A Breath of Philosophy: Getting to the Root of Attachment

If by philosophy we mean systematic, critical and comparative knowledge based on the pillars of ontology, epistemology and axiology, what would be the position of a philosopher, whether you are a believer and Muslim (Muslim) or a non-Muslim (Christian, Jewish), who makes his justification of the relationship between Being (V: God; v: world) and lives a life accordingly? 

I don't think you will ask, "Is it possible for a person (Muslim or non-Muslim) who defines God as a God who does not need another being to exist, and who believes that He created the universe and will provide prosperity and peace in the world, i.e. tahsilu's-saade, and ultimate happiness in the hereafter (saadetü'l-kuswa), in other words, a dogmatic mentality, to philosophize?"  

It is normal for someone who says that a concept is the mental conception of an object, and what you put forward in the form of affirmation about it has no meaning for me, and who characterizes himself as an atheist, or more consistently as a materialist, to ask this. There are those who talk about a Transcendent Power that first created the universe but then did not intervene, and there are those who argue that we cannot talk about it, or rather, that we cannot know it. 

Let's not ask whether a theist or a monist who believes in a God is called an atheist or a materialist, because there is also transtheism, which explores the possibility of an atheistic or non-atheistic philosophy of religion. There is also pateism, which is a combination of the words apathy and theism/atheism. Since apathy describes an attitude towards the existence or non-existence of God or gods (polytheism), it can be seen in both theism and atheism. 

In the context of philosophy of religion, there are pantheism and panentheism forms of theism, which we read comparatively as Wahdat al-body and wahdat al-shuhud in the context of the doctrine of the unity of Being in terms of Islamic Philosophy, without any identification. Because there is also gnosticism, the doctrine that claims that the nature of "Reality" or "God" cannot be obtained through normal means, that is, through experiential, rational and scientific knowledge. They say that the supreme knowledge of religious mysteries can only be attained by people of mystical nature who have direct access to knowledge, and this is found in all Muslim and non-Muslim teachings.

So there is a conceptual confusion, we understand that, you asked me what do you say as an Islamic philosopher? I am asking a counter-question that "ontology", that is, the science of Being, is prioritized, but our epistemological justifications for it are so different that I ask why epistemology should not be prioritized. Or, in short, I am negotiating the possibility of "epistemic ontology". I can almost hear you saying that you were not going to get into intricate discussions in the "A Breath of Philosophy" series, right, at this point, I am content with reminding you of the teachings of realism, idealism, empiricism and nominalism as the source of knowledge. 

Bringing Philosophy into the Saddle of Religion or Being on the Threshold of Wisdom?      

Our primary goal in the "A Breath of Philosophy" series is not to try to reconcile religion and philosophy or to put philosophy under the command of religion. This is because the aim of philosophy is neither to provide an attachment nor an absolute salvation. Rather, the aim is to get to the root of such attachment, if any, and to develop the ability to choose the most appropriate of the rational and irrational options, and thus to take a step towards a reorganization of the relationship between Religion and Philosophy, and to try to understand the specific premises and principles of each. And then to explain what is meant here to others in a coherent and honest way, so as to be in a state of wisdom in terms of "what can I know". In other words, our only goal is to understand what is intellectually mature and defensible and to transfer it to practical life.

Yes, but isn't what you are saying similar to the scholastic (!) doctrine that reduces philosophy to an ideological position that substitutes religion, after all, you are "dogmatic"; what's the difference from the scholastics, of course. First of all, what do the distinctions of Antiquity, the Middle Ages, and the Modern Age mean, according to whom, the Middle Ages and the children of a civilization outside Europe may have experienced their golden age in the same period, right? In addition, Etienne Gillson's research has shown that the medieval scholars, who were called scholastics, were cultured people who were well versed in the seven liberal arts (grammar, rhetoric, logic, calculus, geometry, astronomy, and music). But the main goal in the Middle Ages was education and teaching rather than research.  Therefore, if one speaks of using philosophy to affirm the truths of religion, we aim to provide a basic knowledge of philosophical thought, based on the principle that "being stuck in a certain fixed opinion on a matter condemns one to defend what is not approved in the final analysis" and in order to avoid such a situation.  We seek the place of philosophical knowledge in the foundations of a fulfilling way of life by entering into the world of ideas and gaining as much breadth and depth as we can. We also realize that this is a fascinating, exciting, yet challenging, long and subtle path. (M. Uyanık, Felsefi Düşünceye Çağrı, Ankara: Elis Yayınları, 4 Edition, 2021:13-14)

In addition, we use the term dogmatism to mean that systems are built from first premises, that each philosophical/religious-legal system gains its logical non-contradiction by speaking on its axioms, that is, on premises whose truth it accepts "dogmatically" and no longer questions.  

We say that dogmatism is, in Louis Althusser's terms, negatively capable of neither scientific proof in the strict sense (as in the sciences of mathematics and logic) nor proof in the strict sense of the empirical sciences, and we think that since philosophy is not the subject of scientific proof by thesis, it should be called appropriate-appropriate instead of "true". Hence, the difference of systems is due to the difference of axioms. 

One who calls the Being written with a capital letter God and defines it as the Necessary Being that does not need any other being for its existence and considers this as the first premise, and one who says that the universe is eternal/preexistent and considers its first matter as an atom, or one who does not mention the possibility of affirming the definition of any transcendent power, mentions that its first premise is necessary, are all three dogmatic in the end. 

Rejecting a System of Thought

Therefore, when you want to reject a system, you can do so not by demonstrating its logical non-contradiction, but by rejecting its axioms. In this sense, there is a multiplicity of systems and an abundance of dogmatics that explain their subject matter relatively under their axioms. Another important point is this: It is theoretically possible to take any legal system back to its specific and ultimate axioms and deduce the whole system from there. 

But what happens when, once we accept a logically established system/theory/style, facts contrary to the theory are observed?

In this case, the system/theory/style can always develop ad hoc hypotheses in accordance with the facts. Because it is possible to give a system/theory a validity that makes it unshakable and universal, to explain the phenomena or factors that are said to be contrary to that system/theory, with the help of additional hypotheses suitable for the logical structure of the theory. (M. Uyanık, The Problem of Historicity and Universality in Contemporary Islamic Thought, The Historical and Universal Reading of the Qur'an, Ankara: Fajr Publishing House, 3 Edition 2017: 175-234, a.mlf, Civil Disobedience in Islamic Political Philosophy, Antalya: Otorite Publishing House, 3 Edition, 2014,30,40)

The theoretical explanations are getting boring, aren't they, from the point of view of Islamic theology, examining the relationship between God (Being) and the universe (existence); ontically, I think the question "How is it that God's primacy, existence and unity (Tawhid) are based on such different and opposing knowledges?" is of direct interest to you. 

How is it that the Mutazilites and Jabriyya had such opposite conceptions of God? In other words, from the earliest periods of Islam, Muslims have been describing each other as "disbelievers", "transgressors" and "hypocrites" and claiming that they have the "firm belief/right path". 

So much so that al-Ghazali, Faisalu al-tafrika beyna al-Islam wa'z-zendaka (On the Basics of the Discourse of takfir in Islam, trans: M. Uyanık, A. Akyol, Ankara 2021) and was able to say that 72 groups of Muslims are on the false/invalid path. He exists and is one, but those who do not accept it are disbelievers and/or those who present it with very different conceptions are heretics.  

Philosophers who did not want to fall into this confusion, on the other hand, emphasized that God (Being with a capital letter) exists, is one, eternal and infinite, there is no doubt about that, He is necessary existence; but there are various conceptions of Him, this is normal, but they focused on how to develop a conception without falling into the position of a necessary other in order to overcome the existing dialectical language of conflict. In our opinion, philosophers have also prioritized ontology; they have envisioned an epistemic ontology by avoiding the othering language of the argumentative/dialectical method, and that epistemic justifications for it are different. 

From this point of view, it is possible to contribute to explaining the processes of each group seeing its own doctrine as unique and correct and excluding others in the context of Islamic and Qur'anic terms.  "Islamic" refers to the ideas produced by Muslim scholars based on the basic premises (the Qur'an and Sunnah), and "Qur'anic" refers to the way any one of them presents their own view by identifying it with the basic premises. 

The theologians have absolutized their own interpretations/conclusions and marginalized those who have different interpretations. Now, any criticism of the inconsistency of the interpretation/evidence produced within this framework is considered to be directed directly at the first pioneer, and it is only a matter of time before you become a heretic or a heretic in the technical language of a system rejector. If you say that the nullity/invalidity of the proof/evidence is not the nullity/invalidity of the medlul/evidence, I am not rejecting the first premise, I just find your interpretation inconsistent, you are drawing attention to the difference between Islamic and Qur'anic and saying that you contain a piece of the truth.  At the same time, with the conceptualization of "epistemic ontology", you are saying that there are different reflections of the Truth, that it is a part of it, but that it cannot be identified with it, and that the important thing is to be able to see wahdat/unity in the multiplicity. 

But if "Islamic Philosophy is to understand and explain the connection between God, the Universe and Man in the context of the last system brought by the Prophet Muhammad with the accumulation of ancient cultures, in other words, to read comparatively what Muslim scholars have produced on Islamic culture and basic premises, what is the place of the thoughts produced by non-Muslim philosophers?" We read ancient cultures comparatively and critically, we are grateful to whoever brings us whatever they bring about the Truth, and we certainly do not think of putting what they say on the back burner. Because the term "Islam" is used to refer to the political, social and religious thought from which it emerged. In other words, it is an adjective and refers to the culture and civilization that is the product of thought. Therefore, his comments on God, the universe, the individual and society are part of the Eternal Wisdom, which is an effort to understand the Truth, and are extremely important in the effort to create a new perspective.