My Affair with Philosophy Books

On the Sedanet website, I read an engaging piece by my dear and longtime friend, Dr. Abbasali Mansouri, titled "My Affair with Philosophy Classes". In his writing, Dr. Mansouri addresses several issues, but I will only refer to one point regarding the text-centeredness of Islamic philosophy. Of course, this short note is in continuation of his piece and not a critique of it; for what he has said is an accurate description of a common situation that is evident to everyone. Nor do I intend to critique the academic situation; because the university education system is so null, void, hollow, and empty that it is more disgraceful than to be worth criticizing and examining. Therefore, this note, whether affirmatively or negatively, bears no relation to the educational situation of any university. There is not even any hope that such gentlemen would understand these matters; for they are not at the level of such discourse. What is intended is a reflection on one of the aspects of Islamic philosophy as an important, serious, and genuine philosophy, and also the relationship we ought to have with it. It is also an allusion to one of the possibilities and potentials that this philosophy, due to its specific characteristics, harbors within itself.

Islamic philosophy is highly text-centered, to the extent that everyone in the field of education laments the texts of Islamic philosophy, as if it has become one of its weak points. But this characteristic is neither good nor bad in itself. The goodness or badness of text-centeredness depends entirely on our conception of the text and our way of reading it. Thus, text-centeredness can be both an advantage of Islamic philosophy and an obstacle to its growth. The problem begins when someone supposes that the texts of Islamic philosophy have a final meaning.

One of the incorrect presuppositions about Islamic philosophy is that there exists a complete, ideal, or perfect reading of the texts of Islamic philosophy. Today, the teaching of Islamic philosophy has become such that it is as if the philosophical texts of the great Muslim philosophers have a definitive and final meaning. All the effort and concern of those engaged in this philosophy is also devoted to discovering this definitive and final meaning and acquiring it, so as to become completely proficient in Islamic philosophy and to know it fully and absolutely. The end of this process will also be that no more words, no more content, and no unspoken meaning will remain, and this philosophy will be fully and completely revealed and known. But this notion is clearly incorrect and is nothing more than an illusion; because the text has no final meaning. This is because the text is a highly complex phenomenon that is full of meanings and its understanding never comes to an end. It can be said that the text is a fountainhead from which meaning springs, and not a cage that has bound all meaning within itself.

Yes, no text has a final and ultimate meaning, especially rich, complex, and substantial texts such as philosophical texts. A philosophical text is a very rich and complex phenomenon, and no one can claim to have grasped its entire meaning. Of course, this does not mean that a kind of anarchism and epistemic relativism enters into the meaning of texts. There is certainly correct meaning and incorrect meaning. Undoubtedly, some meanings can be attributed to the text, and some cannot be correctly placed within the text at all. Rather, the discussion concerns correct meanings relevant to the text. The claim is that such meanings are inexhaustible. A philosophical text is like a spring from which philosophical meanings and content can be continuously and perpetually extracted and inferred. This is not a defect, but the perfection of philosophical texts. Heidegger says in this regard: "The fact that it is capable of multiple meanings cannot be an objection to the soundness of what is deposited in thought. For all that is thought in a fundamental thought is open to a multiplicity of interpretations, and indeed is so by its very essence and nature. Nor is it the case that this polysemy is merely the residue of a formal-logical univocity not yet attained, which we have striven for but failed to reach. On the contrary, polysemy is the very element in which every thinking, in order to be a sound thinking, must move. To speak figuratively: the depths and expanses of waters, the regions of flowing water and still water, the warmth and the warm and cold surfaces of water are the element of a fish's manifold motility. If the fish is deprived of the fullness and perfection of its element, if it is dragged onto dry sand, it can only flounder, struggle, writhe, and perish. For this reason, we must always and in every case seek thinking and its thoughts in the element of its polysemy, otherwise everything remains closed off to us"(1). He also has a remark about texts such as Plato's writings that can also apply to the philosophical texts of our tradition. He says: "Plato's dialogue is inexhaustible not only for his successors and not only for the changing interpretations that arise from these successors, but in itself and according to its own essence, it also never comes to an end. And yet this is the enduring mark of the creative human being, which is, however, granted only to those who are capable of reverence"(2).

In encountering Muslim philosophers as well, we must always have such a view of their philosophical texts. But most philosophy professors are unfamiliar with such approaches. When almost all professors of Islamic philosophy are unaware of the new theories that have been proposed about the text, what can one expect?! They encounter the rich, complex, and multi-layered texts of Islamic philosophy based on a simple, commonplace, and vulgar understanding. They read philosophical texts in the same way they read any other simple text. For this reason, even in the best educational scenario, the ultimate goal of engaging with Islamic philosophy is only learning the texts of Islamic philosophy and not learning from them. There is a vast distance between "learning the text" and "learning from the text," and the fate of Islamic philosophy today depends on such subtle nuances.

.

Notes:

1) Martin Heidegger, What Is Called Thinking?, translated by Siavash Jamadi, Phoenix Publications, page 182

2) Ibid., page 183