Lectures on Philosophical Anthropology Using the Analytical Method, by Mostafa Malekian

In the present discussion, our method is a priori anthropology, which is also called philosophical anthropology, and we are not concerned with the empirical anthropology discussed in psychology, political science, economics, sociology, and so on.

Preliminary Remarks:

*First Preliminary: What Can Be Meant by Anthropology

When we speak of anthropology, we can mean three things.

First Meaning: Knowledge of the Word 'Human'

Knowledge of the word 'human,' which, as a result of research in different languages, varies.

Second Meaning: Knowledge of the Concept of Human

2 – Knowledge of the concept of human, that is, what meaning comes to mind upon hearing or seeing the word 'human.'

Here, two tasks are undertaken:

1 – Discussion of the components or essential attributes of the human being. That is, the set of components that are necessary and sufficient for constructing the concept of human in the human mind.

2 – Explanation of the divisions of the concept in question, such as types, varieties, and so on.

In the present discussion, such as dividing humans into white-skinned and black-skinned, adult and minor, or male and female.

Third Meaning: Knowledge of the Referent of Human

3 – Knowledge of the objective, external referent of the human being.

Which includes the following:

1– In conceptual knowledge, we dealt with the universal and particulars, whereas here we deal with parts and the whole.

2 – The necessary and sufficient conditions for the realization of the human being.

3 – The obstacles to the realization of the human being.

4 – The transformations and developments of the human being.

5 – The human being's relationship with the non-human, such as God, inanimate objects, plants, and so on.

An Example of the Three Types of Knowledge Expressed in Concepts

Of course, these three types of knowledge hold true for any concept, which we will illustrate here with the example of a tree.

For instance, when we say a tree is an object that has growth, nutrition, and reproduction, and lives for more than one year; this merely expresses the word 'tree' and may differ or be the same in other languages. But when it is said that trees have types such as monoecious and dioecious, or fruit-bearing and non-fruit-bearing, here we are dealing with the concept of a tree. On the other hand, when we say a tree consists of roots, a trunk, leaves, and so on, here we are speaking of an external tree. Because the concept of a tree does not include leaves, roots, and so forth.

Points Regarding Conceptual Knowledge:

First Point: The Multiplicity of Conceptual Knowledges of a Single Referent

Conceptual knowledge of a single referent may differ; for example, the concept of the human being differs among biologists, psychologists, and philosophers. And even among biologists themselves, there may be disagreement about the concept of the human being.

Second Point: The Difference Between Concept and Conception

Concept is a concept, but conception is a general or particular notion. And every concept is a conception, but the reverse is not true. And both of these are notions, not that every conception is always accompanied by an affirmation. And a concept is only a universal notion. For example, 'city,' being universal, is both a concept and a conception. But 'Tehran,' being particular, is only a conception, not a concept.

*Second Preliminary: The Threefold Aspects of Speaking about Truths

In discussing any truth, one can discuss it in three ways:

1 – Semantic, meaning-related

2 – Ontological, ontological

3 – Epistemological , epistemological

What is meant by the semantic study of the human being

A semantic discussion concerning the human being means: what is intended and what is understood by "human being" in writings and utterances. Intention pertains to the speaker and writer, while understanding pertains to the reader and listener. Mutual understanding occurs when the understanding of the reader and listener coincides with the intention of the speaker and writer.

What is meant by the ontological study of the human being

The ontological study of the human being means discussing:

the coming into existence of the human being,

the remaining in existence of the human being,

the ceasing to exist of the human being.

The conditions of each of these three.

The obstacles to each of these three.

The relations of the existing human being with other existents

The particular characteristics of the existing human being.

What is meant by the epistemological study of the human being

The epistemological study of the human being occurs when we pose the question "On what grounds do you say that?" or "How do you know that?" for every ontological proposition.

For example, the statement that the human being survives after death is an ontological proposition, and the inquiry into the reason for this proposition is an epistemological study.

In other words, when the discussion turns to reason and justification, it is an epistemological discussion.

The Ancients' account of the threefold aspects of discussing truths

The ancients referred to these three types of knowledge in a summary fashion.

For example, Haji Sabzevari says:

The foundations of inquiry are three knowledges:

The inquiry of "what," the inquiry of "whether," the inquiry of "why."

The inquiry of "what" (mā), meaning "what is it?," corresponds to semantic discussions. The ancients divided this into two types: the explicative "what" (mā shāreḥa), which was a purely verbal discussion, and the true "what" (mā ḥaqīqīya), which was a conceptual discussion.

The inquiry of "whether" (hal) was also divided into two types: simple "whether" (hal basīṭ) and composite "whether" (hal murakkab). In the simple "whether," the existence of something was discussed, and in the composite "whether," its attributes were discussed.

The inquiry of "why" (lima) was also divided into two types: affirmative "why" (lima thubūtī) and evidential "why" (lima ithbātī). The affirmative was an ontological discussion, and the evidential was an epistemological discussion.

Two meanings of ontological and epistemological and their differences

Here, a necessary point must be noted. The human being possesses various domains, one of which is the domain of knowledge. In this domain, we deal with certainty, knowledge, prejudice, dogmatism, rigidity, fanaticism, and so on. If we consider the domain of knowledge as a circle and draw two arrows, one to the right and one to the left, and consider the right side as the actual world and the left side as the mental world: on the right side, the discussion is only about truth, falsehood, and correspondence; on the left side, the discussion is about doubt, certainty, conviction, and so on. On the right side, the discussion is logic; the left side divides into two branches. One is the epistemic factors in the emergence of knowledge, which is reasoning, and the other is the non-epistemic factors in the emergence of knowledge, such as suggestions, conformities, and so on. The epistemic factors are called epistemological, and the non-epistemic factors are called ontological. The point is that one must be careful not to confuse this usage of epistemological and ontological with the previous usage.

*Third Introduction: Methods of Discussion in Anthropology

At first glance, the methods of discussion in anthropology are of five types:

1 – Philosophical.

2 – Empirical.

3 – Historical.

4 – Mystical.

5 – Religious and doctrinal

But these five types are ultimately reducible to two types: a posteriori and a priori. Of the previous types, the philosophical is obviously a priori, and the empirical is obviously a posteriori. Among these, the historical is ultimately empirical as well, since it is a chain of transmission that terminates in individual experience. The mystical is also unquestionably of the category of experience.

The religious and doctrinal means the claims that appear in religious and doctrinal texts. And those claims are ultimately one of the four aforementioned cases, and those four cases, as stated, are one of the two, a posteriori or a priori.

Our Method in the Present Discussion

In the present discussion, our method is a priori anthropology, which is also called philosophical anthropology, and we have nothing to do with empirical anthropology, which is discussed in psychology, political science, economics, sociology, etc.

*Fourth Introduction: Domains Related to the Human Being in the Philosophical Method

Within the philosophical method itself, one can discuss three domains related to the human being: facts, values, and duties. But usually, only facts are discussed. And by a broader reckoning, the philosophy of ethics and the philosophy of law should also be included in the discussion, which of course is not prohibited. But here, too, we will only discuss facts.

*Fifth Introduction: Aspects of Discussing Facts

In the domain of facts, one can also discuss three aspects.

1- Origin,

2- Nature,

3- Destiny.

In origin, our gaze is toward the past; in nature, toward the present; and in destiny, toward the future.

Here again, our discussion is of nature and the present. Although the past and the near future are also subjects of our discussion. But it seems that discussing the distant past, whether in its religious and theological account or the Darwinian one, etc., and the distant future, like the discussion of Barzakh, A'raf, etc., is beyond the scope of human knowledge and is among the mysteries of existence. And of course, we have the right to limit our discussion.

*Sixth Introduction:

The philosophical method itself also has various types, such as analytical, hermeneutical, phenomenological, structuralist, deconstructionist, and, with some latitude, existentialist, etc.

Our method of discussion here is the analytical method of the Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-American tradition, as opposed to the Continental one.

*Seventh Introduction: Essentialism

Aristotle's Account of Essentialism

The discussion of essence has been current from the time of Aristotle until now. Aristotle was the first to claim that all things that share a single name have at least one, two, three, or n common features, and it is by virtue of that common feature or features that we apply a single name to them. And to this claim, he added a second claim, which is that in all things that have common features, through every change, transformation, and evolution, that one, two, or n common features remain fixed and constant. Hence, the upshot of Aristotle's statement is that all entities that share a single name all possess one, two, three, or n features that are both common among the individuals sharing the name and constant over time. Of course, commonality is different from constancy.

This claim is called essentialism, because Aristotle called those common features the essential attributes of the thing.

Locke's Critiques of Aristotle

This claim persisted until the time of John Locke. And John Locke stated that Aristotle had conflated nominal essence with real essence, and that what is common is the nominal essence, not the real essence.

Wittgenstein's Critiques of Aristotle and Locke

After Locke, Wittgenstein took another step and said that there is no nominal essence common among individuals sharing the same name either. He said, for example, that among all the games in the world, one cannot point to a single common feature. And he would say, do not sit and think, go and see.

The Unconditional Nature of the Present Discussion Regarding the Acceptance or Rejection of Essence

In the present discussion, although I myself accept Wittgenstein's view, we will discuss these three theories unconditionally. This is because, in this discussion, we are fundamentally dealing with human relations, not human essence, and by relation and connection, we mean its philosophical meaning, not its social one.

Explanation of Philosophical Relation: The Categories

Aristotle raised a discussion that, after him, no one opposed his general claim, but almost everyone opposed his specific claim and the instances specified and their number by him.

.

---

.

Download PDF of the Lectures on Philosophical Anthropology Using the Analytical Method

From Server One | Server Two

.

---

.

Audio of the Lectures on Philosophical Anthropology Using the Analytical Method

Session 1 from Server One | Server Two

Session 2 from Server One | Server Two

Session 3 from Server One | Server Two

Session 4 from Server One | Server Two

.

---

.

Lectures on Philosophical Anthropology Using the Analytical Method by Mostafa Malekian, 2010

.

---

.