A Breath of Philosophy
To Dogan Özlem...
Friends who follow the author of these lines know that we have been chatting with short articles in the context of the question "what is philosophy for?". Now, under the title "A Breath of Philosophy", we decided to open the accumulation of chronological readings to the discussion of comrades "readers" and "writers" in the context of a topic/question/question by focusing on the history of philosophy in general and the history of Islamic Philosophy in particular. The first article of this series is about respect and longing for one of Turkey's leading philosophers, Doğan Özlem, whom I heard the news of his death on September 28th and whose student I consider myself in absentia.
In order to construct a philosophical system, it is essential to ground the concepts of ontology and epistemology, because philosophy aims to think rationally, critically and consistently about existence, knowledge and value, and to create a set of "values" that can be lived upon. Doing so means creating a philosophy of science and ultimately a "system".
In this context, the question we seek an answer to is: What is the possibility of establishing a "Philosophical System"; that is, what is the possibility of producing systematic, rationally applicable ideas on Being, Knowledge and Value in a holistic manner? Why, with so many qualified philosophers in Turkey, has a philosopher not been trained and/or a philosophical system not been produced?
This question became my priority after graduating from the Faculty of Theology in Ankara in 1985 and winning the graduate exams for the METU philosophy department, with the contributions of my teacher Alparslan Açıkgenç, with whom I took courses during and after a year of preparatory studies.
We started by examining Farabi's Enumeration of Sciences as an "introductory text" in an attempt to analyze the network of ideas, teachings and sciences in a systematic, coherent and rational way. Because he was primarily establishing the connection between language and thought. Thus, the first step would be taken to understand the epistemic foundations of the Muslim civilization and present them with logical consistency. Then came the reading of the positive sciences, that is, the history of science, in order to construct the relationship between God and the world. As a matter of fact, Farabi said that it would be possible to know how God created the universe and how it could be explained by knowing the natural sciences of mathematics, physics, astronomy, etc. In order to establish a connection between natural sciences and physics and metaphysics, he states that the answer to the question "why was it created" can be found through theology, and its transfer to practice is possible through civil sciences (fiqh/law, theology and ethics).
I attach great importance to Farabi's classification in terms of showing the place of the important difference between understanding and explanation in modern philosophy in our classical philosophy. Thus, he examines the relationship of the new system brought by Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) with its predecessors in terms of scope and "the possibility of reproducing a worldview is emphasized". I think the question of why we could not produce a philosopher or why a philosophical system could not be produced in our country gains importance at this point, because we see him as the "Founding Philosopher of Islamic Philosophy" because he explained his system so succinctly and showed its stages in his later works. With Ibn Sina, this became more systematized and an "Eastern Philosophy", or Hikmat al-Mashrikiyya, began to spread throughout the Islamic world. You all already know that the representatives of this movement in Andalusia were philosophers such as Ibn Tufayl, Ibn Bacca and Averroes.
- Historicism, Historicity, Hermeneutics Readings and Doğan Özlem
Doğan Özlem, who was a turning point in my understanding of the difference between historicism and historicity, the distinction between spiritual/spiritual sciences and positive sciences, and the concept of hermeneutics in my Philosophy of History readings. I learned that he passed away, I wish him mercy.
He had an important philosophical and intellectual background, to paraphrase Cemil Meriç, "he was a thousand intellectuals who were conscious of the period he lived in. When I analyze the terms historicity, historicism and universality in the Contemporary Philosophical Movements course, I make references to Doğan Özlem. I point to the conceptual break in the translation of Karl Popper's work "The Misery of Historicism" as "the misery of historicism" by Karl Popper, who made significant contributions to my philosophical knowledge with his work "Open Society and Its Enemies", which we read and teach in theology faculties in the context of the question "Does History Have a Meaning?". In fact, I say that the historicist mentality has existed in the Islamic world since the earliest periods, and that today, the neo-salaf and "Islamist/Islamic" readings, as Muhammed Arkun calls them, are also surrounded by this mentality, but that they see themselves on the side of "universalism".
Of course, in saying this, we draw attention to the risks of doing historical readings with a Whiggsian reading of the modern situation, that is, by identifying the current data with truth and reality. While emphasizing the importance of being in an attitude that will provide, as Gadamer says, our primary goal is to inform the students of the Faculty of Theology about the two different perspectives (traditionalist-modernist) that try to overcome this dilemma in terms of contemporary Islamic thought.
Thus, based on Gadamer, while aiming for the "fusion of horizons" by reading historical facts, events and texts by paying attention to the concept of positive and negative prejudice within the environment and conditions that determine personality and identity, we also discuss the possibilities of not falling into the position of a "necessary other".
We make references to the difference between the methods of historicism/totalitarianism and historicity, and its projections in the Islamic world with Karl Popper, with whom I took the concepts I met with my teacher Doğan Özlem to the next level.
We do not attach importance to this point; each generation has its own problems and issues, and accordingly its own interests and perspectives. Therefore, each generation has the right to look at history in a way that complements the older generation's perspective and reinterpret it. Because we study history in order to learn something about our own problems.
We need to do it this way, because it is not possible to have a history that tells us about past events and historical figures as they were. Therefore, as Gadamer says, it is natural for each period to make its own interpretation together with the discourse in which it lives and to seek a "fusion of horizons" with the historical event. Popper even says that it is an obligation to do so. "Because there is really an urgent need to be met. We want to find out how our troubles are connected with the past, and to see which path we must tread in order to solve the problems we consider our main task.
If we do not do this, instead of rational questions such as "Which of our problems are the most urgent, how did they arise, and which path can we take to solve them?", irrational questions such as "Where are we going? What task has history given us?" are prioritized and historicist interpretations dominate our minds.
- For an "Open Society"
At this point, care must be taken to ensure that the historicizing elements in religion do not turn into a kind of idol worship and misleading elements. Because religion should not be turned into a lottery ticket or an insurance policy; it should not replace dreams and aspirations such as living in an open society.
In this sense, Popper emphasizes that "historicism cannot be defended in terms of rationality, nor can it be compatible with any religion that teaches the importance of conscience. For such a religion would have to be compatible with a rational interpretation of history that insists that we are ultimately responsible for our actions and that they have an impact on the course of history. The important thing here is to always maintain the hope of an open, just and free society. Yes, we need hope, because without it it is beyond our power to act, to live.
