As humans, we are inevitably confronted with daily life’s affairs and needs; the sorrows, pains and joys of people, rich and poor, elderly and young, children of all ages, know no bounds.
The good, the evil, the submissive, the rebellious, the sad, the joyful, the homeless, the refugee, the orphan, the bereaved, the hungry, the cold, the lover, the unemployed, the enslaved and suppressed, the longing, the despondent, the hater, the abominate, the criminal, the influential, the weak, the strong, the aspiring, the contented, the noble, the mean, the oppressive, the oppressed, the pessimist, the optimist, the indifferent, the outsider, the willing, the unabashed, the absurd, the generous, the miser, the struggler, the opportunist, the illiterate, the literate, the racist, the indulgent, the fabricator, the liar, the hypocrite, the believer, the infidel, the atheist, the cute, the normal, the familiar, the outstanding, the writer, and reader, and the contemplator are the genuine sources of philosophy’s major questions; it is the philosophy of values, life, death, and destiny. Essentially, philosophy originated from pondering people’s daily issues and the never-ending historical determinants of human beings.
Unassigned by anyone, the philosopher is solely concerned with all these determinants of being. For this philosopher, existence and its determinations based on his inner reason are always preoccupied. He reveals that general reason, dormant in the realm of illusory certainties, quickly builds a hostile and aggressive relationship with philosophy and philosophers, as well as those who think of them, their reality, and their destiny.
We and Enlightenment
Dr Ahmed Barqawi
For over a century, the question of enlightenment has been present in our Arab realism and has been debated by mindful intellectuals. The author of this article has published more than one study in response to the topic, “What is Enlightenment?” And every time he addresses enlightenment, he finds himself in need of more enriching answers.
Before embarking on investigating an answer to our relations with enlightenment, which I chose as a title for this article, let us indulge in what appears to be something unimportant, i.e. (I) the separate nominative pronoun denoting the awareness of a group of itself. Whereas (we) is the plural of (I), and just like (I) refers to both the masculine and the feminine, (we) also signifies both plural genders. When a certain group, or its unassigned representative, uses the pronoun (we), it signifies they are aware of an identity denoting the group (from nation to the group); they realise the common among members of the group.
However, the speaker (I) cannot embrace the characteristics of the group, and the group that shares a characteristic cannot be made up of similar individuals. So, who are we when you ask the (I)? It declares its affiliation to the intended (we).
(We) here in the form of the question concerns the residents of the region extending from the Ocean to the Gulf, with its Arab majority and its various minorities. It includes the inhabitants of the Arab region, their classes and groups, countries and regions, religions, sects and factions, and their contradictions and differences.
