From Our Philosophy (I) - Theory of Knowledge

Theory of Knowledge is known as Epistemology or Shenakht Shenasi (in Farsi). The basic questions in this branch of philosophy are: What is the nature of knowledge? How do we know what we know? How can we be sure about the things that we know? How do we prove the connection between what we know in our mind and what is out there in reality?

For example, how do you know that you are not dreaming all what you are experiencing now? How do you know for sure that right now you not are dreaming about reading from a computer screen?!

Our brains only receive signals through our five/six senses; they are not in direct touch with the essence of reality that is out there. How do we know that reality does exist out there and it's not a creation of my mind, or of some evil genius (as Descartes described in his elaboration of the problem). Think about the movie Matrix, which uses a similar idea!

Shaheed Sadr has discussed these questions in Our Philosophy in various sections. Although, he does not devote much time on expounding the theory of knowledge as developed in the Islamic tradition, his criticism of western philosophy gives us some idea of what an alternative epistemology would be like. His brief introduction to the "Dispossession Theory" as developed in the tradition of Islamic philosophy could be seen in Part I, chapter one of Our Philosophy. Readers of Farsi and Arabic should find more material about this theory in Allama Tabatabai's The Principles of Philosophy and the Method of Realism, which I quoted in the previous post.


In the next few posts, I will share some critical passages from Our Philosophy on specific philosophical thoughts.

SELF AND BEYOND

So this joke came up in a conversation yesterday. On Descartes' famous argument, Cogito Ergo Sum, that is, ‘I think, therefore, I am’.

Descartes walks into a bar. The bartender walks up to him and says, "Would you care for a drink?" Descartes replies, "I think not," and disappears!!!

Joke aside, there are obvious problems with this argument. Does it really solve the problem of proving one's existence, philosophically speaking that is? Let me step back for a moment and quickly introduce Descartes' philosophical method, known as the Cartesian Method, which he meant to use in meta-physics (meaning: beyond physics), to establish a sound basis of knowledge/truth and to prove the existence of things, including those that are beyond matter, such as the existence of God and Soul.

Cartesian Method starts from a 'methodical doubt' about everything you previously believed in, including the laws of science, mathematical principles, and moral principles, even the belief (yaqeen) in your own existence. This method demands that you start from zero. Starting off at this point of nothing-ness, Descartes sought to prove his own existence by arguing that he knows for sure that he thinks. Even when he is in doubt, he is thinking. And an existence is required to do this thinking. Therefore, he must exist.

The obvious problem with Descartes' argument is that he assumes his own existence in the premise, that is, in the very first proposition of his argument. Let me quote a passage here from Shaheed Baqir Sadr's wonderful book, Our Philosophy (here), where Sadr makes a compelling critique of this argument, using Ibn Sina's (Avicenna) work.

"To begin with, we must know that the fundamental principle on which Descartes based his doctrine and philosophical certitude, 'I think, therefore, I exist', was criticized in Islamic philosophy a few centuries prior to Descartes' time. Ash-Shaykh ar-Ra'is, Ibn Sina, presented it and criticized it as being unfit as a method of scientific evidence for the existence of the human thinker himself.

A human being cannot prove his existence by means of his thought. This is so, because if by saying, 'I think, therefore, l exist', he wishes to prove his existence by means of his specific thought only, then he proves his specific existence at the outset and admits his existence in the very first phrase.

If, on the other hand, he wishes to make the absolute thought as an evidence of his existence, he is at fault, because an absolute thought asserts the existence of an absolute thinker, not a specific thinker.

Thus, the specific existence of every thinker must be known to him in a primary manner, regardless of any considerations, including his doubt and his thought."

Source: Our Philosophy by Baqir Sadr. Trans. Shams C. Inati. Part I, Chap 2 "The Value of Knowledge."

Later, Shaheed Sadr argues that even within the limitations of his logic of Methodical Doubt, Descartes couldn't have made a valid connection between his thought and his existence, without already believing in causality. That is, the simple and most fundamental principle that says that you need a cause to produce an effect. For the thinking (effect) to happen, you need a cause (a thinking being), Descartes assumed. But how could he take this principle for granted, if he is starting off at point zero, at nothing-ness? Hence, Shaheed Sadr argues that his Cartesian Method cannot take him a single step beyond this nothing-ness, unless he starts off with believing in a priori knowledge or self-evident truth of some fundamental principles.

Although a failed epistemology in itself, the Cartesian Method, more specifically the ‘methodical doubt,’ has inspired the thinking of many among the later theorists, not only in the fields of metaphysics and moral philosophy but also in philosophy of science, scientific research method, and even social sciences and humanities. The ‘methodical doubt’ leads to a kind of skepticism, or agnosticism if you will, if it remains unresolved. Of course, the politics of the time, that is, the 'Dark Ages' preceding the 'enlightenment movement', in which the Church suppressed free thinking and scientific knowledge, also had its influence on the preference for this mode of thinking (see Shaheed Mutahhari's related article(s) here on the causes of materialism in the west). I will write more on this and also quote a few passages from Our Philosophy in the following posts.

Here I want to emphasize on the following point: The theory of knowledge is at the roots of some of the very fundamental questions that we ask about our existence: a) Who am I? b) How do I see the world around me? c) What is the meaning of life? In other words, these questions refer to the knowledge of self, of the world, its Creator, the meaning and purpose of life, how should we interact with each other, what is the best social system to organize our societies, on what principles.

Shaheed Sadr recognizes the importance of theory of knowledge in Our Philosophy. His introduction entitled, “The Social Issue”, tells the reader that he is interested in addressing the social problems of society, but which, he thinks, cannot be solved in a meaningful manner without solving the problem of knowledge. Shaheed Sadr intended to solve this in Our Philosophy, which was meant to be the first of (at least) three books series, the second of which was Our Economics. Unfortunately, due to Saddam Hussein’s persecution and circumstances of the time Shaheed Sadr was never able to publish the third one, Our Society.

An important implication to consider is this: If Cartesian Method of Doubt or Hume’s Empiricist Epistemology or Dialectical Materialism (all of these are discussed/criticized by Shaheed Sadr in the same book) become the basis of our scientific and philosophical knowledge, they have their effects in shaping our social reality in a certain manner (which is what we are seeing today, as in, for e.g., the secular vs. religious divide in the scientific outlook and moral reasoning as seen in our textbooks. More on this in some post later on, inshallah).

The place to start therefore would be to develop alternative basis of knowledge, to discover such basis within our Islamic tradition and in benefiting from the philosophies of other civilizations. It would be a knowledge base that could effectively bridge the modern divides between secular and religious, rational and emotional, material and spiritual, and so on. Mulla Sadra and Allama Tabatabai's works could be seen as representatives of the tradition of Irfan, which seeks to bring together philosophy and spiritual experiences in the quest for knowledge and truth. Mulla Sadra and Allama Tabatabai's works could be seen as representatives of this tradition. Allama Tabatabai is the author of the famous Al-Mizan, a wonderful exegesis of the Quran, and the book 'Usool Falsifae va Ravish-e-Realism' (The Principles of Philosophy and the Method of Realism). Shaheed Mutahhari, who was Allama Tabatabai's student, later added his hashiyeh or notes to this book.

Both Shaheed Sadr and Shaheed Mutahhari presented a Rational/Realistic theory of knowledge, formulated in opposition to an idealistic/fatalistic worldview on the one hand and a purely materialistic worldview on the other. Their theory of knowledge informed their analysis of many philosophical as well as social problems, as seen in, for example, their works on Human Free Will, on Hamasa (struggle for social justice) and Irfan, and on History and Social Change. Mutahhari: 'Man and His Destiny', 'Man and Universe', and Sadr: 'Trends of History in Quran', on the Realistic worldview, see Part Two, Chap One of Our Philosophy.

The Movie "300": A Critical Review by Hamid Dabashi

Here is an excerpt from Hamid Dabashi's provocative review of the movie "300" that I read yesterday. It's quite insightful about the power and trickery with which media can actively shape and manipulate images in the minds of the public.

Those interested might also like to read his review of Azar Nafisi's Reading Lolita in Tehran that was predicated on the same critique of Orientalist imagery and its contemporary link to power and dominance. See my post on Orientalism here. I also mentioned this movie in another post (here) which was on the role the global media (like Hollywood) plays in establishing the cultural/ideological hegemony that Dabashi speaks about.

------------ --------- ---------
The '300' Stroke

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/856/cu1.htm

"The peculiar manner in which the visual Imperium of 300 operates in the post-9/11 George Bush led imperialism is by an act of emotive reversal, projecting the American imperial practice back in time and space to something called "the Persians" and instead assuming the identity of a band of Spartan soldiers that now speak and act on behalf of "the West" -- the imperial provenance of American identity. In this emotive swap, the US as "the West" wants to have its cake and eat it too -- act as the Achamanid (what they call "Persian") Empire did but assume it is a small band of Spartans defending freedom and democracy against a horde of foreign invaders. Flaunting and flexing the most deadly military machinery in human history, the US can now partake in the delusional feat that Miller and Snyder have cooked up for it to see itself as a small band of guerrilla fighters resisting a predatory empire. Here "the Persians" mutate and stand for (among other things) what the terrorising propaganda machinery of the US empire calls "Islamofascism" .

Cinema is a miraculous (for those who abuse it treacherously) medium. It reverses angle on you (the filmmaker) without your even noticing it. Snyder has gone through all this trouble and these expenses to demonise an ancient and forgotten empire only to give a perfect picture of the empire in which he lives and which he, however inadvertently, serves -- just lower the loud volume of 300 and watch it and ask yourself between Bush and an anonymous leader of Iraqi resistance who has more claim to Xerxes and who to Leonidas?

Leonidas' mission in Snyder's 300 is an act of suicidal violence -- a suicidal violence that if performed by white people in remote corners of history is heroic but if by Palestinians or Iraqis then it becomes sign of barbarism. So what Miller/Snyder effectively want is yet another example of having their cake and eating it too -- stealing the strategy of suicidal violence from those desperate measures of resisting imperialism of one sort (US) or another (Israel) and cast the enemy as imperial. It is a complete reversal of fact to make spectacular fantasy -- stealing resistance of the poor coloured folks and white--identifying it, while projecting your own imperial barbarity to some remote point in history and calling it The Enemy, "The Persians". This is a remarkable act of reversal, a projection backward. You become the enemy you abhor and you catapult the abhorrence you are to your enemy. 300 thus amounts to a CGI-engineered sense of tragedy and valour for an otherwise carnivorous empire that has just inflicted unfathomable pain and suffering on millions of Afghans and Iraqis.

What Snyder actually portrays (for the whole world to see) is the best picture of the US army in action. That monstrosity that Snyder pictures marching towards Thermopylae is the American empire -- and that band of brothers that stood up to that monstrosity are those resisting this empire: they are the Iraqi resistance, the Palestinians, Hizbullah. Thermopylae, in 300, becomes a floating signifier. "The West", Miller and Snyder, have no control over it. 300 is thus too smart a thievery for its own good. It is a robbery completely -- from beginning to end -- caught on closed caption camera. Today the Palestinian, Lebanese, and Iraqi resistance to US/Israel imperial warmongering have a far more legitimate claim on being the Spartans of their time than Americans, British, or Italians do.

The reversed projection of Miller-Snyder, now seeking to provide the Bush-Cheney project with an ideological hegemony they otherwise lack, ipso facto casts a claim on the absolutist militarist culture anachronistically attributed to the Spartans -- all narrated around their presumed infanticide practices, where children deemed useless to the military culture were killed at birth. This is Fukuyama's "end of history" thesis in a nutshell -- where the only citizens worth living are citizen soldiers. There is a scene in Snyder's 300 where King Leonidas makes fun of a regiment of Greek soldiers that has come to help him in the battle. He asks the Greek soldiers what their professions are. They respond by stating their ordinary professions before they became soldiers. He then turns to his soldiers and asks them the same questions, and they respond in unison that they are all nothing but soldiers. This is not just the end of history. This is the end of humanity. This is the US military projected back into history -- a professional and heavily privatised army entirely divorced from the will and wishes of a polity and a democracy that does not have to invest its own sons and daughters in its military adventurism.

"The term "Persian" in both Miller's comic book and Snyder's gory tale is much in need of decoding. Iranians of "the Persian Diaspora" persuasion are presuming too much thinking that it refers just to them. Having opted to call themselves "Persian" ever since the American Hostage Crisis of 1979-1980, Iranians have failed to watch carefully and read Snyder's "Persians". They are not just Iranians. Look at them carefully. They are also Arabs, Indians, Turks, Afghans, South and East Asians and Latinos. They are also gays, lesbians, and transvestites. Snyder's "Persians" are the nightmares of the White Christian America, the semiotic summations of all their undesirable elements -- all the racialised minorities, all the vilified foreigners, all demonised in the interest of a white gang of patriarchal warriors who do not hesitate even to kill their own children if they fail the military standard of thuggish buffoonery. Look also carefully at the graphics of Miller and the cinematography of Snyder. The Spartans are not just that. There is a blatant Christian Christological disposition about King Leonidas and his soldiers. In one final frame where King Leonidas and his Spartan soldiers are lying dead after the battle is over there is a powerful portrayal of a crucifix that unmistakably invokes the European tradition from Michelangelo to Titian, Tintoretto and El Greco. Miller and Snyder's King Leonidas is the alter ego of Christ running amuck. There is a Dantean demonology about the manner in which Miller and Snyder depict the entirety of the world they hate for being other than white, male, Christian, and heterosexual (the only woman in 300, Queen Gorgo, is a cut in her warmongering between Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, Maryam Rajavi and Condoleezza Rice -- all coming together to provide the German Gestapo ideal of womanhood).

But we, the demonised minorities that Snyder sees like monsters swarming around him, can look back through his own camera and reverse his angle. To this "Persian", that weird looking giant coming down from his throne to meet with the leader of the resistance looks amazingly like Bush going to Iraq for a quick visit -- and those obsequious "immortals" bending to accommodate his feet on their backs remind me of the members of the US congress abrogating their constitutional responsibilities and consenting to an immoral and illegal war against Afghanistan and Iraq. Fearful of all the racialised minorities in and out of the United States -- Jews, Muslims, Asians, Africans, Latinos -- gathering storm around his white-washed racism, Snyder has quite unbeknownst to himself given a perfect picture of the way the world sees Bush's army. He could not possibly have been more accurate.

* The writer is a professor of Iranian studies and comparative literature at Columbia University in New York."

Pearls of Wisdom from Imam Ali

On this felicitous occasion of the birth anniversary of Imam Ali, I copy below some of his profound sayings that were quoted in the 2002 Arab Human Development Report, published by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). As the title suggests, this report is an account of the current social, political, and economic conditions (including education, human rights, governance, and poverty related issues) of the Arab/Muslim world.

While reading these sayings any discerning eye can notice that they are as relevant and instructive today as they were fourteen hundred years ago. These are the hidden treasures of Islam, full of universal truths, profound wisdom, and comprehensive guidance. They can be the guiding principles upon which scholars, policy makers, and activists can build social perspectives and effective solutions for the problems humanity is facing today.

Any social system that does not take into account the various dimensions of human nature, including the material and the spiritual, any system that does not have a program for curing the problems in hearts and for developing the good potentials in human souls and only focuses upon the material factors is bound to fail, be they the socialist states or the welfare systems in capitalist economies. The strength and beauty of Islam is in its comprehensive-ness, in its comprehensive and wholistic guiding principles for all dimensions of human nature and for both individual lives and collective issues of society. (See an insightful discussion by Shaheed Baqir Sadr in this regard here . Also, see a related article by Dr. Ali Shariati here)

Imam Ali on Governance

"He who has appointed himself an Imam (ruler) of the people must begin by teaching himself before teaching others. His teaching of others must be first by setting an example rather than with his words, for he who begins by teaching and educating himself is more worthy of respect than he who teaches and educates others."

"Your concern with developing the land should be greater than your concern for collecting taxes, for the latter can only be obtained by developing; whereas he who seeks revenue without development destroys the country and the people."

"Seek the company of the learned and the wise in search of solving the problems of your country and the righteousness of your people."

"No good can come in keeping silent as to government or in speaking out of ignorance."

"The righteous are men of virtue, whose logic is straightforward, whose dress is unostentatious, whose path is modest, whose actions are many and who are undeterred by difficulties."

"Choose the best among your people to administer justice among them. Choose someone who does not easily give up, who is unruffled by enmities, someone who will not persist in wrong doings, who will not hesitate to pursue right once he knows it, someone whose heart knows no greed, who will not be satisfied with a minimum of explanation without seeking the maximum of understanding, who will be the most steadfast when doubt is cast, who will be the least impatient in correcting the opponent, the most patient in pursuing the truth, the most stern in meting out judgment, someone who is unaffected by flattery and not swayed by temptation and these are but few."

"Source: Nahg El Balagha, interpreted by Imam Mohammad Abdou, Part I, Dar El Balagha, second edition, Beirut, 1985."

Imam Ali on Knowledge and Work

“No vessel is limitless, except for the vessel of knowledge, which forever expands.”

“If God were to humiliate a human being, He would deny him knowledge.”

“No wealth equals the mind, no poverty equals ignorance, no heritage equals culture, and no support is greater than advice.”

“Wisdom is the believer’s quest, to be sought everywhere, even among the deceitful.”

“A person is worth what he excels at.”

“No wealth can profit you more than the mind, no isolation can be more desolate than conceit, no policy can be wiser than prudence, no generosity can be better than decency, no heritage can be more bountiful than culture, no guidance can be truer than inspiration, no enterprise can be more successful than goodness, and no honour can surpass knowledge.”

“Knowledge is superior to wealth. Knowledge guards you, whereas you guard wealth. Wealth decreases with expenditure, whereas knowledge multiplies with dissemination. A good material deed vanishes as the material resources behind it vanish, whereas to knowledge we are indebted forever.

Thanks to knowledge, you command people’s respect during your lifetime, and kind memory after your death. Knowledge rules over wealth. Those who treasure wealth perish while they are still alive, whereas scholars live forever; they only disappear in physical image, but in hearts, their memories are enshrined.”

“Knowledge is the twin of action. He who is knowledgeable must act. Knowledge calls upon action; if answered, it will stay; otherwise, it will depart.”

"Source: Nahg El Balagha, interpreted by Imam Mohammad Abdou, Part I, Dar El Balagha, second edition, Beirut, 1985."

See the 2002 Arab Human Development Report here: http://www.nakbaonline.org/download/UNDP/EnglishVersion/Ar-Human-Dev-2002.pdf

Orientalism, Then and Now

In my previous post, I argued that a critical engagement with the western cultural and academic discourse is necessary to counter their cultural hegemony. It is imperative for any such effort that we understand how knowledge is linked to power and what has been its various manifestations in the past and the present.

Perhaps the heuristic concept that has best captured this link is 'Orientalism' as introduced by Edward Said.

Orientalism

Edward Said uses the term Orientalism in his epochal work with the same name, which was published in 1978, to refer to a mental construct, a mindset, a culture that distinguishes and treats the ‘other’ in relation to the ’us’ in a particular manner. It refers to asymmetrical relationships of power between the ‘other’ and the ‘us’, in which the latter represents and controls the former.

Orientalism is the process of perceiving and producing knowledge in a certain manner, consciously or sub-consciously. It is a particular way of looking at ‘other’ cultures, peoples, and histories. The “East” or “Orient,” in this mindset, is seen as distinct, monolithic, and static and is judged in relation to an equally distinct and monolithic “West”. Of course, both such constructs belie the ground realities (see my post on many Wests here).

The underlying eurocentrism in this mindset assumes the West to be superior, modern, civilized, and at the center of the world. This particular mindset has direct bearing on power, in motivating and justifying different modes of domination, examples of which can be seen in the colonial occupations and the present day American and European quest for hegemony (cultural and political) over the rest of the world.

Edward Said re-defines the meaning of the word ‘Orientalist’ in his work and attaches a rather pejorative connotation to it so as to refer to those foreigners as well as natives who internalize this mindset and reproduce it in their writings and relationships of power. For foreign Orientalists, this mindset is one of self-righteousness, superiority, and modernization. Thus, their right to control the ‘Orientals’ and their responsibility to ‘civilize’ them. For the native Orientalists, this mindset is that of internalized self-depreciation, inferiority, and backwardness. Hence, their inferiority complex, slave mentality, and deference to the West.

I want to share a quote here from Mamdani’s Good Muslim, Bad Muslim (2005), in which he draws upon Edward Said’s work to describe the link between this mindset and power, both in the past and the present.

Mamdani writes: “Edward Said summed up “the principal dogmas of Orientalism” in his majesterial study of the same name. The first dogma is that the same Orientalist histories that portray “the West” as “rational, developed, humane [and] superior,” caricature “the Orient” as “aberrant, undeveloped [and] inferior.” Another dogma is that “the Orient” lives according to set rules inscribed in sacred texts, not in response to the changing demands of life. The third dogma prescribes “that the Orient is eternal, uniform, and incapable of defining itself; therefore it is assumed that a highly generalized and systematic vocabulary for describing the Orient from a Western standpoint is inevitable and scientifically ‘objective.’” And the final dogma is “that the Orient is at the bottom something either to be feared (the Yellow Peril, the Mongol hordes, the brown dominions) or to be controlled (by pacification, research and development, outright occupation whenever possible).”

There is reason to be hugely skeptical of claims that describe civilizations discretely and identify civilizational histories with particular geographies and polities. One has to distinguish between civilization and power. The very notion of an uninterrupted “Western civilization” across linear times is an idea that only arises from the vantage point of the power we know as the West. This power has both a geography and a history: that history stretches from 1492 through the centuries of the slave trade and colonization to the Cold War and after” (Mamdani 2005: 32-33).

Of course, it was the Orientalist cultural imagination, conscious or sub-conscious, that served as a justification and as a causal force, if partially, for the colonial expansion. Orientalism not only constructed “the other” for the western imagination, in which “the other” was objectified and de-humanized, and therefore, they could be treated differently; that is, they were not subject to the laws and norms of the “civilized world”. It also provided a (partial) motive and justification for colonial expansion and missionary efforts, in the name of “progress”, for the sake of civilizing the “uncivilized”, as the “white man’s burden.”

For a satirical yet poignant depiction of the selfish hypocrisy and moral weakness of colonial missions, see Joseph Conrad’s short story, “Outpost of Progress” here. The theme is more fully articulated in his Heart of Darkness.

A recent use of Orientalist cultural imagination is seen in the justifications made for invading Afghanistan. See Laila Abu-Lughod’s critical piece, “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving?” here or here. Mamdani’s own work, Good Muslim, Bad Muslim, also makes a strong case. Perhaps check out Hamid Dabashi’s critical review (here) of Azar Nafisi’s Reading Lolita in Tehran (2003) too. Dabashi illustrates how orientalist knowledge is linked to power and can serve the war mongering agenda. I especially liked his analysis of the cover of this book.