ERRATUM ! I just found an important transcription error ! At the end of the first quote, it should be المسبب لا يخلو عن موازاة السبب rather than the repetition of السبب in the slide !
Some Istidrākāt for smart alecks, as well as for those who sincerely wish to understand:
1 Ishrāqī does not mean "Suhrawardian". This is a widespread Orientalist assumption/error/imprecision. In our broad tradition it is widely used to refer to the major methodological alternative to the Mashshāʾī school in philosophy. (I can prove this, although it is tiresome to have to demonstrate something that is immensely obvious to anyone with any vaguely adequate knowledge of our philosophical tradition. Nonetheless, I will do so if this becomes widely problematized - interestingly, Imām al-Ghazālī is explicitly counted as Ishraqi in philosophical methodology in some of these sources; they didn't seem to think that impaired his orthodoxy; in fact, it looks like it's only us moderns who think in such simplistic, reactive, confused and conflicted terms! What a shame.).
2 The mithāl is NOT merely a symbol. This is clearly stated in the first quotation, when Imām al-Ghazālī says that the reason the lower world is a mithāl of the higher is precisely BECAUSE the higher is its CAUSE (obviously, not its ULTIMATE cause).
3 The broad ishrāqī tradition (so Platonist, in the broadest methodological sense) does NOT believe in a reduplicative account of Platonic Forms (see companion video), which no actual Platonist has ever held. Rather, their notion of Forms is much more akin to the "symbolic exemplars" that we are seeing here; moreover, again contrary to widespread assumptions, the Forms ARE alive and conscious - much more like the angelic world than an austere world of strange abstract objects. If you doubt this, again, have the humility to consider that you might not really understand the Platonic tradition to any real depth at all. Again, a huge wealth of sources can be brought to evidence these contentions.
4 The word "philosopher" is used in the familiar modern sense, and does not imply that Imām al-Ghazālī was an Avicennan or "just" a philosopher.
5 The fact that Imām al-Ghazālī upholds an explicitly ishrāqī methodological position in philosophy in the later part of his life, DOES NOT LOGICALLY ENTAIL OR EVEN IMPLY that he rejects the efficacy of kalām, or that he was not ALSO a mutakallim. He WAS also a mutakallim.
6 Yes, all these doctrines are multiply reinforced and confirmed by a veritable plethora of statements from the Iḥyāʾ. And there are many more where these come from.
Finally, ask yourself, how did I know that those were going to be your objections? Allah bless you !
AND APOLOGIES FOR THE CAPITALS, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO BOLD AND ITALICS ON KZitem !!!
Негізгі бет Imām al-Ghazālī WAS an Ishrāqī philosopher | Hasan Spiker
No video
Пікірлер: 12