The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Chapter X: Mohammedan Culture and Philosophy
The Hegira took place in 622. Syria was invaded and conquered by 636. By 650 Persia was conquered. India was invaded in 664. Egypt was conquered in 642. Carthage in 697. Spain was conquered by 712. But at the battle of Tours in 732 the Western expansion of Islam (outside of Sicily and Italy) was halted.
Islam began as a simple monotheism, a revival against graven images and a duty-bound ideal to conquer the world.
The various sects of Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians living under the conquest of the Arabs were free to practice their religion if they paid a fee. "The populations, moreover, in order to escape the tribute, very largely abandoned Christianity for Islam" (Russell, 421).
The Arabs were primarily concerned with conquest and plunder. Because wealth was their primary concern and not religion, they were able to rule a large territory of people that didn't share the same religion as their rulers. "The Persians, on the contrary, have been, from the earliest times, deeply religious and highly speculative. After their conversion, they made out of Islam something much more interesting, more religious, and more philosophical, than had been imagined by the Prophet and his kinsmen" (Russell, 421).
The Sunni and Shiah split right after the death of the Prophet. The Persians, who became Shiah, helped overthrow the first Islamic rulers, the Umayyad dynasty in the middle of the 8th century.
The Abbasids who replaced the Umayyads were much more fanatical in their adherence to doctrine.
Trade was essential in the Islamic world and the trader was venerated because Mohammed had been a trader.
"The distinctive culture of the Muslim world, though it began in Syria, soon came to flourish most
in the Eastern and Western extremities, Persia and Spain" (Russell, 423).
Kindi was the first to write philosophy in Arabic. The Persians were heavily influenced by India. Firdousi, (Ferdowsi) the author of Shahnama comes from this tradition and is regarded as to be the equal of Homer.
Avicenna (Ibn Sina) was born in Bukhara (Modern Uzbekistan) in 980 and lived until 1037. His philosophy is more Aristotelian and less Neoplatonic than his Muslim predecesssors.
Averroes (Ibn Rushd) was born in Cordova and lived from 1126-1198. Averroes was often seen as a heretic and after the Reconquista Islamic philosophy stopped being speculative. In Spain because of the Christian encroachment and in the rest of the Islamic world because a rigid orthodoxy became the norm.
"Averroes, like most of the later Mohammedan philosophers, though a believer, was not rigidly
orthodox. There was a sect of completely orthodox theologians, who objected to all philosophy as
deleterious to the faith. One of these, named Algazel, wrote a book called Destruction of the
Philosophers, pointing out that, since all necessary truth is in the Koran, there is no need of
speculation independent of revelation. Averroes replied by a book called Destruction of the
Destruction. The religious dogmas that Algazel specially upheld against the philosophers were the
creation of the world in time out of nothing, the reality of the divine attributes, and the
resurrection of the body. Averroes regards religion as containing philosophic truth in allegorical
form." (Russell, 426).
Maimonides, the important Spanish Jewish philosopher spent most of his life in Cairo. He reconciled Aristotle with Jewish theology and believed that "philosophy and revelation come together in the knowledge of God. The pursuit of truth is a religious duty" (Russell, 427).
The Jews considered Maimonides to be a heretic and even enlisted the Christian ecclesiastical apparatus to persecute him.
Showing posts with label Maimonides. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Maimonides. Show all posts
Saturday, September 28, 2019
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Univocal, Equivocal, Analogous and Negative Language
(Originally written March 17, 2007 in Book 13)
From Unity to Multiplicity
All multiplicity presupposes some prior unity, thus there must be some absolute simplicity as the source of all multiplicity. God is this absolute simplicity.
God does not have being because being involves multiplicity.
God is the One beyond all being.
Creation is the process of the One becoming multiplicity. When it gains knowledge of itself it creates mind. The Mind produces other minds when minds reflect outwards it creates Soul and Soul gives rises to other souls.
Souls create matter. Matter is the most multiplicity.
Being is good; matter is evil. Matter possesses no good in it, only the mere capacity for good.
Eventually all multiplicity will return to unity and evil will give way to good.
From Multiplicity to Unity
Humans are matter and soul, thus good and evil.
In order to travel towrads unity a person must turn from the multiplicity of matter to the unity of soul. Hue must become ascetic.
The Soul must move from what is sensible to what is intellectual. For, what is intellectual is touched by Mind which is almost pure unity.
Once one has achieved union with mind by moving from sensible to intellectual one must move from intellectual to intuitional to achieve whole unity because even mind is multiplicity (knower and known).
The goal is to become one with the One.
The Need for Negative Language of the One (God)
Plotinus states that there can be no positive descriptions about the One.
All the properties Plotinus ascribes the One he denies that he has.
In calling God the One he means, "not many". In calling him good he means, "not evil". But the One is not the first of any series and the One is not good in the sense that anything else is good.
"The One is nothing but itself and cannot be named in terms of anything else" (237).
Plotinus maintains that we "know" God via two ways:
1. Indirectly from his effects
2. by direct mystical intuitions which transcend all cognitive knowledge and provides a positive being for all cognitive negations of God.
Naming God from his Emanational Effects
All that comes from the One is a trace of the transcendent ONe.
If something comes from the One that is beauty then we can God is beautiful in the sense that He causally creates beauty. Thus, his effect is beauty and he therefore is Beauty, but greater.
God is called goodness because causes goodness, not because he possesses goodness.
Unity (God) is beyond Being because he caused being.
The intuitional basis for all naming of God
Giving God positive names from his extrinsically related effects does not provide any proper knowledge of God.
Rational and cognitive through can only point in the direction of God who is knowable only by mystical intuition.
Intuitional knowledge of God comes by purification of all multiplicity and the knower becomes one with the One in a temporary mystical union.
Negative language about God is wholly dependent on a prior positive intuition of God gained via mystical union with the One.
Pseudo-Dionysius brought Plotinus to Christianity in the 6th century A.D.
He affirmed the incomprehensibility of God. He stated God cannot be known directly but He can be known indirectly 3 ways:
1. Affirmation of the God of the Bible (positive theology)
2. Deny that these qualities apply to God in the same sense they apply to the created order (negative theology)
3. Apply these terms to God in a higher way
Moses Maimonides: Negative Attributes of God
Maimonides believed that the literal interpretations of Scripture were the heart of all problematic theology.
The way to positively attribute something to God
He had five ways to attribute a positive quality of God. The first four he felt inconsistent with the monotheistic God of Judaism. So he worked out the fifth way.
1. An object is described by its definition
2. An object is described by part of its definition
3. An object is described by something other than its true essence
4. An object is described by its relation to another object
5. An object is described by its action.
He claimed that Biblical language is anthropomorphic.
The knowledge o the works of God is the knowledge of His attributes.
The Use of Negative Attributes to Describe God
Maimonides held that negative attributes of God are true attributes and that positive attributes imply polytheism.
The function of negative attributes is that they are necessary to direct the mind to the truths necessary to believe concerning God. With each negative attribute learned one inches closer to knowledge of God.
He held that only YHWH indicates God's true essence and its meaning is wholly unknowable.
Mysticism: Ineffability
A definition of Mysticism
F.C. Haploid outlined the nature of mysticism in four points:
1. The phenomenal world is a manifestation of an Absolute and as such this world is not true reality. Only the Absolute is true reality.
2. Human beings can know the Absolute by a direct intuition. In this intuition a union between the human and the absolute occurs.
3. This intuition is a unique function of the true human self, which is usually obscured by the phenomenal self.
4. The possibility is the main goal of human existence and is the door to the experience of ultimate reality.
William James described the mystical union with four points:
1. Ineffability - the experience cannot be contained in words
2. Noetic quality - The impression of having received absolute truth is part of the experience
3. Transiency - The experience will not last very long
4. Passivity - The experience is received by or given to the person. He does not create it.
The mystic does not allow for a difference between the experience of the Absolute and the Absolute.
In the way one cannot doubt he is having a headache, a mystic cannot doubt he is having (or had) a mystical experience.
The problem with mystical experiences is that no one who has not had a mystical experience can know what it is like. Secondly, the mystic cannot describe it because it is ineffable by nature.
Stace's Theories of Ineffability
W.T. Stace provides a number of theories on ineffable experiences:
1. The emotion theory: mystical experience is ineffable because it essentially contains emotions that are too deep for words.
2. The spiritual blindness theory: mystical experience is ineffable because those who have not had it cannot understand it.
Stace rejects these two common sense theories because
a) mystical experience is not merely an empirical perception that must be held to understand
b) mystics themselves admit that it is ineffable, not the fault of their audience
c) The Dionysian Theory: positive language does not apply literally. God is described as "X" because he causes "X", not because he is "X".
d) The Metaphor theory: positive language is merely metaphorical
But, Stace rejects these four as well because if the mystic speaks metaphorically he uses either reducible metaphors (reducible to literal understanding) in which case it is not ineffable or irreducible metaphors in which case he speakings meaninglessly. He rejects c) because it is odd to label the cause of a property with the name of that property.
e) They mystic, during his experience is beyond words, but in describing his experience he is forced to use words which describe his experience as contradictory. But, while this makes it something ineffable, mystical experiences are in fact somewhat contradictory. "The language is paradoxical because the experience is paradoxical" (249).
Thomas Aquinas: Via Negativa
Thomas Aquinas agreed with Maimonides that no one in this life could grasp the essence of God in a positive way.
The knowledge of God by remotion is Aquinas' process of deriving the distinction of God from other beings by way of negative differences.
A creature can be admitted to be God-like but God cannot be creature-like.
Aquinas did hold that one can make position affirmations about God through intrinsic causal similarities between God and his creatures.
The via negativa is the denial of any imperfections in him.
The idea of negation is always based on a positive affirmation.
Positive affirmation are made possible by the intrinsic causal relation between Creator and creatures.
A totally negative God-talk is meaningless.
Complete negation without any affirmation is total skepticism about God.
But, without some kind of negation there is no way to preserve the transcendence of the theistic God.
12: Positive Language About God
There are two basic attempts to develop positive language about God:
1. Univocal (Scotus)
2. Analogous (Aquinas)
The Scotistic Insistence on Univocal Concepts
John Duns Scotus maintained that there can be no meaningful positive talk bout God unless it is univocal.
The Impossibility of Analogous Concepts
Henry of Ghent defended his "analogous concept of being" while Scotus was alive.
Henry claimed that God is known in a universal concept that is analogically common to himself and to creatures.
He claimed that God and creatures are distinguishable by negation of determination. Man is determined, God is undetermined.
Scotus rejects this on a few grounds
1. Differentiation by negation is no different at all
2. The concept of Henry's analogous concept is two concepts and thus equivocal
The Necessity of Univocal Concepts of God
Scouts chose univocal language because it avoids skepticism and meaninglessness.
Univocal to Scotus is that which possess sufficient unity in itself.
He gives four arguments to why concepts of God and man must be understood univocally:
1) The intellect can be certain about the concept of being without knowing it refers to created or uncreated being.
2) It is impossible to have natural knowledge of God without univocal concepts. We have natural knowledge of God. Thus, there are univocal concepts.
3) We would have no proper concept of God without univocal concepts. We have a proper concept of the Trinity, thus of God. Thus, we have univocal concepts.
4) Pure perfection applies wholly proper to God and not to creatures. Thus there must be universal understanding of pure perfection.
Scotus held that if there is no univocity in concepts of God there is no knowledge of God.
Scotus held that there is equivocal talk about God, which is meaningless. There is analogous talk about God which is either equivocal or univocal. If it is equivocal it is meaningless. If it is univocal it is not really analogical.
Thomistic Contention for Analogous Predication
Aquinas held that it was impossible for anything to be predicated of God and a creature in a univocal sense.
Aquinas' rejection of Univocal Predication
Aquinas had 6 arguments against univocality
1. Nothing may be said if God and other things univocally because the forms of the things God has made do not measure up to any specific likeness of God.
2. No creature has the same mode as God thus nothing can be predicated of God and other things universally.
3. Whatever is predicated of many things is a genus or species, but there exists no genus or species of God.
4. Whatever is predicated of many things univocally is simpler in concept than that which it is predicated of. God is wholly simple, thus there can be nothing predicated of God univocally.
5. Whatever is predicated univocally in many things belongs through participation to each of things of which it is predicated. But nothing participates with God, only through God.
6. Nothing is predicated of God and creation in the same order, but rather according to priority and posteriority.
Aquinas also argued that the difference between an infinitely perfect being an a finitely perfect being is infinite and thus, there can be no univocal predication of such beings.
The Need for the Via Negative
God cannot possess perfections in the way crated things possess them.
Properly speaking God dos not posses the properties of perfections; those perfections are the very essence of God.
Univocal predication removes the necessary distance between Creator and created. If any property were univocally attributed to God and created thing it would either limit God or delimit the created thing.
Aquinas' Rejecting of Equivocal Predication
Both Aquinas and Scotus agreed that equivocal predication lends no knowledge of God.
He held that if all knowledge of God came from equivocal terms then there would be no chance of rising from finite things to the infinite.
Equivocal language is false because if it were true there would be nothing known or demonstrable about God.
From Unity to Multiplicity
All multiplicity presupposes some prior unity, thus there must be some absolute simplicity as the source of all multiplicity. God is this absolute simplicity.
God does not have being because being involves multiplicity.
God is the One beyond all being.
Creation is the process of the One becoming multiplicity. When it gains knowledge of itself it creates mind. The Mind produces other minds when minds reflect outwards it creates Soul and Soul gives rises to other souls.
Souls create matter. Matter is the most multiplicity.
Being is good; matter is evil. Matter possesses no good in it, only the mere capacity for good.
Eventually all multiplicity will return to unity and evil will give way to good.
From Multiplicity to Unity
Humans are matter and soul, thus good and evil.
In order to travel towrads unity a person must turn from the multiplicity of matter to the unity of soul. Hue must become ascetic.
The Soul must move from what is sensible to what is intellectual. For, what is intellectual is touched by Mind which is almost pure unity.
Once one has achieved union with mind by moving from sensible to intellectual one must move from intellectual to intuitional to achieve whole unity because even mind is multiplicity (knower and known).
The goal is to become one with the One.
The Need for Negative Language of the One (God)
Plotinus states that there can be no positive descriptions about the One.
All the properties Plotinus ascribes the One he denies that he has.
In calling God the One he means, "not many". In calling him good he means, "not evil". But the One is not the first of any series and the One is not good in the sense that anything else is good.
"The One is nothing but itself and cannot be named in terms of anything else" (237).
Plotinus maintains that we "know" God via two ways:
1. Indirectly from his effects
2. by direct mystical intuitions which transcend all cognitive knowledge and provides a positive being for all cognitive negations of God.
Naming God from his Emanational Effects
All that comes from the One is a trace of the transcendent ONe.
If something comes from the One that is beauty then we can God is beautiful in the sense that He causally creates beauty. Thus, his effect is beauty and he therefore is Beauty, but greater.
God is called goodness because causes goodness, not because he possesses goodness.
Unity (God) is beyond Being because he caused being.
The intuitional basis for all naming of God
Giving God positive names from his extrinsically related effects does not provide any proper knowledge of God.
Rational and cognitive through can only point in the direction of God who is knowable only by mystical intuition.
Intuitional knowledge of God comes by purification of all multiplicity and the knower becomes one with the One in a temporary mystical union.
Negative language about God is wholly dependent on a prior positive intuition of God gained via mystical union with the One.
Pseudo-Dionysius brought Plotinus to Christianity in the 6th century A.D.
He affirmed the incomprehensibility of God. He stated God cannot be known directly but He can be known indirectly 3 ways:
1. Affirmation of the God of the Bible (positive theology)
2. Deny that these qualities apply to God in the same sense they apply to the created order (negative theology)
3. Apply these terms to God in a higher way
Moses Maimonides: Negative Attributes of God
Maimonides believed that the literal interpretations of Scripture were the heart of all problematic theology.
The way to positively attribute something to God
He had five ways to attribute a positive quality of God. The first four he felt inconsistent with the monotheistic God of Judaism. So he worked out the fifth way.
1. An object is described by its definition
2. An object is described by part of its definition
3. An object is described by something other than its true essence
4. An object is described by its relation to another object
5. An object is described by its action.
He claimed that Biblical language is anthropomorphic.
The knowledge o the works of God is the knowledge of His attributes.
The Use of Negative Attributes to Describe God
Maimonides held that negative attributes of God are true attributes and that positive attributes imply polytheism.
The function of negative attributes is that they are necessary to direct the mind to the truths necessary to believe concerning God. With each negative attribute learned one inches closer to knowledge of God.
He held that only YHWH indicates God's true essence and its meaning is wholly unknowable.
Mysticism: Ineffability
A definition of Mysticism
F.C. Haploid outlined the nature of mysticism in four points:
1. The phenomenal world is a manifestation of an Absolute and as such this world is not true reality. Only the Absolute is true reality.
2. Human beings can know the Absolute by a direct intuition. In this intuition a union between the human and the absolute occurs.
3. This intuition is a unique function of the true human self, which is usually obscured by the phenomenal self.
4. The possibility is the main goal of human existence and is the door to the experience of ultimate reality.
William James described the mystical union with four points:
1. Ineffability - the experience cannot be contained in words
2. Noetic quality - The impression of having received absolute truth is part of the experience
3. Transiency - The experience will not last very long
4. Passivity - The experience is received by or given to the person. He does not create it.
The mystic does not allow for a difference between the experience of the Absolute and the Absolute.
In the way one cannot doubt he is having a headache, a mystic cannot doubt he is having (or had) a mystical experience.
The problem with mystical experiences is that no one who has not had a mystical experience can know what it is like. Secondly, the mystic cannot describe it because it is ineffable by nature.
Stace's Theories of Ineffability
W.T. Stace provides a number of theories on ineffable experiences:
1. The emotion theory: mystical experience is ineffable because it essentially contains emotions that are too deep for words.
2. The spiritual blindness theory: mystical experience is ineffable because those who have not had it cannot understand it.
Stace rejects these two common sense theories because
a) mystical experience is not merely an empirical perception that must be held to understand
b) mystics themselves admit that it is ineffable, not the fault of their audience
c) The Dionysian Theory: positive language does not apply literally. God is described as "X" because he causes "X", not because he is "X".
d) The Metaphor theory: positive language is merely metaphorical
But, Stace rejects these four as well because if the mystic speaks metaphorically he uses either reducible metaphors (reducible to literal understanding) in which case it is not ineffable or irreducible metaphors in which case he speakings meaninglessly. He rejects c) because it is odd to label the cause of a property with the name of that property.
e) They mystic, during his experience is beyond words, but in describing his experience he is forced to use words which describe his experience as contradictory. But, while this makes it something ineffable, mystical experiences are in fact somewhat contradictory. "The language is paradoxical because the experience is paradoxical" (249).
Thomas Aquinas: Via Negativa
Thomas Aquinas agreed with Maimonides that no one in this life could grasp the essence of God in a positive way.
The knowledge of God by remotion is Aquinas' process of deriving the distinction of God from other beings by way of negative differences.
A creature can be admitted to be God-like but God cannot be creature-like.
Aquinas did hold that one can make position affirmations about God through intrinsic causal similarities between God and his creatures.
The via negativa is the denial of any imperfections in him.
The idea of negation is always based on a positive affirmation.
Positive affirmation are made possible by the intrinsic causal relation between Creator and creatures.
A totally negative God-talk is meaningless.
Complete negation without any affirmation is total skepticism about God.
But, without some kind of negation there is no way to preserve the transcendence of the theistic God.
12: Positive Language About God
There are two basic attempts to develop positive language about God:
1. Univocal (Scotus)
2. Analogous (Aquinas)
The Scotistic Insistence on Univocal Concepts
John Duns Scotus maintained that there can be no meaningful positive talk bout God unless it is univocal.
The Impossibility of Analogous Concepts
Henry of Ghent defended his "analogous concept of being" while Scotus was alive.
Henry claimed that God is known in a universal concept that is analogically common to himself and to creatures.
He claimed that God and creatures are distinguishable by negation of determination. Man is determined, God is undetermined.
Scotus rejects this on a few grounds
1. Differentiation by negation is no different at all
2. The concept of Henry's analogous concept is two concepts and thus equivocal
The Necessity of Univocal Concepts of God
Scouts chose univocal language because it avoids skepticism and meaninglessness.
Univocal to Scotus is that which possess sufficient unity in itself.
He gives four arguments to why concepts of God and man must be understood univocally:
1) The intellect can be certain about the concept of being without knowing it refers to created or uncreated being.
2) It is impossible to have natural knowledge of God without univocal concepts. We have natural knowledge of God. Thus, there are univocal concepts.
3) We would have no proper concept of God without univocal concepts. We have a proper concept of the Trinity, thus of God. Thus, we have univocal concepts.
4) Pure perfection applies wholly proper to God and not to creatures. Thus there must be universal understanding of pure perfection.
Scotus held that if there is no univocity in concepts of God there is no knowledge of God.
Scotus held that there is equivocal talk about God, which is meaningless. There is analogous talk about God which is either equivocal or univocal. If it is equivocal it is meaningless. If it is univocal it is not really analogical.
Thomistic Contention for Analogous Predication
Aquinas held that it was impossible for anything to be predicated of God and a creature in a univocal sense.
Aquinas' rejection of Univocal Predication
Aquinas had 6 arguments against univocality
1. Nothing may be said if God and other things univocally because the forms of the things God has made do not measure up to any specific likeness of God.
2. No creature has the same mode as God thus nothing can be predicated of God and other things universally.
3. Whatever is predicated of many things is a genus or species, but there exists no genus or species of God.
4. Whatever is predicated of many things univocally is simpler in concept than that which it is predicated of. God is wholly simple, thus there can be nothing predicated of God univocally.
5. Whatever is predicated univocally in many things belongs through participation to each of things of which it is predicated. But nothing participates with God, only through God.
6. Nothing is predicated of God and creation in the same order, but rather according to priority and posteriority.
Aquinas also argued that the difference between an infinitely perfect being an a finitely perfect being is infinite and thus, there can be no univocal predication of such beings.
The Need for the Via Negative
God cannot possess perfections in the way crated things possess them.
Properly speaking God dos not posses the properties of perfections; those perfections are the very essence of God.
Univocal predication removes the necessary distance between Creator and created. If any property were univocally attributed to God and created thing it would either limit God or delimit the created thing.
Aquinas' Rejecting of Equivocal Predication
Both Aquinas and Scotus agreed that equivocal predication lends no knowledge of God.
He held that if all knowledge of God came from equivocal terms then there would be no chance of rising from finite things to the infinite.
Equivocal language is false because if it were true there would be nothing known or demonstrable about God.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Cosmological Arguments and Rebuttals
(Originally written March 13, 2007 in Book 13)
Al-Farabi's Necessary Existence Argument
Arabian and Jewish forms of the cosmological argument later influenced Christian arguments
The Islamic Philosopher Al-Farabi distinguished between existence and essence. He argued:
1) There exists beings whose essence is distinct from their existence. These are possible beings.
2) These beings have existence only accidentally. It is not part of their very essence to exist. It is logically possible that they might not have existed.
3) Anything that exists accidentally (not essentially) must have derived their existence from another.
4) There cannot be an infinite regress of causes of existence.
5) Therefore, there must be a first cause of existence whose essence and existence are identical. This being must be a necessary being because the First Cause cannot be a mere possible being since all possible beings do not explain their own existence.
Avicenna's First Cause Argument
1) There are possible beings
2) Whatever possible beings exist have a cause for their being
3) There cannot be an infinite series of being.
4) Therefore, there must be a first cause for all possible things.
5) This first Cause must be a necessary Being because that which is the cause of all possible beings cannot itself be a possible being.
6) Whatever is essentially One can create immediately only one effect (intelligence)
7) Thinking is creating and God necessarily thinks, since he is a necessary being
8) Therefore, there is an necessary emanation from God of ten intelligences (Angels) that control the various spheres of the universe and the last of which (called Agent Intellect) forms the four elements of the cosmos and by which the human mind (possible intellect) is informed of all truth.
Avicenna's God was a necessary being who created 10 gods who created everything else.
The Jewish philosopher Moses Maimonides (1135-1204) argued for a first mover, a first Cause and a Necessary Being.
He argued that "I AM" implied absolute existence which applied to God alone.
Thomas Aquinas: Five Ways to Prove God's Existence
Aquinas' arguments were not entirely new
1) Maimonides had arguments similar to the first three
2) Al-Farabi and Avicenna had the first two
3) Anselm had an argument similar to the 4th argument
4) Aquinas' 5th argument was similar to Thierry of Chartes and William of Conches' adaptation of Plato's Timaeus argument
Aquinas was much more Aristotelian in his thought than any of his Christian predecessors.
He argued from:
1) Motion
2) Efficient Causality
3) Possibility and necessity
4) Gradation (perfection)
5) to a First Cause
Duns Scotus: Argument from Producibility
John Duns Scotus modified Aquinas' argument in two ways:
1) He began with the producibility of being, not merely from produced beings
2) He amplified the argument against an invite regress of dependent causes
Duns Scotus' arg.
1) Some being is produced
a) This is learned via experience
b) This is true independent of experience
c) It would be true even if God had not willed to create anything
2) What is produced is producible either by itself, by nothing or by something else
3) No being can produce itself
4) Something cannot be caused by nothing
5) Therefore, being is producible only by some being that is productive
6) There cannot be an infinite regress of productive beings, each producing the being of the one following it because
a) this is an essentially related series of causes, not an accidentally related one
-where the primary cause is more nearly perfect than the secondary one
-where the secondary cause depends on the primary one for its very causality
-where the cause must be simultaneously present to the effect
b) An infinite series of essentially related causes is impossible because:
-if the whole series is dependent for its causalities then there must be something beyond the series that counts for the causality in the series
-If the infinite series were causing the effect, then there would have to be an infinite number of causes simultaneously causing a single effect, and this is impossible
-where ever there are prior causes there must be a prime cause
-higher causes are more nearly perfect than lower causes and this implies a perfect cause at the head of all other less-than-perfect causes
-an infinite regress of causes implies imperfection. But an imperfect series implies something perfect beyond the series as ground for the imperfect
7) Therefore, there must be a first productive cause of all producible beings
8) This first Cause of all producible beings must be one because:
-It is perfect in knowledge and there cannot be two beings that know everything perfectly
-It is perfect in will, hence it loves itself more completely than anything else
-It is infinitely good and there cannot be two as such because one would be more than infinitely good which is impossible
-It is infinite in power. If there were two that were infinite in power than there would be two primary causes of the same effect, and this is impossible
-Absolutely infinite cannot be excelled in perfection because there cannot be anything more perfect than that which is wholly perfect
-There cannot be two necessary beings because one would possess what the other lacked and if it lacked any perfection it would not be necessary
-Omnipotent will cannot be in two beings because then one could render the other impotent
Ockham's Reservations about the Cosmological Argument
William of Ockham (1290-1350) raised three objections to the cosmological argument:
1) He denied that an essentially related infinite series was impossible
2) He argued that efficient causes are only known via experience. (Causality is "that whose existence or presence is followed by something")
3) He denied that one could prove that there was only one God in the absolute sense of the word. Christian theists insist that the unity of God refers to the "most perfect" Being possible. But the proposition "God exists" is not self evident because a self-evident proposition cannot be doubted and "God exists" is doubted. Since God's unity rests on the proposition "God exists" and it is impossible to know via experience and it is not self-evident there is no way to demonstrate that God is absolutely one.
Descartes' A posteriori Proof for God
Descartes' Proof
1) I am doubting
2) If I am doubting, I am thinking
3) Doubt is an imperfect form of thinking
4) But if I know the imperfect, then I must be aware of the perfect
5) But my imperfect mind cannot be the cause of the idea of perfection that I have
6) Only a perfect Mind is an adequate cause for the idea of perfection
7) Therefore, a perfect mind must exist as the cause of this perfection.
Both Augustine and Descartes have a posteriori arguments for the existence of God which is platonic and has an affinity for the ontological argument.
Leibniz: The argument from Sufficient Reason
Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716) provided the most influential form of the cosmological argument in modern times. He argued:
1. The entire world is changing
2. Whatever is changing lacks within itself the reason for its own existence.
3. There is a sufficient reason for its own existence.
4. Therefore, there must be a cause beyond this world for its existence.
5. This cause is either its own sufficient cause or beyond it.
6. There cannot be an infinite regress of sufficient reasons.
7. Therefore, there must be a first Cause that is its own sufficient reason.
Christian Wolff (1679-1754), Leibniz's disciple offered the proof that became the pattern of the cosmological argument for the modern world.
1. The human soul exists.
2. Nothing exists without a sufficient reason why it exists.
3. The reason for our existence must be contained in ourselves or beyond ourselves.
4. The reason for our existence is not in ourselves.
5. The reason for our existence thus lies beyond ourselves.
6. One does not arrive at sufficient reason for his existence until he reaches a being that has its reason for existence within itself.
7. A being that has its reason for existence within itself is a necessary being.
8. Therefore, there must be a necessary being beyond us that is the sufficient reason for our existence.
9. It is logically impossible for a necessary being not to exist.
10. Therefore, this necessary being is identical with the self-existent God of Scripture.
Leibniz's argument (and Wolff's) rests on the principle of sufficient reason which posits itself as a self-evidently true analytic principle.
The argument is a posteriori, but not existential. The necessity of its conclusion is based on a conceptually certainty, not an existential (actual) certainty.
Hume's Skeptical Criticisms of the Cosmological Argument
David Hume (1711-1776) laid down the most fundamental arguments against the cosmological argument:
1) Only a finite cause need be inferred from finite effects
2) No propositions about existence can be logically necessary
3) The words "necessary being" have no consistent meaning. It is possible to think of anything of not existing, even God; and, what might not exist does not need to exist.
4) If "necessary being" means only imperishable, then the universe may be the necessary being.
5) An infinite series is possible. An eternal series cannot have a cause because causes imply priority in time, but nothing can be prior in time to an eternal series. Thus, an eternal series is possible.
6) There is no way to establish the principle of causality
7) The universe as a whole does not need a cause, only the parts do.
8) Theistic argument convince only those who like abstract reasoning.
Kant's Agnosticism on Theistic Argumentation
1) The cosmological argument depends on the invalid ontological argument
2) Existential statements are not necessary
3) A noumenal (real) cause cannot be derived from a phenomenal effect
4) What is logically necessary is not ontologically necessary
5) The cosmological argument leads to metaphysical contradictions
6) The concept of a "necessary being" is not self-clarifying
7) An infinite regress is logically possible
Taylor's restatement of the cosmological argument:
1) The Universe as a whole does not explain its own existence
2) Whatever does not explain its own existence calls for an explanation beyond itself.
3) An infinite regress of reasons is impossible
4) Therefore, there must be a first self-sufficient (independent)_ cause of the whole universe
Taylor's conclusion is rationally inescapable, but it is Leibnizian in that it relies on the principle of sufficient reason. Thus, it is open to similar criticisms.
Hackett's Arguments Based on Explanation
Samuel C. Hackett offered two arguments in the Leibnizian tradition.
The first conceptual argument:
1) The world order is possible only on the basis of several necessary conditions:
- There need to be objective a priori principles of knowledge
- There need to objective essences that define the properties of things in the world
- There needs to be a reason why of all the possible worlds this is the one that exists
2) These realities show all of the properties that are associated with the structuring activity of a mind
3) Therefore, these realities can be understood as the workings of an absolute mind.
4) Therefore, there exists an absolute mind as necessary condition to the logical possibility of this world.
His second, causal argument:
1) If anything exists, an absolutely necessary and transcendent Being exists
2) Something exists
3) Therefore, an absolutely necessary and transcendent Being exists
Hackett's arguments suffer from an unwarranted assumption that a sufficient cause must be an ultimate cause. A finite cause may suffice.
Ross' argument based on Explanation
James F. Ross provided two versions of the argument based on explanation
First:
1) If something is not the case, there must be an explanation for it not being so.
2) Considering the state of affairs, "God does not exist" cannot be the case.
3) Therefore, since "God dos not exist" cannot be the case, "God exists" must be the case. Thus, God exists.
Craig's Kalam Argument
William Lane Craig has produced an argument based on the need to posit an original cause for the universe. He has three premises:
1) Whatever beings to exist has a cause
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Premise 1 seems intuit, but is questionable and uneasy to prove via demonstration
Premise 2 is completely questionable.
The argument, if it stands, does not prove theism because it does not eliminate pantheism.
Teleological and moral arguments depend on the principle of sufficient reason and/or causality. Both of which are questionable.
The ontological argument depends on the cosmological argument because it is theoretically possible that nothing ever existed at all.
The cosmological argument (in Leibnizian form) is rationally inescapable only if the principle of sufficient reason is rationally inescapable. But the principle of sufficient reason is neither analytically or self-evidently true.
The cosmological arguments leaves the actual for the conceptual at call thing world contingent and stating a necessary Being is one whose non-existence is logically impossible. This opens it to Kant's criticism that it confuses the principle of existential causality with the principle of sufficient reason.
The Kalam argument does not prove a theistic God, but a God that could be pantheistic.
9: The Cosmological Argument Reevaluated
Most attempts to defend the cosmological argument in a non-Leibnizian way emanate from Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas did not base his argument on the principle of sufficient reason, but on existential causality.
The Leibnizian type argument is built on logical necessity, whereas the Thomistic argument is based on existential undeniability.
The Cosmological Argument Restated
1. Some limited, changing being(s) exist
2. The present existence of every limited, changing being is caused by another
3. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes of being
4. Therefore, there is a first Cause of the present existence of these beings
5. The first cause must be infinite, necessary, eternal, simple, unchanging and one
6. The first uncaused cause is identical with the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition.
It is logically possible that nothing ever existed. That is, it is possible to conceive of the nonexistence of everything.
Linehan: But logic is an affirmation of existence, so to conceive of the nonexistence of everything is a logical inference and thus, self-defeating?
Any being that undergoes a change is a contingent being. Necessary Beings are immutable.
Whatever changes in existence must be composed of actuality and potentiality.
The fact that there is change is proof that there is potential and actualization of potential.
No potential actualizes itself.
There must be some actuality outside of composed beings (beings possessing potential and actuality) to explain why they exist.
Actuality is a thing's existence and its potentiality is its essence.
An efficient cause is a necessary and sufficient condition to account for the actualization of a potential.
An infinite regress is a series without a first or beginning cause.
A self-caused thing is impossible because it would have had to exist before it existed in order to cause itself.
A way out of this dilemma is to argue that the infinite regress is circular or mutually dependent.
But this argument is obviously circular and thus, fallacious.
To deny causality within an infinite regress is simply an attempt to explain away the need for an explanation (a real need) on ground for the ungrounded finite being.
A being that needs ground for his own existence cannot be the ground of another being that needs to be grounded. One contingent being cannot ground another contingent being.
There must be a first Cause of the existence of every finite thing that exists.
The first Cause is the efficient Cause.
The Frist Cause is an uncaused cause. It can neither be self-caused (impossible) or caused by another (thus negating its status as the first cause).
The uncaused cause must be an unlimited being. If caused things are limited, uncaused things must be unlimited.
An unlimited Being must be a Necessary Being because it can not be limited by contingency.
God is not a logically necessary Being, He is an ontologically necessary being.
The uncaused Being must be an eternal Being. If nothing ever existed (a logical possibility) then nothing would ever exist because nothing can cause itself.
The uncaused Cause must be a simple, undivided Being. The uncaused Cause is pure actuality with no potentiality.
The uncaused Cause of existence must be immutable. What is changeable possess potentiality, thus pure actuality is unchangeable.
An uncaused Cause must be one Being. There cannot be two pure actualities. Pure actuality is indivisible.
The pure actuality possess all of the perfections of being infinite. Thus, the uncaused cause is the source of all perfections.
Al-Farabi's Necessary Existence Argument
Arabian and Jewish forms of the cosmological argument later influenced Christian arguments
The Islamic Philosopher Al-Farabi distinguished between existence and essence. He argued:
1) There exists beings whose essence is distinct from their existence. These are possible beings.
2) These beings have existence only accidentally. It is not part of their very essence to exist. It is logically possible that they might not have existed.
3) Anything that exists accidentally (not essentially) must have derived their existence from another.
4) There cannot be an infinite regress of causes of existence.
5) Therefore, there must be a first cause of existence whose essence and existence are identical. This being must be a necessary being because the First Cause cannot be a mere possible being since all possible beings do not explain their own existence.
Avicenna's First Cause Argument
1) There are possible beings
2) Whatever possible beings exist have a cause for their being
3) There cannot be an infinite series of being.
4) Therefore, there must be a first cause for all possible things.
5) This first Cause must be a necessary Being because that which is the cause of all possible beings cannot itself be a possible being.
6) Whatever is essentially One can create immediately only one effect (intelligence)
7) Thinking is creating and God necessarily thinks, since he is a necessary being
8) Therefore, there is an necessary emanation from God of ten intelligences (Angels) that control the various spheres of the universe and the last of which (called Agent Intellect) forms the four elements of the cosmos and by which the human mind (possible intellect) is informed of all truth.
Avicenna's God was a necessary being who created 10 gods who created everything else.
The Jewish philosopher Moses Maimonides (1135-1204) argued for a first mover, a first Cause and a Necessary Being.
He argued that "I AM" implied absolute existence which applied to God alone.
Thomas Aquinas: Five Ways to Prove God's Existence
Aquinas' arguments were not entirely new
1) Maimonides had arguments similar to the first three
2) Al-Farabi and Avicenna had the first two
3) Anselm had an argument similar to the 4th argument
4) Aquinas' 5th argument was similar to Thierry of Chartes and William of Conches' adaptation of Plato's Timaeus argument
Aquinas was much more Aristotelian in his thought than any of his Christian predecessors.
He argued from:
1) Motion
2) Efficient Causality
3) Possibility and necessity
4) Gradation (perfection)
5) to a First Cause
Duns Scotus: Argument from Producibility
John Duns Scotus modified Aquinas' argument in two ways:
1) He began with the producibility of being, not merely from produced beings
2) He amplified the argument against an invite regress of dependent causes
Duns Scotus' arg.
1) Some being is produced
a) This is learned via experience
b) This is true independent of experience
c) It would be true even if God had not willed to create anything
2) What is produced is producible either by itself, by nothing or by something else
3) No being can produce itself
4) Something cannot be caused by nothing
5) Therefore, being is producible only by some being that is productive
6) There cannot be an infinite regress of productive beings, each producing the being of the one following it because
a) this is an essentially related series of causes, not an accidentally related one
-where the primary cause is more nearly perfect than the secondary one
-where the secondary cause depends on the primary one for its very causality
-where the cause must be simultaneously present to the effect
b) An infinite series of essentially related causes is impossible because:
-if the whole series is dependent for its causalities then there must be something beyond the series that counts for the causality in the series
-If the infinite series were causing the effect, then there would have to be an infinite number of causes simultaneously causing a single effect, and this is impossible
-where ever there are prior causes there must be a prime cause
-higher causes are more nearly perfect than lower causes and this implies a perfect cause at the head of all other less-than-perfect causes
-an infinite regress of causes implies imperfection. But an imperfect series implies something perfect beyond the series as ground for the imperfect
7) Therefore, there must be a first productive cause of all producible beings
8) This first Cause of all producible beings must be one because:
-It is perfect in knowledge and there cannot be two beings that know everything perfectly
-It is perfect in will, hence it loves itself more completely than anything else
-It is infinitely good and there cannot be two as such because one would be more than infinitely good which is impossible
-It is infinite in power. If there were two that were infinite in power than there would be two primary causes of the same effect, and this is impossible
-Absolutely infinite cannot be excelled in perfection because there cannot be anything more perfect than that which is wholly perfect
-There cannot be two necessary beings because one would possess what the other lacked and if it lacked any perfection it would not be necessary
-Omnipotent will cannot be in two beings because then one could render the other impotent
Ockham's Reservations about the Cosmological Argument
William of Ockham (1290-1350) raised three objections to the cosmological argument:
1) He denied that an essentially related infinite series was impossible
2) He argued that efficient causes are only known via experience. (Causality is "that whose existence or presence is followed by something")
3) He denied that one could prove that there was only one God in the absolute sense of the word. Christian theists insist that the unity of God refers to the "most perfect" Being possible. But the proposition "God exists" is not self evident because a self-evident proposition cannot be doubted and "God exists" is doubted. Since God's unity rests on the proposition "God exists" and it is impossible to know via experience and it is not self-evident there is no way to demonstrate that God is absolutely one.
Descartes' A posteriori Proof for God
Descartes' Proof
1) I am doubting
2) If I am doubting, I am thinking
3) Doubt is an imperfect form of thinking
4) But if I know the imperfect, then I must be aware of the perfect
5) But my imperfect mind cannot be the cause of the idea of perfection that I have
6) Only a perfect Mind is an adequate cause for the idea of perfection
7) Therefore, a perfect mind must exist as the cause of this perfection.
Both Augustine and Descartes have a posteriori arguments for the existence of God which is platonic and has an affinity for the ontological argument.
Leibniz: The argument from Sufficient Reason
Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716) provided the most influential form of the cosmological argument in modern times. He argued:
1. The entire world is changing
2. Whatever is changing lacks within itself the reason for its own existence.
3. There is a sufficient reason for its own existence.
4. Therefore, there must be a cause beyond this world for its existence.
5. This cause is either its own sufficient cause or beyond it.
6. There cannot be an infinite regress of sufficient reasons.
7. Therefore, there must be a first Cause that is its own sufficient reason.
Christian Wolff (1679-1754), Leibniz's disciple offered the proof that became the pattern of the cosmological argument for the modern world.
1. The human soul exists.
2. Nothing exists without a sufficient reason why it exists.
3. The reason for our existence must be contained in ourselves or beyond ourselves.
4. The reason for our existence is not in ourselves.
5. The reason for our existence thus lies beyond ourselves.
6. One does not arrive at sufficient reason for his existence until he reaches a being that has its reason for existence within itself.
7. A being that has its reason for existence within itself is a necessary being.
8. Therefore, there must be a necessary being beyond us that is the sufficient reason for our existence.
9. It is logically impossible for a necessary being not to exist.
10. Therefore, this necessary being is identical with the self-existent God of Scripture.
Leibniz's argument (and Wolff's) rests on the principle of sufficient reason which posits itself as a self-evidently true analytic principle.
The argument is a posteriori, but not existential. The necessity of its conclusion is based on a conceptually certainty, not an existential (actual) certainty.
Hume's Skeptical Criticisms of the Cosmological Argument
David Hume (1711-1776) laid down the most fundamental arguments against the cosmological argument:
1) Only a finite cause need be inferred from finite effects
2) No propositions about existence can be logically necessary
3) The words "necessary being" have no consistent meaning. It is possible to think of anything of not existing, even God; and, what might not exist does not need to exist.
4) If "necessary being" means only imperishable, then the universe may be the necessary being.
5) An infinite series is possible. An eternal series cannot have a cause because causes imply priority in time, but nothing can be prior in time to an eternal series. Thus, an eternal series is possible.
6) There is no way to establish the principle of causality
7) The universe as a whole does not need a cause, only the parts do.
8) Theistic argument convince only those who like abstract reasoning.
Kant's Agnosticism on Theistic Argumentation
1) The cosmological argument depends on the invalid ontological argument
2) Existential statements are not necessary
3) A noumenal (real) cause cannot be derived from a phenomenal effect
4) What is logically necessary is not ontologically necessary
5) The cosmological argument leads to metaphysical contradictions
6) The concept of a "necessary being" is not self-clarifying
7) An infinite regress is logically possible
Taylor's restatement of the cosmological argument:
1) The Universe as a whole does not explain its own existence
2) Whatever does not explain its own existence calls for an explanation beyond itself.
3) An infinite regress of reasons is impossible
4) Therefore, there must be a first self-sufficient (independent)_ cause of the whole universe
Taylor's conclusion is rationally inescapable, but it is Leibnizian in that it relies on the principle of sufficient reason. Thus, it is open to similar criticisms.
Hackett's Arguments Based on Explanation
Samuel C. Hackett offered two arguments in the Leibnizian tradition.
The first conceptual argument:
1) The world order is possible only on the basis of several necessary conditions:
- There need to be objective a priori principles of knowledge
- There need to objective essences that define the properties of things in the world
- There needs to be a reason why of all the possible worlds this is the one that exists
2) These realities show all of the properties that are associated with the structuring activity of a mind
3) Therefore, these realities can be understood as the workings of an absolute mind.
4) Therefore, there exists an absolute mind as necessary condition to the logical possibility of this world.
His second, causal argument:
1) If anything exists, an absolutely necessary and transcendent Being exists
2) Something exists
3) Therefore, an absolutely necessary and transcendent Being exists
Hackett's arguments suffer from an unwarranted assumption that a sufficient cause must be an ultimate cause. A finite cause may suffice.
Ross' argument based on Explanation
James F. Ross provided two versions of the argument based on explanation
First:
1) If something is not the case, there must be an explanation for it not being so.
2) Considering the state of affairs, "God does not exist" cannot be the case.
3) Therefore, since "God dos not exist" cannot be the case, "God exists" must be the case. Thus, God exists.
Craig's Kalam Argument
William Lane Craig has produced an argument based on the need to posit an original cause for the universe. He has three premises:
1) Whatever beings to exist has a cause
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Premise 1 seems intuit, but is questionable and uneasy to prove via demonstration
Premise 2 is completely questionable.
The argument, if it stands, does not prove theism because it does not eliminate pantheism.
Teleological and moral arguments depend on the principle of sufficient reason and/or causality. Both of which are questionable.
The ontological argument depends on the cosmological argument because it is theoretically possible that nothing ever existed at all.
The cosmological argument (in Leibnizian form) is rationally inescapable only if the principle of sufficient reason is rationally inescapable. But the principle of sufficient reason is neither analytically or self-evidently true.
The cosmological arguments leaves the actual for the conceptual at call thing world contingent and stating a necessary Being is one whose non-existence is logically impossible. This opens it to Kant's criticism that it confuses the principle of existential causality with the principle of sufficient reason.
The Kalam argument does not prove a theistic God, but a God that could be pantheistic.
9: The Cosmological Argument Reevaluated
Most attempts to defend the cosmological argument in a non-Leibnizian way emanate from Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas did not base his argument on the principle of sufficient reason, but on existential causality.
The Leibnizian type argument is built on logical necessity, whereas the Thomistic argument is based on existential undeniability.
The Cosmological Argument Restated
1. Some limited, changing being(s) exist
2. The present existence of every limited, changing being is caused by another
3. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes of being
4. Therefore, there is a first Cause of the present existence of these beings
5. The first cause must be infinite, necessary, eternal, simple, unchanging and one
6. The first uncaused cause is identical with the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition.
It is logically possible that nothing ever existed. That is, it is possible to conceive of the nonexistence of everything.
Linehan: But logic is an affirmation of existence, so to conceive of the nonexistence of everything is a logical inference and thus, self-defeating?
Any being that undergoes a change is a contingent being. Necessary Beings are immutable.
Whatever changes in existence must be composed of actuality and potentiality.
The fact that there is change is proof that there is potential and actualization of potential.
No potential actualizes itself.
There must be some actuality outside of composed beings (beings possessing potential and actuality) to explain why they exist.
Actuality is a thing's existence and its potentiality is its essence.
An efficient cause is a necessary and sufficient condition to account for the actualization of a potential.
An infinite regress is a series without a first or beginning cause.
A self-caused thing is impossible because it would have had to exist before it existed in order to cause itself.
A way out of this dilemma is to argue that the infinite regress is circular or mutually dependent.
But this argument is obviously circular and thus, fallacious.
To deny causality within an infinite regress is simply an attempt to explain away the need for an explanation (a real need) on ground for the ungrounded finite being.
A being that needs ground for his own existence cannot be the ground of another being that needs to be grounded. One contingent being cannot ground another contingent being.
There must be a first Cause of the existence of every finite thing that exists.
The first Cause is the efficient Cause.
The Frist Cause is an uncaused cause. It can neither be self-caused (impossible) or caused by another (thus negating its status as the first cause).
The uncaused cause must be an unlimited being. If caused things are limited, uncaused things must be unlimited.
An unlimited Being must be a Necessary Being because it can not be limited by contingency.
God is not a logically necessary Being, He is an ontologically necessary being.
The uncaused Being must be an eternal Being. If nothing ever existed (a logical possibility) then nothing would ever exist because nothing can cause itself.
The uncaused Cause must be a simple, undivided Being. The uncaused Cause is pure actuality with no potentiality.
The uncaused Cause of existence must be immutable. What is changeable possess potentiality, thus pure actuality is unchangeable.
An uncaused Cause must be one Being. There cannot be two pure actualities. Pure actuality is indivisible.
The pure actuality possess all of the perfections of being infinite. Thus, the uncaused cause is the source of all perfections.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Mohammedan Culture B
(Originally written July 25, 2006 in Book 5)
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Chapter X - Mohammedan Culture
The Muslim Empire gradually split into four main factions:
1) Spain
2) Persia
3) N. Africa
4) Egypt
All these four were basically independent of one another.
The Arabs preferred Aristotle to Plato, but it was a sort of Platonic Aristotle.
Al-Kindi (died ca. 873) was the first philosopher to write in Arabic.
Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi translated Indian Sanskrit astronomy and mathematical books into Arabic around 830. It was translated into Latin in the 11th century along with an algebra book he wrote. This is when the West learned Arabic numerals. (But since the Arabians adopted them from India they ought to have been labeled Indian numerals).
Omar Ahayyám reformed the calendar in 1079. He was a Persian poet and mathematician. The Persians were great poets.
Firdowsi (941) wrote Shahlnama and is said to be an equal of Homer.
Persians were also superior mystics to the rest of the Mohammedans. The Sufi sect (still existent) came from Persian mystic interpretation of the Koran in a mystical, Neoplatonic way.
Greek influenced entered the Muslim world through the Syrain Nestorians. The Nestorians only valued Aristotle for his logic.
Arabic philosophers placed logic as the highest point and importance, but gradually accepted Aristotelian metaphysics.
Arabic philosophers were primarily concerned with:
1) Alchemy
2) Astrology
3) Astronomy
4) Zoology
Philosophers were looked on suspiciously by the bigoted public Arabs.
Avicenna (Ibn Sina) lived from 980 -1037 and traveled extensively, finally settling in Tehran. He taught philosophy and medicine. His medicine techniques were used widespread in Europe from the 12th - 17th century. He was not a saint, easily entrapped by wine and women. He was not favored in the East because of the Orthodoxy but the West admired him and his work. His psychology was empirical of a sort. His philosophy was closer to Aristotle and less Platonic than his Muslim predecessors.
He was concerned with the problem of universals. He believed that universals were at the same time:
1) before things
2) in things
3) after things
They are before in God's understanding. They are in things when particulars exist. They are after things in the thoughts of man.
Averroes (Ibn Rushd) lived from 1126-1198. He was born in Cordova, Spain. he was a Cadi in Seville and then in Cordova. He studied theology, jurisprudence, medicine, mathematics and philosophy (in that order). He practiced medicine for the Spanish ruler but was exiled by the ruler's son for "cultivating the philosophy of the ancients at the expense of the true faith" (Russell, 425). He was exiled to Morocco.
The books of logic and metaphysics were burnt because the Orthodox Muslims believed that God damned men for believing truth could be found through undirected reason.
After the death of Averroes the Moorish territory in Spain was diminished by Christian conquests.
Aver roes sought to purge the Arabic understanding of Aristotle of the Neoplatonic influence. He believed that the existence of God could be proved without divine revelation.
Like most Mohammedan philosophers, Averroes was a believer, but not Orthodox.
A sect of completely orthodox theologians condemned all philosophical thought outright. Algazel pointed out that all Truth necessary was to be found in the Koran, so speculation was unnecessary.
Averroes believed religion was a wealth of philosophical truth displayed in allegorical form.
Averroes is more important in Christian philosophy than in Islamic.
Despite writing in the 12th century, he was surprisingly translated into Latin in the 13th century, very quick for that age.
Arabic philosophy was not original; philosophers were more like commentators.
Between ancient Europe and Modern Europe the Dark Ages virtually killed intellectualism in Europe. The Byzantines and Arabs, while not innovators, preserved the ancient philosophy and learning which served as the foundation for modern thought.
The integration of Arabic thought into Europe produced scholasticism in the 13th century. The integration of Byzantine thought (and other causes) produced the Renaissance in the 15th century.
The Jews served as a go between between the Christians and the Spanish Moors. Knowing both Arabic and Latin, they supplied translations.
The Spanish Jews produced one important philosopher: Maimonides. Maimonides was born in Cordova in 1135. He went to Cairo in 1165 and lived out his life there. He wrote in Arabic, which was immediately translated into Hebrew and translated into Latin a few decades after his death. He wrote a book called Guide to Wanderers which was a book for philosophers who lost their faith. The book reconciled Aristotelianism to Judaism. The Jews hated Maimonides and elicited the Christian ecclesiastics to stop him.
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Chapter X - Mohammedan Culture
The Muslim Empire gradually split into four main factions:
1) Spain
2) Persia
3) N. Africa
4) Egypt
All these four were basically independent of one another.
The Arabs preferred Aristotle to Plato, but it was a sort of Platonic Aristotle.
Al-Kindi (died ca. 873) was the first philosopher to write in Arabic.
Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi translated Indian Sanskrit astronomy and mathematical books into Arabic around 830. It was translated into Latin in the 11th century along with an algebra book he wrote. This is when the West learned Arabic numerals. (But since the Arabians adopted them from India they ought to have been labeled Indian numerals).
Omar Ahayyám reformed the calendar in 1079. He was a Persian poet and mathematician. The Persians were great poets.
Firdowsi (941) wrote Shahlnama and is said to be an equal of Homer.
Persians were also superior mystics to the rest of the Mohammedans. The Sufi sect (still existent) came from Persian mystic interpretation of the Koran in a mystical, Neoplatonic way.
Greek influenced entered the Muslim world through the Syrain Nestorians. The Nestorians only valued Aristotle for his logic.
Arabic philosophers placed logic as the highest point and importance, but gradually accepted Aristotelian metaphysics.
Arabic philosophers were primarily concerned with:
1) Alchemy
2) Astrology
3) Astronomy
4) Zoology
Philosophers were looked on suspiciously by the bigoted public Arabs.
Avicenna (Ibn Sina) lived from 980 -1037 and traveled extensively, finally settling in Tehran. He taught philosophy and medicine. His medicine techniques were used widespread in Europe from the 12th - 17th century. He was not a saint, easily entrapped by wine and women. He was not favored in the East because of the Orthodoxy but the West admired him and his work. His psychology was empirical of a sort. His philosophy was closer to Aristotle and less Platonic than his Muslim predecessors.
He was concerned with the problem of universals. He believed that universals were at the same time:
1) before things
2) in things
3) after things
They are before in God's understanding. They are in things when particulars exist. They are after things in the thoughts of man.
Averroes (Ibn Rushd) lived from 1126-1198. He was born in Cordova, Spain. he was a Cadi in Seville and then in Cordova. He studied theology, jurisprudence, medicine, mathematics and philosophy (in that order). He practiced medicine for the Spanish ruler but was exiled by the ruler's son for "cultivating the philosophy of the ancients at the expense of the true faith" (Russell, 425). He was exiled to Morocco.
The books of logic and metaphysics were burnt because the Orthodox Muslims believed that God damned men for believing truth could be found through undirected reason.
After the death of Averroes the Moorish territory in Spain was diminished by Christian conquests.
Aver roes sought to purge the Arabic understanding of Aristotle of the Neoplatonic influence. He believed that the existence of God could be proved without divine revelation.
Like most Mohammedan philosophers, Averroes was a believer, but not Orthodox.
A sect of completely orthodox theologians condemned all philosophical thought outright. Algazel pointed out that all Truth necessary was to be found in the Koran, so speculation was unnecessary.
Averroes believed religion was a wealth of philosophical truth displayed in allegorical form.
Averroes is more important in Christian philosophy than in Islamic.
Despite writing in the 12th century, he was surprisingly translated into Latin in the 13th century, very quick for that age.
Arabic philosophy was not original; philosophers were more like commentators.
Between ancient Europe and Modern Europe the Dark Ages virtually killed intellectualism in Europe. The Byzantines and Arabs, while not innovators, preserved the ancient philosophy and learning which served as the foundation for modern thought.
The integration of Arabic thought into Europe produced scholasticism in the 13th century. The integration of Byzantine thought (and other causes) produced the Renaissance in the 15th century.
The Jews served as a go between between the Christians and the Spanish Moors. Knowing both Arabic and Latin, they supplied translations.
The Spanish Jews produced one important philosopher: Maimonides. Maimonides was born in Cordova in 1135. He went to Cairo in 1165 and lived out his life there. He wrote in Arabic, which was immediately translated into Hebrew and translated into Latin a few decades after his death. He wrote a book called Guide to Wanderers which was a book for philosophers who lost their faith. The book reconciled Aristotelianism to Judaism. The Jews hated Maimonides and elicited the Christian ecclesiastics to stop him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)