Kweli binadamu ana 'roho'? Iko sehemu gani hasa mwilini?

[Ishmael]

Huu ndio ufafanuzi wako, katika swali kwamba roho ni nini, inakaa wapi na kazi yake ni nini?
I am happy to put you into my ignore list!!

I did already young man. Just go to post number #44 and post number 48 your answer is there. It is better to read before you complain.

 

[Ishmael]

Wewe ji-complicate to, lakini mwisho wa yote kinachokupa kiburi ni hiyo pumzi na siku ikikatika tunakufukia huna thamani tena hapa duniani. What is the source of pumzi?

I have Jesus in me and not hate of God just like non theists.

 

[Mourinho]

Roho ni uhai kwa maana nyingine....

Lakini pia ukijifunza roho ni nini utajua kwamba roho haiko limited na time and space kwa maana kuwa inaweza kuwepo hapa na kule na kwingine pia na haya yako proved na sayansi

Nadhani ulishapitia mambo ya quantum physics na quantum mechanics .......!!

Kama roho = uhai then napata tabu kidogo kuelewa kwamba roho/uhai 'haiko limited na time and space', in fact, sijui chochote kinacho exist out of time and space.
Siijui quantum physics & mechanics

 

[descarte]

What you are essentially saying is "nothing is knowable".

That itself begs the question.

If nothing is knowable, how would you know that nothing is knowable?

Isn't the conclusion itself that "nothing is knowable" self contradictory?

I never said nothing is knowable, i do claim that our knowledge is limited because we only no through impression, i mean what is presented to us by phenomena. If that is compelling then what is the impression of the soul.
There is no any question which is begging in ma argument, it seem you did get well.

Saying there is self contradiction, i don't understand because i did not what you said.

 

[a4afrika]

ROHO=UKAMILIFU.

Eiyer hata mimi sijui roho ni nini na inakaa wapi, kama unaweza kusaidia, pamoja na JingalaFalsafa, juve2012 na Rakims

Mkuu wangu, labda nifikishe tafakari hii kwenu. Roho ni UKAMILIFU (sio perfectness). Kinachofanya uitwe binadamu, mnyama, kiti, ulimwengu, maji, upepo, n.k. Tofauti ni kwamba, zipo roho hai na roho mfu pia, yaani ukamilifu katika viumbe hai na ule wa viumbe visivyokuwa hai.

Anaitwa binadamu, kuku au panga, ni kwa sababu vimefikia ukamilifu wao wa kuitwa hivyo. Chuma bado kwa muhunzi ni chuma tu, kikishatoka ni jembe, panga au kisu,n.k.

Katika viumbe hai(wanyama), uhai ndio the most valuable element ya ku-determine Ukamilifu wa hicho kiumbe!
Wakati katika viumbe visivyokuwa hai mambo kama size, shape, number, ...hu-determine ukamilifu wa kitu. Jabali, jiwe, kokoto, mchanga, vumbi... Mti, mbao, kiti,n.k. Mbao zinafikia UKAMILIFU fulani ziitwe meza au kiti au

kabati, n.k.
Nimewasilisha!
Anaita sasa!

 

[Mourinho]

ROHO=UKAMILIFU.

Mkuu wangu, labda nifikishe tafakari hii kwenu. Roho ni UKAMILIFU (sio perfectness). Kinachofanya uitwe binadamu, mnyama, kiti, ulimwengu, maji, upepo, n.k. Tofauti ni kwamba, zipo roho hai na roho mfu pia, yaani ukamilifu katika viumbe hai na ule wa viumbe visivyokuwa hai.
Anaitwa binadamu, kuku au panga, ni kwa sababu vimefikia ukamilifu wao wa kuitwa hivyo. Chuma bado kwa muhunzi ni chuma tu, kikishatoka ni jembe, panga au kisu,n.k.
Katika viumbe hai(wanyama), uhai ndio the most valuable element ya ku-determine Ukamilifu wa hicho kiumbe!
Wakati katika viumbe visivyokuwa hai mambo kama size, shape, number, ...hu-determine ukamilifu wa kitu. Jabali, jiwe, kokoto, mchanga, vumbi... Mti, mbao, kiti,n.k. Mbao zinafikia UKAMILIFU fulani ziitwe meza au kiti au kabati, n.k.
Nimewasilisha!
Anaita sasa!

Ahsante Mkuu, ila niseme tu umeniongezea maswali. Kwa hiyo roho ni hali na siyo kitu?
Na kwa mfano tu, inamaana mimi ni binadamu mkamilifu kwa sababu nina uhai? Na waliotangulia mbele za haki ni binadamu wasio na ukamilifu?

 

[Mahluk]

Unataka kujua roho ilipo jitie kitanzi kisha ujitundike juu ya mti utaijua roho ilipo

 

[Osaka]

Unataka kujua roho ilipo jitie kitanzi kisha ujitundike juu ya mti utaijua roho ilipo

Haya ni majibu ya kihuni bwana mdogo!
Bado hujajibu maswali ya mleta uzi.

 

[Kiranga]

I never said nothing is knowable, i do claim that our knowledge is limited because we only no through impression, i mean what is presented to us by phenomena. If that is compelling then what is the impression of the soul.
There is no any question which is begging in ma argument, it seem you did get well.
Saying there is self contradiction, i don't understand because i did not what you said.

If our knowledge is limited and all we "know" is through impression, essentially then nothing is truly knowable.

You may not realize this implication of your statement, but it is there.

 

[descarte]

If our knowledge is limited and all we "know" is through impression, essentially then nothing is truly knowable.

You may not realize this implication of your statement, but it is there.

I don't concur with you at all because when i say sth is limited does not mean that it is unaccessible. saying that nothing truly is knowable is self-contradiction because nothing presuppose something. called nothing.

 

[Kiranga]

I don't concur with you at all because when i say sth is limited does not mean that it is unaccessible. saying that nothing truly is knowable is self-contradiction because nothing presuppose something. called nothing.

At least you agree in your contradiction.

If our knowledge is limited, and we know only be impression, not the real thing, how could we truly know anything?

 

[Mr. Mangi]

Ipo puani

 

[Paul S.S]

Roho ni mambo ya imani

Roho inaweza kufananishwa na uhai sababu tu mwili wa binadamu unaposhindwa kufanya kazi zake zote completely tunasema uhai umeisha yaani umekufa

Sasa kiimani wanaamini roho inapotoka ndio mwili unaisha kufanya kazi zake Zote

Na roho ndio inaaminika itakwenda huko mbiguni au jehanamu au kwenye hukumu au kugeuka kiumbe mwingine kulingana na imani za dini mbalimbali

Lakini kisayansi hakuna kitu kinaitwa roho

 

[descarte]

At least you agree in your contradiction.

If our knowledge is limited, and we know only be impression, not the real thing, how could we truly know anything?

those words you are the one who used them. i never said nothing is knowable.
i wanna ask you a question. What do we know?

 

[Kiranga]

those words you are the one who used them. i never said nothing is knowable.
i wanna ask you a question. What do we know?

Before answering that, I would ask you, what do you mean by know?

 

[descarte]

Before answering that, I would ask you, what do you mean by know?

Exactly that is my question to you. can you answer please

 

[Kiranga]

Exactly that is my question to you. can you answer please

To be precise, your question was, "what do we know" and not "what is know".

The two are different. The former presupposes that we know what know is. The latter doesn't.

Now, what is this "know" and how do you isolate it from all the mundane illusions of thinking that we know while actually not knowing?

If you can't answer this, you are abdicating the ckaim yhat we can know anything.

How could you not if you can't tell us what is to know?

 

[descarte]

To be precise, your question was, "what do we know" and not "what is know".

The two are different. The former presupposes that we know what know is. The latter doesn't.

Now, what is this "know" and how do you isolate it from all the mundane illusions of thinking that we know while actually not knowing?

If you can't answer this, you are abdicating the ckaim yhat we can know anything.

How could you not if you can't tell us what is to know?

okay, it very hard to define "to know" in a exhaustive definition. I think we can have a common ground that human beings are capable of knowing but the question come "what can we know"?

 

[Ishmael]

Roho ni mambo ya imani

Roho inaweza kufananishwa na uhai sababu tu mwili wa binadamu unaposhindwa kufanya kazi zake zote completely tunasema uhai umeisha yaani umekufa

Sasa kiimani wanaamini roho inapotoka ndio mwili unaisha kufanya kazi zake Zote

Na roho ndio inaaminika itakwenda huko mbiguni au jehanamu au kwenye hukumu au kugeuka kiumbe mwingine kulingana na imani za dini mbalimbali

Lakini kisayansi hakuna kitu kinaitwa roho

Give us scientific evidence to support your words and or refute the thread scientifically, in contrast, according to non theism, humans are chemical animals, and chemical animals can not die but change into another form of chemical.

What happened when people dies?

 

[Ishmael]

If our knowledge is limited and all we "know" is through impression, essentially then nothing is truly knowable.

You may not realize this implication of your statement, but it is there.

You are wrong. All we know is not through impression, in contrast, all of our ideas are copies of impression because it is hard if not impossible for us to think of anything which we have not antecedently felt by our senses. ..i