Philosophy: books and discussion

[TGS]

Originally Posted by nguirado

I was just saying that philosophy is describing ideal truths. If the world is only material (atheistic), then philosophy is irrelevant. Or, if the world is only material and one wants to know about morality or politics, study psychology or evolutionary biology, not philosophy.

I think maybe you are operating with some unexplicated definitions - "philosophy", "truth" "morality" for example. If you define philosophy as dealing with "ideal" truths - by which I take you to mean non-material truths - then, by definition, any discourse which seeks to offer a materialist account of human being is not philosophy. That's just an inevitable consequence of your premises, doesn't make it true though.

But let me ask you a couple of questions - if there is some stuff in the universe other than material stuff, what is it, and how does it interact with the material stuff.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by nguirado

I know this will start a row, but one should only take theistic philosophy seriously. Think about it: If the world is only material, then everything has a material explanation. Love, consciousness, compassion, morality, etc. are all chemical reactions that came about through adaptation. Politics, sociology? Who cares? There's no right way to live. Live the way that makes your time here happiest and try to influence your society to move in a direction that suits you. You like equality, be a socialist, You like competition, go with Rand. Morality? Nature doesn't care. It seems more productive to study science.

Assuming for sake of argument that you are correct in your contention that only theistic philosophy should be taken seriously, what is the standard by which Providence determines morality? Is a thing good only because the Powers That Be declare it so? That seems rather arbitrary. Or is there an external standard to which even the gods must adhere? It seems that you have simply pushed the debate back upon another's shoulders with your contention that humans cannot live morally without reference to the divine.

[nguirado]

Yes, that would be the logical conclusion. If you can't appeal to anything greater than yourself, it's an opinion, a feeling.

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Assuming for sake of argument that you are correct in your contention that only theistic philosophy should be taken seriously, what is the standard by which Providence determines morality? Is a thing good only because the Powers That Be declare it so? That seems rather arbitrary. Or is there an external standard to which even the gods must adhere? It seems that you have simply pushed the debate back upon another's shoulders with your contention that humans cannot live morally without reference to the divine.

I just realized that I'm hijacking this thread. It was not my intention. I was responding to what I see as a misconception. Please continue with recommendations.

C.S. Lewis: Abolition of Man discusses the natural law. Worthy for the list at the end of statements on the natural law by various cultures.

[WT Sharpe]

Some words of Jefferson concerning religious inquiries:
.....Your reason is now mature enough to examine this object. In the first place divest yourself of all bias in favour of novelty & singularity of opinion. Indulge them in any other subject rather than that of religion. It is too important, & the consequences of error may be too serious. On the other hand shake off all the fears & servile prejudices under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.
..........— Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), 3rd President of the United States. Letter to his nephew, Peter Carr, August 10, 1785.

I am not a Muslim. I don't believe Allah is God, nor do I accept the authority of the Koran. I say this not to offend, but to clarify my position up front and to preface the following remarks. If I am wrong; if Allah is God and Mohammed is His Prophet; surely Allah must respect my sincerity more than feigned pretense.

I just finished reading Asrar-I-Khudi (The Secrets of Self) by Dr. Muhammad Iqbal. Dr. Iqbal was a wonderful and talented poet and who provided much food for thought in this short book. The philosophical underpinnings of this work and the author's familiarity with the philosophical canon of the Western world are much in evidence, as is his familiarity and devotion to the tenets of Islam.

In his Introduction to the work, Reynold A. Nicholson states, "Iqbal has drunk deep of European literature, his philosophy owes much to Nietzsche and Bergson, and his poetry; often reminds us of Shelly; yet he thinks and feels as a Muslim, and just for this reason his influence may be great." With this I agree, except that I feel his poetic style owes more to Nietzsche than to Shelly, as evidenced by this early passage in the book:

.....I have no need of the ear of To-day, I am the voice of the poet of To-morrow. My own age does not understand my deep meanings, My Joseph is not for this market.
..........— Sir Muhammad Iqbal (1877 – 1938), Persian and Urdu language poet, philosopher and politician. Asrar-I-Khudi, Prologue.

.....This book belongs to the very few. Perhaps not one of them is even living yet. Maybe they will be the readers who understand my Zarathustra: how could I mistake myself for one of those for whom there are ears even now? Only the day after tomorrow belongs to me. Some are born posthumously.
..........— Friedrich (Wilhelm) Nietzsche (1844-1900), German philosopher. The Antichrist (1888), Preface.

Iqbal seems to have been almost as influenced by Nietzsche as he was by the Koran. He spoke often of the virtues of strength in the work and of the necessity to not be seduced by those things that tend to make us soft in very Nietzschian terms. Where he parts ways with Nietzsche most strongly, however, is over Nietzsche's criticisms of democracy.

In one of Nicholson's footnotes, we find:
.....Writing of "Muslim Democracy" in The New Era, 1916, p. 251. Iqbal says: "The Democracy of Europe—overshadowed by socialistic agitation and anarchical fear—originated mainly in the economic regeneration of European societies. Nietzsche, however, abhors this 'rule of the herd' and, hopeless of the plebeian, he bases all higher culture on the cultivation and growth of an Aristocracy of Supermen.
.....But is the plebeian so absolutely hopeless? The Democracy of Islam did not grow out of the extension of economic opportunity; it is a spiritual principle based on the assumption that every human being is a centre of latent power the possibilities of which can be developed by cultivating a certain type of character. Out of the plebeian material Islam has formed men of the noblest type of life and power. Is not, then, the Democracy of early Islam an experimental refutation of the ideas of Nietzsche?

All in all, I am impressed with the book, although I am concerned with Iqbal's belief, as pointed out by the translator, that "Jihad is justifiable, provided that it is waged 'for God's sake alone.'" Many religions have passed through stages where their adherents have felt that holy war against unbelievers was a sacred duty, and the results have always been tragic.

Comments?

[nguirado]

Jefferson was a Deist and a believer in the Natural Law, which he used to argue slavery issues. In other words, Jefferson assumed an order. My earlier comments were directed at the nihilist, like Nietzsche.

The Abrahamic religions do teach that men are inherently equal. I think this is what he meant by "democratic." I'm not aware of this idea translating into political democracy in the Muslim world.

If I were to read something from this philosopher, what would you recommend?

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by nguirado

Jefferson was a Deist and a believer in the Natural Law, which he used to argue slavery issues. In other words, Jefferson assumed an order. My earlier comments were directed at the nihilist, like Nietzsche.

The Abrahamic religions do teach that men are inherently equal. I think this is what he meant by "democratic." I'm not aware of this idea translating into political democracy in the Muslim world.

If I were to read something from this philosopher, what would you recommend?

Sorry, nguirado; I probably just confused the heck out of you. Post #889 was a response to this one by aabeg100, who first brought Iqbal's book to the attention of this thread. If you're curious to read other works by Muhammad Iqbal, Asim (aabeg100) would be the person to go to for recommendations.

[aabeg100]

Thanks Tom for going through the book and commenting on it. The reason I put this book up was to see what others thought about Dr. Iqbal's ideas. I was really impressed by them but then I am biased because he is our national poet .

I would just like to comment on the statement you pointed out regarding "Jihad". This is one statement that has been taken out of context more times than anything else in his book. In Islamic philosophy jihad not only means fighting against non-believers it also means fighting against ones own desires. For example, controlling ones anger is considered Jihad in Islamic philosophy and since the book is about the secrets of self here what he means is that you should control your desires as instructed by GOD and not follow others. The reason he says this is because at that time a lot of Islamic scholars were making religion difficult by placing undue rules and restrictions etc.

Anyways, I don't want to babble on. To answer the question about which book to read, the best book to start off with is this one Asrar-i-Khudi (the secret of self) and then he has a set of lectures published by oxford publication called "Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam". In these lectures he evaluates Islam in light of philosophy and discussed how religious thought should evolve. The lectures focus on Islam as it was his area of expertise but the ideas can be applied to any religion in general.

I will try to upload a copy of these lectures on Feedbooks soon but you can search them on google.

Most of the rest of his work is still either in URDU or PERSIAN. Which is a shame as he is quite an interesting writer to read. For Example, his next book after Asrar-i-Khudi was called Ramooz-i-Bakhudi (The secrets of Selflessness) in this book he comments how one can make the nation great by being selfless. Together, in these two books he explains how a person should behave as an individual and as a nation.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by aabeg100

Thanks Tom for going through the book and commenting on it. The reason I put this book up was to see what others thought about Dr. Iqbal's ideas. I was really impressed by them but then I am biased because he is our national poet .

I would just like to comment on the statement you pointed out regarding "Jihad". This is one statement that has been taken out of context more times than anything else in his book. In Islamic philosophy jihad not only means fighting against non-believers it also means fighting against ones own desires. For example, controlling ones anger is considered Jihad in Islamic philosophy and since the book is about the secrets of self here what he means is that you should control your desires as instructed by GOD and not follow others. The reason he says this is because at that time a lot of Islamic scholars were making religion difficult by placing undue rules and restrictions etc.

Anyways, I don't want to babble on. To answer the question about which book to read, the best book to start off with is this one Asrar-i-Khudi (the secret of self) and then he has a set of lectures published by oxford publication called "Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam". In these lectures he evaluates Islam in light of philosophy and discussed how religious thought should evolve. The lectures focus on Islam as it was his area of expertise but the ideas can be applied to any religion in general.

I will try to upload a copy of these lectures on Feedbooks soon but you can search them on google.

Most of the rest of his work is still either in URDU or PERSIAN. Which is a shame as he is quite an interesting writer to read. For Example, his next book after Asrar-i-Khudi was called Ramooz-i-Bakhudi (The secrets of Selflessness) in this book he comments how one can make the nation great by being selfless. Together, in these two books he explains how a person should behave as an individual and as a nation.

Thanks for responding, and for posting the link to the book. Yes, I am aware of the dual meaning of the word jihad; it's just that the way the translator presented it in my opinion seemed to be speaking of something other than that personal struggle against one's own desires that is incumbent upon all Muslims. In all fairness, the phrase did not come from a direct quotation by Sir Iqbal, but was contained in a brief footnote by the translator, and may well have reflected the bias of the translator. Sir Muhammad Iqbal is a remarkable poet whose ideas are obviously well-grounded in philosophy and the book, although mainly directed toward adherents of Islam, contains much material that is cosmopolitan in scope and of use to all who seek to live a morally worthy life. The book was very enjoyable, and is a great addition to the ethical library. I can only imagine it is even more remarkable in the original language.

The other surprise in the book was the author's obvious antagonism toward the Sufi movement. Would you care to elaborate on this?

[aabeg100]

Hi Tom,

Sorry for the delay in replying but I got busy with finishing my Thesis. Anyways, Iqbal was really against the sufi movement. He was of the belief that the reason Islam became stegnent and difficult and complex to follow was because of the sufi movement. He was against the fact that sufis believed that the only way for man to get close to God was to reject himself complety and blindly accept whatever happenes to him as fate and will of God. He believed that God gave man personality and ability to choose and think so that he can make his own fortunes.

Let me illustrate the difference between the sufi school of thought and Iqbal's thinking.
A well know sufi poet says.....

I am not a kilogram nor gram .... I am but a speck and that too incomplete and can not be used to weigh anything without the will of God.

On the other hand Iqbal says.....

Raise your Self so high that before God writes your fortunes..... HE personally asks you what are your wishes.

Iqbal believes that the sufi movement caused all their followers muslim or otherwise to stop thinking or learning and blindly follow without questioning. He was very against it he believed that it is man's devine right to think, question and learn and make up his own mind.

I should point out that Iqbal was not against all the sufi's infact he was a great admirer of Romi and a few others.

Hope this answers your question. Please do let me know if something in unclear and I will try to further comment on it.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by aabeg100

Hi Tom,

Sorry for the delay in replying but I got busy with finishing my Thesis. Anyways, Iqbal was really against the sufi movement. He was of the belief that the reason Islam became stegnent and difficult and complex to follow was because of the sufi movement. He was against the fact that sufis believed that the only way for man to get close to God was to reject himself complety and blindly accept whatever happenes to him as fate and will of God. He believed that God gave man personality and ability to choose and think so that he can make his own fortunes.

Let me illustrate the difference between the sufi school of thought and Iqbal's thinking.
A well know sufi poet says.....

I am not a kilogram nor gram .... I am but a speck and that too incomplete and can not be used to weigh anything without the will of God.

On the other hand Iqbal says.....

Raise your Self so high that before God writes your fortunes..... HE personally asks you what are your wishes.

Iqbal believes that the sufi movement caused all their followers muslim or otherwise to stop thinking or learning and blindly follow without questioning. He was very against it he believed that it is man's devine right to think, question and learn and make up his own mind.

I should point out that Iqbal was not against all the sufi's infact he was a great admirer of Romi and a few others.

Hope this answers your question. Please do let me know if something in unclear and I will try to further comment on it.

Thanks for that detailed reply. I was wondering if his dislike of the Sufi movement in general was because of the mysticism inherent in Sufi teachings and practice. I find mystics of all faiths to be of special interest because of their insistence on the personal experience of the Divine that they stress as having precedence over living strictly by rules, regulations, and strict adherence to Scripture (not that these things are considered unimportant).

[aabeg100]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Thanks for that detailed reply. I was wondering if his dislike of the Sufi movement in general was because of the mysticism inherent in Sufi teachings and practice. I find mystics of all faiths to be of special interest because of their insistence on the personal experience of the Divine that they stress as having precedence over living strictly by rules, regulations, and strict adherence to Scripture (not that these things are considered unimportant).

Not at all, in fact, Iqbal strongly believed in the positive impact mysticism has in religious experience as well as personal experience. He believe that mystic experience is an extension of human though process that allows him to see the world in a new light instead of the time based mortar and stone approach we are used to in everyday life.

[kennyc]

Is Philosophy dead? Was it in the N.Y. Times?

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Is Philosophy dead? Was it in the N.Y. Times?

No, you're thinking about the Kindle.

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=93850

Although I agree with ardeegee's post (scroll down to the third post on that page).

[FlorenceArt]

Not dead. Taking a vacation maybe?

[v1k1ng1001]

Philosophy is dead in the sense that it has failed to critically engage the way in which professionalization has lead to a kind of banal attitude toward thought and reflection. Most philosophers I know aren't worried about contributing to human wisdom but they are very much worried about how their academic production will impress tenured article producers so that they, in turn, can achieve tenure and promotion.

Thoreau had it right when he said, "There Are Nowadays Professors of Philosophy, but not Philosophers."

In fact, witness the irony for yourself:

http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journ.../19.3hadot.pdf