So important to watch and to analyse current developments through this presentation. Excellent critique of secular epistemology

@jelumbard

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you

Was this talk read from a paper that has been published, or has it been transcribed by any chance?

something wierd with the audio

@dionysis_

5 жыл бұрын

It is only on the left speaker and a bit distorted.

@jelumbard

5 жыл бұрын

Yeah the audio for the recording did not come out well. Not much I can do about that since I was not taping myself.

Thank you for the talk Joseph. A couple of comments if you don’t mind: 1) It seems to me that translating عقل (’aql) as intellect is problematic and produces the epistemic Westernisation you are commenting on. Al Ghazzali distinguishes between higher knowledge and intellectual knowledge as a qualitative difference not just a difference of degree. This distinction is at the core of Islamic epistemology. 2) You are right that Islamic thinkers should come forward and join the discussion through a genuine Islamic perspective. But they need to accept what other people think about them and prove the cohesion of their perspective in the discussion. Falling into identity politics and using terms such as whiteness, subordination, colonisation etc. is actually using philosophical ideas stemming from identity politics and Marxism. This is, again, doing the exact thing that your talk is trying to avoid. The way forward is, I believe, to discuss patiently and with dignity and humility, unconcerned about the effect of words on the lower Nafs. Instead of getting into a verbal fight using characterisations, demonstrate the Muslim character by resisting the temptation of mirroring this behaviour. Above all, engage with current speakers through the means available. I still haven't seen a Muslim scholar joining Joe Rogan's podcast for example, leaving people like 'Imam' Tawhidi being the spoke person for Islam. Best Wishes.

@yrobtsvt

5 жыл бұрын

I think your point #1 can be addressed by bringing in Rene Guenon's clarification and reintroduction of the traditional meaning of intellect. You're right that the word was hijacked by Cartesians, but there is a history of using intellectus as equivalent for ’aql in medieval Latin literature Your point #2 is complex. These days academics cannot simply say "hey, how about taking revelation seriously, there's a crazy idea but it might bear fruit". That way of thinking belongs to the 1960s and does not appeal to careful, critical readers anymore. Now we must make the case that the existing worldview of post-industrial societies *fails* to observe some basic truths about human nature -- i.e. that basic, shared truths may exist that could be seen best by those adopting a different worldview, but which are *systemically* *excluded* by the secular Western worldview. Because of this, we must reach into the identity politics toolbox at times. I think Wael Hallaq used the academic discourse of colonialism in an effective way in his new book. But I recognize that there are many pitfalls here.

@erfeyah1401

5 жыл бұрын

​@@yrobtsvt Thank you for your comment. I am not against reintroducing the meaning of the intellect but if that was to happen we would need to make the clarification every time we mention the word until the distinction is clear. I personally think using the current meaning of words is more effective and I would thus use something like 'intellectual knowledge' and 'higher knowledge' but I accept that this is up for debate. I should add that this is also the case in the manner the word Nafs is translated as soul completely misleading Western audience into thinking we are talking about something like spirit. Nafs is more accurately translated as self. For #2 this is exactly my point. You write "these days academics cannot simply say 'hey, how about taking revelation seriously?'". Why not? They should say what they really think and try to support it in discussion. If the support is intellectually weak it will fail, as it should. To me the idea of a 'toolkit' seems more like a rhetorical device to win an argument. People like Jordan Peterson and Jonathan Pageau are having this discussion for Christianity (while, in light of the absence of serious Muslim scholars, completely misunderstanding Islam). I don't see why Islamic thinkers can not just say "This is our presupposition and we are going to demonstrate why we believe in it but you have to take the time to understand the complex philosophical and mystical tradition of Islam.". There are thinkers like Al Ghazali that have claimed the existence of higher knowledge, point to scripture and the traditions while also having the (to the West essential) achievements and extraordinary psychological depth to back it up. Finally I don't believe the term 'systemic exclusion' is appropriate. The Western culture is the Western culture. Just as there is Western material that is not taught in the East, there is Eastern material that is not taught in the West. But it is certainly true that in the West the information is readily available for everyone interested to attend to. What should be asked is why are people not persuaded to attend to it? I would argue it is because there are no articulate, coherent, Islamic thinkers, active in the avenues of modern Western discourse.

@yrobtsvt

5 жыл бұрын

​@@erfeyah1401 This reply gives great food for thought. In my opinion rhetoric is an important expedient which can be used for dawah and lead to truth if it is used in the right way, but you are right to be concerned that academic cultural critique tends to obscure the truth and foster an irreverent attitude of suspicion. I did see this as a shortcoming of Hallaq's book as I was reading it. I don't have much to add and would like to hear from others, but a KZread comments section is probably a poor medium to continue discussing this at length. I hope in the future there will be an opportunity to deepen the development of Mr. Lumbard's program in a better moderated forum.

@jelumbard

5 жыл бұрын

@@yrobtsvt Though you and @Erfeyah have in fact had a very good discussion on KZread thus far--highly unusual for a KZread comments section indeed.

@MrBoogiePope

5 жыл бұрын

@@yrobtsvt apart from the Perennial revival of the intellectus/ratio distinction (Guénon took it Fabre d'Olivet's commentary on the Golden Verses, where there's a concise but precise critique of Kant's critiques, the 18th century French thinker being one of the 2-3 "modern" authors he respect) there's Amir-Moezzi, who's in the continuation of Henry Corbin, and talks of "hiero-intelligence", something supra-rational and cosmic which fits the Shi'a idea of wilayah and the "inner Imam" as transcendental nexus. Imo the problem with this convulsed terminology is that ends up taking out the primal simplicity of the Qur'anic world, even tho' we should somehow sanitize the terminology to indeed not get vulnerable to modern (which is often just modernist) epistemology.