Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Lesson Four: The Technical Meanings of “Science” and “Philosophy”

Introduction

In the first lesson it was indicated that the expression “philosophy” was applied from the beginning as a general term for all the true sciences (as opposed to conventional sciences), and in the second lesson we indicated that in the Middle Ages the realm of philosophy was extended to include some of the conventional sciences such as literature and rhetoric. In the third lesson we learned that the positivists set scientific knowledge in opposition to philosophical and metaphysical knowledge, and they considered only the empirical science to be worthy of the name “scientific”.

According to the first meaning, which was also prevalent in the Islamic period, philosophy has various divisions, each of which is called a special science, and naturally there was no conflict between science and philosophy. However, the second meaning appeared in Europe during the Middle Ages, and was abandoned by the end of that period.

According to the third meaning, which is presently current in the West, philosophy and metaphysics are set in opposition to science. Since this meaning also has gained currency to some extent in Eastern countries, it is necessary to explain something about science, philosophy and metaphysics and the relations among them. Additionally, the divisions of the sciences and their classification will be mentioned.

After the treatment of this topic, we will remark on some especially important points about equivocation, differences in meaning and the technical meanings of a word, neglect of which is a cause of much confusion and fallacy.

Homonymity

In all languages (as far as it is known), words can be found each of which has a literal meaning, a commonly accepted meaning and a technical meaning. This is called homonymity,ishtirāk al-lafẓī . For example, in Farsi, the termdūsh has the meaning of ‘last night’, ‘shoulder’ and ‘shower’, and the termshīr is used for ‘lion’, ‘milk’ and ‘faucet’.

The existence of homonymity plays an important role in literature and poetry, but in science, and particularly in philosophy, it brings about many difficulties, especially since the different meanings for a word are often so close to each other that distinguishing them becomes difficult. Many errors are made due to this sort of homonymity, and occasionally even authorities fall into this trap.

For this reason, some of the great philosophers, such as Ibn Sīnā, obliged themselves to clarify the meanings of various terms and differences among their technical senses before engaging in precise philosophical discussion in order to prevent confusion and error.

By way of example we will mention a case of homonymity which has many applications and often leads to misunderstandings, and that is the termjabr .

The literal meaning ofjabr is to compensate or remove a deficiency, later is was used with the meaning of “bone setting”, and perhaps it assumed this meaning because bone setting is a way of compensating a kind of deficiency, and possibly it was first used for bone setting and later was generalized to the compensation of any sort of deficiency.

A third meaning of this word is to force or place under pressure, and perhaps it assumed this meaning as a result of generalization of a requirement of bone setting, that is, since bone setting usually requires that the broken member be placed under pressure in order that the bone may be fit together, this meaning was generalized to include any pressure exerted by someone on another which forces the other to do something involuntarily. Perhaps this was first used for cases of physical pressure and then for cases of mental pressure, and finally this concept was expanded to include any sort of feeling of pressure, even when not brought about by another person.

Up to this point we have reviewed the concept ofjabr from the perspective of its literal and commonly accepted meanings. Now we should introduce the technical meaning of this expression in science and philosophy.

One of the scientific meanings ofjabr is that which is used in mathematics, that is, a kind of calculation in which instead of numerals letters are used, and perhaps this meaning was coined because in algebraic calculations positive and negative quantities compensate each other, or because the unknown quantity on one side of an equation becomes known by attending to the other side or by transferring its members, which is a kind of compensating.

Another technical meaning is related to psychology, which is used as the opposite of free will. Similar to this is the problem of ‘free will and determinism’ which is studied in theology. This term is also used in ethics, law andfiqh , the explanation of which would take too long.

Since the distant past the concept ofjabr (as opposed to free will) has been confused with certainty, necessity and philosophical necessity ( wujūb falsafī ). In reality, the term was mistakenly used for certainty and necessity, as in foreign languages “determinism” is viewed as equivalent to it. In conclusion, the illusion is created that every case in which the necessity of cause and effect is accepted, there cannot be free will, and conversely, the denial of necessity and certainty are taken to imply free will. The effect of this illusion on several philosophical problems is manifest, among which is that the [early] theologians denied causal necessity in the case of voluntary agents, and following this, they accursed philosophers of failing to consider God the Exalted as voluntary. On the other hand, the jabriyyūn (determinists) considered the existence of a certain fate as a reason for their own position, and opposing them, the Mu`tazilites, who believed in the free will of man, denied that there is a certain destiny. Although the certainty of destiny is irrelevant to jabr , in reality these disputes, which have a long history, occurred because of confusion between the concept of jabr and that of necessity.

Another unfortunate example is that some physicists have raised doubts about or denied causal necessity in the case of some phenomena of

microphysics, and opposing them, some Western theists have attempted to prove the existence of the Will of God on the basis of the denial of necessity for these phenomena, imagining that the denial of necessity and rejection of determinism in these cases would imply the proof a free power!

In conclusion, the existence of homonymity, especially in cases in which the meanings are near to or similar to one another, brings about problems in philosophical discussions. These difficulties are redoubled when in a single science a term has many technical meanings, as in the case of the expression ‘intellect’ ( ‘aql ) in philosophy, and the terms ‘essential’ ( dhātī ) and ‘accidental’ ( ‘araḍī ) in logic. Therefore, the need to explain meanings and to determine the intended meaning in every discussion is clear.

The Technical Meaning of “Science”

Among the expressions which have various and confusing applications is the term‘ilm (science, knowledge). The literal meaning of this word and of its synonyms in other languages, such asdānesh anddānestan in Farsi, are clear and require no explanation; but‘ilm has various technical meanings, among which the most important are:

1. Certain belief corresponding to reality, which is the opposite of simple and compound ignorance, even if used in a single proposition.

2. The set of propositions considered to be relevant to one another, even if the propositions are singular and specific. And it is in this sense that‘ilm is also applied to the science of history (knowing specific historical events), the science of geography (knowing the specific conditions of different areas on the globe), the science ofrijāl [the study of the transmitters of hadiths] and biography.

3. The set of universal propositions which are considered pivotal in some field, each of which is applicable to numerous instances, even if these propositions are conventional, and it is in this sense that‘ilm is applied to conventional as opposed to ‘real’ (ḥaqīqī ) sciences, such as vocabulary and grammar. However, singular and specific propositions, such as those mentioned above, are not considered‘ilm in this sense.

4. The set of universal ‘real’ (ḥaqīqī ) (i.e. not conventional) propositions which are pivotal in some field. This sense includes all the theoretical and practical sciences, including theology and metaphysics, but it does not apply to singular and conventional propositions.

5. The set of real propositions which can be justified by sense experience. This is the very sense in which the positivists employ the term, and on this basis the non-empirical sciences and learning are not considered to be‘ilm (science).

The restriction of the expression ‘science’ (‘ilm ) to the empirical sciences is not a matter of controversy as far as this merely concerns the coining of terms and fixing terminology, however, the fixing of this term by the positivists is based on the particular view of those who imagine that the scope of certain and real human knowledge is limited to sensible and empirical things. They consider thinking which goes beyond this to be meaningless and fruitless. However, unfortunately, this sense has come to prevail across the surface of the earth, according to which science is set in opposition to philosophy.

The scope of certain knowledge, the refutation of positivism and the proof that there is real knowledge beyond the realm of sense and experience shall be postponed until the discussion of epistemology. We next turn to the explanation of the concept of philosophy and metaphysics.

The Technical Meaning of “Philosophy”

Thus far we have become acquainted with three technical meanings ofphilosophy : the first meaning includes all of the real sciences; the second meaning additionally includes some of the conventional sciences; the third meaning is specific to non-empirical knowledge and is used for the opposite of science (in the sense of empirical knowledge).

In this sense, philosophy includes logic, epistemology, ontology (metaphysics), theology, theoretical psychology (as opposed to empirical psychology), aesthetics, ethics and politics, even if in this area there are more or less differences of opinion and sometimes it is employed only for first philosophy or metaphysics, and this may be considered a fourth technical meaning of “philosophy”.1

The expression “philosophy” also has other technical uses, which usually occur modified by an adjective or a genitive construction, as in “scientific philosophy” and “the philosophy of the sciences”.

Scientific Philosophy

This expression is also used in various ways.

A. Positivism. Auguste Compte, after condemning philosophical thought and metaphysics and denying universal rational principles, divided the basic positive sciences into six fundamental branches, each of which has its own characteristic laws, as follows: mathematics, astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology and sociology. He wrote a book calledCourse of Positive Philosophy in six volumes, and he treated the totality of the sixfold sciences in accordance with his so-called positive method. He devoted three volumes of the set to sociology, even though the basis of this positive philosophy lies in some dogmatic non-positive claims!

In any case, the contents of this book, which is in fact program for the investigation of the sciences and especially the social sciences, is calledpositive philosophy , or scientific philosophy .

B. Dialectical Materialism. Marxists, contrary to positivists, emphasized the necessity of philosophy and the existence of universal laws. However, they hold that these laws are obtained from the generalization of the laws of the empirical sciences, not from rational and metaphysical thought. Hence, they called the philosophy of dialectical materialism “scientific philosophy”, for, according to their own claims, it is obtained from the achievements of the empirical sciences, even if it is no more scientific than the philosophy of positivism. Basically, scientific philosophy (if “scientific” is taken to mean “empirical”) is an oxymoron, such as “a clean shaven man with a beard”, and in comparative discussions, their claims have been subject to criticism.

C. Another sense of scientific philosophy is synonymous to “methodology”. It is clear that every science depending on its sort of problems, requires its own specific methods of research and verification. For example, the problems of history cannot be solved in the laboratory by

means of the analysis and synthesis of various elements, and likewise, no philosopher can establish the year in which Napoleon attacked Russia or whether he was victorious or defeated by means of philosophical and mental analysis and inference. These sorts of problems are to be solved by means of review of the relevant documents and the evaluation of their validity.

In general, science in the general sense may be divided in to three types according to the methods of research and inquiry used for solving their problems: intellectual sciences, empirical sciences, and narrative and historical sciences.

A science by the name of ‘methodology’ has appeared in order to review the kinds and levels of the sciences and to determine the general and specific methods of each of the three types of science, which is occasionally called scientific philosophy, as it is also sometimes called practical logic.

Reference

1 Cf.Falsafah ‘Umūmī yā Mā ba‘d al-Ṭabī‘ah, the Farsi translation of Paul Foulquie,Traité élémentaire de philosophie, (Paris: 1951),Vol. 3, Métaphysique, Ch. 6, "The Fundamental Problems of Metaphysics"; Khulāsah-ye Falsafah,

Lesson Five: Philosophy and The Sciences

The Philosophy of the Sciences

In the previous lesson we mentioned that sometimes the term “philosophy” is used in genitive constructions such as “philosophy of morals”, “philosophy of law”, etc..

We shall now explain this sort of usage.

This sort of expression is sometimes used by those who restrict the term “science” to the empirical sciences, and who use the term “philosophy” for fields of the human sciences which are not susceptible to proof by sensory experience. Instead of saying, “the science of theology”, for example, such people say “the philosophy of theology”, that is, the use of “philosophy” in the genetic construction is merely for the sake of indicating the kind of matter under discussion and its topics.

Likewise, those who consider problems which are both scientific and evaluative to be “unscientific”, and who hold that there is no objective basis in reality for them but consider them to be merely governed by the desires and inclinations of people, sometimes consider these sorts of problems to belong to the realm of philosophy. So, for example, instead of speaking of the “science of morals” they say, “the philosophy of morals”, and instead of speaking of “the science of politics” they say, “the philosophy of politics”.

Sometimes this sort of expression is used in another sense, and that is to explain the principles of other sciences. In addition, matters such as the history, founders, goals, methods of research, and the course of development of a science are also discussed under this rubric.

This sort of expression is not peculiar to the positivists and those of like mind to them, but those who consider philosophical and evaluative knowledge to be “science” and who consider their methods of research and inquiry to be “scientific”, also use this sort of expression. Sometimes, in order to avoid confusion with the previous usage, they add the word “science” to the genetic construction. For example, they say, “the philosophy of the science of history” in contrast to “the philosophy of history”, or they say, “the philosophy of the science of morals” in contrast to “the philosophy of morals” in the previous sense.

Metaphysics

One of the terms which is used in contrast to “science” is the term “metaphysics”. Hence, it is necessary to explain something about this word.

This term is derived from the Greekmetataphysica by dropping the extrata and transforming thephysica to “physics”, to take the form “metaphysics”. It has been translated into Arabic asmā ba‘d al-ṭabī‘ah (that which is after physics).

According to that which has been narrated by the historians of philosophy, this word was first used as a name for one of the books of Aristotle, which occurred following hisPhysics , and which included general discussions of existence. In the Islamic Age this came to be calledumūr ‘ammah (general affairs), and some of the Islamic philosophers have considered it suitable to use the expressionmā qabl al-ṭabī‘ah (that which is prior to physics).

Apparently, this discussion is different from that oftheology or uthūlūjiyyah . But in the books of the Islamic philosophers, these discussions are combined, and together they are given the name “divinity in the general sense”. Likewise, theology is specified by the name “divinity in the specific sense”.

Some have taken the term metaphysics to be equivalent to “trans-physical”, meaning that which is beyond physics, and they consider the use of this name for this part of ancient philosophy to be an instance of using a general name for something more specific, for in divinity, in the general sense, God and abstract things (beyond physics) are also discussed. However, it seems that the first meaning is the correct one.

In any case, metaphysics is used for a collection of theoretical intellectual problems, which are a part of philosophy (in the general sense). Nowadays, the term philosophy is sometimes restricted to these problems, and one of the new meanings of “philosophy” is metaphysics. The reason that the positivists considered these kinds of problems to be unscientific is that they are susceptible to verification by sensory experience. Likewise, Kant considered theoretical reason to be insufficient for the verification of these problems and he called them “dialectical” or debatable from two standpoints.

Science, Philosophy, Metaphysics and The Relations among Them

Keeping in mind the different meanings mentioned for science and philosophy, it becomes clear that the relation among science, philosophy and metaphysics differs in accordance with these different meanings. If “science” is used for awareness, in an unqualified sense, or if it is used for a group of related propositions, it becomes more general than philosophy, for it would then include particular propositions and the conventional sciences. If it is used in the sense of real universal propositions, it becomes equivalent to philosophy in its ancient sense. If it is used in the sense of empirical propositions, it becomes more specific than philosophy in the ancient sense, and it contradicts the modern meaning of philosophy (i.e., the set of nonempirical propositions). Likewise, metaphysics is a part of philosophy in the ancient sense, and is equivalent to it in one of its modern meanings.

It should be noted that the contrast between science and philosophy in the modern sense, as is intended by the positivists and those similar to them, is used to denigrate the value of philosophical problems and to deny the nobility and station of reason and the value of intellectual understanding, while this is not correct. In discussions of epistemology it will be made clear that the value of intellectual understanding is not merely no less than that of sensory and experiential knowledge, but is even of an even higher level than these. Even the value of experiential knowledge itself will be found to be due to the value of intellectual understanding and philosophical propositions.

Therefore, the restriction of the term science for empirical knowledge and the term philosophy to that which is non-empirical is acceptable if merely a matter of terminology, but one must not misuse the contrast

between these terms to pretend that the problems of philosophy and metaphysics are just idle speculation. Likewise, the label “scientific” does not establish any advantage for any sort of philosophical tendency, and basically, this label is like a patch which does not match the fabric of philosophy, and it can be considered a sign of the ignorance and demagoguery of those who affix it. The claim that the principles of a philosophy such as those of dialectical materialism are obtained from empirical laws is wrong, for the laws of no science are generalizable to any other science, let alone to all of existence. For example, the laws of psychology and biology cannot be generalized to physics or chemistry or mathematics, and vice versa. The laws of these sciences have no use outside their own realms.

The Division and Classification of the Sciences

The question will be posed here concerning what basically is the motivation for the separation of the science from one another. The answer is that recognizable problems form a broad spectrum, and although within this spectrum some problems have a close relation to one another, others are completely alien to one another.

On the other hand, the acquisition of some kinds of knowledge is dependent on that of others, and at least the understanding of one kind may help in the understanding of another, while for other sorts of knowledge this sort of relation does not exist.

With regard to the fact that the acquisition of all the kinds of knowledge is impossible for a student, and assuming that it would be feasible, not all people have the motivation for it. Likewise, the talents and tastes of individuals with regard to the acquisition to different sorts of subjects are different, and given that some sorts of knowledge are related to one another and that the acquisition of some are dependent on others, for this reason, teachers since long ago have decided to classify appropriately related topics together, and to so determine the specific sciences and types of knowledge. Different sciences are categorized and the need of each science for others is clarified, and consequently their relative priorities are determined so that, firstly, one who has a specific talent and taste will be able to find that which he seeks from among the masses of innumerable problems and he may find the way to reach his goal. Secondly, one who would acquire a different field of knowledge should be able to find where to begin, so that the way may be prepared for knowledge of this other field and to facilitate its acquisition.

In this way, the sciences have been divided into various parts, and each part, in turn, has been placed in a specific category and level, which include a general division into the theoretical and practical sciences, and the theoretical sciences are divided into the natural sciences, mathematics and divinity, while the practical sciences are divided into ethics, household economics and politics, which were mentioned before.

The Standard for Distinguishing among the Sciences

Now that the necessity for classifying the sciences has become clear, another question may be posed. What are the criteria and standards for the categorization of the sciences and for distinguishing among them?

The answer is that the sciences may be classified according to various standards, the most important of which are:

1. According to the methods and procedures of research. Earlier we indicated that all problems cannot be the object of study and research by a single method, and we also indicated that all sciences, with regard to their general methods of inquiry, can be divided into three groups:

A. The rational sciences, which may be investigated by means of rational proofs and mental inferences alone, as with logic and divine philosophy.

B. The empirical sciences, which are verifiable by empirical methods, such as physics, chemistry and biology.

C. Narrative sciences, which can be investigated on the basis of narrated and historical documentation, such as history, biography (`ilm al-rijal ) and Islamic jurisprudence (`ilm al-fiqh ).

2. According to the goal and telos. Another standard on the basis of which the sciences may be classified is the benefits and consequences which result from them. These are the goals and ends which the student takes into consideration when learning them, such as material and spiritual goals, or individual and social goals.

It is obvious that one who desires to find the way for the realization of his own spiritual perfection needs to study various matters which are not needed by one who is interested in obtaining wealth through agriculture or industry. Likewise, a leader of society needs another kind of knowledge. Hence, the sciences may be classified in accordance with these various goals.

3. According to the subject matter. The third standard according to which the sciences may be distinguished and separated is their subject matter. With regard to the fact that every problem has a subject, and a number of problems are collected under an inclusive topic, this inclusive topic may serve as that about which the various subordinate questions pivot, as numbers are the subject of arithmetic, volume (continuous quantities) is the subject of geometry and the human body is the subject of the science of medicine.

The classification of the sciences in accordance with their subject matters provides a better way to secure the goal and motivation for separating the sciences since by using this method the internal relations and harmony among problems and their order and arrangement is better preserved. For this reason, since long ago it has been noted by great philosophers and scientists. However, in subdivisions other standards may be taken into consideration. For example, one may establish a science called theology, whose problems turn about the subject of God the Almighty. Then it may be subdivided into branches which are philosophical, gnostic, or religious, each of which may be investigated by a specific procedure. In reality, the standard for this subdivision would be the method of research. In the same way, the subject of mathematics may be divided into various branches each of which may be indicated on the basis of a specific goal, such as the mathematics of physics and the mathematics of economics. In this way, the composition of different standards is brought about.

Whole and Universal

The inclusive topic which is taken into consideration for the subjects of a problem and on the basis of which science appears with the meaning of a collection of related problems, sometimes is a universal topic and has many individual instances, and sometimes it takes the form of a whole and has numerous parts. An example of the first kind is the topic of number or amount, which has various types and classes each of which is composed of the subject of a specific problem. An example of the second kind is the body of man which has numerous organs, limbs and parts, each of which is the subject of a section of the science of medicine.

The basic difference between these two sorts of subjects is that in the first kind, the topic of the subject of the science is applied individually to the subjects of its problems which are its particulars, as opposed to the second sort in which the topic of the subject is not applied individually to the subjects of the problems, but rather is predicated to the collection of parts.

The Branches of the Sciences

From what has already been explained, it has been found that the classification of the sciences is for the sake of facilitating teaching, and to fulfill the aims of education to the extent possible. In the beginning when human knowledge was limited it was possible to classify all of it into a few groups. For example, it was possible to consider zoology to be a single science and it would even include problems related to man. However, gradually when the circle of problems expanded, especially after various scientific instruments were made for the investigation of empirical problems, the empirical sciences more than others, were divided into various branches, and every science was divided into more particular sciences. This process is still increasing.

In general, the subdivision of the sciences takes several forms:

1. One form is that in which the small parts are taken from the subject as a whole, and each part becomes the subject of a new branch taken from the mother science, as endocrinology and genetics. It is clear that this kind of division is specified to sciences in which the relation between the subject of the science and the subject of the problems is the relation between a whole and its parts.

2. Another form is that in which more particular types and more limited classes are taken from the universal topic, as entomology and bacteriology. This sort of subdivision occurs in sciences in which the relation between the subject of the science and the subject of the problems is that between universal and particular, not between a whole and its parts.

3. Another form is that in which the various methods of research are considered a secondary criteria and while retaining the unity of the subject, new branches appear. This occurs in cases in which the problems of a science may be investigated and solved in different ways, as in philosophical theology, mystical theology and religious theology.

4. Another form is that in which different goal may be considered as subcriteria and problems appropriate to each goal are introduced as a specific branch of the mother science, as was mentioned in the case of mathematics.