☀️ JOIN SPN MOBILE
Forums
New posts
Guru Granth Sahib
Composition, Arrangement & Layout
ਜਪੁ | Jup
ਸੋ ਦਰੁ | So Dar
ਸੋਹਿਲਾ | Sohilaa
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਿਰੀਰਾਗੁ | Raag Siree-Raag
Gurbani (14-53)
Ashtpadiyan (53-71)
Gurbani (71-74)
Pahre (74-78)
Chhant (78-81)
Vanjara (81-82)
Vaar Siri Raag (83-91)
Bhagat Bani (91-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਝ | Raag Maajh
Gurbani (94-109)
Ashtpadi (109)
Ashtpadiyan (110-129)
Ashtpadi (129-130)
Ashtpadiyan (130-133)
Bara Maha (133-136)
Din Raen (136-137)
Vaar Maajh Ki (137-150)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗਉੜੀ | Raag Gauree
Gurbani (151-185)
Quartets/Couplets (185-220)
Ashtpadiyan (220-234)
Karhalei (234-235)
Ashtpadiyan (235-242)
Chhant (242-249)
Baavan Akhari (250-262)
Sukhmani (262-296)
Thittee (296-300)
Gauree kii Vaar (300-323)
Gurbani (323-330)
Ashtpadiyan (330-340)
Baavan Akhari (340-343)
Thintteen (343-344)
Vaar Kabir (344-345)
Bhagat Bani (345-346)
ਰਾਗੁ ਆਸਾ | Raag Aasaa
Gurbani (347-348)
Chaupaday (348-364)
Panchpadde (364-365)
Kaafee (365-409)
Aasaavaree (409-411)
Ashtpadiyan (411-432)
Patee (432-435)
Chhant (435-462)
Vaar Aasaa (462-475)
Bhagat Bani (475-488)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੂਜਰੀ | Raag Goojaree
Gurbani (489-503)
Ashtpadiyan (503-508)
Vaar Gujari (508-517)
Vaar Gujari (517-526)
ਰਾਗੁ ਦੇਵਗੰਧਾਰੀ | Raag Dayv-Gandhaaree
Gurbani (527-536)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਹਾਗੜਾ | Raag Bihaagraa
Gurbani (537-556)
Chhant (538-548)
Vaar Bihaagraa (548-556)
ਰਾਗੁ ਵਡਹੰਸ | Raag Wadhans
Gurbani (557-564)
Ashtpadiyan (564-565)
Chhant (565-575)
Ghoriaan (575-578)
Alaahaniiaa (578-582)
Vaar Wadhans (582-594)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੋਰਠਿ | Raag Sorath
Gurbani (595-634)
Asatpadhiya (634-642)
Vaar Sorath (642-659)
ਰਾਗੁ ਧਨਾਸਰੀ | Raag Dhanasaree
Gurbani (660-685)
Astpadhiya (685-687)
Chhant (687-691)
Bhagat Bani (691-695)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਤਸਰੀ | Raag Jaitsree
Gurbani (696-703)
Chhant (703-705)
Vaar Jaitsaree (705-710)
Bhagat Bani (710)
ਰਾਗੁ ਟੋਡੀ | Raag Todee
ਰਾਗੁ ਬੈਰਾੜੀ | Raag Bairaaree
ਰਾਗੁ ਤਿਲੰਗ | Raag Tilang
Gurbani (721-727)
Bhagat Bani (727)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੂਹੀ | Raag Suhi
Gurbani (728-750)
Ashtpadiyan (750-761)
Kaafee (761-762)
Suchajee (762)
Gunvantee (763)
Chhant (763-785)
Vaar Soohee (785-792)
Bhagat Bani (792-794)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਲਾਵਲੁ | Raag Bilaaval
Gurbani (795-831)
Ashtpadiyan (831-838)
Thitteen (838-840)
Vaar Sat (841-843)
Chhant (843-848)
Vaar Bilaaval (849-855)
Bhagat Bani (855-858)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੋਂਡ | Raag Gond
Gurbani (859-869)
Ashtpadiyan (869)
Bhagat Bani (870-875)
ਰਾਗੁ ਰਾਮਕਲੀ | Raag Ramkalee
Ashtpadiyan (902-916)
Gurbani (876-902)
Anand (917-922)
Sadd (923-924)
Chhant (924-929)
Dakhnee (929-938)
Sidh Gosat (938-946)
Vaar Ramkalee (947-968)
ਰਾਗੁ ਨਟ ਨਾਰਾਇਨ | Raag Nat Narayan
Gurbani (975-980)
Ashtpadiyan (980-983)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਲੀ ਗਉੜਾ | Raag Maalee Gauraa
Gurbani (984-988)
Bhagat Bani (988)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਰੂ | Raag Maaroo
Gurbani (889-1008)
Ashtpadiyan (1008-1014)
Kaafee (1014-1016)
Ashtpadiyan (1016-1019)
Anjulian (1019-1020)
Solhe (1020-1033)
Dakhni (1033-1043)
ਰਾਗੁ ਤੁਖਾਰੀ | Raag Tukhaari
Bara Maha (1107-1110)
Chhant (1110-1117)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕੇਦਾਰਾ | Raag Kedara
Gurbani (1118-1123)
Bhagat Bani (1123-1124)
ਰਾਗੁ ਭੈਰਉ | Raag Bhairo
Gurbani (1125-1152)
Partaal (1153)
Ashtpadiyan (1153-1167)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਸੰਤੁ | Raag Basant
Gurbani (1168-1187)
Ashtpadiyan (1187-1193)
Vaar Basant (1193-1196)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਾਰਗ | Raag Saarag
Gurbani (1197-1200)
Partaal (1200-1231)
Ashtpadiyan (1232-1236)
Chhant (1236-1237)
Vaar Saarang (1237-1253)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਲਾਰ | Raag Malaar
Gurbani (1254-1293)
Partaal (1265-1273)
Ashtpadiyan (1273-1278)
Chhant (1278)
Vaar Malaar (1278-91)
Bhagat Bani (1292-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਾਨੜਾ | Raag Kaanraa
Gurbani (1294-96)
Partaal (1296-1318)
Ashtpadiyan (1308-1312)
Chhant (1312)
Vaar Kaanraa
Bhagat Bani (1318)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਲਿਆਨ | Raag Kalyaan
Gurbani (1319-23)
Ashtpadiyan (1323-26)
ਰਾਗੁ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਤੀ | Raag Prabhaatee
Gurbani (1327-1341)
Ashtpadiyan (1342-51)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਜਾਵੰਤੀ | Raag Jaijaiwanti
Gurbani (1352-53)
Salok | Gatha | Phunahe | Chaubole | Swayiye
Sehskritee Mahala 1
Sehskritee Mahala 5
Gaathaa Mahala 5
Phunhay Mahala 5
Chaubolae Mahala 5
Shaloks Bhagat Kabir
Shaloks Sheikh Farid
Swaiyyae Mahala 5
Swaiyyae in Praise of Gurus
Shaloks in Addition To Vaars
Shalok Ninth Mehl
Mundavanee Mehl 5
ਰਾਗ ਮਾਲਾ, Raag Maalaa
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Videos
New media
New comments
Library
Latest reviews
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
Sign up
Log in
Discussions
Sikh Sikhi Sikhism
Sikh Youth
Confused Youth?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="skeptik" data-source="post: 46162" data-attributes="member: 3353"><p>I empathise dalsingh, but I cannot honestly accept the idea that one should welcome idealists, and debate with them, and that this process if carried out widely will lead to "rich understandings." I'll give you an example to show why such a view is mistaken, and further, I will explain exactly how your view is typical of liberal thought, and i'll also show on what grounds it is usually proposed. </p><p></p><p>My first and best example is that of the large society of men and women who we call Scientists, and their society which can be called Science: indeed this is to speak about their philosophy, their methods, their qualities, their history and their values. Scientific society is largely characterised by its insistence on conservatism. Indeed the view of scientists is to take for granted and with respect the body of knowledge already discovered, or created, or whatever you wish to call it, by past society. Scientific faith, then, is a faith that is conservative in nature and it is one that is characterised by rationality and moderation. This is a view contrary to idealists, who deny the value of past accumulated progress of society, and instead emphasise the present and the future. This insistence of theirs means they are most concerned with 'change' and how to achieve it. But as any good scientist will tell you, it is a great waste of time to 'debate' or 'discuss' with someone who is convinced that orthodox science is flawed, that it needs to be updated, and that his wild theory, which departs from conservative theory, is the right way forward. </p><p></p><p>A scientist faced with such a crank will happily ignore him, and not waste any time 'debating' to reach a 'real understanding', for he knows that not only is it a futile task itself, but that it is impossible for any such understanding to occur, when the crank refuses to accept the efficacy of orthodox science. Further, the scientist is only too aware that the crank is unlikely to understand the problem deeply enough, or appreciably enough to be able to solve it. For if the crank were well versed in orthodox theory, he would likely not offer a wild 'solution' to the problem, that fails to understand the situation. And the crank will fail to understand the situation, because scientific knowledge is the best kind of knowledge we have for understanding nature, and if the crank denies this, then he is almost certainly wrong in any proposed 'change' of his. Infact, its more likely that crank hasnt even understood the problem which he claims to have solved, but this is to belabor the point. For scientists then, it is not productive to entertain the wild speculative theories of revolutionaries, who are characterised mostly by their desire for change. </p><p></p><p>Now the example I have given will invariably be met with a response that says something like, "What about Einstein? What about Newton? Were they not revolutionaries?", and this is certainly true, for they changed scientific society greatly. But the more one learns about these men, the more one realises that they were motived by, and inspired by, and led by existing scientific society. Einstein drew upon the rich body of work that was Poincare, and Lorenz, and Riemann to mention the obvious names. It is true that he came and took their work and made something new from it, but they used what was essentially orthodox science: conservative science, and too did Einstein when he united their work, and unified it with his forceful intellect. Further, as I said earlier, while great geniuses sometimes change existing society, because they understand so deeply existing society and all its limitations and its problems, they do so not simply because they wanted to change, but because they knew how to go about it, and did so. </p><p></p><p>To summarise my analogy, and to conclude my argument then, is to say, it is not a good idea to tolerate and welcome wild idealists, who are motivated mostly by a desire to change. They may occasionally have good ideas, but that while possible is rare. Conservatives though are forced to live in the real world; they always look at the real world and are careful to insist that all necessary details about the existing world are taken into consideration. They dismiss those who believe that existing society is so flawed, that effectively, it must be dismantled, and recreated in a better way. Conservatives are the opposite of idealists, for conservatives insist on keeping the past, and keeping reality in view, while idealists deny the past and present, or dismiss it, and propose utopian solutions instead. </p><p></p><p>Lastly, I said i would explain how the view that one should welcome a diversity of views, that this is healthy, and that will create a 'real understanding', is hinged, once again, in the liberal belief of autonomy. Liberals believe that plurarity of beliefs is the way forward, for any view of anyone is legitimate, and to be judged afresh. They believe that prejudices that exist in society ought not to factor into deciding whether someones view is worthy of attention, for this is only a natural consequence of their ideology because it is non-conservative, and needs to be entertained and taken seriously. But the flaw in this belief is obvious, as in the scientific case, that some views simply do not have the necessary logical force to be taken seriously. Infact liberal ideas are almost always based on idealism and not logic, which is the domain of the imagination, and often in contrast to reality. </p><p></p><p>Thus i disagree that liberals in their sikh capacity as neo-sikhs serve a useful purpose. I claim that they only muddle matters by bringing into the debate their flawed ideology and that their arguments are often feeble and weak, that they are devoid of logical force, and they work against a 'contemplative society', not towards it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="skeptik, post: 46162, member: 3353"] I empathise dalsingh, but I cannot honestly accept the idea that one should welcome idealists, and debate with them, and that this process if carried out widely will lead to "rich understandings." I'll give you an example to show why such a view is mistaken, and further, I will explain exactly how your view is typical of liberal thought, and i'll also show on what grounds it is usually proposed. My first and best example is that of the large society of men and women who we call Scientists, and their society which can be called Science: indeed this is to speak about their philosophy, their methods, their qualities, their history and their values. Scientific society is largely characterised by its insistence on conservatism. Indeed the view of scientists is to take for granted and with respect the body of knowledge already discovered, or created, or whatever you wish to call it, by past society. Scientific faith, then, is a faith that is conservative in nature and it is one that is characterised by rationality and moderation. This is a view contrary to idealists, who deny the value of past accumulated progress of society, and instead emphasise the present and the future. This insistence of theirs means they are most concerned with 'change' and how to achieve it. But as any good scientist will tell you, it is a great waste of time to 'debate' or 'discuss' with someone who is convinced that orthodox science is flawed, that it needs to be updated, and that his wild theory, which departs from conservative theory, is the right way forward. A scientist faced with such a crank will happily ignore him, and not waste any time 'debating' to reach a 'real understanding', for he knows that not only is it a futile task itself, but that it is impossible for any such understanding to occur, when the crank refuses to accept the efficacy of orthodox science. Further, the scientist is only too aware that the crank is unlikely to understand the problem deeply enough, or appreciably enough to be able to solve it. For if the crank were well versed in orthodox theory, he would likely not offer a wild 'solution' to the problem, that fails to understand the situation. And the crank will fail to understand the situation, because scientific knowledge is the best kind of knowledge we have for understanding nature, and if the crank denies this, then he is almost certainly wrong in any proposed 'change' of his. Infact, its more likely that crank hasnt even understood the problem which he claims to have solved, but this is to belabor the point. For scientists then, it is not productive to entertain the wild speculative theories of revolutionaries, who are characterised mostly by their desire for change. Now the example I have given will invariably be met with a response that says something like, "What about Einstein? What about Newton? Were they not revolutionaries?", and this is certainly true, for they changed scientific society greatly. But the more one learns about these men, the more one realises that they were motived by, and inspired by, and led by existing scientific society. Einstein drew upon the rich body of work that was Poincare, and Lorenz, and Riemann to mention the obvious names. It is true that he came and took their work and made something new from it, but they used what was essentially orthodox science: conservative science, and too did Einstein when he united their work, and unified it with his forceful intellect. Further, as I said earlier, while great geniuses sometimes change existing society, because they understand so deeply existing society and all its limitations and its problems, they do so not simply because they wanted to change, but because they knew how to go about it, and did so. To summarise my analogy, and to conclude my argument then, is to say, it is not a good idea to tolerate and welcome wild idealists, who are motivated mostly by a desire to change. They may occasionally have good ideas, but that while possible is rare. Conservatives though are forced to live in the real world; they always look at the real world and are careful to insist that all necessary details about the existing world are taken into consideration. They dismiss those who believe that existing society is so flawed, that effectively, it must be dismantled, and recreated in a better way. Conservatives are the opposite of idealists, for conservatives insist on keeping the past, and keeping reality in view, while idealists deny the past and present, or dismiss it, and propose utopian solutions instead. Lastly, I said i would explain how the view that one should welcome a diversity of views, that this is healthy, and that will create a 'real understanding', is hinged, once again, in the liberal belief of autonomy. Liberals believe that plurarity of beliefs is the way forward, for any view of anyone is legitimate, and to be judged afresh. They believe that prejudices that exist in society ought not to factor into deciding whether someones view is worthy of attention, for this is only a natural consequence of their ideology because it is non-conservative, and needs to be entertained and taken seriously. But the flaw in this belief is obvious, as in the scientific case, that some views simply do not have the necessary logical force to be taken seriously. Infact liberal ideas are almost always based on idealism and not logic, which is the domain of the imagination, and often in contrast to reality. Thus i disagree that liberals in their sikh capacity as neo-sikhs serve a useful purpose. I claim that they only muddle matters by bringing into the debate their flawed ideology and that their arguments are often feeble and weak, that they are devoid of logical force, and they work against a 'contemplative society', not towards it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Sikh Sikhi Sikhism
Sikh Youth
Confused Youth?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top