Muḥammad al-Ghazālī and the poetic abcreation of reason

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Muḥammad al-Ghazālī and the poetic abcreation of reason

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Jul 29, 2014 8:47 pm

A reflection on Islam's most influential teacher besides Mohammed.

Muhammed al-Ghazālī

Al Ghazali stems from before the stagnation of Islamic science, which reached I completion around 1400 under Ottoman rulership. I suspect that he may have been the worst teacher in human history. It was due to his enormous poetic influence on intellectual pathos that it came to be a disgrace to think about important matters via logical arguments. After Al Ghazali was done, only revelation was trusted as a source of truth.

Of course it didn't take long after that for political rulers to take complete possession of religious authority. One Ottoman ruler allegedly went so far as to forbid all sciences save the one oriented on curing sexually transmitted diseases. I saw this last bit in a BBC documentary, I wonder if it can be verified.

Islam as the beautiful childhood fantasy: a world of mercy, an omnipotent father, the will to grow into someone great with a great many people who love you in the next world. To a child, being grown-up is the next world, and it imagines all sorts of bliss for it.

The Christian ideal allows for the same thing, but it holds a second, and a third option. The nature of the trinity is such that man is able to get lost in their meanings separately, and so 'work on himself' - keep switching perspectives on himself, transform. Christianity is a transformative religion, whereas Islam is a fixating one. This corresponds with the nature of the pagan religions existing before Christ in Europe and the Middle East - in the ME, the great phallic gods, the domination-monoliths. The European tribes had more focus on Gods that amically fight amongst themselves.

A relatively friendly strife between Gods - by human terms natural, that means often very vicious, but not absolutely hostile like God and Satan - a strife in the knowledge of having to deal with each other. Revenge within bounds, creative solutions, jokes, humiliations and re-exaltations, a lot of adultery.

On a more violent level, only the God Most High has to castrate his own father. This can either simply mean to take over control, but there is an alternative interpretation, not mine, which I posted somewhere else - Kronos is the self-contained God who wishes to not be contained and thrusts outwards bestowing himself onto time - this bestowing is Zeus, and to be able to exist, the power-sphere of Saturn must be broken.

Zeus was helped by his mother Rhea, which is then the aspect of the self-enclosed ancestry that represents the will to exist in Olympian, Earthly terms.



Islam as Poetry

The whole appeal of the holy Book is its poetry. My friend who is a muslim of great ethical and intellectual quality used to read the Book in the Mosque to the grown ups when he was a small child, and watch many among them cry. The great Sufi poetry is among the most convincing attributions of specific qualities to divine nature and the very law of the man we discussed, the command to avoid realism, represents in a higher sense the command to seek poetic relations.

The life of the Islamic family is poetic. I remember the small patios in the housing blocks in the outskirts of Damascus, the galleries and balconies with children's chatter echoing around the seat of the mother, or grandmother, entertained by the men, she smiles at a little girl with a large orange balloon, through which this girl is staring, wide eyed, at the stranger. There is definite beauty, but it must not be expressed in images or logic.

The Word is omnipresent in Islam, and the name with the double L is a poetic accellerant of the most powerful order. Don't try it at home unless you're prepared to share your house with the God from thereon out.

The culmination of poetry tends to be on the tragic side of things. It is possible that the beauties in the unimaginable households of princes who use the religion to subject and to justify their subjecting are, as value to self-valuing, enough to justify all the suffering and ignorance their rule relies on... in the eyes of a Nietzschean perspective at least. Not in modern terms.

We moderners... We can not even aspire to such unrestrained wealth. We have lost that sense of Kingship, which is poetic, and of a time before science and reason.

Islam is at its most dangerous a means to reduce the world to a collection of forces. It circulates these forces, dependent identities, around this black stone - all of them happy in half-knowing, becoming rather than being, submitted human energy, orgasmic belonging -- and the fire of a god in men without discipline of intellect. Men of fortune sit on thrones there and enjoy the fruits, which are sweet. Literally, and quite extremely so.

In the worst case, man is unleashed to his lusts rather than that he avoids them - his justification of life is that he is a sinner, and tragically so. That is why so many martyrs receives their ordeal with such immense will to shine, and why the Hezbollah pressmen were keen to show me all the billboards on which the children were advertised that threw themselves with bombvest on an Israeli prison, and managed, in the end, to drive the Israelis out. Tragedy and heroism, this is the active force of Islamic ethics.

If, in the mouths of the martyrs, the phrase "Allah Akbar" were replaced with "Equal Rights", the war would be over right quick - but they seek war. This is nothing but the will to the end, the will to the proof that not many, but one exists - that all instances of the many are incoherent and relate only to truth by this great name, this one logos wherein the mayhem and nonsense of the world resounds in a perfect outcry of truth: "NO!"

Islam is a Holy No. And it can be argued that a Holy No is required to substantiate a Holy Yes.



Poetry as the Abcreation of Reason

The relation of Islamic resolve to poetic narrative means that the attacks on the muslim nations, populations and memes will continue to strengthen the resolve, as such attacks prove the poetry's worth, confirm a crucial degree of truth-value. It's not considered that the worth might be negative precisely because of the predictable truth value, but the population of faith is a thousand years removed from such insights, or a thousand years in terms of our own history. It is likely that time will progress faster given the present means of communication.

It is possible that insights will dawn, but I predict a best case of no less than a hundred years before an intellectual core can be substantial enough to sway popular opinion. In the meantime it is only given to 'us' to create the conditions for such an promethean elite. We as the west will begin to communicate our values in terms that actually threaten the religion.



Divine Reason

Al Ghazali denied causality in the Aristotelean sense, on which Islamic scholars had relied and which they had developed exhaustively, literally unto exhaustion of their meaning.

Then a powerful poet-scholar renounced all four of Aristotle's causal logics on the basis of their inconclusiveness, and his message stuck out of pure revolutionariness. God is the spirit of revolution, revaluation.

The material cause is the basic stuff out of which the thing is made. The material cause of a house, for example, would include the wood, metal, glass, and other building materials used in its construction. All of these things belong in an explanation of the house because it could not exist unless they were present in its composition.

The formal cause {Gk. ειδος [eidos]} is the pattern or essence in conformity with which these materials are assembled. Thus, the formal cause of our exemplary house would be the sort of thing that is represented on a blueprint of its design. This, too, is part of the explanation of the house, since its materials would be only a pile of rubble (or a different house) if they were not put together in this way.

The efficient cause is the agent or force immediately responsible for bringing this matter and that form together in the production of the thing. Thus, the efficient cause of the house would include the carpenters, masons, plumbers, and other workers who used these materials to build the house in accordance with the blueprint for its construction. Clearly the house would not be what it is without their contribution.

Lastly, the final cause {Gk. τελος [télos]} is the end or purpose for which a thing exists, so the final cause of our house would be to provide shelter for human beings. This is part of the explanation of the house's existence because it would never have been built unless someone needed it as a place to live. (src)


And he was right. The causality conception existing in his time was imperfect, 'unworthy' - of reality. Newton disclosed a relation of these causes to each other was far more elegantly than what is made apparent by this particular categorization, and he did so in the quest for divine gold, and he called the object of his law as "the love of God".

In Aristotle, causality was conceived in terms of efficiency. In Newton, causality was revealed in simplicity. Of course he stood in a tradition of men to whom such truths were revealed -  the outcry eureka is older than Newton, older even than Archimedes. But all laws that had been discovered by the pre and post Copernicans came together in Newtons formula of momentum and attraction. And this led to the completion of the model in Einstein's theory of gravity and light, the conception of which was revelation, in the sense of a perfectly capable mind knowing how to position itself to itself so as to know what is necessary. It is a miracle how E conceived of the principle of the speed of light - and yet also he stood in two traditions - of Archimedes and of Moses.  He saw his science as discerning the thoughts of God. ("All the rest is irrelevant")

Revelation and science are intimately intertwined.

Concluding, it has become much clearer now how a foolishness as that of Al Ghazali could have come to be. He simply wished to return to a more simple nature of things - he was tired of the never ending expansion of categories and tracts of significance. Back to the source! Unfortunately, there was not yet a source to speak of. Ghazali was so arrogant to claim the abcreation of logic without having something to put in its place. A great hubris that did not remain unpunished - billions suffer for his pride.

All very poetic indeed - and this makes me wonder if there is a way out at all without another prophet.
Thunderbolt steers all things.

Image

I've been guided somewhat by William Blake's quote: "I must create a system or be enslaved by another mans; I will not reason and compare: my business is to create". Just change 'system' for 'style'. - Bill

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6866
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Muḥammad al-Ghazālī and the poetic abcreation of reason

Postby zinnat » Wed Jul 30, 2014 8:38 pm

FC,

I think that you have gone too far in criticizing Gazali. He does not deserve that much.
His only mistake was that he totally rejected the questioning and insisted on faith far more than required.

He did not maintain the balance between the spirituality and practicality.

Most guanine religious scholars like Gazali use to become idealistic and expect the same level of sincerity and commitment form the masses what they themselves have. They miss a very simple point that all people cannot be the same thus they should not expect that from the masses what is beyond their capacity.

Secondly, his criticism of the Aristotle and Plato was because of the fear of Islam also following the path of Christinaity. He did not want that happening.

with love,
sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3501
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: Muḥammad al-Ghazālī and the poetic abcreation of reason

Postby zinnat » Thu Jul 31, 2014 3:58 am

Secondly, i think that you missed a very important point about Gazali.

In his days, every stream of the knowledge was included in the philososphy. Like the study of physics, astronomy and mathematics were also considered as philosophy, not to mention metaphysics.

Gazali was critic of other philosophers only in the terms of metaphysics, not scientific streams like physics, medicine or mathematics. He challenged only the notions about the God, not all.

I may be wrong but your criticism is giving the impression that Gazali opposed all scientific progress, which is not the case.

with love,
sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3501
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: Muḥammad al-Ghazālī and the poetic abcreation of reason

Postby Fixed Cross » Mon Aug 11, 2014 5:04 pm

zinnat13 wrote:FC,

I think that you have gone too far in criticizing Gazali. He does not deserve that much.
His only mistake was that he totally rejected the questioning and insisted on faith far more than required.

He did not maintain the balance between the spirituality and practicality.

You don't say!

Most guanine religious scholars like Gazali use to become idealistic and expect the same level of sincerity and commitment form the masses what they themselves have. They miss a very simple point that all people cannot be the same thus they should not expect that from the masses what is beyond their capacity.

That is one of his major mistakes, indeed. And what a very bad, dramatic and fatal mistake that turns out to be, invariably.

Perhaps he did have the sense of nuance that you propose - but I am considering his real heritage, not his intentions.

Secondly, his criticism of the Aristotle and Plato was because of the fear of Islam also following the path of Christinaity. He did not want that happening.

That raises a lot of questions. First of all, why did he think that Aristotle led to Christianity?
Thunderbolt steers all things.

Image

I've been guided somewhat by William Blake's quote: "I must create a system or be enslaved by another mans; I will not reason and compare: my business is to create". Just change 'system' for 'style'. - Bill

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6866
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Muḥammad al-Ghazālī and the poetic abcreation of reason

Postby zinnat » Mon Aug 11, 2014 8:21 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:That is one of his major mistakes, indeed. And what a very bad, dramatic and fatal mistake that turns out to be, invariably.

Perhaps he did have the sense of nuance that you propose - but I am considering his real heritage, not his intentions.


FC,

You cannot blame anyone for his heritage. The heritages depends far more on later followers than initiaters.
You cannot blame Rutherford for the killing of innocent Japanese in H&N. And, neither Jesus for all those Crusades, which were executed in the name of Christianity.
Things and notions should be seen the orignal context.

Fixed Cross wrote:That raises a lot of questions. First of all, why did he think that Aristotle led to Christianity?


He had to criticize Aristotle.

It were not the western philosophers that made Aristotle famous, but Muslim ones like Averroes and Avicenna. Aristotle was very once very respected within Muslim intellectual populace. They named his as the first teacher. Later, western Christian philosophers like Thomas Aquinas read the Arabic translations of his works and translated into European languages.

Later, Aristotle became the symbol of reason and logic, along with Plato. Though, Aristotle did not say much about the God in particular, but as Christian intellectuals started considering him as an authority, Instead of the Chruch, Gazali feared that the same may happned in Islam too.

That is why he criticized Aristotle, but only for his ideas of metaphysics, not as a whole.

with love,
sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3501
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: Muḥammad al-Ghazālī and the poetic abcreation of reason

Postby Fixed Cross » Mon Aug 11, 2014 8:56 pm

Thanks, Sanjay - that corroborates everything I said, actually. Due to an irrational allegiance, or allegiance to irrationality ( I do not know if you have read the Koran ) he dismissed Aristotle. The ground, that religion was supposed to be untouched by reason, is very dangerous and proved fatal, deliberately depriving the minds of the future billions who would have to carry the consequences of his actions of their right to think about God, divinity. Implicity, denying the their right to come to understand themselves.

I can hardly think of a more powerful act in favor of darkness. In fact, I can't think of any.
Thunderbolt steers all things.

Image

I've been guided somewhat by William Blake's quote: "I must create a system or be enslaved by another mans; I will not reason and compare: my business is to create". Just change 'system' for 'style'. - Bill

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6866
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Muḥammad al-Ghazālī and the poetic abcreation of reason

Postby Fixed Cross » Mon Aug 11, 2014 9:02 pm

This is without competition the greatest evil in the world - the idea that religion (moral thought) and science (a-moral thought) should be disconnected, rather than humbly acknowledging that they are often hard to reconcile for humans. Be honest. Is that supreme arrogance (the idea that a human could decide this in the first place) not the recipe for tyranny and oblivion and the destruction of the human spirit?
Thunderbolt steers all things.

Image

I've been guided somewhat by William Blake's quote: "I must create a system or be enslaved by another mans; I will not reason and compare: my business is to create". Just change 'system' for 'style'. - Bill

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6866
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Muḥammad al-Ghazālī and the poetic abcreation of reason

Postby Fixed Cross » Mon Aug 11, 2014 9:17 pm

The prophet and the philosopher are architects of man, they imprint their will (you will say their wisdom) on millennia. To do so by taking away mans power to think his divinity is to be the bridge-builder to hell. It is literally the chained pair of the Devil card. Chained not by understanding - pure, but by understanding coupled with the belief that knowledge is ungodly.

As I said in the OP, Newton proved the final resolution of this error, and it is a shame that the muslims do not revere him as a true prophet that unmasked Al Ghazali.
Thunderbolt steers all things.

Image

I've been guided somewhat by William Blake's quote: "I must create a system or be enslaved by another mans; I will not reason and compare: my business is to create". Just change 'system' for 'style'. - Bill

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6866
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Muḥammad al-Ghazālī and the poetic abcreation of reason

Postby zinnat » Tue Aug 12, 2014 7:51 pm

Fixed Cross wrote: I do not know if you have read the Koran


To some extent, though not thoroughly.

Fixed Cross wrote:he dismissed Aristotle


He dismissed only a part of Aristole, in which he was in directl conflict with basic doctrines of Islam, like whether the soul take rebirth or not. Gazali was not dismissive of Aristotle as a whole. He accepted may of his other premises.

with love,
sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3501
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: Muḥammad al-Ghazālī and the poetic abcreation of reason

Postby zinnat » Tue Aug 12, 2014 7:52 pm

FC,

I do not think that you still get it right.

Al-Ghazâlî describes the Incoherence of the Philosophers as a “refutation” (radd) of the philosophical movement (Ghazâlî 1959a, 18 = 2000b, 61), and this has contributed to the erroneous assumption that he opposed Aristotelianism and rejected its teachings. His response to falsafa was far more complex and allowed him to adopt many of its teachings


http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/al-ghazali/

You are also a vitim of same misperception.

In his Incoherence al-Ghazâlî discusses twenty key teachings of the falâsifa and rejects the claim that these teachings are demonstratively proven. In a detailed and intricate philosophical discussion al-Ghazâlî aims to show that none of the arguments in favor of these twenty teachings fulfills the high epistemological standard of demonstration (burhân) that the falâsifa have set for themselves. Rather, the arguments supporting these twenty convictions rely upon unproven premises that are accepted only among the falâsifa, but are not established by reason. By showing that these positions are supported by mere dialectical arguments al-Ghazâlî aims to demolish what he regarded was an epistemological hubris on the side of the falâsifa


The initial argument of the Incoherence focuses on apodeixis and the demonstrative character of the arguments refuted therein. While the book also touches on the truth of these teachings, it “refutes” numerous positions whose truths al-Ghazâlî acknowledges or which he subscribed to in his later works. In these cases al-Ghazâlî wishes to show that while these particular philosophical teachings are sound and true, they are not demonstrated


What he is actually trying to say that Atistotelian logic is an ontology, which runs on its own declayerd definitions/premises. It has not demostrated successfuly thus considering those as fundamental thruth is wrong.

And, he was not as narrow minded either as you are thinking.
Look at this-

In his attempt to define the boundaries of Islam al-Ghazâlî singles out a limited number of teachings that in his opinion overstep the borders. In a separate book, The Decisive Criterion for Distinguishing Islam from Clandestine Unbelief (Faysal al-tafriqa bayna l-Islâm wa-l-zandaqa) he clarifies that only teachings that violate certain “fundamental doctrines” (usûl al-‘aqâ’id) should be deemed unbelief and apostasy. These doctrines are limited to three: monotheism, Muhammad's prophecy, and the Qur’anic descriptions of life after death (al-Ghazâlî 1961, 195 = 2002, 112).

He stresses that all other teachings, including those that are erroneous or even regarded as “religious innovations” (singl. bid’a), should be tolerated. Again other teachings may be correct, al-Ghazâlî adds, and despite their philosophical background, for instance, should be accepted by the Muslim community. Each teaching must be judged by itself, and if found sound and in accordance with revelation, should be adopted (al-Ghazâlî 1959a, 25–27 = 2000b, 67–70). This attitude leads to a widespread application of Aristotelian teachings in al-Ghazâlî's works on Muslim theology and ethics


He further says-

he says, because they are largely unfamiliar with the technique of demonstration. For al-Ghazâlî, reason (‘aql) is executed most purely and precisely by formulating arguments that are demonstrative and reach a level where their conclusions are beyond doubt. The results of true demonstrations cannot conflict with revelation, al-Ghazâlî says, since neither reason nor revelation can be considered false (Heer 1993, 186–88). If demonstration proves something that violates the literal meaning of revelation, the scholar must apply interpretation (ta’wîl) to the outward text and read it as a symbol of a deeper truth. There are, for instance, valid demonstrative arguments proving that God cannot have a “hand” or sit on a “throne.” These prompt the Muslim scholar to interpret the Qur’anic passages where these words appear as symbols (al-Ghazâlî 1961, 175–89 = 2002, 96–103). The interpretation of passages in revelation, however, whose outward meaning is not disproved by a valid demonstration, is not allowed


And, he was quite right.

with love,
sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3501
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: Muḥammad al-Ghazālī and the poetic abcreation of reason

Postby zinnat » Tue Aug 12, 2014 8:09 pm

I forgot to mention his most significant contribution to islam and the world too.

Before Gazali, Sufism was considered as some sort of black magic by Islam and was opened to blasphemy too. It was only Gazali, who fought for it and established it as a subset of mainstream Islam.

with love,
sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3501
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: Muḥammad al-Ghazālī and the poetic abcreation of reason

Postby Fixed Cross » Thu Aug 14, 2014 12:34 am

Sanjay,

again you give more credibility to my judgments of Al Ghazali.

The passages on him that you quote to demonstrate his open mindedness demonstrate precisely the insanity I accuse him of having spread.

How can you be lenient and forgiving to someone who thinks that demonstration can by definition not contradict 'revelation'? How can you take someone seriously who holds these three purely undemonstrated 'truths' as a standard for what demonstration is allowed mean?

No, he was indeed insane, quite as bad as I had intuited.


It was perhaps nice of him to allow sufism. But I do not care about that. I care about his influence on the billions. In this sense he caused an evil of demiurgic proportions.
Thunderbolt steers all things.

Image

I've been guided somewhat by William Blake's quote: "I must create a system or be enslaved by another mans; I will not reason and compare: my business is to create". Just change 'system' for 'style'. - Bill

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6866
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Muḥammad al-Ghazālī and the poetic abcreation of reason

Postby zinnat » Sun Aug 17, 2014 12:11 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:How can you be lenient and forgiving to someone who thinks that demonstration can by definition not contradict 'revelation'. How can you take someone seriously who holds these three purely undemonstrated 'truths' as a standard for what demonstration is allowed mean


From where he stands, demonstration does not contradict revelation. Having said that, it is quite difficult for the pure intellectal persons to digest.

He had his reasons.

FC, you need to understand a basic thing about true spiritual scholars like Gazali. They do not say such just things because they find all that in any book. You are completely mistaken if you think so.

I do not know whether you are aware or not, there was a period of a serious intellectual/spiritual stuggle in his life, which lasted many years. During that time, he gave away all his wealth in donation and just roamed here and there in the search of his quest of answers. After some years, he came back and started teaching and writing again.

He must had some personal demonstration during that period of what is considered as relevation by you. But, the problem of such people is that they cannot prove it to others thus find it difficult to put that in such logical way as philosophy demands.

When he insists on doing some basic premises of Islam not to put on test, he must have confirmed those, at least to some extent. You can certainly doubt that but he cannot do anything regarding that.

You can say the same thing about Moses, Christ, Buddha, Mahavira and millions others too. None of them gave any proof either. You have to look at the life and the charecter of the person to see his intentions.

Secondly, most of the philosophy does not rely on proof. Can you tell me which philosopher gave proof of his premises, Kant, Hume, Descartes, Plato ot even N?
Did Descartes show by demostration that he thinks, therefore he is?
Did kant demostrate his metaphysics?
Did N demostrate his wtp to others?

It is all in the mind, not on the ground.

Philosophy is all about premises and ontologies derived by those and most of those are still not confirmed physically.
That is why philosophy has to rely either on science or spirituality for ultimate confirmation. It can confirm a very few of its premises on its own
.

One may believe Kant, Hume, N or Gazali. That does not make any difference on the benchmark of demonstration. Remember, all are mere beliefs, not demonstrated facts.

But, by no means, i am holding all that useless.

with love,
sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3501
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: Muḥammad al-Ghazālī and the poetic abcreation of reason

Postby James S Saint » Sun Aug 17, 2014 12:17 pm

zinnat13 wrote:He must had some personal demonstration during that period of what is considered as relevation by you. But, the problem of such people is that they cannot prove it to others thus find it difficult to put that in such logical way as philosophy demands[/u].

You can say that again ... and again. :-?
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25607
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Muḥammad al-Ghazālī and the poetic abcreation of reason

Postby Fixed Cross » Sun Aug 17, 2014 5:17 pm

How can you be lenient and forgiving to someone who thinks that demonstration can by definition not contradict 'revelation'. How can you take someone seriously who holds these three purely undemonstrated 'truths' as a standard for what demonstration is allowed mean

From where he stands, demonstration does not contradict revelation. Having said that, it is quite difficult for the pure intellectal persons to digest.

This explains why you never understood what I told you about Nietzsche and value. You were prejudiced about me, thinking I don't know about spirituality.
I find you a far more head-stuck person than myself. I think with my brain, sure, but I ground my thoughts in my heart. You do not display much heart in your writings, little passion, little spirit. (all these mean the same thing: courage)

He had his reasons.

So did Caligula.

FC, you need to understand a basic thing about true spiritual scholars like Gazali. They do not say such just things because they find all that in any book. You are completely mistaken if you think so.

He is the opposite of spiritual. He took away mans spirit and replaced it with servitude to his favorite book.

The koran is anything but spiritual. It's a prison for the spirit.

I do not know whether you are aware or not, there was a period of a serious intellectual/spiritual stuggle in his life, which lasted many years. During that time, he gave away all his wealth in donation and just roamed here and there in the search of his quest of answers. After some years, he came back and started teaching and writing again.

And?
What meaning does such a quest have if it led to him cluttering up mans destiny with mud and causing future billions to live in deprivation?

He must had some personal demonstration during that period of what is considered as relevation by you. But, the problem of such people is that they cannot prove it to others thus find it difficult to put that in such logical way as philosophy demands.

So he should have stayed away form philosophy and stuck to his revelations. But instead he chose to defile the noble art of philosophy (honesty) with his hallucinations.

When he insists on doing some basic premises of Islam not to put on test, he must have confirmed those, at least to some extent. You can certainly doubt that but he cannot do anything regarding that.

Yes. He confirmed it but he could not prove it so everyone just had to obey on blind faith.

You can say the same thing about Moses, Christ, Buddha, Mahavira and millions others too. None of them gave any proof either. You have to look at the life and the charecter of the person to see his intentions.

You don't understand this at all, Sanjay.

My objection is to his claims to logic and thought. Not to the fact that he shared his little fantasy with the world. His evil is that he imposed his fantasy on free spirits and stole from them the faculty of mind.

As you may know 'mind' relates to 'mannas', the higher thought faculty in sanskrit, and also to 'Man'. Due to Ghaxzali, the muslim man is no longer man, but back to ape.

Al Ghazali is thus literally the reverse of Prometheus. He is the one that took the fire away from man. He brought man back into darkness.

Secondly, most of the philosophy does not rely on proof. Can you tell me which philosopher gave proof of his premises, Kant, Hume, Descartes, Plato ot even N?
Did Descartes show by demostration that he thinks, therefore he is?
Did kant demostrate his metaphysics?
Did N demostrate his wtp to others?

All these thinkers did is demonstrate and justify. That is what philosophy is. They made mistakes, because until Nietzsche they too still relied on the possibility of objective analysis. But their work was to liberate man from such ideas, from the hallucinations of prophets and madmen like Ghazali.

It is all in the mind, not on the ground.

Then you believe that mind is unreal?

If you had a notion of spirit, you would know that "as above, so below".

Philosophy is all about premises and ontologies derived by those and most of those are still not confirmed physically.
That is why philosophy has to rely either on science or spirituality for ultimate confirmation. It can confirm a very few of its premises on its own.

I guess you have to believe this to keep misreading Nietzsche, to serve your own beliefs.

One may believe Kant, Hume, N or Gazali. That does not make any difference on the benchmark of demonstration. Remember, all are mere beliefs, not demonstrated facts.

You are describing your own mind. The mind of the philosopher is beyond your comprehension, apparently -- the idea that a man could be honest to himself,choose to not delude himself with fairytales, seems alien to you.

Signing of with "with love" when all you've given is falsity is not smart. It shows that you do not know what love is. Love is not something you can bring about by saying the word. It's in your actions. The love you could show me would be in correctly representing my views, and to try responding to them (as hard as it is to understand someone like me for either an atheist or a theist), and not to preconceived notions of what a philosopher can be.
Last edited by Fixed Cross on Sun Aug 17, 2014 7:44 pm, edited 17 times in total.
Thunderbolt steers all things.

Image

I've been guided somewhat by William Blake's quote: "I must create a system or be enslaved by another mans; I will not reason and compare: my business is to create". Just change 'system' for 'style'. - Bill

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6866
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Muḥammad al-Ghazālī and the poetic abcreation of reason

Postby Fixed Cross » Sun Aug 17, 2014 5:18 pm

Image
Thunderbolt steers all things.

Image

I've been guided somewhat by William Blake's quote: "I must create a system or be enslaved by another mans; I will not reason and compare: my business is to create". Just change 'system' for 'style'. - Bill

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6866
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Muḥammad al-Ghazālī and the poetic abcreation of reason

Postby Fixed Cross » Sun Aug 17, 2014 5:44 pm

Honesty and courage, my friends. That is all it takes. God may give you courage, but will thwart your honesty. And to be courage for a lie isn't that hard.
Having heart while seeing the world in the eye is a far greater courage.

Consider the relation of courage and intelligence. It is a precarious relation, but a crucial one in the face of all other beings. The task of philosophy is to leave and love all things in their self-nature. This is the Way, as the greater Dogen of Shobogenzo practiced it. It is sitting in lotus and being rooted in oneself. And considering, this is the ecstatic bliss of the spirit, all other beings in their self nature.
Thunderbolt steers all things.

Image

I've been guided somewhat by William Blake's quote: "I must create a system or be enslaved by another mans; I will not reason and compare: my business is to create". Just change 'system' for 'style'. - Bill

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6866
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Muḥammad al-Ghazālī and the poetic abcreation of reason

Postby zinnat » Sun Aug 17, 2014 5:49 pm

James S Saint wrote:
zinnat13 wrote:He must had some personal demonstration during that period of what is considered as relevation by you. But, the problem of such people is that they cannot prove it to others thus find it difficult to put that in such logical way as philosophy demands[/u].

You can say that again ... and again. :-?


James,

I acknowledge your objection and have to accept too that i have nothing to present in the support of Gazali.

But, as i have a read him to some extent, my assumption is that he is not faking. He was an honest person with a serious quest to know the answers.

An average doctor can tell whether the person has been attended medical classes or not from conversation only, without checking the degree.

with love,
sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3501
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: Muḥammad al-Ghazālī and the poetic abcreation of reason

Postby Fixed Cross » Sun Aug 17, 2014 5:55 pm

zinnat13 wrote: I think with my brain, sure, but I ground my thoughts in my heart. You do not display much heart in your writings, little passion, little spirit. (all these mean the same thing: courage)

I sort of regret saying this as it is exceptionally harsh thing to say. Please see it as the full range of my anger at you for insinuating that I do not operate from spirit or love, that my intellect is incapable of grasping spiritual revelation and divinity. That is an incredibly grave insult, and your signing off on that with the automatic ' with love' adds to its cynicism.

Still, I am certain that if you had encountered my writing with heart and courage, that you would not have seen the need to lecture me on the very first thing that all meditative people learn when they set out on the path, which is that a sanctifying intelligence is awakened once the teleological mind is silenced.
Last edited by Fixed Cross on Sun Aug 17, 2014 7:44 pm, edited 8 times in total.
Thunderbolt steers all things.

Image

I've been guided somewhat by William Blake's quote: "I must create a system or be enslaved by another mans; I will not reason and compare: my business is to create". Just change 'system' for 'style'. - Bill

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6866
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Muḥammad al-Ghazālī and the poetic abcreation of reason

Postby Fixed Cross » Sun Aug 17, 2014 6:09 pm

dp
Last edited by Fixed Cross on Sun Aug 17, 2014 6:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Thunderbolt steers all things.

Image

I've been guided somewhat by William Blake's quote: "I must create a system or be enslaved by another mans; I will not reason and compare: my business is to create". Just change 'system' for 'style'. - Bill

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6866
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Muḥammad al-Ghazālī and the poetic abcreation of reason

Postby Fixed Cross » Sun Aug 17, 2014 6:15 pm

All I am asking is that we do not disregard the tragedy. The Islamic world was magnificent in its outset. Its splendid mastership of the horse-energy, its attempts to decipher God in aesthetics (of which the Mosque is still an impressive testament) and its appreciation of the Hellenic spirit - all this was far superior to what Christianity represented in that time.

But then... spirit waned, and Al Ghazali came, it seems to me much like Paulus, to block the road to health and lure man into a future of metaphysical dust, error, a cloud like ground zero at first, suffocating, the mind dying in terrible ways, torture, falsification of love and finally the dawn of belief.

I am not saying that Al Ghazali is the sole caue of the demise - the Islamic world had to be ready for it. Its glory days may simply have been played out. Around the time of its demise the renaissance started in Europe. Al Ghazali can in the most favorable light I can shed be seen as the swan-song of a beautiful culture. The starkest light shows him precisely like that - party's over, now to home and then the hangover.
As so often the hangover lasts longer than the party.
All silliness aside the starker light shows Ghazali as the one who enabled the stupid and arrogant to take over from the inquisitive and profound.

I am certain he was a nice man. That is not the point. This is a warning to all nice men who just try to be honest and then conclude that they might as well refer to their honesty as divine truth.
Thunderbolt steers all things.

Image

I've been guided somewhat by William Blake's quote: "I must create a system or be enslaved by another mans; I will not reason and compare: my business is to create". Just change 'system' for 'style'. - Bill

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6866
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Muḥammad al-Ghazālī and the poetic abcreation of reason

Postby Fixed Cross » Sun Aug 17, 2014 6:33 pm

This is the reason why I do not refer to value ontology as divine truth, while that would be perfectly justified by the standards upheld by Christ, Krishna and other historical representatives of the heart of (human) being. But I do not hold these standards. I am a philosopher - I will that God is dead, and I know that by this will, which is increasing, a great truth is being disclosed, and by great truth I mean great world. All I can do to help will be in the background. I won't spell it out for anyone. Who has ears, let him listen. Spirit that dwells in this time is wonderfully archaic -- free of any resentment, any attachment ot history -- we know we are in the pure present, which in all other times has been referred to as the future. We have arrived. Perilous truths now govern us now, rather than safe lies, and resourceful humans will come to govern mans fate. And resourceful humans are far better capable of holding the world together than religious ones or the ones that are chosen by the people. The time of the Übermensch has come into the second house, we can no longer only talk about her, but hold it in our hands, the gold o it. It will be a time before we can step above the horizon, as free beings, masters of the Earth. I will not likely live to see that day. I can only hold the gold and laugh, so that the spell resounds and awakes others to what is actually given to them.
Thunderbolt steers all things.

Image

I've been guided somewhat by William Blake's quote: "I must create a system or be enslaved by another mans; I will not reason and compare: my business is to create". Just change 'system' for 'style'. - Bill

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6866
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Muḥammad al-Ghazālī and the poetic abcreation of reason

Postby zinnat » Sun Aug 17, 2014 8:14 pm

FC, you are looking very much angry, which i do not think is a good thing. And, that is why you are getting in all this.
Nevertheless...

Fixed Cross wrote:This explains why you never understood what I told you about Nietzsche and value


I understood more or less what you said about him but did not accept it.

Fixed Cross wrote:You were prejudiced about me, thinking I don't know about spirituality


FC, i do not ever either try to hide my thinking nor being politically correct. I would like to say what i think i should say in plain and simple language. And, i stand by my asuumption, which is based on my experience, unless you correct me.

Fixed Cross wrote: find you a far more head-stuck person than myself. I think with my brain, sure, but I ground my thoughts in my heart. You do not display much heart in your writings, little passion, little spirit. (all these mean the same thing: courage)


We are not at the same page here.

I am not a head-stuck person but very sensitive actually, far more than an average person. But, over the period of time, i realized that it is nice and even helpful to some extent to be sensitive but useless to let yourself flow with those. The wiser use of sensitivity is go deep down in the issues to form a proper understsnding. And, if one is too much engaged with those, his vision would become blurred.

I do not see any scope of emotions in philosophy. I even see use of poetic prose not suitable for philosophy. All that falls under art and litrature, not philosophy.

Secondly, i do not see that courage is proper choice here.
Writing texts full of emotions but without any real and clear content is certainly not philosophy by any means. The massage of the philosopher should be loud and clear, in order to aviod any misinterpretion.

FC, did you ever realize how much prize humanity has been paid for not getting interpretaions right?

Fixed Cross wrote:So did Caligula.


Yes, that is true. But, the real issue is whether the reasons are right or wrong. And, without any doubt, Caligua had wrong reasons.

Fixed Cross wrote:He is the opposite of spiritual. He took away mans spirit and replaced it with servitude to his favorite book.

The koran is anything but spiritual. It's a prison for the spirit.


Your conclusion about both is wrong. Quran has two different interpretations. If you realy want to understand the esoteric version of Quran, you should read its Sufi version, which is much different from the conventional one.

Fixed Cross wrote:What meaning does such a quest have if it led to him cluttering up mans destiny with mud and causing future billions to live in deprivation?


I do not think that he done that.

Fixed Cross wrote:So he should have stayed away form philosophy and stuck to his revelations


I do not think that he was trying to be a philosopher either, in which way we use the term philosophy nowdays. But, the problem of that time was that there was not much clear dividing line between philosophy and religion. Both were much conflated.

He said what he thought as worthy of say and to those who he thought as worthy to listen. He was not interested in addressing philosophers. That may be his mistake but it was as it was.

Fixed Cross wrote: But instead he chose to defile the noble art of philosophy (honesty) with his hallucinations.


That is your observation which may be wrong. I do not see any dishonesty in him. He did neither say less not more than what any other prominent religious scholar would have said. On the contrary, he was the most lenient one towards other ideas.

I would like to quote again from my post-

He stresses that all other teachings, including those that are erroneous or even regarded as “religious innovations” (singl. bid’a), should be tolerated. Again other teachings may be correct, al-Ghazâlî adds, and despite their philosophical background, for instance, should be accepted by the Muslim community. Each teaching must be judged by itself, and if found sound and in accordance with revelation, should be adopted (al-Ghazâlî 1959a, 25–27 = 2000b, 67–70). This attitude leads to a widespread application of Aristotelian teachings in al-Ghazâlî's works on Muslim theology and ethics


FC, can you show me any other quote from Saint Perer (who has the same postion as Gazali in Christianity) paraell to this in leniency?

Fixed Cross wrote:You don't understand this at all, Sanjay.

My objection is to his claims to logic and thought. Not to the fact that he shared his little fantasy with the world. His evil is that he imposed his fantasy on free spirits and stole from them the faculty of mind.


As i said above, he neither said more nor less than what the scholars of other religion said.
If he was guilty, why are you sparing Jesus and Buddha?
Did Jesus not say exactly the same about the those three premises, that Gazali hold not open to criticism?

Fixed Cross wrote:As you may know 'mind' relates to 'mannas', the higher thought faculty in sanskrit, and also to 'Man'


I am well aware of that. The concept of Manu (the first human) is also from the same.

Fixed Cross wrote:All these thinkers did is demonstrate and justify. That is what philosophy is.


Not at all. They only justified their ontologies, and with their premises only, nothing else. They do not have a third party certificate. Intellectuals, who engage themselves too much in philosophy (though it is not a bad thing) tend to forget this simple fact.

FC, If you do not mind, may i ask you a simple question?

Imagine that an andriod from some other planet comes to earth. You tell him about the philosophy and philophers. Hearing you out, he asks you where is N's wtp and how it works? Can you demonstrate him wtp and its working, given that he is andriod and has no emotions? And, what if he asks you to give him some wtp to bring to his planet? Can you satisfy him, ever?

This is what i use to call third party verification. I think it is a new term for philosophy.
No matter whether wtp is true or false, you cannot demonstrate it ever in true sense.

Fixed Cross wrote:Then you believe that mind is unreal?


No. I do not believe that mind is unreal, rather know it is for real. But, when it comes to third party verification, i am helpless. My knowing is relevant only for me, not for others unless i cannot demonstrate it successfully.

Fixed Cross wrote:I guess you have to believe this to keep misreading Nietzsche, to serve your own beliefs.


What i said was nothing to do with my perception of N. I do not know why you bring him into this. I am not that much influenced with him in either way.

Fixed Cross wrote:You are describing your own mind.


Yes, that is true. I think that everybody does the same, including me and you. We cannot help it either.

Fixed Cross wrote:The mind of the philosopher is beyond your comprehension, apparently -- the idea that a man could be honest to himself,choose to not delude himself with fairytales, seems alien to you


FC, please do not put these kind of useless statements. That would not serve any purpose.

Fixed Cross wrote:Signing of with "with love" when all you've given is falsity is not smart. It shows that you do not know what love is. Love is not something you can bring about by saying the word. It's in your actions. The love you could show me would be in correctly representing my views, and to try responding to them (as hard as it is to understand someone like me for either an atheist or a theist), and not to preconceived notions of what a philosopher can be.


Love means to care for me. And, that is exactly why i used that as my signature.

Furthermore, i cannot represent your views correctly. No one can do that either. You have to do that in person. The only thing that i can do is to comment on your views, according to my knowledge, which may be right or wrong.

with love,
sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3501
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: Muḥammad al-Ghazālī and the poetic abcreation of reason

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Aug 19, 2014 12:01 am

I am afraid this correspondence is closed, San J,
You simply do not agree with me that there is not such thing as a "third party" that is not part of the equation. And this disagreement makes any agreement on this subject impossible.

AlGhazali did something you can forgive but I can not. He assumed that he could rely on something beyond himself, and he presumed that others could rely on the exact same thing. And then, his central assumption, which is different from yours perhaps, is that the Mohamad had stated an inevitable truth.
In this he was wrong.

I thank you for engaging me from your perspective and drawing some explanations out of me. I believe I have made myself clear to those who share my intellectual values. In fact, your arguments to support the man have been the proof of the pudding, so to speak. To me, philosophy is about the means of justification, not the justification itself. This 'taste', (life) is the reason it is superior to both religion and science, and why its subject can not be treated as you treat series of objects.
Thunderbolt steers all things.

Image

I've been guided somewhat by William Blake's quote: "I must create a system or be enslaved by another mans; I will not reason and compare: my business is to create". Just change 'system' for 'style'. - Bill

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6866
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Muḥammad al-Ghazālī and the poetic abcreation of reason

Postby zinnat » Tue Aug 19, 2014 10:52 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:I sort of regret saying this as it is exceptionally harsh thing to say


Never mind. I already know that you did not mean all that. You feel insulted by me thus became angry though it was not my intention to insult you.

FC, being here at ILP more than an year, i think that i understand you to some extent, if not completely.
I know you are a commited and honest person and appriciate that too.

Fixed Cross wrote:Please see it as the full range of my anger at you for insinuating that I do not operate from spirit or love


That is where you misread me. I did not say that you do not have any sense of love.

Fixed Cross wrote:that my intellect is incapable of grasping spiritual revelation and divinity. That is an incredibly grave insult, and your signing off on that with the automatic ' with love' adds to its cynicism


You are certainly as capable as any other person in the world. That was not my point.

FC, we all are different to some extent. Everyone use to have its own forte. It is not a matter of shame. This is how we are.
You have your own forte and others cannot compete with you in that.

Like, my english is not as good as yours. I cannot write in the way you can and perhaps not many can do that. Secondly, my knowledge of philosphy is not the same but it is what it is. There is no point regreting it, because that is not my forte but something else. And, i know more than you in that field. It is not the question of inferiority or superiority, for the simple reason that both of us are capale to learn about each other fields, but we have not evolved in the same way.

Fixed Cross wrote: am afraid this correspondence is closed, San J,


As you wish.

But, i will take one mose post to clear some points. Aftter that, it will be your call. I do not mind it either way.

with love,
sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3501
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Next

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users