A Compilation of Islamic Philosophy and Theology [Edited]

A Compilation of Islamic Philosophy and Theology [Edited]0%

A Compilation of Islamic Philosophy and Theology [Edited] Author:
Publisher: Ansariyan Publications – Qum
Category: Islamic Philosophy

A Compilation of Islamic Philosophy and Theology [Edited]

This book is corrected and edited by Al-Hassanain (p) Institue for Islamic Heritage and Thought

Author: Aliyu Yunus Sakande
Publisher: Ansariyan Publications – Qum
Category: visits: 10642
Download: 4127

A Compilation of Islamic Philosophy and Theology [Edited]
search inside book
  • Start
  • Previous
  • 25 /
  • Next
  • End
  •  
  • Download HTML
  • Download Word
  • Download PDF
  • visits: 10642 / Download: 4127
Size Size Size
A Compilation of Islamic Philosophy and Theology [Edited]

A Compilation of Islamic Philosophy and Theology [Edited]

Author:
Publisher: Ansariyan Publications – Qum
English

This book is corrected and edited by Al-Hassanain (p) Institue for Islamic Heritage and Thought


Note:

Actually this book is taken from Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy by the compiler.

A Compilation of Islamic

Philosophy and Theology [Edited]

Compiled: by Aliyu Yunus Sakande

Table of Contents

Preface 4

Chapter One: What is Philosophy?. 6

The absolute existent and its laws 6

The Definition of Philosophy. 7

Questions 8

Notes 9

Chapter Two: Research Methodology in Philosophy  10

A Priori and Posterior Propositions 10

The first Point 10

The Second Point 11

Rational and Empirical Forms of Knowledge 11

Philosophy is Rational Knowledge 11

Example: The law of Causality is not empirical 11

Demonstration. 13

Questions 14

Notes 15

Chapter Three: The Relation between Science and Philosophy  16

The impact of science on Philosophy. 16

Philosophy after Science 16

The Scientific Theory raises a Philosophical Question. 16

The Scientific Theory as a step to Philosophical Demonstration. 17

The Scientific Theory determines the Extensions of the Philosophical Theory  17

Philosophy before Science 17

The Impact of Philosophy on Science 18

The Dependence of Science on Philosophy in Proving a Subject 18

Dependence of Science on Philosophy in Ensuring the Universal and Necessity of its Laws 19

Dependence of Science on Other Philosophical Presuppositions 22

The Priority of Philosophy over Science 23

Chapter Four: Is Learning Philosophy Necessary?  25

Necessity and its Criterion. 25

The uses of Philosophy and their evolution. 26

1- Satisfying the Sense of Curiosity. 26

2- Removing Double Ignorance 27

3- The Indispensable Foundation of Life. 27

Defining the Border between Sense and Reason. 28

1- A Holistic Outlook. 29

2- A Profound Outlook. 29

Providing The Presuppositions of the other fields of Study. 30

Providing The Fundamental Principle of Systems and Movement 31

Laying the Foundation of Worldviews 32

Questions 34

Chapter Five: Necessity, Impossibility, and Possibility  35

Necessity. 35

Necessity and impossibility. 35

Impossibility by essence and impossibility by other 36

Necessity by essence and necessity byother 37

Possibility by essence 38

Compatibly of possibility by essence with necessity or impossibility by other 39

Question. 40

Notes For further explanation. 41

Chapter Six: Ashariyya and Mu‘tazila 42

1. Historical Survey. 42

2. Cosmology. 43

3. The Five Principles 44

4. The Unity of God. 44

5. Divine Justice and Human Destiny. 46

Chapter Six: Ibn Sina. 48

Life and Works 48

Division of sciences 49

Logic 50

Physics 52

Metaphysics 55

Notes 59

Chapter Seven: Mulla Sadra: His Teachings 61

Mulla Sadra and earlier Islamic Philosophy. 61

The synthesis of previous schools of thought and modes of knowing. 62

The study of being. 63

Trans-substantial motion and creation of the world. 65

The union of the intelligent and the intelligible 67

The imaginal world and the archetypes 68

Eschatology and resurrection. 69

Some other principles of Sadrian teachings 71

Mulla Sadra’s Qur’anic commentaries 72

The influence of Mulla Sadra 73

Chapter Eight: Al-Kindi 75

Notes 83

Bibliography. 85

Chapter Nine: Al-Farabi 88

Life and works 88

Logic, phIilosophy of language and epistemology. 89

Psychology and philosphy of mind. 91

Metaphysics 95

Practical philosophy. 96

Al-Farabi’s subsequent influence 99

Notes 100

BIBLIOGRAPHY. 102

Index of term. 103

Preface

Although most of the educated people usually have no exact definition of many of the science, except for philosophy, they are well acquainted with them. For example, psychology or biology are, but know nothing about philosophy. Some think that philosophy is a set of pompous, fallacious and meaningless words that can never be fully understood. Others hold that ‘’ philosophy is a matter of fabrication; it depends on personal taste and interest and has no standard or criterion. Therefore, with no Philosophical background, they grant themselves the right to express their views and on listening to a philosophical discussion, given their opinion, or without studying or deeply understanding an argument, reject it. When they, cannot prove their points or on meeting some objection, they say ‘’the views of every person should be respected!

What is about philosophy that despite their ignorance of the subject most people claim to know it? What is the difference between philosophy and science? Why is it that the people do not have the same attitude toward thesciences? Why don’t the same persons express their opinions onmathematics, physics and chemistry?

This may have different reasons. One reason is that many science have their own particular terminology in which they do not use common conventional words, unlike philosophy, which use such commonly used words as ‘’ existence’’ ‘’ non - existence ‘’ ‘’cause’’ ‘’effect’’ ‘’possibility’’ ‘’necessity’’ ‘’potential’’ ‘’actual’’ ‘’originated’’ ‘’ per - eternal‘’ ‘’prior’’ ‘’ posterior’’ ‘’ the knower’’ and ‘’the know’’ Another reason is that to show their technical terms some of these science use special signs and to demonstrate their laws they use formulas, while this is not the case in philosophy.

Finally, one of the main reasons is that despite their ignorance of philosophy people are involved in a good number of philosophical questions. Most people, educated or uneducated, do not have even a general idea what philosophy is, what it investigates, its status among the various branch of the humanities, or even its use.

In shorts there are very few people who have the least knowledge of philosophy, and naturally every person fancies himself a friend of philosophy. He mistakenly imagines a formal science and thinks that this is philosophy, once honoured as the highest branch of knowledge. Nevertheless, as shall be described later, some of the questions of philosophy are commonly dealt with.

They are faced by all people and demand their response, and every person, educated or uneducated, invariably has to give a response, correct or incorrect, to them. However, most people do not know that these questions are philosophical.

Therefore, before we embark upon our discussion it is appropriate to introduce philosophy in following terms.

1- What is philosophy, what is the subject of study and what is its definition?

2- What is the research methodology followed in philosophy? Is it sensible and empirical or intellectual? Why is such approach followed?

3- What is the relationship between science and philosophy? In other words, what is the status of philosophy among the different fields of knowledge?

4- Why should we should philosophy?

5- In this section and in the following four chapters we will discuss the above questions.

Chapter One: What is Philosophy?

This chapter tries to provide a definition of philosophy. Real universal sciences are often defined by their subjects. Thus, in order to define philosophy, we have to know its subject and for that purpose we have to know what the subject of science in general is. In treating the subject of science, we start our discussion by comparing philosophy with other real universal science considering the variety of questions they discuss(the scope of their realm).

The scope of philosophy To understand the range of philosophy, it is better to consider the following philosophical question:

Is there a reality outside the mind? If there is, is it a knowable reality? I f so, what, essentially, is knowledge?

Is there a substance called a ‘corporeal body ‘or there are only corporeal accidents, such a colour, shape, heat and so on?

If there is such a substance, is it compound or simple ?if it is compound , what is its simplest part?

Do accidents have any existence other than the substance they characterize?

Does God, that is a being who is the cause of all things but needless of any cause, exist?

Doe God have attributes? if so , in what way do these attributes exist? Are they identical with existence of God or different from it ? Are they limited or unlimited?

Does spirit exist? If so, is it material or immaterial? What about angles?

Is there life after death?

What is movement and where does it occur? Does it occur only in the attribute and accidents possessed by bodies or it takes place in the depth of their existence as well? Do time and space exist? If so, what is their reality?

Does the world have a temporal beginning and ending?

Does it have any spatially?

Does an existent become non-existent or vice versa? Once an existent become nonexistent is it possible to bring it back into existence.

These are a few of the issue discussed in philosophy. But a careful consideration of even these few questions will show how extensive the realm of philosophy is. It discusses both the mind and the external world. Its investigations range from the simplest parts of the body to spirit, angels and god. It studies the accidents and the appearance and also the essence and the depth of things. It concerns itself with all that exists in the world and in the hereafter, from time without beginning to eternity without end. Therefore, in contrast to other fields of learning, the philosophical search is not limited to a certain pare of the universe. Why is that so? The answer should be looked for in the subject of science and philosophy. In general, each real science has certain subject, which determines the range of its issues. The subject of each of the sciences encompasses only a certain part of the universe, but the subject of philosophy is general and inclusive.

The absolute existent and its laws

As it has been mentioned above, the laws of all science deal with the special existent and the one condition for the applicability of these laws to an existent is that the existent should have a special quiddity. Now, are there any laws whose application to an existent is not conditional by the special quiddity of that existent, so that its mere; existence ‘’ would suffice and the presence or absence of a special quiddity would be irrelevant? In other words, are there any laws that are laws of ‘’ being’’ rather than law of ‘’ being with a special essence’’, laws of the absolute existent than those of an existent qua its having a special quiddity, and in philosophical term, law of “being qua being”? The answer is yes.

Philosophical laws are indeed of this nature. For example, the law of causality (every essentially possible existent needs a cause) which is a philosophical law, includes every possible existent, whether that existent has or does not have a quiddity is a man, a horse, a tree, gold, or an angel.

The subject Of Philosophy To Summarize, the laws of sciences are the laws of the special existent and apply to an existent only qua its possessing an essential determination; the laws of philosophy, however, are the laws of the absolute existent and do not require that it should possess a particular quiddity as a condition of their application. We may conclude that the subject of all other sciences is the special existent, that is, an existent qua its special essential determination. All other science study existents once their quiddities are determination. In other words, the subject of all other science is quiddity while that of philosophy is existence or being.

The Definition of Philosophy

Keeping in mind its subject, we can define philosophy as follows: Philosophy is that field of knowledge in which characteristic of the absolute existent are discussed. It is that field of knowledge in which qualities of ‘’ being’’ are studied, and as is commonly said, it is that knowledge in which the states of an existent qua existent are discussed.

Questions

1- Besides philosophy is there any other science that may include all things within its realm? Why?

2- What is the subject of science and what role does it have in science?

3- What is the meaning of terms ‘’ special existent ‘’ and ‘’ absolute existent?’’

4- What is the criterion by which we can distinguish between philosophies?

5- What is the definition of philosophy?

6- What is the definition of philosophy?

7- Why the absolute existent is more general than the special existent and is there anything more general that the solute existent? Why?

8- Which of the following proposition are philosophical and why Every existent is either black or not black Every existent is either a cause or effects Every moving object needs a moving force The cause of the movement of many bodies is the gravity that exists between them. If some of the elements that contribute to the existence of water did not exist, water would not exist.

9- Consider the law ‘’pressure does not change the volume of water Say whether the subject of this law is the special existence and why? Rewrite it in a more form by applying the qualifiers ‘’qua’' to which science does it belong?

Notes

The two qualifies ‘universal ‘and ‘real’ are used in order to exclude fields of leaning that deal with particular facts, such as history and geography and conventional and arbitrary fields of scholarship, Such as literature and jurisprudence from our discussion.

For the sake of clarity in this chapter the term ‘’ science ‘’ has been used in contrast to ‘’ philosophy’’, and the term ‘’knowledge’’ and ‘’ learning’’ have been used in a sense more general than the other two. Therefore, by science here we mean all science other than philosophy.

Insteadof the familiar term ‘’the subject of knowledge or learning’’ so that it may include philosophy as well.

For further explanation, see Mortada Mutahari, Majmauah Asar (collected worked) (Qom, Sadra Publication 1371) vol.6 pp. 469 - 473

Changing proposition 1 into proposition 2, which is more exact shows that intellectual the true subject of this law is heart and its metaphorical (unreal) subject is man. In philosophy in order to show this kind of truth and metaphor (unreality) we use the term ‘’ qua’’ which is used in proposition 4 and say ‘’man qua possessing heat is subject to the thermal exchange law. The meaning of this expression is that man’s possession of heat mediates so that man can be subject to such a law. In other words, instead of ruling that heat is subject to such a law, the intellect rules that man is subject to it is man who has heat. Therefore man’s possession of heat has been a medium so that the intellect can metaphorically attribute the law related to heat to man. Technically, in such cases philosophers say that heat acts as ‘’a medium in the occurrence ‘’ or that it is ‘’a qualifying aspect ‘’ so that the intellect could rule that man is subject to the thermal exchange law. In philosophy, distinguishing the true subject of one stipulation from its metaphorical subject and determining the medium in the occurrence are very important and the qualifier ‘’qua’’ is often used for this purpose. For further treatment of this topic see Collected Works, vol. 5.n.pp.496 and 498

See Avicenna, Al-Shifa,Al-llahiyyat (Theology) ,(Qom, the library of Ayatullah al- Maraashi al-Najafi, 1404 AH) pp. 10-12.See also collected Works, Vol.5,p. 130 and also p.131

See collected Works, vol.5. 130 and 131.

See also inid. Vol 6, pp. 59(No.2) - 64.

Chapter Two: Research Methodology in Philosophy

The aim of this chapter is to define research methodology in philosophy. For this purpose, we should first of all understand what is meant by ‘’ research methodology’’ in any particular field of study. Since research methodology in a field of knowledge is nothing other than the method of determine the truth or falsity of its constituent propositions and because the truth or falsity of the propositions of a real universal field of knowledge can only be determined by either a rational or an empirical method, we must begin by explaining this last point, according to which propositions are divided into a priori and a posterior.

Next, we shall divide different types of knowledge into rational and empirical and finally try to prove that philosophy is a form of rational knowledge.

A Priori and Posterior Propositions

Consider the geometrical proposition ‘’ the sum of the internal angles of a triangle is 180 degrees’’ and the physical proposition ‘’ all metals are expanded by heat.’’ Both of which are correct and compare them with each other. It is clear that if in the course of experience we came across a triangle whose qualities are different from those stated in former proposition, we would not judge that proposition to be false and invalid; however, if we found a kind of metal which did not have the quality mentioned in the physical proposition we would consider that proposition false and they deny its universality. What is the reason for this difference? The reason lies in the methods used to prove the truth or validity of these two propositions. The truth of the first proposition is proved by a rational method while that of the second is proved by an empirical one. By a rational method we mean a form of demonstration that ultimately rests on primary, self-evident propositions. Since understanding the truth of primary, self -evident propositions and the law of reference in logic ,on which this types of demonstration is based , are both independent from experience and the intellect understanding the truth prior to experience and independent of experience and does not need its help.

The truth of the second proposition, however can only be understood following experience and though its assistance. The some can also be said of false propositions in that the fallacy of some of them can be understood independent of experience while only the help of experience can ascertain that of others. In technical terms, proposition of the second kind are called a posterior.

Therefore a prior proposition is one whose truth or falsity can only be determined by an empirical method. It is important at this junction to consider the following point.

The first Point

The concepts employed in a proposition may have been acquired through the sense but it may still be a priori if we can determine its truth or falsity by a rational method and independent of the senses, like many geometrical propositions.

Which though contain many sensible concepts, such as dot?Line surface, circle, triangle etc. are all a priori since we can determine their truth or falsity by the rational method and without the help of the sense. In general the way parts of a proposition or the whole proposition have entered the mind, whether it is through dreams, inspiration etc. Does not make a proposition a priori or a posterior. Whether a proposition a is a posterior depends only on the way we determine its truth or falsity.

The Second Point

Aposterior proposition is exceptive; that is, observed counter - example can only question it universality while retains its validity or other cases. In other words, though that proposition is false in its universality, in its more particular form it may be true. Consequently, another universal proposition but with a particular subject replaces the invalidated universal proposition. A prior proposition, however is non-exceptive, that is a rational counter example will indicate the total invalidity of the proposition and we cannot claim its truth in any other case. For example suppose a true geometrical proof demonstrates that the total sum of the angles of an equilateral triangle is not 180 degree.

This counter example will show that triangle is 180 degree is not valid and the invalidity of that cannot rationally judge that the total sum of the angle of any triangle is 180 degree.

Rational and Empirical Forms of Knowledge

Rational knowledge is that knowledge whose proposition are a priori while empirical knowledge is that knowledge whose proposition are a posterior In other words rational knowledge is the form of knowledge whose proposition can be proved true or false by a rational method while empirical knowledge is one whose propositions can be proved true or false only by an empirical method.

Keeping in mind that by ‘’research methodology’’ in one kind of knowledge we mean that method which determine the truth or falsity of its proposition we can say. Rational knowledge is the kind knowledge is one whose research methodology is empirical. From now on we shall use the word ‘’ knowledge ‘’ to refer to all forms of knowledge and science and the word ‘’science ‘’ in accordance with the current usage of the term to indicate empirical knowledge alone.

Philosophy is Rational Knowledge

Initially, using the reduction ad absurdum argument, we shall prove the validity of this claim in respect to a single philosophical proposition, such as the principle of causality as an example. Then in 3.2 we will prove its validity concerning all philosophical propositions.

Example: The law of Causality is not empirical

Let consider the principle of causality in it conventional sense: Every phenomenon, namely everything crated in time (temporal) needs a cause. Suppose this is and a posterior proposition and its truth or falsity can be demonstrated by experience. We will try to show that, firstly this cannot be done without employing a prior proposition and secondly, it will lead to a vicious circle.

According to the practice followed by philosopher of science in falsifiability or verifiability of empirical proposition , the above proposition can be a posterior if is truth can be demonstrated by experience (according to the principle of verifiability in the empirical science ) or its falsity could be justified experimentally (according to the principle of falsifiability in empirical science ). In other words either its truth should be proved by experience and inductive generalization or certain empirical states or inductive imagined. Which if realized would demonstrate the inaccuracy of that proposition. To be more precise either we have to show phenomena and secondly need a cause and then generalize this finding to include all phenomenon needs a cause or we must imagine certain states and conditions in which we could prove by experience that is certain thing is first of all a phenomenon and secondly does not need a cause is falsifiable and a posterior, therefore in both approaches we must initially show by experience that certain thing or things are phenomena. However, we can easily prove that, firstly, this cannot be done through experience alone and without employing a prior proposition and secondly, that it entails a vicious circle.

To explain, we should say that being a phenomenon means being created in time. This in turn means that the thing in question must be initially non-existent and then later on become existent while we con not perceive the existence to nonexistence of things through the sense (aided or unaided ) This is so since perception require two preconditions: firstly, the object in question must leave a trace of its effect on the perceiving organ - of course this effects is going to be corporeal and must pass though different stages until it reaches the brain - and secondly the spirit must perceive this effects. Therefore only such things can be sensible that effect the cells of one of the sense organ In the light of this if we look closely into our perceived we will see that the only things that can be perceived directly by the sense are colour different kinds of noises, taste, smells, cold and heat, smoothness and roughness, hardness and softness, dryness and wetness .Lightness and heaviness, Moreover there are other things which are also perceived through the sense, but not the same manner as the qualities just referred to, for these do not directly affect the sense organ rather assisted by a form of intellectual analogy, are perceived along with those things which directly affect the sense organs,Wecall this kind of perceived ‘’ indirect sense perception.’

Now the things that are perceived indirectly by the sense are different kind of shaped. number, the position which things have in relation to each other, in terms of being remote ,close ,joined or separated from each other being above below to the left or to the right of each other and so on. Some philosophers also hold that temporal succession of thing and their movement can only be perceived indirectly by the sense.

Therefore certain attributes such as necessity, possibility, impossibility, causality or influence, being an effect or affectability, condition,conditioned, potentially, actuality, dependence, independenc , self- sufficiency, contrary , contradiction, temporality or being a phenomenon, pre-eternity, substantiality, accidentally, different kind of substance existence and non - existence can neither directly nor way left to perceive the temporality of a thing and that is form the fact that we do not perceive it at first and then come to perceive it. For example, we do not initially perceive a light and then at a certain moment we begin to see it. From this we conclude that it was non-existent at the beginning and then it became existent; in other words, it is created in time and is therefore a phenomenon.

However,in order to conclude, form not perceiving a thing for example not seeing it, its non-existence and from perceiving it, for example seeing it, its existence, we have to use other intermediary propositions. 1 Every visible thing, which is not seen in a place, is non-existent in that place and 2. Everything seen in place is existent in that place. But these propositions, irrespective of their truth or falsity are firstly a prior and secondly if we assume their truth and try to prove their validity can be proved only through the laws of causality. That isevery principle in other in order words that we are trying to prove. This, needless to say is a vicious circle and impossible to attain.

Demonstration

As was stated in the definition of philosophy, philosophical propositions explain the characteristics and properties of existence and, rarely, of non-existence and its properties. It was also explained in 3.1 that neither existence, nor nonexistence, nor any of their characteristics, such as necessity, possibility, impossibility, casualty, being an effect, etc., could be experienced or perceived through the senses. Naturally, then, the relationship between existence and it characteristics or non-existence and its properties, which is the subject of philosophical propositions, cannot be understood through the senses or through experience. Therefore, these relationships can be understood only by reason and on the basis of primary selfevident propositions; in other words, it is only by the rational method that we can determine the truth or falsity of philosophical propositions

Questions

1- What do we mean by research methodology?

2- Define a priori and a posterior proposition.

3- What is the significance of the fact that posterior propositions are exceptive and a priori propositions are nonexceptive?

4- Why is it that a priori propositions do not allow exceptions?

5- Does every a priori proposition necessarily consist of intangible conceptions? Why?

6- Can we change particular or existential (at least some of them) into universal propositions? If the answer is affirmative explain how? Furthermore, give at least two examples showing such change.

7- Which of the following concepts derive directly or indirectly from sense organs? Why? Movement, possibility, impossibility, body, shape, necessity, existence, nonexistence, water, colour

8- Which of the following propositions are a priori and which are a posterior? Why?

9- Every moving object needs a moving force.

10- Every corporeal body is either black or not black.

11- All acids are sweet in taste.

12- No physical body has a particular colour in itself. It is our eyes that see things in different colours.

13- As long as an observer is looking at an object that object exists. When he stops looking at it, it ceases to exist.

14- Suppose you are given a sheet of paper on which a geometrical shape is printed and three specific lines in the drawing have been highlighted. You are asked to prove that the three highlighted lines in that drawing (and not in general way concerning every drawing with the same characteristics) are equal. Is it possible to prove this point simply by an exact ruler without employing any a priori propositions? Why?

15- Suppose in response to your friend’s invitation you have decided to his house, and you go there. Keeping this supposition in mind, answer the following questions:

1- What a priori propositions must you assume to be true so that your action - your claim to have made a decision to go to your friend’s house and having carried out that decision - appears as reasonable? Mention at least five propositions.

2- Why assuming that these propositions are true is necessary for the rationality of that action?

3- To which types of knowledge does each of these propositions belong?

Notes

1- For further explanation, see Majmouah Asar (Collected Works), vol. 6, ‘The Rational Theory’, pp. 332-334.

2- For further illustration, see C.G. Jung, The Fundamental Questions of Philosophy, chapter 2.

3- For further information on Verifiability and Falsifiability, see Allen F. Chalmers, The Nature of Science, chapters 1-6; the Open University Press, 1982.

4- See Avicenna, Al-Shifa, Al-Tabiyat (Natural Philosophy) (Qum, Library of Ayatullah al-Maraashi al-Najafi, 1404 AH). 3 vols, vol. 2, p. 53.

5- Ibid. Pp. 139-141. See also Sadr al-Mutaliheen, Al-Hikma al-Mutaliyah (Transcendental Philosophy) (Beirut: Dar Ihya al-Turath al-Arabiyyah, 1981), 3rd Editon, 9 vols., vol. 8, section 4, chapter 12, pp. 201-204.

6. For further illustration see Collected work vol 6, ‘’ the way of Acquiring Knowledge.’’ pp 245 - 254 See also indi vol 5 The Secondary Intelligible, pp 266 - 292 and also ibidi vol. 10, Epistemo; ogy pp.249 - 305

7- For further illustration see Collected Works vol. The Empirical Theory, pp

8- 334 - 347

9- For another explanation ob the vicious circle see Collected Work Vol 6, pp 683- 684

10- For further explanation see collected work vol 6 pp 478 - 480.