Leo Strauss sketches an answer in his "How to Begin to Study Medieval Philosophy" in The Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism, ed. T. L. Pangle, University of Chicago Press, 1989, pp. 221-222, bolding added:
For the Jew and the Moslem, religion is primarily not, as it is for the Christian, a faith formulated in dogmas, but a law, a code of divine origin. Accordingly, the religious science, the sacra doctrina, is not dogmatic theology, theologia revelata, but the science of the law, halaka or fiqh. The science of the law, thus understood has much less in common with philosophy than has dogmatic theology. Hence the status of philosophy is, as a matter of principle, much more precarious in the Islamic-Jewish world than it is in the Christian world. No one could become a competent Christian theologian without having studied at least a substantial part of philosophy; philosophy was an integral part of the officially authorized and even required training. On the other hand, one could become an absolutely competent halakist or faqih without having the slightest knowledge of philosophy. This fundamental difference doubtless explains the possibility of the later complete collapse of philosophical studies in the Islamic world, a collapse which has no parallel in the West in spite of Luther.
I like the "in spite of Luther."
Related Posts (on one page):
- Jaffa on Strauss
- Athens and Jerusalem at Loggerheads Over the One Thing Needful
- Why the Collapse of Philosophical Studies in the Islamic World?
I can see that the study of law might crowd out philosophy, but why would philosophy collapse in the Islamic world? Why wouldn't it survive as at least a fringe activity? I have the impression that something else is going on in the Islamic world, and that the problem is not just benign neglect -- nor even malign neglect -- but an active hostility to philosophy.
If Pope Benedict is right, then the Islamic conception of God as pure, arbitrary will (a purely voluntarist conception of God) implicitly posits irrationality at the very essence of things -- which might mean that no essence exists. But anyway, if God is irrational, and yet the all-powerful ground(lessness) of existence, then what place is there for philosophy?
I'm not sure if I've expressed this rigorously, but perhaps you get my point.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
I should point out that the quotation is but a snippet from a long and nuanced discussion that I cannot hope to summarize. I recommend Strauss to you. He rankles the hell out of leftists, though, as a quick Google search will reveal.
You've expressed yourself very well in your third paragraph, and that certainly is one of the main point's in Benedict's lecture. Accordingly, a complete analysis of the collapse of philosophy in the Islamic world would have to take Benedict's point into consideration.
I agree. If one were so inclined, one could claim that in the Islamic world philosophy is tantamount to non-belief. I can recall several instances being dubbed a ‘heretic’ for merely studying philosophy; in fact, one individual had the audacity to instruct me to do psychology instead of philosophy. The enigma is that philosophical theology in the Islamic world fell to the clutches of dogmatic theologians who, having gained the upper hand politically, banished philosophy from the domain of theology. Unfortunately, there is no contemporary Averroes to save the day.
Another problem is that in modern analytical philosophy there is hardly anything in Arabic or any other Islamic tongue. Science and anything remotely related to philosophy are conducted in English in most Middle Eastern countries. Classical Arabic is a devotional language that lacks the requisites of controversial theological matters. It is almost virtually impossible to express most philosophical claims with an acceptable degree of precision.
Albeit not related to Islam too much, another phenomenon is social prestige. Philosophers get no respect in Muslim communities. If you admit to being a philosopher, you’re considered a bum wasting precious time in mere speculation. On the side of the coin, if you’re a doctor, lawyer, or engineer you can accumulate heavy social status, not to mention marriage proposals with no end. I was lucky; my fiancé was my best friend beforehand.
What to do? I’ll tersely state two possible solutions. The first thing is to re-introduce philosophical theology back into the domain of Islamic theological discussion. Voluntarism is dead and needs to be discarded immediately. This means Muslims must give up the mullah-Imam-legal scholar authority worship.
Secondly, exclusivism in Islam needs to go. As John Hick and Terence Penelhum have shown, justified non-belief does exist (at least I believe it does), and new epistemologies need to be explored. I hope to do so in my career.
Then again, revisionism needs political breathing room to operate. That raises another question that I won’t get into here.
Derrick Abdul-Hakim
In the same way, a Muslim must bring necessary beliefs to the table: the belief in the infallibility of the Law, the belief that his interpretation of the law is correct, et cetera. If he proceeds with these beliefs, he is certainly given to becoming a "faqih." However, what reasons does he have for believing this outside of the law itself? It's a self-referentially incoherent matter. "I interpret the law correctly." "Why?" "Because the law says so." "But how do you know the law is right?" "Because I understand it correctly." And on and on it goes. Philosophy is starved in the Islamic world by something different than simple attention to the law.
And I take offense to Strauss' slight on Luther. Luther was an incredibly well-read man who respected the early church fathers on levels his contemporary pope (Leo) did not. It was Luther's reading of the old philosophers and theologians, as well as his readings of contemporaries like Erasmus, that emboldened him to take action with his feelings. But that, again, is an entirely different discussion.
I'm glad to hear your perspective on this. "Science and anything remotely related to philosophy are conducted in English in most Middle Eastern countries." That is definitely the impression I got from living in Turkey for a year and teaching philosophy there. There are Turkish analytic philosophers, but they publish mainly in English.
"It is almost virtually impossible to express most philosophical claims with an acceptable degree of precision." Very interesting. Do you know Arabic?
Of course, philosophers don't get much respect anywhere. (It is interesting, though, that when dictators come to power, philosophers are often among the first to get banished, suppressed, or executed.) I take you to mean that philosophers get even less respect than they do in non-Muslim communities. Part of the explanation for this is that Muslim societies are relatively poor und underdeveloped, and so a premiusm is placed on 'practical' occupations such as engineering.
"justified non-belief does exist" This is an important point, and I agee.
Remember that the Latin theologians did not think they were doing philosophy: they were theologians. The 'philosophers' were the ancient heathens. And their world went through a similar crisis in the late thirteenth century, when there were attempts to ban the study of philosophy. Somehow philosophy survived. I wonder how much we really owe to the good St Thomas?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Latin has no articles, definite or indefinite. So one writes, e.g., Ens et verum convertuntur. But how the hell do we translate that? 'Ens' is a participle. But to express the thought properly one needs an indefinite article: A being and a true item are equivalent. Or better: the notion of a being and the notion of a thing that is true are convertible or equivalent notions.
The problematic here is a very interesting one. Roughly: propositional truth presupposes ontic truth which presupposes ontological truth. But to put this rigorously is impossible in Latin, the language of those excessively practical road-building bullies, the brutal Romans. I speak somewhat loosely.
In German, one has seiend, das Seiende, sein, das Sein -- und alles ist klar! But not so in Latin. I felt this frustration often in reading and re-reading Gilson's Being and Some Philosophers.
You are right: for the schoolmen, philosophia ancilla theologiae. But the there are purely philosophical portions in the Common Doctor. Historical question: what can you tell me about the origin of the expression 'Common Doctor' as referring to Aquinas?
The quotes were 'La scolastique qui produisit dans la logique, comme dans la morale, et dans une partie de la metaphysique, une subtilite, une precision d'idees, dont l'habitude inconnue aux anciens, a contribue plus qu'on ne croit au progres de la bonne philosophie' - Condorcet. And it was Sir William Hamilton who said 'To the schoolmen the vulgar languages are principally indebted for what precision and analytic subtlety they possess'.
What do you mean by an article? I mean 'a,' 'an,' and 'the.' I can't think of any others. The first two are indefinite articles while the third is definite. 'Hic' I would classify as an indexical, and 'ille' and 'iste' as demonstratives.
Now given my use of terms, is it not true that in Latin there are no articles?
And what about 'Common Doctor'? Have you heard that expression?
Anyhow, contrast modern standard Arabic (MSA) and English. MSA is considered a devotional language, English is not. Where MSA speakers (mainly Muslim) will remain steadfast to maintaining the purity of Arabic, English speakers do not. English is flooded with loan words from German, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Arabic, and so on. While MSA does possess loan words, the loaning ended after philosophy was considered non-belief briefly after 14th century.
To keep this in line with the post topic, my point is: there is a proclivity in the Muslim world to preserve the past. While I have no problem with preserving Qur’anic Arabic for religious and/or historical pursuits, must MSA suffer as a result? It's time to move on beyond classical 'Arabiyya'
Also in response to Bill, I can read classical Arabic. Unfortunately I cannot speak it.
Derrick Abdul-Hakim
The word 'hic' is widely used to identify expressions or terms, thus 'haec propositio socrates videt platonem' is most naturally translated as 'the proposition [sentence] 'Socrates sees Plato'. 'Ille' and 'iste' are often used for back-reference to things just talked about, or in a theory of descriptions kind of way. So when Ockham says "Et per consequens iste terminus 'homo albus' significative sumptus praedicaretur de pronomine demonstrante illud pro quo supponit, et per consequens haec esset vera 'hoc est homo albus'; quod est manifeste falsum" it is natural to translate 'iste terminus 'homo albus'' as 'that term 'a white man'', 'illud pro quo supponit' as 'the thing for which it stands', and so on. All these are non-indexical, in the sense that we could understand a disembodied voice speaking them in absolute darkness.
I have to admit that purist Latinists might disagree (e.g. always translate 'hic' as 'this', 'ille' as that and so on). But in any case, none of the terms above are being used as indexicals.
Indeed, I think the English word 'the' originally grew out of a strictly indexical use. And think about it. 'The' now tends to be used not for pointing at actual things in the world, but for things we are talking about, which may not exist. Pointing, but pointing to something in the mind (or whatever). The move from pointing to real things to intentional things (as it were) is mirrored in the Latin use of 'hic' and other similar terms.
Another thing that may interest you. I'm currently translating Bonaventura, who says "Differt dicere caelum et hoc caelum, quod cum caelum dico formam cum dico hoc caelum, dico materiam". He's making the metaphysical point about the distinction between something universal like 'sky', and something particular like 'this sky' or 'the sky'. That corresponds, doesn't it, to the difference between 'an X' and 'the X'.
On 'common doctor' I can't help you there. Is it a university term, concerning the kind of degree?
But go and read his words.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
Very nice post over at your place. 'Erdal' definitely looks Turkish to me. Intewresting that Schall was impressed by the same quotation that caught my eye -- independently of Schall while just reading along in Strauss. And the Pieper quotation is worth nabbing:
"The framework of 'Christian philosophy' ... is that in Christ man received an intelligence which relates to the whole of the universe and of existence, and therefore by definition concerns anyone who engages in philosophizing -- and which, moreover, is valid by virtue of a superhuman claim to truth. Should anyone reject this premise, he must in consistency regard 'Christian philosophy,' however one defines it, as meaningless. The whole of medieval philosophy must remain inaccessible to him, as far as its sole underlying motif is concerned."
-- Josef Pieper, 1960.
'Common Doctor' is sometimes used to refer to Aquinas, presumably because Thomism is the 'default setting' or default position of the School. I was wondering who introduced this expression.
2. Disallowing comments from a particular person, or deleting an offensive, off-topic, or otherwise substandard comment, has nothing to do with censorship. People who think otherwise confuse censorship with lack of sponsorship. I am under an obligation not to interfere with anyone's exercise of legitimate free speech rights. But I am not under any obligation to aid and abet anyone's exercise of free speech rights, legitimate or illegitimate.
3. The Comments area is not an open forum for anyone to say anything about any topic. As the name implies, it is primarily for commenting on the author(s)' posts. But to comment on them, one must have read them. And if I have spent three hours on a post, a reader will not understand it in thirty seconds. Secondarily, the Comments area is to facilitate civil discussion between and among commenters as long as the discussion remains on-topic.
4. Some undesirables: The skimmers, those who cannot read but only read-in. The sophists who, abusing argument, argue for the sake of argument. The ideologues, those who are out for power, not truth. The uncivil. The illogical. The politically correct. Worst of all, perhaps, are those who exemplify the anti-Socratic property: those who think they know what they don't know. If Socrates was famous for his learned ignorance, these types are marked by their ignorant unlearnededness.