Home > The Incoherence Of The Philosophers
 | | | |
Learn more about "The Incoherence Of The Philosophers"
|
|
|
The Incoherence of the Philosophers
The Incoherence of the Philosophers (''Tahāfut al-Falāsifaʰ'') in Arabic (تهافت الفلاسفة) is the title of a landmark 11th century polemic by the Sufism|Sufi sympathetic Imam Al-Ghazali (Algazel) of the Ash'ari|Asharite school of Islamic theology criticizing the Avicennism|Avicennian school of early Islamic philosophy.[
] List of Muslim philosophers|Muslim philosophers such as Avicenna|Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and Al-Farabi (Alpharabius) are denounced in this book. The text was dramatically successful, and marked a milestone in the ascendance of the Asharite school within Islamic philosophy and theological discourse.
Background
This book was preceded by a summary of Islamic philosophy|Muslim philosophical thought titled: Aims of the philosophers ''Maqasid al-falasifah''. This book is the summary of Avicennism|Avicenna's philosophical doctrine.Contents
The ''tahafut'' is organized into twenty chapters in which al-Ghazali attempts to refute Avicenna's doctrines.
- Refuting the doctrine of the world's pre-eternity.
- Refuting the doctrine of the world's post-eternity.
- Showing their equivocation of the following two statements: God is the creator of the world vs. the world is God's creation.
- The inability of philosophers to prove the existence of the Creator.
- The inability of philosophers to prove the impossibility of existence of two gods.
- The philosopher's doctrine of denying the existence of God's attributes.
- Refutation of their statement: "the essence of the First is not divisible into genus and species".
- Refutation of their statement: "the First is simple existent without quiddity".
- Their inability to demonstrate that the First is not a body.
- Discussing their materialist doctrine necessitates a denial of the maker.
- Their inability to show that the First knows others.
- Their inability to show that the First knows Himself.
- Refuting that the First does not know the Particulars.
- Refuting their doctrine that states: "the heavens are an animal that moves on its own volition.
- Refuting what they say regarding the reason that the heavens move.
- Refuting their doctrine that the heavens are souls that know the particulars.
- Refuting their doctrine that disruption of causality is impossible.
- Refuting their statement that the human soul is a self-sustaining substance that is neither a body nor an accident.
- Refuting their assertion of the impossibility of the annihilation of the human soul.
- Refuting their denial of bodily resurrection and the accompanying pleasures of Paradise or the pains of Hellfire.
Beyond Heresy
The three irreligious ideas are as follows:
- The theory of a pre-eternal world. Ghazali wrote that God created the world in time and just like everything in this world it will cease to exist as well.
- God only knows the universal characteristics of particulars - namely Platonic forms.
- Bodily resurrection will not take place in the hereafter only human souls are resurrected.
Summary
The late 11th century book brings out contradictions in the thoughts of philosophy|philosophers about God and the universe, favoring faith instead. In some ways, it can be seen as a precursor to Søren Kierkegaard's ''Either/Or'' or Immanuel Kant's ''Critique of Pure Reason'', where some even describe it as a "more incisive and decisive critique or metaphysics than that of Kant."[Paul Edwards (1973), ''The Encyclopedia of Philosophy'', MacMillan Publishing Company, Volume 3-4, p. 327]
Al-Ghazali also expresses his support for a scientific methodology based on Scientific demonstration|demonstration and Mathematics in medieval Islam|mathematics, while discussing Astronomy in medieval Islam|astronomy. After describing the Science in medieval Islam|scientific facts of the solar eclipse resulting from the Moon coming between the Sun and Earth and the lunar eclipse from the Earth coming between the Sun and Moon, he writes:OccasionalismThe Incoherence of the Philosophers is famous for proposing and defending the Ash'ari|Asharite theory of occasionalism. Al-Ghazali wrote that when fire and cotton are placed in contact, the cotton is burned directly by God rather than by the fire, a claim which he defended using Logic in Islamic philosophy|logic.
He explained that because God is usually seen as rational, rather than arbitrary, his behaviour in normally causing events in the same sequence (ie, what appears to us to be efficient causation) can be understood as a natural outworking of that principle of reason, which we then describe as the laws of nature. Properly speaking, however, these are not laws of nature but laws by which God chooses to govern his own behaviour (his autonomy, in the strict sense) - in other words, his rational will.
This is not, however, an essential element of an occasionalist account, and occasionalism can include positions where God's behaviour (and thus that of the world) is viewed as ultimately inscrutable, thus maintaining God's essential transcendence. On this understanding, apparent anomalies such as miracles are not really such: they are simply God behaving in a way that ''appears'' unusual ''to us''. Given his transcendent freedom, he is not bound even by his own nature. Miracles, as breaks in the rational structure of the universe, cannot occur, since God's relationship with the world is not mediated by rational principles.
Critical reception
Averroes|Ibn Rushd (Averroes) wrote a refutation of Al-Ghazali's work entitled ''The Incoherence of the Incoherence'' (''Tahāfut al-Tahāfut'') in which he defends the doctrines of the "philosophers" and criticizes al-Ghazali's own arguments. It is written as a sort of dialogue: Averroes quotes passages by al-Ghazali and then responds to them. This text was not as well received by the wider Islamic audience. In the 15th century, a refutation of Ibn Rushd’s arguments in ''Tahāfut al-Tahāfut'' was written by a Turkic peoples|Turkic scholar Mustafā Ibn Yūsuf al-Bursawī, also known as Khwājah Zādā (d. 1487), who defended al-Ghazali's views. This once again indicated to Islamic scholars the weakness of human understanding and the strength of faith.Continued discussion in the Muslim World
Far from stifling philosophy in the Muslim world, the ''tahafut'' has piqued Muslim interest in philosophy: jurists are no longer afraid to study the works of Avicenna and al-Farabi as is evident in the works of Averroes and Fakhr al-Din al-Razi.
The ''tahafut'' and Averroes' refutation continue to be studied in the Muslim world. The Ottoman sultan Mehmed II (a.k.a. ''el-Fatih'') commissioned two of the realm's scholars to write a book summarizing the ideas of the two great philosophers as to who won the debate across time.
Legacy
Al-Ghazali's insistence on a radical divine immanence in the natural world has been posited ["Myth 4. That Medieval Islamic Culture was Inhospitable to Science" in Ronald L. Numbers (ed.): ''Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths About Science and Religion'', Harvard University Press, 2009, esp. pp. 39-40] as one of the reasons that the spirit of Models of scientific inquiry|scientific inquiry later withered in Islamic lands. If "Allah's hand is not chained", then there was no point in discovering the alleged laws of nature. For example:
...our opponent claims that the agent of the burning is the fire exclusively;’ this is a natural, not a voluntary agent, and cannot abstain from what is in its nature when it is brought into contact with a receptive substratum. This we deny, saying: The agent of the burning is God, through His creating the black in the cotton and the disconnexion of its parts, and it is God who made the cotton burn and made it ashes either through the intermediation of angels or without intermediation. For fire is a dead body which has no action, and what is the proof that it is the agent? Indeed, the philosophers have no other proof than the observation of the occurrence of the burning, when there is contact with fire, but observation proves only a simultaneity, not a causation, and, in reality, there is no other cause but God.
So, while later Islamic civilizations such as the Ottomans made adroit use of acquired technology, it was the Christian West that took the lead in natural philosophy, pure research, and discovery, from the Renaissance onward.
Footnotes
References
- Aristotelianism in Islamic philosophy
- The Incoherence of the Philosophers Lahore, 1958, 1963 English translation by Sahib Ahmad Kamali. pdf file
- Marmura: ''Al-Ghazali's The Incoherence of the Philosophers'', (2nd ed.). Brigham Young University Press, 2002. A new English translation of ''tahfut al-falasifa'' includes the Arabic text. ISBN 0-8425-2466-5.
- The Incoherence of the Incoherence translation by Simon van den Bergh. This also contains a translation of most of the tahafut as the refutations are mostly commentary of al-Ghazali statements that were quoted verbatim.
- Review of Tahafat al-Falasifa
Category:Islamic philosophy|Incoherence of the Philosophers
Category:Sunni literature|Incoherence of the Philosophers
Category:11th-century Arabic books
Category:Philosophy books
Related Images
Sources: StartLearningNow, Wikipedia | Usage license: GNU FDL
 |
Welcome to Start Learning Now.
Explore to your heart's content, and we hope you enjoy reading the material we
have assembled for you here! |
 |
| | | | |
Related News
|
|
Further Resources
|
|
Related Resources
search
|
|
