Friday, 24 November 2017

If You Don't Philosophize You Are Breaking The Law



            I’ve been working for the last few mornings on a translation of Serge Gainsbourg’s song, “Boomerang”. It involves trying to convey his meaning while at the same time trying to use for every other line words that rhyme with the “rang” part of “boomerang”. I think that the French language has a lot more words like that and so it makes for an interesting challenge.
            On my way to school, I noticed when I was stopped on Brock at the Dundas light that “Bikes On Wheels” is gone and it’s been replaced by “The Brockton Cyclery”. I always though “bikes on wheels” was a stupid name anyway so “Brockton Cyclery” is better and their logo has a more class.
            Outside of philosophy class James commented about how old my Think Pad laptop is. I told him that it’s a family heirloom and that my great grandfather brought it here from Sweden at the end of the 19th Century.
            Just before class started I realized that I’d forgotten to bring my notebook for the second time in the course so I had to write in the empty spaces of my little weekly planner.
            Someone at the back complained that they had no lights and so the student, the professor and Cilia were all trying different things to try to get them to work.
            During the lecture I was having trouble keeping my eyes open and I was embarrassed after letting them droop that when I opened them up again Professor Black was looking straight at me. If I sat at the back I could have just gone to sleep if I’d been so inclined.
            Averroes offers a legal opinion of philosophy using the Qu’ranic texts. He wrote three responses to Ghazali:
            Decisive Treatise – Legal
            Uncovering the Methods of Proof – Theological
            Incoherence of the Incoherence – Philosophical
            The legal question is: Does the Qu’ran prohibit, allow or command the study of Philosophy? Is it prohibited, allowed or obligatory? Averroes declares from the start that it is permitted but then he argues that it is obligatory.
            She reminded us of the old game show that she’d mentioned and then warned us that she was going to go even further back now to Perry Mason. She told us that Cilia didn’t even know who Perry Mason was but that he’d been on TV. She said it went back to the 1930s and of course she was referring to the novels by Erle Stanley Gardner. I mentioned that there had also been a radio show.
            Averroes insists that it is a religious duty to be a philosopher. Why not see religion and philosophy in harmony? He approaches the matter on different levels of discourse. He states that if anyone is a heretic it is Ghazali, but he doesn’t mean it literally.
            Philosophy is the arbiter of religious tradition. Philosophy is the study, which is the study of being.  This can be chopped up to Metaphysics – the study of immaterial being; Physics and Math – the study of material being; and Ethics – the study of the right things to do.
            Philosophy is the study of natural being and relations with divine being.
            The Qu’ran says to reflect on other beings as signs of the creator, so it fits as philosophy. But so far the argument only proves that philosophy is permitted by the Qu’ran. The Qu’ran says one must fulfill one’s duty in the best way possible. What is the best way? The intellect is the best way, which takes us to Philosophy. Reflection is nothing more than inference and drawing out of the unknown from the known or the hidden from the apparent, and since this is reasoning, we are obligated to carry on our study of beings through reasoning. Logic is a method of taking the known and applying it to the unknown. Logic is the key to happiness. Logic is the criterion.
            Al Farabi said there is tension between theology and philosophy. There was a rejection of the imposition of Aristotelian logic into Islam.
            Averroes says logic is a foreign science and so it is extraneous. We can follow those before us and stand on the shoulders of giants. If a tool from outside of Islam helps to follow the Qu’ran it is okay. The best tool is that of demonstration. “The best way possible” means that the command can only be directed at those with an ability to do logic. Since the obligation is directed at those with the ability to use logic, it is forbidden for believers not capable of doing logic to stand in the way of those that can. It would be like standing at the door of the mosque and preventing worshippers from entering to pray. So Ghazali is at fault because anything philosophers do in good faith cannot be heretical even if they make mistakes.
            Averroes says that Philosophy and Theology should be in harmony because truth does not oppose truth. If you discover something true and I discover something true they must be in harmony.
            Averroes says Philosophy is the superior master and religion is the servant. Tensions in the Qu’ran create misunderstanding and so the nature of Qu’ranic revelation needs a method to resolve conflicts. Those that read the Qu’ran must learn to discern between the literal teachings and the allegorical or Ta’wil. Augustine did the same thing with the Bible and the Jews did the same with the Torah. There are only certain textx on which everyone agrees they are ethical and practical. There is no consensus among the scholars about how to interpret the theoretical.
            Averroes claims that religion is a social-political construct. Religion is designed to govern and to stabilize but not to convey philosophical truths. Part of the group of Muslim scholars are philosophers. Their lack of consensus is almost a tautology. Most religious debates are on ethics, even today.
            On the way home I stopped at Freshco where I bought a package of hot Genoa salami, some ground beef and a couple of jars of unsweetened apple sauce because I’m getting tired of mixing canned peaches with my yogourt.
            That evening I heard shouting and cheering outside and when I looked through the window there was a fight going on outside my window. A bunch of young guys were standing around two guys that were going at it, though it looked more like a contest than a grudge match. At one point the one guy picked the other one up and slammed him down on the concrete and then the battle was over. It didn’t look like the loser was angry though, after he got up.
            That night I cooked the cottage roll that I’d bought a few days before. I boiled it for an hour and a half with garlic, cloves and a bay leaf in the cast iron crock-pot that my daughter gave me. Then I coated it in brown sugar and mustard and glazed it in the oven at high temperature for 15 minutes. It turned out surprisingly well.
            I watched the last episode of the first season of the 1950s TV series, “Mike Hammer”. The first ten episodes were full downloads but the rest were only partial and so I had to deal with missing parts, though I caught the gist of every story. Darren McGavin played the character of Mike Hammer somewhat comedically despite the stories being dramatic and violent. He apparently deliberately toned down a character that in the novels was extremely violent. I downloaded the second season, which overlaps into 1960. This download was complete, so I won’t have any glitches when I’m watching it.
            

No comments:

Post a Comment