Totemism – an instantiation [a representation of an idea in the form of an instance of it] of how groups of humanity perceived the non-human world as full of enchantment and spiritual qualities. Totemism as expressed in witchcraft: Fylgjur animals exist as helping spirits, and contrast with shamanic patron animals which transform men into god warriors.
The well-being of the fylgja is intimately tied to that of its owner – for example, if the fylgja dies, its owner also dies. Its character and form share an intimate connection bond; a person of noble birth might have a phoenix fylgja, a savage and violent person, might choose a snake.
The tears of Fawkes, neutralized the Basilisk poison. But after Hermione broke Harry’s wand, J. K. Rowling revealed that Harry, the boy who lived, had to die. Voldamort likewise ruled death through his Horcruxes. How the two respected their totem wands, became a defining theme. The power of the phoenix: a mythical Greek bird that cyclically regenerates/born again.
Totemism goes together with: “the law of the jungle”. An initiate candidate begins by training to imitate specific totem beasts. As his training progresses, imitation matures unto total identification. The warrior or priest, like as found in the marital arts of ancient Kung Fu, students strive to duplicate the spiritual traits of specific spirit animals, like the praying mantis or the tiger. The ideal, to go beyond the confines of humanity and become a divine predator. The master of this meditation masters the magik of shape shifting.
Ancient Totemism practices, dominant western philosophies have largely subsumed. The problem of inductive reasoning, frequently a person presupposes that a sequence of events in the future will occur as it always has in the past. “All observed swans have white feathers. Therefore, all swans are white”. This inductive reasoning flourished till the discovery of black swans.
Habits play a larger role in Hume’s causal, cause & effect, reasoning. If the sun has risen every day so far, then it will also rise tomorrow. This idea sums up the principle of the uniformity of nature. Hume rejects this premise because probability statistical arguments always draw on experience — hence they need to define a term by using that identical term. Herein defines the problem of inductive reasoning!!
We expect nature to function as if it existed as a constant. Observed patterns repeated with regularity, as observed in the past, that these “fixed behaviors” shall continue into the future. Known as the “Principle of the Uniformity of Nature” (PUN), this theory underpins the inductive reasoning employed by both military science and politicians. The premise that the “Laws of Nature,” will continue to hold in the future as they have held in the past, describes virtually all scientific theory.
But according to Hume’s Critique: Belief in PUN exists only as an irrational belief. Logical reasoning (Relations of Ideas), lacks truth. PUN cannot stand as an established observed fact, without circularity.
In the ancient world there were two main skeptical traditions. Academic skepticism took the dogmatic position that knowledge was not possible; Pyrrhonian skeptics, even rejected skepticism itself. Radical skepticism results in paradoxical conclusions that one cannot know anything—including that one cannot know about knowing anything. Socrates, for example, did not believe that knowledge was possible. He believed that the first step in the direction of knowledge – recognition of one’s ignorance.
The essence of the Socratic method, to convince the interlocutor participating in that dialogue, that Man cannot grasp knowledge. Rather that human error causes Man to confuse feelings felt with knowledge. Feelings, like colors, do not rationally exist, any more than a man can grasp a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.
In inductive reasoning, one makes a series of observations and infers, based on them, some new claim. For instance, from a series of observations that a woman walks her dog by the market at 8 am on Monday, it seems valid to infer that next Monday she will do the same, or that, in general, the woman walks her dog by the market every Monday. That next Monday the woman walks by the market merely adds to the series of observations. These repeated observations do not prove she in fact will walk by the market next Monday. Regardless of the number of observations, that the woman always walks by the market at 8 am on Monday. Hume argued that we cannot make the speculative claim of even “more probable”. Since this assumption assumes that the past predicts the future.
The flaws of inductive reasoning learns from the famous story about a turkey. Fed every morning without fail, following the laws of induction the turkey assumed the morning feeding as its “predestination”. Then came Thanks Giving Day, in the morning, the turkey lost its head.
Circular logic: a logical fallacy wherein the reasoner begins with the desired conclusion. The components of a circular argument, sometimes even contain some logical validity. This fallacy argues that if the premises hold validity, then so too the conclusion. The premises require just as much evidence as does the conclusion need proof. The argument fails to persuade due to these inherent flaws of reasoning.
The idea that a person should accept the premises of an argument based solely because they happen to agree with its conclusion. An obvious example of this false logic: Israel stole and occupies Balestinian lands. The premise that Balestine once existed as an Independent country provides no evidence for the conclusion reached: Jews stole and occupy Balestinian lands. Begging the question bears a strong connection with circular reasoning. In modern parlance, the two generally refer to the same thing. A common structure of circular reasoning: “A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true.”
This fallacy, wherein the reasoner often begins with the desired hoped for conclusion. The components of a circular argument, it validates the conclusion and therefore likewise assumes that the premises hold equal validity. The problem with such flawed inductive reasoning, commonly employed by NGO’s, they start with a condemnation for the failure to reached the goal – an Independent Balestinian State – and use that condemnation as their point of inference to likewise invalidate the premise of the Jewish State.
Rationalism rejected empiricism, promoted by John Locke, a leading philosopher of British empiricism (1632 -1704). Locke argued that empiricism bases itself on the presumption that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience. By contrast, rationalists believed that reality has an intrinsically logical structure.
Because of this, the rationalists argued that certain truths exist and that the intellect can directly grasp these truths. Rationalism, a methodology or theory in which the criterion of truth, does not depend upon sensory sensory perception, but rather intellectual and deductive logic. The rationalists had such a high confidence in reason that empirical proof and physical evidence they regarded as unnecessary to ascertain certain truths. This philosophy holds that Man can grasp concepts and knowledge independent from empirical sense experience.
Herein concludes the learning on this the Av Mishna of יבמות.
Conflict Resolution 