Philosophy is the spiritual knowledge that transmits in one direction in the circle of research. In the same circle of investigation, science is the body of information that moves in the other direction, from the physical to the theoretical. Both the Scientist and the Philosopher will need to do a lot of traveling in order to converge on the same spot on the circle. It is a sign that both the scientist and the philosopher are in the midst of their own journeys when they begin to argue with one other. The point of view of the philosopher is that God predates the formation of this cosmos and cannot be explained in any way. The viewpoint of the scientist is that the cosmos itself is God, and they are willing to embrace the mysteries that lie inside nature. Whereas scientists accept the unexplained character of the universe, there are certain aspects of the world that can be explained. Philosophers believe that God rules the whole world, while scientists believe that some aspects of the world can be explained.
When God cannot be explained, or when it is not possible to grasp God from our perspective, then the very essence of God is simply idiosyncratic. The explicable is represented by the philosopher as creation, whereas the inexplicable is represented as God. The unexplainable portion of the universe is recognized in addition to the explicable part, which is acknowledged and agreed upon by both the most prominent philosophers and scientists in the world. Both the Philosopher and the Scientist have come to the conclusion that God is aware of this inexplicability, which they express non the same way. The Scientist discusses the fact that a blazing wire has both wires and heat in his presentation. The Philosopher says that the fire and the wire are living side by side in the same space. Words are the only thing that is inconsistent. The term “heat” is used by the Scientist, but the term “heat fire” is used by the Philosopher. The wire represents the portion of the world that can be explained and on which everyone can agree. A scientist will refer to the other component that cannot be explained as a characteristic by the name heat. The Philosopher’s words are identical to those of the person who has fire as a property. Nevertheless, the intense heat is referred to as fire.
The human incarnation occurs to be the final authority concerning the presence of the holder of such unexplainable power. If a scientist admits the alternative true way of the miracles, this means that the human incarnation is the road of miracles. The Scientist will morph into a spiritual thinker if he decides to travel the path of patience in order to go to the very bottom of the rabbit hole. Every single one of the inpatient Scientists is now existing at some location in the midst of the route, and they will eventually become atheists.
Best philosophers ever
The person who was a leader in the development of constructive thinking. It may seem like an exaggeration, but there is little evidence of anyone engaging in self-reflection or doing a study of abstract notions before his time. You should look up some Platonic conversations and read them to see what they are like. He is entertaining and astute, and although he may be well off base at times, he is often spot on.
The one who was one step ahead of his time, so that people go back and read his works, and the overwhelming feeling that they are left with is “Yeah, I know.” His impact on how we see social control systems and the “will to power” was hypnotic, and it all appears to have become axiomatic as a result of his work.
He extracted the atheistic values of the Enlightenment and funneled them into an aggressively individualistic, life-affirming, religion of the self. Why hadn’t anyone thought of that before? I don’t know.
3. Ibn Sina or Avicenna
Ibn Sina’s writings are impossible to summarize, and tracing his effect is much more challenging. He was a polymath who had a strong Aristotelian influence and was highly informed in philosophy, cosmology, medicine, religion, and metaphysics. It is almost hard to introduce someone like Ibn Sina while yet doing credit to the many arguments he has made and been satisfied with during his whole life. His emanation idea has always had my attention. He makes the case for All Above One or the Necessary Being, also known as the “Unmoved Mover” or GOD, from which the rest of reality emanates via the process of emanation. GOD is unable to have a purpose connected to the earth. Because of the essence of His Essence, which He created, all living entities are compelled to emerge from Him. That is counter to what the majority of Muslim philosophers and Muslims as a whole hold that God is involved in the specifics of our day-to-day lives and desires to create.
It is through this theory (of emanation) that he “solves” the infamous Problem of the Devil, which beset reconciling the existence of an all-powerful and loving GOD with the existence of ‘Evil’ and sufferings. The argument of Ibn Sina is significantly more complicated, and it merits the utmost attention because it is through this theory that he “solves” the Problem of the Devil.
Kant is probably the first person to seriously deal with the academic problem of nailing together a code of moral and ethical behavior without reference to a god. As a result, he coerces the entire species forward one rung on the ladder of amazement, which means that Kant is probably the first person to seriously deal with the problem of nailing together a code of moral and ethical behavior. I also like his Categorical Imperative, which is a quick test to determine whether or not what you are doing is a moral action: when you are in a difficult situation, ask yourself, “If everyone in this world acted in the way I’m acting, would it still be a good idea?” This will help you determine whether or not what you are doing is a moral action.
5. Ibn Rushd or Averroes
When researching the history of Islamic philosophy beginning with Ibn Sina and continuing forth, it is almost difficult to avoid coming across Ibn Rushd at some point. Ibn Sina and Al-Ghazzali are two of the numerous people who were on opposing sides of the contentious subjects that he addresses in his writings and discussions. Because of the “gentler” tone he uses in his writing, not only is the act of reading one of his works delightful in and of itself, but more significantly, so are the concepts he presents. The approach that he takes in his arguments is one that falls somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, and may be thought of as a “bridge” between two extreme positions.
Although this is only a short discussion of only a handful of influential best Philosophers, one hopes this will enlighten those skeptical of their contributions to the world, and invigorate those who wish to dive further into the history of a civilization that inspired innumerable intellectual developments. I strongly believe it will inspire you as well.