Ibn Rushd

Ibn Rushd was like Islam's Thomas Aquinas, but unfortunately Islam never had anyone like William of Ockham.

I recently read Ibn Rushd's On the Harmony of Religion and Philosophy.  Here he defends philosophy against its various Muslim critics, mostly fundamentalists and mystics (Sufis).  He loves Aristotle (like Aquinas).  At least he recognizes the risks of philosophy, saying that it should be banned for the moronic masses.  What he fails to understand is that the kind of reasoning supported by Plato and Aristotle always leads to depravity no matter who engages in it.

What all these people seek is certainty.  Al-Ghazali chose mysticism because he realized that no other path results in certainty.  Of course what he failed to understand is that the certainty of mysticism is a delusion.  Highly intelligent people who seek certainty through philosophy just go insane, while less intelligent people can feel certainty with philosophy only because they are too stupid to recognize the flaws in their own reasoning.

The problem for Christianity and Islam is that they accept Plato's absolute truth, and so they seek it.  As a follower of the Old Testament, I don't have this problem because I reject absolute truth.  But the only way out for Christians and Muslims is Ockham's nominalism.  Ockham basically said that absolute truth is unknowable and so we have to settle for our own imperfect ideas.  This eliminates certainty and demands doubt.  This is what made the Reformation and the Enlightenment possible.

Of course conservative modern scum (mostly Catholic) hate Ockham.  No modern scum defend Ockham, as expected.

I read Ibn Rushd hoping for more than a Plato patsy, but I was let down.  Given a choice between Ibn Rushd and a fundamentalist like Ibn Taymiyyah, I prefer Ibn Taymiyyah.  But Islam needs its own Ockham if it is ever going to develop into a productive religion again.

What did Ockham teach? That truth is relative?

Growing up my uncle told me that an important distinction between Baha'i and other religions is that Baha'is believe truth is relative whereas other religions don't. This is how Baha'is justify the need for a new prophet, because if truth is absolute then all you need is that is one set of axioms (e.g. the Quran) that will work for an eternity. But if truth is relative then at some point as the environment changes the axioms of the Quran will stop working and God will need to send down a new book.

I can't think of a specific verse but this is the general tone of Baha'u'llah's Kitab i Iqan, beginning from the first sentence, where he tells the reader to let go of their assumptions. And later in the intro he describes how the prophets of the past were opposed because of various false beliefs the people had, which were delusions from their own minds or those of religious authorities.


And then he talks about how Christians and Muslims believe the prophecies will happen a certain way because of their assumptions about the meaning of certain verses, and he shows that these verses do not have to be interpreted in this way by providing a variety of alternative interpretations.

His illustration that a verse can have multiple interpretations is essentially saying that religious text is a function rather than a result, and that a verse can mean different things in different contexts, and that bad assumptions about the text will lead to bad conclusions. If truth were absolute then assumptions would play no role, and everything would be "it is what it is".

Ockham was a Christian and therefore not a relativist.  A relativist says that truth is relative to the mind.  So for example on the question of whether God exists, this just depends on how one views the world, there is no correct answer for everyone.  Christians and Muslims believe that God exists in an absolute sense.

But in practice, a nominalist who believes in absolute truth, and a relativist who doesn't, will both think about practical issues in a similar way.  Nominalism results in tolerance and doubt and intellectual inquiry into practical things.

From the Islamic perspective the "uncertainty" elements is like the Hadith that you can have faith in Allah AND tie the camel instead of just having faith the camel won't run away.

Pure faith based beliefs like believe God will save them instead of taking medicine and going to the doctor is more of American evangelical Christianity

Mohammed, like Moses, fought actual battles and thus dealt with uncertainty his whole life. The abrogation paths of the Koran delt with uncertainty and rules changed depends on the situation.

Mohammed acted a lot more like a prophet of the old testament than the "ideal Muslim"

I agree, which is why my initial post ended with "again".  Mohammad didn't have to deal with philosophers.  It was philosophy that mostly ruined Islam.  But the cure has to address philosophy, and nominalism is the only cure that I can think of.

fschmidt wrote

the kind of reasoning supported by Plato and Aristotle always leads to depravity no matter who engages in it.

If relativism is relative to the mind, then wouldn't this be an example of an absolute truth?

By the way, I would say that truth is relative to the context, which the mind is part of, but it is not only the mind. I would say Plato might have done some good for his time, maybe his kind of thinking stimulated dormant minds. But the benefits of his kind of reasoning have since run out. One factor leading to decline of usefulness of Plato is the population growth. Because if the population is large enough, then an evil person can find a large mass of morons among them, and manipulate them using Plato's techniques. If the population is smaller, then this effect is less.

A few of questions about tolerance:

* Would it be intolerant to be hostile towards Christians for believing in the trinity?

* Would it be intolerant to be hostile towards members of modern culture for their beliefs?

* Would it be intolerant to be hostile towards a fellow Arkian for getting a tattoo, partying, voting democrat, writing complicated code, etc.? Same question but for Old Testament follower (e.g. he believes God is powerful, and he equates energy with power, and he thinks Godly code is code written with lots of effort/energy, in other words Godly code is complicated code)?

Also, what is the difference between nominalism and deconstruction?:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction

OmegaKV wrote

* Would it be intolerant to be hostile towards Christians for believing in the trinity?

Yes, but it wouldn't be intolerant to be hostile to Christians pushing their beliefs on your community.

* Would it be intolerant to be hostile towards members of modern culture for their beliefs?

No, because they believe that they have an obligation to impose their views on everyone, so this is a practical threat.

* Would it be intolerant to be hostile towards a fellow Arkian for getting a tattoo, partying, voting democrat, writing complicated code, etc.? Same question but for Old Testament follower (e.g. he believes God is powerful, and he equates energy with power, and he thinks Godly code is code written with lots of effort/energy, in other words Godly code is complicated code)?

The general rule is to only be intolerant to things that harm you, not intolerant to "untrue" beliefs.  If people to evil far from you and don't impose their belief on others, then there is no reason to be hostile.  In the case of code and the internet, everyone is effectively close, not far, so that makes intolerance more justified.

Also, what is the difference between nominalism and deconstruction?:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction

I see nothing in common.  Deconstruction seems to say that everything is subjective, not relative.  See

http://www.mikraite.org/Truth-tp1552.html
http://www.mikraite.org/Truth-and-Alternatives-tp1898.html

I was researching a different topic and came across this quote. This is the kind of Baha'i writings I was referring to:

"As regards thine assertions about the beginning of creation, this is a matter on which conceptions vary by reason of the divergences in men's thoughts and opinions. Wert thou to assert that it hath ever existed and shall continue to exist, it would be true; or wert thou to affirm the same concept as is mentioned in the sacred Scriptures, no doubt would there be about it, for it hath been revealed by God, the Lord of the worlds."

--Baha'u'llah, Tablet of Wisdom

I am also reading Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture. I will comment on it when I am done with it.