Gazali'nin hayatını 1095 yılında geçirdiğini söylediği krize göre üç döneme ayırmamız mümkündür. Kriz öncesi dönem, kriz dönemi (1095) ve kriz sonrası dönem. Bu dönemlerde akla ve felsefeye bakışı değişmiştir dolayısıyla felsefî ilimlerden sayılan matematik ilmine bakışı da değişmiştir. Gazali kriz öncesi ve kriz dönemlerinde aklı eleştirmekle birlikte çok sistematik bir eleştiri yaptığı söylenemez. Gazali bu dönemde felsefe yorumlarında 'felsefi/bilimsel aklı" din açısından zararlı görmemektedir hatta zaman zaman olumlu yanlarından bahsetmektedir. Makasıdu’l Felasife ve Tehafütü’l Felasife ‘de akılla ilgili mevzulara değinmiş, bazı (...) felsefî ilimlerin dinle alakalı olmadığını, din açısından fayda veya zarar vermediğini ifade etmiş ama temelde felsefi aklın “sadece dini (metafizik) konulara” yetmeyeceği kanaatine varmıştır. Fakat bu dönemde o, felsefeyi 'dinileştirme' çabasının bir sonucu olarak akıl eleştirisiyle karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Aklın, felsefenin ve felsefî ilimlerin (mantık, astronomi, fizik… vb.) kökenini Kur’an’a dayandırmış ve filozofların bütün bu ilimlerin ‘tümellerini’ dinden öğrendiklerini iddia etmiştir. Böylece Gazali, akılla bir teoloji kurmanın mümkün olmadığını ispatlayarak yani dini ‘akla uygun hale getirme’ girişimlerinin önüne geçerek ‘aklı ve bütün aklî ilimleri dine uygun hale’ getirmek için vahye ve mistik tecrübeye dayalı yeni bir sistem kurmuştur. Dinî akıl, vahyi anlar ve uygular. Kriz sonrası dönemde bütün felsefî sistemleri dinî ve mistik/gnostik bir düşünce etrafında yorumlayan Gazali'de akıl tamamen dinileşmektedir. Avam ilimleri seviyesine indirdiği felsefî (tıp, astronomi, kimya, biyoloji, mantık, matematik vs.) ve dinî ilimleri (kelam, fıkıh ve tefsir) mistik bir zihniyetle yeniden ele alır. Felsefî ilimlerin esası dinîdir ve insanlar bu ilimleri peygamberlerden öğrenmiştir. Kelam ilmi, aklî bir ilim değil, dini bir ilimdir, kelamı kullanarak akli hükümler vermekten vazgeçip sadece dini ve uhrevi hükümler vermesi sağlanmalıdır. Fıkıh ilmi de aklî bir ilim değil dini bir ilimdir ve fıkıh alimleri sadece ahiretle ilgili hüküm verilmelidir. Bunlardan daha üstün olan ise havas ilimleridir. Havas ilmi Gazali'ye göre gnostik tasavvuf öğretisidir. Dünyevî akıl insanı yanılttığı ve ona güvenilmez olduğu için akıl yerine peygamberin vahyi gelmelidir ve ondan sonra vahye benzerliği dolayısıyla "velinin ilhamı" yer almalıdır. Bu ise ilk başta dini anlaması için gerekli olan ‘dinî akıl” ve daha sonra ruh, aşk ve nur yoluyla elde edilmektedir. (shrink)

Geçmişte Tanrı’nın varlığı, ispatı ve yorumu çerçevesinde bazı düşünürler kutsal kitapları, bir kısmı felsefi argümanları, diğer düşünürler ise mistik tecrübeyi merkeze alarak meseleyi tartışmışlardır. Tanrı’nın varlığı ile ilgili meseleyi ‘mistik tecrübe’ etrafında tartışan düşünürlerden biri Mevlana’dır (ö.1273). Onun mistik tecrübesi yani aşk tecrübesi Tanrı’nın varlığına ulaşmadaki tek yoldur. O aşk tecrübesini, gençliğinde babasından ve çevresinden aldığı tasavvufi bilgi anlayışı bağlamında yorumlar. Bu tasavvufi bilgi ve dünya görüşü, duyuların ve aklın yetersizliğine vurgu yapan ve keşf/ilham gibi duygusal sezgiyi ön plana (...) çıkaran bir geleneğin devamı olarak öne sürülmüştür. Tanrı’nın varlığı ona göre rasyonel bir ispat veya bilimsel bir deney konusu olamaz. Tanrı, içsel bir tecrübe ile insanın benliğinde hissettiği bir şeydir. Bu içsel tecrübe yaşantısı yani aşk, beş şekilde insanın hayatında ortaya çıkar. Aşk/nur delili şeklinde, yani bizzat aşk duygusunun bir insanda var olması Tanrı’nın varlığını ispatlar. İkincisi, kendisinde aşk olan bir aşık, tabiata bakınca (temaşa) tabiatta da Aşk’ı (Tanrı) görür. Aşk, bir çiçeğin güzelliğinde, kuşların ötüşünde ortaya çıkar. Üçüncüsü, insanın kendisi ve kendi benliği de Tanrı’nın varlığına delildir (Kendini bilen Rabbini bilir). Dördüncüsü bazı yönleriyle peygambervari niteliklere sahipmiş gibi anlattığı veriler de Tanrı’nın varlığını delillendiren somut örneklerdir. Son olarak ise Mevlana, Aşk ve aşk tecrübesinin varlığına delil olarak Kur’an’da geçen mucizeleri gösterir. Peygamberin vahyini Kur’an’daki mucizeler doğruluyorsa, kendi aşk/gönül vahyini doğrulayan şey de kerametleridir. Mevlana delilleri tamamen mistik düzlemde açıklasa bile zaman zaman rasyonel delilleri kullanmaktan çekinmemiştir. O rasyonel delilin içeriğini kabul eder ve delilin ana temasını beyitlerinde kısa kısa anlatır. Bu yolu kullanmasının nedeni daha işlevsel olması ve hitabını genelde halka yapmasındadır. Fakat rasyonel delilleri ikincil deliller olarak ele alır ve hudus, imkan, ilk hareket, ekmel varlık ve gaye-nizam delillerini aşk tecrübesine göre yeniden yorumlar. Bunu nasıl yaptığı, eserlerinden yola çıkarak gösterilecektir. Mevlana mistik bir düşünür olarak Tanrı’nın varlığı meselesine duyguyla yaklaşmış, O’nun varlığını duygusal bir tecrübe konusu olarak görmüştür. Böyle bir duygusal yoğunluk (aşk) ve duygusal tecrübe insanın Tanrı’nın varlığını ispat etmesine yetmektedir. Rasyonel deliler, aşkı duygusu ve mistik tecrübe yanında önemini yitirmektedir. (shrink)

Ilham Dilman; III*—Universals: Bambrough on Wittgenstein, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Volume 79, Issue 1, 1 June 1979, Pages 35–58, https://doi.org.

The way an individual's psychology is intertwined with their morality is the subject of this fascinating book from the pen of the late Ilham Dilman. Dilman convincingly argues that evil, though it cannot be reduced to psychological terms is explicable in terms of an individual person's psychology. Goodness, by contrast, comes from the person and not their psychology. Philosophers the world over will want to read this book and see how Dilman skilfully defends his arguments.

Fulke Greville speaks of the will as inevitably divided between reason and passion. Shakespeare takes such a division seriously but, through Hamlet, he recognizes the possibility of reason and passion being united in a man's will and purpose.

Writing clearly and avoiding jargon, Dilman investigates Wittgenstein's understanding of the relation between language and reality - i.e. between "the realities" we refer to, speak about and try to understand. Dilman discusses this topic in depth and at the same time covers a broad ground. He appreciates the following different aspects: philosophical skepticism about the existence of the various categories of things and our knowledge of them, about the reality of the logic of the language we speak and of the (...) forms of our reasoning, philosophy's contribution to our understanding of the world and of ourselves, and the contributions of the arts to such an understanding. (shrink)

It is sometimes said that a human being has a soul, whereas animals and lifeless things do not. The distinction made is of significance probably for most religions. Although it sets man apart and places him in a unique category, it should not be taken to imply that there is no difference between what is alive and has sentience, apart from man, and what is lifeless and unconscious. This was Descartes' error. For he ran together several distinctions and equated the (...) soul with consciousness. (shrink)

This article is concerned to say something about what the study of logic meant to wittgenstein. It is concerned to bring out why the kind of questions wittgenstein raised about logic and mathematics cannot be pursued in a purely formal and abstract manner-As russell pursued them to a very large extent. It tries to understand the prominence wittgenstein gave to a study of these questions in his philosophical investigations and to appreciate the sense in which he regarded a study of (...) logic to be fundamental in philosophy. Part I is largely about the sense in which russell's study of logic is philosophical in character though it differs very considerably, In both style and conception, From wittgenstein's study of it. Part ii is concerned to indicate wittgenstein's dissatisfaction with russell's view that mathematics are indistinguishable from logic and to say something about why he thought that russell's formal proof, Even if valid, Did not establish the philosophical thesis for which he argued. Part iii is concerned to indicate wittgenstein's dissatisfaction with russell's approach to the contradictions in the foundations of mathematics and to say something about his very different treatment of this question. (shrink)

Many experts have authored studies on Islamic theology to understand religion in the modern world. The research on religious inclusivism is essential for the literature since many researchers continuously contribute to it. This work analyzes Muhammad Syahrur's Hermeneutical interpretation of religious inclusivism based on the Al-Quran. This research is library research using a qualitative-descriptive approach to explore the views, ideas, concepts, and theories given by Muhammad Syahrur linked to inclusive theology. This research claims that religious inclusivism is highly necessary to (...) create and expand as human interaction is becoming intensive in the current digital era. In this regard, Syahrur proposes a solution to establish religious inclusivism by referring to the content of the verses of the Quran as a moral foundation and life advice that contains verses that are always under the situations of the times and locations. This study offers theoretical implications to improve the literature based on religious inclusivism. (shrink)

JOHN WISDOM AND THE BREADTH OF PHILOSOPHY hham Dhman 1. THE ESSAYS IN THIS VOLUME The essays following the two pieces by John Wisdom have all been written by philosophers who are former students or friends of Wisdom or who have a high regard for his work. Their contributions were all written with him in mind and to be discussed at a conference honouring his work. This conference was held in August 1983 at Trinity College, Cambridge, of which Wisdom has (...) been a fellow since 1935. Wisdom is a master of discursive reasoning and one of his distinctive contributions in philosophy has been to examine its various forms and their interconnections, particularly the form it takes in philosophical inquiry and the way it advances our understanding there. His concern to bring out the links between all that is abstract in such reasoning and the concrete and particular is well known and represented in many of the essays in this volume. But Wisdom has also a deep appreciation of the kind of understanding that is advanced non-discursively. As he puts it in the first piece in this volume: However skilled a good critic 'I am sure that much of what makes "Hamlet" "Hamlet" will run between his fingers'. He has himself advanced our understanding on many questions in philosophy in this way, not simply by what he has said, but also by what he has suggested 'between the lines'. (shrink)

This is a reply to nielsen's discussion in "philosophical investigations" (vol. 3, No. 4, Fall 1980) of my two papers 'wisdom's philosophy of religion' ("c. J. P." dec. 1975). In it I attempt to correct some misunderstandings and reply to some criticisms regarding what I said in my papers about 'religious transcendence', 'the relation between religion and life', 'religious truth', 'religion and myth', 'experience of god', And 'philosophy and religious belief'.

People sometimes ask whether their lives are meaningful or not, whether or not their lives add up to anything. Sometimes they also ask whether life as such is meaningful or not. These are not unconnected questions. Still they are not questions which everyone asks himself. Nor do we always readily recognise what one who asks these questions wants to know. There are some people who will not even find such questions sensible. Some will regard them not as questions but simply (...) as symptoms of something having gone wrong somewhere. Thus in the Diary of the Student Kostya Ryabtsev we find the following words. (shrink)

Sometimes when artists talk about painting one finds what they have to say interesting: because they are talking about something they have lived with, something in which they find meaning. At other times one feels that it would be better for them to paint rather than talk about painting.

John Wisdom studied ‘moral sciences’ in Cambridge under G. E. Moore and C. D. Broad. His first post as a teacher of philosophy was at St Andrew's University under F. G. Stout. His early books Interpretation and Analysis and Problems of Mind and Matter and a series of articles on ‘Logical Constructions’ in Mind 1931-33, later published as a book, belong to this time.

There is a difficulty about past emotions, motives, etc., especially if they are in the distant past and I have forgotten what I then felt like, or if I was not aware of my feelings at the time. In the case of physical objects or events in the past I need not be the only witness; but in the case of past mental phenomena the corroboration of the supporting evidence is characteristically different. No doubt, here too we can have the (...) evidence of diaries and of other people's testimony; but the subject's report today plays a peculiar role, this peculiarity varying according to the case in question. E.g., I remember now that I was in love with Mary in my youth. I can see now, for the first time, that as a baby I felt envious of my mother for what she could give. The difficulty in grasping properly the detail that is brought together in talking about other people's past unconscious phantasies, the difficulty in grasping how we distinguish between the case of a person finally assenting to such an interpretation because he has genuinely remembered and that of a person who assents under suggestion, have led some people to say that in these cases we only seem to remember, and what we experience belongs solely to the present. (shrink)

In a lecture on ‘Science and Psychology’ Dr Drury distinguishes between ‘a psychology which has insight into individual characters’ and ‘a psychology which is concerned with the scientific study of universal types’, one which comprises ‘those subjects that are studied in a university faculty of psychology’. The former, and not the latter, he says, is psychology in ‘the original meaning of the word’. ‘We might say of a great novelist such as Tolstoy or George Eliot that they show profound psychological (...) insight into the characters they depict … In general, it is the great novelists, dramatists, biographers, historians, that are the real psychologists.’. (shrink)

This book is a discussion of Heidegger's, Sartre's and Marcel's rejection of Cartesian epistemology, the scepticism to which it leads and its objectivist conception of human existence. It compares this rejection with Wittgenstein's rejection of these conceptions of man, his relation to the knowledge of what belongs to the world in which he lives. It concentrates on the existentialist critiques of consciousness as a substance and of the self as such a substance, of each person's body as something external to (...) which he is causally related, and of others as at best indirectly accessible to us. It discusses Sartre's positive views on these questions and the way he falls into a form of solipsism himself. It then considers Sartre's rejection of determinism and his conception of freedom as our capacity for choice. In a concluding chapter the book sketches a non-objectivist account of the self, its development, its 'bad faith', its capacity to emerge from it, and its knowledge of itself, free from the objections considered earlier. It then considers some new objections directed at its own account. Contents: Man in the World; Man's Way of Being: Existential Dualism; The Personal Dimension: Emotions and Value Judgements; Sartre and our Identity as Individuals; Mind and Body: Rejection of Cartesian Dualism; Sartre on the Self and the Other: Rejection of Cartesian Solipsism; Human Separateness and the Possibility of Communion: Marcel's Rejection of Sartrean Solipsism; Sartre: Freedom as Something to which Man is Condemned; Self, Self-Knowledge and Self-Change: A Non-Objectivist View and its Defense. (shrink)

Much of the popular attraction of as well as hostility to psycho-analysis, as represented in Freud's ideas, come from its iconoclastic, debunking character. What we regard as the higher things of life are, or seem to be, lowered, much of what passes as the normalities of human life are so represented as to appear under a disturbing aspect. Love is reduced to sex, human freedom is represented as an illusion, the human psyche is pictured as forever divided into warring factions (...) with the poor ego trying to keep peace by appeasements, compromises and, where these fail, by evasions and defensive manoeuvres, but without a will or convictions of its own beyond its own preservation. Moral conscience is said to be the internalized voice of a repressive authority in perpetual conflict with unruly instincts. Freud, who named it the super-ego said that it was ‘the representative of all moral restrictions, the advocate of the impulse towards perfection’. He added that it was ‘as much as we have been able to apprehend psychologically of what people call the “higher” things in human life’. (shrink)

Some people do not find much sense in talk about meaning in life. Some people think that such talk cannot have or express any sense, that those who find sense in it must be under an illusion. Some others think that if one is inclined to think that such talk cannot have any sense that is because one misconstrues its logic. So they set off to show us how it is to be construed if what is said here is to (...) make sense. However, there may not really be anything wrong with what they thus set themselves the task of putting right. Their idea that the logic of discourse on meaning in life has been misconstrued may itself come from limitations in their view of logic and its relation to language, from ‘misunderstandings about the logic of our language’. Therefore, as Professor Hepburn rightly points out, such philosophers, in their attempt to ‘prune and rationalise and redefine the vocabulary’ in question, will merely succeed in misleading themselves in their appreciation of its logic and, worse still, in their understanding of life. In his article Hepburn opposes such simplifications and distortions of logic which may confine our understanding of life. I am in sympathy with his programme, with his desire to fight superficiality, his caution in rejecting brashness. What I want to do is to remark on some of its limitations and to open up some new questions—though it is not my intention here to pursue any of them. (shrink)

The question about ‘identity’ under consideration in this paper is different from the one discussed in some of the other papers—for instance by Geoffrey Madell and Lars Herzberg. That question arises from the fact that human beings change in appearance and behaviour in the course of their life. By and large we have no trouble in recognizing them but we may wonder what it is that remains the same in them or about them so that we recognize them, address them (...) by the same name, respond to them as to someone we know. What is it for a person to be the same person through these changes? By virtue of what do we call them by the same name? (shrink)

I want to ask: what is knowledge of human beings and can it be acquired by experimental methods? It is a widespread assumption in academic psychology that the methods which have been applied with great success in the physical sciences are applicable to investigations in other areas and hence to psychological investigation. The history of experimental psychology is the history of the adjustments psychologists have made to their subject to be able to apply the experimental method of the sciences to (...) it. In the process of trimming the head to fit the cap on it they have emasculated psychology. (shrink)

Wittgenstein said that what he does in philosophy is ‘to show the fly out of the fly bottle’ (Philosophical Investigations¶309). He is, himself, both the fly, his alter‐ego, and the philosopher who turns the fly around. This is a transformation in his vision of and perspective on those matters which tempted him, through the questions it posed for him, into the bottle, there to be trapped – trapped into a form of scepticism, realism, or one of its many reductionist satellites, (...) for instance. The transformation which releases him into the open takes philosophical work which unearths unspoken assumptions and subjects them to criticism. As for the movement into and out of the bottle, this is the philosophical journey in the course of which the philosopher comes to a new understanding of the matters he questioned in a way that led him into the bottle. To come to such a better understanding, therefore, the philosopher has to have the courage of his temptations and not be afraid to give up what he holds on to. What he learns in coming out of the bottle belongs to the work that frees him from the compelling pictures that held him captive within the space of opposed theories held together by common assumptions. It cannot be acquired or conveyed independently of such work. It is in this sense that philosophy is a struggle with difficulties which each philosopher has to face and work through himself. The difficulties are not in him, but they are his– they are difficulties for him. He has to work on them. That is why, while he can learn from others, he cannot borrow from them, build on or go on from what they have established. In the first section of the paper I put on some flesh on this. But what I provide is still a thumb‐nail sketch. The question ‘what is philosophy?’ is itself a philosophical question, like any other, and can only be ‘answered’ like them. It is only that with which we are familiar – in our mastery of the language we speak or in our experience of life –that can raise philosophical questions for us. Thus contrast ‘what is knowledge?’, ‘what is thinking?’ with ‘what is cancer?’, ‘what is osmosis?’. The question ‘what is philosophy?’ similarly can only be asked by a philosopher, someone who has asked and struggled with its questions. Otherwise it is a request for information to which the full answer is: you have to study philosophy if you really want to find out. It follows that what I say about the way philosophical questions are to be answered applies equally to the question about the nature of philosophy. Hence I can do no other than provide a thumb‐nail sketch for those who have themselves struggled with philosophical questions. As for what I provide in the following three sections, they are no more than illustrations of a way of working on those sample questions – questions on which hopefully the reader will have thought himself. I am able to offer such illustrations only because I have myself been caught up by these questions and have worked on them and discussed them more fully elsewhere (see Bibliography). (shrink)

Wisdom holds that the reference in many religious beliefs to what lies beyond the world and "transcends" the senses is misleading. religious beliefs speak and can only speak about the world we know by means of the senses. to embrace much of what christians believe means for a person to change in himself and come into contact with something "within" him. i argue, first, that there is a sense of transcendence which is immune from wisdom's criticism and, secondly, that while (...) wisdom is right in his emphasis on the "inner life" he confuses the spiritual with the psychological. (shrink)

I begin with a brief statement of wisdom's view of the nature of religious belief, its truth and the kind of reasoning to which it is amenable. i then try to disentangle the truth and falsity which, as i see it, this view contains. i agree that the believer and non-believer differ in the way they "see" things even when they do not differ in their expectations about an afterlife. i characterize this difference as "conceptual". i then discuss what it (...) means to speak of "truth" here and consider the kind of "reasoning" it is amenable to. (shrink)