| Post date: 2023/03/2 |
The inaugural session of the first working group took place on Wednesday, March 1, at the Institute of Cultural and Social Studies, coinciding with the beginning of the First International Congress on Farabi on Islamic Culture and Civilization.
Zia Movahed, Department of Logic, Iranian Wisdom and Philosophy Research Institute: “Logic in Farabi's Intellectual System”
During his speech on "Logic in Farabi's Intellectual System," Zia Movahed, a retired professor from the Department of Logic at the Research Institute of Wisdom and Philosophy in Iran, discussed the history of logic. According to Movahed, there are two narratives of the history of logic: Western and Western-Eastern. In the Western narrative, logic began with Aristotle, who is considered the most famous logician due to his logical works. However, Frege, who established the objective system of logic in the Western narrative, is considered the first to present the logical system in a complete and coherent form. Kurt Gödel, who published two papers in 1931 and 1932, is considered the logician next in importance after Frege as he completed some of Frege's work and addressed issues and ambiguities in logic.
Continuing his speech, he went on to say that following Gödel, the next significant figure in logic would be Alfred Tarski, who stressed the importance of the logic of justifications. Tarski delivered three notable speeches on this topic.
According to Movahed, in both Western and Eastern perspectives of the science of logic, Aristotle is recognized as the originator, but Farabi is considered to have followed him. Ibn Khaldun regards Farabi as the most significant scientist after Aristotle and he is referred to as the "second teacher" for his logical works. Although Movahed has conducted extensive research on the reason for this title, it remains unclear whether it was given by Western scholars or Muslims. Nevertheless, the title of "second teacher" is mentioned in all works on Farabi.
He stated that Farabi's works have been compiled by Mohammad Taghi Daneshpajooh and published in three volumes. In these volumes, he has thoroughly examined Farabi's logical works. According to Daneshpajooh, about 48 logical works of Farabi have been counted, and he included eighteen of them in the first volume alone. This makes Farabi the most prolific author in the field of logic, with no one before Avicenna having written as much on the subject. For this reason, Farabi believes that logic is the foundation of all sciences and disagrees with Avicenna's view. However, his reasoning is based on his deep understanding of logic.
The distinguished professor of the Logic Department at the Research Institute of Hikmat and Philosophy in Iran noted that Farabi's influence extended to Avicenna, Ibn Bajah, Averroes, Ibn Tufail, and Suhravardi. He went on to explain that those familiar with Aristotelian logic are aware that this logic specifies production conditions for each form, and learning these rules requires significant effort. However, Suhrawardi suggests a way to simplify this process by returning all forms to the first form and learning logic without getting bogged down in the details. While there is no formal problem with this approach, criticisms can be made from the standpoint of the philosophy of logic. Suhrawardi converts all partial propositions into wholes and then places the object in the position of predicate. As a result, the propositions he obtains have the property that if something is possible, it is necessarily possible, and if it is prohibited, it is necessarily prohibited. This approach creates a new system in the field of logic.
He noted that Avicenna, who was influenced by Farabi, made significant contributions to the logic of reasoning, which were unparalleled in the West. When he was teaching the logic of arguments, he encountered this issue and wrote a seminal article on the subject. He pointed out that one of Avicenna's important works in the logic of arguments was the differentiation between form and content. If we remove Avicenna's contributions to the logic of arguments, there would be a void in the history of logic.
Movahed emphasized the importance of not neglecting a significant insight in Farabi's thought, specifically regarding conditional premises in the science of logic. Aristotle mentioned that some arguments cannot be solved by analogies, but did not provide a solution. Farabi, however, encountered this problem and some believe that Aristotle did as well, but with doubts. Farabi did not delve into the issue due to his serious doubts about solving it. On the other hand, Avicenna took on the challenge and considered it his most significant contribution to logic after Aristotle. He presented a theory, but ultimately it did not lead to any significant progress, which supports Farabi's initial doubts.
The distinguished professor of the Department of Logic of the Research Institute of Hikmat and Philosophy of Iran further elaborated on the connection between logic and reality in Farabi's thought, stating that this issue has been extensively discussed and he has addressed it in his book "New Logic". According to the professor, the problem that Farabi focuses on in logic is the concept of natural inference, which is in line with the functioning of the mind. Farabi's method is thus based on reality, as people unconsciously follow the laws of logic in their daily lives. The professor also cited Popper's book "The Unfinished Search," in which Popper argues for the use of induction despite his prior skepticism, as evidence that Farabi's logic is consistent with and related to reality.
Movahed addressed several measures taken to enhance the progress of logic in Iran. He referred to the formation of the Logic Association and its yearly conference, which has gained considerable membership. He remarked that this is a favorable development that indicates Iranian scholars' commitment to this issue. Nevertheless, he also acknowledged that some individuals within the seminary are still hesitant to change and are adhering to outdated stances. Nonetheless, Movahed believes that the endeavors of scholars and students in this discipline are crucial for the advancement of logic in Iran and that they merit recognition for their contributions.
Continuing his speech, he went on to say that following Gödel, the next significant figure in logic would be Alfred Tarski, who stressed the importance of the logic of justifications. Tarski delivered three notable speeches on this topic.
According to Movahed, in both Western and Eastern perspectives of the science of logic, Aristotle is recognized as the originator, but Farabi is considered to have followed him. Ibn Khaldun regards Farabi as the most significant scientist after Aristotle and he is referred to as the "second teacher" for his logical works. Although Movahed has conducted extensive research on the reason for this title, it remains unclear whether it was given by Western scholars or Muslims. Nevertheless, the title of "second teacher" is mentioned in all works on Farabi.
He stated that Farabi's works have been compiled by Mohammad Taghi Daneshpajooh and published in three volumes. In these volumes, he has thoroughly examined Farabi's logical works. According to Daneshpajooh, about 48 logical works of Farabi have been counted, and he included eighteen of them in the first volume alone. This makes Farabi the most prolific author in the field of logic, with no one before Avicenna having written as much on the subject. For this reason, Farabi believes that logic is the foundation of all sciences and disagrees with Avicenna's view. However, his reasoning is based on his deep understanding of logic.
The distinguished professor of the Logic Department at the Research Institute of Hikmat and Philosophy in Iran noted that Farabi's influence extended to Avicenna, Ibn Bajah, Averroes, Ibn Tufail, and Suhravardi. He went on to explain that those familiar with Aristotelian logic are aware that this logic specifies production conditions for each form, and learning these rules requires significant effort. However, Suhrawardi suggests a way to simplify this process by returning all forms to the first form and learning logic without getting bogged down in the details. While there is no formal problem with this approach, criticisms can be made from the standpoint of the philosophy of logic. Suhrawardi converts all partial propositions into wholes and then places the object in the position of predicate. As a result, the propositions he obtains have the property that if something is possible, it is necessarily possible, and if it is prohibited, it is necessarily prohibited. This approach creates a new system in the field of logic.
He noted that Avicenna, who was influenced by Farabi, made significant contributions to the logic of reasoning, which were unparalleled in the West. When he was teaching the logic of arguments, he encountered this issue and wrote a seminal article on the subject. He pointed out that one of Avicenna's important works in the logic of arguments was the differentiation between form and content. If we remove Avicenna's contributions to the logic of arguments, there would be a void in the history of logic.
Movahed emphasized the importance of not neglecting a significant insight in Farabi's thought, specifically regarding conditional premises in the science of logic. Aristotle mentioned that some arguments cannot be solved by analogies, but did not provide a solution. Farabi, however, encountered this problem and some believe that Aristotle did as well, but with doubts. Farabi did not delve into the issue due to his serious doubts about solving it. On the other hand, Avicenna took on the challenge and considered it his most significant contribution to logic after Aristotle. He presented a theory, but ultimately it did not lead to any significant progress, which supports Farabi's initial doubts.
The distinguished professor of the Department of Logic of the Research Institute of Hikmat and Philosophy of Iran further elaborated on the connection between logic and reality in Farabi's thought, stating that this issue has been extensively discussed and he has addressed it in his book "New Logic". According to the professor, the problem that Farabi focuses on in logic is the concept of natural inference, which is in line with the functioning of the mind. Farabi's method is thus based on reality, as people unconsciously follow the laws of logic in their daily lives. The professor also cited Popper's book "The Unfinished Search," in which Popper argues for the use of induction despite his prior skepticism, as evidence that Farabi's logic is consistent with and related to reality.
Movahed addressed several measures taken to enhance the progress of logic in Iran. He referred to the formation of the Logic Association and its yearly conference, which has gained considerable membership. He remarked that this is a favorable development that indicates Iranian scholars' commitment to this issue. Nevertheless, he also acknowledged that some individuals within the seminary are still hesitant to change and are adhering to outdated stances. Nonetheless, Movahed believes that the endeavors of scholars and students in this discipline are crucial for the advancement of logic in Iran and that they merit recognition for their contributions.
Fabien Schang PhD in philosophy, visiting professor and postdoctoral researcher at the Federal University of Goiás (Goiânia, Brazil): “Reflections on Farabi's Logic: Ways of Logical Thinking”
During the conference, Fabien Schang from the Federal University of Goias, Brazil, humbly acknowledged that he is not an authority in the field of Farabi's logic. To provide a more informed perspective, he drew upon the writings and insights of experts in this area rather than solely relying on his own understanding.
Schang continued by explaining that his presentation focused on reflections concerning Farabi's logic and that there are multiple approaches to examining it. He shared that his work, on a formal concept allowed him to encounter specific aspects of Farabi's logic from this particular perspective.
The speaker stated that Farabi interpreted Aristotle's logic and arrived at far-reaching conclusions through his reflections on it. These conclusions include conditional sentences, compatible logics, and formal analogies. They also raised two fundamental questions regarding Farabi's contribution to the history of logic. Firstly, can Farabi be regarded as a pioneer in semantic logic? Secondly, can Farabi's logical works be formalized with the aid of modern tools? The speaker answered both questions in the affirmative and suggested that Farabi's logic can be situated within the semantics of value functions.
Schang pointed out the importance of a section related to the denials of the future in the interpretation of Farabi and Aristotle's logic. He explained that Farabi addressed the problem of indeterminacy by identifying different states of truth. According to Farabi, a sentence can be true or false in a definite or indeterminate way, and its truth or falsity can be determined necessarily or possibly.
Schang elucidated that Farabi regarded uncertainty as a type of truth and proposed that the meaning of the non-value function can also be expressed disjunctively. He expressed his intention to explore more details about the value and non-value function, which he will address later.
He further discussed the subject of conditional logics and mentioned that Farabi, as mentioned by Chatti in 2017, distinguished three categories of conditional logics, with the first being random and the other two being necessary due to regularity. Schang also provided additional clarification that each of these three conditions was studied separately.
In relation to Farabi's conditionals, the scholar stated that they can be better related to the four-valued incomplete function, which they discussed in detail in an article. However, it is important to note that Farabi's intended meaning behind these four-valued conditionals.
He also spoke about modal logic, which includes internal and external modal logic. He explained that this indicates the possibility of the future and that formal analogies can also be explained using modal logic in Farabi's works. Farabi states that every proposition is true in three ways, and explains these three states of truth through logic. By examining these three states of truth, one can arrive at more complex propositions such as syllogisms in formal analogies. Thus, we can deal with quantitative and qualitative expressions regarding syllogisms. Qualitative expressions occur in two ways: externally and internally, and can occur in these conditions.
He said, "Value conditionals may differ from each other, but since I don't have enough time to explain these differences, I try to express different aspects of internal and external facial expressions by presenting examples."
Continuing his speech, Schang provided several examples and explained that Farabi represented medieval logic in the form of modal logic. He also highlighted a difference between Farabi and Avicenna, emphasizing that the contradictions raised by Avicenna are similar to the issues presented in internal modal logic.
Schang continued by explaining that his presentation focused on reflections concerning Farabi's logic and that there are multiple approaches to examining it. He shared that his work, on a formal concept allowed him to encounter specific aspects of Farabi's logic from this particular perspective.
The speaker stated that Farabi interpreted Aristotle's logic and arrived at far-reaching conclusions through his reflections on it. These conclusions include conditional sentences, compatible logics, and formal analogies. They also raised two fundamental questions regarding Farabi's contribution to the history of logic. Firstly, can Farabi be regarded as a pioneer in semantic logic? Secondly, can Farabi's logical works be formalized with the aid of modern tools? The speaker answered both questions in the affirmative and suggested that Farabi's logic can be situated within the semantics of value functions.
Schang pointed out the importance of a section related to the denials of the future in the interpretation of Farabi and Aristotle's logic. He explained that Farabi addressed the problem of indeterminacy by identifying different states of truth. According to Farabi, a sentence can be true or false in a definite or indeterminate way, and its truth or falsity can be determined necessarily or possibly.
Schang elucidated that Farabi regarded uncertainty as a type of truth and proposed that the meaning of the non-value function can also be expressed disjunctively. He expressed his intention to explore more details about the value and non-value function, which he will address later.
He further discussed the subject of conditional logics and mentioned that Farabi, as mentioned by Chatti in 2017, distinguished three categories of conditional logics, with the first being random and the other two being necessary due to regularity. Schang also provided additional clarification that each of these three conditions was studied separately.
In relation to Farabi's conditionals, the scholar stated that they can be better related to the four-valued incomplete function, which they discussed in detail in an article. However, it is important to note that Farabi's intended meaning behind these four-valued conditionals.
He also spoke about modal logic, which includes internal and external modal logic. He explained that this indicates the possibility of the future and that formal analogies can also be explained using modal logic in Farabi's works. Farabi states that every proposition is true in three ways, and explains these three states of truth through logic. By examining these three states of truth, one can arrive at more complex propositions such as syllogisms in formal analogies. Thus, we can deal with quantitative and qualitative expressions regarding syllogisms. Qualitative expressions occur in two ways: externally and internally, and can occur in these conditions.
He said, "Value conditionals may differ from each other, but since I don't have enough time to explain these differences, I try to express different aspects of internal and external facial expressions by presenting examples."
Continuing his speech, Schang provided several examples and explained that Farabi represented medieval logic in the form of modal logic. He also highlighted a difference between Farabi and Avicenna, emphasizing that the contradictions raised by Avicenna are similar to the issues presented in internal modal logic.
Fatemeh Shahidi, Research Institute of Hikmat and Philosophy of Iran, Reviewing the existing corrections and translations of Al Huruf by Farabi
During the conference, Shahidi, from the Research Institute of Hikmat and Philosophy of Iran, mentioned that her participation in the discussion was motivated by the upcoming publication of a book she co-edited with Dr. Youssef Thani about al-Huruf, the Book of Letters.
Shahidi went on to discuss Mohsen Al-Mahdi's editing of Al-Huruf, noting that Farabi's ideas were incorporated into the work. She emphasized the importance of paying attention to these ideas to ensure a correct correction of the text. Shahidi also acknowledged that they had not read the text of al-Huruf thoroughly, which prevented them from gaining a proper understanding of it.
The speaker highlighted that the Book of Letters was edited and first published in 1967 by Mohsin Mahdi, one of the most prolific students of Leo Strauss, a contemporary political philosopher who was influenced by Farabi. He also pointed out that the letter correction had been overlooked for many centuries. Despite the availability of advanced translations and indexes in the Islamic world, only two works by Ibn Abi Asibaa and Qofti, both titled Ayun al-Anbaa fi Tabaqat al-Ibba wal-Hukma and Ikhbar al-Ulama ba Akhbar al-Hakmaa respectively, mentioned a work with the same name as the letters. However, some great thinkers of the late Middle Ages, such as Ibn Bajeh, Averroes, and Siyuti, referred to the contents of the book under the name of Farabi, which were consistent or at least related to the content of the book available to us.
The speaker added that Ibn Nadim in al-Fehrest (4th century), Qazi Sa'id al-Andalusi in Tabaqat al-An-Ulmeh (5th century), Bayhaqi in Tatemeh Sawan al-Hikma (6th century), and Ibn Khalqan in the Deaths of the Nobles (7th century) all mentioned a name from the Book of Letters under the works of Farabi. However, they did not provide further information on this matter.
According to Shahidi, the most well-known analysis of the contents of the book Al-Huruf is that of the contemporary editor of this work, Mohsin Mahdi. He considers Al-Huruf to be an explanation of Aristotle's metaphysics, particularly his book Delta, a position supported by many researchers. Despite the fact that there is no complete overlap between the philosophical terms examined in both works - as many of the terms in Delta are not discussed in Al-Huruf and vice versa - the letters contain material on the stages of the emergence of language, completion, philosophy, its relationship with religion, jurisprudence, theology, properties, and government in society. These topics are not only discussed in metaphysics but in none of Aristotle's works.
The philosophy lecturer declared that there are certain commonalities among the various analyses that have been conducted on the contents of the Book of Letters, namely that they are not comprehensive and do not encompass all of the book's contents and their interrelationships. Each analysis focuses on a specific aspect or parts of the book, and the overall aim of Farabi, which is to elucidate the comprehensiveness and challenges of the book's contents in order to achieve this goal, has been overlooked.
The speaker noted that among the diverse contents of the book of letters, he identified three main topics that received the most attention: first, the position of philosophy in relation to other sciences and crafts, as well as its development through different stages of language, science, and craft; second, the concepts of "being" and "existence"; and third, the question of "if" [hal in Arabic]. It appears that by taking a comprehensive look at the entire work, these three discussions can be regarded as the primary focus of all the contents. Thus, it can be said that the aim of the Book of Letters is to determine the position of philosophy. To achieve this aim, the book not only describes how philosophy emerges in society and its relation to religion, but also elaborates on the most significant concept in metaphysics, namely, "existence". All the contents of The Letters are extensions of these main topics.
Shahidi discussed the proofreading and translations of the Persian book of al-Huruf, stating that when Mahdi attempted to correct the work, he only had access to one copy of the text, donated by the late Professor Mishkah to the Tehran University Library. The available copy was written in an unpleasant manner, lacked dots, contained numerous errors and omissions, and was overall very difficult to read. Despite Mahdi's familiarity with Farabi's language, thought, and handwriting, many errors still crept into the corrected text. In addition to using unfamiliar correction techniques, inaccuracies in markings and paragraphing, as well as incorrect additions and deletions, made it challenging for readers to comprehend the contents of the book. Furthermore, two Persian translations of this work exist, both of which have significant technical and philosophical issues. The first translation was performed by Tayyaba Seifi and Somayeh Mastri Farahani, who were students of Arabic language and literature, resulting in many errors and mistakes due to their lack of familiarity with literature and philosophical terms. The second translation, which provided a very detailed description of each chapter, was done by Dr. Ghaesm Pourhasan, a philosophy professor. However, differences in the meanings of philosophical terms across different philosophical schools created problems of another kind.
According to the speaker, there are two types of problems in Mahdi's textual reproduction: one related to the structure of the book and the other related to the text itself. The first problem is related to Mahdi's division of the book into three chapters, which most people assume is based on the original text, but there is no evidence in the manuscripts to support such a division. While Mahdi and some other scholars have speculated about the initial order of the book's chapters, no one has suggested that such a division may not be necessary for the book. The doubt about the necessity of this way of dividing the contents of the book, especially after dividing it into chapters, is that it imposes a specific corrected reading of the text on the audience. Moreover, Mahdi and many readers admit that the current arrangement of the contents of the book has many problems. In the speaker's opinion, these problems are not only limited to the arrangement of the contents within each chapter but may also extend to the separation of the chapters themselves. Therefore, making some changes to the current order and separation of chapters could potentially violate the current understanding of the text.
She noted that in addition to the criticized classification of the book, there are also significant problems with the way the book is divided into chapters in some cases. These problems often stem from Mahdi's particular conclusions about the book's content. For example, in the sections related to the question letters, from the point where the discussion starts with the question letter "hal" [if] until the end of the book, the main focus of the content is on the same question letter "hal". However, Mahdi does not pay attention to this in his chapter divisions in this part. This is an important point because while the term "existence" is the main focus of all the content in the initial parts of the book, the focus of the discussion in the question letters is on the question letter "hal", which happens to be a special word for the question. This question is related to "existence", and all the letters of the question are used in some way to explain it.
Shahidi pointed out that Mahdi's paragraphing is subject to similar criticisms. In many cases, it appears that Mahdi's inferences from the text, which result in the separation of content into relatively independent paragraphs, are deserving of serious criticism. Specifically, the punctuation marks used by Mahdi in the text and the way he separates sentences and other structures within the sentence, all of which reflect Mahdi's understanding of the text and Farabi's literature, require significant revision and may result in a different text in some cases.
Shahidi went on to discuss Mohsen Al-Mahdi's editing of Al-Huruf, noting that Farabi's ideas were incorporated into the work. She emphasized the importance of paying attention to these ideas to ensure a correct correction of the text. Shahidi also acknowledged that they had not read the text of al-Huruf thoroughly, which prevented them from gaining a proper understanding of it.
The speaker highlighted that the Book of Letters was edited and first published in 1967 by Mohsin Mahdi, one of the most prolific students of Leo Strauss, a contemporary political philosopher who was influenced by Farabi. He also pointed out that the letter correction had been overlooked for many centuries. Despite the availability of advanced translations and indexes in the Islamic world, only two works by Ibn Abi Asibaa and Qofti, both titled Ayun al-Anbaa fi Tabaqat al-Ibba wal-Hukma and Ikhbar al-Ulama ba Akhbar al-Hakmaa respectively, mentioned a work with the same name as the letters. However, some great thinkers of the late Middle Ages, such as Ibn Bajeh, Averroes, and Siyuti, referred to the contents of the book under the name of Farabi, which were consistent or at least related to the content of the book available to us.
The speaker added that Ibn Nadim in al-Fehrest (4th century), Qazi Sa'id al-Andalusi in Tabaqat al-An-Ulmeh (5th century), Bayhaqi in Tatemeh Sawan al-Hikma (6th century), and Ibn Khalqan in the Deaths of the Nobles (7th century) all mentioned a name from the Book of Letters under the works of Farabi. However, they did not provide further information on this matter.
According to Shahidi, the most well-known analysis of the contents of the book Al-Huruf is that of the contemporary editor of this work, Mohsin Mahdi. He considers Al-Huruf to be an explanation of Aristotle's metaphysics, particularly his book Delta, a position supported by many researchers. Despite the fact that there is no complete overlap between the philosophical terms examined in both works - as many of the terms in Delta are not discussed in Al-Huruf and vice versa - the letters contain material on the stages of the emergence of language, completion, philosophy, its relationship with religion, jurisprudence, theology, properties, and government in society. These topics are not only discussed in metaphysics but in none of Aristotle's works.
The philosophy lecturer declared that there are certain commonalities among the various analyses that have been conducted on the contents of the Book of Letters, namely that they are not comprehensive and do not encompass all of the book's contents and their interrelationships. Each analysis focuses on a specific aspect or parts of the book, and the overall aim of Farabi, which is to elucidate the comprehensiveness and challenges of the book's contents in order to achieve this goal, has been overlooked.
The speaker noted that among the diverse contents of the book of letters, he identified three main topics that received the most attention: first, the position of philosophy in relation to other sciences and crafts, as well as its development through different stages of language, science, and craft; second, the concepts of "being" and "existence"; and third, the question of "if" [hal in Arabic]. It appears that by taking a comprehensive look at the entire work, these three discussions can be regarded as the primary focus of all the contents. Thus, it can be said that the aim of the Book of Letters is to determine the position of philosophy. To achieve this aim, the book not only describes how philosophy emerges in society and its relation to religion, but also elaborates on the most significant concept in metaphysics, namely, "existence". All the contents of The Letters are extensions of these main topics.
Shahidi discussed the proofreading and translations of the Persian book of al-Huruf, stating that when Mahdi attempted to correct the work, he only had access to one copy of the text, donated by the late Professor Mishkah to the Tehran University Library. The available copy was written in an unpleasant manner, lacked dots, contained numerous errors and omissions, and was overall very difficult to read. Despite Mahdi's familiarity with Farabi's language, thought, and handwriting, many errors still crept into the corrected text. In addition to using unfamiliar correction techniques, inaccuracies in markings and paragraphing, as well as incorrect additions and deletions, made it challenging for readers to comprehend the contents of the book. Furthermore, two Persian translations of this work exist, both of which have significant technical and philosophical issues. The first translation was performed by Tayyaba Seifi and Somayeh Mastri Farahani, who were students of Arabic language and literature, resulting in many errors and mistakes due to their lack of familiarity with literature and philosophical terms. The second translation, which provided a very detailed description of each chapter, was done by Dr. Ghaesm Pourhasan, a philosophy professor. However, differences in the meanings of philosophical terms across different philosophical schools created problems of another kind.
According to the speaker, there are two types of problems in Mahdi's textual reproduction: one related to the structure of the book and the other related to the text itself. The first problem is related to Mahdi's division of the book into three chapters, which most people assume is based on the original text, but there is no evidence in the manuscripts to support such a division. While Mahdi and some other scholars have speculated about the initial order of the book's chapters, no one has suggested that such a division may not be necessary for the book. The doubt about the necessity of this way of dividing the contents of the book, especially after dividing it into chapters, is that it imposes a specific corrected reading of the text on the audience. Moreover, Mahdi and many readers admit that the current arrangement of the contents of the book has many problems. In the speaker's opinion, these problems are not only limited to the arrangement of the contents within each chapter but may also extend to the separation of the chapters themselves. Therefore, making some changes to the current order and separation of chapters could potentially violate the current understanding of the text.
She noted that in addition to the criticized classification of the book, there are also significant problems with the way the book is divided into chapters in some cases. These problems often stem from Mahdi's particular conclusions about the book's content. For example, in the sections related to the question letters, from the point where the discussion starts with the question letter "hal" [if] until the end of the book, the main focus of the content is on the same question letter "hal". However, Mahdi does not pay attention to this in his chapter divisions in this part. This is an important point because while the term "existence" is the main focus of all the content in the initial parts of the book, the focus of the discussion in the question letters is on the question letter "hal", which happens to be a special word for the question. This question is related to "existence", and all the letters of the question are used in some way to explain it.
Shahidi pointed out that Mahdi's paragraphing is subject to similar criticisms. In many cases, it appears that Mahdi's inferences from the text, which result in the separation of content into relatively independent paragraphs, are deserving of serious criticism. Specifically, the punctuation marks used by Mahdi in the text and the way he separates sentences and other structures within the sentence, all of which reflect Mahdi's understanding of the text and Farabi's literature, require significant revision and may result in a different text in some cases.
Charles E. Butterworth, from University of Maryland: “An introduction to philosophy in the book "Al Huruf" by Farabi”
In another speech at the congress, Professor Charles E. Butterworth from the University of Maryland gave a lecture on an introduction to philosophy in Farabi's Book of Letters. He noted that Farabi does not clearly articulate his purpose in writing the Book of Letters, which creates ambiguity about where Farabi's thought ends and where the reader's own conclusions begin.
He continued, "Although it is quite clear to us that the main topic of the work is precisely the same topic used by Aristotle in the books of Reasoning and Theology, and Farabi's focus was specifically on these two works. This is exactly where we can begin our study of the Book of Letters."
He went on to explain that the Book of Letters is divided into 18 parts, with the first part serving as an introduction that includes a general discussion about reasonableness. In the following parts, from part two to 18, we can observe Farabi's thought process regarding the issues he raises. Initially, Farabi discusses existence, not in a broad sense, but rather, an elevated and transcendent existence. He then delves into the meaning of different languages' expressions about the existence and existence of the Supreme Existence, discussing their implications, details, and vocabulary. Farabi then explains how wisdom assists him in achieving his goals. However, in certain parts of the book, he discusses problems and contradictions that hinder the understanding of the original meaning and thwart his ultimate objective. From the start, Al-Farabi urges us to contemplate how we become cognizant of the presence of the beings around us and advises us to pay attention to their characteristics. He attempts to examine the term "truly" along with other words and details used in a sentence affirming the existence of beings.
Butterworth argues that the phrase ‘ennahu’ [انهو] is an intensifying adverb used in Arabic, Persian, and Greek to affirm the concept of existence, which is complete, precise, permanent, and stable. This phrase can even be used to affirm the existence of things that we believe to exist. He then simply points out that the grammatical rules that govern words and their true function are limited in explanatory sentences, making it difficult for us to talk about existence.
This university professor stated: "When we use the phrase "ennahu," we are led to the word "enn”. Philosophers use this word to refer to the primary being, or in other words, to discuss the essence of something. If we are referring to the essence or nature of something, then we can discuss its existence. It is worth noting that the word "enn" can also convey the meaning of the thing itself and its inherent nature."
Butterworth, stating that the discussion of intelligible beings is divided into six parts, all of which focus on existence and the intelligible beings themselves, which have characteristics that we can use for words and other details, said: Then Farabi uses ten of Aristotle's intelligible beings in sections two and three to consider specific aspects in sections four to seven to examine the main characteristic of the relationship between intelligible beings.
According to this Farabi scholar, he discusses examining the breadth and depth of how it works in finding the meaning of intelligible beings, which is done in section twelve. In summary, in the first part, we can say that Farabi provides us with a general description of ten characteristics that help us understand the meaning of the existence of intelligible beings, their nature, and their properties. However, it is worth mentioning that the use of a self-subsistent object, or "moshar elayh" in Farabi's preferred terminology, can be expressed in various philosophical ways and presented to people. For example, this term "moshar elayh" can convey the meaning of essence, existence, object, and so on.
He further added that the implication of all these meanings is the subject of four parts, which actually account for almost half of the 108 parts of the book, i.e. from parts 62 to 105.
Butterworth mentioned that the Book of Letters provides us with a context to recognize Farabi's consistency in his other works, particularly in the book "Tahsil al-Saada" (The Attainment of Happiness), which emphasizes the significance of guiding and educational principles, as well as the meaning of existence and being. He added, "On the other hand, it provides us with some details to comprehend the relationship between religion and philosophy from various perspectives." In fact, the main point presented in the second part clarifies the position of different groups, enabling us to comprehend how the enduring conflicts that exist among humans can be resolved in their social and political dimension. The question remains: how can this be achieved?
The speaker posits that philosophy precedes religion in terms of temporal order. This holds true for both dialectic and sophistry, as well as hypothetical and imaginative philosophy. The speaker argues that hypothetical and imaginative philosophy should take precedence over definite and proof philosophy. The reason for this hierarchy is that a logical argument is necessarily created after imagination and hypothesizing. It is not unreasonable to suggest that religion employs communication persuasion and rhetorical persuasion, as well as poetic images, to educate people and the masses. It is at this juncture that we may arrive at a certain philosophy. However, when this idea is expressed, it is met with tension among religious followers. They are often unaware of the temporal relationship between the various tools used to express arguments, and they only seek to establish the superiority of religion. Yet, the speaker contends that philosophy must first make a concerted effort to directly educate communities and the masses, and only then can religion supplement this effort with its rhetorical and poetic tools.
Continuing his discourse, the speaker posits that philosophy is an industry that both teaches and is learned. While Farabi does not particularly emphasize this notion, there are various angles to consider in terms of the communication and pedagogy of philosophy. Indeed, the application of rhetorical, poetic, and polemical devices can facilitate argumentation and discourse within philosophical debates and discussions. Such methods can be effectively employed across a wide range of contexts and communities.
This professor from the University of Maryland contends that Farabi sheds light on the reason why religion follows philosophy in the second part of his writings. As theoretical philosophy reaches its zenith, we achieve comprehension and deduction on how and why the world and its constituents come into being, the purpose of their existence, and the end result of their presence. These are entities whose subsistence does not rely on human actions or desires, and with the accomplishment of applied philosophy, we can grasp how nobles make themselves known through human actions.
He stated that the investigation and search for the meaning of existence becomes pertinent once we have gained a clear understanding of how human happiness is measured. This entails examining the meaning of all aspects that elucidate the existence of the superior or even the meaning of existence itself. To achieve this, Farabi encourages his readers to focus on dialectical, rhetorical, and poetic arts, as evidenced in his book Attainment of Happiness.
Butterworth proceeded to announce the two major questions of his talk. The first question he posed was whether the sciences and analogical arts can assist humanity in gaining a deeper understanding of the meaning of existence and superior existence. This is a philosophical inquiry that can be approached by using hypothetical language, such as "if" and "how."
According to this philosophy professor, the focal point that Farabi endeavors to scrutinize, chiefly in this book and his other works, can now be reached. It refers to how knowledge can be utilized without taking into account personal beliefs. This can be achieved by fortifying the various meanings of phenomena through the usage of words and minutiae, both small and large, that are employed in our expressions.
He reminded that a definite proof is helpful in ensuring that, firstly, there may not be a clear point that we can prove in the 32nd section of the book. Secondly, a careful study reveals that Farabi himself compiled what he obtained from different proofs in a reasonable manner, but the order of these compilations may be different, and we should be aware of these different orders.
Butterworth concluded by stating that the Book of Letters holds a significant position, as it sheds light on our position in the field of education, whether it be in academia or other social circles.
Hakan Genç, McGill University, Canada, “Unity in number in Farabi's The Book of One and Unity”
At first, Hakan Genç gave a speech about "Oneness in number in Farabi's book Al-Wahed and Al-Wahda" and then discussed the difference between Farabi and Aristotle on this topic.
Referring to the meaning of unity in numbers, he added: Unity can be in the predicate, which may include species such as horses and humans, unity in type, and unity in breadth.
This university professor further explained the concept of unity in matter and material, stating that it is similar to the unity found in anklets and crowns that are made of the same material, silver.
Genç talked about a part of Kitab al-Wahid and then discussed unity in gender, saying that Farabi did not simply retell the words of Aristotle. As a philosopher, Farabi has an opinion in this field, and while he started from Aristotle, his perspective differs.
Pointing to unity in essence and unity in totality, Genç added that unity in totality also includes both material and non-material aspects.
In conclusion, the professor discussed the concept of non-existence and provided examples to illustrate it. He then delved into the differences between Farabi and Aristotle regarding their views on unity in number. It was mentioned that Farabi did not merely reiterate Aristotle's words, but had his own opinion as a philosopher, although he started from Aristotle's ideas.
Referring to the meaning of unity in numbers, he added: Unity can be in the predicate, which may include species such as horses and humans, unity in type, and unity in breadth.
This university professor further explained the concept of unity in matter and material, stating that it is similar to the unity found in anklets and crowns that are made of the same material, silver.
Genç talked about a part of Kitab al-Wahid and then discussed unity in gender, saying that Farabi did not simply retell the words of Aristotle. As a philosopher, Farabi has an opinion in this field, and while he started from Aristotle, his perspective differs.
Pointing to unity in essence and unity in totality, Genç added that unity in totality also includes both material and non-material aspects.
In conclusion, the professor discussed the concept of non-existence and provided examples to illustrate it. He then delved into the differences between Farabi and Aristotle regarding their views on unity in number. It was mentioned that Farabi did not merely reiterate Aristotle's words, but had his own opinion as a philosopher, although he started from Aristotle's ideas.
View: 98 Time(s) |
Print: 44 Time(s) |
Email: 0 Time(s) |
0 Comment(s)
Latest content