A Study on the Genesis of Islamic Rational Thought

Introduction

Scholars have diverged in their definitions of Islamic philosophy. Some deny its existence altogether, considering it merely a reproduction of Greek philosophy. They argue that the works of al-Kindi, al-Farabi, and Ibn Rushd are simply reiterations of Plato and Aristotle's ideas. This is the view of many Orientalists, who base their argument on the assumption that the Arab individual was incapable of independently creating complete philosophical systems. Additionally, some contemporary Islamists, driven by religious bias, refuse to acknowledge the existence of Islamic philosophy, maintaining that Islamic philosophy is derived from its doctrinal and cultural foundations.

Islamic philosophy drew from multiple sources, including:

• Islamic Sufism: This encompasses Neoplatonism and stems from Christian and Jewish influences.
• Jurisprudence and Kalam (Islamic Theology): These disciplines played a significant role in shaping Islamic philosophical thought

The emergence of Islamic philosophy is attributed to al-Kindi, al-Farabi, and Ibn Rushd. The latter, Ibn Rushd, was able to establish a philosophical system that bridged jurisprudence and Kalam. Islamic philosophy, in its essence, encompasses jurisprudence and Kalam, particularly with the Mu'tazila school, as they engaged in discussions of major issues using reason. The Andalusian period is considered the pinnacle of Islamic philosophical development, with contributions from Ibn Rushd and Ibn Tufayl. It is also important to acknowledge the preparatory phase leading to this flourishing, particularly the work of al-Razi

Section 1: Defining the Concept of Philosophy in the Islamic Era
The Concept of Islamic Philosophy

Islamic philosophy is a broad term that can be defined and used in various ways. It can refer to the philosophy derived from Islamic texts, presenting Islam's worldview and perspectives on the universe, creation, life, and the Creator. However, a more general usage encompasses all philosophical works and ideas that were developed and explored within the framework of Arab-Islamic culture and civilization under the Islamic empire, without necessarily being tied to religious doctrines or Islamic scripture. In some cases, Islamic philosophy is presented as any philosophical work produced by Muslim philosophers, given the difficulty of isolating these works from the broader intellectual context

The Concept of Philosophy in Islam

The closest word used in the primary Islamic texts (Quran and Sunnah) to the term "philosophy" is "Hikmah" (wisdom). Therefore, many Muslim philosophers employ the term "Hikmah" as a synonym for "Philosophy," which entered Arabic-Islamic thought as a translation of the Greek word "Philosophia." While the term "Philosophy" within the context of Islamic civilization remained associated with Greco-Western philosophical concepts, when discussing Islamic philosophy in the general sense as a worldview and inquiry into the nature of life, it is necessary to include other schools of thought under different designations, most notably Kalam, Usul al-Fiqh (Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence), and Language Sciences

Section 2: Stages of Islamic Philosophical Thought
The Emergence of Islamic Philosophy

Early Islamic philosophy began with Ya'qub ibn Ishaq al-Kindi in the second century of the Islamic calendar (early 9th century CE) and ended with Ibn Rushd in the 6th century AH (late 12th century CE), coinciding broadly with the period known as the Golden Age of Islam

If we consider the definition of philosophy as an attempt to construct a comprehensive vision of the universe and life, then the beginnings of these works in Islamic civilization began as an intellectual current in the early beginnings of the Islamic state, starting with theology, and reached its peak in the 9th century when Muslims became acquainted with ancient Greek philosophy, which led to the emergence of a generation of Muslim philosophers who differed from theologians

Theology was based primarily on religious texts from the Quran and Sunnah and logical linguistic methods to build an argumentative style to confront those who tried to challenge the truths of Islam, while the Peripatetic philosophers, the Muslim philosophers who adopted Greek philosophy, had their first reference was the Aristotelian or Platonic conception, which they considered compatible with the texts and spirit of Islam. And through their attempt to use logic to analyze what they considered to be fixed universal laws arising from the will of God, they initially made the first attempts at reconciliation to bridge some of the gap that originally existed in the conception of the nature of the Creator between the Islamic concept of God and the Greek philosophical concept of the first principle or the first mind

The Debate of Rational Philosophy in Islam

Islamic philosophy developed from a stage of studying issues that are only proven by transmission and obedience to a stage of studying issues that are limited to proof by rational evidence, but the common point throughout this historical extension was the knowledge of God and the proof of the Creator. This philosophical current reached a turning point of great importance in the hands of Ibn Rushd through his adherence to the principle of free thought and the rule of reason based on observation and experience

The first prominent Arab philosopher was al-Kindi, who is known as the "First Teacher" among the Arabs, followed by al-Farabi, who adopted much of Aristotelian thought from the active intellect and presented the world and the concept of natural language. Al-Farabi founded a school of thought, among its most important scholars were: al-Amiri, al-Sijistani, and al-Tawhidi

Al-Ghazali was the first to establish a peace between logic and Islamic sciences when he showed that the methods of Greek logic can be neutral and separated from Greek metaphysical conceptions. Al-Ghazali expanded on the explanation of logic and used it in the science of the foundations of jurisprudence, but in contrast, he launched a fierce attack on the philosophical views of the Peripatetic Muslim philosophers in his book "The Incoherence of the Philosophers," which Ibn Rushd later responded to in his book "The Incoherence of the Incoherence

Rejectionism and Criticism of Philosophy in Islam

Within this context, there has always been a strong tendency to reject delving into theological issues, the nature of the divine and the created, and to prefer to suffice with what is contained in the texts of the Quran and Sunnah. This trend, known as the "Ahl al-Hadith" (People of the Hadith), to which most of those who worked in Islamic jurisprudence and ijtihad are attributed, has always doubted the effectiveness of theological argumentation methods and philosophical logic. There are still some Islamic currents that believe that "there are no philosophers in Islam", and it is not correct to use this phrase. Islam has its scholars who follow the Quran and Sunnah, and those who have engaged in philosophy are among the innovators and the misguided

In a later stage of Islamic civilization, a critical movement of philosophy will emerge, the most important of its figures is Ibn Taymiyyah, who is often considered a complete opponent of philosophy and one of the scholars of the Hadith school who rejects all philosophical work. However, his responses to the methods of Greek logic and his attempt to clarify its relationship to metaphysical concepts (the opposite of what al-Ghazali wanted to explain) in his book (The Response to the Logicians) were considered by some contemporary Arab researchers as a critique of Greek philosophy rather than just a rejection of it

Conclusion

Before Islam, the Arabs did not have any notable philosophical discussions, except for some simple forms of rational thinking that aimed to prove the existence of the Creator of the universe. With the emergence of the message of Islam and the Arabs' setting out to conquer countries, they were introduced to the sciences of Greek, Persian, and Indian philosophy. However, they were fascinated by the works of the Greek "Aristotle", so they embraced its translation and study of its commentaries, and were greatly influenced by it, which led some Orientalists to decide that there is no pure Islamic or Arab philosophy, but rather Arabic translations of Aristotle's works

But the truth is that Islamic philosophy went through natural stages of formation and influence until it presented its own topics. For example, "kalam" appeared, which was placed to defend religion against skeptics using logical and dialectical tools and means. Philosophical schools also emerged, such as the "Mu'tazila" and the "Sufis", whose works enriched human thought

A Study in the Philosophy of Science: Essentialism & Evolutionism

A Study in the Philosophy of Science: Essentialism & Evolutionism

Introduction:

Since the dawn of history, humans have been driven by curiosity to question the nature of existence, the origin of the universe, and the meaning behind the natural phenomena that surround them. This quest has been evident throughout the journey of philosophers and scientists across the ages, giving rise to diverse philosophical trends, each striving to provide a comprehensive explanation for existence and its formation.

Among the most significant of these trends is Essentialism, a school of thought that posits the existence of a fixed essence for all things. This essence, according to Essentialists, determines the identity and characteristics of an object. Essentialists believe that the world is composed of unchanging, fixed entities, and that the changes we observe are merely superficial phenomena that do not represent true change in the essence of things.

Plato is considered one of the most prominent philosophers of Essentialism. He believed in the existence of an abstract, ideal world containing the perfect forms of things, and that our material world is an imperfect shadow of these ideal forms. Similarly, Plato's student, Aristotle, further contributed to the development of Essentialism through his theory of "the four causes," which explains the origin of everything through four causes: the material cause, the formal cause, the efficient cause, and the final cause.

In contrast to Essentialism, Evolutionism emerged as a school of thought that embraces the idea of continuous change in all aspects of the universe, asserting that this change is the fundamental law governing existence. Evolutionists believe that the world did not exist in its current form since the beginning of time, but rather emerged through processes of evolution and change over time.

Darwin stands as one of the most renowned Evolutionist philosophers. He proposed his famous theory of "natural selection" to explain the evolution of species. Darwin argued that living species did not arise all at once but rather evolved gradually through the process of "survival of the fittest," where organisms most capable of adapting to their environment survive, while less adaptable ones become extinct.

The conflict between Essentialism and Evolutionism has been at the heart of profound philosophical debates spanning centuries, with each side attempting to provide evidence supporting their theory. These debates have contributed to driving the progress of science and thought, leading to a better understanding of the nature of existence and the universe.

- What are the actual differences between the two schools of thought?

- How have they influenced the course of science and its philosophy?

Chapter I: Stabilism: Between the Constancy of Essence and the Change of Appearance

Stabilism: A Philosophical Perspective

Stabilism holds a prominent position among the most important philosophical currents that flourished within the realm of Islamic thought, establishing fixed rules regarding the constancy of bodies and their inability to change. The establishment of this doctrine is attributed to the great Greek philosopher Aristotle, as many pioneers of Islamic thought, including al-Kindi, al-Farabi, and Ibn Sina, adopted his ideas about the constancy of material entities.

This theory is a central axis in the Islamic philosophical structure, forming a fundamental basis for understanding the nature of existence and the material world. This theory is distinguished by its accuracy and logic, which has made it widely accepted among Islamic philosophers throughout the ages.

Many schools of thought have emerged that have contributed to the development of Stabilism and the deepening of its ideas, adding immense intellectual richness to this field. Among the most important of these schools are the Baghdad School and the Basra School, which played a significant role in spreading and promoting the ideas of Stabilism.

The influence of Stabilism was not limited to Islamic philosophy alone, but extended to other fields of knowledge such as theology and jurisprudence, indicating the importance of this doctrine and the depth of its impact on Islamic thought in general.

Despite the emergence of other philosophical currents that contradicted Stabilism, this doctrine has retained its prestigious position in the context of Islamic thought, indicating its strength and resilience.

Principles of Stabilism:

1. Constancy of Bodies: An Unchanging Essence

Stabilism establishes a fundamental principle that bodies in their natural state enjoy absolute and unshakeable constancy. What we see as changes in bodies are the result of external factors that affect them, while their essence remains constant and unchanged.

Proponents of this doctrine provide illustrative examples, such as a piece of iron that corrodes due to environmental factors, or an apple that falls from a tree due to gravity. In both cases, the identity of the iron and the apple remains the same, despite the apparent changes that have occurred to them.

2. Essence and Accident: A Fine Line of Distinction

Stabilism pays great attention to distinguishing between the concepts of essence and accident. In their view, essence represents the constant dimension that defines the identity of a thing and distinguishes it from others, while accident refers to the changing attributes that may not touch the essence of the thing.

For example, "iron" is the essence of a piece of metal, while "color" and "shape" are accidents. No matter how the color and shape of a piece of metal change, it remains iron in its essence.

3. Power and Action: Latent Energy Within Every Body

Stabilism emphasizes that every material body carries within it latent energy that allows it to perform an action. This energy is clearly manifested in the body's movement or its ability to change another body.

For example, when a ball is thrown on the ground, the ball exerts a force on the ground, and vice versa. Similarly, when a cart is pushed, the force applied to the cart exerts an action that moves it from its place.

4. Causality: A Strong Link Between Events

Proponents of Stabilism believe in the law of causality, which states that every effect must have a specific cause, and that this cause must precede its effect.

In other words, no event can occur without a cause that detonates it. For example, a tree cannot fall without being affected by strong winds.

Conclusion

Stabilism represents a significant philosophical current in Islamic thought that has had a profound impact on various fields of knowledge. Its principles, which emphasize the constancy of bodies, the distinction between essence and accident, the existence of latent energy within every body, and the law of causality, have provided a solid framework for understanding the nature of existence and the relationship between events.

Despite the emergence of other philosophical currents, Stabilism has retained its influence and relevance, reflecting its strength and ability to adapt to new ideas and challenges.

Chapter II: The Evolutionary Theory: A Tapestry of Unending Transformations

The Evolutionary Theory: Unveiling the Dynamics of Existence

The concept of evolution stands as a cornerstone in our comprehension of the universe, illuminating its inherent dynamism and ceaseless transformation. This profound notion finds its roots firmly embedded within the rich tapestry of Arab-Islamic thought, where its early manifestations emerged with luminaries like Al-Jahiz and the Brethren of Purity. Ibn Khaldun, the pioneering sociologist, further refined these ideas, culminating in the modern era with a comprehensive understanding of evolution.

Within the Islamic context, evolutionary concepts gained increasing clarity with the contributions of Ibn Khaldun, the father of sociology. In his seminal work, "The Muqaddimah," he eloquently articulated the interconnectedness of evolution with history and social phenomena. Ibn Khaldun asserted that civilizations and urban structures undergo continuous transformation over time, while societies experience cycles of ascent and decline.

It is, however, important to acknowledge that evolutionary ideas in Arab-Islamic thought remained relatively confined compared to their modern counterparts. While Islamic scholars focused on social and cultural evolution, they did not delve extensively into the realm of biological evolution.

In the Western context, the seeds of evolutionary thought can be traced back to ancient Greek philosophers like Heraclitus, who famously proclaimed "everything flows," and Plato, who posited the existence of an ideal world where archetypes reside, towards which material world beings strive. These ideas gained further momentum in Western thought with the emergence of scientists like Lamarck, who proposed the intriguing theory of "acquired inheritance."

However, the true revolution in the field of evolution unfolded with the advent of Charles Darwin, who unveiled his groundbreaking work, "On the Origin of Species," in 1859. In this masterpiece, Darwin introduced the revolutionary concept of "natural selection," which laid the foundation for understanding the mechanisms driving evolution.

The Pillars of Evolutionary Theory:

The evolutionary theory rests upon a set of fundamental principles that underpin our understanding of the natural world:

1. Unrelenting Change:

This principle asserts that all living organisms are in a state of perpetual transformation, with biological species not remaining static but evolving over time.

2. A Tapestry of Diversity:

This principle highlights the vast diversity of life on Earth as a testament to the evolutionary process, with different species having arisen from a common ancestral lineage.

3. The Power of Natural Selection:

Natural selection is considered the primary driving force behind evolution, favoring organisms that possess a superior ability to adapt to their environment, enabling them to survive and reproduce, while less adaptable species face extinction.

4. The Legacy of Heredity:

Heredity serves as the mechanism by which traits are passed from one generation to the next, playing a pivotal role in the diversity and evolution of living organisms.

5. Gradual Diversification:

This principle states that new species emerge through the process of gradual divergence from pre-existing species, driven by genetic modifications and adaptation to diverse environments.

6. A Universal Framework:

The principles of evolution extend beyond the realm of biology, encompassing various aspects of life, including living organisms, societies, and cultures.

The Pillars of Scientific Support:

The evolutionary theory stands firmly on the bedrock of compelling evidence from various scientific disciplines:

• Evolutionary Biology:

This science provides irrefutable evidence of the transformation of species over time, meticulously documented through the study of fossils and genetic records.

• Comparative Anatomy:

This science unveils the remarkable similarities in anatomical structures among different species, providing strong support for the concept of common ancestry.

• Genetics:

This science sheds light on the crucial role of heredity in transferring traits across generations, explaining the remarkable diversity of living organisms.

Conclusion:

The philosophy of science has been the stage for a profound and enduring intellectual struggle, centering on the fundamental nature of the natural world. At the forefront of this debate stand two opposing schools of thought: fixism and evolutionism, each offering radically different interpretations of the origin and development of species.

Fixism, rooted in traditional perspectives, champions the immutability of species. It posits that each species was meticulously crafted in its distinct form and remains unaltered throughout the vast expanse of time. This doctrine stands in stark contrast to evolutionism, which vehemently challenges this notion. Evolutionism asserts that species are not static entities but rather dynamic assemblages that undergo continuous transformation over time. It further postulates that all living organisms share a common ancestry, tracing their origins to a single, primordial progenitor.

Evolutionism has emerged as the dominant paradigm in modern science, bolstered by an overwhelming corpus of evidence amassed from diverse scientific disciplines. Biology, paleontology, genetics, and comparative anatomy, among others, have yielded a wealth of data that unequivocally supports the evolutionary narrative. These scientific breakthroughs have unveiled the remarkable capacity of species to adapt to their ever-changing environments, while simultaneously revealing the breathtaking diversity of life forms that adorn our planet.

Evolutionary theory provides a compelling and coherent framework for understanding the processes of change that permeate the natural world. It elucidates the mechanisms underlying the emergence of new species, as well as the tragic demise of others. This powerful explanatory tool has revolutionized our comprehension of the intricate tapestry of life on Earth.

Despite the overwhelming scientific consensus in favor of evolution, fixism still persists in certain quarters, often fueled by religious or philosophical convictions. While science has marshaled irrefutable evidence supporting evolution, the debate surrounding the origin of species continues to this day. Questions remain regarding the intricate mechanisms that drive evolutionary change, as well as the potential role of a creator in this grand cosmic drama.

Delving into the Eastern Roots of Logic

Delving into the Eastern Roots of Logic

Introduction:

Logic, a cornerstone of rational thought, is often attributed to Aristotle, with its genesis traced back to 4th century BC Greece amidst the flourishing era of Greek philosophy. However, a deeper exploration reveals that the origins of logic, and Aristotelian logic in particular, stretch back to earlier Eastern civilizations, where this mode of thought not only predated its Greek counterpart but also played a pivotal role in its development. This concise research delves into the schools that meticulously crafted the foundation of logic in India and China, long before its emergence in Greece, and examines how their contributions indelibly shaped the trajectory of Greek logic.

Indian Logic: A Legacy of Rigorous Reasoning

In his seminal work, "History of Logic," Alexander Makovetsky aptly acknowledges the existence of Indian logic, asserting its equivalence to Aristotelian logic in terms of originality, rationality, and its comprehensive definition as the science of thought, the science of the laws of reason, and the science of epistemology. Among the Indians, logic was intricately intertwined with rhetoric and the art of speech. The vibrant philosophical debates, where proponents of diverse currents vigorously defended their concepts and presented compelling arguments against opposing views, served as a catalyst for the birth of logic in India. Consequently, logic initially found its moorings in the theory of rhetorical art, with logical theories seamlessly interwoven with rhetorical principles. These ancient texts emphasized the importance of avoiding emotional states such as stress, depression, or anger during discourse, as these states could adversely impact the coherence and validity of speech.

Among the numerous schools that flourished in India, each with a keen interest in logic, were the Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Sarvaka, and Jaina schools.

Nyaya School: The Quintessence of Syllogism

The Nyaya school, attributed to Gautama, derives its name from the Sanskrit word "nyaya," signifying the proof or method that reason employs to arrive at the correct conclusion or universal truth. The hallmark of this school was its meticulous development of a rigorous system of logic. It established clear-cut rules, delineated the criteria and forms of syllogisms, meticulously distinguished between valid and invalid arguments, and postulated that the validity and invalidity of a syllogism hinge upon the presence or absence of specific symptoms.

In contrast to Aristotelian logic, which progresses from two premises to a conclusion, Nyaya logic unfolds through a structured five-step process:

1. Articulation of the thesis to be established

2. Presentation of the rationale underpinning the thesis

3. Introduction of an example that embodies a rule relevant to supporting the thesis

4. Exposition of the relationship between the rule and the thesis in the context of the provided proof

Gautama's seminal example in the Nyaya Sutra aptly illustrates this process:

(1- Fire exists on the hill

(2- Because smoke is present there

(3- Wherever smoke exists, fire is also present, as evidenced in the kitchen

(4- Smoke is associated with the fire on the hill

(5- Therefore, fire exists on the hill

The Nyaya school's purview extended beyond syllogism, encompassing a thorough examination of potential fallacies that could ensnare the thought process. To safeguard against these common pitfalls, Nyaya philosophers meticulously compiled a comprehensive list of fallacies or common errors to be meticulously avoided.

Note:

It is noteworthy that Aristotelian syllogism was not entirely unknown to ancient civilizations. In fact, Indian syllogism, with its five-premise structure, could be considered the true foundation upon which Aristotelian syllogism was later built. Furthermore, the Indians' profound contributions to linguistic studies and debate, the bedrock upon which logic rests, should not be overlooked.

Indian Sophist School: 

The Reality of Sophistry in the East:

While sophistry is often associated with ancient Greece, it's important to recognize that similar philosophical movements emerged in other parts of the world, including India. Similar to their Greek counterparts, Indian sophists were particularly interested in rhetoric, debate, language, and dialectics. However, they distinguished themselves by vehemently rejecting the authority of the Vedas, the sacred Hindu scriptures. This stark contrast with traditional Hindu beliefs set them apart and allowed them to claim a monopoly on true knowledge.

The Power of Persuasion:

Indian sophists were renowned for their exceptional oratory skills. Their mastery of language enabled them to construct compelling arguments that could support or refute any given proposition. This ability to manipulate perspectives and present opposing viewpoints simultaneously was a hallmark of their approach. In this aspect, they shared a common trait with their Greek counterparts.

Spreading Their Teachings:

Indian sophists strategically chose specific times of the year, often coinciding with religious festivals and rituals, to disseminate their teachings. These gatherings provided them with a captive audience eager to engage in intellectual discourse. They offered their instruction in logic, emphasizing its power as a tool for convincing others of any desired conclusion.

Language and Dialectics in India:

The Indian interest in rhetoric, debate, and discussion stemmed from a deep fascination with language itself. Linguistic studies have a long and rich history in India, predating many other civilizations. Indian scholars made significant contributions to the field of linguistics, establishing themselves as pioneers in this domain.

Conclusion:

India boasts a vibrant intellectual heritage, marked by advancements in philosophy, logic, and various sciences. Indian thinkers actively engaged in philosophical inquiry, exploring fundamental questions of knowledge and existence. Their contributions laid the groundwork for subsequent philosophical developments, and their influence extended beyond India's borders, reaching Greece and shaping the trajectory of Western thought.

The Significance of Indian Logic:

Logic was a cornerstone of many Indian philosophical schools. Some scholars argue that Indian logic served as the foundation for Aristotelian logic, a pivotal development in Western philosophy. While Aristotelian logic gained prominence in Europe, the Middle East, and parts of Asia, Indian logic flourished in China, Japan, Tibet, Mongolia, the Philippines, and Indonesia. This widespread adoption underscores the originality and significance of Indian logic.

Chinese Logic: From Confucius to Mozi

The origins of Chinese philosophy can be traced back to the thoughts of Lao Tzu (604 BCE) and Confucius (551 BCE). By studying Confucius' philosophy, it becomes clear that he understood logic and made significant contributions to the field. A reader can hardly browse any of Confucius' books without finding logic taking center stage in both topics and terminology. In fact, he does not establish a rule or claim a theory in any of his books without supporting it with arguments constructed according to the principles of this agreed-upon science.

While Aristotle acknowledges Socrates' contribution to the development of definitions through his investigation into the essences of things, a study of Confucius' philosophy reveals that the Chinese sages preceded the Greek sage in this idea and have valuable and admirable texts on the subject. Confucius also paid attention to the issue of correspondence between words and meanings, or between names and their referents.

Confucius recognized the close relationship between words and meanings, or between names and their referents, and the role they play in society, order, and the fulfillment of duty. If names do not exactly correspond to their referents, confusion arises in language, and if confusion arises in language, nothing of the commands of public order can be carried out.

For this reason, Confucius speaks of the rectification of names (zheng ming), which is the correct use of words. This means that the word must correspond to reality.

The Theory of Syllogism in Chinese Logic

As for syllogism, Confucius used the syllogism that proceeds from premises that are universally accepted to a conclusion that necessarily follows from them. However, Confucius only recognized syllogisms that conformed to the correct and precise forms whose products cannot be challenged in any way. Here, it should be noted that the forms of syllogism in Chinese logic differ from those in Greek logic. The Chinese believed that mentioning the major premise of the syllogism is not useful and therefore should be omitted. Instead of the syllogism:

All humans are mortal. Socrates is a human. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

We find the Chinese syllogism:

Socrates is a human. Therefore, he is mortal. Or, Socrates is mortal because he is a human.

Confucius also frequently resorted to the serial syllogism, which is based on counting a series of syllogisms, each of which takes the conclusion of the previous syllogism as a premise from which it proceeds in the new syllogism.

It can be said that Confucius' teachings and philosophy gained great fame and success, as his philosophy was able to have an extension that lasted through the ages to this day. It had an impact on Chinese thought and various other fields such as education, politics, and ethics. He can also be considered the philosopher who paved the way for logical thinking through his research into definitions, names, words, and the meanings of words and the relationship between them. This is, in fact, one of the important topics that logic is concerned with. Logic was also known to Mei-ti, the leader of the utilitarian school, and to the sophists and the Mohist school, who were known for their rhetoric, debate, and logic.

The Sophist School

In addition to these many schools that emerged in China, a group of thinkers who were known for their eloquence, rhetoric, and power of knowledge and their love of victory through the strength of argument became famous in the 5th and 4th centuries BCE. These thinkers were known as "Ming Jia," which means "the dialecticians," and some others called them "the sophists." This school was based on the denial of absolute truth and the belief that all truth is relative and related to the individual because he is the measure of all things. Here, we notice that this school meets in many essential points with the school of the Sophists in Greece in terms of their interest in rhetoric, debate, and the pursuit of victory through argument. There is no doubt that anyone whose goal is this must manipulate words and use all means to achieve their goal. The Chinese Sophists also agree with the Greek Sophists in considering truth to be relative and related to man alone.

The Mohist School:

The Mohist School was a prominent school of Chinese thought founded by Mozi in 479 BC. Mozi was a significant figure in ancient Chinese history and a contemporary and rival of Confucius.

The Mohists were interested in politics, science, induction, deduction, linguistics, and logic. Mozi's epistemological framework was based on the notion of logical reasoning to attain truth. He is widely regarded as the pioneer of formal logic, which Aristotle later developed in Greece. Mozi's logic relied on empirical induction, and he also emphasized the transition from the concrete to the abstract. Additionally, the Mohists stressed the importance of defining and clarifying terms due to the multiple meanings in the Chinese language. They argued that the lack of precise and clear definitions of things leads to cognitive confusion. The Mohists also addressed various other logical issues, such as reciprocal analogy, cause and effect, and the relativity of space.

The Mohists were skilled rhetoricians who used their abilities to spread their principles. Rhetoric flourished due to the school's focus on developing debate and persuasion techniques. Mozi himself was considered one of China's greatest debaters, earning him the title of the founder of Chinese logic. Consequently, the Mohist ideas are considered highly valuable and significant in the history of logic.

Conclusion:

From the foregoing, it is evident that China, alongside India, established one of the earliest human philosophies. Undoubtedly, our exploration of various Chinese philosophers and schools reveals the diversity and richness of the issues they raised and investigated, spanning philosophy, ethics, politics, logic, and other fields. Their contributions to logic were particularly noteworthy, particularly Confucius's pursuit of definitions and the relationship between names and their referents. Confucius advocated for "rectifying names" and employed syllogism. Additionally, the sage Mei Ti focused on syllogism and induction, while the Chinese Sophists were renowned for their eloquence and rhetorical skills. The Mohist school, on the other hand, concentrated on science, induction, deduction, linguistics, rhetoric, and logic.

A Reading in the Book: Aristotle's Theory of Knowledge

 A Reading in the Book: Aristotle's Theory of Knowledge 

- by Dr. Mustafa Al-Nashar

Introduction to the Author:

Dr. Mustafa Al-Nashar stands as one of the most prominent contemporary Egyptian thinkers and philosophers. Born on September 30, 1953, in the village of Shawar, Tanta Center, Gharbia Governorate, Egypt, he earned his Ph.D. in Greek Philosophy with Honors from Cairo University in 1985. His thesis focused on Aristotelian Epistemology. Dr. Al-Nashar has authored over fifty scholarly works in various philosophical fields, particularly Greek Philosophy and Ancient Egyptian Thought. Among his most notable intellectual contributions is his effort to trace Greek philosophy back to its Eastern roots, emphasizing the Egyptian origins of philosophy in general and Greek philosophy in particular.

Book Topics:

1. Introduction: pp. 11-22

2. Chapter One: The General Framework of the Problem of Knowledge in Greek Philosophy: pp. 27-33

3. Chapter Two: Sensory Knowledge: pp. 39-64

4. Chapter Three: Rational Knowledge: pp. 69-86

5. Chapter Four: Intuitive Knowledge: pp. 91-110

6. Conclusion: p. 113

Exploration of the Book's Topics: (Summary of the Introduction and Chapters One and Two)

Introduction:

a) Aristotle's Status and Distinction from Plato:

According to the author, Aristotle holds a distinguished position among the world's philosophers. Alongside his teacher Plato, Aristotle's influence on subsequent philosophical thought is undeniable. While absorbing Plato's theories, Aristotle added his own unique spirit and vision, establishing a new methodology and doctrine that drew attention and placed him as a rival, even surpassing his teacher in many areas of philosophy.

The author contrasts Plato's motivations, which were often intertwined with ethical, religious, and political purposes, with Aristotle's more expansive and opportune approach, better suited to the intellectual climate of that era. Bertrand Russell aptly categorized thinkers into two camps: those driven by religion and ethics (Plato) and those driven by science (Locke and Hume). Aristotle, along with Descartes and Berkeley, defies this categorization, drawing motivation from both ethics and religion on one hand and science on the other.

b) Aristotle's Scientific Method:

Aristotle, an innovative philosopher, logician, and scientist, sought to liberate science from the superstitions and myths that had plagued it in previous eras. The author highlights Aristotle's approach to scientific inquiry, emphasizing his meticulous verification of information through observation and rational analysis.

Aristotle's passion for unraveling the universe's mysteries is evident, even in his acknowledgment of the elusive nature of their true causes. He placed faith in the ability of deductive reasoning and syllogism to yield sound knowledge, particularly when grounded in prior observations and experiences.

c) The Nature of Logic and Its Connection to Knowledge:

Aristotle focused on studying the mind and its cognitive abilities, while simultaneously attempting to establish the necessary rules to govern rational thinking, preventing the mind from straying beyond the realm of valid knowledge. Thus, Aristotle founded logic and distinguished it from other sciences. He also delved into epistemology, as logic, for Aristotle, was distinct from metaphysics in its precise sense, which he considered the science of existence.

Aristotle did not envision a separation of the study of knowledge from logic and metaphysics. Instead, his epistemology remained intertwined with logic, and the values and methods of acquiring knowledge formed a unified subject of study.

d) Aristotelian Influence:

Despite Aristotle's immense influence during his time, subsequent philosophers failed to surpass his thought and develop his ideas, leading many to unjustly blame Aristotle for stagnation and hindering the progress of human thought, particularly in the scientific realm.

Nevertheless, Aristotle held a special interest in the field of science, establishing a theory of knowledge based on four pillars: definition, syllogism, induction, and causality. He emphasized these elements in his analyses, drawing upon a sound examination of human means of knowledge and the vast potential of the human intellect.

Chapter 1: The Origin of Epistemology, its Concept and Scope

I. The Birth of Epistemology: Its Definition and Field

English philosopher John Locke is considered the first to delve into epistemology as an independent discipline in his book "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding," published in 1690 at the end of the 17th century. This work is considered the first systematic scientific study to examine and analyze the origin, nature, limits, and degree of certainty of knowledge.

However, Aristotle can be considered to have touched upon epistemology in his writings, including "De Anima" ("On the Soul"), "De Memoria et Reminiscentia" ("On Memory and Recollection"), and the first book of "Metaphysics." Despite Aristotle's general focus on psychology in its empirical and contemplative aspects, as well as his general metaphysical principles, his interest in knowledge and ethics formed a point of convergence with his metaphysical principles, and is considered necessary for ethics. He also shed light on the foundations of logic in Aristotle's theory of knowledge, which forms the key to his doctrine.

II. The Method of Greek Philosophers in Posing the Problem of Knowledge

The author argues that the Greek method of posing the problem of knowledge can be broadly distinguished into three main trends:

1. The first trend: focused on the problems of competence, as long as philosophy dealt with subjects that transcended the limits of human experience.

2. The second trend: focused on the fact that philosophy deals with phenomena that cannot be reached by sensory knowledge or perception, and are subjects that have been addressed since the time of the pre-Socratic philosophers.

3. The third trend: focused on another set of fundamental problems that deal, in principle, with the processes of thought and sensory operations, such as: how does vision occur? How does thinking happen? How does memory occur?

III. Aristotle Continues the Method in a Better Way

The author explains that Aristotle was right when he clearly linked epistemology to his theory of science, as he found that human cognitive abilities and perceptual means enable him to construct numerous theories, through which he can uncover the secrets of this world. Consequently, his treatment of the means of knowledge contributes to the revelation of human's true capabilities, and thus contributes to the construction of a theory of science that enables humans to develop knowledge steadily and without interruption.

Chapter Two: The Significance of Sensory Knowledge in Aristotle's Philosophy

I. The Primacy of Sensory Knowledge in Aristotle's Epistemology

Aristotle firmly believed that the path to knowledge begins with the information provided by our senses. Through careful observation and understanding, we can validate and confirm our empirical observations.

II. Sensory Perception and Aristotle's Critique

Aristotle explains sensory perception by distinguishing between actual sensation and potential sensation. He asserts that the faculty of sensation does not exist in actuality but only in potentiality. He compares this concept to fuel that does not ignite on its own without an external source of fire. If it could ignite itself, there would be no need for an actual burning flame.

III. The Locus and Subject of Sensation

Aristotle suggests that sensation originates from the heart, referring to the perception of objects that are sometimes tactile, such as taste. At other times, he views the heart as the principle of all senses. This ambiguity reflects Aristotle's uncertainty regarding the precise location and origin of sensation in animals and humans. While he struggled to pinpoint the exact center of the senses, he does mention that the senses of sight, hearing, smell, and taste are located in the head, while touch is the only one located outside the head.

IV. Analyzing Sensory Perception through the Five Senses

Aristotle emphasizes that we must first examine the objects of sensation (sensibles) before considering any particular sense. He classifies sensibles into three categories: two primary types and one secondary type. The primary types, which are infallible, include color for sight, sound for hearing, and taste for flavor. Touch, on the other hand, has diverse objects. These "sensibles by nature," as Aristotle calls them, are directly perceived. In contrast, "common sensibles," such as motion, rest, number, shape, and size, are not exclusive to any one sense but are shared by all.

V. The Common Sense

The common sense is an internal sense that integrates all the sensations received from the external senses. It acts as a central hub for these senses, where their impressions converge and true perception occurs, according to Aristotle.

VI. The Formation of Images in the Internal Sense

Aristotle maintains that there is no fundamental distinction between external and internal sensation. If any difference exists, it is merely superficial, relating to the means rather than the essence of perception. Therefore, Aristotle's critics erred in interpreting these superficial differences as evidence of his inability to formulate a unified theory of both external and internal sensation.

VII: Imagination and Its Distinction from Sensation and Thought:

Aristotle discussed imagination in detail in his book "De Anima" (On the Soul). While the term did not appear in pre-Socratic thought and emerged primarily in the writings of later commentators, it is sparingly mentioned by Plato in "The Republic." For Plato, the activity of this faculty was limited to interpreting the correctness or incorrectness of sensation.

Aristotle, on the other hand, examined imagination as one of the human faculties of knowledge and defined it precisely, stating: "Imagination is something distinct from sensation and thought, although it cannot exist without sensation, and without imagination, thought and belief cannot occur."

VIII: Memory and Its Difference from Sensation and Imagination:

Aristotle defines this faculty precisely in his discussion of it, saying: "It is neither a sensory perception nor a representation, i.e., not imagination, but an impression on one of the two with the condition that a period of time has elapsed. As can be observed, there is nothing we call memory of what is happening at the present moment, because the present is the subject of sensory perception alone, while the future is the subject of expectation. The subject of memory, however, is the past, so all memory is related to a time that has passed."

IX: The Importance of Sensation and Experience in Knowledge and Induction:

Despite Aristotle's emphasis on the importance of sensation and experience as a degree of human knowledge, he viewed them as merely a degree with a limit to their importance. If a person wants to rise from the particular to the general, or wants to demonstrate, the senses cannot do that, nor can mere experience achieve it. For Aristotle, the temporal precedence of the senses does not mean their priority; it is a lower rank, from which we must rise to higher ranks, so that knowledge is realized for us and we possess the reins of true knowledge.

X: The Impossibility of Demonstration by Sense and Errors of the Senses:

After Aristotle explained the importance of the senses and what they offer in terms of knowledge that constitutes experience, he made it clear to us that while he valued sensory knowledge, he did not favor this type of knowledge. This is because he believed that understanding is closer to science than experience. We believe that scientists are wiser than men of experience, and this is because they know the cause while others do not. Men of experience know that something is like this, but they do not know the reason, while others, i.e., men of science, know why it is like this, i.e., they know the cause. Therefore, we also believe that those who direct and manage work are more worthy of our esteem than the ordinary workers who carry it out, because the former know the causes and reasons for everything they do.

A Study on the History of Science: Between Accumulation and Discontinuity

Introduction: The Concept and an Attempt at Definition

The concept of the history of science has its birth certificate in the works of 18th-century French writers, especially Fontenelle and Condorcet, then its resurgence in the works of Copernicus, Fizeau, and Galileo. The French approach to the history of science and epistemological practice was founded with Comte in a general way, then developed with Claude Bernard in the 19th century to be identified in the works of Bachelard, Cavaillès, Koyré, and Canguilhem in the 20th century.

Professor Dr. Rushdi Rashid believes that the history of science, as it appears in the writings of those who belong to it, does not represent a specialized art, but rather a field of activity. It lacks the unifying principle that might give it the ability and means to distinguish it, but rather it expands indefinitely with successive additions. It is a title for different and disparate subjects, not a specialized art with a procedural definition.

Some, and they are the majority, believe that the history of science is the history of ideas in the known sense of the phrase, that is, the history of mentalities. Others, more rigorous and insightful, believe that the history of science is the history of scientific concepts, the history of their formation, development, and modification. Still others, historians by their very nature, do not care about concepts and their special nature, but rather believe that the history of science can be a history of cultural production, like the history of art or the history of religions. Let us also mention those who make it a kind of social psychology of scientists, as well as those who make it a field sociology in the way that sociology developed after World War II in the United States in particular, that is, a sociology of groups, laboratories, and institutions.

French Epistemology: The Methodology of Accumulation

The history of science is governed by a philosophy or theory that is criticized in this history, and this epistemological theory is what generally distinguishes French epistemology and history, or as Canguilhem says, speaking of Comte's practice of history (the French approach to the history of science), the characteristic of this approach is to be governed by a theory, and to search for general laws that link scientific concepts, and establish them in order to advance them.

This French approach, although it began with Comte, will develop in Tannery's projects and find its completion in Cavaillès' work on mathematics, Bachelard's work on mathematical physics, and finally Canguilhem's work, which takes a different field from that of his teachers Bachelard and Cavaillès.

The French approach means that testing the history of any science is the summary of reading an entire specialized library, from tablets and papyri to magnetic disks, passing through the beginnings of printing.

This library, although it is an ideal library, actually represents a collection of artifacts and drawings of that science, and the whole of the past is represented in these drawings, as if it were a connected field on which we can transfer, according to the importance of the moment, the starting point of progress, and the end of progress will be the current state of science or interest.

Although this French approach seems to tend towards accumulation and continuity in its methodology, the history of science is not without clear stages of separation that break that supposed coherence. Dr. Rushdi Rashid says to the effect: the distinction between pre-scientific and scientific is presented as if it were a categorical distinction to which the entire history of science is subject. This opposition is always understood in both a historical and logical sense. That is, the pre-scientific always logically and historically precedes the scientific. According to this conception, some claim that the decisive break between them has essentially taken place in the 17th century.

For example, if Aristotle's physics and the theory of the social contract are described as pre-scientific, it means that both are theories that concern a lived experience - the experience of the motion of the shuttle or the experience of voting in a council - and are believed to be systematic and coherent. As for social Darwinism and social physics, they are described as pre-scientific, meaning that both represent a science that has been attached to a field other than its original field, and Euclid's views and marginal contributions (in economics) are described as pre-scientific, meaning "pure" knowledge resulting from the direct application of mathematics to theories about lived experience, direct visual experience, and the experience of distributing goods. Finally, models of ballistics in artillery, Condorcet in the social sciences, or Von Neumann in economics are described as pre-scientific as indirect applications of mathematics to a theory about lived experience, where this application is based on measurement with a third specialty.

Methodological Adjustments and Style Revisions in French Thought:

The profound methodological and stylistic revisions that have shaped French thought cannot be overlooked. These revisions and refinements, which Gaston Bachelard termed "epistemological breaks," Canguilhem described as "ruptures," and Koyré characterized as "sudden shifts" or "qualitative leaps," represent significant turning points in the history of ideas. In his book History of the Sciences, Canguilhem introduces his own approach, which he calls "retrograde restoration." He explains:

"There exists in my History of the Sciences another method besides the one that seeks to establish the hidden continuity of the progress of thought. This method aims to make a situation intelligible and effective, and this is also true of the authority of the distinctive break of innovation."

This implies highlighting the starting point of progress or transformation in concept, method, or experimental framework.

The Method of Rupture:

According to Dr. Rashi Rashed, pre-scientific knowledge is therefore pluralistic and of varying value. While it all stems from a theory of lived experience and is subject to the same criteria outlined earlier, its goals, explanatory capabilities, and degree of control over its linguistic structure and technique differ. Consequently, these forms of knowledge cannot have the same relationship with the emerging science.

It is true that the emerging science is formed in opposition and rupture with them, as has been repeatedly stated. However, the rupture does not always have the same scope. While the rupture with the theory of experience and its criteria always occurs at a deep level, it takes paths that constantly diverge.

This was the case with optics and Ibn al-Haytham. His break with the theories of his predecessors lies in separating the conditions of light propagation from the conditions of vision. Thus, in the former, only material things - "the smallest parts of light" - are considered, bearing only those qualities that are subject to engineering and experimental control, leaving aside sensory qualities except those related to energy. Despite the depth of this rupture - which, with the inclusion of a new type of proof in optics and natural science, made it possible - it did not occur in the same way with Euclidean optics or Aristotelian visual theory.

Similarly, in mechanics, Galileo was the first to distinguish within the theories of motion between what belongs to kinematics and what belongs to dynamics, so that only the relationships between the positions of material things over time are considered. They no longer have any but qualities that can be observed geometrically and experimentally, since all sensory qualities except for the property of resistance to motion have been eliminated.

Dr. Rashi Rashed also believes that the rupture occurs with the theories of lived experience - and with the criteria for their development at the same time - thanks to a conception of the subject that contains a law of practical procedure and judgment. The resulting knowledge (from the rupture) is not only endowed with cumulative power, but it actually achieves accumulation only through a continuous modification of how it is understood. New formulas emerge in the course of this modification, and if we think of pre-existing concepts, we can say that separations and connections are drawn into each other.

This rupture is sometimes called a "revolution," referring to the transition from one theory to another, from the mechanics of Galileo and Newton to special relativity, and from this to the connected electrodynamics and thermodynamics to quantum theory (théorie des quanta). What is meant here is the emergence of new formulas for the same task, each time redefining its subject matter, but without replacing it with a different one, as was the case with pre-scientific knowledge.

Note: Disregard and Contrast

A noticeable lack of openness and disregard is observed between Anglo-Saxon writers, on the one hand, and European writers, particularly those from France, on the other. This mutual disregard is a phenomenon that has drawn the attention of the new generation of those interested in philosophical thought on both sides of the Atlantic, who have attempted to identify and understand its dimensions.

Furthermore, there is a lack of interest among writers in the British Isles and some American countries in the French approach to epistemology, whether in its analytical or phenomenological form. Similarly, those who advocate for a break and those who advocate for continuity in the progress of science are not mentioned in these countries.