Systematization of "the Thought"

How is the Thought Systematized?

The format of the systematization is constant.

Let it be known that the first and foremost stage in the systematization process is to determine the “key concepts” of the new paradigm. They are clearly defined with an original content at first, later they are compared and contrasted with the key concepts of the rival ideology, and finally rival ideology’s concepts are criticized competently and falsified demonstrably. History has witnessed many examples of this format. Perhaps we can find the best example of this format in Hobbes’ Leviathan written in the stage of formation of modern paradigma. The book consists of three main chapters. The first two chapters amount to the half of the book, while the third chapter does the second half. Hobbes determines and defines the key concepts of secular thought in the first two chapters, and criticizes the main theses or the central concepts of Christianity competently in the third chapter. He defines the concept of “human being” in terms of “laws of nature” and eventually comes to the conclusion that man and not God must be the central focus of the political affairs. This means that the sovereign has no right to violate the laws of nature except in cases where state of war is all-pervasive. In this definiton, “human being” is an “individial” who has undeniable “rights.” In a state of war, he/she can delegate his rights to a sovereign, but he does this with an eye to protect his rights rather than to glorify the monarchy. Accordingly, some of the central concepts of modernity such as “liberty” and “laws of nature” made their marks on the efforts in defining human being, life and society with the contributions Hobbes made in his time. In the third chapter, Hobbes settles account successfully with the concept of “Kingdom of Church” of Christianity and tries to prove the inevitableness of secular sovereignity by means of giving references to the primary sources of Christianity. The fact that the third chapter almost amounts to the half of the Leviathan is no doubt a result of a conscious choice. That is to say, Hobbes is well aware that the secular theory can not be influential unless it disproves the main theses of Christianity, which represents the dominant paradigm of the time in Western world. Another point that attracts notice here is that Hobbes have a good grasp of the literature of Christianity. Not only he makes in-depth analysis about the central theses of Christianity but also knows the very details of the debates among the Christian theologians. What is more, he can criticize them competently. And this is exactly what we mean by the “format” of systematization.

We can see the typical example of this format in the history of Muslim Thought in Al-Ghazali’s well-known book, Tahafut’al-Falasifa, i.e. Incoherence of the Philosophers. As is known, al-Ghazali received a good education and was a master at jurisprudence and theology when he decided to criticize the Greek philosophers. But he had another characteristics, which seems more important than his other personal qualities: he was the one who put an end to the debate between Muslim theologians and Greek philosophers. In order to solve the problem, he devoted all his time and care eveyday for two years at the evening hours, i.e. after finishing his lectures he gave in Nizamiyah Madrasa, to read and understand the books of Greek philosophers, and for the next year, he spent his time reviewing and examining the conclusions he reached throughout these two years. And after he was convinced that he “understood the books written by Greek philosophers better than their authors”, he wrote his Tahafut’al-Falasifah, i.e. Incoherence of the Philosophers. This book is the one which al-Ghazali did settle account with Greek philosophy. The wording and style of the book is different from that of the former theologians in that he fought fire with fire against philosophers, and his attacks was, so to speak, destructive. When compared with Hobbes’ Leviathan, Tahafut seems to have written more systematically because it has a special feature: “classification” of the arguments of the philosophers. They are classified into three main categories: the ones which must be refuted, the fallacies, and ones that may be accepted. And finally, he reaches the conclusion that the problem arises just from the metaphysics because the philosophers pose irreligious ideas in three points and erred in seventeen points by committing fallacy, and that there may be no problem with the other “neutral” branches of philosophy such as logic, physics, astronomy and mathematics.