Dear Dr. Abrar Hasan:

I have never interacted with you at FOTH, so first thing first … Welcome!!

It was a delight to read some of your thoughtful posts and other friends’ responses and reactions.

For, I am not formally trained in philosophy I hope you would forgive me if I told you that I had some difficulty understanding your vantage point. However, I do interact at FoTH discussion board from time to time … here are my 2 cents:

If I understand you correctly, you hold that first principle is a blind buried-in foundational brick for any philosophy; be it a rational philosophy, an “ism” or religion where basic premises are generally accepted as ‘faith’ that is not subject to rational analysis. Hence, there is not much difference in the fabric of rational philosophy or any religion for both construct their respective philosophy on blind premises. Thus, their first principle can not be empirically verified. On these premises, rationality is akin to faith.

Respectfully, not quite that!

I think the real reason for your disappointment with fine and delightful Torontonians is difference in basic understanding of what an “ism” is. If you take ism as blind as faith, obviously, it is hard to differentiate between the two and it would be equally difficult to come up with empirical criteria to verify or falsify anything like that. An “ism” is different.

Even religion can be subjected to rational analysis. But, rejecting a religion that has conditioned a mind with tools such as ‘culture’ and ‘repetition’ is a different matter. Sometimes its not easy to erase that religious inscription. From time to time broad and generic arguments abound aiming at proving rationality of religions and blindness of rationality. It is rationalization but not rationality.

Allow me to forward definition of an “ism”, which certainly does not subscribe to any blind premises. While doing that I am cognizant of your understanding of what an “ism” is. I have issues with that understanding. An ideology, when it becomes an “ism” is a social phenomenon. Without claiming originality in the following, I had shared my understanding of an “ism” with FoTH 2 or 3 years ago. I copy and quote:

[For any ideology to be an “ism” there has to be at least 3 characteristics … An “ism” has to provide a theoretical tool for analysis of history, an ideological tool for values, culture and identity and political tool for organizing society and social structure. Limiting an “ism” to few rules, practices or events (called super-structure of history) of historical past is not “ism”. This method of analysis can be universally applied to any “ism” be it Islamic fundamentalism, Christian fundamentalism and so on]. 

Its link is as follows:

http://familyofheart.com/07/Dec01/Comments_TQ.htm

I hope you will realize that an “ism” can be subjected to rational inquiry. Would you consider it a reasonable definition of what an “ism” is? There are several issues that offshoot from here including your understanding, for example, “. … Communism's first principle is common ownership of means of production” but I wish to heartily welcome you rather than a lengthy write up.

Kind regards,