In other words, the assertion makes sense, based on the assumptions of the speaker. It is part of a whole. In order to understand the part, we must see where it fits into the whole, determine where the fault lies in the entire outlook of the speaker (if one is to be found) and judge the part accordingly.

For example, suppose someone tells you he believes religion should bring happiness. For a religious person with a different understanding of religion, this idea might not make sense, because he thinks religion is about obedience to God, and doing the right thing. “Happiness” doesn’t have a place in religion (at least not in this life time). To resolve the misunderstanding, you wouldn’t go anywhere by repeating the same statement. The two have different frames of reference. The statement doesn’t make sense to the listener, because it doesn’t have a place in his frame. It’s not part of his “big picture.” He would have understood what is being meant by the statement, but doesn’t think it is a correct assertion.

Now, if the speaker moves up one level, and presents his frame of reference, or a part of it that places the statement in a more meaningful context, then the discussion can move forward:

“Religion doesn’t bring God any benefit, but is for the benefit of mankind.”

“God created human nature, and His religion is compatible with their nature.”

These statements, while not necessarily sufficient to convince someone that the initial statement is true, offer a wider scope – and reveal a greater part of the picture – to understand what the speaker’s opinion is based on.

There are two things that need to be done in order to have fruitful discussions:

1-Reveal the frame of reference to the point of commonality: Most beliefs share a common overall frame, then branch off when dealing with more specific issues. In order to resolve misunderstandings, and to have a discussion on the level that matters, you need to begin with the belief you have in common. This defines a common frame of reference for both parties to use.

2- Question the validity of your own frame of reference: Your personal frame of reference might not be a valid one. Assess whether the other party’s frame of reference is more realistic than your own. This presents the problem of judging your frame of reference by the standard of your own frame of reference (which is why all religions are correct according to their followers)! What is important here is the willingness to accept that your frame of reference can be wrong and should be questioned.

]]> http://www.afilsforyourthoughts.com/blog/2008/08/31/frames-of-reference/feed/ 2 http://www.afilsforyourthoughts.com/blog/2008/07/27/listening-to-your-emotions/ http://www.afilsforyourthoughts.com/blog/2008/07/27/listening-to-your-emotions/#comments Sun, 27 Jul 2008 12:56:26 +0000 Haider http://www.afilsforyourthoughts.com/?p=103 To completely rely on your reasoning does not mean that you must ignore the signals your emotions provide. There are two important ways in which your emotions can support your reasoning (there is a third way, in the form of intuition, which I will leave for a separate post):

1- What your emotions say about you: To better appreciate the role your emotions play in your life, consider how you respond to your pain sensors, and what function they serve in the first place: pain is a signal that lets you know that your body is exposed to something that is harmful to it. If the harm is (potentially) great, and the pain is severe, your body won’t even wait for a response from your brain, but will respond with a reflex to jerk the body away from what’s harming it.

The same applies to feelings of hunger, for example, which let you know that your body is in need of food, or particular nutrients. If you choose to ignore your hunger, you would be dismissing an important message about your body.

The same applies to other feelings, such as fear, depression, joy, etc. They reveal to you your own values, and what you need to adjust or work on in your life.

2- What your emotions say about your beliefs: When you hold a belief that is inconsistent with the reality you are observing, your emotions will register the conflict, and you will feel uneasy, frustrated, angry, etc. Therefore, your emotions are important when considering the validity of your beliefs: why are you having these feelings? What are the issues you have not yet resolved in your beliefs? Where do the contradictions lie in the beliefs you hold, or the inconsistencies between what you have accepted to be true, and the inputs you are receiving from your senses?

Your emotions are not random sensations about a distant dimension. They reveal to you the consequences of your beliefs on your life, and they are an essential element for a better understanding of your body and your mental state. In the same way that a rational individual would take into account external factors to understand external phenomena, he needs to be attentive to internal signals to better understand his internal reality.

The first group regards human beings as rational animals and are characterized by their use of reason. Therefore, emotions are considered to be an obstacle, distraction or disease, to be dismissed, disposed of or cured.

The second group, on the other hand, believes that to be human is to experience and embrace one’s emotions. Reason can cripple one’s emotional experience, and may cloud one’s intuitive judgments.

There is, however, a third understanding of how reason and emotions relate to human nature: since both exist within human beings, both form a part of our nature. We cannot side with reason and disregard our emotions, or judge by our emotions and dismiss reason.

Both reason and emotion are integral parts of what makes us human. However, reason and emotions have different roles to play in our lives. We cannot judge facts with emotions or experience feelings with reason, in the same way that we cannot smell with our ears or listen with our eyes.

To whom it may concern:

I am a registered user of the ARI site, and a great fan of Ayn Rand’s Objectivism.

But while reading some of the op-eds I have been receiving from the ARI, “objectivism” was the last word that came to mind. These op-eds were about “Islamic” terrorism, and the writers were proposing that the religion of Islam was the root of the terrorist attacks in London.

I am mainly referring to the articles written by David Holcberg (The Terrorists’ Motivation: From the Camel’s Mouth) and Edwin A. Locke (The Terrorists’ Motivation: Islam), where the writers even include quotations from the Holy Koran to support their claims. However, as an Islamic researcher, I find the writers’ approach to be misleading, inaccurate and can hardly be called objective. Objectivism does not only depend on the logical strength of the argument, but the truth of its premises. The misinterpretation of Koranic verses makes the premises of the writers’ arguments false and, therefore, defeats their whole argument.

Has it ever occurred to the writers that they may be taking the verses out of context, or using wrong translations of the text?

Have they not recognized that the context of the verses which promote violence is a military confrontation? The Holy Koran clearly states: “Fighting has been made permissible for those at war because they have been oppressed.” [ 22:39 ]

Have the writers not realized, through their reading of the Holy Koran, that it does not promote enmity towards all disbelievers, but only those who oppress the Muslims? Again, the Holy Koran places the Muslim enmity towards the disbelievers (wrongly translated in the verses quoted by the above writers as Pagans, but originally means: those who reject the truth, and implies hostility) in the context of being oppressed, by saying:

“Allah does not forbid you, with regards to those who do not fight you on account of your religion nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loves those who are just.” [60:8]

Mr Locke also made the bizarre claim that Islam – as a religion – discourages reason and expects the Muslims to blindly follow its dogma. While some Islamic sects may tend towards this position because they are unaware of the rational basis of Islamic beliefs, Islam should not be blamed for their ignorance. The Holy Koran repeatedly refers to the use of reason, and encourages its readers (who are not necessarily Muslim) to ponder and to engage their intellects, as the following verse demonstrates:

“Say: ‘I advise you on one point: that you stand up before Allah,- (It may be) in pairs, or (it may be) singly,- and reflect (within yourselves): your Companion is not possessed: he is no less than a warner to you, in face of a terrible Penalty.’” [34:46]

The sayings of Prophet Muhammad and his family (peace be on them) are full of praise for the intellect and the use of reason. There are sayings which regard the intellect as the noblest creation and which explain that references to the “heart” in the Holy Koran are actually references to the intellect (where “heart” in that context refers to the core of human beings: their intellect).

And if Mr Holcberg and Mr Locke wish to quote verses out of context, then the same can be done with the ARI website and its op-eds. A recent op-ed by Alex Epstein (Fight the Root of Terrorism With Bombs, Not Bread) can be said to promote violence in the same way the Koranic verses do.

I wish to make it clear that I did not write this as an “offended” Muslim who wishes to blindly defend his religion, but as a rational individual who wishes to defend objectivity. I believe Ayn Rand’s philosophy has a lot to offer, especially the objective defense of reason and the promotion of living on principle. It would be a real pity if Mr Holcberg and Mr Locke would discredit the philosophy by using it to juggle false premises. And if they wish to further a political agenda, then this should not be done in the name of Objectivism.

The literalist approach is what the extremists use to justify their own political agendas, and I’m afraid Mr Holcberg and Mr Locke are only using the extremist’s approach, without bothering to dig out the true meanings intended by the Holy Koran.

Best regards,

Haider

Before we can begin to categorize actions into “right” and “wrong” we must define the criteria by which we assess actions. By what standard and for what purpose are actions deemed right or wrong? What is morality meant to serve so that we can consider some actions good and others evil? Such questions are deeply rooted in our understanding of the concept of morality. How we define morality is our moral theory. Why we categorize actions the way we do is based on the moral principles that we uphold.

The way these three factors (theory – principles – actions) should be seen is as follows: The moral theory you uphold is the foundation of your moral code. The principles you live by are your moral pillars. The actions you undertake is what you build on top of these pillars. Needless to say, you can never have pillars without a foundation, or build without establishing your pillars. Many people tend to overlook their moral theory and their principles, but that’s only because their moral code is a heap of rubble which they imagine to be a great monument to mankind. Had they invested some effort in understanding what morality actually is, they would not have fallen into the pit that they created and continue to dig for themselves and the rest of mankind.

To help explain the connection between the three factors, we should look at a real life example of moral actions and their possible roots. Lying is almost unanimously condemned by all moral codes. Lying is the action. But why is it condemned? Some would say because it corrupts social relationships. Therefore, the principle here is that social relationships are important, and they should not be broken. This principle will hold that any action that breaks social relations or causes people to lose trust in each other is wrong and should not be done. A single moral principle can define the standard by which many actions can be judged. With our example, lying, living in isolation, backbiting, etc can all be condemned based on the single principle that one must strengthen social relations and not perform any action which undermines such relations. This principle is based on the theory (or the moral outlook) that it is important in life to uphold what is beneficial to society. That man is a social animal and his survival is dependent on co-existing with others in society.

But we can also have two different theories that condemn lying for two completely different reasons. Many Muslims, for example, believe that lying is wrong. Why is wrong? The only “principle” that they base their judgement on is: Because God says it’s wrong. And what is their understanding of morality? What is the foundation of their moral principles? The answer is: Whatever God says we must do, we must do, and whatever God prohibits us from doing we should not do. The reason for why God Himself has categorized actions into the permitted and the forbidden arrives only at the fact that He has categorized them this way. His reasons are irrelevant to many Muslims. Their only duty is to obey what God has dictated. Some may offer the reason that God knows what is beneficial to us while we lack this knowledge, while others see morality as obedience to divine commandments, without the need to have any reason beyond this. Morality for the sake of obedience, and obedience for the sake of obedience. End of story. This is the foundation on which they have based all their principles and actions.

Another understanding of morality is not based on divine commandment or social cohesion. Some people refuse to lie because they do not wish to act or speak against what reality dictates. A lie is a statement that contradicts reality, and because their well being is in understanding reality for what it is and acting according to the laws of nature, they see lying as a betrayal of their commitment to the truth. And when the truth is abandoned, our actions will not conform to reality and would, ultimately, lead us to distruction. A lie, from this point of view, is not simply seen as tricking others, but as damaging to the one who lies, because reality will work against his statement and would reveal the conflict between reality and the ideas he’s propagating. His principle is that one must not speak or act in conflict with reality. He may also refuse to justify for others the acts that he commits. If he lies, then he will justify lying to others. Therefore, based on these principles, he will not allow himself to lie. His moral theory is that our actions bring us benefit and harm on earth, and we must act according to the dictates of nature, the nature of the world and the nature of mankind. We must use truth as our judge, and never try to evade reality or hope that we can overcome its restrictions.

We can, therefore, see that a single action can be promoted or avoided for different reasons based on different outlooks. It is not enough to simply label actions without stating one’s reasons or presenting a comprehensive moral theory that explains these principles. There are benefits and harms to moral theories, even if the labels used are correct. I will not delve too deeply in these matters, but will leave them for future posts. For now, I only wanted to state the fundamental idea behind the foundations of morality, and to expand our understanding of reality to encompass the theories on which moral decisions are made.