In the tradition of Islamic philosophy, mas̲h̲s̲h̲āʾiyyūn have been subjected to serious criticism in G̲h̲azālī’s (d. 1111) work Tahāfut al-Falāsifa, with the claim that their philosophical views are incoherent. Tahāfut, which pioneered the structural transformation of Islamic philosophy, is also the source of the tradition of Tahāfut in Islamic thought. Islamic philosophy in the Ottoman period presents a multidisciplinary structure in which the disciplines of ilm al-kalām, philosophy and taṣawwuf converge in terms of subject, purpose, and method. Besides, it is (...) the continuation of a tradition in which G̲h̲azālī’s thought is dominant in general. philosophy gained momentum with a competition for a work that Fatih Sultan Mehmed wanted to be written on G̲h̲azālī’s Tahāfut. In this competition, K̲hōd̲j̲ā-Zāde’s (d. 1488) Tahāfut al-Falāsifa and Alāʾ al-Dīn ʿAlī al-Ṭūsī’s (d. 1482) Kitāb al-Zuhr competed and K̲hōd̲j̲ā-Zāde’s work won the competition with major praise. This work of K̲hōd̲j̲ā-Zāde entitled Tahāfut al-Falāsifa has an exceptional place in terms of its contribution to both the Islamic philosophy tradition and the tradition of tahāfut. This work, in terms of its theoretical approach, which has a feature that offers insight and method of addressing the issues systematically, is a typical example to the Islamic philosophy of the Ottoman period and gained a considerable reputation at that time. The original name of K̲hōd̲j̲ā-Zāde’s work is Kitâb al-Tahāfut fi'l-Muhākama Bayna'l G̲h̲azālī wa'l Falāsifa. The work consists of twenty philosophical issues. K̲hōd̲j̲ā-Zāde explained his views on all philosophical issues in these twenty-two issues, and also discussed the issues on which G̲h̲azālī conflicted with the philosophers. Three issues that have become important in the tradition of thought after al-G̲h̲azālī denounced the philosophers constitute the main subject of the work. The instructions and annotations written on this work made a great contribution to the development of philosophy in the tradition of Ottoman thought, and moreover, in a sense, it provided the revival of the dusty volume of tahâfut discussions. In this article, by using literature and data analysis methods, the tradition of tahāfut reflecting the course of Islamic philosophy in the Ottoman period and the place and importance of K̲hōd̲j̲ā-Zāde’s tahāfut in this tradition will be revealed. Another aim of this study is the possible relations between K̲hōd̲j̲ā-Zāde's intellectual personality and the structural features of the Ottoman thought tradition. (shrink)

Duygular; insanın epistemik, etik ve estetik yönleriyle doğrudan ilişkili varoluşsal özniteliklerdir. İnsan anlam-lı, değerli ve güzel bir hayat kurarken akılla birlikte duygulardan motivasyon almaktadır. Duygular, çok fonk-siyonlu yapısıyla insanın niyet, tutum, tavır ve eylemlerini belirleme, harekete geçirme, yönlendirme, etkile-me, dönüştürme, frenleme ve bazen de manipüle etme araçlarıdır. Bu nedenle ahlak başta olmak üzere insan eylemlerini problem edinen her araştırma, duyguları ele almak durumun¬dadır. İnsanı tam anlamıyla tanıma-nın yolu, pratik yaşantısı içerisinde ortaya çıkan duygusallığını anlamaktan geçer. Dolayısıyla teorik olanın durağanlığı ile (...) hayatın akışkanlığı arasındaki uçurumda duygular, felsefi bir soruşturmanın konusu olmakta-dır. Duygunun dinamik yapısını ve sınır çizilemeyen doğasını dilin sınırları içerisinde ifade etmek kolay değildir. Bu-nunla birlikte insan için duygular, kendini, evreni, doğayı, maddeyi, bireyleri, toplumları, iyiyi, kötüyü, değerli olanı ve olmayanı anladığı, olgu ve olaylarla başa çıktığı, pratik hayatını yönettiği, karar verme süreçlerinde, niyetlerinde, yönelimlerinde ve seçimlerinde etkin, tüm bu süreçlere içkin, dinamik, fonksiyonel ve bilişsel öznitelikler olarak öne çıkmaktadır. İnsan, günlük yaşamı içinde çok çeşitli duygu durumlarını tecrübe etmek-tedir. Böylece o, tecrübe ettiği bu duygu durumları ile sürekli değişen ruh hallerine sahip olmaktadır. Bu tec-rübeler, dış etkenlere bağlı olabildiği gibi insanın içsel dinamiklerinin etkisiyle de ortaya çıkabil¬mektedir. Sosyal yaşantısı itibariyle insan, duygusal tepkiler veren ve duygusal etkiler alan dinamik bir ahlak yaşantısı-na sahiptir. Bu bağlamda duygular, insanın kendi benliği ile yaşadığı toplumun benliği arasında denge kurma-sını sağlamakta ve insanın temel yönelimlerini belirlemektedir. Duygular, insana eylem motivasyonu kazan-dıran, onun tasavvurlarına, geçmiş, şimdi ve gelecekle ilgili değerlendirmelerine yön veren, harekete geçirici yetilerdir. Pişmanlık, bizzat benliğe yönelen ve onun ahlâkîliğini içsel olarak düzenleyip inşa eden ahlâkî bir özdenetim duygusudur. Bu duygu gerek bireysel ve gerekse sosyal yaşamda insanı etkileyen doğasıyla özel-likle ahlâkî değer dünyasında merkezi bir rol oynamaktadır. Pişmanlık, en yalın haliyle insanın geçmişteki eylemine ya da eylemsizliğine dönük olumsuz yargısını içeren acı bir his biçiminde ortaya çıkmakta ve keşke ifadesiyle dile gelmektedir. Pişmanlık duygusu insanda içsel tesirlerin etkisiyle oluşmaktadır. Çoğu ahlak duygusu gibi pişmanlık da hem fenomenolojik bir duyuş hem de bilişsel bir yargı içermektedir. Psikolojik ve kavramsal açıdan karmaşık bir duygu olan pişmanlık; üzüntü, hayal kırıklığı, özlem, nostalji ve bazen bir şey-den pişmanlık duymamanın verdiği rahatlama gibi bir dizi duyguyu ortaya çıkarmaktadır. Pişmanlık aynı zamanda güçlü, motive edici bir üzüntü ve işlerin istendiği gibi gitmediğine dair tutkulu bir şikâyet olarak da kendini gösterebilmektedir. O, bugünümüzü ve geleceğimizi şekillendiren genellikle geçmişe dönük bir acı deneyimidir. Pişmanlık, genellikle kişinin yaptığı şeyi onaylamadığını, farklı şekilde olmasını arzuladığını, üzüldüğünü, utandığını veya suçlu olduğunu ifade eden ve farkındalıkla ortaya çıkan bir duygudur. Pişmanlık, insanı geçmişteki ve şimdiki hatalarından ders çıkarmaya ve gelecekteki davranışlarını düzeltmeye teşvik eden, insanın özdenetim yeteneğinin bir parçasıdır. Bu duygu, kişinin kendi eylemleriyle ilgili içsel muhasebe-sinin bir sonucu olarak ortaya çıkan düzeltici ve iyileştirici ahlaki bir özdenetim duygusudur. Pişmanlık, insa-nın ahlaki doğasının zorunlu bir sonucudur. Bu duygu onun seçim yapabilen bir varlık olmasından, yani ahlaki özgürlüğünden kaynaklanmaktadır. Pişmanlığın oluşabilmesi için ahlaki eylemin en az iki seçenek arasından yapılacak bir seçim sonucunda gerçekleşmiş olması gerekir. Bu nedenle, pişmanlığın ön koşulu özgürlüktür. Akıl ve duygunun düşüncelerimiz ve eylemlerimiz üzerindeki karşılıklı rolleri, özellikle pişmanlık olgusunda belirgindir. Dolayısıyla ister pratik ister teorik alanda olsun pişmanlık, sadece insanın duygusal yanıyla değil, bilişsel yanıyla da ilgili bir duygudur. Pişmanlığın, geçmişte yaşanmış veya bugün etkisi devam eden bir olgu üzerinde kişinin hatasını fark etmesiyle oluşan bir üzüntü hali olması, onun bir değerlendirme duygusu oldu-ğunu gösterir. Duyguların harekete geçirici yönü pişmanlıkta geriye doğru işlevsiz olacağından, bu teşvik edici yön gelecekte pişmanlık yaratan durumun tekrarını önleme yönünde kendini göstermektedir. Böylece geç-mişte yaşanan üzücü bir durum, olumsuzdan olumluya, yıkıcıdan yapıcıya doğru ahlaki bir evrime zemin hazırlayacaktır. Bu makalede duygu etiğinin ilkeleri, kavramsal ve kuramsal çerçevesi göz önünde bulundurulmak suretiyle pişmanlık duygusunun mahiyeti, değeri ve fonksiyonelliği felsefî açıdan analiz edilip yorumlanacaktır. (shrink)

According to Ibn Khaldūn, man is a social entity deeply influenced by the geo-economics-politics of the environment in which he lives. The effect is seen as so strong that nearly all of these structures in their relationship to human beings are dominated by it. In this system, we see human beings as a creature who is both able to adapt himself to the environment and able to evolve in this harmony. From the perspective of Ibn Khaldūn, man cannot be evaluated (...) or defined separately from the environmental conditions, the technique and architecture he has developed. Ibn Khaldūn sees the primary source of this change to be the desire to make life both more prosperous and bearable. Therefore, the most natural motivations that affect man’s desire to alter the natural world are the environmental challenges that he encounters. The challenges that are imposed upon man in the natural world are those that have led to human progress. From badāwa (nomadic society) to ḥaḍāra (sedentary society) and so to the ceaseless drive of human progress that has served to make life more endurable, every effort in this sense leads to a physical and moral loosening as the incessant struggle to survive that defines human existence is made more bearable. Physical slack by breaking the resistance of man to resist the environmental conditions; and moral looseness by making man more vulnerable to the temptation of desires, pleasures and welfare that are the cause of moral dilemmas. Ibn Khaldūn’s moral thought with its social, political, and other fields of application are all contexts that enable an understanding of the devaluation of money-hedonist morality in all ways. This article aims to analyze the social, political and economic dilemmas and challenges that the capitalist, consumption-based money-hedonist morality (obesity, social media addiction, consumption, and moral devaluation in the face of financial, virtual and imagined valuations, etc.) from the perspective of Ibn Khaldūn. Summary: Man is endowed with both good and evil. Ibn Khaldūn notes that man tends to misuse these two orientations with a higher inclination towards evil, and that social conditions have an effect on this. He sees another characteristic of man, that they develop habits; accordingly, man is the child of his habits. Habits are second nature to man and affects all of his perceptions, particularly notions concerning truth. At the same time, human beings are under the constant influence of both habits, culture, and climate and geography; and all of these together affect our ethics, psychology and characteristics. Thus, man is a historical, social being that is changed, transformed and determined by adapting to these cultural, social, political and ecological conditions. The concept of Money-Hedonism is one that we have created by combining the terms monetarism, an economic concept, and hedonism, a concept in moral philosophy; the resulting term we seek to produce essentially translates as the adoration of Money. As is well known, hedonism refers to a philosophy of life that has its origins in the ancient Greek world which sees the purpose of life as one in which the pursuit of pleasure is the highest good. Whereas, Monetarism is an American-based economic view developed by Milton Friedman in 1970, linking all the balance in the economy to the supply and demand of money. According to this, the demand for money is operation, precaution and motives of speculation of individuals the amount of money they want to keep in cash on them. The power of an exchange tool increases with the amount and quality of what it is achievable in its utilization. In this respect, money has been an unprecedented source of power in modern society as a means by which change can be achieved. The increase in the power of money as an effective means as manifesting power has led to a socio-cultural and socio-economic superstructure around this power. In the life of an individual that is part of such a culture and is unable to isolate himself from the economy in which he lives, the values that can be expressed with money are consequently formed. In this structure, since the measure of life is money, money determines the quality of human life and human pleasure to a far greater degree than at any time in history. Thus, those living in this age have developed a new moral philosophy of value formed by the combination of these two concepts (monetarism and hedonism), which we have defined as Money-Hedonism. The money-hedonist individual is one that is in love with money, the joy of having it, the pleasure of using it, who desires it with immeasurable passion and ambition and is willing to use all legitimate and illegitimate methods of obtaining it. The most prominent characteristics of this type of individual is egoism, a desire to possess, hatred and mistrust. Ibn Khaldūn argues that the inhabitants of a city that live a settled life and who are living in the city have become economically prosperous and absorbed by consumption and pleasure, and, consequently morally degenerate as a result of the abuse of their evil nature. As can be understood from Ibn Khaldūn’s explanations, the basic element that determines the transition of people from the badāwi way of life to ḥaḍāri (settled) is the change in the livelihoods and related needs. He perceives this change as progressing from necessity to luxury, and, with this change, ethical concern in the nature of people being replaced by aesthetic care. In this way, since aesthetic concern reveals the dissatisfaction of the human self, man always pursues what is perceived to be better and more beautiful, and therefore he easily tends to any malignancy that may disrupt his religious and worldly peace. The ḥaḍāra community of Ibn Khaldūn versus the badāwa represent a modern society with a much more heterogeneous population, with a significant increase in lifestyle diversity along with urbanization. However, the determinative effect of the relationship with nature or the way in which society engage in economic activities have not changed. While modern people are urbanized, they are also heterogeneously shaped by psycho-social necessities demanded by urbanization. Man has created a new socio-psychological condition that not only affects the socio-economic but the way of forming a relationship through the accelerated development of new communication methods, facilitating access to information, and the opening of new methods of communication field between institutions. While man’s connection to nature has become disconnected, he no longer perceives himself as human being in nature but as a human within the city, the individual urban life and the law define this perception. The rupture from nature has created an inevitable result of alienation to nature as well as the estrangement of man with his own nature. The liberal policies adopted with capitalism have encouraged competition and free entrepreneurship. In the time that Ibn Khaldūn lived, man who created himself with his struggle in the nature brings himself / herself into the economic structure of competition in the modern period. Unlike in more traditional societies of the past, the modern way of life not only expresses itself in our new way of life and moral values, but also by statistical values. The exploitative and mathematical world, which forms the current economic science, shapes the socio-economic and socio-psychological structure of modern man. It is understood that the life brought by luxury renders the dynamic, subjective, disciplined sense of morality dysfunctional by destroying the moral values of man, particularly by reducing their feeling of shame. As a result, while the world of value of money-hedonism is solid, materialistic and cold; man in trying to exist in this world of value carries a flexible, spiritual and emotional nature. As such, human beings are pushed into social anomaly situations such as a constant conflict, dilemma, suicide, insecurity and solitude in this world of value. (shrink)