The last lecture of the course was about Fideism, in particular about the Islamic branch. It is known as a small significant current in Iran and Iraq that came to challenge the philosophy of Mulla Sadra and Tabatabai. Fideism can be defined as an doctrine that relies upon faith alone, accompanied with a marginal role for reason and it can be utilised in the pursuit of the philosophical. It has become associated with anti-intellectualism, however, in reality this is not the case. Several philsophers in the medieval and modern times were adhering to Fideism: Kant, Pascal, James, Kierkegaard, Plantinga and Bishop.

Pascal makes the point that it makes no sense to adhere to proofs or justifications, it is a human construct. Words are not the primary mode of conviction or to arrive to commitment to religion or truth. Kierkegaard states that we only arrive at the approximation of truth after investigation, not the complete truth. If you want to capture the metaphysical truth of religion, science and history are not sufficient. Your interpretation is what is more important. Anyone who wants to demonstrate the existence of god end up demonstrating something else.

I see a parallel with modern believers and the doctrine of fideism. When discussing about the existince of God or what the starting point of life has been, many believers use the argument that we are intellectually not capable to understand/proof or falsify these questions.

My first impression was that Tabataba’i would fit well the Kalam school of thought, as he sees philosophy as ”an essential toolkit for the informed believer in the modern world … that would equip her for the intellectual challenges thrown up by the real threats of faith”. Furthermore, he classifies the role of a Muslim philosopher as one that confronts materialism and doubts about Islam. He is also against communism and secularism. But because Tabataba’i is a Shia cleric, and as the Kalam school is a Sunni tradition, he is probably part of a different tradition. However, the similarities remain.

He differs from the Kalam school in the other definitions of philosophy that he brings forward: the metaphysical and social definition. Also, in his conversation with Cobin he declared that there are only ‘philosophical concepts’ and no inherent differences between religions and traditions, they only take different shape in the scriptures to fit the context.

His division of mental and real existence is straightforward and coherent. Although, in his first proof he argues that quiddity is indifferent to existence and it stands at equal relations to existence and non-existence. But when you observe an existent that indifference is broken, but not intrinsically. This explanation was confusing for me. Because when he says that quiddity stands at equal relations to existence and non-existence it seems that it is prior to existence, which is in constrast with his conclusion. A more logical argument could be that quiddities have to be derived from a existent. There must be a existent thing with some qualities in order to mentally conceptualize it. If there are no trees, it is neither possible to conceptualize a tree. If Trump wouldn’t be alive, there would not be conceptualizations of his quiddities.

Opinion

I am intellectualy attracted by Corbin’s criticism on European philosophy. For example his view that the European studies of Arabic philosophy is impoverished. I dont think this is only the case for Arabic philosophy but also for other philosophies in the Third World or Global South: Hindi or Asian philosophies. This fits the worldview of postcolonialism and critical theory. Mainly because of the fact that power structures play a role in how discourses and paradigmas are structured and maintained.

On another note, I think the criticism and scepticism of Gutas against Corbin is valuable. As Corbin has lived for many years in Iran and has been accustomed to Iranian culture, religion, customs, philosophy and mysticism, it is very healthy and understandble to question his objectivity towards the Isfahan school.

Philosophy

The defintion of philosophy that is proposed by Mulla Sadra has elements that are similar to how Socrates saw the practice of philosophy. Mulla Sadra’s definition teaches us for example that knowledge is derived through demonstration and analysis and not by adhering to an authority. He also warns us for deceptive phenomena, a contemporary example can be opitical illusions. Socrates also provided us with methods for rational thinking and rebuting the status quo and established ideas. He outlines the following steps:

1. First locate a statement that is confidently described as common sense (status quo; approved by authority)
2. Imagine the statement being false. Search for moments or contexts where the statement would not be true.
3. If an exception is found, the definition is false or at least imprecise.
4. the initial defintion must be nuanced to take into account the exception.

Oppositional view

The powerpoint slides say that the Isfahan school of philosophy is a rebuttal to the 19th century myth that Arabi philosophy has died. But isn’t the Isfahan school a Persian philosophical tradition that was established by Ismail, a member of the Safavid dynasty? And if so, how can the Isfahan school be a rebuttal of the myth that Arab philosophy has died, if the school was not established by Arabs nor the ideology?

As a Shia muslim it was very interesting to learn more about the history of Ismailism. Also it is very useful to know what the original and historical meaning of Taqiyya constitutes of: a tool used to protect yourself against prosecution as a result of your philosophical ideas rather than ”lying in order to achieve your goals” which is perpetuated by the media. The examples in the powerpoint of media headlines about Muslim politicians and their suspected role with Taqiyya were shocking, but at the same time nothing new as this also happens in Dutch media. Also the concept of metempsychosis makes sense because in the Shia traditions there are 12 imams and the last imam, imam Mahdi, is the saviour and will reveal himself on/shortly before the day of judgement. I wonder whether the concept of metempsychosis also means that the souls of these imams will migrate to the next one after each dies, because this sounds a little bit like the avatar hehe.

A new concept that I encountered is the Ismaili denial of the existence of hell and paradise and their idea of metaphysical punishment instead of a physical punishment. I admire their view on other religions and their tolerancy. They see all the religions as having comparable inner teachings. Their mode of teaching with animals is a creative way to make people aware of their behaviour which operates most of the time on a subconscious level. By listening to a speech of a animal you can listen freely without any societal restrictions or biases. But this mode of teaching makes also clear how corrupted people have become that they have to be teached by animals how to act rightfully, ethically and in accordance with moral standards.

The main lesson that I learned from this lecture was to formulate your opinion and your ideas in the simplest way possible. Some people unnecessarily use difficult vocabulary to seem sophisticated, a practice that is applaused for today by some audiences. However, your task should be, and this is more difficult than seeming intelligent, to deconstruct difficult concept and ideas and to explain them in a understandable and simple manner.

Something new that I have encountered on this class is the strategy that Maimonides adopts in order to uphold the consistency of God’s unity. Just like in Islam, the Abrahamian conception of God consists of attributes. God is powerful, he is compassionate and so forth. But this is conflicting with Maimonides’ radical theory of monotheism, in which he argues that no predication of God should be possible, because he is one and only. The similarity with Islamic philosophy is that Maimonides also adopts a strategy of via Negativa. Instead of assuming that God is possible he argues that God is not powerless for example.

However, he adopts a new strategy by applying his main line of defence, that is that God is silence. Anything that humans assume about God will result in a larger distance between Him and and the human. Humans should not speak about their projection of God.

The Sufi tradition emerged in the 7^th century and the adherents of it were known as being assetics. They were dressed in a humble and simple fashion and they rebelled against, which was in their view the secularization of Islam. They opposed the territorial expansion of the Islamic caliphate after the dead of the prophet, they this as an worldly act which has nothing to do with the essence of Islam; which should be spiritual growth. Consequently, a distinct Sufi movement emerged that was anti-government, antinomian and anti-social. I think a little bit of a Sufi mindset could be beneficial for the 21^st century citizen. Nowadays, life has become increasingly dependent on social media and status. On the internet it seems that everything is going well with everyone. People are facing status anxiety and depression as a result of this. The anti-social lifestyle and simple dress code of the Sufis is what can be a solution. It won’t bring any harm to anyone to spend some days in isolation from others (also digitally) to become to know yourself better.

The concepts of the Sufis are worth to abide by. For example, I think that introspection, the act of deliberative contemplation of your good and bad acts, can definitely help you become a better person. Also mental, material and social poverty can be helpful to better know yourself by avoiding external distractions. However, fighting your ego through self-mortification is not serving any purpose. This way you just bring yourself bodily harms, while fighting your ego is mainly a mental struggle and process.

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”

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

Avicenna was seen as a systemiser of philosophy. Nowadays, academic research in the conteomporary sciences are also using systematic ways of producing knowledge. He questioned and criticised Aristotle’s way of thinking, which is the fundament of the Western social and political superstructure.

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

I do agree more with the Aristotelian perception of the soul. The seperation of the soul in different incremental stages sounds logical and appealing. First, there is the vegetative part which is consumed with self-nutrition, growth and reproduction. Next, there is the animal part which adds perception and voluntary motion. And finally, there is the human part that adds rational cognition and action. The last stage is what makes us human. These incremental stages of the soul lack in Avicenna’s explanation of the souls.

• D = Debate: Can you offer an oppositional view challenging the topic and main arguments discussed in class?

Avicenna argues that your soul is the spatiotemporality as individuation. It means that your body occupies space and it is embedded in a certain time period. This is what makes you different from other souls. Souls are constitued in different contexts and environments, as a result they develop different identities. But all the souls have the same origin, so the deviation is a result of spatiotemporality. With this assumption he undermines the fact that humans have genetic preconditions that result to differences in for example intelligence and social skills.

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

The human essence is undivided, one and simple. The human essence is also immaterial. It is connected to the body because there is a co-dependent relationship between the body and the soul. The body needs the soul to be tames, it needs rationality to be preserved and healthy. The soul needs the body for growing and acquiring knowledge.

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

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

During the development of the Mu’tazila in the 800s there were debates among jurists, philosophers, grammarians and heretics. All these groups were trying to refute each others worldview. These widespread debates made their intellectual identities more solidified and distinguishable. This find relevance among today’s academia, in which there are a lot of different academic fields with their own identity. Also, it is very prevelant in contemporary politics. It has become more polarized because politicans emphasize more on the differences than on the similarities. This solidifies the identity of the political party.

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

It is evident that the Qadariyya and the Mu’talizes were all trying to defend and rationalize the existence of god in their philosophies. That is the ultimate end of their work, for me it seems that they use philosophy as a means in order to reach that goal. Their arguments on the existence of god, the fact that he is an unifed concept does not sound convincing for me. I find it very interesting that the Qadariyyas believed that humans were rational and moral being and not predetermined, this seems similar to the claims made by some Western philosophers.

• D = Debate: Can you offer an oppositional view challenging the topic and main arguments discussed in class?

The Mu’taziles had debates on God and his attributes. He is seen as one and only but he also holds multiple attributes. This is problematic because it could lead to the idea of multiple Gods that hold different attributes. If these attributes are external to him, then this means that he is subject to them. In order to avoid assigning attributes to God, the Mu’talized didn’t say God to be knowing, but they said that he was not unknowing. Or not powerless. Because these characteristics would not be measurable, this avoids the practice of comparing God to a standard. In my opinion this is not a real solution to the problem. Not being powerless is also subjected to a standard of measurement. Power is relative to the amount of power that other actors hold.

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

Kalam refers to rational discourses in Islamic philosophy. It adressed topics of religious concern in the early 700s and 800s, with a general emphasis on reason and rationality. Qadar, a school of thought in Kalam, means the power of acts or free will, the adherents of this tradition are called Qadariyya. They argued that humans were responsible for their own actions and have some free will. The Mu’talizas were the successors of the qadariyya and were seen as moderates that distances themselves from the two extremes. They argued that the universe is made up of discrete, continguent atoms that belong to two primary categories. These atoms are the effect of the cause, which is God.

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

”Either the sky is blue, or the sky does not exist.”

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

Farabi prescribed a syllabus to children that is very deviant from the current educational system. This finds relevance among today’s contemporary social, political and economic affairs. Nowadays, it seems that the goal of education is to prepare citizens as fast as possible to step in the labour market. Education is becoming a mean for economic ends.

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

Farabi’s syllabus encapsulates a lot of different fields and is very diverse. The sequence of the modules that he offers is very logical. First the pupil begins with studying linguistics in order to understand what language means, then he learns how to use it in the logic module. It goes from inward-looking to outward-looking and from abstract knowledge to more concrete knowledge. Nowadays, we have so much knowledge and information available that we have made distinctive academic fields of research. It is practically impossible to study everything, so it is better to embark and distinguish the different sciences. However, I do think that there should be more personal attention for students and that studies can be extended for longer periods of time. Also, the commercialization of the universities and the education system is a threatening the academic neutrality of insitutions.

• D = Debate: Can you offer an oppositional view challenging the topic and main arguments discussed in class?

Farabi favours royal rule because he argues that monarchs want to please the divine and not the common people. Of course there is no evidence for this, as we know monarchs do not necessarily prefer to pleasure the divine instead of the interests of the people. Also, monarchy usually goes hand in hand with nepotism and clientelism. Also one of the definitions of intellect that the provides is divine intellect, it is unclear what is divine intellect is. In the text he talks about the ‘First Cause’, he does not specify or explain what this first cause is and there is no proof for it’s existence.

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

The principles by which the bodies and accidents exists are divided into six levels. The ‘First Cause’ is the first level, the secondary causes are in the second level these are responsible for the movement of the celestial bodies. The active intellect is in the third level, this refers to rationality. The soul is in the fourth. The form is in the fifth. Matter is in the sixth.

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

”Nothing is certain”