Notes about philosophy/Islamic philosophy

The following opinions about philosophy was expressed by SC user Jibrael in topic; Ayatullah Khorasani Condemns philosophy. I’ve found his views refreshingly honest and insightful. Hence, I am making a note. It is being reproduced here with his permission.

(Note: I've restructured the order of posts for clarity. No editing was done on the content. Some editing was done to make the writing shorter. Please refer to the original topic for a more detailed information. Also, I have added my own titles on his write-up. You can choose to ignore them if you think they are annoying or irrelevant.)

Everything is relative to a person
The condemnation of philosophy is OK. The propagation of philosophy is OK. Learn and let learn. Just make sure that Qur'an and Tradition are kept in first place. Treat everything else as an interesting game. In other words, Truth with a capital T is Ahlulbayt. Everything else are relative, dependent on the perspective of the person, and strictly unimportant.

Different types of speculation
Philosophy, speculating rationally/intuitively about the world is condemned by some. But these same people do not condemn speculation based on experiments which leads to science and technology. So there is a contradiction in the anti-philosophy groups.

Many ways to understand the world
Those who support Philosophy sometimes believe Philosophy to the Mother of All Sciences. But it is really just one way of understanding the world. Irfan is another. Philosophy reasons, whereas Irfan understands. Which is higher in its truth? (Zareen: The answer will differ from one person to another)

Take a middle way. Take what is beneficial and leave what is not. And if we don't know, we can abandon it altogether. Just, when it comes to our solid beliefs, let's keep to the Ahlulbayt

Philosophy: Hate or Love?

1. To those who adore philosophy: Why is it so bad to criticize the philosophical method?
2. To those who hate philosophy: Why is it so bad to work with the philosophical method?
3. Yet why is it so good to work with the scientific method?

I think criticism can only make philosophy sharper, and philosopher's less lazy about thinking and more aware of their limits and strengths. However, I don't advocating destroying philosophy, just as I don't advocate destroying science - it has its fruits.

Science vs. Philosophy
I think philosophy is like science.

1. Do I believe that science has all the right answers? No.
2. Do I create dogmas out of scientific findings - which may be disproven in later centuries? No.
3. Do I still continue conducting scientific experiments? Yes. Because it helps as a tool of understanding and exploiting (in a good way) the world.

Whereas science is empirical - based on what we observe and measure - philosophy is rational - based on what we think, conceptualize and understand.

1. Do I believe philosophy has all the right answers? No.
2. Do I create dogmas out of philosophical findings - which may be disproven by a better mind? No.
3. Do I still continue philosophising about issues - what is existence? essence? free will? life? knowledge? justice? society? power? morality? etc.

Yes I do. Because it helps as a tool of making logical sense of the world, and creating a reasonable basis for human interaction, since we all value rationality.

Now, the Quran and Ahlulbayt:

1. Do I believe that they have all the right answers? Yes.
2. Do I take them as dogma? Yes.
3. Do I keep myself to them? Yes, insha'Allah.

So, in my perspective, philosophy is as useful and unimportant as science and technology.

Ayatullah Khurasani's views
On Ayatollah Khorasani's view - he seems to be saying a similar thing - that these are branches of Human Inquiry, but tainted with Human Fallibility... Truth is elsewhere; he implies he knows Asfaar from start to finish, and all of Rumi, but he views them as paltries next to the treasures of Ahlulbayt. Can anyone who believes in the Ahlulbayt deny that? Probably not.

Very difficult to define philosophy/philosophers?
A philosopher is someone who draws conclusions from thinking about things. End of story. However, originally, the main philosophies were heavily influenced by Greek philosophers. These philosophies were a mix of rational thought and speculation.

Learning philosophy: Past, current and the future
From my understanding:
Today, philosophers in the Hawzah have moved on - but only just a little. While they talk of Kant and Russell on the one hand, they are still steeped in traditional essence/existence dichotomies and the rule of how from one comes one, etc.

Thus, Islamic philosophers are still stuck in the limits drawn by the Greeks - though Avicenna made some improvement, Suhrawardi transcended the Greeks, backing his thoughts with Qur'anic verses, and Mirdamad and Mulla Sadra used concepts found in the Tradition of Ahlulbayt.

Today, philosophy is the legacy of such a large mixture of tendencies and prejudices, handed down over a series of heated debates from one school to another.

In my opinion, Ayatollah Vahid Khorasani is condemning this philosophy - rather than the philosophy otherwise known as rational reflection.

However, it is something to note that he himself studied these philosophers, and claims to be deeply acquainted with them. In my eyes, this means that he sought the ideas of great thinkers, absorbed what is beneficial, and kept to the Ahlulbayt as the spring of all Absolute Infallible Knowledge, casting everything else away as human dabblings of the mind.

How should we think and discuss philosophy?
I address this post to all those who have posted here. Please read, and let's construct a more reasonable dialogue between the different sides of the argument.

Aren't we having 2 discussions in this thread rather than 1?

1. A. Reasoning and reflection of any kind, rational, empirical, intuitive, etc. on the one hand -- called "Philosophy" in the West and sometimes in the Muslim World
2. B. Philosophy as a framework in which we reflect about the world - a framework based on concepts which have their origins in Greek, Islamic and Neoplatonic thought. -- this is the framework in which Islamic Philosophy has operated so far.

It is clear that A encompasses all thought, including B.

On the other hand, B is a particular method of inquiry, using concepts which have been established throughout history, which have their origins in Greek and Neoplatonic thought.

A may lead to B or may not. It may lead to a new type of Islamic Philosophy, which is derived through reflecting on the Tradition of Ahlulbayt.

If you look at the lecture-videos by Ayatollah Vahid Khorasani (also posted here recently on SC) you will see that the Sheykh uses reflection to delve into the tradtions. What he says is mystical and rational. Look at how he describes Ghadeer in one of the videos. So, reflection and deriving conclusions is not the problem. This should be established by now.

It is also not a problem when the mind derives concepts which have also been derived by Greeks. If the Greek mind derives the concept of First Cause (God), we shouldn't reject it just because it is Greek, otherwise we will be rejecting God!

So What is the problem?

To interpret the unknown by Greek - or any fallible human - models and then think they are Certain Truths.

Models are useful - but they are not Truths. The signifier is not the signified.

On the other hand, the Tradition of Ahlulbayt is the Truth. However, even this Truth is still Truth revealed in the form of Human Language and Perspective, so that we can understand.

The Ultimate Absolute Truth is God Himself. This is the Glorious Truth which the Imams always referred to, but were never able to speak it, because...

"Talk about what is beneath the `Arsh (Throne), and do not talk about what is above the `Arsh" - Imam Sadiq(as).

There is a hierarchy in Truth:

1. The world as it appears
2. The logic of this world as it seems to us
3. The logic of this world as it is
4. The "Is" - the actual Being which all things are a manifestation of His Names

It is number 4 which is the Glorious Truth, which gives meaning and being to everything else. We never really comprehend Allah (swt), but we try to understand somethings through the logic of the world as it is, as described by the Ahlulbayt (as).

We also reflect on the world as it appears to us, and devise models, like scientific theories, which help us to benefit from the world. However, they are human mental constructions, not the external real world.

Everything perishes except His Face (Quran xxviii,88).

Need to be a little bit cautious
The pro-philosophy crowd who do know what philosophy is, are not being too straightforward: let's own up - that Peripatetic philosophy is a worldview based on Aristotlean and Neoplatonic concepts, that Illuminationist philosophy is inspired by Persian thought, and Transcendental philosophy is a reconciliation of the different philosophical approaches in a systematic framework, including the use of Qur'anic verses and Ahlulbayt traditions.

Of course, that doesn't mean that a Philosophy derived purely from Ahlulbayt has the same suspicious status as these other schools.

Reference
[1] http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/234987730-does-ayatullah-khorasani-condemn-philosophy/