Aristotle holds the view that moral virtues lie at the mean between extremes of excess and deficiency. For example, if courage taken to excess would manifest as recklessness and if deficient as cowardice. Thus, virtue is in the middle of two vices, that is called "the golden mean". However, that's inaccurate, for what are the extremes of the virtue of knowledge? Should we take a little from knowledge and a little from ignorance? Even though his mentor, Socrates, referred all virtues to knowledge!

Virtue takes nothing from the two vices, it is an independent line. Virtue isn't a mixture of vices because mixing vices will only produce vices. The opposite of asceticism is materialism, but that doesn't mean we have to take from both of them to be on the right path. We should be on a separate third line.

God said in the Quran: "Guide us to the straight path. The path of those You have blessed, Not of those who have earned Your anger, nor those who have gone astray", so the straight path is different from the path of those who earned God's anger –who have known the true path but refused it-, and different from the path of the people who have gone astray- who are seeking the right path but are taking the wrong route-. The right path is different from the two extremes not between them nor produced from them. The Quran used the Arabic word "ghair" in: ("ghair" of those who have earned your anger, "ghair" of those who have gone astray) "ghair" literally means: different, which is a more accurate word than which Aristotle used: between. The right path doesn’t take a little of the path of people who refuse the truth and a little of the path of stray people to produce Hegel's dialectic middle which will later have its opposite. And probably Hegel had improved Aristotle's idea to the idea of the dialectic, which implies that from two opposites a third thing is produced which has its own opposite thus producing a forth thing and so on, that's the movement of life according to his point of view.

Aristotle's logic makes vice the origin, and virtues are burden on vices, even though the opposite of this idea is what's correct. The origin of squandering is generosity, the origin of envy is love and admiration, and the origin of miserliness is economy and wise spending. Vices don’t have an existent foundation in human nature -that's why I call them artificial ideas-, so how can they be an origin? Vices are precarious while virtues are firmly founded in our nature. All vices ride on the back of virtues, without virtue vice wouldn’t have existed and not vice versa. Without good apples there wouldn't bad apples, without life there wouldn't be death, without good qualities there wouldn't be envy and jealousy.     


"Greetings, Alwarraq

Welcome to the Philosophy Forum.
You give us a very good discussion of some profound ethical issues.
I agree with your resolutions of Dilemmas 1 and 3. In the first one, it indeed is just for the captain ( - once he made such an immoral suggestion - namely,, to sacrifice the weakest among the 30 -) to be the one that the group throws overboard. That will serve to lighten the boat, and get the rest safely to shore. Let him swim ashore since he is so strong
As to your comments with regard to the third dilemma, we concur. See my earlier thread here on the subject of torture, where I list about 40 arguments against the use of torture. 
As to the second - The Trolley Dilemma - first proposed by Philippa Foot, (Professor at U. of C., Los Angeles, who trained at Oxford) as a way of ridiculing Consequentialism. This situation - with a madman tying folks to tracks - does not arise very often, fortunately. You may be surprised to learn of a prior discussion of the dilemma in the paper, A UNIFIED THEORY OF ETHICS, p. 41 ff., a link to which is found by clicking on the link offered in the signature below, which directs readers to a list of further references they can study.
If the one individual, on the other track, is your mother or daughter you may think twice about throwing the lever to switch the runaway trolley. Yet what if we are all brothers and sisters? We are at least cousins since the population of the Earth was much smaller at one time than it is now, and so we spring from common ancestors. How many have given thought to that fact? We are literally all one kin. We are related. {Lately, more and more of us know that we are connected: the social networks make it possible.}
Thanks again for a rich and valuable discussion !
I for one appreciate how you think deeply about Ethical issues. You manage to teach Applied Ethics at its best. Keep up the good work."


Thank you for your enlightened mind and your moral soul..
If you want to apply morality you are going to have to sacrifice one mother or daughter to save five people who are also mothers and daughters. Morality is the shadow of reason, those five are also mothers and children to other people. There are people who sacrificed their lives to save their cities, and who sacrificed his son for a scientific experiment that benefits humanity. Like the old Chinese story in which an army had surrounded a city and found two people who know its secret entries, so they asked those two to give them the secret information, one of them said: "I will tell you if you killed the other one", and so they did, then he said "whom you have killed is my son and I know he will give up and tell you everything, and now that's there is only me, you can do whatever you want with me I'm not going to tell you anything!

Christian Liberty

 Do you have children? (if you don't, pretend)
If killing one of your children to harvest their organs could save 3 lives, is that cool? Or is it murder?

This example is different than the example of the trolley. The trolley is out of control and will inevitably hit someone, this is not the same as those who were about to die, nothing forced you to choose between one or three children. If you were forced to transmit a disease to either one or three of your children then this would be analogous to the trolley problem, but in your example you have intentionally killed an innocent life to save people he's not responsible for their illness and neither are you. Also, why sacrifice your son? Why not sacrifice yourself? You also have organs!

If we generalize this idea it will cause disasters. This idea is a communist idea based on taking over the individual property for the interest of the group. It is immoral to sacrifice the few whenever the more needed to. The purpose of morality isn’t to stand with the majority, it might be on the side of the minority. All the imposed ideologies sacrifice the individual for the group, which makes it immoral because the group is nothing but individuals. What is the fault of the innocent? Even if the majority benefited from ending the life of an individual they don’t morally have the right to do so, this is supported by the Quran which says:" whoever killed a human being, except as a punishment for murder or for spreading corruption in the land, shall be regarded as having killed all mankind". Sacrificing the few for the majority is an immoral act.
 However, if this sacrifice is inevitable and out of our control then it's moral to sacrifice the few for the majority, like driving a train that can't be stopped and you either hit one or three people then it's moral to direct it to the one, but to bring an innocent person out of nowhere and sacrifice him to save a group then this is an immoral act. Morality is concerned with our actions not the actions of fate.
 That’s why the idea of communism is immoral from the point of view, like any other ideology that’s based on the right of the group, disregarding the right of the individual and protecting him/her from the group.

Christian Liberty

"INACTION is not murder."


I disagree, inaction can be murder sometimes. To leave someone who's about to die of thirst while you make rainbows of water for fun and watch him die next to u, are you moral now?! This is like throwing away the excess grain and milk into the sea to keep the prices high, even though there are people who die of hunger and could have been saved. There is no freedom against morality, you can say I'm free to do whatever I want with my money even if I burn it, but that won't make you moral. Freedom in evil is slavery, and liberation from good is an attachment to the strains of evil. There is no middle ground between good and evil.  
Yes inaction can be murder sometimes. When you find a car accident with its passengers bleeding in a remote area and not call the ambulance even though you could, you are in this case a criminal and deserve to be punished. Nothing causes the action of crime except the crime of inaction. Leaving the poor people die of hunger might turn them into criminals which will make you react against them to oppress them, thus you committed crime against them twice! Just like what the powers of occupation around the world do, they occupy people's land or steal its legitimate authority and then oppress them after they try to regain their right, thus subjecting them twice to cruelty and injustice. The first by neglecting their rights and existence, and the second by oppressing them and accusing them of terrorism, neglecting the first one and focusing only on what they did not on what has been done to them.    

The world's hungry is the responsibility of everyone according to their wealth and power. The more rich and free you are the more you are responsible, and the peoples of the strong, free and rich countries are more responsible for the global human problems than the people of the weak and not free countries. You are probably a member of a rich country, so how do you exonerate yourself from any responsibility for those who die of hunger in Africa and other places? Unless you have actually done something. If the burden of responsibility didn’t fall on the capable person, whom shall it fall on then? The incapable is excused.

This is my attempt on solving 3 famous morals dilemmas:

"1.    The Overcrowded Lifeboat 
In 1842, a ship struck an iceberg and more than 30 survivors were crowded into a lifeboat intended to hold 7. As a storm threatened, it became obvious that the lifeboat would have to be lightened if anyone were to survive. The captain reasoned that the right thing to do in this situation was to force some individuals to go over the side and drown. Such an action, he reasoned, was not unjust to those thrown overboard, for they would have drowned anyway. If he did nothing, however, he would be responsible for the deaths of those whom he could have saved. Some people opposed the captain's decision. They claimed that if nothing were done and everyone died as a result, no one would be responsible for these deaths. On the other hand, if the captain attempted to save some, he could do so only by killing others and their deaths would be his responsibility; this would be worse than doing nothing and letting all die. The captain rejected this reasoning. Since the only possibility for rescue required great efforts of rowing, the captain decided that the weakest would have to be sacrificed. In this situation it would be absurd, he thought, to decide by drawing lots who should be thrown overboard. As it turned out, after days of hard rowing, the survivors were rescued and the captain was tried for his action. If you had been on the jury, how would you have decided?"

Why isn’t the captain one of those thrown away? Based on the result of a draw? Why did he decide he'll be one of the survivors? The boat doesn’t need his experience, it needs strong rowers as he said who will only need to paddle their way to the shore, and he may not be strong. The captain should be condemned for his authoritarian stance and deciding to sacrifice others instead of himself. Even if he owned that boat he is the one responsible for their safety. What everyone can't live without is owned by everyone.

The story of the prophet Jonah was more just than what this captain decided. For when they were forced to sacrifice one of them they conducted a draw which selected Jonah so they threw him off the boat. The captain should have done the same. Since they had known that some must be sacrificed to save the rest then at least they should conduct a draw which also includes the captain. That if they didn’t find any other solution even though there are, like swimming close to the boat tied by a rope, or any other solution.

The captain's solution only suits the strong ones. In Islam "the weak is the prince of the convoy" as the prophet Mohammed said, and not the strong as in the materialistic western philosophy and as in this example. That is why men sacrifice themselves for women and children in wars, which is a chivalrous act. The strong one defends the weak, not sacrifices the weak for his safety!    

Such examples are justifications for capitalism and imperialism, because it is based on the idea of "survival for the strongest" which does not exist in nature, like considering throwing atomic bombs on the populated cities of Japan an act that saved humanity from war, which was originally started by the US and it can stop it by correcting its mistakes, not by burning innocent civilians! They tried to make the USA's move moral due to the peace (surrender) it caused, forgetting the massive destruction it also caused.

According to this principle, the unjust tyrant will be a man of peace because he managed to stop conflict in his country even if it was through the use of force and oppression. Like what they said about Ariel Sharon that he is a man of peace because his oppression of the Palestinians had stopped the armed conflict in his time. This a deficient and narrow view. Injustice is not stopped by injustice, even if it had many facets injustice is eventually one.

Any western person who accepts this principle should accept the reign of the dictator because he is tough and doesn’t allow anyone to do anything, thus peace will prevail! Even though he acts unjustly, i.e. he transferred injustice from others to himself. This is what the US did by the atomic bombings, it transferred what may or may not occur into an injustice that occurred, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent lives with excessive heat that reached 1000 degrees, flaying the skins of humans and animals and polluting the soil for hundreds of years to come. You don’t extinguished fire with fire, but with its opposite. Hence, injustice isn’t stopped by injustice, for this stoppage is not real. 

Sacrificing an innocent individual or few individual for the group opens a door to immorality. Morality should either be taken as a whole or left as a whole. The right of the individual is the right of the group, because the group is nothing but individuals. Being unjust with one person is like being unjust with all people. " whoever kills a person—unless it is for murder or corruption on earth—it is as if he killed the whole of mankind; and whoever saves it, it is as if he saved the whole of mankind " the Quran. Therefore, who acts unjustly towards one person it is as if he acted so towards the whole of mankind, and this will be clear in the example of the detective below.     

What the captain did was immoral because he sacrificed the weak for the strong, and this is the law of the jungle, even though the jungle is viewed unjustly. It is the jungle of interest-based pragmatism and it is precisely what capitalism does, sacrificing the weak for the strong. This is what Nietzsche and the atheistic thought called for, Nietzsche even blatantly demanded that the weak must be killed just because they are weak. Weakness became an immoral sin that requires termination of life! even animals don’t do that, they don’t kill the weak because it is weak, it's because they needs to to survive.

Not adopting morality as a whole but selectively is what interest-based pragmatism all about, it picks and chooses what serves it and neglects what doesn’t. Thus killing morality whenever it needed to, and it will need to a lot since interest is above everything else, which means it is ready to sacrifice everything else. Therefore, the principle of "interest above all else" is basically corrupt.   

Morality must be above man not below them, with man under its control not vice versa, otherwise morality will have no real value. And here appears the role of religion as a keeper of the status of morality and rewarding for it. Without religion no one will continue preferring morality over interest which will ultimately defeat morality if there was no religion.

If that gate is opened – sacrificing an innocent individual for the rest- the gate of injustice will be opened. Everyone will do unjust acts in the name of the safety of the group. Thus the decision to sacrifice few individuals is an unjust one especially for the weak ones, unless everyone agrees on a decision that also includes the captain. The principle of unfairly sacrificing the few for the more and the individual for the group is corrupt, and it opposes the Quran which says: "whoever kills a person—unless it is for murder or corruption on earth—it is as if he killed the whole of mankind", like the strict teacher who punishes a student with a punishment way more than what he deserves just to teach the other students a lesson, and he doesn’t view himself as unjust because he served the group and calmed the class so they might learn! The group is nothing but individuals, allowing yourself to act unjustly towards the individual means allowing yourself to be unjust towards the group, for the group is also individual. If you accept some injustice, what would prevents you from accepting the rest of it?!

A true Muslim adopts the whole of morality, because their religion is morality – with the creator and the created including themselves. The life of morality is more important than the life of man, the safety of morality is more important than the safety of man. If injustice is only fought with injustice the result will be the survival of the strongest. Our principle should be that morality is more valuable than life, and instead of sacrificing morality for life and its pleasures, we sacrifice the pleasures of life for morality, and even sacrifice our life if we had to, the Quran said: "gross injustice is worse than killing", like when the tribe of Quraish unfairly treated the prophet Mohammad and his companions, this verse was justifying the Muslims battle of Badr with Quriash, due to the continuous injustice practiced by Quraish against Muslims and their assaults and torture for them for more than 13 years.

Isn’t morality what is more sublime? Then why do we sacrifice the sublime for the non-sublime? Who sacrificed their life for the sublime were perpetuated by it, and who sacrificed the sublime for their interests have contaminated the sublime and the sublime contaminated them, throughout history.  

"2-The Trolley Problem 
A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch or do nothing? 

3- The Mad Bomber 
A madman who has threatened to explode several bombs in crowded areas has been apprehended. Unfortunately, he has already planted the bombs and they are scheduled to go off in a short time. It is possible that hundreds of people may die. The authorities cannot make him divulge the location of the bombs by conventional methods. He refuses to say anything and requests a lawyer to protect his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. In exasperation, some high level official suggests torture. This would be illegal, of course, but the official thinks that it is nevertheless the right thing to do in this desperate situation. Do you agree? If you do, would it also be morally justifiable to torture the mad bomber’s innocent wife if that is the only way to make him talk? Why?"

In the example of the trolley you are not the one who was unjust to that person when you directed the train towards him, but the circumstances. Reducing the damage is no doubt a moral act, actually it is the only moral act you could do in that situation. Logically speaking, there is "one" in those five whom you have saved, so when you saved the five you have also saved one among them, so you saved one and more.

Who changes the direction of the trolley isn’t like the detective who tortures the wife of the bomber to save hundreds, because the detective is the one committing torture not nature as in the trolley problem, and here you can't guarantee that torturing his wife will make him confess, and you can't also guarantee that he's truly a bomber, his confession isn't  enough evidence. You can practice many detective methods like telling him you'll go easy on him if he confessed else he'll be jailed or executed if he didn’t.  

If we allowed the detective to open the gate of torture to reach the truth innocent people will be tortured. Torture is based on suspicion -doubt- while torture is certain, and its affects remain for the rest of one's life. You don’t do a certain evil act to stop an uncertain evil from occurring. Otherwise the detective will be a danger against society just like the mad bomber. Also, torturing that man because he is a threat may not make him confess, and he could die of torture along with his wife and the bombs explode, so the bomber won't be the only one who acted unjustly but the detective also!     

He is in the process of detection, and the word "detection" means to search for the truth, i.e. the truth is not yet clear to him, while torture has truly been done to avoid a presumed truth. Let's assume he has hundreds or thousands of suspects for one crime, and the crime is torturing one person and torturing his wife and children. This detective will torture all of them to confess! Some will do, some don't know the information needed and most of them are innocent! He'll be torturing hundreds for one individual! This the opposite of his idea of sacrificing the few for the group, he'll be sacrificing a large group for a few individuals in the name of protecting the group from their threat, even though who committed the crime is one of those hundreds of suspects so the rest have definitely been wrongfully treated, and he knew from the beginning that the criminal is one and the rest are innocent. Thus, the injustice practiced by the detective is greater than that of the criminal! He had only tortured a few while the detective tortured hundreds! Thus, justice is not reached through injustice.   

Here the detective has become a danger to society since everyone he accuses will be tortured, this method is a threat to society. This is like the explosion that may burn an innocent person, or the random shooting that may kill innocent people. This kind of shooting is called a threat to society, for what may harm everyone is a threat to everyone. Thus, the idea of the detective was not right, this is my point of view and others may have better opinions.    

     Everything in the mind has its basis in the feeling, humanity's mind is the result of humanity's feeling. The human feeling is basically needs, and those needs are either material or immaterial (moral). The animal doesn't have moral needs, and its feeling is comprised of instincts related to its existence, preserving its species, safety, food etc… . This is indicated by the fact that animals have no principles or morals. Thus, when we talk about the nature of man we should bear in mind the duality of this nature, for man has two natures: material and moral. 

Both the sane and the insane person have the same needs, but they won't meet those needs the same way due their different mental capabilities. The mind is the tool of the feeling to deal with the external material world, and the material world is the embodiment of the mind and from it the mind takes its vocabulary. The is indicated by the material origin of the vocabulary of the language, and language is the means to communicate the feeling and the mind.

Let's assume that both those two persons were inside a burning room, both the feelings of the sane and the insane want to escape, but chances for the sane to survive are higher. Because they can go beyond the limits of the room with their mind which makes them know the right way more than the weak-minded. Here the mind is a servant of the feeling, and that's why God has praised people of minds in the Quran, and the good mind is the one that accurately follows the feeling and provides solutions that meet the feeling's needs and don’t oppose other feelings. The feeling itself is a huge package of feelings and emotions moving in isolated lines. So, there must be a mind to coordinate their symphony and prevent them from contradicting one another, as does the maestro with tens of music players.   

Coordination often occurs between moral feelings and material ones, as in the need for food which the mind regulates using a higher need like fasting or wrongness of stealing. If it wasn’t for this coordination, there will be chaos and conflicts that harm the human and make them contradict themselves.

Thus, the right mind is the one taken from nature -material and moral-, and not a product of society, religion or circumstances like what materialists and atheists claim, and under such notion they demand rebellion against all we took from society. This is like an implied call to rebel against reason, and after that they boast about their reasonability!     

I'm defending sound reason, not everything we took from our societies, but they want us to revolt against everything! And at the same time they wants us to obey and submit to all our animalistic instincts! No matter how weak they were, and they demand that we neglect all what our virtuous instincts tell us, no matter how strong they were. The result ,then, will be animalism, to add fuel to the fire of the evolution theory which gives scientific cover to say that: you are animals! So practice your animality otherwise you'll have psychological illnesses as Dawkins and Freud repeatedly say, after they had denuded man from the best thing in them: their higher instincts, and contended themselves with the lower instincts.      

Every correct knowledge humanity gains is a mind added to the previously accumulated mind, including scientific facts. When a science is proven to be a fact it becomes logic (which part of the mind). Every proven knowledge becomes part of reason and logic whether material or moral, without contradicting the previously built knowledge which humanity made sure of through experience. Thus, science is mind and mind is science, but the mind is more general while science is specific.   

For example, man feels cold so they try to remember where they put their heavy clothes, look for firewood or think of a new heating system etc… . All those operations are mental operations preceded by the feeling of cold. So, the feeling precedes the mind. Therefore the mind is a servant of the feeling.

People feel annoyed by crowded cars for example, or car accidents, so the mind starts working and making traffic laws, traffic signs, bridges etc…, in an attempt to solve the problem that annoyed the feeling.

People feel pain from illnesses, that is why the science of medicine emerged. People feel tired of travel, that is why they invented the world of transportation and communication, and so on and so forth.

Thus, man is basically a follower of the feeling not the mind. Yes sometimes we follow the mind before we feel, but that's due to the belief that this mind is built of the basis of feeling. But when we discover its opposition to the feeling we abandon it and look for another mental solution. This applies to everything, from finding a suitable way to cook food to a whole ideology. 

If humanity were followers of the mind they wouldn’t have repeatedly abandon it and change it, and there wouldn’t be so many people who oppose it. We find a group of people trying to solve the problem of traffic jams or any other problem, they agree on the basis which is there is a problem and it harmed them, but they differ in the way to solve it.

One proof of the notion that the feeling is what moves humanity is the constant change of means through civilizations while having the same needs, like the need for safety, comfort, survival etc…. The ancients were looking for means to help them in their lives even though they didn’t know electricity or trains, but they used their minds to solve their problems, and the need is still the same. Therefore, the feeling is the motivator and it's always first, and science has never stopped, which means that the mind has never stopped.   

On this basis, we have two types of learning: Strong learning and weak learning. Strong learning is the one that comes directly from the feeling to mind, i.e. starts from the need. The weak learning is what starts from the mind to the feeling, on the assumption that this mind is built from the feeling. Modern education is based on weak learning, which crams into the student's mind issues and assumptions which they didn’t feel the need for and didn’t concern them, where what concerns them is neglected. This forces students to blind memorization which is rarely held by the feeling, because memory is connected to the feeling.

Notice yourself when you say: I wanna do something but I donno what it is and how do I do it! This happens to us all the time. What started it is a feeling and then came the mind and the memory. The mind works through the memory and who has no mind has no memory. Intelligence is the speed, accuracy and capacity to load information and to expose them to both memory and feelings.  

Memory is controlled by the feeling. notice that when a person forgets something, they're sure they've forgotten something but don't know what it is, and then they start thinking and remembering until they remember. So, the feeling doesn’t forget, and everything that is connected to the feeling can't be forgotten, for no one forgets the things they love even people with amnesia, they didn't literally lose memory otherwise they will forget how to eat or how to walk! All skills can't be forgotten, even playing the piano.  

This discussion occurred in a philosophy group on Facebook between Alwarraq and two other members:

"only ideas are immaterial , and ideas do not "exist" ideas are true or false, logical or paradoxical but not existing. When you ride a bicycle, the bicycle exists but the "act of riding" does not exist, it is a function, not an object. When you have 3 apples, the apples exist, but the "number 3" does not, it's a concept in your mind. When you love your girlfriend, the oxytocin and serotonin in your brain exists, but the "feeling of love" does not, it is an idea, an act of mental computation.Love, numbers, logic, even self awareness, those are not existing things, those are functioning algorythms of mind. Actions and functions, not objects or beings."


Millions of chemical reactions take place in the brain, why is it that those specific reactions have names known to all of us and we know nothing about the others? And why do they affect us so much that they shape our lives? And why among all the reactions we only love those few, e.g. love? Actually we live our life for those specific "chemical reactions"! For when you ask anybody about their goal in life they`ll definitely tell you: to be happy, joyful and loved by all, which as you said don`t exist!

According to your logic there is no such thing as motion, there is only gearwheels and oil and some other parts, for motion has no physical existence and no atoms. This ignorant idea kills reason, logic, science and physics –which depends on motion-. Science and logic needed to be killed in order to kill religion.

Is denying motion the outcome of what you call "being smart"? Why does it have laws since it doesn`t exist? This idea is what violates science not religion.

According to your logic this website doesn`t exist, only people and computers do! You also don`t exist because you are only shoulders and kidneys…etc, even your kidney doesn`t exist there are only small particles!

Any noun that stands for collective things doesn`t exist according to what you've said, this is the deconstructive materialist view, like the materialist professor from that story when he entered a university and started asking: where is the university? I only saw buildings, classrooms, and people!

However, in the issue of souls we have a different situation, for the body can lose many parts and yet the soul still the same, but if you take away many of the university`s important divisions it won't be a university anymore. The soul doesn`t change as long as there is a life, for a person who lost his hands and legs can talk to you in the same way he used to before losing them, therefore the soul isn`t a result of the body parts, for a person who has an artificial heart, no arms and legs, transfused blood, blind, deaf, has an implanted kidney and liver and even some parts of his brain are taken out and yet he`s still the same person with the same thinking, taste and even likes the type of cheese he used to prefer.

To conclude, the whole idea is, firstly, illogical in terms of the outside world and, secondly, doesn’t apply to humans.

Motion is one of the results of material correlations; those correlations take place in the human body producing things like heat and motion. That being said, where do feelings and soul come from?

Material parts came together and we called that gathering: a university for example. The body parts came together and we call that: a human, the correlations of those body parts produced motion and energy, but humans have things other than just those, what are they? What are the feelings, ideas and consciousness?

In the example of the university, that "gathering" produced a university not consciousness. When you make a machine you collect pieces and they produce energy and motion, but why doesn't it produce consciousness? Why is it that only we, living organisms, have consciousness?

Any correlation among material parts produces things different than the composing parts, when you put together bricks, doors, windows…, you`ll make a room, i.e. a new material formation, but they don`t produce consciousness. Any material aggregation will produce new formations, new motion, and new energy (law), but it doesn`t produce growth, self-maintenance, consciousness, feelings, nor ideas.

Matter is everywhere, pick up some parts and construct whatever you like, will you be able to get consciousness? Then why don`t you admit that this thing can`t be produced? And life only comes from life?

All brain activities are results of commands coming from an unknown source, e.g.: a woman thinks then remembers her late mother then cries, if she didn`t think those chemicals in the brain wouldn`t have reacted, which makes this reaction -crying- a result not a reason. Our feelings of love, happiness etc.., are all started by outer causes, they don`t produce themselves. The process goes this way: a cause comes from the outside then touches upon something inside of us which affects the brain chemicals. For instance, you encounter someone who threatens you then you get angry and then the Adrenaline "kicks in" to make you ready to attack. It`s not that Adrenaline comes from itself first and then you feel angry and look for someone to fight with!

This is similar to your will, first you "want" to move your hand then brain activity occurs, after that your hand moves. You can even command your brain to move your hand and yet stop it from moving.

All the brain processes goes like this: a command then the brain start working, and it`s not always capable of following that command, as in when you want to scratch your back but your hand doesn`t reach it. Also like who lost his hand but still feels that he can move it. That shows us that our will is different from our brain and that the brain is merely a tool. A hemiplegic person tries to speak but can`t utter words properly; for his vocal tract isn`t working properly, yet he still tries like the paralyzed who tries to stand up.

Any action you make there is a command that took place before it, and that becomes clear in big commands like when you want to get out of a room, but even a small scratch has a precedent command TO the brain, not FROM the brain. That`s why some patients are tied to the bed after certain types of surgeries, because a person with a broken leg for example might forget that and stand up.

Will is different than the brain, a proof of that is that sometimes the will commands the brain but it can`t fulfill that command. Also, the brain gets tired but the will doesn`t.

Dreams –while sleeping- are unchained by a person`s abilities and they only respond to our will. Imagination is also unchained by abilities, so is genius.

Genius (as a noun) is higher than and untied by thinking, for genius has nothing to do with intelligence. Anyone who said or discovered something genius always says that he/she doesn`t know how it came out of him/her, if it was a result of thinking (intelligence) s/he would`ve known. Why is it that a genius remark always comes in a glimpse? And thinking is a long process, isn`t it? also, why is it that genius people don`t believe that they are smart? And why does s/he need other people`s encouragements to trust his/her geniality? If it was from his/her own mind s/he would`ve known if s/he`s smart or not. A proof of that is that many genius ideas and great melodies come in our dreams, even though the brain`s performance in our sleep is lower than when we are awake!

Whenever the mind is active creativity is absent (law), a proof of that is, for instance, when you give a poet a paper and a pen and tell him: You better write some nice lines! Here the poet won`t be creative because his mind is active

For your entire post, there is a simple answer: one, that you used yourself "...This view even denies the existence of any phenomena..." And that is that. There is a difference between "action" and "existence", between what is "happening" and what is "existing". "Processes" do not exist. This does not mean that processes are not important, or that we dismiss the influence of the processes on the objects. Both are equaly important, just different.

And yes, I can say that "I do not exist". My Self, my mind is not "existing". It is "happening".
Just because ideas, perceptions, and processes do not exist, doesn't mean that the world is any worse, than the idealist world. I know for certain that I do not have an immaterial soul, that my mind is just a temporary process of my material brain.
And that makes life, and my mind, precious, awesome and unique.


Does what happens exist or not? Isn`t the "happening" an evidence of existence?
This is how materialism burns the mind and human intelligence, it makes the mind goes back to the early years of childhood where nothing exists except material pieces, and we don`t want to be nonexistent infants! 

Why do you say that it doesn`t exist since it`s important? It`s impossible for something to be important and nonexistent at the same time! What doesn`t exist is nothing, and the importance of nothing=0!

I can`t really understand this persistence on nonexistence even though having an existent effect! Negating the existence of something while admitting its effect is something the mind can`t possibly imagine! I don`t know how will I understand you if the mind doesn`t understand what you said! how did you understand what you`ve said?! What are the tools you used to understand it? Why -at least- didn`t you call it a different type of existence? Totally negating existence is an irrational claim. 

I wonder what is left of your mind to be precious! That`s a mind that negates the existence of a thing and at the same time admits its effect!

David Kappelt:

I can't fucking wait until we can one day build a cybernetic brain that perfectly duplicates your brain, and then have it replicate your emotions perfectly, and you try to still fucking say that LOVE and FEAR and HATE are transcendental emotional "SOUL-STATES"
      Read a fucking book dude


Where`s what you`ve discovered in this field, even if it`s a small step, to support this huge hope that has no basis nor a string that might lead to the possibility of creating emotions in a science lab? 

This is an impossible-to-realize type of imagination. The possible imagination has some parts that are actualized in reality, and the impossible imagination is what has no realized part whatsoever, not even something similar to it is in reality. I wish that the difference between the two types of imagination be taken in consideration.

Flying was thought of as impossible but it was actually possible because there are birds flying in the air, but no one has proved an idea or emotion to be material, and we don`t find examples for it in nature, diving in the deep oceans, however, we find whales and fish doing it so it`s possible to do so.
This is the fucking deconstructed mind that`s close to meet with extinct dinosaurs!

The human feeling has no standards except what is natural. Because our feeling wants a constant standard to revolve around. This fixed standard which the human feeling attaches itself to is to enable us to determine our location. We swim in the sea of life without knowing where we are and we get snatched away by the changing waves and people. This is what causes our unhappiness and nightmares, even though the mind thinks that it did all it had to do, but the feeling doesn’t know what the mind knows. Our feeling wants a natural standard which enables us to know our place.

You find many youngsters feeling lost although they live their life to the fullest, but they don’t find comfort, even though they seek excitement and try to escape pain with entertainment and even drugs. "Is he who walks grovelling upon his face better guided, or he who walks upright upon a straight path?" the Quran.

The human feeling doesn’t know that money or society are of value, but it wants to know whether we are right or wrong. And that is one of the threads that lead to the existence of God, because the human feeling (our natural disposition) is searching for its Lord. This natural constitution doesn't change, develop, nor get affected by anything, else it won't be a natural constitution. However, a person can neglect his natural feeling, but it is still there unchanged and shared by everyone, "He has succeeded who purifies it, And he has failed who instills it [with corruption]" the Quran. This natural disposition is the feeling, and it becomes purified every time the mind connects to it and respects it and not vice versa.

When we deviate from the path of God we feel lost, and that is what most western youngsters suffer from, feeling lost. Even though the west are the masters of the world, who care most about their interests, and yet they couldn’t feel comfort and serenity. Some people explain what most westerns feel due to economical causes, but if that's so why didn’t the poor youngsters of India or Somalia feel it the same way?

When you don’t know what is right and wrong in a certain issue you'll feel lost in it. When you don’t know clearly where is right and wrong in your life you'll feel lost in life. The lack of the true constant standard is what causes this feeling. Feeling lost can be partial or total. Feeling total loss is when one in a state of internal chaos, as in lack of attachment to religion or lack of attachment to morality-which is more dangerous to the self-. Imagine yourself living solely for the sake of pleasure, after every pleasure you'll have bitter feelings, you'll start asking: what is my goal? What is the purpose of my existence in life? etc.., and such questions cannot be understood by the mind because they come from the feeling. Those questions if neglected can manifest themselves in the form of depression and illnesses.  

That is why safest path, in terms of the constants the feeling understand, is the path that is in harmony with our nature, and enlightened by the light of the Quran and guidance of Islam. The natural path removes man from all the areas that makes them confused about their location. The natural method/path tells us, for example, that the evil ideas that we hate and yet still come across our minds are from the devil, they don’t come from our self and our natural disposition. Such clarity and understanding provide man with inner security before it becomes an outer security, because the unclear vision causes fear. Through the Natural Path you can clearly understand the meaning of submission and trust in God, also we understand materialism and materialist thinking and the evils it causes to humanity. Thus, through the Natural Path life has become a lot easier.      

Relying on reason alone isn't enough to convince man even if they can't refute it. This leads to the distinction between mind and feeling, the existence of the feeling and that humans aren't only minds. The feeling wants to know the way or the path we walk in, is it true or false? With disregard to out mental processes. And by the term "feeling" I don’t mean "emotion", I mean our natural pure foundation, because the mind in most cases is what moves our emotions especially the extremist ones like fanaticism, due to the mind's attachment to our external interests.   

The mind interacts with the feeling in the language of fear and desire. When the mind tells the feeling that a thing is scary the feeling will be scared, unless it's something that the feeling knows. If someone told you, for example, that this device is dangerous you'll be scared because your feeling doesn’t know it. While if one said about a person – whom your feeling knows- that he's scary you'll not be scared the same way you were with the device which your feeling doesn't know. And thus we know the areas in which the mind can affect the feeling, which are the fields our feeling doesn’t know and didn't experience before. If someone tried to scare you from your friend and then you believe them even though your feeling knows that she's not scary, this means that you oppress your feeling, for you didn't take its evaluation towards your friend whether she is really scary or not.  

Who suppresses their feeling and prevent it from interacting with things they've prevented themselves from knowledge, for true knowledge is the one that comes from our feeling.

Anyone who presents knowledge opposing the knowledge of the feeling, the feeling will withdraw its trust in them and in all their other opinions. This leads to the fact that knowledge is knowing the feeling, else we wouldn’t have doubted their opinions in other matters. The feeling commands the mind to observe the fallacies of the people who oppose the knowledge of the feeling, so the mind starts catching their mental faults, for the feeling knows well that neglecting the knowledge of the feeling will lead to insanity in the end. The feeling wants the true natural standard that is built on virtue, and without it we feel lost, and loss lead to anxiety which produces depression. In case this standard is related to a person then the feeling will observe this person and seek his approval.

Materialists claim that the believer in God, exactly like the atheist, is motivated by self-interest, because they expect to be rewarded a great interest, an eternal paradise after death. 

However, this materialistic analysis is illogical, why? Because the logic of interests is strongly connected with the near time, and without this closeness of time it won't be called interest. The closer the fruit the more it becomes an interest, this is the logic of interests, like when you put a land for sale and announce that its price will be doubled after 5 years, you'll find many people wanting to buy it, but if you say it will be doubled after 15 years you'll find less costumers, and if you say after 40 years they'll be a lot less, and if you say after 70 years they'll laugh at you, and if you say it will be doubled after death they'll call you crazy! 

This is the logic of interest, which is entirely inapplicable to the idea of paradise in the afterlife, after we all turn into dust and the whole world ends. Notice how fragile the connection is between the believer in God going to heaven and self-interest, which makes the whole idea unconvincing as the rest of the materialists' analyses.   

According to this idea, there is no value for the love of God after the believer goes into heaven and survives hell, all the love will be poured into heaven! This is logically unacceptable. And according to this idea, after believers in God go to heaven they won't love God because who enters paradise will not be taken out from it! Doesn't this make us doubt the whole materialistic analysis and its inconsistency with reason? 

Thus, the law of self-interest isn't what motivates the believer in God. They are moved by a moral motive which is the love of God, and the love of the existence of the God, because He is a symbol of good. The true believer in God adopted their faith because they love good and is ready to sacrifice their interests for the sake of good, which opposes the law of self-interest. The true believer is even ready to sacrifice what's called the guaranteed interest. So is it logical, according to the logic of interest, to sacrifice a guaranteed interest for an unguaranteed interest that only comes after the end of the world and the whole universe?  

Many believers in God, but not all of them,  do try to join the two ideas, in that they want paradise and yet they don't want to sacrifice their self-interest, but that's a contradiction caused by their preference of their self-interest. Therefore, the idea of self-interest corrupts faith, and a thing can't be built on what corrupts it.