mathematical truths, logical truths, and
let’s not forget to mention a fundamental truth like causality.
Though we can
understand the world around us using rational thought, how can we formulate
an argument or verify our conclusions? Well, this lies in the study of
logic which essentially means the principles of reasoning, with particular
emphasis on the structure of our arguments.
Let’s illustrate the
use of logic in the following example: if our friend Mary says “John is
coming to dinner tonight”, and David says “Mary is not coming to dinner
tonight”. Is what they say
consistent? Well, logic would tell us that if they are referring to the
same person and the same day then no, their statements would not be
consistent. However if they are
referring to a different person or a different day then yes their
statements would be consistent.
So let’s combine the
two processes. John says “Whatever
begins to exist has a cause and the universe began to exist, therefore the
universe has a cause”. Now from a
logical perspective it is a valid argument as the last statement “therefore
the universe has a cause” logically follows from the first two statements. But this doesn’t mean it is rational or
reasonable. In order to find out
that it is reasonable we would have to investigate using our innate ideas
and our sense experience to see if the first two statements are true. If they are, then the conclusion will not
only be a valid argument but it would also be a sound argument.
Just relying on
empiricism would not give us an answer as it would lead us to suspend
judgment on whether the universe has a cause or not because it cannot be
sensed. However this would be
equivalent of denying the existence of your great great great great great
great great grandmother, because there is no empirical evidence for her
existence. You may argue “but I
wouldn’t be here today!”, that is true, but that would be using rational
thought to form that conclusion, as you would have deduced that you must
have had a great great great great great great great grandmother as all
human beings must have had a grandmother in order to exist.
This is how all of us
should start to think about life and the universe, so we could form the
right conclusions using valid arguments.
World-view
“But perhaps you hate a thing and it is
good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and Quran it is bad for
you. And God Knows, while you know
not.” (Quran 2:216)
Live and let live,
don’t harm others and you’ll be fine.
This makes sense, right? Even to the point that it shouldn’t be
questioned. But why is this? Why do
we automatically accept some ideas and reject others? Why do certain
viewpoints seem agreeable to us yet we disagree with others, all without
really thinking about them?
The answer lies in the
concept of a world-view. A
world-view is a philosophy of living that enables us to make sense of life
and our daily experiences. The
world-view we adopt affects the way we process ideas, and allows us to
understand society and our place in it.
A world-view is important in particular association with our society
today – this is because the contemporary world has had a huge effect on
human psychology. We seem unable to
deal with the unpredictable changes and increased complexity of life –
subsequently stress, uncertainty and frustration become common and our
minds are overloaded with information.
A world-view is the framework that ties all of this together, and
allows us to understand life’s complexity and unpredictability, it helps us
make the critical decisions that will shape our future and our own selves,
and it aids us in providing a picture of the whole.
World-views vary and
can range from being shallow to comprehensive. A shallow world-view is one that just
gives us the framework to react to day-to-day experiences, such as work and
friendships. This type of world-view
is usually formed via our previous experiences in life and it develops by
creating templates of understanding the world by contemplating on our
history with it. This type of
world-view is problematic as it obstructs us from progression by
maintaining an inflexible fixation on the past, with no possibility of
viewing the world in a positive or different way that will enable our
transformation. It is limited in its
scope as it becomes only as comprehensive as your experiences, and
individually our experiences are very limited.
A comprehensive
world-view, as discussed by the philosopher Leo Apostel, encompasses
everything in life and it includes various components, for instance it
provides a model for the world by answering the basic question “who are
we?” In addition it provides an explanation usually answering “why is the
world the way it is?” and “where did we come from?” Another important part
of a comprehensive world-view includes extrapolating from the past into the
future to answer the question “where are we going?” It should endeavour to
answer “what is good and what is evil?”, in other words to include morality
and ethics, while giving us a sense of purpose, direction and goals for our
actions. Additionally, the answer to
the question “what for?” may help us to understand the real meaning of life
and a comprehensive world-view must answer “how should we act?” thereby
helping us to solve practical problems.
Lastly a comprehensive world-view should answer the question “what
is true and what is false?”, this is equivalent to what in philosophy is called
“epistemology” or “the theory of knowledge”, therefore it would allow us to
distinguish between what is correct and what is incorrect.
For any situation there
are various possible outcomes all of which are dictated by the world-view
that someone adopts. Instead of
discussing the actions, or fruits, of a world-view the foundations of the
world-view should be challenged and validated. So the world-view that is more correct or
has stronger intellectual foundations should be the one to adopt.
This is why when
looking into Islam the primary focus should not be an assessment of women’s
rights, clothing and on instances sensationalized by the media, because the
assessment of these will be biased and skewed in line with your existing
world-view. But rather, the
intellectual foundations of any world-view should be assessed for its
truth, and the one with greater reasons to believe in its truth should be
the world-view to adopt, because it will be in line with the principle of:
whatever comes from truth is true
Pasted From :
|
