Muslim theologian and philosopher Abu Hamid al-Ghazali of Persia worked to systematize Sufism, Islamic mysticism, and in The Incoherence of the Philosophers (1095) argued the incompatibility of thought of Plato and Aristotle with Islam.
Born in 1058, Ab奴 岣つ乵id Mu岣mmad ibn Mu岣mmad al-Ghaz膩l墨 ranked of the most prominent and influential Sunni jurists of his origin.
Islamic tradition considers him to be a Mujaddid, a renewer of the faith who, according to the prophetic hadith, appears once every century to restore the faith of the ummah ("the Islamic Community"). His works were so highly acclaimed by his contemporaries that al-Ghazali was awarded the honorific title "Proof of Islam" (Hujjat al-Islam).
Al-Ghazali believed that the Islamic spiritual tradition had become moribund and that the spiritual sciences taught by the first generation of Muslims had been forgotten.[24] That resulted in his writing his magnum opus entitled Ihya 'ulum al-din ("The Revival of the Religious Sciences"). Among his other works, the Tah膩fut al-Fal膩sifa ("Incoherence of the Philosophers") is a significant landmark in the history of philosophy, as it advances the critique of Aristotelian science developed later in 14th-century Europe.
It is amazing that someone writing so long ago and in such a different culture can so accurately pinpoint what is wrong with 'modern' thinking. It is also intriguing to get an insight into the era when Islamic culture was the flower of civilization.
I read this while reading Borges's Ficciones, and it's a wonderful, brain treat combination! There's a lot of philosophical subjects in this book, sometimes it took me hours to read and understand a few lines. So, this is not an appropriate place to discuss the whole book, that's why there's a whole other book as a reply on it! What was the most beautiful for me is how the author, a religious man, 600 hundreds years before Galileo published his book, talks about how the earth is a globe and it circulates around the sun, and the moon acutely radiates the light from the sun and the eclipse happens when the moon comes between the sun and the earth. Then he adds that this need not to be discussed because it has been proven as a fact through math and geometry!! Later he also talks about how long the earth needs to orbit the sun, and how long the other planets need. And which part of the brain is responsible for the Imagination and so on!
Extraordinary for its facile arguments for defending faith over reason while using fact free assertions. Al-Ghazali knows as a first principle that anything that disagrees with his Islamic faith is by definition wrong.
Each of Kant鈥檚 antinomies are given a definitive answer by Al-Ghazali.
I realize the previous sentence might not be readily understandable by everyone who reads it. So, I am forced to needlessly elaborate. In Kant鈥檚 First Critique, he has four statements (theses) and their contrary (anti-theses) which can be shown to be as true as the original assertion. Simply, they were 1) is time infinite or finite, 2) are things simple or complex, 3) is the world deterministic or determined and 4) is existence necessary or contingent.
Al-Ghazali in his world of pretending to know things that he can鈥檛 possibly know without explanations gives the answer he wants to each antinomy and shows philosophy always wrong when it differs with his version of revealed truth.
There is a lot of sloppy philosophy that he sprinkles about, and this author clearly acts like he understands the answers to the great questions. Modern religious folk would tend to love this book because his answers fall within the three major revealed religions (Islam, Christianity and Judaism).
Angels are real to him. They are intellects without material, form without matter, a whatness without thatness (I just brought Scotus in with that terminology and he postdates Al-Ghazali), substance without accidents (Aristotle is assumed understood in this book).
惭补颈尘辞苍颈诲别蝉鈥� Guide for the Perplex and Aquinas鈥� Summa Theologia each assume angels make sense but for them reason precedes faith and there is method to their systems. They, for example, reach the same conclusions as Al-Ghazali, but they at least have reason supporting them. Al-Ghazali does not. I enjoyed their books while only finding this book amusing and a diversion.
Avicenna is the real villain in this book. Al-Ghazali鈥檚 God must have given us free-will (in order to be able to damn us for eternity), and our souls continue after death, and intuition is not sufficient while a piece of cotton burns because God makes it so, and the particular gives a general leading to the universal, thus God controls and knows everything because he is all-knowing. I鈥檓 going to jump ahead two hundred years and tell you William of Occam shows that the universal is superfluous, and, for example, we can understand what a horse is, and a group of horses are, but horseness is superfluous.
Al-Ghazali needs the universal. He also rejects the possibility of an infinite regress and claims it can鈥檛 exist, within a finite set he鈥檚 right, but when dealing with an infinite such as God, or time and space, or causality, or existence an infinite regress possibly can exist. Taking all the rational numbers (a countable infinite) out of the line segment from zero to one, the line still has a measure of 1. Finite rules are different when applied to the infinite. Kant鈥檚 antimonies destroy the facile logic of Al-Ghazali, and everyone of Al-Ghazali鈥檚 assertions are sublimated within Kant鈥檚 antinomies.
Al-Ghazali wrongly makes existence a predicate. He has to in order to give credence to his ontological certainty of a simple non-composite God who freely created a universe out of nothing because He wanted to. Avicenna says that the world was always here, first as the thought of God and then created ex-nihilo. Al-Ghazali disagrees and makes existence a predicate and gives the world a starting point, but doesn鈥檛 for God since for him God always existed.
I can鈥檛 really emphasize enough how juvenile Al-Ghazali鈥檚 arguments really are (I put them at the sophistication level of William Lane Craig, and that means they are nothing but sophistry and begging the question apologia) and how they would only convince the already convinced and already believers in revealed religions.
Unfortunately for the Lost Enlightenment: Central Asia's Golden Age from the Arab Conquest to Tamerlane (see Starr鈥檚 book with that title for further amplification) this book clearly puts the kibosh on original thinking and will make it anathema for progress.
A whole swath of modern religious American Christians would absolutely love this book because there is very little that Al-Ghazali speaks about that they would disagree with, and only what he doesn鈥檛 speak about such as the trinity, the divinity of Jesus and his miracles would they find offensive by omission.
Al-Ghazali takes miracle as a certainty in the world and thinks that the cotton burns only because God makes it so, or the prophet Abraham did not burn in the furnace because God made it so.
It was as if we were in the Bishop Berkeley or Leibnitz鈥檚 world, or a world without causation similar to David Hume鈥檚 take of the world. Remember, Kant鈥檚 First Critique can be called a synthesis of Berkeley and Leibniz meshed with Hume (see the Bernstein Tapes on the First Critique for a support of that statement).
This book is actually very easy to follow since it lacks sophistication. The low rating is not because it's complex which it is not but because it is a simplistic book and mostly would appeal to those who are already certain in their beliefs in things they pretend to know already. Certainty does not allow for progress, and Al-Ghazali provides no avenue for growth. Maimonides, Aquinas, Duns Scotus, Berkeley write books with similar conclusions, but they educate the reader and give them something more than bromides.
very challengin book. must admit i foudn this very tough and had to skip cast sections as it was way over my head. its ghazalis famous rebuttal to a selection of philosophers on certain stances they took on certain issues like the preeternity of the world, their disbelief int he physcial resurrection of humanity on the day of judgement and aht gods knowledge does not encompass the temporal existants among individuals (what they do on a micro level ithink that means). certinaly got me thinking in places adn vertainly interesting but way too challenign for me.
Filozoflar谋n Tutars谋zl谋臒谋'nda Gazali direkt olarak 陌bni Sina'y谋, dolayl谋 olarak Aristoteles'i yirmi konuda ele艧tiriyor. Bu konular aras谋nda Gazali'nin hemfikir oldu臒u konular da var. Gazali'nin as谋l amac谋 bu fikirlerin ge莽ersizli臒ini ortaya koymak de臒il, ak谋l y眉r眉tmenin ger莽e臒e ula艧mada yetkin bir y枚ntem olmad谋臒谋n谋 g枚stermek. Gazali bunu yaparken din adam谋 kimli臒ini bir kenara b谋rak谋yor ve bu konular谋 bir filozof edas谋yla ele al谋yor. 脰nce 陌bni Sina'n谋n g枚r眉艧lerini anlat谋yor, sonra kendi itirazlar谋n谋 s枚yl眉yor. Sonra kendi yapt谋臒谋 itiraza 陌bni Sina'n谋n a臒z谋ndan tekrar cevap veriyor, bu b枚yle devam edip gidiyor. Gazali'yi bu kitab谋 yazmak i莽in motive eden 陌bni Sina'n谋n baz谋 g枚r眉艧lerinin 陌slam'a ayk谋r谋 olmas谋, ama tart谋艧谋rken kulland谋臒谋 arg眉man bu de臒il. Gazali'nin yapt谋臒谋 艧ey ele ald谋臒谋 konularda filozoflar谋n iddialar谋na getirdikleri kan谋tlar谋n yetersiz veya 莽eli艧kili olduklar谋n谋 g枚stermek. Filozoflar谋n iddias谋 tanr谋n谋n varl谋臒谋 olsun veya ruhun 枚l眉ms眉zl眉臒眉 olsun, Gazali radikal bir din adam谋 olmas谋na ra臒men yeri geldi臒inde bu g枚r眉艧lerin tam tersini savunur. Onun g枚stermek istedi臒i 艧ey do臒ru bilgiye ak谋l yoluyla ula艧谋lamayaca臒谋, ak谋l y眉r眉tmenin her y枚ne 莽ekilebilece臒i, do臒ru bilginin tek kayna臒谋n谋n vahiy oldu臒udur.
Bu kitaba be艧 y谋ld谋z vermememin nedeni Gazali'nin g枚r眉艧眉n眉 payla艧mam de臒il, bu kitab谋n entelekt眉el zekan谋n doruk noktalar谋ndan birine 枚rnek te艧kil etmesi. Bu kitab谋 anlamak i莽in Aristoteles metafizi臒ini bilmek zorunlu.