Intellectual Diversity of Human Thought

Gill Sahib,

First of all a thing which I want to ask is that why Einstein’s E=mc2 is generally regarded as some whole new outlook given by him which had `equalized` `mass` and `energy`...???

After all, scientific community was already aware of the concept of kinetic energy where the relationship between mass and energy in this formula: E=1/2 mv2, was already known to them... As this equation also hold a definite link between `mass` (m) and `energy` (E) ?

Secondly, I fully agree with JS. Why to give any importance to Allama Iqbal in the world of Philosophy? Allama sahib may be important philosopher for those who know just little about Philosophy. Thus a layman considering Allama Iqbal sahib as important philosopher would make sense. But a man of philosophy should properly justify in treating him any important philosopher. You have said Allama Sahib `glorified` intuition. Which intuition? And how? Obviously it was just the same concept of ‘intuition’, which was introduced by French Philosopher Bergson. Bergson had conceived `intuition` as equivalent to those ‘instincts’, which acquired the characteristic of `self-cognition`. Iqbal just had taken the exact same concept of `intuition`. Secondly it was not Iqbal who had `glorified` this `intuition`. It was Berson himself who had given his concept of `intuition` so much glory so that for Pakistanis, Mr. Allama Iqbal sahib should take all the credit of this `glory` of `intuition`.

And yes! Bergson did glorify ‘intuition’ but … at the cost of human rationality. Bergson was anti-rationalist. For him, human rationality particularly was incapable to understand the true nature of time or ‘duration’. For him, ultimate reality could be found in the true meaning of his ‘duration’. But this purpose could not be achieved by using intellect or rationality. Only ‘intuition’, according to him, could find that ultimate reality. According to Bergson, Rationality can understand ‘time’ only in terms of ‘minutes’ and ‘seconds’ etc. whereas reality is that each and every moment of time continuously keep on creating new and new features to the universe. He calls this phenomenon as ‘creative evolution’ and considers it as the ultimate reality of universe. Since rationality sees time just in mechanical terms of minutes and seconds, so it cannot get the true knowledge of ‘creative evolutionary’ aspect of duration. Only intuition, according to Bergson, can find out this reality. Bergson has conceived ‘intuition’ as equivalent to such ‘instincts’, which acquire the quality of ‘self cognition’. So according to Bergson, only the ‘intuition’ (i.e. self-aware instinct) can find out the ultimate reality of ‘creative evolutionary’ duration. This reality, which intuition finds in this way cannot be communicated to others with the help of written or spoken words. So reality can be found only through personal intuitive experience. Bergson also discusses the role of ‘rationality’, which just serves the purpose of converting that non-communicate-able pure reality into the shape of less pure but communicate-able form of written or spoken words of language. In this way, ‘intuition’ produces the knowledge of reality. This original knowledge is pure but cannot be communicated to others in this pure form. Role of rationality is secondary. Rationality converts this pure knowledge into impure form that can be communicated to others in the form of written or spoken words.

What Iqbal has done? He has picked the same concept of Bergson’s ‘intuition’ with the same meaning and has given preference to this concept of intuition over rationality. He also says that only intuition gives pure knowledge but this pure knowledge cannot be communicated. By just following the Bergson’s course, he says that rationality can be used to convert this pure knowledge into impure form and so knowledge can be communicated but only in impure form. Just like Bergson, Iqbal also says that pure knowledge can be acquired only through personal ‘intuitive’ experience. Rationality cannot produce any knowledge. Rationality only converts pure knowledge into impure but communicate-able form. See that for the purpose of getting new knowledge, there is no need of rational inquiry according to Bergson and Iqbal.

So Iqbal has just copied Bergson over this issue. Iqbal sahib cannot be given the credit of giving any glorification to intuition, because all it was actually done by Bergson. But Iqbal can be considered guity of de-grading the human rationality also by just following the views of Bergson as well as some other Western anti-rational Philosophers like Rousseau etc.

When Iqbal gives superioriy to ‘intuition’ over ‘rationality’, he just follow the views of Bergson. And when Iqbal considers ‘Isq’ as superior to ‘Rationality’, here he just follow the views of Rousseau. Rousseau, in his work, had given preference to ‘passions’ over ‘rationality’. The same thing has been reflected in Iqbal when he gave superiority to ‘ishq’ over ‘rationality’.

Thanks!

I do not know whether new interacts to this board will be seen by anyone. Anyways ... If you found this article interesting then may be you will find following URL also interesting: http://www.stats.uwaterloo.ca/~cgsmall/ontology.html. Main theses is that one can prove the existence of God using Kurt Gödel`s proof theoretic arguments.

-einsteinwallah

The writer would like to apologise for a few editorial lapses in his post of November 10. At a couple of places, I had referred to `rs` instead of `js`; I offer my apology to js. There are a few other spelling mistakes and probably grammatical too.

shibil #22 I mentioned existential philosophers not so much for their contributions to the cause of individual freedom, but rather for the potential that was never realized. Rousseau and John Locke did indeed provided the philosophical basis for individual rights. In particular, Locke`s concept of a social contract overturned the theory of the divine right of kings that prevailed in Europe at the time. And these theories were translated into real life by the American Revolution where the assumption of individual liberty was made explicit in the declaration of independence (``we hold these truths to be self-evident...``). The French revolution was itself inspired by the American Revolution, and broke the hold of kings in the old world as well.
I think the Quran is very explicitly places responsibility on the individual, not on the community in general, for appreciating the difference between right and wrong and for doing the right thing. It even calls upon the individual to reject, if he considers appropriate, what has been taught by his/her own parents (without disrespect of loss of affection to them). Since responsibility and rights are two sides of the same coin, clearly the Quran is in line with the concepts of individual liberty. This of course is in the opposite direction from the ethos prevailing in virtually every muslim society I have seen.
I also agree with you on the nation-state. It is an anachronism in today`s world. Interestingly, the two basic functions of a nation-state (Foreign Relations and Defence) would become redundant if there were no nation-states. To my mind the logical political structure for today`s world is (a) local self-governments, to take care of things like law and order, education etc. and (b) a global authority to ensure certain basic rights are respected in all local governments, and to address global issues like the environment, free trade and so forth. Wont happen though in our lifetimes, although I think thngs will evolve generally in this direction in future.

tahemd32 #19 i completely agreed with the conclusions of your previous post (#15), if not with the route you took. in my opinion the epistemology of rights can be traced back much longer than the existential philosophers of the 20th century and their forerunners in the likes of nietzche. following a line of liberal and natural philosophers, i think the western liberal concept of individual rights culminated in the works of rousseau, and of course, went on to inspire the french revolution. of course, alternate versions of rights, or rather, of freedoms, probably emerge from different knowledge systems (e.g. the chinese, sub-continetal or islamic). but sadly these have been manipulated by authoritarian regimes (such as s.korea`s lee kuan yew and his so called `asian values`) rather than studied and critcally examined at length.

also, i hold the opinion that the idea of the `nation state` itself is quite divisive and has a racial matrix at its heart. dominant groups equate the state with the nation and hence, often attempt to cleanse the state of diverse nations representing the racial or cultural `other`. racism, i believe, is the heart of the nation state, a concept itself an imperial construct.

finally, i never thought about the unity, faith, discipline, maxim sounding exactly like a military dictate. brilliant point, well made.

STUKA!!!!!

I am in Delhi (ok, in Palam Vihar, Haryana....) till Dec 21, except for about ten days at the beginning of Dec when I`m in Bombay/Pune. Gimme call on 636 9395. Use the Harayana area code (look it up in book :-)). Talk soon!

Dost-Mittarji - aap bhi haiN, na, Dilli meiN? I seem to recall some Bengali Market type plans....??

freethinker saheb:

very scholarly column -- mashaallah

totally agree -- god did NOT create human beings -- humans created god and goddesses.

anyway even if God created Adam and Eve -- and build the whole universe in 7 days -- His biggest blunder was -- to endow His ADHD creatures with `speech`/language -- and ask him/her --

iqraa be isme rubboka -- recite the name of God --

That was God`s Biggest Undoing -- because with that -- all hell broke loose --

the human kind ran away with the `spoken word` -- pushed the CREATOR into a CREATED one -- started breeding its OWN Gods and Goddesses -- in as many languages as it could – and build their own PARALLEL UNIVERSES -- based upon the spoken /written word -- of each geographic, regional, ethnic, tastes and preferences.

and THEN -- started KILLING each other on something like – my God is better than your God

the rest is a pretty messy history of 5 thousand years as we all know today.

May be -- if God had been sagacious enough -- to make the mankind/womankind MUTE -- and to give them a Calculator -- instead of a Book -- ordering them to CALCULATE -- instead to RECITE –

the history of the world may have been different today.

your scholarly effort in support of religious TOLERANCE -- on chowk -- is laudable, Gill saheb -- lekin way things stand...

shore qaum-o deen meiN zikre rawadari jenaab
kisko foorsut hai sunay ek aur deewane ki baat

best regards

shibil #18 Thanks for reminding us that Iqbal was much more than the ``founding philospher`` for pakistan. I wonder what you think of my post #15 below where the logical conclusion I draw is that the two-nation theory, while a convenient tactic for the time, has tended to promote the concept of a ``nation`` at the expense of suppressing emphasis on individual rights and freedoms.
While Iqbal may never have intended it this way (as I can believe given his works that reflect a much broader mind and much greater humanity than what pakistani officialdom would have us believe), others picked up on this theme. The national motto of ``unity, faith, discipline`` pushes underground the rights of the individual, and is clearly more consistent with a dumb military machine than a progressive society.

in my opinion, whether iqbal makes it on the list of prominent philosophers on the world stage is not essential. for better or for worse, he is a major modern sub-continental philosopher and a prominent urdu poet. what is more noteworthy is the myth that he is essentially a meta-physical philosopher/poet. this is largely a result of his semi-divinsation after partition due to his contributions towards the pakistan movement (which are, despite romanticised and bastardised official histories of pakistan, often greatly exagerrated). in fact, his ideas were largely affected by the social context of his writings and were in a constant state of flux.

his poem `new temple` gives us a glimpse of his turn away from the metaphysics he had imbibed at the heidelberg. it reads:
``i shall tell the truth, o brahman, but take it
not as an offence:
the idols in they temple have decayed.
thou hast learnt from these images to bear
ill-will to thine own people,
and god has taught the mullah
the ways of strife
My heart was sick: i turned away
both from the temple and the ka`aba,
from the mullahs sermons and from
they fairy talse, o brahman``

his `complaint` or `kalaam` is well know and again see him eschewing meta-physics, if only by implication. his lesser known `gods commandments` actually sees allah listening to lenin and then commanding the angel gabriel:
``arise, awaken the wretched of this earth
shake the foundations, tremble the walls
of the mansions in which the wealthy sleep;
and in every field where a peasant starves,
there go and burn every bushel of wheat.``

and finally, the break with meta-physics is conveyed quite clearly in `the reconstruction of religious thought in islam`, where he argues that propechy reached its nadir with islam and thus, annihilated itself. islamic culture (as opposed to solely the religion) could only progress by becoming dialectical and synthetic and concentrating on the material and the finite.

thus, by treating iqbal as a meta-physical philosopher/poet, we ignore the wealth of his critical and materialist works and only contribute to the many historical distortions and myths surrounding him and his works.

freethinker:
I am pleased to acknowledge the comments of all the Interactors. I was saddened to read about Jon Elia’s death. He was a good poet. I was fascinated of his comments about the Iranian Poetess, Qurratul- Ain Tahirhe, in the foreword of his book “Shayad (Perhaps”. While I appreciate the discussions of all the Interactors, I’ll comment in some comprehensive detail on Naqshbandi’s reference to Imam al-Ghazali, and in some little detail on js’s and tahmed’s discussions respectively. A couple of years back, I had written a paper (which I have not published yet) which included biographical profiles of al-Ghazali and al-Rushd together with review and critique of some of their works. The paper included profiles of two other philosophers and review of their works. I cannot do better than reproduce the referenced material pertaining to al-Ghazali and Ibn- Rushd here in the following.

AL-GHAZALI – THE GREATEST MYSTICAL THEOLOGIST OF ISLAM

Our present life in relation to the future is perhaps only a dream, and man, once dead, will see things in direct opposition to those now before his eyes; he will then understand that word of the Quran, “Today we have removed the veil from thine eyes and thy sight is keen.”
Such thoughts as these threatened to shake my reason, and I sought to find an escape from them. But how? In order to disentangle the knot of this difficulty, a proof was necessary. Now a proof must be based on primary assumptions, and it was precisely these of which I was in doubt. This unhappy state lasted about two months, during which I was , not, it is true, explicitly or by profession, but morally and essentially, a thoroughgoing skeptic….. I owed my deliverance, not to concatenation of proofs and arguments, but to the light which God caused to penetrate into my heart. (Al-Ghazali,6)


Abu Hamid Ibn Muhammad Ibn Muhammad al-Tusi al-Shafi’i al-Ghazali (1058-1111), known as Al-Gazel in the western world, was born in 1058 in Khorasan , Iran, twenty-one years after the death of Ibn Sina and one hundred and eight years after the death of al-Farabi. He received his education in the prevalent curricula at Nishapur and Baghdad. He excelled in the studies of Islamic theology and philosophy in recognition of which he was appointed a Professor of Law at the Nizamiyah university of Baghdad that was the most prominent university at that time. But after a few years, he forsook this prized appointment and became a wandering ascetic. At the age of thirty-six years, he went through an intellectual crisis, a sort of catharsis, a period of doubt and soul-searching, and skepticism. However, he returned to his faith in Islam with renewed vigor and determination and abandoned rationalism that had created the doubts in his mind to start with. He narrates this experience in his book “Munkidh min-al-Dalal (Confessions, or Deliverance from Error), “Again, the eye sees a star and believes it as large as a piece of gold, but mathematical calculations prove, on the contrary, that it is larger than the earth. These notions, and all others which the senses declare true, are subsequently contradicted of falsity in an irrefragable manner by the verdict of reason. Then I reflected on fundamental principles…Who can guarantee you that you can trust to the evidence of reason more than to that of the senses?” By tenuous and convoluted arguments against rationalism but wholly satisfactory to himself, al-Ghazali chose the path of divine revelation, in which he had undivided faith, and spent most of his life in waging a vendetta against philosophical ideas of al-Farabi, Ibn Sina, and others who had adopted Aristotelian and Neo-Paltonic philosophy as their point of departure. He wrote his universally renowned book Tahafut-al-falasifa (The Incoherence of Philosophers) between 1091 and 1095, some fifty four to fifty nine years after the death of Ibn Sina. His polemic is mainly aimed at al-Farabi and Ibn Sina. In this monumental book, al-Ghazali had considered twenty questions attributed to the philosophers and he refuted them on every count. He used the philosophical argument and approach in pointing out the defects in Ibn Sina’s philosophy. The book is known for its excellence of argument and remains a book of reference to this date. In the conclusion of his Tahafut, al-Ghazali (7) stated:
If some one says, “You have explained the doctrine of these (philosophers); do you then say conclusively that they are infidels and that the killing of those who uphold their beliefs is obligatory?” We say: pronouncing them infidels is necessary in three questions. One of them is the question of the world’s pre-eternity and their statement that God’s knowledge does not encompass the temporal particulars among individual (existents). The third is their denial of the resurrection of bodies and their assembly at the day -of -judgment.

Al-Ghazali took issue with the philosophy of al-Farabi and Ibn Sina and conceded (7), “Regarding mathematical sciences, there is no sense in denying them or disagreeing with them. For these reduce in the final analysis to arithmetic and geometry.” The verdict dealt by al-Ghazali against philosophy proved fatal for further development of analytical thought in Islamic society. Although he seems to have tolerated the study of mathematics as seen above, in fact five years after writing his Tahafut, he very much discouraged the study of mathematics also as we shall see herein later. Study of philosophy in particular and of rational sciences in general was not encouraged in the Islamic world later on, and in due time, these sciences became foreign to the Muslim culture. Even in the modern times, rational sciences and philosophy do not have deep and self-sustaining roots in the Muslim society; they are imported and planted into the society from abroad. Al-Ghazali (6) classifies the philosophical system into three sub-systems, in his Munkidh, as follows.

1. The Materialists: They reject an intelligent and Omnipotent Creator and disposer of the universe. In their view the world exists from all eternity and had no author. The animal comes from semen and semen from the animal; so it had always been and will always be; those who maintain this doctrine are atheists.
2. The Naturalists: They devote themselves to the study of nature and the marvelous phenomenon of the animal and vegetable world… Acknowledging neither a recompense for good deeds nor a punishment for evil ones, they fling off all authority and plunge into sensual pleasures with the avidity of brutes. These also ought to be called atheists.
3. The Theists: ..This school refuted the systems of the two others, i.e., the Materialists and Naturalists; but in exposing their mistakes and perverse beliefs, they made use of arguments, which they should not. “God suffices to protect the faithful in war” (Quran, 33:25).

Al-Ghazali divided the Philosophic Sciences into six categories, first of which is mathematics. His attack on mathematics is guarded but sure. He asserted in his Munkidh (6), “Falling a prey to their passions, to a besotted vanity, and the wish to pass for learned men, they persist in maintaining the pre-eminence of mathematicians in all branches of knowledge. This is a serious evil, and for this reason those who study mathematics should be checked from going too far in their researches…It is rarely that a man devotes himself to it without robbing himself of his faith and casting off the restraints of religion.”

The philosophical concepts change with time; mathematical and scientific theories grow and evolve with time. Divergent views are not worthless; in fact they help to advance knowledge. Banning the study of natural sciences out of fear that people may lose faith is ludicrous and a step in the wrong direction. It is only reasonable that difference of opinion should be recognized and accommodated. It is preposterous and inhuman to declare those who do not testify to the religious dogma, punishable by death. Freedom of individual thought and choice should be an inalienable right of citizenry. Expulsion of rationalism from man’s intellectual engagements in order to protect religious dogma is the worst kind of discrimination. If a religion cannot stand the test of reason and common sense, why defend it? Religion should be individual’s own choice and should not be imposed by the clergy. The notion that reason is not complete and comprehensive may be true but if it is allowed to nurture, it grows and keeps on refining itself. Self-correction is the best thing by which the rational sciences refine themselves; religion on the other hand, is petrified and rigid. It is bound to become outdated in due time. Scientific edifice is built brick by brick; scientific truths are not attained by a leap of faith. A leap of faith is not very certain. Even though reason is not perfect but what good is there in replacing reason by religion whose mainstay is blind faith. What guarantee is there that the blind faith is true and better than a rational truth? A society, which banishes reason and rational sciences from its culture, becomes a barren society and is doomed to degrade and decay in spite of the supremely divine and blemish-less religion it may claim to possess. Islamic society is a classic example of this degradation and decay. During the times of Al-Razi and Ibn Sina, the Muslim society was the apex of excellence in terms of scientific achievements. After Al-Ghazali banished the philosophical and scientific pursuits from the Muslim society, it gradually and persistently sank to its present decadent condition. In place of rational thought, look at what Al-Ghazali offered (5): “If the child were to be brought up on this firm belief then occupy himself with gaining his livelihood, he might not be more enlightened. But according to the belief of the people of the truth he will be saved. This is because the religion did not obligate the uncivilized Arabs more than believing and certifying in the apparent articles of belief. They were never obligated to research, inquire, nor to be burdened with the classification of arguments.” At another place (5), he offers, “To teach them disputation is decidedly harmful to them as it will perhaps arouse doubts in their minds which will shake their belief. Once these doubts are aroused, it will not be possible to remedy their shaken belief.” Al-Ghazali (5) also prescribed that the faith in the “Bridge which is stretched over Hell and is finer than a hair and sharper than the edge of the sword” is obligatory. It should be understood literally and not metaphorically because “Allah who is able to make the birds fly in the air is also able to make mankind walk over the bridge.” Al-Ghazali’s influence against nurturing free thought that leads to the developments in material sciences proved mortal to the Muslim society from which it has still not recovered. Muslim society is confused and perplexed. It wants the fruits of the material sciences and technological advancements without which it is difficult to survive with dignity, yet it does not want to loosen the grip of religion as codified by Al-Ghazali and his successors. Believing literally in the ‘allegorical parable’ of the bridge stretched over the hell is nothing but anachronism in the age of space exploration and the nuclear research. If religious faith one must have, let the allegorical device be used to make it suitable for the modern times. Sufficient space should be allowed to those people who believe, for their own reasons, that religion has become redundant and has outlived its usefulness to human society. One should be tolerant of divergent views. There are hundreds of religions in the world, each one of them claiming to be the only true religion. All of them cannot be right; on the other hand, there is a greater probability of all of them being wrong.

IBN RUSHD – THE LAST GREAT PHILOSOPHER OF ISLAMIC SPAIN

Averroes was a confirmed Aristotelian but compromised with religion by maintaining that there is a “double truth”, one begotten by faith and the other from “rational philosophy”. This compromise was important for medical psychology; it established the tradition of a medical man keeping his religious convictions and still believing in scientific discoveries. (Alexander and Sheldon,2)

Abu-al-Walid Muhammad Ibn-Ahmad Ibn-Muhammad Ibn-Rushd (1128-1199), popularly known as Averroes in the west, was born in 1128, seventeen years after Al-Ghazali’s death, in Cordoba into a family of Juris-consults. His father and grandfather were Grand Qadi’s (Chief Judges) in Cordoba at a time when Muslim Spain was a leading center of unparalleled excellence in every respect in Europe. Ibn Rushd received his education in the curricula that were current in those days at the mosque-based university of Cordoba and specialized in law and medicine. Philosophy was included in the curriculum of medicine under one title hikmah. At the invitation of Abu-Yaqub Yusuf, the Khalifah of Morocco, Ibn Rushd went over to Morocco. He was commissioned to prepare a “simplified and meaningful text on philosophy. The commission carried with it an honorarium, a robe of honor, and appointment as Chief Justice (Grand Qadi), first in Seville and then in Cordoba” (9).Ibn Rushd was appointed as Khalifah’s personal physician in 1182. After Abu-Yaqub’s death, his son Yaqub-al-Mansur became the Khalifah. According to Hitti (9), “The cordial relationship between the new patron and his protégé was interrupted in 1194 when the king sent the sixty-eight-year-old scholar into exile and ordered burning of his books. The reason for the unexplained action is not difficult to unearth. Theologians exerted pressure to have the philosopher considered a traitor to his religion…Ibn Rushd’s attempt to keep one foot in Islam and the other into the realm of philosophy was no more successful than Ibn Sina’s or Al-Kindi’s. Two years later the expatriate was reinstated in royal favor but it was too late. Humiliated and heart-broken over the destruction of his books, the aged philosopher died on December 10, 1198. His remains were later removed to Cordoba.”

Although Ibn Rushd is better known for his commentaries on Aristotle’s philosophy, his contributions in medicine and other fields were also remarkable. His book on medicine entitled al-Kulliyat-fi-al-Tibb, latinized as Colliget, was translated in Hebrew and Latin and was used as text book in Europe but it was no match for Ibn Sina’s al-Qanun or Al-Razi’s Al-Hawi. He wrote a treatise on the motion of the planets also which was entitled Kitab-fi-Harkat-al-Falak (Book on the Heavenly Movements). He contributed to jurisprudence (Fiqh). He belonged to Maliki School of Fiqh. He wrote thirty-eight commentaries on Aristotle’s philosophy, of which thirty-six survived in Hebrew, thirty-four in Latin, and only twenty-four in Arabic. According to Hitti, “Within fifty years after his death, Averroes, to use his Latin name (as it came from Hebrew), became known as ‘the great commentator’, and Averroism, his brand of philosophy, achieved currency.”
His epochal book, however, is ‘Tahafut Al-Tahafut’ (The Incoherence of The Incoherence). In this book, Ibn Rushd has discussed Al-Ghazali’s twenty questions on which he (Al-Ghazali) criticized and refuted the philosophy of Al-Farabi and Ibn Sina, and attempted to show defects in Al-Ghazali’s arguments. His attempt was noteworthy but failed to soften the deadly impact of Al-Ghazali’s verdict on the status of philosophy in the Islamic world. Ibn Rushd tried to build a bridge between philosophy and the divinely revealed knowledge but did not succeed, in as much as the Islamic world was concerned. Some of his rationalizations appear far-fetched; Al-Razi’s statement that the rationalism and revelation cannot be reconciled resurfaces in this perspective. For instance, regarding bodily resurrection after death, Ibn Rushd goes into a lengthy discussion , partially agreeing with Al-Ghazali, and suggests, “..it must be assumed that what arises from the dead is simulacra of these earthly bodies, not these bodies themselves, for that which has perished does not return individually and a thing can only return as an image of that which has perished, not as being identical with what has perished. Therefore the doctrine of resurrection of those theologians who believe that the soul is accident and that the bodies which arise are identical with those that perished can not be true (12).” The verses on resurrection appear in several chapters in the Quran. For instance: “They say what! When we are reduced to bones and dust, should we really be raised up (to be) a new creation? Say: (Nay!) be ye stones or iron, or created matter which, in your minds, is hardest (to be raised up), (yet shall ye be raised up)!” (Quran, ch.17:49-51).

Similarly, there is disagreement between Al-Ghazali and the philosophers regarding the miracles. The miracle of Moses’ staff turning into a serpent that devoured the snakes of the magicians as described in Quran is interpreted by the philosophers as “the refutation by the divine proof, manifest at the hand of Moses, of the doubts of those who deny (the one God)” (7). The philosophers denied the splitting of the moon because they “claim that there has been no soundly transmitted, indubitable reporting of it.” Ibn Rushd is somewhat evasive and ambiguous on this matter when he states (12): “Most things which are possible in themselves are impossible for man, and what is true of the prophet, that he can interrupt the ordinary course of nature, is impossible for man, but possible in itself; and because of this one need not assume that things logically impossible are possible for the prophets, and if you observe those miracles whose existence is confirmed, you will find that they are of this kind.” In spite of his guarded caution in denying the miracles outright, Ibn Rushd could not save himself from the wrath of the fanatics and blind believers of his time who set his books on fire because they believed him to be an atheist. Both Al-Ghazali and Ibn Rushd were excellent scholars, the former steeped to his skin in theology and had absolute faith in the Scriptures and the latter having an open, not completely, mind and a defender of reason and rationalism; yet they were so very different in interpreting the same basic issue and arriving at completely different results. The former is celebrated in the Islamic world and the other is largely ignored but has been accorded a unique position in the history of the philosophic thought and science, in the west. According to Karen Armstrong, “Ibn Rushd was a revered but secondary figure in Islam, but he became very important indeed in the West, which discovered Aristotle through him.”

An interesting question comes to mind: Were both of them (Al-Ghazali and Ibn Rushd) living in the modern time, what kind of scholars would they be? Al-Ghazali, most probably, would still be Al-Ghazali, an influential Ayatollah beckoning people to the purity of his brand of Islam. Ibn Rushd, on the other hand, would perhaps be a much more liberated philosopher in his outlook with his analytical skills honed by the knowledge of the modern empirical sciences, and would be much more forthright in expressing his ideas freely and fearlessly. He would probably not need the “double truth” to uphold that cannot be upheld. He would be more like Al-Razi. For that matter, Al-Razi was a modernist who never cared to concoct arguments to rationalize religious belief to make it more akin to reason. He considered such efforts mere waste of time and exercise in intellectual dishonesty.

I’ll now like to comment on the rs’s and tahmed’s discussions. When I put my paper on “Intellectual Diversity….” Together, I had not planned to write a miniscule history of philosophy. Rather, I wanted to point out the rational defects in having blind faith in the ‘revelation’ to an extent to condemn those, as apostates, who question such blind faith. I wanted to stimulate the skeptical minds to question and critique metaphysics of religion in which ‘any thing goes’. Introduction of Iqbal in the paper was quite abrupt, as noted by rs, because I wanted to keep the paper short. I do not necessarily agree with rs in that Iqbal has no place among renowned philosophers. He did not contribute much to the western philosophy but any book on Islamic philosophy will remain incomplete if it does not describe Iqbal. We may not agree with Iqbal’s views but we cannot totally reject that he was inconsequential in Islamic philosophy.

To me, much of philosophy is ‘rational speculation’. It is not verifiable in the same sense that Physics and Chemistry are. Let me quote from Bertrand Russell (The Problems of Philosophy):

There are many questions.. and among those that are of the profoundest interest to our spiritual life.. which, so far we can see, must remain insoluble to the human intellect unless its powers become quite a different order from what they are now. Has the universe any unity of plan or purpose, or is it a fortuitous concourse of atoms? Is consciousness a permanent part of the universe, giving hope of indefinite growth in wisdom, or is it a transitory accident on a small planet on which life must ultimately become impossible? Are good and evil of importance to the universe or only to man? Such questions are asked by philosophy, and variously answered by various philosophers. But it would seem that, whether answers be otherwise discoverable or not, the answers suggested by philosophy are none of them demonstrably true….

If we don’t have to venerate Iqbal’s authority, it is not difficult to admit that he was a great intellectual whose philosophy was the product of his social environment. Unquestionably, he was a great poet of Urdu and Persian, probably the greatest of the twentieth century.

Regarding tahmed’s discussion, I am not quite competent to talk about existentialism. Not that I haven’t tried to comprehend it; I have made several attempts but could not penetrate its subtleties. Its essential point is said to be encapsulated in “Existence precedes essence”. One attempt at clarifying this is as follows:

Existentialism maintains that in man, and in man alone, existence preceded essence…Many people wrongly quote ‘existence precedes essence’ as if that summarizes existentialism. Sartre was merely stating that man, as the only sentient being on earth, was forced to define who he was through living, while objects are what they are until destroyed…We are each in charge of defining ourselves, (http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist/sartre.html)

So? I would like to refer you back to Russell’s comments on the problems of philosophy.

Thomas R. Flynn (The Columbia History of Western Philosophy, ed. Richard H. Popkin, 1999, p. 698) commented on existentialism as follows:

Existentialism enjoyed its vintage years immediately following the Second World War as a philosophical movement that attracted professional philosophers, creative artists, and the public at large. Not unlike postmodernism fifty years later, ‘existentialism’ became a catch-all term for the cultural and artistic avant-garde and for radical critiques of universal principles and absolute values. In both cases, the expressions came to be so vague as to be almost meaningless and, except for one or two prominent figures, most of the leading philosophers commonly associated with each trend refused the appellation.

It was more of a fad in philosophy; will it have any lasting influence on philosophy remains to be seen.

REFERENCES

1. Ahmad, M., “Ibn Sina (Avicenna) – Doctor of Doctors”,
http://www.ummah.net/history/scholars/Ibn sina/
2. Alexander, F.G., and Sheldon, T.S., “The History of Psychiatry”, Harper and
Row Publishers, New York, 1966, pp.64, 62-63.
3. Armstrong, K., “A History of God”, Ballantine Books, New York, 1993,
p.194.
4. “An Introduction to Al-Razi”, http://library.thinkquest.org/17137/Main/Math Science/Medicine/al razi.html
5. Al-Ghazali, “The Foundations of The Islamic Belief”, tr. Shaykh Ahmad
Darwish Mosque of the Internat P.O.Box 601, Tesque, NM 87574,USA, Chapter 3, Pillar 3, p.21 of 26.
6. Al-Ghazali, “Munkidh min al-Dalal (Confessions, or Deliverance from Error”,
Fordham.edu/halsal/1100 ghazali-truth.html
7. Al-Ghazali, “Tahafut-al- falasifa (The Incoherence of the Philosophers)”, tr.
Marmura, M.E., Brigham Young University Press, Utah, 1997, pp. 230, 166, 11.
8. Goodman, L.E., “al-Razi – The Encyclopedia of Islam”, ed. CE Bosworth
et al, 1995, pp. 474-77.
9. Hitti, P.K., “Islam – A Way of Life”, Henry Regnery Company, Chicago,
1970.
10. Hitti, P.K., “History of the Arabs”, St. Martin’s Press, New York, p. 435.
11. Hourani, A., “A History of the Arab People”, Warner books, A Time-
Warner Company, 1991, pp. 174-75.
12. Ibn Rushd, “Tuhafut Al-Tahafut (The Incoherence of The Incoherence)”,
Published by The Trustees of the “E.J.W. Gibb Memorial”, tr. Simon Van
Den Bergh, 1987, pp. 362, 315.


Mohammad Gill

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

freesoul #7 Nothing wrong with word jugglery per se. Word jugglery is to writing what spice is to food. you can quote me on that :-)
As for the substance, what Iqbal is saying here is clearly along existentialist lines (for any chowkie wondering what that means - existentialism was a philosophy popular in Europe over the past couple of centuries, with names like Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, in the 19th century and Sartre and others in the 20th century associated with it. it basically places the individual and his/her existence at the center of everything). So Iqbal is obviously annunciating the basic philosophy here. His concept of ``khudi`` is straight out of this philosopy, as is Nietzsche`s concept of ``superman``.
By all logic, this philosophy would serve as the foundation for the concept of individualism and individual liberty that underlies the political philosophy around which the US constitution and government policies revolve. For some reason (probably given the European roots of the philosophy) the philosophy has never received much attention in the US.
Where the philosophy has been given attention (in Europe and by Iqbal, and therefore by many of us Pakistanis who rightly regard Iqbal as providing the philosophical roots of Pakistan), it has tended to move in the opposite direction:
In Germany, the Nazis applied Nietszche`s concept of ``superman`` to the entire german speaking people in Europe, and thus came up with the concept of the ``herrenvolk``. In pre-partition India, Iqbal applied his parallel concept of ``khudi`` to the muslim community in India (thus linking existentialist philosophy to the concept of a muslim ummah) and came up with the two-nation theory. Both applications resulted in individual freedom playing second fiddle to the broader group (racial in Germany, muslim in India).
In a supreme irony of our times, the existentialist philosopy, which logically provides the basis for individual liberty, has been twisted 180 degrees to suppress individual liberties in the name of a broader community (racial, in Nazi Germany, religious in Pakistan).

actually aap log alama sahib ke is shi`r ko naihin samajh paaye--
he is talking of the Perfect Man , who is the microcosm of the entire creation; remember Iqbal was deeply influenced by Sufism especially early on and this couplet could be interpreted as referring to that.

`````Takta rehta hay asmaan ko tu
koi rehta hai asmaan main kia?`
----john elia

Freesoul miaN:

john elia ke iss sher ko hum se suniye:

situm dhaaye zameeN waaloN ne hum pe
shikayet keya kareiN hum aasmaaN se

Re: Mohammad Gill

Man is an emotional animal, who hides his myriad faults under the garb of rationalism. Rationalism and reasoning, as evidenced by the teachings of Aristotle, Newton, Kepler et al, resulted from an attempt to rationalize chaos and simplify it enough to be understood.

If man is a rationale animal, then what explains blind emotional hatred of a communal violence? If man is a rationale animal, then what explains the irrational actions of religious killings in the name of all the religions preaching peace? If man is a rationale animal, why is he still swayed the influences of prejudices? If man is a rationale animal, then why cannot a man understand that rationalization is not same as reasoning, and that reasoning is not rationalizing?

You can rationalize a murder, but you cannot justify it as a reasonable act.

In chaos, there a lot of answers and rationalism is an attempt to de-construct chaos and understand it in hopes of understanding why we, humans, are influenced by our circumtances and do not influence our circumtances to the degree we desire! Rationalism is an attempt to quantify uncertainity and explain it with enough confidence to offer a sense of certainity in our world - answer the basic question about the utlity of man and his reason for existence. Hence`s Decartes` famous dictum, ``I think, therefore I am``. Newton`s ``Mathematica Principia``, which led to the scientific revolution and to the Age of Enlightenment, was merely an attempt codify the forces of nature and make them understandable within the rigid parameters of mathematical certainities. Rationalism is a human attempt to explain and understand the forces of nature and in doing so, to reassure him of his place in the universal scheme of things. Rationalism tries to understand nature by explaining its mysteries via mathematical/scientific formulas in which ``x`` is solved, because the varibles of ``y`` and ``z`` are certain and constant. Rationalism is an attempt by man to use to science and knowledge to cover his flaws of emotionalism by curtailing his basic instinct and which is, that man feels insecure in nature and rationalism is a tool by man to tame nature and secure his existence in nature/universe.

Without rationalism, man would be at a loss to explain the mysteries of nature and would be a victim to the forces of uncertainity and not understanding uncertainity and being exposed to it, his existence would be insecure. Hence, rationalism is an attempt to justify man`s sense of security in an uncertain evironment and when rationalism fails, man reverts to his emotional state, which is based on a sense of primodial fear. Fear stems from insecurity and insecurity originates from ignorance and a failure to understand ones` environment; be it political, religious or social or other. Rationalism an attempt by man to master his fear by understanding the reasons for his insecurities.

Ciao

the MOST certain thing in this world is Uncertainty -- miaN ji – the present is just a fleeting maya…

lakhoN sadiyoN ki umre aalam meiN
aik lumhe ki aagahi keya hai

the difference between Kafir and the Momin and the curiosity about afflaak -- was described by Bhartari Hari eons ago -- the meaning got lost in the Urdu translation of the couplet by Iqbal miaN --

it was supposed to be as follows:

ghaas ki pattee se kut sukta hai heeray ka jigar
qalbe Momin pur kalam-e nurm o naazuk bey asar