According to Al-Farabi in The Book of Letters in society, theology comes out of the religion and religion comes out of philosophy (1). Al-Farabi goes on to explain the natural progression in a society. Firstly, he says that out of the multitude in society, philosophers are the only ones that are select because everyone else is only similar to them but they all originate from the philosophers (4) maintaining their importance in society. Then Al-Farabi goes back at starts from the beginning of the development in society to discuss how the multitude comes first, followed by language, and expressions and such (4-9). At this point, Society then turns to art (16). The five arts are rhetoric, poetry, capacity to memorize/recite, linguistics, and writing. As people master the arts, they begin to look for explanations of things around them (17) and then philosophy is born. As more things are perfected, society continues to evolve and then these arts are taught to people (19). Following teaching is lawgiving, meaning that the multitude are taught “theoretical intelligible” (19) through these representations because they are unable to understand in any other way. Then a group may start that wants to look more closely at religion. If the founder of the religion explains the bases of it’s philosophy than the group has nothing left to discuss (20). If the founder of religion is not upfront with the philosophy then theology develops as a way to interpret what the founder meant. When this occurs, so does the opportunity for false opinions of that religion. Those who follow this religion “will be unaware of it’s corruption” (21). When this corruption takes place, religion and philosophy become completely opposed (22). Nations may inherit religions or create them but the problem is that if the religion is based on false philosophy and the nation incorporates it into the law then philosophy will be forbidden “because the religion that the lawgiver has given them was a corrupt and ignorant” (23) one. Therefore, nations should not forbid philosophy because since philosophy precedes religion it is the way to discover the corruption and untrue about religion.
Philosophy is superior to theology because theology only studies these corrupt religions while philosophy studies the ideas behind the religions. Theology also has the capability of being corrupt while philosophy does not because it would not fall victim to the false philosophies as religion and therefore theology has.
-Heather Lothrop
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I am interested in Al-Farabi’s comment that when finding a religion in which adherents do not take note of philosophy, the philosophers “take care not to oppose the religion itself” and instead bring to question the religious adherents relation to philosophy (22). The philosophers must show the religious followers that their religion does contain similes. The point he makes demonstrates a clear respect for knowledge and the need to dialogue, not ignore, a religion that tries to ignore philosophy. Certainly this dialogue is necessary to find truth.
I thought the idea of the select was interesting. I couldn't understand if the philosophers were the chosen ones or if people could become select through reason or theology. In note 111, Al-Farabi says that theologians are select in comparison to the multitude, but philosophers are select in comparison to everyone in any nation (3). So that statement backs up his earlier argument that theology comes after philosophy which comes after religion. So philosophers are closer to the truth and more select than theologians.
While reading Heather's entry I could not help but make a connection to the critical thinking exercise #3. Al-Farabi somehow explains the idea behind the quote from Descartes that we were given. I am not sure if Descartes' piece was based on Al-Farabi's writing, but now I understand why he wrote that proof for the existence of God and the soul should be given using philosophy, not theology. To blindly believe in something (God) is never a good think, but if the belief comes from the understanding of the essence of that thing then it's all good.
When I was reading Al Farabi's Medieval Islamic Philosophy Writings I missed a concept that was bought up in class on Tuesday. This simple concept was how Farabi argues that philosophy is based off of religion. I never made that connection but I believe that they are very closely connected. I seems as though I should have made that connection early from The Last Days of Socrates but I never realized that in those excerpts religion affected many actions and ideas that Socrates did.
It is interesting to note that, in spite of the Islamic background from which Al-Farabi comes, his ideas are fundamentally Western-- his discussion of the "intelligible" and the "perceptible" is similar to Plato's discourse on the realm of the eidos and the realm of the phenomena, respectively. Heather mentions Al-Farabi's choice to include such allusion. However, what I found interesting is the fundamental difference between Al-Farabi's argument and Plato's argument for perceptual reality-- while Al-Farabi stipulates that the perceptible precedes the intelligible, Plato suggests the opposite. To Plato, the eidos is the ontological and epistemological cause for all objects in the concrete realm. Nonetheless, both Al-Farabi and Plato contextualize their respective views- both philosophers apply their arguments to law and society at large.
I find that it is important to have a philosophical understanding of these religions and not base your knowledge on just theological understandings. Basing on just theological can lead to false assumptions and 'facts' that one would totally oppose any philosophical or counter argument. They would shout out 'blasphemer' to the philosophical people.
I think that it is important to note that the superiority of philosophy over theology is relevant because philosophy goes beyond simply studying religion into the realm of the ideological foundation within religion. Also, theology has succumbed to many falsities and is ultimately capable of being corrupt to suffice a particular part of religion. Therefore, theology is subordinate to the influence of philosophy and its teachings.
Post a Comment