They were Hanbali even before they were taken over by the Wahhabi state. There are still Hanbalis outside Saudi Arabia who are not Salafi. The traditional madhhabs don't get along with Salafis. Try googling Sunni vs Salafi.

If you're not using predicate logic, in what sense are you negating A? I thought you understood this world as something like: There is an x such that x is A and for all y, x=y.

As for the Raven Paradox, this question assumes a world where only one thing exists. This thing, A, is clearly an analogue of a raven rather than something like discreteness or necessity.

In that case, you've rejected the premise of this question.

Regarding the photon: Its decay is in no way caused by the bosons of which it is a superposition. In fact, the bosons don't behave like physical components in any way you might imagine. They only "exist" as a mathematical characterization of the photon. My understanding is that you could describe the superposition as an attribute of the photon, like the redness of an apple.

Could you elaborate on why the bosons nevertheless qualify as "parts" in the relevant sense?

I believe the OP asked for an entity with no parts.

Unless you're agreeing with me, I don't understand how. An elaboration would be much appreciated.

There are many problems importing classical negation wholesale into metaphysics. The most famous is the Raven Paradox.

Suppose you have a theory: x is a raven implies x is black. (1)

Contrapositive: x is not black implies x is not a raven. (2)

If you see a black raven, that increases support for (1). That's understandable.

However, if you see a non-black non-raven like a red apple, that increases support for (2). This is surprising because (1) and (2) are equivalent, and the existence of a red apple says nothing about whether if you see a raven, then it will be black.

I gave you the example of a horse being different from a non-existent unicorn in not having a horn.

What about a photon decaying into an electron-positron pair?

If you grant that the self is an entity with no parts, which sounds questionable to me, then you could argue that the change in state in each step is an entity with no parts interacting with itself:

A ---> B ---> C ---> ...

The sun has parts.

I answered your question. The text you quoted was change in an entity with no parts. If you want a concrete example, a photon can spontaneously decay into an electron and positron pair. These are all fundamental particles.

See the four Sunni madhhabs: Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i and Hanbali. I'm most familiar with the Hanafi school. I gather the others are stricter.

Why do you assume that existence presupposes a relative difference from another existent? Couldn't A be different from (in this world) non-existent nothingness? For a horse to be different from a unicorn in not having a horn, why would the unicorn need to exist?

By "no parts", do you mean no separable parts or no parts at all?

Going with the latter interpretation, say we're dealing with a perfectly indivisible singularity. Now the question is: Let's say that over time, this atom transforms from state A to state B thanks to natural laws: A ---> B

If state B was reached because the atom was previously in state A, would that manner of causation qualify as "affecting itself" in the sense you intended?

I find the OP's use of "reality" to be ambiguous. There are alternatives to scientific realism that are compatible with this line of thinking. For the sake of argument, if the mind has an unconscious, the patterns that appear "external" could be caused by repressed primordial traumas in the unconscious.

Wahhabists pretty much argue for a return to the first 3 generations after Muhammad's time. This would mean they reject every intellectual achievement of medieval science and philosophy.

I don't know if I'd characterize Saudi Arabia as stable. They made a deal with Western powers and will remain very wealthy as long as there is demand for their oil. There used to be similar states in Latin America, and those are no longer wealthy.

They are a "beacon" in the sense that thanks to their deal, they took over Mecca, and corrupted Islam all over the world. The new inquisitorial face of Islam is, to a great extent, their fault.

Which aspects do you consider to be fantastic? If you think pond scum has no significance to us, you're much mistaken: https://youtu.be/jCZq0yWBQMk https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29999416/ We also kill pond scum all the time even if we're not planning to use it.

I wonder if the aliens will share their energy sciences before they know they can trust us. Also, see the above.

You are theoretically correct, but there are many practical exceptions. There is a large number of organic molecules, and they are not easy to synthesize. A civilization that can contact ETs need not be masters of chemical synthesis. Although it's not the most likely, it is easy to conceive of a situation where the cheapest method to obtain large quantities of the organic molecules required by their industrial machinery is to turn the earth into a plantation.

This situation is more likely if the aliens are also capitalist, capitalist-adjacent, competing with capitalists, etc. We don't know the likelihood of that happening, but we know that humans are and will remain capitalist in the foreseeable future.

Another scenario where we may be threatened by aliens is the one where they are so advanced that they require an entire block of galactic matter as raw material, and the solar system just happens to be included in it by accident. Imagine humans shoveling large quantities of dirt. Somewhere in it was an anthill that was beneath our notice.

Why do you assume that they found us in this scenario? We have programs actively trying to locate ETs.

Even if they found us, there are many possibilities you've overlooked:

1. Maybe the group of aliens that actually found us is not the one we target for exploitation. We could use the first group as a channel to locate the second.

2. You're underestimating what can happen in the timespans involved in interstellar travel. Many Asian societies were more advanced than Europeans when the first explorers arrived.

3. You're underestimating the drive of corporations to turn a profit. The advanced Asian societies were left behind because they were mainly focused on internal matters. Meanwhile, immense wealth poured into Europe from the various East India companies.

I previously used "conservative" to mean an ideology that seeks to maintain appearances while leaving private life to the individual conscience. All authentic Islamic schools follow this pattern. Wahhabism is a new ideology that seeks to bring Arab society in line with how it was structured in the lifetime of Muhammad. (As the Wahhabists understand it, which is historically dubious.)

To be consistent with my previous usage, I'd have to classify Wahhabists as extreme reactionaries. This is also consistent with Islamic scholarship. When they first appeared, Wahhabists were denounced as heretics by the consensus of Islamic scholars.

Traditionally, Islam has never understood itself as seeking to preserve one culture or another. Its purpose is to worship God and create a just society as Islam understands it: feed the poor, care for orphans, prevent female babies from being abandoned, prevent slaves and animals from being overly mistreated, etc. For taking good care of the world, they expected its creator to reward them in extremely sensual ways.

IIRC one of the most influential scholars, al-Ghazali, suggested that the purpose of Islamic law is to protect the 5 components of well-being: religion, life, intellect, offspring and property.

In this context, even the understanding of "religion" is more universal than you might expect. Islamic theology is very different from Christianity in that you don't have to follow Muhammad's revelations to be a "muslim", i.e. submit to God. According to Islamic scholarship, God created humanity with an innate disposition to believe in him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitra Apparently, anyone who doesn't reject the stirrings in one's own soul to worship God and uphold justice is a true believer and will be rewarded. There is a medieval novel that spells out the consequences of this understanding: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayy_ibn_Yaqdhan

Neither in the words of the Quran nor in traditional scholarship does Islam have anything to do with a reactionary preservation of Arab culture as attempted by the Wahhabists.

I wouldn't describe Saudi Arabia as conservative. It's a totalitarian nightmare. Wahhabism is anything but mainstream.

No, thanks for the recommendation. I'll check it out. :up:

I'm by no means an expert on Islam. (I've done more reading in philosophy and computer science.) My understanding is that Allah created the world by will. If you apply your suggestion to Islam, then Muslims should have a lot of respect for individual will, and leave most punishments up to God.

Besides, do you have any evidence that free speech was considered a right before the enlightenment? I've never seen any indication of that. IIRC the word "heresy" is Greek for choice. A "heretic" was someone who chose his own beliefs.

To be fair, medieval philosophers did consider Christianity to be the religion of Mercury because Jesus is the Word. But if we run with that, some Shia Muslims consider Ali to be the Book of God. Iran shouldn't be censoring any books.

I also know for a fact that Shia hadiths have incredible respect for the intellect. Iran shouldn't be censoring sincere intellectuals, then. I believe the name of the hadith book is Usul al-Kafi. You might also find a few lectures on the Shia intellect on YouTube. Try the channel: al hujjah Islamic seminary. Go to playlists and find the oldest year one demo titled Usul al-Kafi. If you wait a while, I'll find it myself and paste the link here.

Edit: Found it: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrK-FXb0E44tRfxDKOeq4_wLXhXURvoNc

Yes, but I don't know where Islam says you can take the law into your own hands like that. If you know, please tell me. I do know that Zoroastrianism allows you to kill gay people where they stand, and doing so forgives your sins. (It says so in the Vendidad.) I think the movie 300 depicted the Ancient Persians in line with the old European conception of Muslims as lascivious degenerates.

"Western" morality is ambiguous phrasing. Free speech was not considered a right in the West until enlightenment thinkers like Locke. A lot of these enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire were inspired by their idea of "Turkish society", where they believed multiple religions lived and worked side by side. That was an exaggeration, but not incorrect as a comparative statement vis a vis Europe at the time.

Until the 20th century, Europeans considered Muslims to be notorious sodomites. Homosexuality proliferated in Islamic society because it was very difficult to get multiple witnesses to swear that you had gay sex. A lot of gay poems also circulated under the cover of Sufi poetry that addresses Allah as The Beloved.

I agree that clerics should be more affirmative about freedom. But the Islamic world has never been very free. Like in Russia, it's hard for people to believe in freedom for very long when money flows reinforce tyranny. The people who are committed to freedom usually try to move elsewhere.

I don't think current Trumpist reactions cover all Christian violence in America. Off the top of my head: Violence against gay people used to be very common. Even in recent times, there have been bombings of abortion clinics.

Surely, after Trump's America, you have some experience with how demoralizing conservative hypocrisy can be.

Yes, obviously. Islam is committed to human flourishing. They should change their tradition so that it's nicer to me.

There is tons of clinical evidence for the barebones theory I laid out. It's still used in contemporary psychology. I didn't mention any of Freud's many versions of the Father figure.

I don't consider them bad, necessarily. I consider their tradition bad. I think they should at the very least reform their tradition. Currently, their "tradition" is not even particularly traditional. I don't have to spell out how they made me feel because, thankfully, Rushdie did it for me.

You seem to be under the impression that Muslims irrationally defend Islam whenever possible. This is not true. Muslims criticize aspects of their society like everyone else. If you don't believe me, I believe there is a YouTube channel called something like Islamic Center of Orange County. Watch the most popular videos on that channel. (I will clarify if I remembered the name wrong.)

I think we have every age we passed through as part of our personalities. The teenage part of me is still partly here. I just sort of outgrew him. I think that being unable to vocalize strong traumatic emotions from the past can lead to mental illness if present experiences trigger them. For example, if I never conceptualize in words how I felt about my mother, I may grow to irrationally resent a boss who reminds me of her.

Why do I have to "coexist peacefully" with an unjust medieval tradition? I want to live in a society where I'm free to tell the world the pain I suffered because of their hypocrisy. Many others are much worse off than me thanks to them.

Or, you know, they might be Rushdie fans who are afraid to speak out.

It depends on whether the aliens have any resources that we can exploit more cheaply than from anywhere else. For example, if we need minerals, we might get them more cheaply from the asteroid belt. But if the aliens have a miracle plant that streamlines manufacturing, the question becomes: Does the cheapest way to manufacture those products involve getting that plant directly from the alien planet?

If the import costs are not prohibitive, and it's not cheaper to import seeds and grow them artificially on earth, then the aliens had better be technologically superior to us. Otherwise, it will be the 19th and 20th centuries all over again.

I believe there's a fantasy novel called Orconomics that deals with themes like these.

Did you know that the Saudis used to control a tiny state in the desert that was repeatedly beaten back until they made a deal with Western powers? Now they control Mecca, and they have broken Islam all over the world. Before that, the British Raj used to stay in power partly by allying themselves with the most conservative elements of Hindu society.

Either way, I'm sure there will be tons of humans who romanticize alien society and wish they were born there.

The above possibilities are not comprehensive. Eg. I have ideas to write a science fiction novel where humans take over an alien civilization that we're allied with against a stronger alien civilization because we are paranoid about our allies betraying us. We settled that problem by betraying them first.

Rushdie does return the favor. The Satanic Verses is highly ambiguous in its condemnation of Islam, conforming to the emotional contours of many Indian ex-Muslims including myself.

In fact, the Rushdie has been more pro-Islam than (IIRC) Nobel-nominated writers like Milan Kundera have been pro-Communist, i.e. not at all. Kundera has argued that Communism is an eastern invasion into a Western cultural space like Czechoslovakia. Although that sentiment sounds borderline fascist, I don't condemn him for it. People who have internalized repression tend to scream out their freedom more loudly than strictly necessary. Similarly, Rushdie's provocation is a creation of Islamic repression. Would the Communists have been right to silence Milan Kundera too?

-----

If a Hugo Award winning writer like GRR Martin is not good enough for you, then how how about something classic like The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne?

Yes, other people should be responsible for one man's existential problems. We form a community with the expectation of tolerating each other's differences. You have assumed a definite cutoff point for tolerance without arguing for it.

If you were alienated from a religious community for being an illegitimate child, then why are you arguing on behalf of traditional religion? The alienation you suffered is plastered all over pop culture. See the Game of Thrones, for example.

Mysticism played a role in the revival of philosophy in Europe, when humanists like Ficino were trying to assemble a Christian Kabbalah. Traces of alchemical thinking remain foundational in thinkers like Hegel. To this day, Marxist and post-Marxist "philosophers" like Zizek have kept this Continental tradition alive.

Zizek tries to interpret Marxist class struggle through the Hermetic principle of "as above, so below". His formulation is: "Your alienation from the absolute is the alienation of the absolute from itself." He interprets this to mean that if you feel alienated from society, that is because society is itself split into mutually antagonistic classes, and this political split pervades all levels of discourse. The ones who find themselves outside the central club should unite in a para-Christian (yet atheist) Communist party.

I alsi think some aspects of esoteticism can have applications in a philosophical theory of the emotions. For example, the Tarot cards compile a vast range of emotional snapshots. You could use those to make sure a theory of human emotions like Spinoza's hasn't been oversimplified. I believe there's a free Android app and website called Labyrinthos that describes each of the 78 cards in 3 or 4 keywords and a brief paragraph if you don't have the time to wade through long-winded mysticism. Note that the Tarot deck is not a comprehensive compilation of emotional postures. It needs to be supplemented by modern cognitive science as well as amateur collections like the Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows.