The Incoherence of the Philosophers, On the Eternity of the World.

1. T = Timing: Could the topic discussed in class find relevance among today’s contemporary social, political, economic, or religious affairs? 

The topic discussed in class find relevance among today’s contemporary religious affairs. Because Al-Ghazali was a theologian and a mystic and he was against philosophy. He argued that the philosophers did not abide their own methods. Nowadays, religion and philosophy can stand in strong contrast to each other. Religion offers rigid answers to existential questions, these answers become then solidified and are not expected to be questioned. Whereas philosophy questions everything possible.

• O = Opinion: Formulate your own opinion on the topic and related discussions.

I do agree with Al-Ghazali’s argument that most of the arguments made by philosophers are not demonstrated logically. The task of a philosopher is to write his ideas in an understandable manner. On another note, it also points out to the problematic relationship that exist between philosophy and religion.

• D = Debate: Can you offer an oppositional view challenging the topic and main arguments discussed in class?
• The two functions that Al-Ghazali assigns to Kalam seem interchangeble.
• 1. Defence of the common orthodox creed, by refuting opposing opinions, through some form of argument, and to defeat the advocates of error
• 2. Dispel doubts and sophistries that cause confusion to the untrained minds of lay believers, by bringing forth cogent proofs, expressed in clear language. Duty towards your believers to guide them in their doubts, dispel them and clarify the doctrines. You do so by using coherent arguments.
• The second functions is more like an elaboration of the first function.

• A = Argument: Can you summarise the thematic argument in a few short sentences?

Al-Ghazali wrote subjects on theology, sufism, philosophy and so on. He it is incorrect to state that he was anti-science. He had a particular way of criticising his rivals, he would publish a short book and discuss objectively the views of those who he would criticise. That is why some mistakenly saw him as philosopher. His goal was to illustrate the incoherence of philosophers and the fallacies in their arguments. He would do this by applying their own methods to their ideology. He did not offer and alternative view or object the views of the philosophers. His goal was to illustrate that most of the arguments are not demonstrated logically and are un-scientific.

• Y = Yoda: How would Yoda epitomise the main topic discussed in class in his classically-famous aphorism? 

”Al-Ghazali is not anti-Aristotelian”