تَبَصُّرْ-insight

نَضَوتُ عَلى الأَيّامِ ثَوبَ جَلادَتي وَلَكِنَّني لَم أَنضَ ثَوبَ التَجَلُّدِ وَما أَنا إِلّا بَينَ أَمرٍ وَضِدَّهُ يُجَدَّدُ لي في كُلِّ يَومٍ مَجَدَّدِ -أبو فِراس الحَمْدانيّ.

"... since the required condition of our knowledge or conviction of a fact consists in grasping a syllogism of the kind which we call demonstration, and since the syllogism depends upon the truth of its premisses, it is necessary not merely to know the primary premisses—either all or some of them—beforehand, but to know them better than the conclusion. For that which causes an attribute to apply to a subject always possesses that attribute in a still greater degree; e.g., that which causes us to love something is itself still dearer to us. Hence if the primary premisses are the cause of our knowledge and conviction, we know and are convinced of them also in a higher degree, since they cause our knowledge of all that follows from them. But to believe in anything more than in the things which we know, if we neither actually know it nor are in a better situation than if we actually knew it, is impossible ; yet this is what will happen if anyone whose conviction rests upon demonstration is to have no prior knowledge; because we must believe in the first principles (some if not all of them) more than in the conclusion. And if a man is to possess the knowledge which is effected by demonstration, not only must he recognize and believe in the first principles more than in that which is being proved, but nothing which is opposed to the first principles and from which will result a syllogism of the contrary error, must be more credible or better known to him than those principles; since one who has absolute knowledge should be unshakable in his belief. The necessity of knowing the primary truths has led some persons a) to think that there is no knowledge, and others, b) admitting the possibility of knowledge, to think that all facts are demonstrable. Neither of these views is true or logically unavoidable. The former school, who assume that there is no knowledgeat all, claim that there is an infinite regress, on the ground that we cannot know posterior by prior truths unless the latter themselves depend upon primarytruths (in which they are right; for it is impossible to traverse an infinite series); while if the series comesto an end, and there are first principles, they areunknowable, since they do not admit of demonstration, which these thinkers hold to be the sole condition of knowledge ; and if it is not possible to know the primary truths, neither is it possible to know in the strict and absolute sense that the inferences drawn from them are true; we can only knowthem hypothetically, by assuming that the formerare true. The other school agrees with this one asregards the conditions of knowledge, for they holdthat it can only be secured by demonstration; butthey maintain that there is no reason why thereshould not be demonstration of everything, since the demonstration may be circular or reciprocal.We, however, hold that not all knowledge is demonstrative; the knowledge of immediate premisses is not by demonstration. It is evident that this must be so; for if it is necessary to know the prior premisses from which the demonstration proceeds, and if the regress ends with the immediate premisses, the latter must be indemonstrable. Such is our contention on this point. Indeed we hold not only that scientific knowledge is possible, but that there is adefinite first principle of knowledge °by which we recognize ultimate truths." — Aristotle, Posterior Analytics I, p. 35-39

Why Descartes is anti-metaphysical? Descarte’s Cartesian split cemented the bifurcation between knowing subject (human, mind, intellect) and object (world) and the separation between thought and being or existence, that has a good role in leading to the anti-metaphysics attitude, skepticism and pseudo scientific rationalism. The contrary was unanimously accepted by Philosophers in pre-modern age, because that’s what made metaphysics possible in the first place.

هذه قناتنا الاضافية سننتقل اليها: حتى ينتقل الاعضاء بالكامل لكون هذه القناة ستترك ونبدأ بداية جديدة بهذه الجديدة مع التراجم الكثيرة: https://t.me/insight_90

ارسلوا قنواتكم @Xi_8mi

«يظل البحر خارج أي نظام مكاني للدولة على وجه التحديد. […] يتم تقسيم البر الرئيسي بحدود خطية واضحة إلى أراضي الدولة ومساحات الهيمنة. البحر لا يعرف حدودا أخرى غير الساحل. وهي المنطقة المكانية الوحيدة التي يمكن لجميع الدول الوصول إليها ومفتوحة للتجارة وصيد الأسماك والممارسة الحرة للحرب البحرية والحق في الغنائم في الحرب البحرية، بغض النظر عن الجوار أو الحدود الجغرافية.» – كارل شميت، نوموس الأرض (1950)