An Introduction to Philosophy
"Philosophy" comes from the Greek word, Philosophia. This word can be broken down into two "sub-words" and through this it's true definition can be deciphered. "Philo" is a word which means love and "Sophia" is a word which means wisdom. Wisdom might include intellectual knowledge and understanding, but also includes the idea of being able to apply this knowledge and understanding in particular and practical situations.
A more descriptive definition of Philosophy is an attempt to come to a systematic understanding of the world through the use of reason. Before Philosophy, people generally used religion (mythos) and social and cultural tradition to understand the world or decide moral questions. Philosophy (logos) can be distinguished from religion in its methodology. Rather than using the stories about the gods contained in sacred texts or custom and cultural practice to answer life's big questions, philosophers use logic and critical analysis of concepts and ideas to form their beliefs. Even though this is against Islam, Muslim philosophers set out to prove the existence of God through analysis and ideas such as the ontological argument which was introduced to Europe by Descartes. Most of them found that if you do use logic and analysis you will find yourself at God's doorstep.
Philosophy began in the 6th Century B.C. in ancient Greece, when, instead of using mythological explanations, religious dogma, or social custom to answer life's questions, a small group of men began seeking a rational and predominantly naturalistic way of understanding the world. These first "scientists" were called the natural philosophers because they were interested in the workings of the natural or material world. Although they were called philosophers, they weren't philosophers in the fullest sense because they restricted their enquiry for the most part to the nature of the earth, stars, sky, weather phenomena, etc, what is more properly labeled primitive science, though they only had a rough approximation of the scientific method. For this reason, they are often also referred to as the Pre-Socratics, because they preceded Socrates, who was the real Father of Philosophy proper. Even so, these thinkers had some amazing and very modern sounding theories. Anaxagoras came up with a rudimentary theory of evolution. He put forth the hypothesis that humans may have evolved from fish, when he noticed the comparatively long development period of human fetuses compared with fish, as well as the years of defenselessness of human young, compared with fish, who are swimming and eating from the moment they are hatched. If humans had been so from the start, he theorized, we would have died out as a species. So, we must have evolved from a form of sea life which did not possess these disadvantages. Democritus popularized the theory of atomism, the view that all matter is made of fundamental particles so small as to be invisible. Democritus was also a proponent of materialism, the view that only the physical world exists. One of Democritus' teachings was that all that existed was "atoms and the void (empty space). If there were gods, said Democritus, why then they must be made of atoms, too.
Another group of men emerged a little later called the sophists. The sophists taught argument, rhetoric, law, and political maneuvering for a fee. They honed logical argumentation into a fine art, and made great sums of money as lawyers, political consultants, public relations experts, image consultants and success coaches, selling their services to the highest bidder. According to contemporary accounts, knew little about truth and a lot about getting paid. Because of this, they enjoyed the same bad reputation as lawyers, who offer services to sue other people, do in our society.
Against this backdrop came Socrates, the Father of Philosophy. Socrates was mistaken for both a natural philosopher and a sophist by his contemporaries, but he was neither. Rather than being interested in the details of the workings of the natural world, Socrates was interested in understanding the nature of reality itself, what we now call metaphysics. Unlike the sophists, he never took money for his teachings. Instead of using the sophists' arsenal of arguments as a tool for financial gain, Socrates, by all accounts a pauper all his life, used argument as a tool for discovering Truth. He engaged fellow citizens in debates about the nature of knowledge (epistemology), and especially about the nature of right and wrong (ethics).
When Socrates was old the Athenians, sick of his philosophizing, put him on trial. There were many charges but when I was researching this I came across one which surprised me a lot. He was charged with being a religious heretic and worshipping a different God to the rest of his fellow citizens. Notice the singularity of the word "God". This suggests that he worshipped one God.
Even though he left no written material his views were passed on by his famous pupil, Plato.
The Categories of Philosophy
1. Metaphysics (literally "after physics" or "after the study of nature"): the theory of reality, of what is fundamentally real, or what kinds of things there are, what exists. For the purposes of this class, we can treat "Ontology" (the study of being or existence) as an offshoot of metaphysics, though some issues such as free will are "metaphysical" but don't necessarily involve questions about "what kinds of things there are" in the fullest sense, though one could put the free will question as "Does free will exist?"
2. Epistemology: the theory of knowledge. What justifies a belief and distinguishes knowledge from just an opinion?
3. Ethics: What things are right and wrong, good and evil and what makes them so? How to live happily and successfully. Defining the "good life"
4. History of Philosophy: What particular philosophers, e.g. Plato, taught or meant by their teachings. This also involves analysis of the influence of other thinkers, cultural and historical forces in molding their ideas.
5. Logic: Finding good and bad patterns of reasoning. Understanding how arguments work
.
6. Political and Social Philosophy: Often considered a sub-category of Ethics. What is the best way to run a society? The most efficient? The most just? How should one balance private freedom with the greater, public, good?
7. Aesthetics: The theory of art. Is artistic value perceived through the senses or through experience? What distinguishes good art from bad? What is beauty? Is it the same as artistic value?
In this article, four of, which can be called, the main ideas both from East and West will be discussed (Two from the West and two from the East). After this has been done, in my second paper, some of the greatest masterpieces will be compared from both an Eastern and Western viewpoint of philosophy.
"God is dead"
Nietzsche
Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (October 15, 1844 August 25, 1900) was a German philosopher, whose critiques of contemporary culture, religion, and philosophy centered around a basic question regarding the foundation of values and morality. Beyond the unique themes dealt with in his works, Nietzsche's powerful style and subtle approach are distinguishing features of his writings. Although largely overlooked during his short working life, which ended with a mental collapse at the age of 44, and frequently misunderstood and misrepresented thereafter, Nietzsche received recognition during the second half of the 20th century as a highly significant figure in modern philosophy. His influence was particularly noted by many existentialist, 20th century phenomenological and postmodern philosophers. Now onto his most controversial idea.
"God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it?"
- Nietzsche, The Gay Science
The above is probably the most misunderstood paragraph of writing ever written. It triggered a response and created a religion' which Nietzsche did not intend. That religion was atheism and the finger of blame has been put squarely on Nietzsche. This is partially wrong.
This statement "God is Dead" was first introduced to the world in section 108 (New Struggles) and then in Section 125 (The Madman) of a book, by Nietzsche, entitled The Gay Science. From there it leapt into his other most known book, Thus Sprach Zarathustra (Zarathustra's Prologue, 2). The latter book is what made the phrase famous.
This phrase, "God is Dead", when put in its social and religious background, can be seen as the metaphor it is. Nietzsche actually highlights a great problem in Europe at that time and sadly this problem still exists. That problem is secularism.
The phrase should not be taken literally, as in, "God is now physically dead," rather, it is Nietzsche's controversial way of saying that God has ceased to be a reckoning force in the people's lives, even if they don't recognize it. After all, the philosopher is famous for his "punning" writing style that can be easily perceived as ambiguous. Thus, according to Nietzsche, it is time to transcend both the concept of God and the "good vs. evil" dogma found within most religions.
The death of God is a way of saying that humans are no longer able to believe in a cosmic order. The death of God will lead, Nietzsche said, not only to the rejection of a belief of cosmic/physical order but also to a rejection of absolute values themselves to the rejection of belief in an objective and universal moral law. This leads to nihilism, and it is what Nietzsche worked to find a solution for by re-evaluating the foundations of human values. This meant, to Nietzsche, looking for foundations that went deeper than the Christian values most people refuse to look beyond.
Nietzsche believed that a natural ground for morality should be sought in order to avoid this calamity. He believed that the majority of men did not recognize (or refused to acknowledge) this death out of the deepest-seated fear. Therefore, when the death did begin to become widely acknowledged, people would despair and nihilism would become rampant, as well as the relativistic belief that human will is a law unto itself anything goes and all is permitted. This is partly why Nietzsche saw Christianity as nihilistic. Only by having the foresight to re-establish human values on a new, natural basis could this nightmare future be avoided.
Even though Nietzsche criticized people for throwing God out of their lives he saw some positive points in not believing in the Christian God'. He saw it as clearing out an old canvas and starting life anew without the prohibitions of God. It is for this that Nietzsche should be blamed as he is the one who advocated total freedom. Even now in this modern age no one is totally free because if they were human values would disintegrate and everyone would take the law in their own hands. There is no such thing as freedom.
Nietzsche, and his ideas, have influenced many infamous people around the world. The most disturbing of these is Hitler who used Nietzsche's name to justify the creation of his master race. The other great figures Nietzsche influenced are Leo Strauss, the father of modern neo-conservatism and Allama Iqbal who is famous for his book, "Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam" and for helping establish the Pakistani state.
"Theory of Forms"
Plato
Plato (c.428) was born in Athens to a very wealthy family. His real name was Aristocles but, on account of his broad figure, his wrestling coach dubbed him "Platon" ("broad" in ancient Greek). Such was his position that the Ancient Greeks named him the son of Apollo and, according to legend, bees were said to sit on his lips prophesizing the honeyed words that would come out of his mouth. One of the most prominent influences in his life was that of his mentor, the great Father of Philosophy, Socrates and, according to Plato's own account, Plato attended Socrates' trial but not his execution. Plato dedicated himself to ensure that injustices such as the execution of Socrates and scoured parts of Europe for 12 years in pursuit of knowledge. Upon his return to Athens he set up the famous Academy in Athens which produced many intellectuals, including Aristotle. The school continued until 529 when Justinian I of Byzantium closed it down, in fear of it propagating anti-Christian ideas.
"Behold! human beings living in a underground den,
which has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all along the den;
here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks
chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them,
being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads.
Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance,
and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way;
and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way,
like the screen which marionette players have in front of them,
over which they show the puppets
Like ourselves, I replied; and they see only their own shadows,
or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite
wall of the cave?
And if they were able to converse with one another, would they
not suppose that they were naming what was actually before them?...
To them, I said, the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows
of the images
And now look again, and see what will naturally follow it'
the prisoners are released and disabused of their error. At first,
when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand
up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards the light,
he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him, and he
will be unable to see the realities of which in his former state
he had seen the shadows; and then conceive some one saying to him,
that what he saw before was an illusion, but that now, when he
is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned towards more
real existence, he has a clearer vision, -what will be his reply?
And if he is compelled to look straight at the light, will he
not have a pain in his eyes which will make him turn away to take
and take in the objects of vision which he can see, and which he
will conceive to be in reality clearer than the things which are
now being shown to him?...
Imagine once more, I said, such an one coming suddenly out of the sun
to be replaced in his old situation; would he not be certain
to have his eyes full of darkness?...
And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring
the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the den,
while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady
(and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit
of sight might be very considerable) would he not be ridiculous?...
Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without
his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending;
and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light,
let them only catch the offender, and they would put him
to death."
(Simile of the Cave in The Republic')
The above is one of the oldest theories in philosophy. Let us take it and turn it into an understandable theory. Imagine this, there is a cave and there are some prisoners tied up with their heads facing away from entrance of the cave. There is a road outside the cave with a burning fire even further away. There are men carrying statues and "vessels" walking along the road and their shadow is cast on the wall which the prisoners are facing. Now, if all the prisoners see are shadows they will perceive the shadows to be reality. This is the essence of Plato's theory. What we see as reality is not in actually fact reality but imperfect copies of a perfect thing. So, for example, a bird that we see outside is not in actual fact the real thing. It is an imperfect copy of the perfect copy. This theory, therefore, can be linked in with the idea of a utopian society were everything is perfect. The perfect copies of everything are in a special realm, which is populated with all these perfect creatures and things, which is eternal and never changing. The "prisoner who is freed" is based on the philosophers and, according to Plato, they are the only ones who have broken into this perfect realm and discovered its inner workings and have the most authority to speak about it. In "The Republic" Plato goes on to talk about how a successful state can only be successful when there is a philosopher as the ruler.
The Forms do not have to be physical. They can be concepts as well such as beauty, hot and cold, largeness and smallness etc. Before we finish, we must delve into the constitutional principle of the theory of Forms; self-prediction.
The debate over self-predication involves both statements and what the statements are about, i.e., the ontological correlates of those statements. (Thus at times it may be important to distinguish linguistic predication from ontological predication.) In investigating self-predication statements, perhaps it is again easiest to distinguish three factors, the subject or subject term, The Just', the linking verb, is', and the predicate adjective just'. Apparently both the subject and the predicate adjective, The Just' and just', refer to the same thing, namely the Form of Justice. One question then concerns the copula, or linking verb: in what manner is the predicate related to the subject, or how is the Form related to itself? There are three basic approaches to consider. In his seminal discussion of self-predication, Vlastos maintained that we should understand the relation between the Form and itself to be the same as that between a particular and the Form. This is to say that Justice is just in the same was as Socrates is just, or that Beauty is beautiful in the same way as Helen is beautiful, or that the Circle Itself is circular in the same way as my football (go Brazil!): both are round. Let us label this way of understanding the copula in self-predication statements characterization'. Then Beauty is a beautiful thing, an item to be included in an inventory of beautiful things right along with Helen.
"Truth and Presence"
Frithjof Schuon
(Shaykh Isa Nur-ud-Din Ahmed)
Frithjof Schuon was born in 1907 in Basle, Switzerland, of German parents. As a youth, he went to Paris, where he studied for a few years before undertaking a number of trips to North Africa, the Near East and India in order to contact spiritual authorities and witness traditional cultures. Following World War II, he accepted an invitation to travel to the American West, where he lived for several months among the Plains Indians, in whom he has always had a deep interest. Having received his education in France, Schuon has written all his major works in French, which began to appear in English translation in 1953. Of his first book, The Transcendent Unity of Religions (London, Faber & Faber) T.S. Eliot wrote: "I have met with no more impressive work in the comparative study of Oriental and Occidental religion."
"The Islamic emphasis on the element, Truth can be described as follows: monotheism itself, which is that of Abraham and the Patriarchs, depends upon the element Truth since it is the truth of the one God which saves; that is to say, man is saved by faith and nothing more, works being dependent upon faith or the sincerity of faith
If Christ is the truth of Presence for Christians the Prophet, on the contrary, is the Presence of Truth for Muslims"
(Islam and the Perennial Philosophy, Frithjof Schoun)
In this small paragraph a whole ocean is opened up in front of the reader. First let us discuss Schuon's idea of Truth.
The Truth is basically an element of life which underlies many of the principles in most major religions. The example Schuon uses is the fact the monotheism itself is based upon the element of truth. Monotheism, as we all know, is call Tawhid in Arabic and is the constitutional principle in Islam. The second part of the first paragraph of the above extract states that man is saved by faith in God. How is this? Is he saved in this world or in the next? Most people will tell you it is in the next world you are saved by this faith in one God. I disagree with this idea because throughout my life it has been proved that God helps people who believe in this world as well as the next.
The Truth needs something to represent it in the physical world. So Frithjof goes on to say that the element Presence is personified in the form of the Prophets and epitomized in the form of the Quran. What better two things to use as a testimony to the presence of God? The written word of God is full of the Presence of God as it tells us about scientific advancements that we have achieved today but when it was revealed it must have been amazing for the followers of Islam at the time and God himself tells us to look at the things around us and contemplate on how they could have been created (this is known as "science" these days). In Chapter 2 verse 23:
"And if ye are in doubt
As to what we have revealed
From time to time to Our servant,
Then produce a Sura (chapter)
Like thereunto"
In the above verse God is giving an open challenge to any who have doubts in him. There have been some people who have tried to replicate the Quran but have failed miserably. So this is absolute proof of the Presence of God which has been conveyed through His book.
The Prophets are themselves witnesses to the Presence of God, more so than the rest of us. For example the miracles that were given to Prophet Isa (Jesus), he could talk when he was a child and walked on water. All these are proof of the existence of God and of the underlying Truth of His oneness. In the Quran, God says that he sent a messenger to every single nation on Earth. Of course the main 25 are known but the others we can take smart guesses at. Zoroaster was probably a Prophet, as would have been Socrates (see introduction) but this is all of course speculation. They may have been, they may not have been Prophets.
The Reality of Inspiration: Its Importance for the Human Race
Al-Ghazali
Abu Hamid Ibn Muhammad Ibn Muhammad al-Tusi al-Shafi'i al-Ghazali [Ghazali in Persian, Al-Ghazali in Arabic) was born in 450/41 AH/1058 A.D. in Tus in Khorasan, (a region of Iran). His father died while he was still very young but he had the opportunity of getting education in the prevalent curriculum at Nishapur and Baghdad. Soon he acquired a high standard of scholarship in religion and philosophy and was honoured by his appointment as a Professor at the Nizamiyah University of Baghdad, which was recognised as one of the most reputed institutions of learning in the golden era of Muslim history. After a few years, however, he gave up his academic pursuits and worldly interests and became a wandering ascetic. This was a process (period) of personal mystical transformation. Later, he resumed his teaching duties, but again left these. An era of solitary life, devoted to contemplation and writing then ensued, which led to the author- ship of a number of everlasting books. He died in 505 AH/1111 A.D. at Tus.
"God, wishing to render intelligible to men the idea of inspiration, has given them a kind of glimpse of it in sleep. In fact, man perceives while asleep the things of the invisible world either clearly manifest or under the veil of allegory to be subsequently lifted by divination. If, however, one was to say to a person who had never himself experienced these dreams that, in a state of lethargy resembling death and during the complete suspension of sight, hearing, and all the senses, a man can see the things of the invisible world, this person would exclaim, and seek to prove the impossibility of these visions by some such argument as the following: "The sensitive faculties are the causes of perception. Now, if one can perceive certain things when one is in full possession of these faculties, how much more is their perception impossible when these faculties are suspended."
The falsity of such an argument is shown by evidence and experience. For in the same way as reason constitutes a particular phase of existence in which intellectual concepts are perceived which are hidden from the senses, similarly, inspiration is a special state in which the inner eye discovers, revealed by a celestial light, mysteries out of the reach of reason. The doubts which are raised regarding inspiration relate (1) to its possibility, (2) to its real and actual existence, (3) to its manifestation in this or that person."
(Deliverance from Error, Al-Ghazali)
In this chapter of one of the most famous autobiographies ever written, Al-Ghazali delves into the need for inspiration to direct the human intellect. His idea of "inspiration" in the short extract above is that when man is asleep God gives them a slight glimpse of what is commonly known as "The Philosopher's Stone" in the Western world. In Islam we know this stone to be the tablets upon which God has written all the knowledge of the universe. Ghazali also states that while sleeping we may see things that are invisible to us when our eyes, ears etc are fully functioning and goes on to say that people that do not see these things (basically people who do not receive inspiration) will doubt the existence of inspiration. Such is the foresight of Al-Ghazali that he actually tells us what arguments those people will use, that how can we see things when our senses are suspended when we cannot see them when our senses are fully functional.
Al-Ghazali goes on to describe how the argument the people who disbelieve can be dismantled and what inspiration actually is. Al-Ghazali describes it as, " inspiration is a special state in which the inner eye discovers, revealed by a celestial light, mysteries out of the reach of reason."
One of the main enemies of the idea of inspiration, I think, could be and probably are, are the rationalists who believe all knowledge is derived from unaided reason and so are staunch ideological opponent of the idea of inspiration. Since empiricism derives knowledge from experience alone, I think, even empiricism would be an ideological opponent to the idea of inspiration, because you do not get knowledge from inspiration. You experience inspiration and then use reasoning to put that inspiration to good use. Yet again Islam has shown itself to be the middle way.
At the end of the above extract Al-Ghazali brings up three things which can cause doubt over the existence of the idea of inspiration and it is these three things that the opponents of the idea of inspiration will base their arguments around. These three things are:
- With regards to its possibility
- Its real and actual existence
- Its manifestation in this or that person
Before the extract above, Al-Ghazali goes into a bit of psychology and actually presents us with a model for cognition which is strikingly similar to Jean Piaget's model (even though Al-Ghazali's has only three stages). First, Al-Ghazali says that a child (from aged 0-7) uses its senses to explore the world around it. This is similar to Piaget's sensorimotor stage. Secondly, at the age of seven, Al-Ghazali says that a child is elevated above the realm of the senses and acquires the faculty of discrimination. This is similar to Piaget's formal operational stage. Thirdly, Al-Ghazali says that the child passes a stage after seven where he acquires the faculty of reason with which he discerns things and can solve more complex problems. This is similar to Piaget's formal operational stage (Piaget puts reasoning and discrimination together).
Conclusion
In conclusion, this has been a very enjoyable experience for me. I have met lots of new faces from history and from now. But still there are questions which need to be answered, questions which I shall endeavor to find an answer for.