1) In the first preface, the writer notes that the philosophers theories are "unconfirmed by faith". This doesnt make sense to me? How is anything CONFIRMED by faith? For me, faith is the acceptance that what is being believed cannot be confirmed. 2) Averroea had an interesting take on whether or not Muslims are obliged to take scripture at its face value. Averroes argues that Muslims are too reason through the scripture, and parse through double meanings as a scientific pursuit.
1. Al-Ghazali offers an astonishing scathing refutation of the Ancient philosophers and of their reason. He states, "they base their judgements on conjecture and speculation , unaided by positive inquiry and unconfirmed by faith" (209). He also states that there attachment to the truth is a sort of intellectual bondage that that causes self-deception and describes this as a stupidity. In this brief reading I can see the shift away from placing such a high value on reason and instead relying more on faith as a predecessor to the condemnations of 1277.
2. Averroes offers a good defense of reason in response to Al-Ghazali and in his defense he points to the importance of reason in forming the basis of true understanding religious faith. He states: "To master this instrument the religious thinker must make a preliminary study of logic, just as the lawyer must study legal reasoning. This is no more heretical in the one case than in the other. And logic must be learned from the ancient masters, regardless of the fact that they were not Muslims" (213).
It's hard for me to understand how mulsims are supposed to use reason through scripture. It seems like this is why their is different branches of the faith, for example beliviing who can be the predosessor to Muhammad. I also see the value in this way of thinkining because it makes you confim your belifies more when you truly work though the writings and come to your own conclusions.
I see this again when Al-Ghzali cretquies ancient philosphers by using the fact they use reason over faith. At the end of the day when you use reason to come to a meaning you hold that understanding to heart because you came to the answer. I feel like for me personaly it gives me more understanding then having blind faith.
Al-Ghazali seems to have the same problem with philosophy that all fundamentalists (Christian, Muslim, or otherwise) have, which is they feel as though philosophy is more of a threat to the theological health of their community than it is a benefit to it. I think it’s interesting that the divide among religious scholars could be so dramatic, some like Averroes and Avicenna who Al-Ghazali took aim at, believe not only that philosophy can help strengthen one’s religion, but even be (as Averroes responds) an obligation of one’s religion.
It also seems as though Averroes spends just as much of his time “housekeeping” and explaining what his opponents have misunderstood about philosophy and philosophers as he does actually arguing points in favor of philosophy. Although philosophy is not usually the target, this is a pattern that still exists today, when one authority, religious or not, will present a claim as if it were true, although it is only a single interpretation that has a legitimate opposition.
Youssef Maklad 1. I feel as though somebody like Al-Ghanzali was almost destined to appear and respond to the medievals. So much of the medieval philosophy we have discussed in this class comes out of a desire to connect scripture and faith to reason. This will never work. On some level, you just have to have faith, either do that or abandon faith for reason. I think both approaches are equally valid but so much of medieval philosophy has been trying to do both. They remain so rational until religion comes into the equation and there left making conclusions they know premises don't warrant. So someone had to give up philosophy in favor of faith and that person was Al-Ghanzali. 2. I can't help but feel as though Averroes didn't properly refute some form of skepticism in his response. Skepticism seems to evolve out of a rational mind set and its that mindset that lead AL-Ghanzali to have his crisis of faith and to abdondan philosophy. He refuted other claims but I feel as though unless he did something to quell a radical skepticism it was all in vain.
I find the concept of some groups of Islam using their scripture to reason to be interesting. In general religion preaches having faith in a God and believing they will help deliver without physical proof. Usually the use of reason is not acknowledged because faith is all that is generally required. It makes sense to me however that they preach using the Quran to reason because it strengthens one’s faith.
The view Al-Ghazali has towards philosophy one is I find to be common amongst people who practice religion. They see philosophy as something that can only oppose their religion because philosophy usually relies on reason alone and under values the concept of faith. I also find it interesting however how some philosophers are able to weave religion into philosophy.
This was an interesting read because it shed light on how people really search for validation in religions. many times it seems like faith do not follow very strong logic but it seems this piece is searching for that logic or reason.
i do not know how plausible or effective this approach is though because to have the amount of faith in a religion that most have, the reasoning and logic are often absent in order to make space and way for all of the faith and belief that is required to truly believe. if that were the case, where the two can be distinguished, there would be far less believers.
1) In the first preface, the writer notes that the philosophers theories are "unconfirmed by faith". This doesnt make sense to me? How is anything CONFIRMED by faith? For me, faith is the acceptance that what is being believed cannot be confirmed.
ReplyDelete2) Averroea had an interesting take on whether or not Muslims are obliged to take scripture at its face value. Averroes argues that Muslims are too reason through the scripture, and parse through double meanings as a scientific pursuit.
1. Al-Ghazali offers an astonishing scathing refutation of the Ancient philosophers and of their reason. He states, "they base their judgements on conjecture and speculation , unaided by positive inquiry and unconfirmed by faith" (209). He also states that there attachment to the truth is a sort of intellectual bondage that that causes self-deception and describes this as a stupidity. In this brief reading I can see the shift away from placing such a high value on reason and instead relying more on faith as a predecessor to the condemnations of 1277.
ReplyDelete2. Averroes offers a good defense of reason in response to Al-Ghazali and in his defense he points to the importance of reason in forming the basis of true understanding religious faith. He states: "To master this instrument the religious thinker must make a preliminary study of logic, just as the lawyer must study legal reasoning. This is no more heretical in the one case than in the other. And logic must be learned from the ancient masters, regardless of the fact that they were not Muslims" (213).
It's hard for me to understand how mulsims are supposed to use reason through scripture. It seems like this is why their is different branches of the faith, for example beliviing who can be the predosessor to Muhammad. I also see the value in this way of thinkining because it makes you confim your belifies more when you truly work though the writings and come to your own conclusions.
ReplyDeleteI see this again when Al-Ghzali cretquies ancient philosphers by using the fact they use reason over faith. At the end of the day when you use reason to come to a meaning you hold that understanding to heart because you came to the answer. I feel like for me personaly it gives me more understanding then having blind faith.
Al-Ghazali seems to have the same problem with philosophy that all fundamentalists (Christian, Muslim, or otherwise) have, which is they feel as though philosophy is more of a threat to the theological health of their community than it is a benefit to it. I think it’s interesting that the divide among religious scholars could be so dramatic, some like Averroes and Avicenna who Al-Ghazali took aim at, believe not only that philosophy can help strengthen one’s religion, but even be (as Averroes responds) an obligation of one’s religion.
ReplyDeleteIt also seems as though Averroes spends just as much of his time “housekeeping” and explaining what his opponents have misunderstood about philosophy and philosophers as he does actually arguing points in favor of philosophy. Although philosophy is not usually the target, this is a pattern that still exists today, when one authority, religious or not, will present a claim as if it were true, although it is only a single interpretation that has a legitimate opposition.
Youssef Maklad
ReplyDelete1. I feel as though somebody like Al-Ghanzali was almost destined to appear and respond to the medievals. So much of the medieval philosophy we have discussed in this class comes out of a desire to connect scripture and faith to reason. This will never work. On some level, you just have to have faith, either do that or abandon faith for reason. I think both approaches are equally valid but so much of medieval philosophy has been trying to do both. They remain so rational until religion comes into the equation and there left making conclusions they know premises don't warrant. So someone had to give up philosophy in favor of faith and that person was Al-Ghanzali.
2. I can't help but feel as though Averroes didn't properly refute some form of skepticism in his response. Skepticism seems to evolve out of a rational mind set and its that mindset that lead AL-Ghanzali to have his crisis of faith and to abdondan philosophy. He refuted other claims but I feel as though unless he did something to quell a radical skepticism it was all in vain.
I find the concept of some groups of Islam using their scripture to reason to be interesting. In general religion preaches having faith in a God and believing they will help deliver without physical proof. Usually the use of reason is not acknowledged because faith is all that is generally required. It makes sense to me however that they preach using the Quran to reason because it strengthens one’s faith.
ReplyDeleteThe view Al-Ghazali has towards philosophy one is I find to be common amongst people who practice religion. They see philosophy as something that can only oppose their religion because philosophy usually relies on reason alone and under values the concept of faith. I also find it interesting however how some philosophers are able to weave religion into philosophy.
From: Christopher Atuahene
This was an interesting read because it shed light on how people really search for validation in religions. many times it seems like faith do not follow very strong logic but it seems this piece is searching for that logic or reason.
ReplyDeletei do not know how plausible or effective this approach is though because to have the amount of faith in a religion that most have, the reasoning and logic are often absent in order to make space and way for all of the faith and belief that is required to truly believe. if that were the case, where the two can be distinguished, there would be far less believers.