Mutahhari Fundamentals of Islamic Thought

God, Man and the Universe
1. Auflage 2015
ISBN: 978-1-4835-5548-5
Verlag: BookBaby
Format: EPUB
Kopierschutz: Adobe DRM (»Systemvoraussetzungen)

E-Book, Englisch, 235 Seiten

Ayatullah Murtaza Mutahhari, assassinated in May 1979, soon after the triumph of a revolution he had done much to promote both intellectually and organizationally, was one of the most versatile and prolific of Iranian religious scholars in recent times. His work is marked by a philosophical clarity that particularly qualifies him to deal with the fundamental problems of religious thought that form the subject of this book. The first essay, 'Man and Faith,' describes the distinctive characteristics of man as an order of creation and establishes his lasting need for both science and faith as complementary means of understanding the universe. Then comes an examination of a key concept of Islam, 'The World-View of Tauhid,' including some of its implications for the structure of the universe as well as for society and culture. The third essay deals with the nature of the Islamic philosophical tradition from which Mutahhari's thought is derived. The collection is completed by three shorter pieces in which Mutahhari demonstrates his awareness of Western as well as Islamic thought and offers fresh views on several fundamental issues religious conern

Autoren/Hrsg.

Mutahhari, Ayatullah Murtaza

Weitere Mitwirkende

Campbell, R.

Leseproben

Man and Faith   Man and Animal In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate Man is a species of animal and thus shares many features with other animals. But many differences distinguish man from animals, and grant him a special virtue, an elevation, that leaves him unrivaled. The basic difference between man and the other animals, the touchstone of his humanity, the source of what have come to be known as human civilization and culture, is the presence of insights and beliefs. Animals in general can perceive themselves and the external world and strive to attain their desires and objects in the light of their awareness and cognition. The same holds true of man, but he differs from the rest of the animals in the scope, extent, and breadth of his awareness and cognitions and in the level to which his desires and objects rise. This grants man a special virtue and elevation and separates him from the rest of the animals. Awareness and Desire in Animals First, the animal’s awareness of the world comes solely through its external senses and is, accordingly, external and superficial; it does not reach into the interiors and internal relationships of things. Second, it is individual and particular; it enjoys nothing of universality and generality. Third, it is localized, limited to the animal’s environment. Fourth, it is immediate, confined to the present, divorced from past and future. The animal is not aware of its own history or that of the world and does not consider or relate its endeavors to the future. The animal is thus confined in a fourfold prison. If it should perchance emerge, it does so not with awareness, by intelligence and choice, but captive to the compulsions of nature, instinctually, without awareness or intelligence. The level of the animal’s desires and objects is also limited. First, it is material, not rising above eating, drinking, sleeping, playing, nesting, and copulating. For the animal there is no question of abstract desires and objects, moral values, and so on. Second, it is private and individual, related to itself or at the most to its mate and offspring. Third, it is localized and related to its environment. Fourth, it is immediate and related to the present. The animal thus lives within certain confines in this respect as well. If the animal pursues an object or moves toward an end that is beyond these confines, for instance, if it shows concern for the species rather than the individual or for the future rather than the present, as do such social animals as the honeybee, this behavior arises unconsciously and instinctually, by the direct command of the power that created it and administers the world. Awareness and Desire in Man Whether in the area of awareness, insights, and cognitions or desires and objects, the human domain reaches much further and higher than that of the animals. Human awareness and cognition traverse the exterior bounds of objects and phenomena to penetrate into their interiors, their essences and identities, their interrelationships and interdependences, and the necessities governing them. Human awareness does not remain imprisoned within the limits of locale and place, nor does it remain chained to its moment; it journeys through both time and space. Accordingly, man grows aware both of what is beyond his environment and of his own past and future, discovering his own past history and that of the universe—the histories of the earth, the heavens, the mountains, the seas, the planets, plants and other animals—and contemplating the future to the far horizons. Beyond even this, man sends his thought racing after things limitless and eternal and gains a knowledge of some of them. One who transcends a cognition of the individual and the particular discovers general laws and universal truths that embrace the whole world. Thus, he establishes his dominion over nature. Man can also attain an elevated level from the standpoint of desires and objects. Man is a being that seeks values and aspires to virtues and ideals that are not material or utilitarian, that are not restricted to self or at most to mate and offspring, that are general and inclusive and embrace the whole of humanity, that are unconfined to a particular environment, locale, or time period. Man is so devoted to ideals and beliefs that he may at times place them above all else and put service to others and their comfort ahead of his own comfort. It is as if the thorn that has pierced another’s foot has pierced his own foot, or even his own eye. He commiserates with others; he rejoices in their joy and grieves at their grief. He may grow so attached to his sacred beliefs and ideals that he readily sacrifices to them not only his interests but his whole life and existence. The human dimension of civilization, the spirit of civilization, grows out of just such uniquely human feelings and desires. The Touchstone of Man’s Distinctiveness Man’s breadth of insight into the universe stems from humanity’s collective efforts amassed and evolved over the centuries. This insight, expressed through special criteria, rules, and logical procedures, has come to be known as “science.” Science in its most general sense means the sum total of human contemplations on the universe (including philosophy), the product of the collective efforts of humanity within a special system of logic. The elevated and ideal aptitudes of humanity are born of its faith, belief, and attachment to certain realities in the universe that are both extraindividual, or general and inclusive, and extramaterial, or unrelated to advantage or profit. Such beliefs and attachments are in turn born of certain world views and cosmologies given to humanity by prophets of God or by certain philosophers who sought to present a kind of thought that would conduce to belief and idealism. As these elevated, ideal, supra-animal aptitudes in man find an ideational and credal infrastructure, they are designated “faith” (iman). It is therefore my contention that the central difference between man and the other animals, the touchstone of man’s humanity, on which humanity depends, consists in science and faith. Much has been said about what distinguishes man from the other animals. Although some have denied there is any basic difference between man and other animals, asserting that the difference in awareness and cognition is quantitative or at the most qualitative, but not essential, these thinkers have passed over all the wonders and glories that have drawn the great philosophers of East and West to the question of cognition in man. They regard man as an animal entirely, from the standpoint of desires and objects, not differing from the animals in the least in this respect.1 Others think that to have a psyche makes the difference; that is, they believe that only man has a psyche, or anima, that other animals have neither feelings nor appetites, know neither pain nor pleasure, that they are soulless machines only resembling animate beings. They think that the true definition of man is “the animate being.”2 Other thinkers who do not consider man the only animate being in the universe but maintain basic distinctions between man and the rest of the animals may be grouped according to which one of man’s distinguishing features they have dwelt upon. They have defined man as the reasoning animal, the seeker after the Absolute, the unfinished, the idealist, the seeker after values, the metaphysical animal, the insatiable, the indeterminate, the committed and responsible, the provident, the free and empowered, the rebel, the social animal, the seeker after order, the seeker after beauty, the seeker after justice, the one facing two ways, the lover, the answerable, the conscientious, the one with two hearts, the creator, the solitary, the agitated, the devotee of creeds, the toolmaker, the seeker after the beyond, the visionary, the ideal, and the gateway to ideas. Clearly, each of these distinctions is correct in its turn, but if we wish to advance a definition that comprehends all the basic differences, we can do no better than to speak of science and faith and to say that man is the animal distinguished from the other animals by the two features, “science” and “faith.” Relationship Between Humanity and Animality Those features man shares with the animal plus those features that distinguish him from the animal result in man having two lives, the animal life and the human life—in other words, the material life and the life of culture. What relationship exists between man’s animality and his humanity, between his animal life and his human life, his material life and his cultural and spiritual life? Is one the basis and the other a reflection of it? Is one the infrastructure and the other the superstructure? Since we are considering this question from a sociological, not a psychological point of view, we may express it this way: Among social structures is the economic structure, related to production and production relations, the principle and infrastructure? Do the remaining social structures, especially those in which man’s humanity is manifested, all constitute something derivative, a superstructure, a reflection of the economic structure? Have science, philosophy, literature, religion, law, morals, and art at all times been manifestations of economic realities, having no substantive reality? This sociological discussion automatically leads to a psychological conclusion and likewise to a philosophical argument that concerns humanity, its objective and substantive realities—the question of what...