If ignorance needs curing discussion is a cure, although it raises other issues. Knowledge is but a degree of ignorance and very often ignorance of our ignorance is taken for knowledge, which it isn't. Those who say 'knowledge is a cure for ignorance' largely fall into that category, and promote superignorance as the cure. The best knowledge is knowledge that you are ignorant, and downright superignorant, and a complete arsehole, then we're talking! You might have to run it by some friends to get to the bottom of it, but if they start reassuring you, just tell them what I said.

lol

Seriously, they can tell you the 'cure', and you can get over it, you won't be able to change 99% of your attitudes just by getting abuse, but you can at least take seriously the effect you have on people, it's an eye-opener if you're open enough. It's how you get big.

lol

OK, I'm with you on that. I say pick one of your most cherished strengths like lightheartedness, or invent a new one like unbearable lovingkindness and generosity, and keep talking, don't leave conversation to the cynics, they have no idea what can be acheived that way.

Humility/Adab towards the acquisition of knowledge is a cure for ignorance.

Knowledge on its own is futile if one does not know how to respect it.

Salam

I did not lay down these rules. However, I agree with them.

1. True Knowledge comes only to the Good.

2. Those who take to the Evil Path, for them REAL Knowledge is forbidden.

Omrow

I always thought of education as the great equalizer. It gives people opportunity.

I just wish the level of education that was made available to me could have been available to everybody.

"Judda" wrote:

what do u study u big swot?

SCHOOL SUCKS :x

I study politics and law.

"Judda" wrote:

boring :roll:

have u ever studied anything interesting?

Archaeology.

And before you start laughing I wasn't dusting rocks all day I got to go to teotihuacan and trapse through the woods looking for my prof's dig.

Fun stuff.

Too bad I was miserable at it.

Speaking of boring politics - I have a class to get to

I've always found history to be quite entertaining... if you like a one sided story.

"judda" wrote:

I thought i wud create this thread since i is the [b]youngest[/b]...

How old are you?

"judda" wrote:

...(and the [b]most intellegent[/b]) person on the forum.

That is debateable...

"judda" wrote:

I would like every body in this forum to tell me there
1. Favourite scholar
2. Favourite Islamic site
3. Favourite Quran translator
4. Favourite Islamic book

thanks
jud

1. Bertrand Russell, because he wrote detailed history, philosophy, social comment and guidance for the general public in a politely confrontational and quintessentially English style and mentored some of the greatest minds of his day and today there are none like him, not even the clever pipsqueak off Radio 4
2. The Revival
3. I usually refer to Yusuf Ali but I don't have a favourite
4. The Bookseller of Kabul, which I admit is not Islamic but I've done my best

"judda" wrote:

I thought i wud create this thread since i is the youngest

Surley not younger than 16!

"judda" wrote:

what do u mean one-sided?

History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon... which might not necessariliy be true but the powerful write it and everyone believes it.

"Seraphim" wrote:

History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon... which might not necessariliy be true but the powerful write it and everyone believes it.

not true. that's far too simplistic. people don't 'write' history, they analyse sources and uncover it.

anyway maybe irf - the revival's history graduate - can lend his opinion...

"*DUST*" wrote:

"Seraphim" wrote:

History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon... which might not necessariliy be true but the powerful write it and everyone believes it.

not true. that's far too simplistic. people don't 'write' history, they analyse sources and uncover it.

Dont kid urself, History is written by the powerful and tends to be biased and one sided much like the media.

Ofcourse if you dig a little you may find a different story but why dig if everyone has already accepted it.

Being a history graduate I know that I know nothing about history.

Neverthless, there are two types of 'history':
- 'popular history'
- and 'academic history'.

'Popular history' is what most people think happend in the past because that's what their leaders have told them happened. Eg, Guy Fawkes tried to blow up parliament.

'Academic history' is what historians deal with. They are constantly analysing primary sources and questioning the 'official' version of events. Eg, the king's spy chief set Guy Fawkes up to increase the popularity of the king.

I didn't need a history degree to tell you that. This is what my history teacher in Year 9 told me.

"Seraphim" wrote:

"*DUST*" wrote:

"Seraphim" wrote:

History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon... which might not necessariliy be true but the powerful write it and everyone believes it.

not true. that's far too simplistic. people don't 'write' history, they analyse sources and uncover it.

Dont kid urself, History is written by the powerful and tends to be biased and one sided much like the media.

Ofcourse if you dig a little you may find a different story but why dig if everyone has already accepted it.

Seraphim, you are confusing depth of historical knowledge with school history books and haven't understood *DUST*'s point. As for who writes what write what you like but tell the truth.

"The Great 100" wrote:

"Seraphim" wrote:

"*DUST*" wrote:

"Seraphim" wrote:

History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon... which might not necessariliy be true but the powerful write it and everyone believes it.

not true. that's far too simplistic. people don't 'write' history, they analyse sources and uncover it.

Dont kid urself, History is written by the powerful and tends to be biased and one sided much like the media.

Ofcourse if you dig a little you may find a different story but why dig if everyone has already accepted it.

Seraphim, you are confusing depth of historical knowledge with school history books and haven't understood *DUST*'s point. As for who writes what write what you like but tell the truth.

I stand by my original statement.

It is a very simplistic and fairly meaningless statement. I wouldn't argue if only you were a little more intelligent about it such as pointing out that the whole truth is not known instead of parroting political soundbites. I imagine you are only up for such glibness when it is convenient, for instance would you say Qu'ranic historical accounts are complete and truthful or political and one-sided?