Reza Davari Ardakani in conversation with Hooman Dorandish: I should not have said the West is egoism / Mirshakak's rant against Einstein is nonsense

Is the famous sentence "The West is the twilight of truth" also yours?

Perhaps; I may have said it. If you take such sentences as poetic, their meaning differs from when they are taken as scientific declarative statements. And they are usually taken as scientific declarative statements. That is, "The West is the twilight of truth" is taken to mean that Pakistan and India are in a very good state because they are in the geographical East, but Canada is in a very bad state because it is in the geographical West. But the meaning of this sentence is something else. One cannot look at the sun. The moon is visible. The moon's light is the very light of the sun. The sun is luminous in itself, and the moon is illuminated by another. If you consider the sun as truth, then it must be said that it is with the setting of the sun that the moon can rise. The absence and setting of the sun is the rising of the moon. Awhad al-Din Kermani said, I see the moon's light in a basin of water. They told him, if you do not have a boil on the back of your neck, see the moon in the sky. We see the moon in the water and say the West is a scoundrel and such and such; therefore, Reza Davari, who says the West is the twilight of truth, is saying that the West is a scoundrel and such! Someone who sees the moon in a basin has no right to tell someone who sees the moon in the sky, why don't you see the sun? I did not explain these points back then. Of course, since 1979, I have been saying, do not think that I want to go and live in Pakistan or Afghanistan. I said, if I were given the choice to go to Pakistan or Canada, I would go and live in Canada; but I did not explain what the intent was, or what the state of the world and the relations are. These are things one gradually realizes the necessity of as one grows old.

In Iranian society, you are considered by many to be a prominent philosopher who is not a proponent of democracy and is even opposed to democracy. What is your view on democracy as a political system?

One can discuss democracy in two ways: politically and philosophically. In the philosophy of politics, I have criticisms of democracy, but when it comes to politics and political choice, can one say that tyranny is good and democracy is bad? Can one say that the government of Norway or Belgium is worse than the government of Afghanistan or Vietnam? These are clear issues and not up for debate. But when someone criticizes democracy, give him a little of your attention and see what he wants to say. Is he really saying that a ruler who beats down on the people is better than a ruler who consults with the people and acts according to the law? We lack the patience to scrutinize and reflect on the words of that critic of democracy. We quickly tell him he is talking nonsense, that he doesn't understand, that he speaks unjustly, and that he comprehends nothing of humanity and morality. Of course, in the course of my own statements, I was saying these very points right at the beginning of the revolution, and one of my friends has extracted these same points from a book I wrote in 1979 about the Islamic Revolution. Democracy is not debatable in the sense that we should abandon democracy and establish a tyrannical government so that the human condition improves. The issue is that when we discuss progress, democracy must also progress. The question is, has democracy progressed and improved from the time of George Washington to the time of Trump? Americans say that democracy is theirs. Therefore, we must measure the democracy of the Trump era against the democracy of Locke or Rousseau, and especially against the democracy of Kant. Socrates was condemned to drink hemlock on charges of denying the gods and corrupting the youth. That is, in the democratic Athens of Pericles, there was no freedom of belief. What does corrupting the youth mean? Socrates questioned the youth and confused them, or created a longing in them. He also said nothing of the gods and only spoke of God. Of course, he did not speak of monotheism either, but instead of

I did not volunteer for the presidency of the Academy of Sciences, nor did I appeal to anyone to make me president of the Academy. You can ask Mr. Khatami, who was president, whether I asked him to make me president of the Academy. As it happens, if that article had not been written saying that a science-phobe had become president of the Academy of Sciences, perhaps I would not have become president of the Academy at all. Mr. Khatami is someone who, when he speaks of freedom, knows what he is talking about. He truly believes in freedom and does not merely use the word. There are those who speak of freedom but stone their opponents. They do not understand freedom. At the time of the election for the president of the Academy of Sciences, I had done no campaigning, and my election was not even under discussion. Suddenly, in the midst of the debate, the late Dr. Eshraghi (the historian) said, vote for Dr. Davari. That is how I was elected president of the Academy. But let me also give a lexical explanation. If you say 'scientist' in French, it becomes 'scientiste.' A 'scientiste' is someone who recognizes no knowledge but science, and the method of this scientific knowledge is the method of physics. This is the definition of scientism. The second point is that we cannot consider scholars of the humanities—in the English sense of the word—not to be scientists. A sociologist and an economist are also scientists. Now, you might say to me, you are neither a sociologist nor an economist, you are a philosopher; so why have you become president of the Academy of Sciences? The brief, general answer is that it is in philosophy that one asks what science is, what things are, how they work, and which path they take. Therefore, if you expel the philosopher from the Academy of Sciences, where will you admit him? Where will you place him? This is a completely unthought-out question, and I take issue with your asking these questions. But the third point is, should we make someone who is a historian of science and a professor of the history of science the president of the Academy of Sciences? Who knows the history of science? I do not claim to know the history of science, but among these scholars who are here (about three hundred of them are in the Academy of Sciences, and there are thousands of scientists in total), which of them knows more about this field than I do? You ask why they did not make a physicist president of the Academy of Sciences. It would have been good if a physicist had become president of the Academy, but does a physicist know the history of science? Does a physicist know what science is? Mr. Masoumi Hamedani once said about me to a group, 'Davari knows more about science than all of you.' I thanked him. I was not worthy of such a statement. No one knows the history of science. We cannot just bring in a historian of science and make him president of the Academy. The president of the Academy must be someone who thinks about the 'problem of science,' is somewhat versed in politics and the relationship between science and politics, recognizes the place of the sciences, and knows what the sciences are and what they have done in the country. Ask, for example, about the social sciences in the country. Those who are in the Academy and are also present in politics know the history of social sciences in Iran and the history of the Islamic period better than I do. So, must they necessarily become president of the Academy simply because they know the history of social sciences in Iran? This thing you are saying, it is not that it is wrong, but it is one of the most unfair things you are saying.

In any case, this criticism has been leveled against you, and I wanted to have your response to this criticism.

The critic who says this speaks out of prejudice and opposition. Because he opposes me, he says Davari does not know the history of science as much as Ahmad Aram, Birashk, and Dr. Tajbakhsh. But knowing the history of science does not mean being a specialist in the history of science. The person who said this should go and read the article 'The Place of Philosophy in Islamic History' and my articles on the history of science. If he finds that in those articles, an uninformed person has said things about science and, for instance, does not know what Muhammad Zakariya al-Razi did and what his views were, then he can say his claim is correct. But for him to say, 'I do not like Davari, therefore Davari is ignorant and uneducated'—you should not cite his word.

I did not cite it. I said that that critic (Dr. Soroush), who has a deep familiarity with modern science and also has many supporters in Iran's intellectual community, has directed such a criticism at you, and what is your response?

He says this out of prejudice. He is the same person who uses foul language. Someone who uses foul language is not impartial toward me. He is the same person whose student said about me that a science-phobe has become the head of the Academy of Sciences. Consider these things and advise him that you are a man of letters and a scholar, you have fame, you are eloquent and an orator, but of course you understand nothing of politics and philosophy; you are a man of letters, and because you are a man of letters you can combine mysticism with analytical philosophy; if you were anything other than a man of letters, if you had entered the world of philosophy, you would understand that mysticism cannot be combined with analytical philosophy. Second, advise him that you are dealing with this in a hostile manner; do not deal with it hostilely; consider Davari as just one among others.

It seems you are very offended by the statement that "a science-phobe has become the head of the Academy of Sciences." Perhaps this statement stems from your deep connection to a philosophical current accused of science-phobia. So allow me to pose this question: Mr. Mirshakak, as one of Fardid's followers, has said: "We consider Einstein nothing more than an insect. No matter how effective he has been in the advancement of mathematics, mathematical physics, or the philosophy of science." As the head of the Academy of Sciences, what is your opinion on this statement by Mr. Mirshakak?

If you are going to link every piece of nonsense to a system, this is a sign of intellectual despotism and violence. Get this violence out of your mind. It is not the case that because Mirshakak said Einstein is an insect and Europeans are a bunch of insects, Davari has also said such a thing. If Fardid said something, it does not mean others have said the same thing. Everyone has their own taste. Sometimes things come out of people's mouths that are nonsense. Later they themselves realize what nonsense they have spoken. One can say to the speaker of these words, if they are insects, then who are these humans here, and what are they? This is the way of discussion. The way of discussion is not for you to take one word from Fardid and reject all of Fardid. Abandon this violence. People say good things, they say bad things, they make mistakes, they commit sins, they do good deeds. See each person in their own place. I am not responsible for anyone's words. I believe the world is the world of science, and one cannot oppose science. Can one oppose physics or Einstein? If it were not for Einstein's relativity, the new world would not be as it is. One cannot oppose science. The critique of science is another discussion, of course. Now, if someone's tone is bad, I am not responsible for their words.

I did not say you are responsible for Mr. Mirshakak's words. Since you and Mr. Mirshakak are both among Ahmad Fardid's students and you are the head of the Academy of Sciences, I wanted to get your opinion on this statement by Mirshakak against Albert Einstein. And you did state your opinion. You said that statement about Einstein is nonsense.

Thousands of people have been Fardid's students. Does that mean those who were Fardid's students should not become ministers or heads of organizations? Should they not hold any position? Should we expel from society anyone who had a connection with Fardid? One must bid farewell to this kind of thinking. Fardid did his own work. Fardid had such an influence on Ashouri that whatever Ashouri says is Fardidian. But you do not consider Ashouri a Fardidian because Ashouri has cursed Fardid. I do not curse Fardid, but that does not mean I accept everything Fardid said. God is my witness, kafa billahi shahida, that no one argued with Fardid as much as Dr. Jalili and I did. Not even Jahanbegloo. No one shouted and argued with Fardid except me.

These points you are making have nothing to do with my question; because I asked for your opinion on Mr. Mirshakak's statement, and in this interview, I have not made any criticism of Ahmad Fardid.

You showed enmity toward Fardid! I have no problem with criticism. Criticize as much as you want. Indeed, criticism is the custom of the new world, but you dealt with Fardid in a hostile manner.

I don't think one or two simple questions constitute violence and hostility. Anyway. My last question: as the president of the Academy of Sciences, and given your comprehensive knowledge of the state of science in the country, are you, on the whole, optimistic and hopeful about Iran's future?

Hope has a basis. A wish can encompass anything. Optimism is naivety. Pessimism is also a luxury and a whim. We can be neither pessimistic nor optimistic. We are hopeful in the sense that we wish for our country to move toward righteousness and for Iran to be prosperous and free. I understand your question very well, but I am deliberately not answering it.

So you are not hopeful.

Your question is a completely political question, and I do not answer political questions. Not that I don't have political views. I became the president of the Academy precisely because I have political views. If I were not familiar with politics, I could not have become the president of the Academy. In any case, in response to your question, I can only say that I am hopeful about Iran's future; in the sense that I wish a good future awaits Iran.

Why are you hopeful? That is, do you see the prerequisites for this hope in Iranian society as well?

Because Iran has the conditions to be prosperous and free. All these educated people, all these books cannot be ignored. In the last twenty years, perhaps ten thousand good books in philosophy and the humanities and social sciences have been translated. This is no small event. It is a sign and the groundwork for a major intellectual transformation in the country. But I am not in the position of researching the effects of this event. Scholars should conduct such research. In any case, when we think about Iran's future, there is no room for pessimism. That is, pessimism is unfounded. But not being pessimistic does not necessarily mean being optimistic. In any case, there is intellectual dynamism in Iranian society, and this is hopeful, but intellectual dynamism must reach self-awareness. I do not know how much of all these good books are read by the youth and what effect they have on them. On this matter, as I said, researchers must investigate.

Spring 2020