Islam and Islamic Philosophy
-
This rather long and sometimes confusing post is my first attempt to explain the universe and humans in light of islam and is also an attempt to introduce Islam. Explaining the Quran is a human attempt. It therefore, cannot be assumed to be free of fault. It is built on certain premises, such as an ability to observe and to conclude and deduce. I will soon publish this article on various fronts. In that respect, I need help of the members of the forum to help me edit my language AS WELL AS my thoughts.
Also note that I will NOT assume Islam to be the truth in this analysis. Instead, I will present information in an objective fashion, show that Islam is natural outcome of my thought processes, processes that can be verified by observation and deduction. Positive criticism is highly desired. The audience of this article is a rational, open-minded non-muslim. This is part 1 of the two part prose.
Thank you./--Begin--/
Introduction
Who are we? Why do we exist? Is there a purpose to our existence? Conversely, what is a purpose anyway? These among many other questions have kept us humans struggling and thinking since history was written. While we speculate over abstract issues, we realize that the start of our intellectual development begins from basic observations of the nature and its behaviour. Think about the most abstract notions in philosophy and mathematics, notions that do not exist in physical nature. Think about the concept of 'iota' or complex numbers, or the strings theory. If you ponder deep enough, you realize that even the most abstract of all concepts have their roots to physical observations (not to be confused with tangibility, which is only a subset of observations). Either abstract notions are explained using tangible, observable ideas (language), or are built on observable notions, or are designed to explain observations. Thus we can conclude that the basis of our knowledge is deeply rooted in observation and conclusion. The objective process to extract information from observations is called the 'Scientific Method'. Since it can be shown and has been shown that humans develop notions rooted in observation, we have no choice but to develop an answer to our fundamental philosophical questions USING the scientific method.
Let us look at the universe in light of the scientific method. We observe that fire burns. Water flows to a lower level. Lions feed on deers etc. Night is followed by day. We label these consistent observations as 'laws', since they always appear to be consistent if the sufficient conditions are met. As our observation skills improved, we learned that those laws are only the surface of a complex system underneath. We also learned that although there are laws working at a higher scale, they are a result of more basic laws working at the atomic and subatomic levels. Because of these 'basic laws', the more broader, 'aggregate laws' come into existence. We developed heirarchical reductionism to explain the universe.
It seems that nature starts complex systems from basic units or laws and 'elements'.Now look at the world around us. The world that humans have erected. What are the characteristics of this world? Closer inspection shows that it is merely an expression of what is INSIDE US. Our belief system dictates EVERYTHING that we do in our world. Our clothes, shops, businesses, families, friends, taste for movies and music and what not, all are a result of who we are inside. Hence the 'basic element' in a society is a single human being. A collective of single humans, dictates the outcome of a social structure.
Are humans merely a collective of atoms, organized in such a way that intelligence and observation are inevitable? Perhaps they are. But a mere collection of atoms is not sufficient for explanation of the human experience, just as a quantum level analysis is impractical in explaining the workings of a car. We assume other units of explanation, just like gears in a car, in explaining the human experience. Units include, thoughts, feelings, emotions, which, although being a result of a collective of atoms, show a drastically different behaviour when compared to the building atoms themselves! From this observation we conclude that something happens when apparently simplers units interact together even in human context.
Now, are thoughts and feelings sufficient to explain human behaviour? The psychologists recently realized that something far more complex arises when a collective of thoughts and feelings (this is not an exhaustive list) combine. They call this complex entity, 'the human self', or human personality (Nafs in Quranic terms). Hence in psychology, human-personalilty becomes the next unit of measurement for a social structure.
Using the scientific method, what can we observe about this so-called-self?
1-The human self is dynamic like everything else in nature. It seems that it can strengthen or weaken over time. Consider Christopher Reeves, Mother Teressa for 'strong selfs' Consider suiciders, psychopaths and what-nots for 'weaker selfs'. (Weak and strong are by no means exhaustive. The self may have other attributes too).
2-The development of human self CAN occur even when the development of human body does NOT. Christopher Reeves has a very strong 'will' yet broken down body. Same with Stephan Hawkings. They both have manged to learn and to exist in peace without having a strong physical layout. (Both are physically handicapped). Although some people DO break down if their body breaks down, it is, in theory, possible to develop the self despite a weakened human body.
3-The development of human self CAN occur even when social units such money, house, popularity etc are absent. Although some people commit suicide when the stock market crashes, others CAN persist, even prosper if social tangibles are absent.
4-The human self can disintegrate. Although it can disintegrate when social tangibles like money do not exist, it can also disintegreate even when social tangibles ARE present and growing. Consider serial killers. Serial killers don't go on a rampage because they are jobless or broke.
If the change in self does not depend on social tangibles, what exactly does it depend on? Closer inspection shows that the development or disintegration of 'self' depends on its 'belief system'. Another inspection shows that it also varies with the belief systems of neighbouring 'selfs', 'selfs' it interacts with. Although in theory it is possible for a child to be a normal human being even if he is abandoned by a parent, it is also the most widely expected reason for the development of a serial killer.
This brings us to the question of 'belief system' and what belief system truly nurtures the human self. I will answer this question at the very last. Meanwhile, we come to another interesting question. Can self development be a purely solitary exercise? Consider this thought experiment. Assume that all of a sudden, all human beings close all social interactions, and sit in solitary confinements, wondering and 'praying' or meditating. Will their 'self' develop? Well, whether the self develops or not, the human species would be extinct. For human species to propagate, it needs to procreate. To procreate, it needs a male and a female. Assume that the male's only role is to inject a sperm. What happens next? Well, there is going to be a child. The child, till it hits its teens, inherently depends on its mother for nurture and protection from the elements. The mother then needs to be closely attached to the child. During the initial years of the child, she can't even leave the child behind, when she pursues food and shelter for physical survival. Hence, she needs to develop a RELATIONSHIP, either with the father or a 'baby sitter'. But as a result of this child, neither the mother, nor the father would be able to engage in 'self development'. Also, a sense of 'community' will also emerge as exchange of goods and services takes place, even to simply survive.
Hence we conclude that humans are inherently a social animal, and without a social interaction, the human kind will go extinct. We also conclude that 'self-development' just cannot be a solitary exercise and if pursued, it will destroy human beings. (While this may perhaps be the only outcome of self-development, other explanations are also possible. I will address those shortly). For the time being we can conclude that self-developement either occurs in a strictly social environment, or a balanced mixture of social interaction and solitary exercises.
Let us go back to nature for a moment. We frequently think of nature as a giant mechanical clock, where every component is working to drive the entire system. This analogy is not entirely accurate. The working components in a clock, although physically moving, are static as far as their 'state' is concerned. The 'state' of a gear in a clock always remains as a circular, fine-tooth object. Nature it appears, does not function that way. The 'gears' of nature have a life. They start from a state of 'potentialities', grow and fulfill their function in nature, propagate their genes, and cease to exist. Consider a 'seed'. A seed does not remotely look like the tree it will someday be. Hence it looks like an embodiment of 'potentialities'. A seed has the potential to grow into a tree to fulfill its purpose in nature (whatever the purpose maybe). It grows into a tree and withers away. Notice the attributes of the seed. The seed grows under a fixed set of laws. It does not grow if the conditions are not met. It can even rot away, without developing, if the surroundings are harsh. Same is true for all species in nature. One can even draw this analogy further, and show that even so-called non-livings things go through the above process. From the trees example, we conclude
1-Nature's components like plants and animals can be viewed as a process in the natural spectrum. Plants and animals in their initial stage, depict a common abstraction potentialities.
2-Certain conditions need to be met before the potentialities of natural elements can be exposed.
3-If the conditions are insufficient, the full potential is will not be realized.
4-If conditions are completely absent, the natural elements disintegrate.
One wonders, can the human 'self' pass through the same stages and processes as observed in nature?
Human self is dynamic. It can grow or wither. Its growth and disintegration occurs in a social environment. Hence we can conclude that the dynamics of human self are congruent to that of natural elements.
Since human self can strengthen, in its undeveloped state, it represents a sets of potentialities just like elements in nature.Nature does not have a choice in choosing its 'belief system', while humans do. What belief systems and laws should humans adopt, to unfold the hidden potentialities of their 'selfs'?