If history is read only to satisfy one's curiosity, it would be nonfunctional. History is not merely the past. If we want to construct our present and future upon valid values and norms then we must act from the background of our historic experiences. Therefore to talk about the Çanakkale (Dardanelles) Victory and the National Struggle means talking about our nowadays and future.

Also, history isn't what only has been wrote, it is what actually happened. However, because of their ethnocentric attitudes, Western orientalists have fabricated a lot of lies on history of peoples who are remained outside of the West, they still are fabricating now. Because their aims were to exploit other nations by insulting them.

Today we live in such a world of multi-variables and complex relationships that it is getting harder to comprehend and understand. In particular, “the power of discourse”, which has an increasing effect by the rapidly developing technology, is even more important in interpreting the reality people experience. Although there are various discourses available, “the dominant discourse” both shapes and describes us the world we live in. The main purpose of this speech is to discuss “the globalization discourse” and to reveal the faults, delusions of its arguments by relating them with the facts we experience. In doing this – especially keeping science-power relations in mind-, the standing point is the fact that discourse is nothing more than lie based fiction or utopia that only one meaning and conceptualization of globalization. And this conceptualization is produced in accordance with power relations which have interest in shaping the world.

In this respect, I will first talk about different and conflicting conceptualizations of globalization and discuss which conceptualization is dominant while trying to respond how and why this specific conceptualization arose by taking its historical and social background into consideration. Then, in the world which is shaped according to globalization discourse where social problems increased and existing problems deepened; I will reveal the lies, faults and delusions of the discourse, its processes and consequences which actualized in the opposite direction of the promised “little cozy world”. Finally, there will be an attempt to propose some solutions for the problems of the process.

While Greek thinkers were discussing political problems, the city-state surrounded the entire community life from politics to economy and from faith to education was standing in front of them. However the Sharia laws and the Islamic state were standing in front of classical Islamic thinkers. Hence, it was unthinkable that thinkers living in the Islamic world would move from purely rational premises while presenting their political arguments. Often they were beginning to political debates with acceptance a direct divine order, both in terms of their beliefs and the concern of legitimizing philosophy. Then they were flurrying to prove the righteousness of Sharia laws. They could not had exceeded a sense of politics stuck in Sharia. In order to exceed this vicious circle, either religion would had been excluded by a secular manner (however at that time it was neither possible nor desirable) or religion and politics would had been considered as different phenomenon (as Ibn Khaldun did in the late 13th century), by means of this the door would had been opened to new political theories. Every types of trials were required for reconsideration the institutions of religion and politics intertwined in the Islamic world. However, philosophy, which is a common foundation of both religious and political institutions, could not had been considered independently of this attempt.

By nature of philosophy, any thinker who was trying to philosophizing in the Islamic world had to first understand and conceptualize the field of culture and values s/he was in, and then to settle the fact of politics by the way of legitimize her/his own activity. If it is thought that the dominant problem of the time is to resolve the conflict between "reason" and "revelation", it is better understood that philosophy has entered into the Islamic world, where religion presents itself as politics, in the guidage of politics.

What it means to be human? Can liberty be determined or defined? Let us put it in much dramatic way: can liberty be known? Is there any couple of concepts, which human history until now has been able to produce, the definition of which defines at the same time the other concept? If we define what it means to be human we define at the same time almost immediately also the concept of liberty and if we define what liberty is we define at the same time what it means to be human. What does it mean to be human? Why are there humans? Is the sense of the fact that there are humans is determined prior to their existence or have humans themselves have to determine what the sense of their existence is? If the sense of the existence of humans is determined prior to their existence how can we know what it is? Where have we to look for if we want to know what has been determined prior to the existence of humans? But if humans themselves have to determine what it means to be human, what are the criteria which may be helpful? Has this decision to be made individually or collectively by society as a whole? Perhaps it is an individual and at the same time a collective decision.

What is liberty? If we think about liberty in relation to rights, there arises the question whether liberty means merely rights? Or rather does liberty not necessarily include at the same responsibilities? If we take liberty in this sense to include rights and responsibilities at the same time would this not contradict the very essence of the concept of liberty? What is then liberty? Is it liberty when it is said that everyone should be allowed to do what he/she wants to for example? Almost everyone ascribes to this claim. And on the other hand what does it mean to be able to say that I have lived? What does it mean to fulfil oneself?"

Ahmet İnam, with his book “LOVE”, is calling all of us again to “LOVE” that we’ve lost. To “LOVE” that presented to humanity immense meaning and source of truth. “LOVE” that is our closest state to the feeling of truth which does not only mean to reflect our truth to the others but to explore the truth of others too. “LOVE” is the possibility of building a new world. In a world woven with the meaning of: “to fully live”. “LOVE” does not live in todays world, cannot live.

We sent “LOVE” to exile.

We love the world “LOVE”, while living it’s absence like deficiency in our existence.

Meanings are our constructions, they cannot be outside of our existence.

17th and 18th Century philosophers assumes an era in the beginning of human history which all humans live asocially. The feature of this era is that there isn’t any institution like law, morality, state and religion which both provide and organize the social life. This era which is called by philosophers as “state of nature” was ended in a time in the history and social order arised. For the many thinkers, this critical point worths considering to understand the transition from the state of nature to social life: Whether this transition happens voluntarily or under the coercion?

Lord-bondage relationship is a hypothesis which is used and tried to comprehended by the philosophers which assumes that this transition is happened under the coercion. At 19th century especially Hegel and Nietzsche focused on this relationship.

In this conference their determinations on this relationship will be exposed in a critical manner.

Everything that exists is knowledge. Other living things on earth have sufficient information for life instinctively. However, humans are born without knowledge. Learning is the only way to acquire knowledge. People must establish and made knowledge on this way, they have to live according to their own doing, they must control and develop theirself and their knowledges. Humans tend to live their lives according to their knowledge level. At first sight, this human condition may appear as negative. However it is the basis and foundation for morality, state, science, art, religion, constructive-creative life, freedom, responsibility and improving oneself, briefly everything humanly. People`s existence has been established on this basis. The answer to the question of life that only humans have, is arrived at based on the above. Human want to know everything which seeing as a problem: the universe, nature, life, theirself and even the structure of knowledge seeking, briefly everything. At the beginning, there are questions and the answers individually are found to the questions. The answers transferring and becoming widespread through telling have been gathered and settled down over time and human has reached a world design for whole. This was mythology the first enveloping fiction of humans. People found the answer to a number of questions there, the answer was believed to be the truth and living with that faith, myths were kept alive.

On the other hand, research and learning were continuing at a number of places. With accumulating new knowledge, the first steps towards redesigning of a holistic universe were taken in the city of Miletos. Philosophy started at this point. Having started the philosophy, it was supposed that myths would die out. However myths were actually surviving; they were being kept alive by the faithful who had a strong connection to them. Human has no more than one mind: There is only one mind. With it, human made myths, also make philosophy and science. Then, where is the separation point? What changed when passing from myth to philosophy? How did we pass from myth to philosophy? The biggest adventure of humans is in the knowledge. The knowledge adventure reached in myths the first big peak, then began to emerge in philosophy big peaks. If there is but a single mind, how did all this originate?

There is no big difference between mind of people establishing mythology and mind of people establishing science when considering the thinking behind them. Also there is no much separation between the form of thought progeniture the basic structure of the mythos, the form of thought start and develop philosophy at the same period and the form of thought forming the roof of sciences coming up to today beginning with Renaissance. The first place we come across parallels and interactions between mythos, philosophy and science, is Aegean civilizations of antiquity.