Aristotelian Perspectives for Post-modern Reason (I)
Author: Alfredo Marcos
Publisher: www.fyl.uva.es
Category: Miscellaneous Books
Author: Alfredo Marcos
Publisher: www.fyl.uva.es
Category: Miscellaneous Books
Aristotelian Perspectives for Post-modern Reason (I)
Phronesis, Scientific Rationality and Environmental Responsibility
Alfredo Marcos
University of Valladolid
Department of Philosophy
Plaza del Campus s/n,
47011 Valladolid, Spain
amarcos@fyl.uva.es
Table of Contents
Introduction. 3
Modern Age and Actual Age: from the search for certainty to fallibilism. 7
Phronesis in Aristotle 12
Prudence and Scientific Rationality: ‘Do not block the way of inquiry.’ 15
Prudence and Environmental Responsibility: ‘May human life remain possible.’ 19
Conclusion. 23
Notes 24
Introduction
In the Modern Age, certainty became the highest and most sought-after espistemic value, even more valued than truth, and the so-called scientific method was seen as the surest path to certainty. Indeed, human reason became identified with the application of a supposed scientific method of Cartesian or Baconian inspiration. The domain of the practice became considered either one more area for the mere application of the scientific method, an application which would lead to human progress, or as an area beyond reason. One of the stereotyped convictions attributed to the enlightened mentality is this: insofar as human life in all its extremes becomes more rational, that is, more scientific, practical problems will begin to be solved. Indeed, Rousseau, in hisDiscourse on the Sciences and the Arts (1750), pointed out that human progress did not always go hand in hand with scientific and technical progress, which today is a self-evident truth that is not discussed. On the other hand, dual accounting, that is the consideration that science is fully rational and the other areas of human activity are not, as well as an insult to common sense, has rebounded against science itself, for its practical aspects cannot be hidden, and it is hardly possible to parcel off a purely logical context, as that of justification set out to be.
It is obvious that not even the application of a supposed scientific method can guarantee the progressive character of our practical decisions. To this evidence there has been added the recognition of science’s own practical aspects. This evolution has convinced many of the impossibility of obtaining certainty even in the domain of science, which has given rise to diverse forms of desperation regarding the abilities of human reasoning. This oscillation between the obsession for certainty and desperation with regard to reason has been the tune most frequently danced to in modern times.
Yet today we do not want environmental problems to be left entirely up to the expert’s decision or the irrational imposition of power or arbitrariness, but to be tackled in reasoned dialogue, on a footing of equality, by scientists, technicians, lawyers, politicians, businessmen, private individuals, representatives of social movements - and indeed philosophers! We are recognizing, at least implicitly, the possibility of being reasonable in an area where we do not expect absolute certainty, and we accept that human reason goes beyond the limits of science and technology, that reason is more deeply rooted in human life than a mere method could ever be. To reach this point we have had to come a long way as far as our concept of reason and science is concerned, and have also needed a great deal of experience - bittersweet experience - regarding the practical consequences of science. Everything would seem to show, then, that the most typical extreme positions of modern times are being abandoned, and that we have entered the post-modern period[1] .
My intention in these pages is to explore the possibilities of a project of basically Aristotelian inspiration for the integration of the theoretical and practical aspects of reason, for the search for a happy medium between the extremes of logicism and irrationalism. In my opinion, this outlook has much to contribute to the on-going debate on the rationality of science and on the environmental questions that its application brings up. This is, indeed, a particular aspect of the relationship between reason and practice, but not just any aspect: traditional philosophical problems are arising now, and they will continue to come up in the future, in direct connection with environmental matters - this will be an area and a way for the classical topics of philosophy to reappear. Rationality, good and evil, justice, the relationship between being and value, the objectivity or subjectivity of knowledge, etc., are venerable philosophical topics that we shall have to reconsider in the light of environmental problems, as they were once tackled in connection with questions of politics, theology, society, science and economy.
I shall now outline the steps that my exposition will follow, together with other considerations necessary for it to fall within the limits of a short piece. In the first place, we need a correct characterization of Modern Age which makes it possible to explain the causes of a bad relationship between theory and practice. This is an extremely complex and multi-faceted task. Here we can hardly even approach a full idea of modernity. What we can do, however, is point out one of its most essential characteristics[2] , in some wise the cause of many others and especially near to the interests of this paper. I mean the predilection for certainty, which is a constant of the modern spirit, just like the energetic and cyclic irrationalist reactions. Obsession with certainty and sceptical desperation are mutual causes of each other like pre-Socratic opposites. We shall speak of this insection 2 (‘Modern Age and Actual Age: from the search for certainty to fallibilism’) .
Secondly, we must go through the Aristotelian concepts which may, in my opinion, take us out of this thankless to-ing and fro-ing. What I mean basically is the Aristotelian notions of prudence (phronesis ) and practical truth (aletheia praktike ). Insection 3 (Prudence in Aristotle) , I shall set out the contents of Aristotelian prudence and the contribution that it can make to the present debate. An analogous study of the notion of practical truth will be set out in the second part of this paper[3] .
The concept of prudence is one that has been taken from the area of Aristotelian practical philosophy, where absolute certainty is not expected, but neither are decisions left to mere arbitrariness or imposition. The novelty consists in that, when we recognize, as we do today, that science itself is a human action, the notion taken from practical philosophy may be used for understanding and integrating scientific rationality. When science is characterized as an activity governed by prudence, it moves away from both the logicist and the irrationalist poles, from the obsession with certainty and from the ‘anything goes’, from algorithm and anarchism. Furthermore, if science is made a prudential activity, it will be much easier for us to connect its particular way of rationality with that of discussions, decisions and environmental actions.
Although it is true that Aristotelian notions can be suggestive, it is not true that they do no more than answer contemporary questions. For them to be active in the on-going debate on the relationship between theoretical reason and practical reason, they must be developed,updated through contemporary texts. The profit from this manœuvre is double: it makes Aristotle’s concepts available for the present debate and gives some contemporary ideas a very comprehensive and fertile philosophical framework, the Aristotelian framework. In the remaining sections. I shall tryto bring to the current debate the Aristotelian notion of prudence through the fallibilism of Peirce and Popper and through Hans Jonas’ imperative of responsibility. The fallibilist attitude is, to my mind, the most suitable post-modern characterization of scientific rationality and of human rationality, and applied to environmental problems it would give rise to the so-called principle of responsibility.
Insection 4 (Prudence and scientific rationality: Do not block the way of inquiry ) , I maintain that in science a fallibilistic attitude alone opens the doors to prudential reason, and that the ontological and anthropological bases of prudence are also suitable for fallibilism, founding it and encouraging it. In Aristotle, there are certain fallibilistic attitudes but they are ambiguous and combine with other statements in which science is characterized as universal and necessary knowledge. In this regard, Peirce’s texts are most useful and clearest, and, of course, nearest to the present problems of science. Fallibilism is for him an attitude, that is something practical - rather than a concept or a rule it is the scientific attitudepar excellence . On the basis of the fallibilist attitude there stands what may be the ultimate and most universal rule of scientific rationality:Do not block the way of inquiry .
Insection 5 (Prudence and environmental responsibility: May human life remain possible ), I set out to bring the Aristotelian idea of prudence to the on-going debate on the environment. I shall proceed as in the previous case, showing its proximity to and continuity with the present notion of responsibility as treated by Hans Jonas. Again we have an Aristotelian concept that can be developed or, as Jonas himself would say, improved on, by a notion of today. In return, this present notion is supported by a very articulate and coherent ontology. Jonas sets out the so-called principle of responsibility as the ultimate element of the moral control of our relationship with the environment:Proceed in such a way that you do not endanger the conditions for humanity’s indefinite continuity on Earth .
I consider that Peirce’s and Jonas’s formulations - each in its own area, respectively that of science and that of ethics - the expression of one and the same attitude, of one and the sameactual - and therefore post-modern - way of understanding rationality, and that both fit perfectly into a metaphysical framework of Aristotelian inspiration. Essentially, these ideas are convergent, and respond to one attitude and may be based on one Aristotelian conception of reality, and together they offer a good answer to questions for their scientific rationality and their environmental responsibility.
The principles of Peirce and Jonas can, however, be taken as inadequate as a characterization of human action, for they do not take into account its creative aspects. The truth is that both, though they do not guarantee it, are directed towardscreative discovery : they set out to ensure that it will be possible at any moment, while nurturing and fomenting the conditions for it and removing obstacles. They uphold the openness of human action so that it can adjust to the future course of events, always open and never completely determined. The present article will therefore require a later development in which the notion of creative discovery is tackled along with its connection with the Aristotelian concept ofpractical truth .
Modern Age and Actual Age: from the search for certainty to fallibilism
Among the characteristics of modern thought is the predilection for certainty[4] . The search for certainty has been one of the signs of identity of a whole intellectual tradition, of what Husserl[5] calls ‘European science’. According to Husserl, the abandonment of this search steeps us in crisis, in scepticism or in any type of naturalism. However, as Kolakowski[6] rightly observes, neither Descartes nor Husserl managed to distinguish between the subjective feeling of evidence and the objective evidence of truth. Consequently, in many of the modern philosophical traditions, the pursuit of certainty has become a threat to the pursuit of truth, an impulse towards different types of idealism and a cause of crisis (by inference and by reaction) rather than an antidote to it.
The pursuit of certainty -infallibilism , in the words of Laudan - is one of the legacies of Cartesian philosophy. One could state, as Clarke does, that Cartesian science is defined in terms of certainty rather than in terms of the truth of the explanations proposed.[7] A text in which Decartes himself sets this point out clearly is:
‘What can it matter to us for something to be absolutely false if anyway we believe it and we do not have the slightest suspicion that it is false?’[8]
Or, if a negative formulation is required, ‘any knowledge that can be rendered doubtful must not be called scientific’[9] and ‘I treat [...] as false everything which is merely likely’[10] These words give the tone of what would from then on be the object of the quest for the scientific method.
It is, in any event, a question of establishing methods whose results will be certain knowledge, methods which we can only trust, whether or not subjective certainty is accompanied by objective truth.
Francis Bacon initiated another route of access to certainty, this time with an empirical and inductive character. According to Bacon, the inductive method is theart of invention andmachine , as well asformula ,clear and radiant light [11] , and other similar boons. Those of Bacon’s ideas with the greatest influence on subsequent scientific thought are those which he expressed in his second book of theNovum Organum , that is his inductive logic, the so-called Baconian method. In general, and as Rossi states, many have seen in Bacon the constructor of a gigantic ‘logic machine’ doomed to not being used. With the Baconian method, according to Spedding, we cannot do anything. We consider it a subtle, elaborate and ingenious mechanism, but one which can produce nothing[12] . In spite of everything, Bacon’s image as the founder of the new science thanks to his discovery of the inductive method was greatly appreciated by the founders of theRoyal Society and the authors of the great illustratedEncyclopædia .
In what situation do we place the practical with regard to rationality when the first value is certainty?
Many modern thinkers begin their writings with the observation of the disappointing state of the philosophy of human things in comparison with natural philosophy, that is the natural science. Dissension and lack of certainty, both in metaphysics and in moral philosophy, are the points causing the greatest unrest. Both Descartes and Hume, to mention two of the most noteworthy, feel that the model that inquiry into mankind should follow is that of natural and formal sciences, which have already opened up a path, a method to certainty and consensus. So, Descartes set out to find ‘the highest and most perfect moral science, which, presupposing a knowledge of other sciences, is the ultimate degree of wisdom’[13] . Naturally, Descartes had to settle indefinitely for what he called ‘provisional morals’. Hume stated with his empiricist approach base on the inductive method, ‘Where experiments of this kind are judiciously collected and compared, we may hope to establish on them a science which will not be inferior in certainty, and will be much superior in utility to any other of human comprehension’[14] . This science will imply the extension of the principles of Newtonian natural philosophy to the study of human nature, and within it to the study of morals. Regarding politics, Hume has still fewer doubts, and states categorically that it can be reduced to a science endowed with a degree of certainty almost as perfect as that of mathematics[15] .
But this naturalist approach to the study of man, which in principle promises the so longed-for certainty, leads to further disappointments and carries with it the germ of its own destruction, in the long term threatening natural science itself, which will always be an activity and product of human freedom and reason. Today we know from experience how these tendencies implicit in the naturalist position itself have been developed, but in Hume, the whole trajectory is already indicated. Naturalization of moral studies seems to demand a methodological reduction of the normative and the evaluative, which will end up being established as a definitive ontological reduction of human reason and freedom, which are mutually inseparable and inaccessible to the empirical method and never totally explained from strictly naturalist bases. Thence are derived an emotivism and an irrationalism which threaten science itself insofar as its practical aspects are recognized along with its inability to produce absolutely certain knowledge. Hume assures that ‘We speak not strictly and philosophically when we talk of the combat of passion and of reason. Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them’[16] . Paradoxical though this may seem, this resignation that the practical should be the place for feelings derives from a reduced notion of reason, excessively bound up with a given idea of science and method and an extreme valuation of certainty.
In Hume there is no renunciation of certainty, the basis of which is confided to habit, but one of reason. Predilection for certainty leads Hume to irrationalism, not to scepticism[17] . Karl Popper sums up the situation as follows, saying that, according to Hume, the scientific method is inductive, but:
‘... induction is completely invalid as an inference. There is not a shadow of a logical argument that would support the inference to a generalization from statements about the past (such as past repetitions of some 'evidence'). He [Hume] said that in spite of its lack of logical validity, induction plays an indispensable part in practical life [...] Thus there is a paradox.Even our intellect does not work rationally '. [p.94] [...] This led Hume, one of the most reasonable thinkers of all time, to give up rationalism and look at man not as endowed with reason but as a product of blind habit. Acording to Russellthis paradox of Hume's is responsible for the schizophrenia of modern man ’. [p.95][18]
If anything can be learnt for the present it is that we lack a notion of practical reason that is well structured and free of traditional errors. Practical criteria cannot depend on a supposed scientific method and cannot aspire to confer absolute certainty on our decisions, but we do not have to go without reason in practical situations, as there is no need to identify reason with a supposed scientific method or with the sure way to certainty. In part, the obstacles encountered by Hume and Descartes in the development of an idea of practical reason have been abolished, for today we are aware that sciences are not governed strictly by the Cartesian method or by the inductive method, and that they are far from reaching complete certainty, which does not make them directly irrational. Above everything else it is the renunciation of the obsession with certainty that enables us today to imagine a suitable notion of practical reason.
It will be said that a notion of practical reason already existed in Kant. And this is so. But two observations must be made in this regard. In Kant, unlike in Hume, there is a radical denaturalization of practical reason, which today seems unacceptable. Such is the case that for Kant, prudence mainly has nothing to do with practical reason, but with theoretical reason, paradoxical though this may seem. This means that he excludes it from the nucleus of morals and considers it a mere technical ability for the pursuit of happiness[19] . In the Modern period, from Descartes to Bacon, any technique was considered to be no more than applied science, and that if any problem arose in practice, it was due to deficiencies in theory. This view of science as immediately applicable soon spread, as we have seen in Hume, to morals, so the application of a science of man, which would not present genuinely technical problems, but only theoretical ones, would solve the problems of human happiness. Philosophers of the Enlightenment felt attracted by this new way of approaching human affairs. Kant shared the technological optimism of his day although he was the first to resist the concept of morals as a technique, that is, as the application of a science of man to the pursuit of happiness (happiness, by the way, previously defined by that very science). Kant, on the other hand, sought to protect morals from influences external to the very freedom of the subject. He did this by excluding the traditional contents from the nucleus of practical philosophy. According to Kant, prudence lies rather in theoretical reason, as it could become a mere applied science[20] . In the interests of autonomy of reason, Kant separates morals radically from nature, setting it in the sphere of the freedom of the subject. The attempt to protect morals from naturalism leads to the new excess of putting it in the hands of logicism. The categorical imperative is, at root, of a logical character:Behave in such a way that you might also want your maxim to become universal law . The ‘might also want’ invoked here is, as Jonas[21] states, that of reason an its concord with itself, an ability which would only be negated by self-contradiction.
In Aristotle, on the other hand, happiness is man’s natural and legitimate aim, whereby it was possible, according to Aubenque, ‘to integrate thetechnical moment of the correct choice of means in the definition of morality’[22] .
The second observation concerns the certainty of what Kant takes to be really practical. No comparison can be made between the splendid certainty which Kant attributes to Newtonian science and thepractical faith in postulates necessary to give consistence to the practical use of reason. In an atmosphere of extreme valuation of certainty and of the scientific method, the Kantian foundation for practical reason, which, in short, leads to the postulates of human freedom, the immortality of the soul and the existence of God, was not believed or taken seriously. Kant expressed his admiration and respect for two areas of reality,the starry sky above me and the moral law inside me . But to keep them separate is not sustainable, for indeed he who looks at the stars and grasps moral law is a human being who takes part in the two areas of reality, as a system subject to physical laws and as a free being. The integration of the two spheres seems necessary without the negation of either of them. But if we separate to such an extent the degree of certainty that we attribute to the knowledge of each of them, and if we set such a high value on certainty, then the so-called practical use of reason runs the risk of immediately being seen as one more mask of the irrational, as a concession of Kant’s to his beliefs, affections, desires or interests. The historical proof that this two sets of accounts cannot be tenable for long is what happened to Kantian tradition. Either it tended towards an idealism that suppressed the peculiarity of the practical and made it depend for everything on theory by identifying the rational with the real, or it drifted towards an irrationalism in which the pure use of reason had the same fate as the practical use, until it was seen as one more mask of the will to power[23] . The pure and practical uses of reason must be integrated and must support each other, for today we know that they either stand or fall together[24] . But this requires a reconsideration of the ideal of certainty and of the nature of science which has only come about in the twentieth century.
Since Hegel and since Nietzsche, several campaigns have been launched in the pursuit of certainty. One of the last ones in favour of certainty, automatism and the segregation of the practical, based on the identification of reason with science, was called Neo-positivism (and it was pursued as the so-calledreceived view ). Its internal decadence apart, it was Popper’s philosophy and Kuhn’s criticisms that put an end to this venture, and with it to a way of making philosophy of science. Kuhn laid forth the practical aspects of scientific rationality. As he states - in my opinion, rightly - ‘Recognizing that criteria of choice can function as values when incomplete as rules has, I think, a number of striking advantages [p. 331] .’[25] . In Popper, a clear renunciation of the ideal of certainty and a re-instatement of truth are to be notice.
The recognition of the practical implication of science, both in its genesis and applications and in its justification, and the renunciation of the idea of certainty no doubt mark the end of the epoch in which the supposedly scientific method was shown as the zenith and model of human reason, where all philosophy aspired to ideal of certainty or took its failure as the failure of reason, first in the practical terrain and then, as an inexorable consequence, in the theoretical. Today there is an abandonment of the logico-linguistic conception of theories in favour of a pragmatic conception of science. Science, it is said, is action. But, as previously the possibility of a practical reason was not clear, nor was its articulation with theory, the rationality of science itself has been questioned. Kuhn has been accused of being relativist and irrationalist, an accusation which he has rejected, but without going so far as to construct a philosophical basis on which to base this rejection. For their parts, Peirce and Popper, each in his own way, have tackled this subject but both have recoiled, paradoxically, to quasi-Hegelian positions.
Science taken as action, as the art of research, of teaching, diffusion of knowledge and application, etc., can and must be judged with criteria that cannot in themselves be exclusively scientific or merely arbitrary, but a part of the general rationality of human life. The birth, then, of new disciplines, of new ways of making philosophy of science, such asbioethics ,environmental ethics andSTS studies , is not just a collateral phenomenon, a momentary collision point between science and practical thought, but an indication of a new way of conceiving rationality itself, or at least an indication of the need for this new reason.
I believe that the time has come to perfect concepts and attitudes that have always had a vocation to integrate the theoretical and practical planes without ruling out either of them, concepts and attitudes which were born to avoid the swing of the pendulum between the logicist and irrationalist extremes (between Permenides and Heracleitus, between Charybdis and Scylla).
Phronesis in Aristotle
Aristotle characterizes prudence (phronesis ) as
‘A true and reasoned state of capacity to act with regard to the things that are good or bad for man.’[26] .
By means of this definition he distinguishes prudence from other notions. Given that it is a disposition, or state of capacity (héxis ), it will be distinguished from science (episteme ), for prudence will be knowledge linked with human action. In the second place, as it is practical (praktike ), its result will be an action, not an object, which distinguishes it from art or technique (tekhne ). The demand for rationality and truth (‘...metà lógoy alethe ’) distinguishes prudence from moral virtues and sets it among the intellectual ones. Finally, the fact that it deals with what is good and bad for mankind, and not right and wrong in an abstract way, sets prudence apart from wisdom (sophia ).
So far we have sketched the limits of the notion of prudence and others akin to it, and the points where they overlap[27] , but we must not forget that ‘Regardingpractical wisdom [phronesis ] we shall get at the truth by considering who are the persons we credit with it’.[28]
Texts about prudence suggest that it is an intellectual virtue, but that it implies experience lived, which concerns both means and ends, for its final horizon is the good life as a whole, and that it is at the service of wisdom, that is, it is an instrument for obtaining this. However, Aristotle goes as far as to say:
‘We ought to attend to the undemonstrated saying and opinions of experienced and older people or of people of practical wisdom [phronimos ] not less than to demonstrations; for because experience has given them an eye they see aright.’[29]
In general, prudence pursues wisdom and wisdom stimulates human prudence. It is best to ‘possess both, or preferably prudence’[30] . Of animals, Aristotle says that they too are prudent[31] , but as they lack wisdom their prudence is certainly limited. For all this, prudence is worth pursuing for itself, regardless of its possible usefulness, given that it is a virtue[32] .
Prudence is a virtue, and virtue, for Aristotle, is:
‘a state of character concerned with choice, lying in a mean, i.e. the mean relative to us, this being determined by a rational principle, and by that principle by which the man of practical wisdom [phronimos ] would determine it.’[33]
Virtue, therefore, is a habit or disposition to choosing the right medium between excess and shortage. But this is not easy, for the right means is not the arithmetic mean. To find it we need another rule. This rule will be the one established by the prudent man and applied just as he would apply it. In short, we cannot determine what is or is not virtuous without the concurrence of the prudent man.
The mid point is dictated by reason or by the straight rule of the prudent man. This reason or straight rule is, rather, correct reason, that is corrected reason. It is the limit to which a process of correction tends, one of elimination of errors, by relation to the end sought:
‘[...] there is a mark to which the man who has the rule looks, and heightens or relaxes his activity accordingly, and there is a standard which determines the mean states which we say are intermediate between excess and defect, being in accordance with the right rule (katà tòn orthòn lógon )’[34] .
Therefore, prudence requires experience:
‘Young men become geometricians and mathematicians and wise in matters like these, it is thought that a young man of practical wisdom cannot be found. The cause is that such wisdom is concerned not only with universals but with particulars, which become familiar from experience.’[35]
Experience is time and memory, but not just any lapse of time, but one which one has spent reflecting, trying to understand the nature of the things we see, of the actions we do and what happens to us. Experience is the memory of a time lived and thought, for it is the fruit of succeeding corrections.
But let us remember that prudence itself is a virtue and, moreover, ‘it is impossible to be practically wise [phronimos ] without being good’[36] . Therefore, nobody could be prudent without following the ruled dictated by prudence. Nobody could be prudent without having been already. This vicious circle (or virtuous one, depending on how we look on it) is resolved by education and action, that is, by action steered by somebody prudent until one becomes prudent oneself[37] .
The prudence of an experienced person serves for drawing up rules, ‘since the universals are reached from the particulars’[38] . Butmethodological prudence , so to speak, cannot consist simply of a set of rules and meta-rules for the formulation and application of rules, which in turn would generate the same problems of definition and application, but at a higher level, ‘for the error is not in the law nor in the legislator but in the nature of the thing’[39] .
Therefore, prudence also constitutes the criterion of application, interpretation and, when necessary, modification or violation of the rule. Aristotelian prudence is rooted in the indelegable experience and in responsibility - in the risk, Pierre Aubenque would say - of each human being. Man cannot cede the risk of decision and action (nor, obviously, can the scientist) to any rule or automatic process of decision.
Not even the laws of the city can be applied completely literally. Aristotle warned that such a process could lead to grave injustice. The application of the law to the case requires something very much like prudence: equity (epieíkeia )[40] .
‘The reason is that all law is universal but about some things it is not possible to make a universal statement which shall be correct.’[41]
The proper application of the law is not guaranteed by science alone, as in the case of Plato’s king-philosopher, but rather science itself, for belonging to the general, is subject to the same problems as the law in its relation with the concrete[42] .
But this does not condemn us to irrationality or to subjectivism in our practical decisions, for prudence is not science, yet neither is it simple opinion or skill[43] , it is genuine rational knowledge with the intention of objective truth. Research must be understood as a part of human action, decisions taken in it are practical decisions falling under the jurisdiction of the Aristotelian concept of practical truth, the type of truth that prudence seeks[44] .
In conclusion, Aristotle achieves a noticeable integration of knowledge and human action, of freedom and nature, as well as of the ends of science which we call instrumentalist and realist. This composition is not arrived at in the Platonic way, where the science of Ideas will be the ultimate practical guide. Aubenque assures us that:
‘in man, Aristotle does not set one against the other, but maintains both: contemplative vocation and practical demand. But the latter no longer finds its model and guide in the former, and must look on its own level for a rule which, nevertheless, will still be intellectual or “dianoetic”.’[45]
This integration is achieved, then, through prudence and practical truth: scientific research is still part of human action and, as such, is subject to the ethical rule of prudence, and to the service of the ultimate of man’s ends, happiness, which in turn consists in true knowledge, as well as co-existence[46] and a moderate degree of welfare[47] .
Science is rooted in human life, in practical values, in time and in experience through prudence, which is a virtue and is intellectual; or, more correctly, through the prudent person. Furthermore, this prudential conception of human reason is rooted in a very realistic, profound, fruitful and commonly accepted idea of human nature: ‘desiderative reason or ratiocinative desire’[48] .
Beliefs
Discussion Concerning Origin of Creation is Natural
With his Allah-given instinct, man searches for the reasons and causes leading to the appearance of any phenomenon or occurrence that he sees. He never thinks it probable that they have come into existence automatically and without any cause, i.e., accidentally.
A driver whose car stops functioning gets off to check where he suspects it is impaired in order to find the cause for the halt. He never believes that the car, with its complete readiness to move, would stop without any reason. When he wants to get the car going, he uses the facilities that are installed in the car and never relies on chances.
If man becomes hungry, he thinks of bread. When thirsty, he searches for water. If he feels cold, he feels the necessity of clothes or, for instance, fire and is never satisfied by relying on chances. One who wants to construct a building naturally engages in finding building materials, masons, and laborers. He does not have the slightest hope that his project would be implemented automatically.
Mountains, forests, and vast seas have existed on earth alongside human beings as long as they have been on earth. They have always seen the sun, the moon, and the bright stars with their orderly and permanent movements in the sky.
In spite of all this, the scientists of the world have constantly discussed the reasons and causes for the existence of these wonderful creatures and phenomena with tireless exploration. They never say that they have seen these in the same condition from the beginning of their lives and so they have developed automatically.
This inquisitive instinct and discussion on causes and means compels man to pry into the appearance of the world of creation and its astonishing system. Man wonders whether this vast world which is, in fact, a great phenomenon and which has related and harmonious components, has evolved automatically or it has originated due to other causes.
Does an infinite might and knowledge govern this astonishing system which operates according to established and unexceptional rules all over the world and which leads everything to its particular goal and destination, or it has come into existence by an accident and a chance?
Affirmation of the Creator
When man uses his realistic instincts, he finds many evidences for the existence of the Maker and Creator of the world in every nook and corner of the world of creation. With his realistic instinct, man realizes that creatures, that are blessed with existence, that willingly or unwillingly tread a specific path, and that after a while give their places to others, have not themselves given the blessing of life.
The orderly way that the creatures traverse has not been created bythemselves . They do not have the least contribution in creation and organization of the path of their own existence. This is because man has not adopted and chosen humanity and human characteristics; rather he has been created and has been endowed with human traits.
In like manner, the realistic nature of man never accepts that all objects have evolved automatically by an accident and the system in their existence is perfunctory and without purpose, although man's conscience would not accept such an occurrence even in a few bricks neatly piled up.
Therefore, man's realistic instinct declares that the world of existence undoubtedly has a basis which is the origin of existence and the creator and preserver of the world. This infinite existence and origin of knowledge and might is Allah from whom the system of existence emanates. The Almighty Allah states:
"...HeWho gave to everything its creation, then guided it (to its goal) (20:50)."
Theism and People
In the present era, the majority of people on earth are religious and believe in AllahWho has created the world and worship Him.
Ancient man also had the conditions of modern man. So long as history shows, themajority of men were pious and believed in the existence of one Creator. Although differences of opinion existed among theistic and pious societies and each tribe described the origin of creation with particular epithets, they unanimously agreed on the essence of the subject.
Not only Islam, but also other religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Maganism, and Buddhism are of the same opinion and belief about this matter. Those who deny the existence of the Creator do not have convincing proof and would never have one for their denial. In fact, they say they have no reason for Allah's existence, rather than saying they have proof for His non-existence.
A materialistic man says: "I do not know." and does not say "He does not exist." In other words, a materialistic person is doubtful and does not deny.
The Almighty Allah states:
"And they say: There is nothing but our life in this world; we live and die and nothing destroys us but time, and they have no knowledge of that.they only conjecture (45:24)."
Even in the most ancient works discovered from primitive men, signs of religion and theism can be found. There are evidences that primitive men believed in metaphysics.
Even in the relatively new continents such as America and Australia and the far off islands of the old continent discovered in recent centuries, the natives were theist. They proved an origin for the world of creation by juxtaposing their views, although the history has never found their relation with the ancient world.
Reflection in this subject that belief in Allah has always existed in man elucidates that theism is innate in man. With his Allah-given nature, man proves the existence of Allah for the creation of the world. The Holy Qur'an points out to this congenital characteristic of man:
"And if you should ask them who created them, they would certainly say: Allah (43:87)."
Qur'an also states:
"And if you ask them who created the heavens and the earth, they will certainly say: Allah (31:25)."
The Effect of this Inquisitiveness in Man's Life
If man positively answers questions about the Creator of the world and the Founder of its system which become manifest for him on the basis of his truth-seeking nature, he will prove an eternal origin for the creation of the world and the continuity of its wonderful system. He will also connect everything to His invincible determination which depends on Allah's infinite power and knowledge.
Consequently, man will find a kind of warmth and hopefulness in him. In the course of the difficulties and obstacles of his life and problems that preclude his seeking a remedy, he would never feel completely disappointed.
This is because he knows that any means and causes, no matter how powerful, are controlled by the Almighty Allah and everything is under Allah's command. Such a person never submits to means and causes. Even when he sees everything to his advantage, he does not become proud and selfish, so as to forget his position and that of the world.
This is due to the fact that he is cognizant that superficial means and causes do not operate on their own and proceed according to the order of the Almighty Allah. Finally, such a person conceives that in the world of existence, he must not pay homage tonone but Allah; he must not fully acquiesce to any orders except Allah's commands.
He who replies negatively to the aforementioned questions, however, is devoid of this hopefulness, realism, magnanimity, and congenital intrepidity.
Thus we see that the role of suicide increases daily among nations dominated by materialism. Those whose sole attachment is to tangible means and causes become disappointed by the slightest inconvenience and commit suicide. On the other hand, people endowed with the blessing of theism never lose their faith even on the verge of death. They are confident and hopeful of Allah's might and blessings.
In the last hours of his life, when the swords of enemy aimed at him from every direction, Imam Husayn (as) stated: "The only factor which alleviates this affliction is Allah's incessant observation of my endeavors." In several verses, the Holy Qur'an stipulates this truth:
"Surely those who say: 'Our Lord is Allah, then they continue on the right way, they shall have no fear nor shall they grieve' (46:13)."
"Those who believe and whose hearts are set at rest by the remembrance of Allah; now surely by Allah's remembrance are the hearts set at rest (13:28)."
TheismFrom the Viewpoint of the Holy Qur'an
A sucklingwho touches his mother's breasts by his hands, sucks the breasts to get milk. In fact, he wants milk, and if he takes something by his hands, in order to eat it, he will direct it to his mouth. His main objective is eating and if he finds that he has made a mistake, because what he has taken is not edible, he discards it.
In like manner, man seeks truth in whatever course of action he takes. Whenever he finds that he has erred and has done wrong, he suffers and regrets the futile hardship he endured for an erroneous action. Finally, man always abstains from mistake and error and tries to get to the reality as much as he can.
This sheds light on the fact that man is by nature and instinct a realist, i.e., willingly or unwillingly, he always seeks the reality and follows truth. Man has not learned this instinctive disposition from anyone and anywhere. If at times, man shows obstinacy and refuses to accept the truth, it is because he has been entangled with mistake and error without finding truth and piety. If he had found them, he would not have followed the path of error.
Sometimes, too, man suffers from a psychological ailment due to carnal desires. This converts the sweet taste of truth into bitterness. Then although he is acquainted with the truth he does not follow it. Even though he admits the rightfulness of truth and confesses the necessity of abiding by it, he refrains from submission.
This is similar to recurrent events in which due to addiction to harmful things, man suppresses his human instinct (which is removal of danger and an escape from loss) and embarks on an action that is detrimental (like those addicted to tobacco, alcohol, narcotics).
The Holy Qur'an invites man towards realism and adherence of truth. Qur'an insists on this matter and, in various ways,asks different people to keep their realistic instinct and adherence with truth alive.
Allah the Almighty states:
"...And what is thereafter the truth but error...( 10:32)."
"Most surely man is in loss, except those who believe and dogood and enjoin on each other truth and enjoin on each other patience (103:2-3)."
Clearly, all these enjoinments by Allah show that if man does not keep his realistic instinct alive and if he does not strive to follow truth and reality, he would not be satisfied with his prosperity and happiness and would follow any lustful and pleasant expressions and endeavors. Consequently, he would be tied down by absurd thoughts and superstitions.
Then, like a quadruped animal that has lost its way (which is man's asset), he will be the victim of his carnal desires and unrestrainedness due to his ignorance.
The Almighty Allah states:
"Have you seen him who takes his low desires for his god? Will you then be a protector over him? Or do you think that most of them do hear or understand? They are nothing but as cattle.nay , they are straying farther off from the path (25:43-44)."
In brief the Almighty Allah says: How do you feel about people who worship their carnal desires? Do you think you can improve and educate these people? Do you think they listen and understand?
They are more deviated than cattle. However, once their real human instinct revives and the spirit of following the truth starts functioning, the facts would be illuminating for them one after the other and whatever truth and fact become clear for them, they would accept readily. Every day, they would take a fresh step in the path of bliss and prosperity.
Qur'an's Teachings aboutThe Creator Of The World
The Existence ofThe Creator
"... Is there doubt about Allah, the Maker of the heavens and the earth (14:10)?"
Explanation: In daylight, everything is visible. We can see ourselves, others, houses, city, desert, mountains, jungle, and sea. But when the darkness of night prevails, all these bright and evident things lose their brightness. Then we realize that this brightness did not belong to them, rather it was due to the sun which illuminated them by a kind of contact. The sun is bright and, with its reflection, makes the earth and all that is on it bright and visible. If these objects had a brightness of their own, they would never lose it.
Human beings and other living beings perceive objects by their eyes, ears, and senses. They embark on activities by their hands, feet, and other internal and external organs. After a while, however, they lose their senses and motions and no longer show any movement or activity and apparently die.
By witnessing this scene, we come to the conclusion that the intellect, determination, and movement of these living beings are not due to their posture andfigure, rather they spring from their soul and psyche. When their soul goes out they lose their livelihood and activity.
For example, if seeing and hearing were done only by the eyes and ears, these activities would continue so long as these two organs existed, but this is not the case at all.
In like manner, if the undoubted existence and genesis of the vast world of existence, of which we are a part and cannever doubt its existence, sprang from and belonged to itself, it would never lose them. In spite of this, we see that the components of the world lose their existence vitality one after another and are incessantly in the state of change and transformation. They replace one condition by another and assume another shape.
For this reason, one must decisively judge that the existence and genesis of all living things originate from something else whichis their Creator and Generator. As soon as the Creator cuts off relation of creation with something, that object plunges into annihilation and obliteration and becomes invisible.
That Infinite Existence, which is the support of the world of creation and the Preserver of people, is Allah.
There is no annihilation and obliteration for Allah; otherwise, like all other living beings, His existence would not have been from itself and would have been dependent on others.
Qur'an and Tawhid
If with a pure nature and peaceful heart, man glances at the world of existence, he will see proofs and signs for the pure existence of the Creator in its nooks and corners. He will find evidences from every place to back up this truth. In this world, everything that man faces is either a phenomenon created by Allah or possesses a characteristic endowed by Allah or is a system that runs and governs everything by Allah's command.
Man is one such being and his entire body attests this fact. Neither does man's existence belong tohimself nor are the traits that he manifests based on his will. Man has neither devised the plan of life that he takes up from the beginning of his life, nor can he consider this system based on chance and accident and, therefore, cut off.
Man cannot attribute his existence and the system of his existence to the environment in which he came into being. This is because the existence of the above-mentioned environment and the system that governs it are not made by that environment andhave not evolved by chance and accident.
Thus man has no choice but to prove an origin for the world of creation. This origin creates and fosters things. It gives life to every being and leads it in the path of survival to its specific perfection by a particular system.
When man sees that the creation of objects is related and a unified system exists in the world, he is forced to accept that the source of creation and manager of its system is no one except Allah.
The Holy Qur'an states:
"If there had been in them any gods except Allah, they would both have certainly been in a state of disorder... (21:22)."
Explanation: If many gods governed the world and, as idolaters say, different gods ran various parts of the world, then the earth, heavens, seas, and jungles would each have a god for its own. As a result of the differences among such gods, various systems would be established in the world, so that inevitably the world would face corruption and annihilation.
However, we see that all components of the world have complete relation and harmony with one another and comprise a system. Thus, it must be said that there is no partner for the Providence and Creator of the world.
Some might assume that since the supposed gods are wise and aware that their differences lead the world toward annihilation and corruption, they never differ with each other. But this is a depraved assumption because Allah, Who governs the world of existence or a part of it andWhose activity and motion are for the system of creation, performs no mental activity like us.
From the first day that our eyes open upon the world of creation and view the system at work in it, we acquire mental impressions from this system. These constitute our knowledge. Then as we work to provide our basic needs, we coordinate our action with our mental impressions to make it correspond to the prevalent system of creation. For example, we eat to satisfy our hunger. To quench our thirst, we drink water. To be relieved from cold and heat, we wear suitable clothes, because we realize that these exigencies are satisfied by such means in the world order.
Thus our action (in this view) in contingent upon and subsequent to our thoughts and our thoughts depend upon and are subsequent to the world order. Therefore, our actions are two stages subsequent to the world order. But for Allah Who governs the world or a part of it, the external world order is an action. It is not rational to believe that His actions occur due to premeditations on the system.
The Almighty Allah Possesses All Attributes of Perfection
What is perfection? A house is perfect when it provides for all the needs of a family's living such as enough rooms to serve as a living room, a guesthouse, a kitchen for making food, a bathroom, and other rooms. If it lacks these utilities, it is proportionately deficient.
Why Doesn't Man Accept This Truth At Times?
This fact is evident for man without the least speculation and there is no doubt in it, but that at times man becomes so entangled with the conflicts of life that he uses all the power of his wisdom for vital struggles. He spends all his time probinglife, therefore, he has no time to spend on these kinds of thoughts.
As a result, he becomes heedless of this fact or enchanted by nature's charming outward appearances and indulges in voluptuousness and pleasure. Since adherence to these facts precludes materialistic unrestrainedness, such a man naturally refuses to accept this fact and it’s like and is intolerant of it.
The Holy Qur'an has paid greater attention, in different ways, and has presented evidences for the creation of the creatures and the system prevalent and dominant among them. This is because most people, especially those who are infatuated by nature's charming appearances and who find prosperity in voluptuousness and worldly pleasures, are unable to think philosophically and to investigate subtle logical theories due to their fondness of material and perceptible things.
In any case, man is a part of the world of creation and is not free from want of its other components and the general and particular systems that govern it. He can consider the world of creation and the system prevalent in it at any time to find out the existence of the Creator and Lord of the world.
The Almighty Allah states:
"Most surely in the heavens and the earth there are signs for the believers. And in your (own) creation and in what He spreads abroad of animals there are signs for a people that are sure, and (in) the variation of the night and the day, and (in) what Allah sends down of sustenance from the cloud, then gives life thereby to the earth after its death, and (in) the changing of the winds, there are signs for a people who understand (45:3-5)."
Explanation: In the Holy Qur'an, many verses invite people to think about the creation of the heavens, the sun, the moon, the stars, the earth, mountains, seas, plants, animals, and human beings. The Qur'an also mentions the astonishing system that governs each of these kinds. Truly, the mechanism of creation and the system that leads different activities of the world towards the goals of creation and the causes for existence are very astonishing and wonderful.
The seed of wheat or the kernel of almond, planted on the earth, respectively turn into a clustered shrub or a fruit-bearing tree. From the moment they are planted deeply in the heart of the earth, they rip up, produce green tips, and strike their white roots into the heart of the earth. To attain their final goal, vast and enormous systems, whose magnitude and vastness astound the intellect, begin to operate.
The stars in the skies, the bright sun, the luminous moon, and the earth all with their rotation, movement, and potential power along with the mysterious powers in the seed or kernel, the four seasons of the year, the atmospheric conditions, the clouds, rains, winds, and days and nights all contribute to the growing of a seed into a shrub of wheat. Like nurses, these factors foster this new phenomenon and turn it from one hand to another until it reaches the last stage of its growth and development.
Likewise, the coming into existence of a human infant is much more complex than the bud of a plant or other phenomena, because it is the product of millions or rather billions of years of complex and systematic activity of the mechanism of creation.
Man's daily life, in addition to external connections with the world of creation, springs from an astonishing system within his being which has amused the perceptive minds of the scientists of the world engaged for many centuries in observation of its outward things. Each day another layer is removed from its secrets, but still their knowledge about the unknown is rather insignificant.
If a human being possesses what is needful in the system of being of a normal man, he is perfect. But if he lacks one of them, for instance, if he does not have a hand, foot, or an eye, he is deficient in that respect.
From what has been said, the attribute of perfection is that which meets some of the needs of existence and obviates deficiency. For example, the epithet of knowledge obviates the darkness of ignorance and elucidates what is known to the scholar. Also power enables a powerful person to attain his ends and satisfy his demands and makes him competent to do so. Other epithets are life, comprehension, etc.
Our conscience judges that the Creator of the world (He, from whom the existence of the world and creatures originate and who meets any need that could be conceived and grants every blessing and perfection) possesses all attributes of perfection, because from a realistic point of view, it can never be assumed that anyone possessing an attribute can prevent others from having it.
The Almighty Allah names all attributes of His perfection and declares Himself Immaculate and Pure from any fault and deficiency:
"And your Lord is the Self-sufficient One, the Lord of Mercy... (6:133)."
Allah states:
"Allah-there is no god but He; His are the very best names (20:8)."
(Allah is Living, Wise, Clear-sighted, Hearing, Mighty, Creator, and Free from want.) Thus the Almighty Allah possesses all epithets of perfection and His Holy Presence is Pure and Immaculate. Because if He had deficiency, He would be dependent in that respect and a superior god would have to provide His needs.
"...Glory be to Him and exalted be He above what they associate (with Him) (30:40)."
The Power and Knowledge of Allah
Observation of the interconnected components of this magnificent world, it’s astonishing usual revolution, its dazzling minute and interrelated systems which are at work here and there, as a result of which various phenomena move in an utmost orderly manner towards a specific goal and a particular destination, informs any wise man that the existence and survival of the world of existence and all that is associated with it originate from an Immortal One and Power.
This Immortal One has created the world and all its inhabitants with His Boundless Might and Infinite Knowledge. Having placed His creatures in the cradle of nurturing, He leads them to an ideal perfection by His blessing. He has an immortal life and isOmnipotent and Omniscient.
The Almighty Allah states:
"His is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth; He gives life and causes death; and He has power over all things. He is the First and the Last and the Ascendant (over all) and the Knower of hidden things, and He is Cognizant of all things (57:2-3)."
Allah also states:
"...And Allah's is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and what is between them; He creates what He pleases; and Allah has power over all things (5:17)."
Explanation: When we say that such and such a person has the ability to purchase a car, we mean that he has whatever is needed (enough money) to do so. If we say that such and such a person is able to lift a weight of about 60 kilograms, we mean that he has the strength to lift a weight of 60 kilograms.
On the whole, possessing capability and power over some matter is contingent upon the availability of its requirements. Since the requirements of any phenomenon in the world of existence can be met through the Divine power of the Almighty Allah, it can be said that He is Mighty and Powerful over all things and His Holy Existence is the main source of existence.
He also states:
"Does He not know who He created...( 67:14)?"
That is to say, since in his creation and existence, each creature relies upon the Infinite Entity of the Almighty Allah there can never be any barrier and isolation between that creature and Allah. Nor can that creature be concealed from Him because He is Knowledgeable and Aware of ins and outs of everything.
Justice
The Almighty Allah is Just and Righteous, for justice is one of the attributes of perfection. Allah possesses all attributes of perfection. He, in His words, has repeatedly praised justice and has reproached injustice and cruelty. He commands people to do justice and prohibits them from injustice. How would it be possible for Allah to possess attributes that He considers indecent or to lack whatever He considers good and decent?
The Almighty Allah states:
"Surely Allah does not do injustice to the weight of a particle...( 4:40)."
He also states:
"...And your Lord does not deal unjustly with any one (18:49)."
Allah states:
"...And Allah does not desire injustice for (His) servants (40:31)."
He also states:
"Whatever benefit comes to you (Oman ! ), it is from Allah, and whatever misfortune befalls you, it is from yourself..(4:79)."
Allah also states:
"Who made good everything that He has created...( 32:7)."
Thus, any phenomenon, in itself, has been created in an extremely proper manner. Any hideousness, injustice, deficiencies, or shortcomings that are seen in some creatures can only be experienced by way of comparison and in relationship with other beings. F or example, snakes and scorpions are evil and unjust in their relation to man. When compared with flowers, thorns are not so beautiful, but they are all, in their own right, wonderful and thoroughly beautiful creatures.
Indeed the Almighty Allah declares some of man's voluntary deeds religiously bad and evil and orders man to refrain from doing them. They include sins such as polytheism, disobedience of parents, killing the innocent, drinking alcoholic beverages, gambling, and any other acts which are against religious obligations.
These kinds of actions, which are called sins, are evil acts and are not attributed to Allah because they bear the title of opposition to and rejection of obligation (title of negation). If these acts are willingly performed by religiously obligated people, then they will be attributed to these people, thus making them responsible and subject to punishment.
Blessing
When we see an enfeebled needy, we try to meet his demands to the best of our ability. We help a desperately poverty-stricken man or take a blind man's hand in our own and lead him to his destination. We consider these acts as compassion and blessing and thus regard them as praiseworthy deeds.
Actions performed by the Capable and Independent Allah can be nothing but blessings. By granting His innumerable graces, He lets everyone enjoy them. Without being dependent upon anyone else, Allah provides part of the needs of the creatures. Allah states:
"...And if you count Allah's favors, you will not be able to number them...( 14:34)."
He also states:
"...My mercy encompasses all things...( 7:156)."
Other Attributes of Perfection
"And Your Lord is the Self-sufficient one, the Lord of mercy...( 6:133)."
Explanation: Any goodness and beauty existing in the world and any attribute of perfection that can be conceived are favors that the Almighty Allah has bestowed upon His creatures, and through this means satisfied one of the needs of creation. Certainly, if He lacked that perfection, He would be unable to grant favors to others and would have a share in the needs of people.
Thus, Allah possesses all attributes of perfection and is endowed with all attributes of perfection, such as, life, knowledge, might, etc, without having received a single aspect of perfection from others and without asking them for help. Attributes of imperfection and causes for need and indigence, such as weakness, ignorance, death, difficulty, etc, will not find a way to His Holy Presence.
Nubuwwah (Prophethood)
While independent in every respect, the Almighty Allah, with His immense power, has created the world of existence and its various creatures, allowing them to enjoy His countless blessings.
From the first day of creation till the last day of existence, man and other creatures are fostered by Allah. They are each led toward a known and determined goal with a particular order and system. They proceed towards their ends while being exposed to His noteworthy blessings.
If we study and deliberate upon our lifetime, namely the period of infancy, childhood, youth, and old age, our conscience will testify Allah's complete favors to us. When we become more aware of this matter, our wisdom will undoubtedly judge that the Creator of the world is more compassionate to His creatures than anyone else is.
Due to this compassion and favor, Allah always considers their interests and never consents to the corruption and defect of their affairs without wisdom and expediency. Mankind is one of the creatures of Allah. We know that man's interest and prosperity depend upon his being realistic and benevolent; that is to say, he must possess true beliefs, praiseworthy ethics, and good deeds.
One may say that with his Allah-granted wisdom, man can distinguish between good and bad and can recognize a well from a path.
It should be known, however, that wisdom alone cannot resolve this difficulty and lead man to realism and benevolence. All these indecent characteristics and unjust actions witnessed in the human society are committed by those who possess wisdom and discernment, however, as a result of selfishness, profit-seeking, and voluptuousness, their wisdom has been overcome by their sentiments and they have succumbed to their carnal desires, leading them astray.
Therefore, the Almighty Allah must lead and invite us to prosperity through some other ways and through means which can never be overcome by carnal desires and which never make blunders or mistakes in their guidance. This path is nothing but the path of Nubuwwah.
The logic in Nubuwwah
From what we have discussed about monotheism, it becomes evident that since Allah creates everything, its fostering also depends upon Him. In other words, the Almighty Allah is the organizer and leader of the movement of any worldly creature or phenomenon that from the very beginning of existence endeavors for its survival, strives to remove its imperfections, eliminates its needs and shortcomings one after another, makes itself independent and self-sufficient as much as possible, and moves in an orderly manner in its path of survival and existence.
A definite conclusion can be drawn from this concept. That is to say, any one of the various kinds of phenomena of the world has a specific evolutionary process for its survival which is done by its special endeavors. In other words, in the path of their survival, worldly creatures of each particular group have a series of specific functions assigned to them by Allah. As the Holy Qur'an, with reference to this fact, states:
"...Our Lord is He Who gave to everything its creation, then guided it (to its goal) (20:50)."
This order applies to all components of creation without any exception. It includes the stars, the earth,their components, compositions that generate primary phenomena, plants, and animals.
Man's condition is the same as others, in this universal guidance, but there is a difference between him and others.
The Difference between Man and Other Creatures
The earth has supposedly been created millions of years ago. It employs all its hidden forces and endeavors in the environment of its existence to the extent permitted by opposing forces. It displays the signs of its entity in the field of its rotation and transitional movement, thus maintaining its survival. Unless faced with a stronger opposing force, it will continue this activity and will not fall short of carrying out any of its functions.
For example, from the time an almond tree takes root from a seed until it becomes a fully grown tree, it assumes duties, such as nourishing, developing, etc (in other words, it performs these duties to pursue the course of its existence.) It will never refrain from carrying them out unless it is precluded by a stronger opposing force.
This process also applies to any other phenomenon. But mankind performs his particular activities voluntarily and his actions originate from his thoughts and determination. Many a time, man refrains from a task which is entirely to his interests and which is not hindered by any opposing force and undertakes a task which is entirely disadvantageous to him knowingly and intentionally. Sometimes, he abstains from drinking antidote and sometimes he drinks a cup of poison and kills himself.
It is certainly clear that the divine universal guidance will not be compulsory for a creature born with free will. That is to say, the prophets conveyed the message of the Almighty Allah on good and bad and prosperity and wretchedness to the people and warned believers of Allah's chastisement, but the believers have always been free to adopt any one of them.
It is true that, in general, man perceives his good and bad and advantage and disadvantage through his wisdom, but that very wisdom often loses its keenness, follows carnal desires, and makes error. Therefore, in addition to the medium of wisdom, divine guidance should positively be achieved through a different medium, which is entirely inviolable to sin and error. In other words, in addition to the medium of wisdom, the Almighty Allah confirms His orders by another medium.
This medium is the same medium of prophethood by which the Almighty Allah reveals His orders to one of His servants through wahy leading mankind to prosperity. Allah appoints him to communicate His orders to the people and to oblige them to follow the orders through hope, despair, encouragement, and threat.
The Almighty Allah states:
"Surely We have revealed to you as We revealed to Nuh (Noah), and the prophets after him...( 4:163)." "(We sent) messengers as the bearers of good news and as warners, so that people should not have a plea against Allah after the (coming of) messengers...( 4:165)."
Attributes of a Prophet
From what was discussed, it becomes clear that the Almighty Allah, with His divine teachings, must have provided some of His servants with intuitive knowledge and laws that guarantee man's prosperity and must have sent them to lead the people.
A person who possesses divine messages is called a "nabi (prophet)" and messenger of Allah and the entire set of messages from Allah which he has brought to the people are called "religion".
It has also become clear that a prophet:
(1) Must be free and immune from error. In order to communicate what has been revealed to him to the people without error and mistake, he should be immune from forgetfulness and other mental weaknesses; otherwise, divine guidance will not attain its goal and the general guidance rule will forfeit its applicability and lose its power to influence people.
(2) Must be inviolable to error and sin both in deeds and speech, because sinfulness has no effect in propagation. People do not esteem the speech of a person whose manner and speech are at odds. They even take his deeds for his mendacity and imposture by saying if he meant what he said, he would act accordingly.
By bringing these two aspects together in one phrase, we can say that a prophet must be inviolable to errors and sins to render preaching and propagation effective. In His words, the Almighty Allah, too, refers to this point and states:
"The Knower of the unseen! so He does not reveal His secrets to any, except to him whom He chooses as a messenger.for surely He makes a guard to march before him and after him, so that He may know that they have truly delivered the messages of their Lord...(72:26-28)."
(3) Must possess moral virtues such as chastity, courage, justice, etc, for these are considered as praiseworthy qualities. Anyone who is immune to any sins and follows religion in a perfect manner will never be blemished by moral vices.
Prophets among People
History indicates that there were prophets among people who responded to the call of Allah; however, the details of their life are not so clear. Only the details of life of Prophet Muhammad (S) are devoid of ambiguity. The Holy Qur'an, which is the divine book given to Prophet (S), contains sublime religious aims, has clarified the call of the prophets in the past and has described their goals and objectives.
The Holy Qur'an stipulates that many prophets have been, assigned by Allah to lead the people, all of whom consistently invited the people to monotheism and the true religion. As Allah states:
"AndWe did not send before you any messenger but We revealed to him that there is no god but Me, therefore worship Me (21:25)."