Philosophy is the spiritual knowledge that transmits in one direction in the circle of research. Science is the physical knowledge that travels in the inverse direction in the same circle of research. To meet at the same point in the circle a Scientist and Philosopher should travel extensively. When a Philosopher and Scientist are arguing with each other it means they are in the middle of their journey. The Philosopher’s view is that God is beyond the creation of this universe and He is inexplicable. The Scientist’s view is that this universe itself is God and accepts the inexplicable points in nature. According to the Philosophers, God prevails all over the world while according to the Scientists acknowledge the inexplicable nature of the world, yet some concepts of the world are explicable.
When God is unexplainable, at least not possible to understand from our dimension, the very characteristic nature of God is only idiosyncratic. Philosopher depicts the explicability as the creation and the inexplicability as God. The explicable part is acknowledged and agreed by both the best philosophers and scientists, the inexplicable part of the world is also accepted as well. This inexplicability is known to God by the Philosopher and the Scientist expresses the same as inexplicability. The Scientist talks about the fact that there are wires and heat in a fiery wire. The Philosopher utters that the fire and the wire are co-existing. The only contradiction is in words. The Scientist utters it as heat while Philosopher utters it as heat fire. The wire is the explainable part of the world, which is agreed by all. A Scientist utters the other unexplainable part as property by calling it heat. The Philosopher utters the same as the possessor of the property as fire. However, The strenuous heat is called fire.
If a Scientist acknowledges the alternative genuine path of the miracles, the human incarnation happens to be the ultimate authority about the existence of the possessor of such inexplicable power. If the Scientist chose the road of patience to reach the bottom-most end, he will turn into a spiritual philosopher. All the impatient Scientists are existing in some middle place of the path and eventually become an atheist.
Best philosophers ever
The man who is a pioneer of constructive thinking. It sounds like an exaggeration, but there is little evidence of introspection or analysis of abstract concepts before his time. Search for some Platonic dialogues and read them out for yourself. He’s amusing, and sharp, and sometimes way off base, yet often bang on.
The man who was one step ahead of his time, that people go back and read his books, and the trampling impression is “Yeah, I know.” His influence over how we regard systems of social control and the “will to power” was mesmerizing and it all seems axiomatic.
He extracted the atheistic values of the Enlightenment and funneled them into an aggressively individualistic, life-affirming, religion of the self. Why hadn’t anyone thought of that before? I don’t know.
3. Ibn Sina or Avicenna
It is not possible to summarize the works of Ibn Sina, and even harder to draw a line of his influence. He was a polymath well versed in philosophy, cosmology, medicine, theology, metaphysics, and heavily influenced by Aristotelian thought. It’s almost impossible to introduce a figure like Ibn Sina whilst doing justice to the various arguments he’s explained and contented with his whole life. I was always fascinated with his theory of emanation. He argues for All above one or Necessary Being (named the ‘Unmoved Mover’ in Aristotle’s thought – we know as GOD) from which the rest of existence flows through the process of emanation. GOD cannot have an intention that relates to the world. He created forces and that is forced by the nature of His Essence to emanate all the existing beings. This is the point where that contradicts what most Muslim thinkers, as well as Muslims as a whole believe; God is invested in the particulars of our everyday lives and intends to create.
Argument of Ibn Sina is far more complicated and deserves the highest attention because it is through this theory (of emanation) he “solves” the infamous Problem of Devil, which beset to reconcile the existence of an omnipotent and loving GOD with the existence of ‘Evil’ and sufferings.
Kant is probably the first person to seriously deal with the academic problem of nailing together a code of moral and ethical behavior without reference to a god, which means he coerces the entire species forward one notch along the ladder of amazement. I also like his Categorical Imperative, which is a rapid test to see if what you’re doing is a moral action: during a time of perplexity, Question yourself, “If everyone in this world acted in the way I’m acting, would it still be a good idea?”
5. Ibn Rushd or Averroes
When perusing the history of Islamic philosophy from Ibn Sina onwards, it’s almost impossible to pass over Ibn Rushd. His works and arguments contend with the most polarising issues that separated many, including Ibn Sina and Al-Ghazzali. His way of writing takes a ‘softer’ tone, that enables the process of reading in itself enjoyable, but more importantly, so do his ideas. His arguments can be perceived as the ‘bridge’ between two opposite ends of the spectrum – a moderate approach.
Although this is only a short discussion of only a handful of influential best Philosophers, one hopes this will enlighten those skeptical of their contributions to the world, and invigorate those who wish to dive further into the history of a civilization that inspired innumerable intellectual developments. I strongly believe it will inspire you as well.