Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

• Farahnaz Shekarchi ¹
• MohammadReza Shamshiri ²
• Hashem Gholestani ³

¹ PhD Candidate of philosophy, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Isfahan, Iran

² Assistant Professor of philosophy, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Isfahan, Iran

³ Professor, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Isfahan, Iran

Abstract

As a problem statement, it must be indicated that the subject of soul has been the centerpiece of many philosophers’ attention which has led to the creation of diverse concepts about it. In this article, Farabi and Ibn Sina are referred to as the representatives of Masha Philosophy and Suhrawardi as the representative of the Philosophy of Illumination.  This research, in the first part, describes Farabi's and Ibn Sina's views on definitions, and then describes Suhrawardi's critique of the Masha Philosophy in this regard, and at the end he explains the point of view of Suhrawardi; since soul -cognition and its manifestations are the foundations of creatures’ cognition. As a necessity, it can be asked how our soul gains cognition? Mashayeans claim that they are capable of object cognition through its limitations, an idea which is criticized by Suhrawardi, believing such definitions to be incorrect while providing his own point of view regarding world cognition based on the light. In his opinion, soul is a manifestation on its own for its nature of light, and the brighter the light is, the more soul -cognition it will possess. He believes that Reasoning methods are not sufficient enough for gaining cognition and Intuitive knowledge is required instead. He furthermore supports his theory by holding soul and light equal to one another.

Highlights

1. 1.       Introduction

Before the emergence of Illuminationism, the philosophy introduced Shahab al-Din Suhrawardi, the Peripatetic philosophy was the dominant school of thought in the Islamic World with prominent advocates such as Al-Farabi (Alpharabius), Ibn Sina (Avicenna), and Ibn Rushd (Averroes). In Peripatetic philosophy, founded by Aristotle, theoretical reason was the basis of philosophical thought, and spirituality, taste, and intuition were either irrelevant or were sidelined. On the other hand, mystics and Sufis, who relied on spirituality and intuition, disregarded or disparaged pure reason and logic. Hence, Suhrawardi tried to reconcile these two views. He challenged Peripatetic views by introducing the notion of immediate, intuitive knowledge. Peripatetics believed in knowledge by definition and form, while Suhrawardi embarks on a new ontological path based on Light. His epistemology is also based on immediate knowledge of matters and objects.       

1. 2.       Methodology

Self-knowledge and its manifestations are considered to be the basis for knowledge of beings. The question is, how does the soul attain knowledge?

In this research, first Al-Farabi’s and Ibn Sina’s notion of “definition” are discussed, followed by the views of Suhrawardi on this topic.

1. 3.       Al-Farabi’s View on Knowledge of the Essences of Objects

In his writings, Al-Farabi defines “definition” as the essential properties of an object that make it what it is, and believes that it is through combinations of the essences of objects that we come to understand them.

Al-Farabi holds two opposing views regarding definition and form. One view is that of Peripatetic philosophers who maintain that knowledge of the nature of an object can be attained through knowledge of its essential properties; however, his second view contradicts the first and considers knowledge of the essence of an object to be impossible.   

1. 4.       Avicenna’s View on Knowledge of the Essences of Objects

Peripatetic epistemology is based on knowledge through essential definition and form. According to Avicenna, real definition is the most complete definition and reflects all the essential properties of an object. Complete definition describes the nature of the object. Definition encompasses all the essential properties and constituents of an object and consists of genus and differentia. Genus is the kind under which a species falls, while differentia is a feature that characterizes the species within that genus. If all the essential properties of an entity is provided in the definition, it is a complete definition, such as defining human being as a rational animal.      

4.1.  Avicenna and Difficulty of Definition

In some of his works, Avicenna discusses the difficulty of definition and knowledge of the essences of objects and the inability of human beings in this regard. He argues that real definition of objects is out of the reach of man. However, he still believes in human ability to attain knowledge of the essences of objects. Therefore, both Al-Farabi and Ibn Sina believe in the possibility, yet difficulty, of attaining knowledge of the essences of objects.

1. 5.       Suhrawardi’s View on Knowledge and Its Conditions

Suhrawardi believes in definition as a means to designate an entity and its complex of properties, qualities and accidents, and considers this a complete definition that is universally acceptable. That is because, in his opinion, people attain knowledge of an object through its apparent properties and accidents, while intangibles such as genus and differentia have no bearing on this process.

1. 6.       Suhrawardi’s Criticisms of Peripatetics

Suhrawardi believes knowledge by definition to be incorrect, maintaining that it is impossible to gain knowledge of all the essences of an object. The argument for his rejection of Peripatetics’ notion of knowledge by definition is that when the genus of a thing is unknown, its differentia will be unknown as well, i.e., it is impossible to infer an unknown from its essences.

Suhrawardi considers the example of defining the species human as “a rational animal” and the argument that the human existence is dependent on these qualities. But Peripatetics’ definition includes the faculty of reason, which is an accidental property and not essential to its nature or existence. Therefore, the soul is unknown unless through its properties and accidents. In addition, Suhrawardi criticizes Peripatetic views on sense perception, arguing that: substance has unknown differentia; essences are defined by negation; the soul and other mental concepts have unknown differentia; accidents such as blackness cannot be conceived of; and thus, based on these assumptions, nothing in the world can be known.    

Suhrawardi articulates that these problems arise in defining the soul, which is the closest thing to a human being, and that this is worse for other matters and objects. Therefore, it is difficult, if not impossible, to attain knowledge of the essences of objects through their genus and differentia.    

1. 7.       Conclusion

Reflection on the writing of Suhrawardi indicates that he believes in the impossibility of knowing the essences of an object, since humans are incapable of knowing the closest matter to themselves (i.e., human soul). However, most people attain knowledge by understanding the accidents and apparent and tangible properties of an object.

Although Suhrawardi considers basic axioms, logical principles, rational arguments, and reasoning to be necessary in attaining knowledge and values theoretical philosophy, he does not consider them to be sufficient. In addition, he introduces scientific and spiritual methods, self-purification, and illumination (lights) as other means of attaining knowledge. In other words, light is an inseparable and the most evident component of Illuminationism. Light is inherently evident, nothing is more evident, and thus does not require a definition. However, it has a hierarchy, where the Light of lights is the most brilliant, the most complete. In his opinion, light is abstract and self-aware, and through self-purification, higher lights become apparent and humans get closer to the Light of lights, through which greater self-awareness and knowledge is achieved.

At the heart of the Illuminationalist epistemology of Suhrawardi is the theory of “presential knowledge”, exemplified by self-awareness of the soul. That is, the soul has presential, immediate, unmediated knowledge of itself. Its self-awareness consists in its ability to perceive directly its own essence. Hence, in his opinion, acquired knowledge is based on presential knowledge. 

References

-      Ibn Sina. (1405 AH). The Logic of the Orientals (Mantiq al-Mashriqiyyin). Qom: Marashi Publications.  

-      Ibn Sina. (1997). The Book of Healing (Kitab al-Shifa). Hassanzadeh Amoli (Ed.), Qom: Bustan Publishing. 

-      Omid, M. (1997). Suhrawardi and epistemology. Iranian Journal of Universe of Thought, 75.

-      Suhrawardi, Sh. (2009). Collection of Writings—Third Edition. Seyed Hossein Nasr (Ed.), Center for Humanities and Cultural Studies Research, Tehran. 

-      Farabi, A. (1956).  Introductory Sections on Logic. The Islamic Quarterly.

-      Ashkouri, M. F. (2005). Suhrawardi and the issue of knowledge. Iranian Journal of Philosophical Knowledge, 9.

-      Yathrabi, Y. (2006). Suhrawardi’s Illuminationism. Qom: Bustan Publising.

-      Vahedi, B. (2009). Defintion theory from the perspective of Al-Farabi. Iranian Journal of Knowledge, 56. 

Keywords

• Suhrawardi
• Mashayean
• Illumination
• soul
• Knowledge
• Acquired Knowledge