Newsgroups: soc.culture.turkish
Subject: Re: Ata-turk - Trator or Ok dude?  
From: Hakki_Kocabas@kcbbs.gen.nz (Hakki Kocabas)
Date: 21 Nov 92 15:48:59 GMT
Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, New Zealand

  
> As for "covering the head" goes, I see it ridiculous to prohibit  
> it at some places. However, I find the imposition of the   
> hijab on women' not only "ridiculous", but as a transgression against  
> humanity in its most repulsive form -  the abusing of women'.  
> Selim Guncer  
  
for the sake of argument I will shorten that to:  
  
"'hicab is abusing of women'"  
  
and then let us investigate such a remark:  
  
PRELUDE  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------  
"The philosophy exists only as questions, not as answers"  
  
Wahle, R., Die Tragikomoedie der Weisheit. Die Ergebniss und die  
Geschichte des Philosophierens (Wien/Leipzig, 1915), p.41.  
  
"The best is silence."  
  
Whale, R. (1915), p.41.  
  
"The Investigations contain 784 questions. Only 110 of these are  
answered; and seventy of the answers are meant to be wrong."  
  
Anthony Kenny, in "Aquinas and Wittgenstein", Downside Review 77  
(1959), p.235.  
  
""In philosophy", he wrote in RFM, "it is always good to put a  
question instead of an answer to a question" (p.147). (He went on,  
however, to question this statement!)"  
  
Oswald Hanfling, Questions and Answers in Wittgenstein's  
Philosophy, WITTGENSTEIN EINE NEUBEWERTUNG II, (Wien, 1990), p.123.  
  
--------------------------------------------------------------------  
                             *  
                           *   *    
  
AI PHILOSOPHICAL INVESTIGATOR's QUESTIONAIRE DATABASE  
  
Did you invent that 'hicab is abusing women' as a fiction ?  
In your use, can you say that a reality corresponds to   
'hicab is abusing women' if it is true and we can assert it ?  
If yes, so you have a use for 'hicab is abusing women'  
  
Do you use 'hicab is abusing women' as an explanation of the use of the words 
  
How did you learn the expression 'hicab is abusing women' ?  
Has anyone explained it to you by refering to sensations, images or  
thoughts that accompany hearing 'hicab is abusing women' ?  
  
Can you construct an application of this-symbol/these-symbols ?  
Is this a definition about a 'hicab/women/abusing' ?  
  
In your use of it, is time enter into 'hicab is abusing women' ?  
Do you use 'hicab is abusing women' to make forecasts/predictions ?  
  
If you use it as a mathematical proposition, can you prove it in  
mathematics according to certain rules ?  
  
In your use of 'hicab is abusing women', can you say nothing which   
happens will ever make me/us call it false or give up ?  
  
Would you use 'hicab is abusing women' if in its application things   
were different ?  
  
Is 'hicab is abusing women' useful in experience ?  
  
If 'hicab is abusing women' is a rule, do you know how is it used ?  
  
Do you want to join different techniques with the use of   
'hicab is abusing women' ?  
  
Do you want to use 'hicab is abusing women' as a projection ?  
  
Do you want to make 'hicab is abusing women' independent of experience ?   
So you want to lay down 'hicab is abusing women' as a foundation which   
provides a form of representation ? a method of description ?  
  
If you don't marvel at the fact that the propositions of arithmetic  
(e.g. the multiplication tables) are "absolutely certain", then why  
should one be astonishted that the proposition 'hicab is abusing women'   
is so equally ?  
  
Can you say "I don't have to change my opinion that 'hicab is abusing women'"?
  
I don't know what you mean, tell me exactly what you mean, or else  
I may be cheated.  
I need to know how it is used, do you know how to use it ?  
  
An expression has any amount of use, then how if I tell you a sentence  
'hicab is abusing women', can you have the use in your mind in an instant ?  
  
Is this similar to nonsense or to something that is surprising ?  
Are you inclined to call this nonsense ?  
  
Is this nearer to the ordinary case or is it nearer to the absurt  
case ?  
  
Is that 'hicab is abusing women' a rule about the use of a symbol or symbols ?
  
Was 'hicab is abusing women' first introduced because of experience and now   
you have made it independent of experience; a rule of expression for talking  
about your experiences ?  
  
Is it true that you have arranged your notation in such a way that  
'hicab is NOT abusing women' is meaningless ? and has been excluded ?   
Is it excluded for experiencial reasons, however the statement that   
it is impossible is not an experiencial statement ?  
  
When you use 'hicab is NOT abusing women' can you say it is impossible ?   
If so, is this a rule of expression ?  
Is this 'hicab is abusing women' a paradigm/an-object-of-comaprison and   
you want to use it as a model ?  
If yes, is it useful ?  
        is it useless ?  
  
Do you use 'hicab is abusing women' as a picture of an experiment ?  
  
Do you use 'hicab is abusing women' as a stadard for the experiment,   
so it is non-temporal ?  
  
Do you use it as a historic description of an event, so it is temporal ?  
  
Do you use 'hicab is abusing women' to construct concepts ?  
  
Do you use 'hicab is abusing women' to describe objects ?  
  
Do you want to fix and teach 'hicab is abusing women' as a technique ?  
  
Do you want 'hicab is abusing women' to serve as a paradigm which is timeless 
  
Do you use 'hicab is abusing women' as a standard of comparison as a   
paradigm for the technique ?  
  
Do you want to make up your mind what you want to do with 'hicab is   
abusing women' ?  
  
Before you answer the following questions don't gaze at a form of  
words forgetting my asking you what is done with it. Don't gaze to  
your own soul to see if two expressions have the same meaning but  
gaze how you use it.  
  
In your use of 'hicab is abusing women' is it meaningful to affix to   
'hicab is abusing women' by definition ?  
  
Does 'hicab is abusing women' have its sense in a system of proofs ?  
  
Do you want this sentence 'hicab is abusing women' to work ?  
  
Would it is true that 'hicab is abusing women' make any difference   
how you use it later ?  
  
Leave alone it's meaning does 'hicab is NOT abusing women' have a use ?   
If not why don't you eliminate it ? If you do that wouldn't it be a   
 modification other than closing certain doors ? Would it ?  
  
This shows what you do with 'hicab is abusing women' : Have you chosen   
'hicab is abusing women' to get to a certain point ?  
You don't know what 'hicab is abusing women' means ? Want to try again ?  
  
Do you have grounds for doubting that 'hicab is abusing women' ?  
  
Has experience shown it to be unnecessary that 'hicab is NOT abusing women' ? 
Can you say that experience always proves you right that 'hicab is abusing   
women'?  
  
Does 'hicab is abusing women' state part of the picture you form to help   
you in the judgement of various situations ?  
  
Do you need to satisfy yourself by saying that 'hicab is abusing women'   
to be able to act ?  
  
If I pronounce the opposite of that 'hicab is abusing women' would you   
regard me as demented ?  
  
Can you say: I cannot give you any grounds that 'hicab is abusing women',   
but if you learn more you too will think the same ?  
  
Does it make sense to doubt that 'hicab is abusing women' ?  
Can you doubt that 'hicab is abusing women' ?  
  
What is it like to make such a mistake as that 'hicab is NOT abusing women' ? 
  
What is it like to discover that 'hicab is abusing women' was a mistake ?  
What could a mistake here be like that 'hicab is NOT abusing women' ?  
  
Is this 'hicab is abusing women' supposed to be an empirical proposition ?  
  
Is the hypothesis 'hicab is abusing women' possible ?  
  
Can you say if I am wrong about this 'hicab is abusing women', I have no   
guarantee that anything I say is true ?  
  
Can you say if you are wrong about this 'hicab is abusing women', you have no 
guarantee that anything you say is true ?  
  
What would the practical effects of this belief 'hicab is abusing women' be ? 
Is it difficult to imagine why anyone should believe the contrary ?  
What could induce you to believe the opposite ?  
Can you imagine the opposite of 'hicab is abusing women' ?  
  
Is this proposition 'hicab is abusing women' must be solid for you ?  
  
Is this 'hicab is abusing women' a fact that you are certain of to be   
certain of the meaning of your words ?  
  
Can you say that it stands fast for me and many others that 'hicab is   
abusing women' ?  
Is it possible for you to doubt that 'hicab is abusing women' ? Why ?  
Could you try to doubt that 'hicab is abusing women' ?  
Can you say everything speaks for 'hicab is abusing women' ?  
Can you say nothing against 'hicab is abusing women' ?  
If you doubt that 'hicab is abusing women' how would your doubt come out   
in practice ?  
If it makes no difference at all enjoy your doubt !!!  
  
What are you doing in believing that 'hicab is abusing women' ?  
What are you believing if you believe 'hicab is abusing women' ?  
Can you say that one can only believe that 'hicab is abusing women',   
and even that one can't believe ?  
Why do you believe that 'hicab is abusing women' ?  
    Have you reasons ?  
    Do you need reasons ?  
On what ground do you believe that 'hicab is abusing women' ?  
  
Is this 'hicab is abusing women' revealed by God ?  
    via which messenger ?  
    in which scripture ?  
  
What does this belief 'hicab is abusing women' consist in ?  
  
Why should it be possible to have grounds for believing that 'hicab is   
abusing women' if it isn't possible to be certain ?  
  
Can you say: nothing in the world will convince me of the opposite  
that 'hicab is abusing women' ?  
Can you say: for me this fact 'hicab is abusing women' is at the bottom of all
knowledge ?  
Can you say: I shall give upother things but not this 'hicab is abusing women'
Can you say: I can't be wrong about it that 'hicab is abusing women' ?  
Can you say: I cannot depart from this judgement without toppling  
all other judgements with it that 'hicab is abusing women' ?  
  
Can you say: I cannot be making mistake about it that 'hicab is abusing women'
If your use of that 'hicab is abusing women' is not to be a merely an   
observation about grammar, can you give the circumstances in which this  
expression 'hicab is abusing women' functions ?  
  
If you doubt that 'hicab is abusing women', would you have to doubt all sorts 
things that stands fast for you ?  
  
Can you say that 'hicab is abusing women' is a hypothesis, which as you   
believe, is again and again completely confirmed ?  
Are you not ready to let anything count as a disproof of this  
proposition 'hicab is abusing women' ?  
  
Here you have arrived at a foundation of all your beliefs, what  
would it be like to doubt 'hicab is abusing women' ?  
What would you believe if you didn't believe that 'hicab is abusing women' ?  
So far you have no system at all within which this doubt might  
exist ? You have arrived at the rock bottom of your convictions ?  
and one might almost say that these foundation walls are carried by  
the whole house ?  
  
Suppose it wasn't true that 'hicab is abusing women' ?  
How should you imagine the mistake being discovered ?  
  
If you know that 'hicab is abusing women', do you also know, or do you   
only believe, that no future experience will seem to contradict your knowledge
If yes that is after all a decision. It is possible that you will  
act against it.  
  
Newsgroups: soc.culture.turkish