Philosophy

[Shadow]

Thanks for the replies

Greetings,
Is Descartes' "cogito ergo sum" ("I think, therefore I am") a tautology?

what is a tautology?

What is Russell's paradox? What is its importance?

ummm who is Russell? :?

How convincing do you find Hume's argument on miracles?

I have yet to see an arguement put forth by this man u speak of

Is Kant's categorical imperative sufficient as a basis for morality?

umm sure

how about having a look around the internet to get some ideas?

oh now u tell me AFTER i finish answering the questions

Is this a question?

Peace

okay to my knowledge, a sentence with a question mark is a question therefore it is a question

 

[czgibson]

Greetings Shadow,

Here are a few links that should help you out. They're mostly from Wikipedia, which is always a good place to look first if you're not sure what someone's going on about!

what is a tautology?

Tautology

ummm who is Russell? :?

Bertrand Russell

Russsell's paradox (This is a complicated one - you probably won't hear about it until late on in your course, if at all. It depends how far the course goes.)

I have yet to see an arguement put forth by this man u speak of

David Hume, the greatest British philosopher of all time. (In my view, at least.)

You'll find a short summary of Hume's argument on miracles on the page above. Here's another link in which a Christian argues against Hume's position:

Are Miracles Logically Impossible?

umm sure

Kant's Categorical Imperative

oh now u tell me AFTER i finish answering the questions

Sorry about that, my mistake.

Look, these are difficult questions, and no-one would expect you to have fully formed ideas about them without having first been introduced to the concepts they deal with. My advice would be to have a look at the issues involved, decide which question interests you most (if any of them do), and then read up on it in more depth. Since you're a religious person, perhaps the argument on miracles would be of interest?

okay to my knowledge, a sentence with a question mark is a question therefore it is a question

That's a good approach to start off with. If it's a question, what is it asking about?

Peace

 

[Shadow]

Thanks for the link
Ill read the stuff to get a better understanding

as for the question

If it's a question, what is it asking about?

Hmm
It is asking about a certain fact or an opinion

hey keep asking me these if you dont mind ofcourse
its fun to try to solve, plus it makes me think (havent done that in a while) :smile:

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hi Callum

In your post above, however, you give a very reductive account of philosophy as a whole, including some slightly misleading points.

I agree that it is probably not correct to place all studies in philosophy in the same boat; as the fatwa I linked to earlier mentions:

Some aspects of what comes under the banner of “philosophy” today are quite beneficial. For example, a proper understanding of modern science and its inherent limitations cannot be had without studying the philosophy of science. ​

Logic is one branch of philosophy that my warning would not pertain to. It seems like there is a fine line dividing various branches of philosophy, but most of the other questions philosophers ask are the questions for which God revealed answers in the divine guidance He has sent us. Hence, a Muslim should at least ensure that he/she has learned the fundamentals of his/her religion before pursuing such philosophical studies.

For instance, not all philosophers are solipsists in practice. Although the idea of absolute solipsism is by its very nature irrefutable and non-falsifiable, the fact that we do not have certain knowledge about the existence of anything except our own minds does not massively alter the way we go about our daily lives (unless, of course, we are philosophers engaging with the problem).

Which is related in a way to my point concerning the futility of [some branches of] philosophy. If philosophy was a fruitful study, then we would expect the philosophers to progress in a unified direction towards common conclusions and theories, as have the scientists and mathematicians. But instead we find confusion and disagreement amongst the philosophers.

When you mention 'the incoherent nonsensical ramblings of philosophers', are those your words or his?

My words, although he did write the book entitled, Tahafut al-Falasifa, 'Incoherence of philosophers'.

On the other areas, the position seems to be 'these questions have already been answered, so there's no need for you to think about them.' It strikes me as being a shame that people are encouraged not to question these beliefs.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'question these beliefs'. If you mean seeking clarification on them, then of course Muslims can do that. But the whole purpose of God sending revelation is so that we wouldn't be lost in confusion and uncertainty like the philosophers we see. What is the purpose of God sending revelation to explain our purpose in life if people are to abandon it and take guesses and conjecture about the universe we live in? This is why Imam Shafi'i and others said that those who engaged in philosophy were to be publically declared to have abandoned the Qur'an and the Sunnah.

Of course, according to Western philosophers, these questions have not been finally answered

Nor will they ever be finally answered, according to western philosophers. Am I right or wrong?

What about some of the other areas of philosophy, such as epistemology, phenomenology, aesthetics or philosophy of science? There are many concepts within these disciplines that are of crucial importance for the modern mind, and (perhaps due to my ignorance) I can't really see how knowledge of them is inimical to Islam.

Epistemology and phenomenology seem to fall under those branches of philosophy which have some aspects that are beneficial, others that are futile, and perhaps even others that run contrary to Islam. Of course I have not studied these branches of philosophy so any verdict I pass on them should be taken with a grain of salt. Philosophy of science seems like something more beneficial for Muslims to learn, and the ruling of aesthetics would depend on the ruling on the art/music involved.

Shadow,

I have another question regarding this

http://www.secretbeyondmatter.com/

This site propagates views on the soul that run contrary to the orthodox understanding from the Qur'an and the Sunnah. It's basically a recycled version of solipsism disguised as religious theology (funny how both Callum and I rejected this site but in opposite ways kay: ). Others have pointed out that the implications of these ideas are very similar to the heretical doctrine of Wahdatul Wujood, which Harun Yahya attempts to deny but fails to put forward a coherent response.

This is precisely why I said that you should first learn the fundamentals of Islam before studying these issues so that you will easily be able to recognize heretical views like the above. You can find a good list of books to study from here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/education-issues/13373-studying-islam-list-resources.html

 

[czgibson]

Greetings Shadow,

Hmm
It is asking about a certain fact or an opinion

OK, but could you make your answer more specific?

If I ask someone "Do I look OK?", I'm asking for an opinion about myself. "Is this a question?" works in a similar way. What precisely is it asking about?

hey keep asking me these if you dont mind ofcourse
its fun to try to solve, plus it makes me think (havent done that in a while)

Certainly, I'm happy to oblige. As additional information, the question I'm following through with you now is related to philosophy of language. (That might give you a clue of the direction we're heading with it. )

Greetings Ansar,

I agree that it is probably not correct to place all studies in philosophy in the same boat; as the fatwa I linked to earlier mentions:

Some aspects of what comes under the banner of “philosophy” today are quite beneficial. For example, a proper understanding of modern science and its inherent limitations cannot be had without studying the philosophy of science. ​

The fatwa is absolutely right on this point.

Logic is one branch of philosophy that my warning would not pertain to. It seems like there is a fine line dividing various branches of philosophy, but most of the other questions philosophers ask are the questions for which God revealed answers in the divine guidance He has sent us. Hence, a Muslim should at least ensure that he/she has learned the fundamentals of his/her religion before pursuing such philosophical studies.

That seems eminently fair, and you're right to point out the fine line that divides many of the philosophical disciplines. Many questions can be addressed using the different techniques of each of them. This can often cast the question in new and revealing light.

Which is related in a way to my point concerning the futility of [some branches of] philosophy. If philosophy was a fruitful study, then we would expect the philosophers to progress in a unified direction towards common conclusions and theories, as have the scientists and mathematicians. But instead we find confusion and disagreement amongst the philosophers.

You're right to an extent, but this is not entirely fair. Philosophy does actually progress in a manner akin to science - I think you're underestimating the amount of disagreement that exists among scientists on certain questions, and overestimating the disagreements among philosophers. On the question of god's existence, for example, the majority of Western philosophers are now not theists. This represents a definite move away from the general position in earlier times - there has definitely been a unification on this question, although, of course, disagreement still exists. Similarly, it is now the norm to find philosophers who agree with Kant's analytic / synthetic distinction, while Aristotle's logic, dominant for centuries, is now universally rejected.

My words, although he did write the book entitled, Tahafut al-Falasifa, 'Incoherence of philosophers'.

He did indeed, but I don't think it's fair to dismiss the words of philosophers as nonsense.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'question these beliefs'. If you mean seeking clarification on them, then of course Muslims can do that.

I suppose I mean something closer to examining them, and comparing them to other possibilities on offer.

But the whole purpose of God sending revelation is so that we wouldn't be lost in confusion and uncertainty like the philosophers we see. What is the purpose of God sending revelation to explain our purpose in life if people are to abandon it and take guesses and conjecture about the universe we live in?

Well, if people have examined all the options and found the revelations of Islam to be the most appropriate for them, that is of course fair enough. It just seems that Muslims are being discouraged from even giving other possibilities any consideration, and this, in my view, can only lead to a narrow world-view.

This is why Imam Shafi'i and others said that those who engaged in philosophy were to be publically declared to have abandoned the Qur'an and the Sunnah.

How about if a Muslim who was firm in their faith, and very knowledgable about it (such as yourself, perhaps), were to begin studying philosophy? Do you think they would then be considered to have abandoned the Qur'an and Sunnah?

Nor will they ever be finally answered, according to western philosophers. Am I right or wrong?

Nobody can say this for certain, but it seems unlikely that many questions of a philosophical nature can be definitively answered. However, as the Socratic method shows, interrogating a concept can often bring us closer to understanding what it is through clarifying what it is not.

Epistemology and phenomenology seem to fall under those branches of philosophy which have some aspects that are beneficial, others that are futile, and perhaps even others that run contrary to Islam. Of course I have not studied these branches of philosophy so any verdict I pass on them should be taken with a grain of salt.

Epistemology concerns theories of knowledge: what it is and how it works. It can help with understanding many other disciplines within philosophy as well as psychology and neuroscience.

Phenomenology is an attempt at a precise description of human experience, and as such it has similar relations to epistemology. It's one of the more complicated domains of philosophy, but when studied deeply it can be very revealing.

Philosophy of science seems like something more beneficial for Muslims to learn, and the ruling of aesthetics would depend on the ruling on the art/music involved.

I absolutely agree with you about philosophy of science. It's one of the most interesting subjects I've ever looked into. For those who are interested in reading more about it, here are some important thinkers in the subject:

Karl Popper

Thomas Kuhn

Bas van Fraassen

When it comes to aesthetics, I understand the restrictions placed on Muslims with regard to art and music, but it's worth noting that the subject itself can be applied to any artistic field whatsoever.

Peace

 

[Shadow]

Greetings Czgibson

If I ask someone "Do I look OK?", I'm asking for an opinion about myself. "Is this a question?" works in a similar way. What precisely is it asking about?

This is harder than expected

"Do I look OK?" is a question that is asking about an opinion from a different perspective

But "Is this a question?" is asking the person if he/she thinks it is a question or not

So I guess the answer would be that the question is asking about a different opinion from someone else (same question, different perspective).

OK if im still wrong then give me a hint or clue

Certainly, I'm happy to oblige. As additional information, the question I'm following through with you now is related to philosophy of language.

wow, That brings up another question in my mind.
How many subjects of Philosophy are there?

 

[czgibson]

Greetings Shadow,

This is harder than expected

Philosophy is by no means an easy subject. It gets easier, though, once you get used to the kinds of tricks that can be played with logic, meaning and ideas. There's a kind of 'training of the brain' required once you start to consider questions in philosophy.

"Do I look OK?" is a question that is asking about an opinion from a different perspective

But "Is this a question?" is asking the person if he/she thinks it is a question or not

So I guess the answer would be that the question is asking about a different opinion from someone else (same question, different perspective).

OK if im still wrong then give me a hint or clue

You're so close to the answer that I'll have to reveal all. The point is that the question is asking about itself. Because of this, it is actually an ill-formed question, because questions that are formed correctly cannot ask about themselves; they have to ask about a subject other than themselves. This kind of question looks like a paradox, but in fact it's slightly different. All the same, I'd recommend having a look at some paradoxes as a good way of encouraging your mind to begin thinking philosophically.

Here's a very detailed paper which deals with questions of this kind in relation to quantum physics. Don't worry if you have trouble understanding parts of it - I find a lot of it very difficult too:

Quantum question theory

Have a look at the Definitions section at the beginning for a quick explanation of what makes a question ill-formed. Also, if you have a look at the bottom of page 9, you'll find the "question" I gave you given as an example.

Incidentally, this is one that I never faced at university - I heard about it from one of my teachers at school, who did. He didn't remember what he wrote in response to it, but he did remember that the student who got the highest mark for that exam wrote the following in response to it:

If that is a question, then this is the answer.

You're to be commended for your answers so far - you came very close for a first attempt. In fact, I think you may well have grasped the essential point of the exercise without being quite sure of how to express it in words. That's a skill that develops as you study the subject.

Anyway, well done.

wow, That brings up another question in my mind.
How many subjects of Philosophy are there?

Now you've got me. New disciplines are being created all the time; many of them are of the form "philosophy of..." Have a look at the following page - it forms a good introduction to the major branches of the subject:

Philosophy - Wikipedia entry

At the bottom of that page you'll find links to the major branches of philosophy. There's even one called "philosophy of philosophy", which I must admit I'd never heard of before!

All of that should give you plenty to think about - and remember, I'll be happy to try and answer any questions you come up against.

Peace

 

[Shadow]

Greetings Czgibson

You're so close to the answer that I'll have to reveal all. The point is that the question is asking about itself. Because of this, it is actually an ill-formed question, because questions that are formed correctly cannot ask about themselves; they have to ask about a subject other than themselves. This kind of question looks like a paradox, but in fact it's slightly different. All the same, I'd recommend having a look at some paradoxes as a good way of encouraging your mind to begin thinking philosophically.

Thanks for the link. I was so close to the answer though, but believe me, if I was given a week or even a month, I still wouldnt find the answer
Its like those brain teasers and riddles, and those darn probability questions.

Here's a very detailed paper which deals with questions of this kind in relation to quantum physics. Don't worry if you have trouble understanding parts of it - I find a lot of it very difficult too:

Quantum question theory

The link isnt working for me at the moment but isnt relation to Quatum Physics a philosophy of science?

Incidentally, this is one that I never faced at university - I heard about it from one of my teachers at school, who did. He didn't remember what he wrote in response to it, but he did remember that the student who got the highest mark for that exam wrote the following in response to it:

If that is a question, then this is the answer.

His answer didnt make any sense to me at all :?
(what if he is Aristotle's desendant? )

Anyway, well done.

Thanks :smile:

Philosophy - Wikipedia entry

At the bottom of that page you'll find links to the major branches of philosophy. There's even one called "philosophy of philosophy", which I must admit I'd never heard of before!

Isnt that quote a tautology?
But then again a tautology requires indirect words which mean the same thing right?

oh and I have another question regarding Descartes

"cogito ergo sum" ("I think, therefore I am")

what does he really mean by that exactly?

does it mean what ever he thinks, he becomes? or he is?

if I know a bit more I might answer the question if it is a tautology or not

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hi Callum,

On the question of god's existence, for example, the majority of Western philosophers are now not theists.

That maybe true, but that (Atheism) is also the general trend in western society today as well, for a number of reasons. I'm not convinced that it has actually come about from a progression in logic.

Similarly, it is now the norm to find philosophers who agree with Kant's analytic / synthetic distinction, while Aristotle's logic, dominant for centuries, is now universally rejected.

Interesting, I didn't know that.

I suppose I mean something closer to examining them, and comparing them to other possibilities on offer.

Yes, Muslims are encouraged to keep an open-mind and think for themselves, but they just need to ensure that they have a solid understanding of their own religion before they start exploring other religions and philosophies.

Someone who has studied and learned the fundamentals of Islam can certainly examine the beliefs and theories of other rleigions and philosophies.

Epistemology concerns theories of knowledge: what it is and how it works. It can help with understanding many other disciplines within philosophy as well as psychology and neuroscience.

Phenomenology is an attempt at a precise description of human experience, and as such it has similar relations to epistemology. It's one of the more complicated domains of philosophy, but when studied deeply it can be very revealing.

Well then, from your definitions it seems like there is little in these branches that Muslims would be discouraged from studying.

Peace!

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

The link isnt working for me at the moment but isnt relation to Quatum Physics a philosophy of science?

Yes. The question I gave you concerns philosophy of language, but the article uses it to make connections with quantum theory, which, as you say, is a concern of the philosophy of science.

His answer didnt make any sense to me at all :?
(what if he is Aristotle's desendant? )

It's more of a joke than a serious answer - evidently the examiner liked it, though!

Isnt that quote a tautology?
But then again a tautology requires indirect words which mean the same thing right?

It's not quite a tautology, although I can see what you're getting at. Philosophy of philosophy is an examination of the way philosophy is done, so in other words it means being philosophical about philosophy. It's similar to one type of definition of philosophy as a whole: some people describe the subject as "thinking about thinking" or "arguing about arguments".

Additionally, you are absolutely right in your understanding of what a tautology is. Here are a few examples of tautologies, just to solidify the concept for you: "He was an unmarried bachelor"; "I like drinking wet water"; "I drive an automobile car".

oh and I have another question regarding Descartes

what does he really mean by that exactly?

does it mean what ever he thinks, he becomes? or he is?

if I know a bit more I might answer the question if it is a tautology or not

This famous quote from Descartes is to do with proving that he himself exists. Descartes set himself the task of discovering how we could be certain in our knowledge. The mind and the senses, he argued, can often deceive us. For instance, when I am dreaming, I believe that what I see before me is real, when in fact it is not. Or, he thought, perhaps an evil demon exists, whose job is to deceive me about the true nature of reality. He wanted to have a firm ground on which to base all our natural assumptions about reality, and thus to arrive at the unarguable truth.

His method was as follows: he attempted to doubt absolutely everything he possibly could, in order to see what was left. He found that the only thing he could not doubt, even for the briefest moment, was the content of his thoughts. For Descartes, the thoughts inside the mind of every individual are the most immediately real things in that individual's experience. Everything else, he thought, can be doubted to a greater or lesser degree, even the existence of one's own body.

Since he was able to say "I think", and be absolutely sure that this was the case, he argued that there must be an "I" that is doing the thinking. Hence, he proves his own existence with "I think, therefore I am." He felt so proud of this discovery that he said it in Latin, the language of scholars at the time, in his original French text of the Discourse on Method. The original formulation is: "cogito, ergo sum".

Now you know the background to the quote, perhaps you can have a go at deciding whether you think it is a tautology or not. Think about what possible reason there could be for people to think that this could be a tautology.

Hi Ansar,

That maybe true, but that (Atheism) is also the general trend in western society today as well, for a number of reasons. I'm not convinced that it has actually come about from a progression in logic.

You're right that atheism is a general trend in Western society, but that trend started with the sceptical arguments of philosophers. Those who began the trend of modern atheism were d'Holbach, Hobbes, Diderot, Voltaire and, most importantly, Hume. To find out about the arguments that have led to modern atheism, I would recomemend reading Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.

Someone who has studied and learned the fundamentals of Islam can certainly examine the beliefs and theories of other rleigions and philosophies.

That seems fair enough, but do they need to be a convinced Muslim before they can go on and look elsewhere?

Peace

 

[Shadow]

Hi

Is Descartes' "cogito ergo sum" ("I think, therefore I am") a tautology?

okay I think I got it

the above quote IS a tautology because its basically repeating itself

its like saying

I have sight, therfore I see

Since he used his own perception to prove his own self, its a tautology

(ps. dont laugh if im wrong )

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

okay I think I got it

the above quote IS a tautology because its basically repeating itself

its like saying

I have sight, therfore I see

Since he used his own perception to prove his own self, its a tautology

(ps. dont laugh if im wrong )

Brilliant! You've got most of the answer. You've pointed out why it's a tautology from the logical point of view. There is also a linguistic point, which is closely related to what you've said. As a test, let's see if you can get this one, and then you'll have the complete answer. I'll give you a clue: when he says "I think", he is saying two things. What are they?

Peace

 

[Shadow]

Greetings,

Brilliant! You've got most of the answer. You've pointed out why it's a tautology from the logical point of view. There is also a linguistic point, which is closely related to what you've said. As a test, let's see if you can get this one, and then you'll have the complete answer. I'll give you a clue: when he says "I think", he is saying two things. What are they?

Peace

I guess it would be that

1. He thinks or is capable of thinking i.e his brain generates thought

2. He might be wrong, that is why he placed the "I think" because he doesnt have solid proof, the only thing he is relying on is his own thought

(im clueless now :? )

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I guess it would be that

1. He thinks or is capable of thinking i.e his brain generates thought

2. He might be wrong, that is why he placed the "I think" because he doesnt have solid proof, the only thing he is relying on is his own thought

(im clueless now :? )

You're right with 1, but I'm not sure about 2. Here's how I would put it:

When Descartes says "I think", he is saying the following two things:

1. Something called "I" exists.

and

2. It thinks.

So, as soon as Descartes says the word "I", he is asserting the existence of "I". Therefore, he does not need to go on and say "...therefore I am", because he has already asserted this simply by saying "I".

This is related to the point you mentioned earlier about Descartes using his own perceptions to prove his own existence, so we could say it is a tautology for both these reasons.

The fact that this is a tautology does not mean it is invalid, though. Not all tautologies are pointless like "He was an unmarried bachelor". If you think about it, all definitions are tautologies. So if I say "A bachelor is an unmarried man", suddenly the sentence is useful, because I have explained the meaning of 'bachelor'.

Similarly, with "I think, therefore I am", Descartes has told us something about the meaning of existence. What he has said, in effect, is "I exist, because I think". That's still a tautology, but it tells us something about the slippery concept of existence that we didn't know before.

Peace

 

[Shadow]

wow I would never have guessed.

thats amazing to know so much from just 2 words

Ive read most of the links you gave but I still have a hard time trying to solve the questions you posted

What is Russell's paradox? What is its importance?

How convincing do you find Hume's argument on miracles?

Is Kant's categorical imperative sufficient as a basis for morality?

can you explain Russell's paradox in layman's terms because I have no clue what the equation stands for :?

Thanks in advance

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

wow I would never have guessed.

thats amazing to know so much from just 2 words

Ive read most of the links you gave but I still have a hard time trying to solve the questions you posted

Yes, these are not easy questions. They come from exam papers that I sat during the last two years of my degree, so don't feel bad because you find them difficult.

can you explain Russell's paradox in layman's terms because I have no clue what the equation stands for :?

Thanks in advance

This is probably the most difficult question I gave. To answer it you really need to have a good grounding in logic, and even then it's far from easy. To be honest, I shouldn't have suggested that you attempt this question because doing that would more than likely put you off the idea of doing philosophy! What I intended to do was simply to give you an idea of what philosophy exam questions look like.

To satisfy your curiosity, I can tell you that Russell's paradox is based on something called set theory. This is a method of dividing up the objects, ideas and propositions of the world into groups in order to deal with them logically. The German philosopher Gottlob Frege, while searching for a firm basis for mathematics, set up a logical system that made use of set theory. Russell pointed out a possible flaw in Frege's system which was in fact deadly, and it proved that Frege's system was unworkable.

Later on, the American mathematician Kurt Gödel proved that mathematical systems must always be incomplete, and hence that Frege had been involved with an impossible project. To put it simply, nobody can prove that 2 + 2 = 4 is true. It's only true if we accept the basic axioms of maths, which cannot themselves be proven. Gödel proved that all mathematical systems must be incomplete in this way.

Here's a question that's much easier, yet it points to an important fact about our knowledge, known as the problem of induction:

Can we be certain that the sun will rise tomorrow?

Peace

 

[Shadow]

Greetings,


Yes, these are not easy questions. They come from exam papers that I sat during the last two years of my degree, so don't feel bad because you find them difficult.

And all this time I was thinking that these questions are the basics of philosophy

I shouldn't have suggested that you attempt this question because doing that would more than likely put you off the idea of doing philosophy!

nah its alright, im always up for a challenge, especially one that I cant solve

To satisfy your curiosity, I can tell you that Russell's paradox is based on something called set theory. This is a method of dividing up the objects, ideas and propositions of the world into groups in order to deal with them logically. The German philosopher Gottlob Frege, while searching for a firm basis for mathematics, set up a logical system that made use of set theory. Russell pointed out a possible flaw in Frege's system which was in fact deadly, and it proved that Frege's system was unworkable.

Later on, the American mathematician Kurt Gödel proved that mathematical systems must always be incomplete, and hence that Frege had been involved with an impossible project. To put it simply, nobody can prove that 2 + 2 = 4 is true. It's only true if we accept the basic axioms of maths, which cannot themselves be proven. Gödel proved that all mathematical systems must be incomplete in this way.

Amazing, I had no idea that math and philosophy are connected

Here's a question that's much easier, yet it points to an important fact about our knowledge, known as the problem of induction:

Can we be certain that the sun will rise tomorrow?

If tomorrow is a normal day just like everyday, we can be certain with no doubt that the sun will rise.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

If tomorrow is a normal day just like everyday, we can be certain with no doubt that the sun will rise.

Can we be sure that tomorrow will be a normal day? And what do you mean by a normal day anyway?

Peace

 

[Shadow]

Hello,

Can we be sure that tomorrow will be a normal day?

no we cannot be sure and that is why I placed an ' if '
(ps. i wud have given the answer and no we cant be certain but then I read tht univ students answer and decided to place the 'if' as well to give the answer a condition)

And what do you mean by a normal day anyway?

normal day= normal orbital patterns, no sun being destroyed, all planets are behaving in the predicted motion, no comets hitting earth etc.

 

[cleo]

Bush studies philosophy, hmmm.