Blogging Theology Philosophy Special with Shaykh Hasan Spiker (2022-12-07) ​
Description ​
More about Hasan Spiker: https://zaytuna.edu/hasan-spiker
You Can Support My Work on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/Bloggingtheology
My Paypal Link: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/bloggingtheology?locale.x=en_GB
Summary of Blogging Theology Philosophy Special with Shaykh Hasan Spiker ​
This summary is AI generated - there may be inaccuracies. *
00:00:00 - 01:00:00 ​
Shaykh Hasan Spiker discusses the philosophical concept of the 'revolution,' how it applies to epistemology, and how it affects everything after him. He argues that traditional theology is based on subjective experiences which are not capable of being known in principle, and that metaphysics is not based on objective truths. He concludes by saying that traditional theology is consigned to the Dustbin because humans are not equipped to understand transcendent realities.
**00:00:00 ** Hassan Spiker discusses the impasse of modern thought and how Kant's legacy has led to a separation of being and knowing. He discusses his book, Things as They Are, which seeks to reintroduce objective truth into Islamic philosophy.
- **00:05:00 ** Shaykh Hasan Spiker discusses the idea of arbitrariness in voluntarism and how it manifests in gender fluidity theory. He argues that it is important to depict the state of mind of those engaging in these ideologies in order to have a conversation about them.
- **00:10:00
- Discusses how the idea of "human nature" has changed over the centuries, from being fixed to being fluid. Emmanuel Kant is largely responsible for this change, as he was the first philosopher to argue that humans are not limited by their "human nature." This has had a ripple effect, as the average person in the West now believes in human fluidity and "my truth," "goodness," and "beauty" without any objective standards.
- **00:15:00 ** Shaykh Hasan Spiker discusses the legacy of the 1724 French philosopher Emmanuel Kant, who is considered one of the greatest thinkers in modern times. He discusses the Cartesian split, which is the idea that the world is composed of two fundamentally different substances: mind and matter.
- **00:20:00 ** Descartes distinguished between the physical world as it is seen by mathematics and the world as it is experienced subjectively. He could not bridge the two and this led to the split between metaphysics and physics.
- **00:25:00 ** In the traditional Scholastic understanding of the high Middle Ages, there is a continuity between nature and our capacity to know it because nature in itself is imbued with intrinsic intelligibility. For Plato, the reason that the world that we know in itself corresponds to our mental representations is because there is a special agent intellect which underlies both. Kant was the real origin of the coherent theory of truth, which is the most fundamental competitive to the correspondence theory.
- **00:30:00 ** The traditional correspondence theory in Islamic thought is that the truth of a proposition corresponds to its objective reality. However, this theory faces the problem of non-empirical propositions. In order to account for these propositions, philosophers throughout the history of philosophy have relied on various conceptions of objects which do not correspond to any empirical reality. In this lecture, Shaykh Hasan Spiker discusses one such conception, instrumental reality. Instrumental reality is outside the mind and all particular fundamental reality is all particular. He also discusses the outside world and how every existent object is in Arabic.
- **00:35:00 ** Shaykh Hasan Spiker discusses the problem of how certain propositions can be known to be true even though they do not have empirical reference. He argues that these propositions are actually correspondence to reality, and that, therefore, they are true despite not having empirical reference.
- **00:40:00 ** Shaykh Hasan Spiker discusses the problems of abstract propositions and the principle of non-contradiction. He notes that philosophy has progressed since the mid-20th century, when it was realized that all meaningful statements must be either analytic or empirically verified. He goes on to say that the verification principle has been identified as a contradiction, and that real philosophical progress has been made when philosophers realized that there is no solution to the impasse.
- **00:45:00 ** Shaykh Hasan Spiker discusses the philosophical concept of the 'revolution,' how it applies to epistemology, and how it affects everything after him.
- **00:50:00 ** Shaykh Hasan Spiker discusses how traditional theology is based on subjective experiences which are not capable of being known in principle. He then argues that metaphysics is not based on objective truths and is instead based on natural senses. Shaykh Hasan Spiker concludes by saying that traditional theology is consigned to the Dustbin because humans are not equipped to understand transcendent realities.
- **00:55:00
- Discusses the idea of a hierarchy of sciences, with physics at the top and other sciences having some empirical basis, but containing subjective elements. It goes on to discuss the idea of knowledge structures, and how the traditional understanding that theology is the queen of the sciences has been replaced by the current understanding that physics is the queen of the sciences.
01:00:00 - 01:55:00 ​
discusses the relationship between theology and philosophy, and how these two fields of study have interacted throughout history. Shaykh Hasan Spiker argues that the current state of affairs, in which theology is seen as subordinate to philosophy, is due to the influence of Western thought. He argues that this state of affairs is dangerous, as it is not supported by Islam.
**01:00:00 ** Shaykh Hasan Spiker discusses the idea of a "Stark distinction" between humanities and sciences, and how this distinction is outdated due to advances in science. He goes on to say that the Proviso of course still applies, and that there are many scientists who are open to the idea that the observer has an impact on the physical world.
- **01:05:00 ** Shaykh Hasan Spiker discusses the relationship between theology and philosophy, highlighting the difference between non-empirical discourse and subjective reality. He goes on to argue that voluntarist ontologies are satanic in their inversion of traditional theology.
- **01:10:00
- Discusses the philosophical problem of modernism, which is the idea that there is no intrinsic order or hierarchy in the world. Modernism is a philosophical problem because it undermines the idea of intrinsic order and hierarchy in the world. This leads to a loss of intrinsic meaning and value in life.
discusses the idea of hierarchy and freedom, and how these are fundamental principles of the modern individual. Hierarchy and freedom are seen as the gifts of modernity, which have freed people from false strictures and hierarchies. also discusses the idea of gender and the family, and how these constructs are no longer seen as intrinsic to human nature. This is due to the idea of autonomy, which is the principle of modernity.
- **01:15:00
- Discusses how European thinkers, especially during the Protestant Reformation, revolted against a pre-existing church hierarchy and ended up developing a conception of freedom that is based on the individual. This individualist view of freedom is then passed on to the Muslim world, where it is becoming increasingly dangerous because it is not supported by Islam.
- **01:20:00 ** Shaykh Hasan Spiker discusses the theological origins of the perplexing doctrines of the Trinity, Incarnation, and the Holy Mysteries, which contributed to the distinctive attitudes to Faith and reason in the Middle Ages. He argues that these doctrines ultimately cemented the idea of the complete otherness of faith and reason, which is unrecognizable outside of Christendom.
- **01:25:00
- Discusses the development of theology in the Western world, focusing on the work of three prominent thinkers: Anselm of Canterbury, Richard of Saint Victor, and William of Volterra. Anselm's approach, which is based on reason and scripture, led to the development of the ontological argument for the existence of a God-man. This argument, first put forward by Augustine of Hippo, is that because man has the ability to reason, it is necessary that a God-man exists in order for man to be able to make amends for his sins. This premise is based on the idea that man owes a debt of honor to God. also discusses the approach of Aquinas, who developed a more fragile form of harmony between reason and faith.
- **01:30:00 ** Shaykh Hasan Spiker discusses how early Christian theologians believed that it was possible to find necessary reasons for the mysteries of Christianity, which relied on the principle of perfection. This idea was eventually co-opted by the scientific community and reduced to the hard sentence of science. However, knowledge in the Islamic tradition is based on first principles, which are metaphysical in nature.
- **01:35:00 ** Shaykh Hasan Spiker discusses the distinction between theology and philosophy, noting that theology is concerned with knowledge that is distinct from faith. He discusses the medieval period and the development of theological reasoning. He argues that reason and revelation are separate, and that reason can only prove what faith teaches is not impossible.
- **01:40:00 ** Shaykh Hasan Spiker discusses the fundamental opposition of the Holy Mysteries to the structures of logic and how this Singularity should not be posited except when the authority of holy scriptures compels. He also touches on the concept of radical freedom and how it applies to the individual.
- **01:45:00 ** Shaykh Hasan Spiker discusses the intrinsic toxicity of Western philosophy and how it contributes to the collapse of civilizations. He also discusses the role of abstract entities in Islamic thought and how they correspond to intelligible reality.
- **01:50:00 ** The Shaykh discusses the various ways in which Tradition understands the relationship between objective reality and subjective experience. He points out that, in the Islamic tradition, this relationship is seen as unfolding through a series of degrees of being until it appears in our world. He also mentions that, in our tradition, subjective experience is never divorced from objective reality.
- **01:55:00 ** Shaykh Hasan Spiker explains the metaphysics of the possibility and the hierarchy of existence. He also points out the similarity between himself and a convert to Islam, and how this is all a mystery of God.
Full transcript with timestamps: CLICK TO EXPAND
0:00:03 hello everyone and welcome to blogging0:00:06 theology today I am delighted to talk to0:00:08 Hassan Spiker your most welcome sir oh0:00:12 thank you very much it's a pleasure to0:00:14 be here and you actually in England not0:00:15 you're not in California at the moment0:00:17 so I did manage to crawl my way back0:00:19 here yeah0:00:21 um the sun seems to be forgetting to0:00:22 come up here0:00:24 it's quite quite different from0:00:26 California0:00:27 um for those who don't know um Hassan is0:00:29 a philosopher and comparative scholar of0:00:32 Islamic Greek and modern thought he's a0:00:35 he's the son of anglo-american converts0:00:38 to Islam members of a trailblazing group0:00:41 who in their 1970s communes initiated0:00:44 some of the first experiments in the0:00:46 Revival of traditional structures of0:00:49 Islamic knowledge and Sufism within the0:00:53 desacralized context of the modern world0:00:56 after growing up in a rich spiritual and0:00:58 intellectual home environment Hassan0:01:00 spent 12 years studying the Islamic0:01:03 Sciences in the Middle East0:01:06 in the court of his studies Hassan0:01:08 principally focused on interactions0:01:11 between the school of IBN Arabic and0:01:13 late Kalam Theology and also completed0:01:17 his memorization of the Quran0:01:20 upon his return to the United Kingdom0:01:23 Hassan entered the University of0:01:25 Cambridge which I think was recently0:01:28 ranked one of the top three uh0:01:30 universities in the world by the times0:01:32 literary supplement I seem to remember0:01:34 by the Yeah by the by0:01:36 um where uh for his M Phil he studied0:01:39 the works of platinus Kant and Hegel0:01:42 under the guidance of Professor Douglas0:01:45 Headley uh a renowned scholar of0:01:48 platonism and German idealism and one of0:01:51 the key contemporary proponents of0:01:53 platonism as a living tradition0:01:55 fascinating for his thesis on the0:01:58 relationship between platonic hierarchy0:02:00 and Enlightenment conceptions of0:02:03 individual self-determination Hassan0:02:06 received a distinction and faculty prize0:02:08 from the University of Cambridge0:02:10 congratulations on that thank you from0:02:14 uh 2014 to 2022 he was a researcher on0:02:18 the uh the tarber foundation0:02:21 Flagship classification of the Sciences0:02:24 project widely lauded as one of the most0:02:27 significant contemporary attempts to0:02:29 renew the epistemological and0:02:31 metaphysical foundations of traditional0:02:34 Islamic philosophical thought0:02:37 now his main area of study in Islamic0:02:40 thought is the intersection of Il maklam0:02:43 that's Muslim theology evinson0:02:46 philosophy and experiential metaphysics0:02:49 in Greek thought his main era of study0:02:52 is the neoplatonic critique of Aristotle0:02:55 and immunotism and in modern thought0:02:57 it's the philosophy of Kant the0:03:00 metaphysics of freedom and the0:03:01 possibility of metaphysics0:03:04 and Hassan joined as a tuna College in0:03:07 California as a lecturer in philosophy0:03:10 and logic this year in 2022.0:03:14 today Hassan has kindly agreed to0:03:16 discuss his new book entitled things as0:03:20 they are nafsa Al Amma and the0:03:22 metaphysical foundations of objective0:03:25 truth a work which we might describe as0:03:28 an introduction to Islamic ontology so0:03:32 over to you sir0:03:34 thank you so much Paul and it really is0:03:36 a great pleasure to be here0:03:38 so um here is my0:03:42 first slide where I have the title of my0:03:45 book but with a question mark things as0:03:47 they really are0:03:49 um and this is a question of0:03:52 um0:03:53 the possibility of objective truth not0:03:56 so much particularly0:03:58 in the context of Islamic philosophy but0:04:00 in the context of the particular0:04:04 intellectual impasse as I like to call0:04:07 it of our situation post post-modernity0:04:11 hmm0:04:13 um and so just to launch into that um0:04:15 modern thought is at an impasse because0:04:18 of the legacy of Kant0:04:21 Descartes attempted solution to the0:04:25 failure of Aristotelian imminentism0:04:27 affected the Cartesian split now I0:04:30 appreciate these are going to need0:04:32 significant discussion and there's0:04:35 there's so okay0:04:38 can't attempt to reconcile rationalism0:04:40 and empiricism resulted in his0:04:43 separation of being and knowing0:04:48 I always can't a young cat0:04:52 today0:04:53 an arbitriest voluntarism glorifying the0:04:56 self-determination of the individual0:04:59 brainstream0:05:00 and here we have0:05:02 who is that so I don't know that person0:05:04 that's Judith Butler ah who lives near0:05:08 us in Berkeley0:05:10 um and I consider her to be as probably0:05:14 the most important theorist of gender0:05:17 fluidity0:05:19 um0:05:19 really at the very very Cutting Edge of0:05:22 the spirit of the age when it comes to0:05:24 this arbitrist voluntarism well what if0:05:28 I ask what what are their pronouns I0:05:30 should ask this shouldn't I is it the0:05:32 right question is it she she or he or oh0:05:36 they're pronouns um I'm not sure it0:05:39 could be z0:05:41 um yeah I'm not sure I'd have to check0:05:43 that no I I was I was just uh passing0:05:45 question yeah yeah absolutely now I0:05:48 should have really researched that but0:05:49 anyway uh0:05:50 they are um a famous lgbtq plus uh uh0:05:56 gender fluidity theorist in0:05:59 um0:06:00 really at the very Cutting Edge wow of0:06:04 that so if you're going to0:06:06 um0:06:07 sorry did you want to say something Paul0:06:09 no it's just good to uh thank you for0:06:11 introducing this person I I would love0:06:13 to say he or she because I don't want to0:06:14 transgress but um it's good to see her0:06:16 face uh to to these ideas we've seen0:06:19 obviously uh descar and Canter now we've0:06:21 got uh someone who's very much alive in0:06:24 California today at The Cutting Edge of0:06:26 the Zeitgeist so it's good to see who0:06:28 these people actually are oh absolutely0:06:30 yeah I think that if you were to single0:06:32 out this one figure today0:06:34 um it would be her0:06:36 um really leading the way there so um0:06:40 what I'm hoping to do today is is I'm0:06:43 afraid that it's it's hopelessly0:06:45 ambitious as as it tends to be but um0:06:47 one of the things that I'm hoping to do0:06:49 is just to show how we've arrived at the0:06:52 um the the state that we're in0:06:55 intellectually today and of course doing0:06:57 that going to presuppose0:06:59 trying to depict I mean being able to0:07:01 depict0:07:03 um in a reasonable way uh what what and0:07:07 and be able to agree upon0:07:09 um what our condition is and I think it0:07:13 is very very distinctively part of the0:07:15 legacy of0:07:17 um so I mean let me try to depict0:07:20 the situation that0:07:24 um we're finding in terms of0:07:27 the dominant intellectual and social0:07:29 trends of today let's say in terms of0:07:31 gender fluidism simply as one of the0:07:34 manifestations but I mean this is what I0:07:36 describe as an arbitrous volunteerism so0:07:40 um for the benefit of any of the viewers0:07:42 voluntarism of course is the idea that0:07:45 the will has ultimate priority0:07:49 um so the will0:07:53 um whether it's the Divine will or an0:07:55 individual human being's will and of0:07:57 course it as you now Paul it it has0:08:01 um numerous different permutations and0:08:04 manifestations in terms of different0:08:05 theological questions so you have you0:08:07 know volunteerism in terms of divine0:08:09 command Theory which is the idea that0:08:13 um the good is only what God happens to0:08:15 will it's not there's no intrinsic good0:08:18 and so on0:08:19 um and there there are many different0:08:21 manifestations there's of course you0:08:22 know Chopin Harry and volunteerism0:08:25 um the idea that um the most fundamental0:08:28 ontological0:08:31 reality is simply the will and0:08:35 individual Wills participating what was0:08:37 this what was his great book called uh0:08:39 that meant has the will in it isn't it0:08:40 shopping how I forget the name of the0:08:41 book it does uh it's something as will0:08:44 and um that's about as good as I can do0:08:46 I can't really remember0:08:48 um yeah this is his most famous book0:08:50 anyway yeah0:08:53 in my library hang on before we both go0:08:56 off and look in our libraries for this0:08:58 let's move on0:08:59 yeah I wish that that had appeared my0:09:03 mind right I mean in any case um uh so0:09:06 schopenhauer's0:09:08 um but it's no accident that someone0:09:10 like schopenhauer who's very much a0:09:12 follower of would end up coming to0:09:14 that conclusion that the will is more0:09:16 primary than anything else in existence0:09:18 the world as well the world as well it's0:09:19 just in the occurred to me the world as0:09:21 well exactly as well and representations0:09:23 absolutely that's it the welder's will0:09:25 in representation yeah yeah that's it so0:09:28 um but what I mean by volunteerism here0:09:31 is the idea that what the individual0:09:35 wants the manner in which the individual0:09:39 of today0:09:40 wishes to determine not only the course0:09:45 of their own lives without0:09:48 outside interference which is kind of0:09:50 what we mean by Freedom that word which0:09:53 is endlessly bandied around0:09:55 um and usually not defined very0:09:57 carefully but0:09:59 um0:10:00 the in the what what is so distinctive0:10:02 about our age0:10:04 um in the hands of people like Judith0:10:07 Butler is it's moved Beyond simply human0:10:10 actions the idea that we that we should0:10:13 be able to have full possession of our0:10:16 own individual Wills without outward0:10:18 interference in order to determine the0:10:19 course of our own lives but it's come0:10:22 that now0:10:24 it Embraces what previously were0:10:27 considered to be Essences the way the0:10:30 world really is yes0:10:33 um and so0:10:35 you know where is the first targets when0:10:38 it came to Marxism and Marx and Engels0:10:42 and and their immediate followers were0:10:45 Key Human institutions like the family0:10:47 and so on0:10:49 um and of course various forms of0:10:51 aristocratic0:10:54 political arrangements and and and uh0:10:58 long before that Divine command Theory0:11:00 and everything0:11:01 um today it's uh why has it I mean the0:11:05 reason that it has0:11:08 got to a point where it's attracting0:11:11 widespread attention far beyond0:11:14 the realm of what was traditionally The0:11:16 Preserve of of professional philosophers0:11:19 I mean it's a constantly under0:11:21 discussion in the pages of the Telegraph0:11:22 and The Spectator and the new Statesman0:11:25 and the guardian of course they're more0:11:27 or less taking opposite views is because0:11:28 it's now0:11:30 embracing0:11:32 things like human nature things like0:11:36 gender0:11:37 things that seemed previously to be0:11:40 non-negotiable because they were fixed0:11:44 they were determined by Nature by our0:11:46 DNA but now they're as you say fluid0:11:49 that they're not settled they are uh uh0:11:52 well I'll let you explain what they are0:11:54 but they don't have that essential0:11:55 quality anymore0:11:57 no thank you and and that's precisely it0:11:59 um and the thing is that this widespread0:12:02 belief uh tends to permeate everything0:12:06 so I mean if we just take the0:12:08 traditional0:12:09 um platonic transcendentals of truth0:12:11 beauty and goodness the idea now is that0:12:13 there is no real truth there's no0:12:16 objective truth there's only my truth0:12:19 um there's no real goodness it's just0:12:21 what you and I agree0:12:24 we feel is good in the particular0:12:26 context and it's made good in in some0:12:28 sense by our agreement and by our our0:12:31 both willing it0:12:34 um and in Beauty there there's no there0:12:36 are no fixed intrinsic aesthetic0:12:39 standards0:12:40 um but it's all you know what uh and it0:12:44 would seem it would be experienced to0:12:47 kind of perverse oppression for someone0:12:49 to impose their own aesthetic standards0:12:52 on on on someone else but0:12:55 um0:12:56 but it's it's it's it's it's it's not0:12:59 only these various types of aesthetic0:13:02 and moral valuation but it's also things0:13:05 which0:13:06 previously just0:13:08 were thought to be simply part of the0:13:10 order of nature like being a human being0:13:13 like being of a specific gender and so0:13:15 on0:13:16 and0:13:19 the interesting thing is that this has0:13:22 trickled down to0:13:24 the ordinary I mean I'd hate to say this0:13:27 expression for do you forgive me but the0:13:29 ordinary man and woman in the street0:13:33 um because I mean it's got to the point0:13:36 where this will typically be voiced and0:13:38 even some of the simple rationale0:13:41 argumentation0:13:43 uh will be voiced by the average person0:13:46 in the street as it were0:13:48 um in the the so-called West today0:13:52 um and uh so it's not just The Preserve0:13:56 of you know strange philosophers in the0:13:59 Ivory Towers but it really has trickled0:14:01 down and that's what's so interesting0:14:03 about it0:14:04 um so um but but the point is this has a0:14:09 very clear0:14:11 um intellectual pedigree and um0:14:15 you know the the blame I suppose if we0:14:18 want to call it blame or the all the0:14:20 praise0:14:21 um depending on how you look at it0:14:22 should be really laid at the door of0:14:24 this man Emmanuel Kant that's very harsh0:14:27 that's a very harsh judgment sir very0:14:29 harsh music I'm sorry about that yeah0:14:31 now Emmanuel I mean we're not actually0:14:34 uh you're not actually mentioned who0:14:36 Emmanuel Kant is um in fact we should0:14:38 just uh shall I introduce who he is or0:14:41 do you want to say briefly no please0:14:44 if you'd um you'd help me out there yeah0:14:47 okay well um he was uh a philosopher he0:14:51 was born in uh konigsberg which was then0:14:54 part of uh Prussia0:14:57 um and it changed hands a few times0:15:01 yeah exactly Russia but it's actually0:15:03 German uh originally uh in 1724 and he's0:15:07 seen as probably the greatest uh0:15:09 philosopher in modern which is Western0:15:11 philosopher I should say in modern times0:15:13 uh you know we've if I Plato Aristotle0:15:16 and Socrates in the ancient Greek word0:15:18 two and a half thousand years ago but0:15:20 the greatest thinker ever since then is0:15:23 this guy called Emmanuel Kant and there0:15:26 uh there are many amusing stories about0:15:28 him how he never ever left his city of0:15:30 his birth0:15:31 um and uh he was a creature of habits0:15:33 and he was he the people the townsfolk0:15:37 in his City could almost set their0:15:39 watches by the the tie at the same time0:15:41 every day he went out for his0:15:42 constitutional walk a very exciting man0:15:45 yeah yeah but he was uh despite that0:15:48 image of a dry and Dusty figure he uh he0:15:50 was apparently extremely popular and uh0:15:53 be fair genevies um you know it was a0:15:56 great luck on tour and0:15:58 um but the the book that uh he's famous0:16:01 I think are having for having produced0:16:04 two editions of this great Tome um let0:16:07 me just uh get it up here here we go oh0:16:11 and your copy as well there we go we0:16:14 both have the same copy which is a bit a0:16:16 bit sad but0:16:18 um this is the uh the standard modern0:16:20 Edition in English uh edited and0:16:23 translated by uh Paul Gaia and Alan wood0:16:26 so if you studied this at University as0:16:28 I think we both did um uh this is the0:16:31 addition you will use is a big uh fat0:16:34 text0:16:35 um I I call it the CPR the critical pure0:16:37 reason because you'll need CPR if you0:16:39 attempt to read this in other words0:16:41 you'll need first aid because it is the0:16:43 most difficult book to read imaginable0:16:45 it's crusted with jargon uh you invents0:16:48 new new words neologisms0:16:51 um just to articulate his architectural0:16:54 land uh the architectural philosophy0:16:56 um but I'm not going to go into who but0:16:58 this is a man who's had a huge influence0:17:00 on Western thought Western philosophy0:17:03 and all philosophy since then arguably0:17:05 has been in in dialogue with him either0:17:07 to reject him like Hegel did perhaps or0:17:10 to embrace him like schoppenhauer did0:17:12 perhaps0:17:13 um but no one's a different to him and I0:17:15 must say I I he's one of the most0:17:17 extraordinary thinkers in philosophy0:17:19 I've ever come across if you appreciate0:17:20 his synthetic a prior eyes and his you0:17:23 know it is quite revolutionary and um0:17:26 truly a copernican revolution as he0:17:28 called it in epistemology and to some0:17:32 extent in ontology as well but I'm I'm0:17:35 very resist and resistant temptation to0:17:37 go into it so I will shut up now that is0:17:39 uh can't oh by the way I will say one0:17:41 more thing if you want a really good0:17:43 introduction to Kent a beginner's level0:17:46 for me a really readable intro is by the0:17:49 uh guy called Roger scrutin uh he was a0:17:52 philosopher died just a couple of years0:17:53 ago uh he actually had a a wonderful0:17:55 dialogue with um Sheikh Hamza Yusuf at0:17:58 zeduna College you can watch it on0:18:00 YouTube uh Roger scrutin was Professor0:18:03 uh of in many places but um anyway he0:18:06 wrote This brilliant book on Kent very0:18:08 readable very short a very short0:18:10 introduction published by Ox University0:18:12 press uh it's a standard intro to all of0:18:16 his thought not just could it appear0:18:17 reason but his ethics uh his view on0:18:20 religion his view on reason his place0:18:22 Enlightenment thought and so on so I0:18:24 recommend that as an introduction I do0:18:26 not recommend this book unless you have0:18:28 done a lot of other reading first0:18:29 absolutely yeah anyway thank you very0:18:33 much I was I was really enjoying that0:18:35 but um0:18:37 if you insist on um so0:18:42 um yes I mean my basic contention and0:18:45 I'm by no means alone in this is that um0:18:48 and I mean it's approaching something0:18:50 like consensus in certain circles is0:18:52 that the impasse that modern thought is0:18:55 widely held to be at because we can't0:18:57 get Beyond this kind of fluidism about0:19:00 the world0:19:01 um which causes all sorts of problems0:19:03 which we'll go into no doubt but the the0:19:05 the this is describable in a meaningful0:19:07 way to the legacy of but there is0:19:10 there is a very significant figure on0:19:12 the way there are of course many and0:19:13 this is obviously an almost0:19:15 embarrassingly simplified version of0:19:17 history but nonetheless just because0:19:19 something simplified doesn't mean that0:19:21 it isn't true0:19:22 um it just means that it has to be0:19:24 simplified0:19:25 um in order to have one thing fit into a0:19:28 couple of hours of a presentation so0:19:30 um there are obviously0:19:32 hundreds of years that have passed um in0:19:35 all of this and and thousands of0:19:37 significant thinkers but one of the0:19:39 figures who is0:19:42 undoubtedly0:19:44 uh0:19:46 pivotal on the wage account is descart0:19:49 and his famous Cartesian split0:19:53 um which is0:19:55 ascribed to him and what that basically0:19:58 comes down to is the idea that0:20:01 instead of there being a single integral0:20:05 whole world0:20:08 which is intrinsically intelligible in0:20:11 the sense of knowable the world is0:20:14 imbued with spiritual Essences0:20:17 metaphysical Essences what Aristotle0:20:21 would call form what the platonists0:20:23 would call capital F form0:20:26 um and and they'd see the the world of0:20:28 becoming this world as as merely a kind0:20:31 of shadow of that that um world of real0:20:34 being the world of the forms but0:20:36 nonetheless they they both agree insofar0:20:38 as the world is intrinsically0:20:40 intelligible there really is something0:20:42 called human nature there really is0:20:44 something called0:20:47 nature writ large there really is0:20:50 something called uh0:20:53 a tree or an animal or whatever it0:20:57 happens to be the various0:21:00 uh categories of being are real0:21:03 categories and they really do represent0:21:07 Essences which are distinct in0:21:09 themselves and it's not merely0:21:11 individual substances like the ones I've0:21:14 mentioned but it's also0:21:16 uh moral valuation moral and ethical0:21:18 valuations aesthetic valuations also to0:21:22 a large degree are actually embedded an0:21:25 intrinsic nature of things0:21:29 um and so Descartes is part and parcel0:21:32 one of the key thinkers in the move to a0:21:36 very different view of the universe and0:21:40 the cosmos and being0:21:42 um which is often summed up as as0:21:46 belonging to the so-called Scientific0:21:48 Revolution0:21:49 um0:21:50 and one of his key contributions is this0:21:55 mathematization well I managed to get0:21:58 that out mathematization of the physical0:22:01 world that the physical world no longer0:22:04 is no longer a world of spiritual0:22:07 Essences and and very and and very key0:22:10 it's no longer a world of purposes there0:22:13 are no purposes in nature that we can0:22:15 know objectively0:22:17 um it's simply a mechanical world of0:22:21 extended substances all we can really0:22:22 know about bodies for Descartes are that0:22:25 they're extended something0:22:28 um and as such they're amenable to0:22:30 mathematical investigation Descartes is0:22:33 also very important and and0:22:35 alongside numerous other figures of the0:22:38 same period in that he has this really0:22:40 important distinction between primary0:22:42 and secondary qualities0:22:45 um and and primary qualities0:22:48 um I mean viewers who aren't familiar0:22:50 with this distinction there's an awful0:22:52 lot on this0:22:53 um but uh the basically primary0:22:56 qualities are0:22:58 qualities in nature which are amenable0:23:00 to some sort of quantitative0:23:03 appraisal0:23:05 um so number figure solidity0:23:11 um and0:23:12 um in a way0:23:16 what is Meaningful for Kant is that0:23:18 everything that can be studied0:23:20 um about a body in the physical world is0:23:22 summed up in just the fact that it's an0:23:24 extended thing0:23:26 um0:23:27 and uh0:23:29 so for him0:23:31 that's the physical world it's it's it's0:23:34 mathematics there's mathematics and0:23:36 everything and that's really in some0:23:38 significant sense all it is0:23:41 um and0:23:43 so the split in question is the fact0:23:47 that0:23:48 there's no connection0:23:51 between0:23:52 subjective individual experience0:23:56 which is famously summed up for0:23:58 Descartes in terms of I think therefore0:24:00 I am in terms of the famous kagito0:24:04 and the physical world outside0:24:08 and so the way that we're going to map0:24:11 out our subjectivity0:24:14 is going to be fundamentally different0:24:17 to our0:24:20 investigation of of nature0:24:22 and0:24:24 the the the difficulty with Descartes is0:24:27 he could not see any way to reconcile0:24:30 the two and this is why we talk about0:24:32 the Cartesian split it's this0:24:34 bifurcation of reality0:24:36 our subjective experience and what we0:24:39 can know from that starting from the0:24:41 fact that we can't doubt that we exist0:24:43 and so we can know certain other truths0:24:46 that follow on from that and that's what0:24:48 Descartes Contin considers to be his0:24:51 reformed metaphysics0:24:53 that is a completely different sphere of0:24:56 Investigation to the investigation of0:24:59 the material world they're just simply0:25:02 uh have a a total difference in kind0:25:05 with no overlap whereas in the0:25:08 traditional Scholastic understanding0:25:11 I won't call it Aristotelian because it0:25:13 wasn't merely Aristotelian but we'll get0:25:15 on to that but in the traditional0:25:16 Scholastic understanding of what we0:25:19 might call the high Middle Ages0:25:22 there is a complete continuity between0:25:26 nature0:25:28 the physical world as we call it today0:25:30 and our capacity to know it0:25:34 because nature in itself is imbued with0:25:39 intrinsic intelligibility in the sense0:25:41 of objective nobility0:25:42 our minds are also imbued with this0:25:46 intrinsic ability to know the nature the0:25:50 natures of things right and they're0:25:52 they're they're0:25:53 many different understandings of how0:25:56 this works so for someone like Plato0:26:00 the reason that the world that somehow0:26:03 you know the world as it is in itself0:26:05 and our attempts to know the world0:26:08 do actually result in success successful0:26:11 and real knowledge is because both of0:26:13 them are caused by the forms not only0:26:15 the world the physical world and its0:26:18 instantiation its manifestation its0:26:20 creation0:26:21 is formed is caused by the forms but0:26:24 also0:26:25 our structures of representation in his0:26:28 case you know the the innate ideas which0:26:31 allow us to recognize things in the0:26:33 world are also effects effects with an E0:26:36 of the forms and then in the0:26:38 Aristotelian concept uh context you have0:26:40 you know rather more tortured and0:26:43 difficult Journey uh Aristotle has about0:26:48 five lines on the agent intellect in0:26:50 danimas you know0:26:52 um and the agent intellect is what0:26:54 numerous I mean many different0:26:56 schools of thought within aristotilism0:26:58 whether it's avocena or Aquinas or0:27:00 avarice or whoever0:27:02 um they they understand they sorry0:27:07 justify the claim that0:27:10 the way things really are and our0:27:14 knowledge match I.E that we have real0:27:16 knowledge they they justify that claim0:27:19 because they say there's something0:27:20 called the agent intellect which0:27:23 underlies both of them0:27:25 and is allowing that agreement to happen0:27:28 it's just known as the correspondence0:27:30 theory of Truth in epistemology is that0:27:32 or absolutely I mean this is very much0:27:35 related to the correspondence here this0:27:37 is one of the most important kind of0:27:39 mechanisms within the correspondence0:27:41 theory of Truth which is0:27:43 right when we look at and we'll we're in0:27:46 fact thank you for mentioning that0:27:47 because we're just about to get there0:27:48 but when when we look at the0:27:52 um0:27:53 the world and we ask how it is that we0:27:56 know it or if we think that we do know0:27:58 the world how do we justify0:28:01 um the claim that we are object we have0:28:03 objective knowledge of the world rather0:28:05 than just the idea that it's some sort0:28:07 of subjective imposition onto the world0:28:10 um0:28:10 by you know the the the standard and0:28:13 original way to justify this and really0:28:15 the only way in tilkant and0:28:18 interestingly Norman Kemp Smith one of0:28:20 Kent's most important contemporary0:28:22 commentators said Kant was the real0:28:23 origin of the coherent uh theory of0:28:27 Truth which is the the the the most0:28:29 fundamental competitive to the0:28:31 correspondence but let's go back to that0:28:32 the the correspondence theory is0:28:34 basically0:28:36 my mental representation or if you want0:28:39 to put another way my propositions about0:28:42 the world if we put it into we actually0:28:44 get around to constructing propositions0:28:48 um my propositions about the world are0:28:51 made True by corresponding to the way0:28:55 the the world really is outside my mind0:28:57 so you have on the one hand propositions0:29:00 about the world which are not0:29:01 incremental they're mental because0:29:02 they're propositions and you have the0:29:05 way that the world really is extra0:29:07 mentally as in outside the mind it's0:29:10 objective it's independent of our mind0:29:12 and we can know things in themselves uh0:29:14 this is absolutely I'm looking a bit to0:29:16 can't here but we can know things in0:29:18 themselves uh objectively and truly and0:29:21 they correspond uh to ideas in our minds0:29:24 and so there's this correspondence0:29:25 between them yeah absolutely and so you0:29:28 know that becomes very easy when we're0:29:31 just talking about I mean look here's my0:29:33 proposition in my mind which is hmm I'm0:29:37 having a proposition here can't can't0:29:39 critique of pure reason is blue and it's0:29:42 in my hands and then look oh0:29:45 corresponds to reality so that's the0:29:48 correspondence theory in action0:29:50 now that's all very well and nice if0:29:53 you're a logical positivist or someone0:29:55 who doesn't believe in anything beyond0:29:58 the sensible world because it's very0:29:59 neat and tidy0:30:01 um way of looking at things you've got0:30:03 you know uh lots of physical objects and0:30:07 you have propositions about them and0:30:09 then how do you know those propositions0:30:10 are true well do they refer to this um0:30:14 excremental State of Affairs you know0:30:17 two0:30:18 um0:30:19 uh books and so on0:30:22 um now where does the problem come in0:30:24 and the thing is this problem0:30:26 is I would argue the most important0:30:30 problem in I'm afraid what I consider0:30:34 the deterioration of Western thought to0:30:36 the State of Affairs we were discussing0:30:38 just now0:30:40 um championed by thinkers like Judith0:30:42 Butler this is the most important0:30:44 question which is fundamentally that of0:30:47 well0:30:48 it's it's absolutely true that sensible0:30:52 propositions about sensible things0:30:54 correspond to sensible objects but the0:30:57 problem is the world isn't just made of0:31:00 sensible things and this isn't even to0:31:03 invoke any sort of theological0:31:07 array of various beings or or even to to0:31:12 invoke God or or a spiritual reality0:31:16 it's simply in virtue of when we0:31:20 analyze what really goes into even our0:31:23 most basic knowledge structures we find0:31:26 there's all sorts of non-empirical stuff0:31:28 going on there0:31:30 um and so I'm going to come back to0:31:33 I'm just going to skip ahead a tiny bit0:31:36 and jump straight into0:31:40 precisely how this works here so0:31:43 um0:31:44 so if0:31:45 is0:31:47 so our traditional correspondence theory0:31:52 um the traditional correspondence theory0:31:54 in Islamic thought and this is pretty0:31:56 much Universal of course there's huge0:31:58 differences in terms of detail and in0:32:02 terms of what various schools actually0:32:04 identify things as they are as what is0:32:07 but we'll get on to that0:32:09 just in terms of what we're discussing0:32:11 now which is the what is the0:32:13 correspondence theory0:32:15 um it's essentially the following it's0:32:17 this formulation0:32:18 and this is an actual formulation that0:32:21 you'll find uh all throughout the0:32:23 Islamic centers so it's0:32:27 and what that means is the truth of a0:32:31 proposition0:32:33 amounts to or is0:32:36 its correspondence I.E the0:32:39 correspondence of the proposition0:32:44 translated as objective reality things0:32:47 as they really are and even things in0:32:50 themselves although I'd rather not0:32:51 because it makes you think of can but0:32:54 but0:32:57 anyone to have to go for CPR but um in0:33:01 any case so yeah that's that's basically0:33:02 it uh the correspondent the truth of uh0:33:05 of a proposition is its correspondence0:33:07 to nafsa to objective reality I said0:33:11 that's very nice and neat if if we want0:33:13 to hold up as long as we're able to hold0:33:15 on to the idea that all reality is0:33:17 sensible reality that somehow we can0:33:19 reduce every proposition to some sort of0:33:21 sensible reference or some sort of0:33:23 empirical content0:33:24 but the problem faced by0:33:27 any philosopher worth his salt0:33:29 throughout the history of philosophy is0:33:30 well then how do we account for the0:33:32 truth of propositions which do not0:33:34 possess empirical reference so here are0:33:37 just some0:33:38 some conceptions or objects which0:33:43 of various kinds whether they're mental0:33:45 or excremental0:33:47 which don't actually they're not0:33:49 actually0:33:51 empirical in any straightforward way0:33:54 so one is an army0:33:56 now what exists outside in extramental0:34:00 reality are individual human beings0:34:04 there are no armies existing in0:34:05 extremental reality and I think zooming0:34:07 in on exactly what we mean by this will0:34:09 be very helpful0:34:11 instrumental reality in the Islamic0:34:14 tradition literally means outside so0:34:17 it's0:34:19 outside the mind0:34:22 is all particular0:34:24 examental reality is all particular so0:34:28 if you look at the outside world or even0:34:30 the desk that you're sitting in front of0:34:33 and all of the various objects which are0:34:36 scattered around the room0:34:38 every existent object0:34:41 is is in Arabic it's Jacob0:34:45 so it's capable of being pointed at0:34:49 can in principle be singled out and it's0:34:52 as crude as it sounds by being pointed0:34:54 at so I can single out you know this0:34:56 lamp here0:34:58 um because0:35:00 um it's an individual object which I can0:35:02 I can single out as particularly itself0:35:04 and not something else0:35:06 it is that particular lamp and it's it's0:35:10 other than this particular book it's a0:35:12 particular thing it is to exist extra0:35:14 mentally is to be particular it's to be0:35:17 particularized it's to be an individual0:35:19 now armies are definitely real0:35:22 uh there are no armies as such an extra0:35:25 mental reality because all that exists0:35:27 in examental reality are particular0:35:29 things so there are particular human0:35:31 beings there's that human being that0:35:33 human being that and then we consider0:35:37 them to be an army0:35:39 now if if other non-human creatures were0:35:42 to look at these0:35:44 individuals behaving strangely together0:35:46 they would just see lots of individuals0:35:48 behaving in a set manner but they0:35:50 wouldn't consider this to be an army0:35:52 because armies don't exist excellently0:35:55 they're not individual objects it's a0:35:58 way of considering into it now the same0:36:00 with countries countries are definitely0:36:02 real as far as we know but there's no0:36:04 extra mental country there's only0:36:06 individual objects which we then0:36:08 consider0:36:10 this huge aggregate of objects to be0:36:12 what we call a country and that's true0:36:15 of address of religions Muslims0:36:17 Christians0:36:18 and schools of thought and even the0:36:21 universe because we consider the0:36:24 aggregate of individuated entities0:36:25 individual entities that we call the0:36:27 universe as a whole although we cannot0:36:29 experience the whole empirically so this0:36:32 poses a problem for this but simple0:36:35 correspondence theory what does our term0:36:37 the universe correspond to because0:36:40 they're only individual objects out0:36:41 there and then the relational categories0:36:43 we'd have to talk about the category so0:36:45 let's move on to these propositions0:36:47 because I just put just brief a footnote0:36:49 that there is a school of thought that0:36:51 predates even Descartes called0:36:52 nominalism I think associated with0:36:54 William of Occam a fellow Englishman um0:36:57 um and this term normalism coming from0:36:59 the Latin word nominalis meaning of or0:37:01 pertaining to names it's the idea uh0:37:04 that reality is only made up of0:37:06 particular items and it denies the real0:37:08 existence of any general entities such0:37:10 as armies or or Properties or species or0:37:13 universals or any other categories and I0:37:15 think I could be I could be wrong IBN0:37:17 Tamir I think was a nominalist in that0:37:20 sense he denied the more platonic sense0:37:22 of ideals or Universal categories but so0:37:25 normalism0:37:26 is you know medieval in the sense that0:37:29 William was a a medieval uh Theologian0:37:32 and philosopher in England0:37:33 absolutely and from sarri in fact I0:37:35 believe yes0:37:37 um but um they've got a lot to answer0:37:39 for but uh I mean it's it's um yeah that0:37:43 I mean absolutely thank you for bringing0:37:45 out there I don't mean to derail what0:37:47 you were saying I was just that it it's0:37:48 emphasis on particulars is is0:37:53 abstractions he's not just a0:37:55 post-cartesian British is also there in0:37:57 the medieval period as well oh0:37:58 absolutely and that's very opposite0:38:00 comment thank you and we will go into we0:38:01 will discuss I'll come a bit later as0:38:03 you say some people ascribe normalism to0:38:06 they describe even Tami as Anonymous and0:38:09 that is disputed in fact okay I have a0:38:12 few friends who would dispute that but0:38:13 um uh uh Scholars working on that topic0:38:17 but um we'll discuss I'll come later and0:38:20 particularly this thing called0:38:21 nominalism which is extremely important0:38:23 right um so then this so we were looking0:38:27 at particular0:38:29 not particular that somebody's not0:38:32 particular the universe is not0:38:33 particular but we were lucky we're0:38:34 looking at distinct conceptions and0:38:37 objects and realities whatever one wants0:38:40 to call them0:38:41 um which don't they're definitely real0:38:43 but you can't reduce them to any0:38:45 empirical content when it comes to0:38:47 propositions it becomes even clearer0:38:49 what we're talking about so let's go0:38:51 through some propositions and ask the0:38:53 question what do these propositions0:38:55 correspond to so you're talking about0:38:57 good question sorry so I was just0:38:59 agreeing this is a good question yes0:39:01 right precisely so I mean this is really0:39:04 what the question of nafsa Ahmad comes0:39:06 down to and this is even how it was0:39:09 framed which is quite extraordinary how0:39:11 it was framed in a lot of the key texts0:39:13 and the development of nafalama theory0:39:15 throughout Islamic history but0:39:17 um0:39:18 so0:39:20 if we go back to our correspondence0:39:23 formula the truth of a proposition is0:39:26 its correspondence to things in0:39:29 themselves things as they are objective0:39:30 reality then how do we account for the0:39:32 truth of propositions which do not0:39:33 possess empirical reference like these0:39:35 ones metaphysical principles which we0:39:37 know are true0:39:39 but if we believe that truth is0:39:41 correspondence to reality then it's not0:39:44 clear how they can be true because they0:39:46 don't seem to correspond to anything0:39:48 um but if they don't correspond to0:39:50 anything then are we forced to come to0:39:53 the conclusion that they are0:39:55 fundamentally subjective0:39:57 and we're actually imposing them upon0:40:00 reality now just to make it really crude0:40:03 does it I'm afraid has to be0:40:06 um in in this type of and whatever0:40:10 presentation you're giving anywhere0:40:13 um as you know uh as Paul knows very0:40:15 very well things have to be kind of0:40:17 boiled down an awful lot but so I mean0:40:19 to a scholar it's kind of abhorrent0:40:22 crudity but it's true0:40:24 um this is fundamentally what motivated0:40:29 can't denial0:40:32 of our knowledge of things in themselves0:40:35 of our ability to know things as they0:40:37 really are in themselves0:40:40 namely0:40:41 the problem of abstract propositions0:40:44 which we know to be true0:40:46 but we can't root in in excremental0:40:50 reality in reality outside of the Mind0:40:52 in any way so to go through a few of0:40:54 them metaphysical principles nothing0:40:56 comes from nothing0:40:58 definitely true doesn't correspond to0:41:00 anything syllogistic reasoning about0:41:02 General metaphysics this is just a0:41:04 famous argument in Arabic philosophy0:41:07 um foreign0:41:14 abstract object I mean it's really0:41:16 non-existent entity but we don't need to0:41:18 explain that now every abstract object0:41:20 is distinct every distinct thing is0:41:22 subsistent therefore every abstract0:41:25 object is subsistent the formal0:41:27 structures of logic like the first0:41:29 figure of the syllogism for example0:41:31 every a is B and every B of C's every a0:41:33 is C0:41:34 definitely true doesn't correspond to0:41:37 anything in extra men's reality logical0:41:38 and metaphysical principles0:41:40 principle of non-contradiction both in0:41:42 terms of as a logical Principle as a0:41:44 principle of being a thing cannot be and0:41:46 not be at the same time and in the same0:41:48 respect0:41:49 I mean that's the basis of all of our0:41:52 knowledge but again what does it0:41:54 correspond to in reality such that we0:41:57 can be assured that it's actually true0:41:58 there's not just a subjective principle0:42:01 that we happen to be equipped with as0:42:03 the type of beings that we happen to be0:42:05 but if we were some sort of strange0:42:07 alien from another galaxy we might be0:42:10 equipped with completely different0:42:11 principles look upon the same world and0:42:14 just not see the same things we didn't0:42:15 have that we weren't equipped with the0:42:16 bridge of non-contradiction so that's0:42:18 that's the doubt there then uh0:42:20 classificatory intelligibles0:42:22 modal statements his son would be a0:42:25 capable dentist which we use every day0:42:27 future contingents the world will still0:42:30 exist tomorrow doesn't actually0:42:31 correspond to anything0:42:33 um even though that we know that it's0:42:34 true historical facts0:42:36 fictional definitions which is a bit0:42:38 less problematic propositions about0:42:41 ontological status being a senator is a0:42:44 social construct for example0:42:46 um gender is not a social construct for0:42:49 example then we've got mathematical0:42:51 models of physical reality like this0:42:53 delightful one here0:42:56 um uh which is supposed you know that0:42:58 which are meant to0:43:01 um uh describe0:43:03 according to Scientific realism the way0:43:06 that the world somehow really is in its0:43:08 fundamental structure but0:43:10 it's just a bunch of mathematics and so0:43:13 on a correspondence theory you'd have to0:43:17 and you'd have to account for how the0:43:20 reference of these mathematical objects0:43:22 are actually rooted in reality if at all0:43:25 um so another one would be0:43:26 methodological statements0:43:29 um0:43:30 I love this one because0:43:33 um0:43:33 all meaningful statements spot the the0:43:36 contradiction spot I mean there's a0:43:38 beautiful self-refuting statement all0:43:41 meaningful statements are either0:43:42 analytic or empirically verified I mean0:43:45 for me that's actually a joke when I0:43:46 read that I laugh I mean because it's so0:43:49 it's so self-refuting you know because0:43:51 how do you okay this is a meaningful0:43:54 statement presumably that the person0:43:55 wants us to believe okay but you've just0:43:58 said all meaningful statements must be0:44:00 either analytic in other words0:44:01 tautological basically0:44:03 um or verifiable but how do you verify0:44:05 that statement it's a it's something0:44:07 that it goes beyond either analytical0:44:10 truths or empirical truths so it's0:44:11 actually a joke exactly it is a it's a0:44:14 joke and and um but this was as you know0:44:16 the verification principle which0:44:19 positivism yes logical buzzer is shaped0:44:22 so much0:44:23 um philosophy in the uh first half of0:44:26 the 20th century especially in Oxford0:44:28 and Cambridge0:44:29 um of course the Englishman was one of0:44:32 the chief uh culprits of but he didn't0:44:34 he uh later on in life he actually0:44:36 decided it was all bunkum anyway and he0:44:38 he did um0:44:40 precisely and it's actually a notable0:44:42 instance of real philosophical progress0:44:45 that this was basically0:44:47 identified by every professional0:44:50 philosopher as Bank0:44:51 um and and so they moved on but um they0:44:56 moved on to the impasse really that were0:44:58 present in where everything's now being0:45:00 discredited and we just have no idea0:45:03 what to do0:45:04 um and what to think and and so the next0:45:06 one is all true knowledge constitutes a0:45:09 fusion of sensible intuition and concept0:45:10 that's dear old kant's one0:45:13 um so you know if it can't you the the0:45:16 experience which for him is the only0:45:18 true form of knowledge is that it has to0:45:21 be this Fusion of time and space the0:45:23 intuitions of time and space which are0:45:25 subjectively imposed upon the world0:45:27 we're not really in time and space it's0:45:29 just that it looks like that to us0:45:31 because we're imposing our cognitive0:45:33 aberrations are imposing time and space0:45:34 in the world and concept which are all0:45:38 of the what he calls concepts of the0:45:40 understanding which make what would0:45:42 other otherwise be this kind of0:45:43 indistinct blur of0:45:46 of stuff we don't know what it is uh0:45:48 what do we know about that it's all in0:45:50 this very short and easily0:45:51 understandable book sorry I'm being so0:45:53 absolutely please please go ahead yeah0:45:56 I can't see all I can see is my my0:45:59 screen so oh I see no I was just holding0:46:01 up a copy of the critical pure reason I0:46:03 was being0:46:04 ironically and very difficult0:46:07 yes sorry I've ruined that0:46:10 um0:46:10 all true knowledge constitutes a fusion0:46:12 of sensible intuition and concept0:46:14 absolutely go to this um delightful0:46:17 that's the one yes beautiful0:46:20 um bedtime reading a beautiful bedtime0:46:22 reading guaranteed to put you to sleep0:46:24 within seconds Absolutely I'll give you0:46:27 nightmares depending on your0:46:28 uh0:46:30 so so you have the concepts of of the0:46:34 understanding real you know relation and0:46:37 unity and substance and various Concepts0:46:40 which he feels we also need to impose0:46:42 upon the world for it to make sense now0:46:44 again spot the contradiction here all0:46:46 true knowledge constitutes a fusion of0:46:48 sensible intuition and concept except0:46:49 this sentence0:46:51 which is the exception to the rule yeah0:46:54 and then and then his favorite one and0:46:56 the worst of all really is we cannot0:46:57 have knowledge of things in themselves0:46:59 except this sentence0:47:02 which as we do have some knowledge of0:47:04 things of them so but how do you know0:47:06 that oh I'm not I'm not going to go0:47:07 there this is a very problematic0:47:09 statement isn't it we cannot have0:47:10 knowledge of things in themselves0:47:11 meaningful about things of themselves if0:47:14 we cannot have any knowledge about0:47:15 things in themselves how do we know that0:47:17 you exist if we don't have any knowledge0:47:18 of them exactly exactly I think that's a0:47:21 point that um most of a Sudbury makes in0:47:23 his critique of and I think you've0:47:24 had a guest recently yes discussed that0:47:27 yes um0:47:29 so wonderful I'm not sure why that0:47:31 beautiful garbage there no it's very0:47:33 welcome actually after pictures of Count0:47:34 see that yeah it's beautiful art0:47:39 um so I don't know uh there's so much0:47:41 more here I mean how how do you think we0:47:43 should proceed now0:47:45 um0:47:46 is it possible I mean this is a very0:47:48 challenging thing just to summarize0:47:50 again what can't uh contribution is to0:47:54 uh epistemology because he he0:47:57 characterized it he himself modestly0:47:59 characterized his philosophy as a0:48:01 copelican revolution yeah so you know0:48:04 Copernicus the great polish astronomer a0:48:05 couple of centuries before uh said look0:48:07 basically uh the Earth is not the center0:48:09 of the universe the sun is the center of0:48:12 our solar system and we go around the0:48:14 Sun so he changed from a geocentric to a0:48:16 heliocentric cosmology and this is a0:48:19 revolution in the way we see the0:48:21 universe of course analogously Kant saw0:48:23 his philosophy as a revolution in our0:48:26 perception of the universe in an0:48:28 analogous way it was a revolution and I0:48:30 think he was right in his claim to be a0:48:33 revolutionary I mean0:48:34 um and and is it possible to summarize0:48:37 uh how that Revolution uh what it was I0:48:41 I know it's a complex subject but um0:48:52 or I could go in a few more slides a bit0:48:55 more in depth about why he was moved to0:48:58 well I live entirely up to you too I0:49:01 don't in any way uh to tell you what to0:49:02 do it's just I think it's worth just0:49:04 dwelling at some point anyway a bit more0:49:06 on uh cancer Revolution and philosophy0:49:09 because it affects everything after him0:49:11 it affects absolutely everything yeah so0:49:13 I mean to summarize it briefly first0:49:17 um how did we get to a situation which0:49:19 people think that an act of will can0:49:21 actually make them uh let's say I'm a0:49:24 I'm a man at the moment and0:49:28 um just after our conversation I I0:49:30 suddenly feel that0:49:34 um0:49:35 I'm really not a man I'm actually really0:49:41 uh and I'm not in any way uh I mean it's0:49:45 a big a bit um facetious the way that0:49:47 I'm expressing it but it's in no way0:49:49 meant to be disrespectful but you know0:49:52 I stay up throughout the night thinking0:49:55 I really am a woman I'm not a man I I0:49:58 there's something about me just0:50:00 something ineffable which is really not0:50:03 a man it's really a woman and0:50:06 I'm going to be a woman and0:50:09 I've decided that I'm going to0:50:12 self-identify a woman I'm I'm free I'm0:50:15 an individual it's my right I own my my0:50:19 own being0:50:20 and there's no one who can determine0:50:22 really for me what I am and all of this0:50:27 stuff about being a woman and gender and0:50:30 femininity and masculinity is all a0:50:32 social construct anyway it's something0:50:34 we've created so the idea that I should0:50:37 have to be bound by a social construct0:50:40 which someone else or circumstances or0:50:43 history or where I happen to have been0:50:45 born has been has imposed upon me0:50:48 when in fact I find that I incline as a0:50:50 person much more to that social0:50:53 construct of femininity is simply absurd0:50:55 and it's simply0:50:57 an oppressive imposition of of someone0:51:01 else because of power interests and0:51:03 because0:51:04 yeah people want to control us0:51:06 essentially0:51:08 um of someone else's vision of who I0:51:12 should be upon me and I have to live my0:51:14 truth because I own my own being and my0:51:17 own individuality and so I can make that0:51:19 choice and the others will have to0:51:21 accept it because0:51:23 well surely they would themselves also0:51:26 want their own decisions their own0:51:28 choices about who and what they are to0:51:29 be respected and we have to you know0:51:32 Society has to be built on that basis0:51:34 now the fact that that line of reasoning0:51:37 is so widely accepted today is really0:51:40 because of and I'm afraid the way0:51:44 that that works is fundamentally the0:51:45 following can't said0:51:49 all everything non-empirical0:51:53 is0:51:54 purely subjective ultimately0:51:58 and the only reason we can in some0:52:00 really in a kind of quote unquote way0:52:03 not a railway but uh empirical knowledge0:52:06 maths and physics is quote unquote0:52:09 objective not really objective because0:52:12 not really things in themselves but we0:52:14 can have natural senses we can have0:52:15 mathematics we can those are real senses0:52:17 we can do0:52:19 because they don't purport to transcend0:52:25 what we can experience0:52:28 so the nature of our cognitive apparatus0:52:30 is the way that we naturally naturally0:52:33 cognize the world the way we happen to0:52:35 find that we cognized the world really0:52:36 if we can't is in terms of0:52:42 certain Concepts and categories and what0:52:46 he calls intuitions which are really not0:52:48 mystical at all they for him an0:52:51 intuition is simply0:52:53 sensation and time and space yeah and0:52:57 the what we can know of the world truly0:53:01 know as far as concerned is only what we0:53:04 can experience and what we can0:53:05 experience is only what we impose upon0:53:07 the world in virtually our cognitive0:53:09 vibrators now that imposition veils0:53:13 whatever the world really is in itself0:53:15 right0:53:16 um we don't know that and we know that0:53:19 we can't know what the world really is0:53:21 and so that's just like problem for cut0:53:22 as we discussed we don't need to get0:53:23 into that now but the point is0:53:25 all we can know are the objects of0:53:29 experience so maths and and Mathematics0:53:32 and physics for example work we can have0:53:34 a sentiment metaphysics which purports0:53:37 to tell you if there's a God or not now0:53:40 God uh Khan doesn't say that we can't0:53:44 prove the existence of God he says we0:53:46 can't know either way strictly can't0:53:48 know either way but in virtue of our0:53:51 nature the nature of our cognitive0:53:52 vibrators we cannot know even in0:53:55 principle whether God exists or not we0:53:57 cannot know even in principle whether0:53:58 there's life after death or not we0:54:00 cannot even in principle know if we have0:54:03 a soul or what the soul would be if we0:54:05 had one or you know whether it survives0:54:07 death0:54:08 um and and so on a long list of of0:54:11 metaphysical questions he says are not0:54:13 even in principle knowable why because0:54:15 they transcend all possible experience0:54:17 yeah so so in in one Fair swoop then0:54:22 traditional metaphysics theology is0:54:24 consigned to the Dustbin because we're0:54:26 simply not equipped as a species to0:54:28 apprehend those truths they they are way0:54:31 beyond our pay grade to use a hideous0:54:33 analogy yeah we don't have the cognitive0:54:34 ability to speak meaningfully of these0:54:37 Transcendent realities because they're0:54:38 way beyond our experience so he0:54:40 basically uh he looks at the five0:54:42 arguments the sins of God in the critic0:54:43 of your reason and in his view finds0:54:46 them woefully inadequate although I must0:54:49 say people have responded to his0:54:50 arguments since and and pushed back0:54:52 against his critiques but um so0:54:54 traditional metaphysics is consigned to0:54:56 the Dustbin um although I must stress I0:54:58 I always before I read can I always0:55:00 think he was an atheist he wasn't he0:55:02 himself believed in God he was kind of a0:55:04 Lutheran he was a a child of Lutheran0:55:06 parents who a very pietistic background0:55:10 um and there's a particular Lutheran0:55:11 understanding of one's relationship with0:55:13 God and the human will and the world0:55:15 around us and natural theology which0:55:17 we'll go into0:55:18 um but there is I think an influence on0:55:20 that Lutheran from that Lutheran ethos0:55:22 in the way he he is quite down on0:55:24 natural Theology and0:55:28 absolutely and and uh in fact0:55:30 um I mean that is something I did want0:55:32 to move on to0:55:34 um was was that Lutheran and Alchemist0:55:37 background because of course Luther was0:55:39 an alchemist philosopher and that was0:55:40 his that was his training0:55:42 um as a theologian and he was a although0:55:45 he repudiated0:55:47 um uh the Scholastic reason0:55:51 um as a tool for knowing god and0:55:54 interpreting the Bible and for0:55:55 theological knowledge he was nonetheless0:55:57 trained up to the uh uh you know to the0:56:01 hilt um in0:56:03 theology at uh in University yeah yeah0:56:06 and and so um0:56:08 so how do we jump from uh kant's0:56:13 repudiation of our knowledge of things0:56:15 in themselves to the present what's the0:56:17 idea of that all of that stuff which is0:56:19 not strictly empirical knowledge that's0:56:22 fair game0:56:23 yeah yeah because also there's an idea0:56:25 of human autonomy is very Central to his0:56:27 ethics as well the the the human0:56:30 individual is autonomous it should be0:56:32 autonomous over against any external0:56:34 influence on them they should uh act0:56:37 from within in terms of their own uh0:56:39 sense of Duty it's a very Prussian ethic0:56:41 you know um but but this idea of human0:56:43 autonomy is Central I think to his0:56:45 conception of uh the human being and the0:56:48 individual and this is a very0:56:49 enlightenment idea and this feeds0:56:50 directly into the kind of discourse that0:56:53 you've mentioned from that Berkeley0:56:54 person0:56:56 um the autonomy my body my right my0:56:59 universe I decide and that's kind of0:57:02 extreme version of cams isn't it I think0:57:04 it absolutely is and um and it it goes0:57:07 back to this question of how can we have0:57:09 a science in the scent and the0:57:11 traditional sense you know which in the0:57:12 medieval where was sientia in the Arabic0:57:15 tradition how can we have a science not0:57:18 in uh point I'm making not modern0:57:20 science traditional sense in the sense0:57:22 of certain knowledge how can we have a0:57:24 sense of non-empirical discourse and0:57:29 um I'd just like to illustrate that now0:57:31 I think which will be helpful0:57:34 um by contrasting different0:57:36 um understandings of knowledge0:57:38 structures so this0:57:41 um if I just enter the full screen again0:57:43 here we are this is the most prevalent0:57:47 contemporary model0:57:49 um so we have models of of you know what0:57:53 you might call the hierarchy of the0:57:54 Sciences0:57:56 um now people today because of their0:57:58 ideological affiliations and beliefs and0:58:01 commitments would be loathe to actually0:58:03 invoke any notion of an intrinsic0:58:06 hierarchy of anything but uh0:58:09 the de facto0:58:12 um Queen of the Sciences I think we can0:58:14 all pretty much agree say is physics but0:58:16 you use the Expression Queen of the0:58:17 Sciences I just just stress the irony of0:58:19 that of course because traditionally the0:58:21 queen of the Sciences was theology0:58:22 because what can Trump theology0:58:24 discourse about God surely is the0:58:26 highest preoccupation of the human mind0:58:28 and that has now been dethroned in the0:58:31 western context at least by as you say0:58:33 the queen of the science is now physics0:58:35 these fundamental elements of of0:58:37 material material reality so it's been a0:58:40 complete inversion of the the0:58:42 traditional World perception absolutely0:58:45 absolutely and so you know we have a a0:58:47 situation today where0:58:48 the so-called hide hard sounds is the0:58:51 fully objective truly empirically0:58:53 grounded senses which are alone the real0:58:55 senses0:58:57 um our physics biology and chemistry0:58:58 most fundamentally and biology and0:59:00 chemistry can ultimately be reduced to0:59:04 physics because obviously physics0:59:05 describes the larger universe which is a0:59:08 precondition for the objects of the0:59:10 biology and chemistry studies to have0:59:12 come into existence0:59:14 um and then you have this lesser rung of0:59:18 Sciences that some would even call0:59:20 pseudosances but which uh have some0:59:23 scientific elements um significant0:59:26 empirical basis or quantifiability again0:59:28 going back to what you know Descartes0:59:30 and that shift in the understanding of0:59:33 what science is which took place0:59:36 um in terms of0:59:38 um the distinguish between primary and0:59:39 second qualities and the idea that all0:59:41 we can really by ranked study of the of0:59:44 the natural and physical world is what0:59:45 what is quantifiable0:59:47 um whatever is quantifiable0:59:49 um and so psychology and sociology and0:59:51 economics that they have significant0:59:53 quantifiability in an empirical basis0:59:55 but not entirely there's a lot of0:59:56 subjective stuff that we're0:59:59 um that that we're also bringing to Bear1:00:01 there so they have a kind of disputed1:00:04 and lesser status1:00:06 um another might be anthropology and1:00:08 then scan to empirical basis1:00:09 quantifiability would be history and and1:00:12 philosophy including metaphysics1:00:14 and then purely subjective1:00:16 non-quantifiable would be literature law1:00:19 in politics and religion for example so1:00:21 this is an incredible inversion of yeah1:00:24 this scheme ah here we go the queen of1:00:27 the Sciences back on how Throne again1:00:28 metaphysics at the top precisely1:00:32 um and so we'll go through this scheme a1:00:35 tiny bit in a moment but again I mean1:00:37 just to explore what what the the the1:00:40 widespread view1:00:43 um which again I mean I grew up with1:00:45 this view I mean I went to an ordinary1:00:47 State School in Cambridge and and this1:00:50 is what I I happen to have a strong1:00:52 influence from my home environment1:00:54 because my parents were converts to1:00:57 Islam and converted in the early 70s and1:00:59 um and they had uh yeah they they they1:01:04 um to a large degree inoculated me1:01:06 against this stuff but I understood this1:01:08 perspective from from you know as a1:01:12 native1:01:12 um and this is what we all grew up in1:01:14 which is the this idea that there is1:01:15 this Stark distinction I didn't write1:01:18 this by the way this is just taken from1:01:20 the internet and it's from the1:01:22 perspective of someone who believes this1:01:24 but it's this Stark separation between1:01:26 Humanities and Sciences1:01:28 um so it's the idea again that comes1:01:30 down to that that issue of non-empirical1:01:32 discourse and can we have a sense of1:01:34 non-emerical discourse and and post1:01:36 kantian modernity basically says no you1:01:40 can't have a sense of non-emerical1:01:41 discourse therefore you better put up1:01:44 with the fact that you can have1:01:45 quantifiable knowledge of the natural1:01:47 world which is alone what we would call1:01:49 objective it's not really objective1:01:51 because you don't really know what1:01:52 things are in themselves let's say it's1:01:56 inter-subjective so we can all agree1:01:58 about it1:01:59 um so you know the the real sense is a a1:02:02 positivist in the sense that they have1:02:05 empirical reference you can point to1:02:06 something outside in some way or other1:02:09 whether it's even if it's you know1:02:11 through a telescope or in a micro scope1:02:13 or whatever it happens to be they their1:02:15 objective they're transparent they're1:02:16 disoriented1:02:19 um and you know they lead to findings1:02:21 discoveries facts laws progress and so1:02:25 on and you achieve them by the1:02:27 scientific method there's methods there1:02:29 there's hypothesis testing there's1:02:32 modeling and so on whereas the1:02:34 humanities poor old Humanities are1:02:36 fundamentally relativist it's just what1:02:39 you happen to think of it no matter how1:02:40 sophisticated or eloquent you are at the1:02:43 end of the day it's it's relative it's1:02:45 subjective it's intuitive it's1:02:47 introspective and people might say oh1:02:48 it's very important you know humans do1:02:50 need this but and of course it's true1:02:52 that we do need Humanities but what is1:02:55 not necessarily so clearly true is the1:02:57 idea that there is this sharp1:03:00 distinction between what are really1:03:02 objective so-called objective senses1:03:04 which are empirical senses and1:03:06 everything else1:03:08 which is almost everything actually1:03:12 um including um our philosophies about1:03:14 the world our theologies1:03:17 um all of our strategic valuations our1:03:19 moral valuations our ethics it's all1:03:21 fundamentally on this model ultimately1:03:23 subjective1:03:25 even this is out of date in terms of1:03:27 science because since Einstein and1:03:30 quantum mechanics you know we're we're1:03:32 now very much aware the quantum level at1:03:34 least of the uh the role of the observer1:03:36 in an outcome of experiments the1:03:38 influence of the The Observer himself in1:03:41 the way experiments occur and the1:03:43 outcome of those expense so there isn't1:03:45 this neat kind of separation between the1:03:48 observed world and the Observer there is1:03:50 now into reaction between them even in1:03:52 science now I mean it's obviously in1:03:54 physics yeah so even this model is out1:03:58 of date and positive more Newtonian than1:04:00 uh than einsteinian in that sense it1:04:03 absolutely is1:04:04 um and and although I should add the1:04:06 Proviso of course as you know that there1:04:09 are many scientists today including some1:04:11 very1:04:12 um prominent ones like Roger Penryn who1:04:14 Penrose who who who who desperately want1:04:17 to deny that uh interpretation of1:04:21 quantum physics and the idea that there1:04:22 is a role1:04:24 um that the The Observer is in some1:04:26 sense actually affecting the physical1:04:28 outcome1:04:29 um and uh because again it's it's just1:04:32 impossible to compute in terms of that1:04:36 um that the certain1:04:39 what I would call prejudices but certain1:04:41 assumptions about the nature of the1:04:44 physical world how can you factor in The1:04:46 Knowing subject again in our tradition1:04:50 um uh in in in in the broad Islamic1:04:53 tradition and specifically I1:04:56 um uh more inclined to the to that1:05:00 Barbarian and the platonic Traditions1:05:02 but1:05:03 um it's much easier to account for that1:05:07 continuity between the knowing subject1:05:10 and the object in fact in in a real1:05:12 sense they are the same thing1:05:15 um and so it's not such a kind of1:05:17 unfathomable mystery1:05:19 um to see how there could be some causal1:05:21 relation between the two1:05:23 um1:05:24 so here the active assumption here is1:05:26 that non-empirical discourse is1:05:27 irredeemably subjective1:05:30 um and this assumption grounds the1:05:32 Valerian test ontologies that make the1:05:34 Supreme value free choice regardless of1:05:37 what is chosen which is you know1:05:39 essentially uh the Mantra of of the1:05:43 Judith Butlers and others of the of this1:05:45 world1:05:46 um1:05:47 and uh this expression voluntarist1:05:50 ontologies a volunteers refers to the1:05:51 world is that the human will making1:05:53 choice is that what you mean by1:05:55 absolutely and and and you know at the1:05:58 outset we we spoke about the current1:06:00 Zeitgeist which is the idea that well we1:06:03 can make our own reality somehow there's1:06:05 no real reality out there we're going to1:06:07 make what what we are we're going to1:06:10 decide not just what we're going to do1:06:12 which is pretty reasonable but we're1:06:14 actually going to decide what we are1:06:16 that's that's that's also up to us and1:06:19 that's why I'm calling it a voluntarist1:06:21 ontology because the idea that ontology1:06:23 is actually subject to will our will1:06:26 right we're actually making the way that1:06:28 the world is1:06:30 um and that goes back to again can't I1:06:32 mean it's beautifully uh epitomized by1:06:35 satra's famous statement that um uh that1:06:39 being his prayer to Essence and that1:06:41 there's no there's no human nature1:06:43 there's only Pure Freedom and we have to1:06:45 we will only become Freedom we've only1:06:47 become human later when we we construct1:06:50 and create our own human nature1:06:52 is very explicit there is no God in his1:06:55 view therefore we are free to create1:06:58 this reality and in the way you describe1:07:00 Thrive so it's premised on atheism1:07:02 absolutely he's very explicit about that1:07:05 but also I remember another Englishman1:07:07 um Aleister Crowley just occurred to me1:07:09 who oh yeah um uh well he was many would1:07:12 call it would consider him a Satanist I1:07:14 mean he was a1:07:15 um a bevere of the occult um I'm not1:07:18 going to this but you know the I think1:07:20 his Mantra his Credo was do what thou1:07:22 Wilt do what Their wants so just1:07:24 exercise your will as you wish and this1:07:27 is this is satanic in what in one1:07:29 understanding uh is what it says the1:07:31 Islamic is uh understanding is very much1:07:34 that God's will is Paramount in the1:07:36 person's life because he is our creator1:07:38 and sustainer and and intends good for1:07:41 us but for the Satanist or or in the1:07:44 modern Zeitgeist is well I am my own God1:07:47 and I do as I will and and this seems to1:07:51 be a satanic inversion of traditional1:07:53 theology absolutely and and I mean it it1:07:56 makes you think of the beautiful verses1:07:59 how uh have you not seen he who takes1:08:03 his own self as his God yeah and Caprice1:08:07 yeah his own Caprice as his god1:08:10 um and yes of course I mean absolutely1:08:12 he yeah he said uh there is no human1:08:15 nature because there is no God to have a1:08:19 an idea of it yes1:08:21 so yes it very fundamentally comes down1:08:24 to that1:08:25 um and then so I mean this is to be1:08:27 contrasted with this traditional1:08:29 understanding of the hierarchy of the1:08:30 sentences which interestingly was very1:08:33 substantially shared between the Islamic1:08:36 world and medieval Europe and Christian1:08:38 Europe and Christian Europe absolutely1:08:40 and to a large degree the earlier1:08:42 neoplatonist situation so1:08:45 um so this is fundamentally where there1:08:47 is a supreme science which they would1:08:49 call Allah1:08:51 um it's what's known1:08:53 um in the medieval world is first1:08:55 philosophy1:08:57 um in Arabic metaphysics1:09:00 in1:09:01 Aristotle that which comes after1:09:04 metaphysics there's a dispute about1:09:06 whether that's just as you know the way1:09:08 that books happen to be edited that it1:09:10 came after physics or not I find that a1:09:12 bit unlikely personally that that's all1:09:15 there is to it but but God knows best1:09:18 um and um1:09:19 uh it's called first philosophy and1:09:23 sometimes the universal science and it1:09:26 is the science which is responsible for1:09:30 uh all of the other sounds is all of the1:09:33 other Sciences are subordinate to1:09:36 metaphysics in that traditional model1:09:37 and they're subordinate in a different1:09:39 way to to Revelation and theology in a1:09:43 way metaphysics is our journey up1:09:46 because we it's our our existence of1:09:50 knowing subjects on our epistemological1:09:52 journey trying to find out the truth and1:09:54 that's what metaphysics allows us to do1:09:56 in a way Revelation is what's coming1:09:58 down to us yes1:10:00 um and uh and so they have that kind of1:10:03 relationality and okay this is very1:10:05 hierarchical as well there's a clear1:10:06 hierarchy of Truth here from the Lesser1:10:08 to the greater to the uh to the little1:10:11 to the more uh it uh unlike the1:10:13 alternative Paradigm you mentioned1:10:15 absolutely there's a and and this is1:10:18 seen to be a a high a hierarchical1:10:21 ordering which mirrors a hierarchical1:10:24 structure of being1:10:26 um and and as you see here1:10:28 mathematics and logic are so important1:10:31 but they have no1:10:32 they've got no place in this de facto1:10:35 hierarchy because they have no empirical1:10:36 basis but the science scientists cannot1:10:38 operate without them and this is a big1:10:40 problem for zandies who are more1:10:42 philosophically informed and attuned1:10:45 today because they can't be reduced to1:10:48 physical properties and this is a real1:10:49 problem for scientism we can't not use1:10:51 them but they're not they're not1:10:53 physical realities and it's very1:10:56 difficult to consistently construe them1:10:58 as physicalities and as such well does1:11:00 that mean again that our knowledge is1:11:01 irredeemably uh subjective Yeah you1:11:04 mentioned Roger Penrose The Great1:11:05 British Cosmos what is the status of1:11:07 mathematics is it a creation of the1:11:08 human mind or is it like a platonic form1:11:10 that has some kind of independent1:11:12 existence from our minds I think he1:11:14 inclines to the latter but that's a1:11:15 different subject absolutely he has some1:11:17 very interesting works on that and I I1:11:18 very much respect um uh well the the1:11:22 degree of philosophical achievement that1:11:24 um Roger Penrose enjoys and the fact1:11:26 that he takes it seriously and unlike so1:11:28 many1:11:30 um modern philosophers um I just like to1:11:33 um1:11:35 uh not at all Shameless self-promotion I1:11:39 don't think in the places but um1:11:41 since you mentioned hierarchy yes uh1:11:45 this is a um1:11:47 remarkably concise and inexpensive1:11:50 coming out um this month we do highly1:11:54 recommend it would you uh by coincidence1:11:57 uh well I was hoping you'd recommend it1:11:59 actually but I think I've been silly1:12:01 because you were the author of this uh1:12:03 amazing book no I very much looking1:12:05 forward to I like the title a lot1:12:07 hierarchy and freedom and examination of1:12:09 some classical metaphysical and post1:12:11 Enlightenment accounts of human autonomy1:12:14 so absolutely there's a lot of things1:12:16 there so it's very opposite of what1:12:18 we're talking about and I think to1:12:19 explain a little bit of the argument1:12:21 there and we see how all of this is1:12:22 related I mean Robert Pippen I mean in1:12:26 terms of I know that a lot of this could1:12:28 be very heavy and we've brought in a lot1:12:30 of different things and I I1:12:32 um I beg the Forgiveness of the of the1:12:34 listener for the just how much we're1:12:36 pailing on here but I mean one of the1:12:38 ways to understand the broad narratives1:12:41 um which are at play here and informed1:12:44 by the philosophy is to read some of the1:12:46 great1:12:47 um uh intellectual historians like1:12:50 Robert Pippen like Charles Taylor for1:12:52 example and Robert Pippen has a1:12:54 beautiful book called modernism as a1:12:55 philosophical problem1:12:57 um and and one of the things that he1:12:59 says there is that the most1:13:00 characteristically1:13:03 modern claim of the modern individual1:13:06 espousing the philosophies of modernity1:13:08 is this assertion exactly as you were1:13:11 saying Paul of autonomy and of this1:13:14 radical individual freedom and that in1:13:17 some real way there is nothing else and1:13:20 that is what's most that's the gift that1:13:22 modernity has given us it's freed us1:13:24 from all of those false strictures and1:13:26 those false hierarchies and those you1:13:28 know1:13:29 um these claimed intrinsic hierarchy and1:13:32 now it's even freed us from you know1:13:33 these these social constructs like1:13:36 gender and the family and and even human1:13:38 nature that we'd previously thought were1:13:40 part of the the real fabric of being1:13:43 um and this was only possible1:13:46 um as as Pippin shows and as as Charles1:13:49 Taylor and others show1:13:51 because of this sense of having1:13:52 dismantled the hierarchy1:13:55 and1:13:58 so there are these there's this1:14:00 assumption again following on from1:14:03 the general trajectory of of1:14:06 um1:14:06 uh of Western thought from what is1:14:09 called nominalism in occum and then1:14:11 through Descartes and interconte1:14:14 um this General uh trajectory of1:14:19 um believing that uh1:14:23 there's not only not an intrinsic nature1:14:27 of individual individual objects don't1:14:30 have intrinsic Natures but their context1:14:33 of being1:14:34 has no intrinsic order either so there's1:14:38 no intrinsic ordering of being nothing1:14:41 is really1:14:42 intrinsically Superior to anything else1:14:46 nothing is really intrinsically1:14:48 metaphysically prior to anything else1:14:50 because we wouldn't be able to know that1:14:53 um and so it was seen that what is1:14:56 actually in in actual fact the dionysian1:14:58 pseudo dionysian vision of the hierarchy1:15:01 of1:15:03 um not only the metaphysical hierarchy1:15:05 but the metaphysical hierarchy1:15:07 being reflected in the1:15:11 orders of society so you know the idea1:15:14 that in medieval Society everyone's1:15:16 locked into their place you know the1:15:19 surface has to remain in his place as1:15:21 the Seraph and the lord of the manner is1:15:23 has a higher position than him and you1:15:26 know the the the the Knight and the and1:15:29 the the tradesperson and the king and1:15:31 all these people are locked in a1:15:33 particular position and of course the1:15:35 the religious hierarchy is at the top1:15:36 and in a way and that this somehow1:15:39 reflects a hierarchy of being so the the1:15:44 church hierarchy is going to be1:15:45 reflecting the1:15:48 um uh the Angelic hierarchy for example1:15:50 that that the heart the the the the1:15:52 ecclesiastical heroic is going to be1:15:54 reflecting the Angelic hierarchy1:15:57 and everyone is taking their rightful1:15:59 place and that's why people1:16:02 lacked their their real freedom to1:16:05 determine their own lives because they1:16:06 were locked into this false conception1:16:09 of intrinsic hierarchy1:16:13 um and so uh you've got someone like1:16:15 Pippen who says1:16:17 uh individualist Notions of Freedom are1:16:20 often viewed as a response to a collapse1:16:22 in the authority of the classical or1:16:24 pre-modeling view of Freedom as the true1:16:26 realization of one's identity or nature1:16:29 so it's it's a completely different1:16:30 conception of Freedom such a view did1:16:33 not require a search within for an1:16:35 individual nature of self just the1:16:38 opposite realizing one's true nature and1:16:40 this traditional View and so being fully1:16:42 free instead required finding one's1:16:45 place or role in something outside1:16:46 oneself first in the police or social1:16:49 community and ultimately in nature or1:16:51 the whole by understanding that one1:16:53 could only be oneself by realizing this1:16:55 function within the whole rather than is1:16:57 sometimes interpreted sacrificing1:16:59 oneself for the sake of the hull one1:17:01 could achieve a set of a satisfying and1:17:03 family free life the widespread collapse1:17:07 of the metaphysical support for such a1:17:09 view of an ordered hierarchical Cosmos1:17:11 or divide divine order is what on many1:17:14 accounts provoked the modern as session1:17:17 of Freedom as a radically individual1:17:20 self-determination particularly in1:17:22 Charles Taylor's he's referring to1:17:23 source of the self since there were it1:17:25 seemed only individuals having to rely1:17:28 primarily on themselves in deciding what1:17:30 to do the primary task of modern1:17:32 civilization is finding a way of1:17:36 allowing each to realize effectively the1:17:39 results of such self-determination1:17:42 all right that is absolutely fascinating1:17:44 if I can just give I can't help but1:17:46 offer just a few responses to that in1:17:48 terms this is a very European1:17:50 eurocentric issue isn't it that this1:17:54 revolt against a church uh which uh1:17:58 in the Reformation the reformation's1:18:00 emphasis on the individual individual1:18:02 belief Martin Luther we mentioned him1:18:04 already over against an ecclesiastical1:18:07 tradition that that's that's quite uh1:18:09 key and the rise of modern liberalism as1:18:12 uh as a result uh in part of the wars of1:18:15 religion that took past in Europe took1:18:17 place in Europe people were exhausted by1:18:19 the The Killing and the Carnage and the1:18:22 endless Wars between Catholics and1:18:23 Protestants and so on and so you get1:18:25 born the liberal social order this1:18:28 alleged neutral space where people could1:18:29 resolve the differences1:18:31 um all of this however true it may be is1:18:33 very much a European headache isn't it1:18:36 it's not it's not something that1:18:37 organically comes out of an Islamic uh1:18:39 uh perspective or any other perspective1:18:41 and yet today it seems it's it's assumed1:18:45 to be universalizable is this a1:18:46 universal natural1:18:48 State of Affairs there's emphasis on the1:18:52 individual you know it goes back as you1:18:53 say to the Reformation uh which is1:18:56 heavily theological that you see it1:18:58 again in Kant the idea of the human1:19:00 autonomy and this feeds through1:19:02 ultimately this is this individualist1:19:04 conception of the human being but I keep1:19:07 on stressing this is a very much a1:19:08 localized geographically particular part1:19:12 of the world North Europe and the United1:19:14 States but because of other issues it's1:19:16 become a universal ideology impinging1:19:19 even Muslims in the Muslim world now and1:19:21 that's why it's becoming really1:19:22 dangerous because Islam is very1:19:25 different from this ideology absolutely1:19:27 and that beautifully1:19:29 um almost as if you had prayer knowledge1:19:31 of what's in my I wish that beautifully1:19:34 feeds into to this conversation1:19:37 um which is why is this such an1:19:40 idiosyncratically Western phenomenon yes1:19:43 not only the trajectory of what I1:19:45 considers with the deterioration of1:19:47 thought through Alchemy Descartes and so1:19:50 on but also the um what it resulted in1:19:54 which is this radical self-determination1:19:57 of and freedom what is really arbitrary1:19:59 freedom freedom regardless of what is1:20:01 chosen1:20:02 um as this ultimate human goal and ideal1:20:06 um1:20:07 and I suppose1:20:09 um1:20:11 uh yeah probably1:20:15 this this should be1:20:17 I would expect the the last section1:20:20 because um1:20:22 um I just feel that I'm lathering on too1:20:25 much1:20:27 um so well it's very kind of you but um1:20:30 there's so much to say what one kind of1:20:32 only scratch the surface on any1:20:33 particular area exactly and there are1:20:35 many other things I wanted to go into1:20:36 but um I think uh maybe another time if1:20:40 it's too much yeah I think this will1:20:41 will probably wrap up what we've been1:20:43 discussing beautifully so1:20:46 um1:20:46 I consider this to be the result and1:20:50 really to be this really truly to be the1:20:53 case that1:20:57 this idiosyncratic1:21:01 flavor1:21:02 of Western thought resulting in1:21:06 such a distinctive and and particular1:21:08 and strange and extreme1:21:11 result of this idea that somehow1:21:15 individuals1:21:17 decide1:21:21 ontology and the way that existent1:21:23 things really1:21:25 should be and can be and and are1:21:28 um1:21:29 paradoxically comes from1:21:33 a theological discussion which just1:21:36 happened to be the most important thing1:21:39 in existence to1:21:43 medieval civilization in the west1:21:45 Christian civilization1:21:47 um so um and this is the question of the1:21:49 the the the the perplexing doctrines of1:21:52 the Trinity of the Incarnation1:21:54 um1:21:56 so1:21:57 the early1:21:58 Middle Ages often referred to as the1:22:01 Dark Ages and the high Middle Ages which1:22:03 is basically Bonaventure and Aquinas and1:22:08 you know after the conquest of Toledo1:22:10 and the the establishment of the1:22:11 universities that period of um synthesis1:22:16 um and high culture and then the late1:22:17 Middle Ages which is you know after the1:22:19 black death and and you know the decline1:22:23 and docum and and um1:22:26 uh and all sorts of uh controversies in1:22:30 the church1:22:31 um the late Middle Ages each possessed a1:22:33 distinct and characteristic way of1:22:35 treating the relationship between1:22:37 Revelation and reason1:22:39 hmm1:22:41 um so the perplexing doctrines of the1:22:43 Trinity the Incarnation the holy1:22:44 Mysteries so known though productive of1:22:47 ever present tensions nonetheless1:22:49 continually suggested the justifiability1:22:52 of exceptionalist self-definitions of1:22:54 Europe as Christendom which I I would1:22:57 argue continues to this day the idea1:22:59 that the West somehow I mean as Manifest1:23:03 great you know it's a tragic effect in1:23:06 the invasion of Iraq the idea that1:23:08 um the West has something really special1:23:10 that everyone else needs and and we1:23:12 alone have it and it's to the extent1:23:14 that you know1:23:15 because we alone have access to this1:23:17 liberating truth it's really Justified1:23:19 even to go around imposing it upon1:23:21 people because otherwise even in Qatar1:23:23 in the World Cup what the the Western1:23:25 attitude everywhere to Qatar as a Muslim1:23:28 country is that you must change because1:23:30 we in the west know better than you does1:23:33 it matter what you think uh simply1:23:35 because we are right it's axiomatic the1:23:37 West is right you know Supreme arrogance1:23:40 uh actually which is which I'm glad to1:23:42 say people are pushing back against now1:23:43 in the Muslim world as far as I can see1:23:44 yeah and and even1:23:47 um unexpected people here like Piers1:23:49 Morgan1:23:50 um1:23:51 which is interesting1:23:53 um but you know credit is uh you know1:23:57 where it's due and everything so um the1:23:59 perplexing uh uh we already did that1:24:01 after all the faithful Believers and1:24:03 agreed about God so radically different1:24:05 from that of the Jews and the Muslims1:24:07 must either be severely misled the1:24:09 possibility which clearly could not be1:24:10 countenance by them or instead be God's1:24:13 new chosen people alone privy to a1:24:15 staggering new revelation of admittedly1:24:17 intuitive truths not known or even1:24:19 imagined by the other great monotheistic1:24:21 peoples as well or even by Moses1:24:23 very well said1:24:26 the idea that the problems posed by1:24:29 these holy Mysteries were amongst the1:24:30 primary contributors to the distinctive1:24:32 attitudes to Faith and reason ushered in1:24:35 by the rise of the scientific and1:24:36 Protestant revolutions is perhaps a1:24:38 paradoxical thesis but is nonetheless1:24:40 one that is richly evidence1:24:43 the insurmountability of these problems1:24:46 eventually cemented a notion of the1:24:48 complete otherness of faith and reason1:24:50 that is unrecognizable outside of1:24:53 Christendom the secular project itself1:24:56 and indeed modernity in turn arose in1:24:58 the west precisely because of a radical1:25:00 split that was affected there between1:25:02 Supernatural and natural knowledge1:25:04 largely as the result1:25:06 I think uh of changes in the manner in1:25:09 which the holy Mysteries came to be1:25:11 treated1:25:14 um the first of these ways of1:25:15 approaching the Mysteries is associated1:25:17 especially with Anselm of Canterbury uh1:25:19 who's 11th century as you can see1:25:21 Richard of son Victor1:25:23 and William of volverne Justified1:25:25 according to a strongly platonist scheme1:25:27 modified to accommodate the1:25:29 idiosyncratic idiosyncrasies of1:25:31 Christian doctrine of course actually1:25:33 there's nothing more antithetical than1:25:34 platonism and Christianity as as Paul1:25:37 free was1:25:38 um very eager to point out in his famous1:25:40 critique of Christianity but1:25:43 nonetheless the uh this did that didn't1:25:45 stop Augustine so the Trinity and the1:25:47 Incarnation were viewed as being capable1:25:48 of actual proof1:25:50 were underlained by necessary necessary1:25:53 reasons and that's formed part of the1:25:54 domain directly accessible to reasons so1:25:56 essentially I see these three stages1:25:57 corresponding to the Early Middle Ages1:26:01 the so-called Dark Ages uh the high1:26:03 period so-called High period and the1:26:05 later period being the move from1:26:07 thinking that this most important1:26:10 uh1:26:12 aspect of or these most important of all1:26:15 doctrines the Trinity Incarnation upon1:26:17 which their salvation was thought to1:26:19 rest1:26:21 um went from the attitude went from the1:26:24 idea that they are1:26:25 they're part of the continuous with1:26:28 reason and actually provable by reason1:26:31 to the view that that they can't be1:26:34 proved by reason but they're merely1:26:35 compatible with reasons they don't1:26:37 contradict reason we can they can work1:26:39 together so that's Aquinas is kind of1:26:42 fragile Harmony that he affected which1:26:44 we'll see now and then moving to Arkham1:26:47 who said oh well actually1:26:49 Unfortunately they are formerly1:26:51 contradictory and actually oppose reason1:26:53 we've noticed but that basically means1:26:57 there's something wrong with reason1:27:01 and we'll just have faith and so our1:27:03 understanding of faith will move towards1:27:07 that completely unrecognizable to to1:27:09 Islamic philosophy understanding of1:27:11 faith is Blind Faith1:27:13 um it's not you know it's this leap of1:27:15 faith that somehow is this virtuous act1:27:17 but there's no evidence whatsoever1:27:20 um1:27:21 of course the great Christian1:27:22 philosopher Danish philosopher made a1:27:25 virtue out of that this uh yeah yeah and1:27:28 of course1:27:29 you know one can't dismiss a thinker of1:27:31 his weight but um it's just interesting1:27:33 how that kind of attitude does come out1:27:35 of of this trajectory of this this1:27:37 ultimate this kind of broad trajectory1:27:39 of Western thought1:27:41 um so it was prior to the conquest of1:27:44 Toledo in 1085 an annexation that1:27:47 sparked a seismic seismic shift in the1:27:50 knowledge structures of Christian Europe1:27:51 with the discovery and subsequent1:27:52 translation in the latter half of the1:27:54 12th century The Logical Works amongst1:27:56 Aristotle organ of course they lacks uh1:27:59 most of Aristotle's organism they only1:28:01 had a little bit of what bathius had had1:28:04 summarized and avocenters and1:28:06 Aristotle's metaphysics and of avocena's1:28:09 sub-alternated model of the senses and1:28:10 his scientific metaphysics in his Elisha1:28:13 fat the healing1:28:15 that these it was prior to the contrast1:28:17 of Toledo that these continuations of1:28:19 the platonic Spirit of Augustine of1:28:21 Hippo were defined in an intellectual1:28:23 context that made no clear distinction1:28:25 between philosophy and theology1:28:27 a principle employed by Augustine routen1:28:29 Isaiah 79 and sometimes translated1:28:31 unless you believe you surely will not1:28:33 understand would go on to be Central to1:28:35 the approach of theologians of the1:28:36 so-called Dark Ages or be articulated by1:28:39 Adam the 11th century by his famous1:28:41 phrase Credo utintilligam I believe so1:28:44 that I may understand yeah knowledge of1:28:46 any type depends upon the illumination1:28:48 granted by faith reason illuminated by1:28:51 faith attains the truth1:28:55 Anselm of Canterbury so representing1:28:57 this this first approach advances theory1:29:00 of attempt in his inferential curdeus1:29:02 homo why did God become a man1:29:04 radically estranged from God through sin1:29:07 this kind of the argument man has the1:29:09 obligation to make amends in order that1:29:11 God and man might be reconciled a man1:29:13 might fulfill the debt of Honor he owes1:29:15 to God1:29:16 and yet informing his reason with prayer1:29:18 principles from his faith Anselm assures1:29:20 us that this that that reconciliation1:29:22 could never be affected by any ordinary1:29:24 human being The Logical necessity1:29:27 discovered by the human intellect this1:29:28 makes the reality of a god-man necessary1:29:31 hmm1:29:33 this idea of a debt of honor is a very1:29:36 feudal understanding of soteriology is a1:29:39 it's not found uh you know in the early1:29:41 patristic sources this is very much of1:29:43 its time I think1:29:45 and but just before this I was watching1:29:47 your debate with Rowan Williams and Well1:29:49 Done by the way you you that was1:29:50 beautiful but um brilliant I was1:29:52 cheering you on but um my goodness me it1:29:55 wasn't a debate by the way he wasn't1:29:56 supposed to I was told by Cambridge1:29:57 University do not debate Rome Williams1:29:59 you know Canterbury but I was a bit1:30:02 naughty because I um I decided during1:30:04 the Q a to make1:30:06 um certain comments which were slightly1:30:09 meant to trigger a response from him so1:30:11 I managed to subtly engineer a debate1:30:13 um but um I was told not to do that so I1:30:16 was a bit naughty actually well I mean1:30:18 Trade Secrets1:30:20 yeah now that was uh that was really1:30:23 uh very heartening1:30:25 um in any case so uh1:30:28 yeah you were discussing I mean I mean1:30:31 in Islam you know God doesn't need to1:30:34 kill himself in order to forgive us1:30:36 um and uh so the highly influential I1:30:39 mean that wasn't very sensitively stated1:30:41 sorry the highly influential Theologian1:30:43 prior of the Abbey of Saint Victor near1:30:45 Paris Richard of some Victor so this is1:30:47 another one who's representative really1:30:48 of this this early approach perpetuated1:30:51 Anselm's notion that it should be1:30:53 possible to find necessary reasons for1:30:54 the mysteries for according to Christian1:30:56 belief the Trinity being God possesses1:30:59 necessary existence and you know God's1:31:02 Nursery the Trinity is necessary and so1:31:04 yeah yeah it follows that we should1:31:07 there should be necessary reasons1:31:09 um Richard of some Victor's articulation1:31:11 of this necessity invokes the Perfection1:31:13 that God must necessarily possess in1:31:15 order to be God God must have perfect1:31:17 love yet perfect love requires the1:31:20 sharing of that love with another person1:31:22 moreover the Perfection of Love amongst1:31:24 these two persons requires loving for1:31:26 the sake of the third God possesses the1:31:28 Perfection of love and thus God must be1:31:30 three persons this argument by the way1:31:32 is used by Christian missionaries even1:31:33 today at Speaker's Corner I kid you not1:31:36 really has a way of beating Muslims and1:31:38 saying aha you know you've got you've1:31:41 got his love there must be this Trinity1:31:43 uh that this communion of persons as is1:31:46 called in theological so particularly in1:31:48 the Orthodox understanding of the1:31:49 Trinity uh I'm not gonna go down there1:31:51 there but this is actually used today1:31:52 I've actually heard it used at Speaker's1:31:54 Corner amazing wow1:31:57 Richard of uh sent Victor's Long Reach1:32:01 um amazing so I mean this is where the1:32:05 change1:32:06 happens1:32:07 um so again you know we're in the period1:32:09 of the cathedral schools it's before the1:32:11 founding of the universities it's you1:32:13 know before the the knowledge discovered1:32:16 in Toledo is fully assimilated1:32:18 um it's the so-called Dark Ages I mean I1:32:20 think it's actually a beautiful period1:32:22 um in many many ways in in in Christian1:32:25 Europe1:32:26 um but it is what we would consider1:32:29 possibly to be a somewhat naive view of1:32:31 the relationship between faith and1:32:33 reason and there was just but again it1:32:35 comes from a laudable place in a way1:32:37 because it was understanding that there1:32:38 is you know reality is one everything's1:32:40 integrated you know if this is part of1:32:43 the uh the deposit of faith and it is a1:32:46 true Doctrine from God then it must it1:32:49 must make sense1:32:51 um it must be reflected in the world1:32:52 there must be traces of the Trinity1:32:54 everywhere1:32:55 um it must be imprinted on our minds1:32:59 um and so then but then this subtle1:33:01 change well not so subtle change as it1:33:03 happens takes place so when and the lost1:33:07 logical works of Aristotle became1:33:08 available in the early 13th century1:33:10 particularly the posterior analytics1:33:11 that deals with the notion of strict1:33:13 scientific demonstration1:33:15 again in the in the traditional sense1:33:19 um again I mean I think it's worth just1:33:22 very briefly stating that you know the1:33:24 word science today has been co-opted1:33:29 um by uh1:33:32 well traditionally would be understood1:33:34 to be just one very small and not1:33:37 particularly distinguished field of1:33:38 human investigation which is the1:33:41 empirical1:33:42 Dimension and what is it you know say uh1:33:45 testable in terms of the scientific1:33:47 method1:33:49 um uh and so forth um that's become1:33:52 science and that's all it might add in1:33:54 you know mathematics and and formal1:33:57 logic but fundamentally science is is1:33:59 reduced to the what are called the hard1:34:02 sentences whereas in the traditional1:34:04 Christian world1:34:06 and really arising from the discovery of1:34:09 the posterior analytics and the works of1:34:11 ibnc and his burhan particularly1:34:14 um1:34:15 cnco meant certain and indisputable and1:34:20 equivocal indubitable uh uh knowledge1:34:24 um regardless of what field that1:34:27 knowledge happened to obtain within and1:34:30 the most scientific of the sounds is1:34:33 metaphysics so the one which you know1:34:36 that which is considered to be most up1:34:38 for grabs and most subjective and most1:34:40 relative to the way you happen to look1:34:43 at things today was previously the the1:34:46 the the the the the Supreme science that1:34:49 regulated all of the other sciences that1:34:51 determined the principles of all of the1:34:53 other senses the science of first1:34:55 principles and so knowledge in the1:34:57 Islamic tradition1:35:03 so it is a attribute that human beings1:35:08 possess come to possess knowledge1:35:11 um that entails or effects with an e or1:35:16 necessitates1:35:17 and acts of discrimination in the1:35:21 traditional sense acts of distinct1:35:23 cognition so you know this thing is this1:35:27 thing and it's not that thing and that1:35:28 thing is governed by the principle of1:35:30 identity it is itself and it's not that1:35:33 thing and they can't both be the same1:35:35 thing and that's not just in the realm1:35:37 of sense so it's a distinct it's that1:35:39 faculty that cognizes a dis the world in1:35:42 its distinctness not only in the realm1:35:45 of sensible things but intelligible1:35:47 things as well so you know the things1:35:50 you know the propositions of logic of1:35:53 metaphysics on are governed by the1:35:54 principle of non-contradiction and they1:35:56 are distinct in themselves and and and1:35:59 so yeah there is this fundamental and1:36:01 real structure which obtains between1:36:03 them and so I'm just this is a little1:36:06 a little uh digression because of1:36:09 talking about avicenna's demonstrative1:36:11 metaphysics and the notion of scientific1:36:15 demonstration1:36:16 um again it's very important to realize1:36:18 that this has nothing to do with modern1:36:20 science1:36:22 um who nicked that word from us1:36:24 basically1:36:27 um so Albertson is sophisticated so this1:36:29 is what they found in Toledo and it1:36:31 hadn't so this is the the period of the1:36:33 so-called Dark Ages the cathedral1:36:34 schools1:36:35 and they literally didn't have this1:36:38 knowledge and then it was in the process1:36:42 of uh simulating this knowledge that you1:36:46 know the universities were born bologna1:36:48 first of all and then you know Paris and1:36:51 Oxford Cambridge yeah1:36:54 so um so when these Works became1:36:57 available1:36:58 a formal recognition of a type of1:37:01 knowledge and indeed of theological1:37:02 knowledge that could be known1:37:03 independently of faith became widespread1:37:06 it became evident that with respect to1:37:07 Pure reason the putative proves of the1:37:10 Trinity and Incarnation were no more1:37:12 than sophistries persuasive energy to1:37:14 those who had already decided to have1:37:15 faith in those doctrines and so1:37:18 it reaches this Tipping Point with1:37:21 Thomas Aquinas so this is a quotation1:37:23 from his summer theologica where he1:37:25 comes out and says very clearly it is1:37:27 impossible to attain to the knowledge of1:37:29 the Trinity by natural reason whoever1:37:31 then tries to prove the Trinity of1:37:33 persons by natural reason and he the1:37:36 same holds true of the Incarnation1:37:37 derogates from faith in two ways firstly1:37:39 as regards to the Dignity of Faith1:37:41 itself which consists in its being1:37:43 concerned with invisible things that1:37:45 exceed human reason second is regards to1:37:47 the utility of drawing others to the1:37:49 faith for when anyone in the Endeavor to1:37:51 proved the faith brings forward reasons1:37:52 which are not cogent he falls under the1:37:55 ridicule of them believers who are the1:37:57 under Believers probably the Muslims yes1:37:59 other Jews and Jews yeah since they1:38:02 suppose that we stand upon such reasons1:38:04 and that we believe on such grounds1:38:06 therefore we must not attempt to prove1:38:08 what is of Faith except by Authority1:38:10 alone to those who receive the authority1:38:13 while as regards others it suffices to1:38:15 prove that what faith teaches is not1:38:18 impossible1:38:20 um the real effect of this weak1:38:22 conciliation of faith and reason in1:38:24 which though fundamentally separate each1:38:26 supports and does not contradict the1:38:28 other was simply to drive a wedge1:38:30 between reason and Revelation as1:38:32 belonging to radically disparate orders1:38:35 while the first broadly platonic and1:38:37 augustinian approach so a reason in1:38:38 Revelation is forming an unbroken hole1:38:40 and for Albert the Great and Aquinas1:38:42 they were separate but complementary1:38:44 here we get to the third stage of the1:38:46 later1:38:48 ages the age of of the crises of the1:38:50 later Malaysia the tradition initiated1:38:52 by outcome which was to be rendered a1:38:54 political social and doctrinal reality1:38:56 by Luther taught that reason and1:38:58 Revelation are separate and do not enjoy1:39:00 any complementarity at all the pursuit1:39:03 of either one entirely without reference1:39:05 to the other is that completely1:39:07 Justified for their fundamentally1:39:08 irreconcilable indeed this is the only1:39:10 reasonable way of proceeding and this is1:39:12 a quote from Occam himself and this is1:39:15 in a very interesting book full-time the1:39:17 logic the journey Augustine token1:39:20 just as it is a singularity in God that1:39:23 a trinity are a thing one in number in1:39:25 such a way that the thing one and number1:39:27 is each of those three things so so it1:39:29 is a singularity and beyond all that1:39:30 understanding that the inference the1:39:32 essence that is one in number is the sun1:39:34 the father is not the son therefore the1:39:36 father is not the essence doesn't follow1:39:39 so it's a singularity because it it it1:39:41 it it it it it it1:39:43 opposes the fundamental structures of1:39:46 formal logic and so this and he was such1:39:48 a great logician and it really must be1:39:50 it can't be overstated how important and1:39:53 and advanced and extraordinary religion1:39:56 William welcome was that he he saw this1:39:59 as as and it was just something that1:40:02 couldn't be denied it was uh plain as1:40:04 day to Arkham that there was this1:40:07 fundamental opposition of the Holy1:40:09 Mysteries to the the structures of logic1:40:11 and so this Singularity should not be1:40:13 posited except when the authority of1:40:15 holy scriptures compels look Holy1:40:17 Scripture1:40:19 can can1:40:21 is allowed to1:40:22 distort logic itself it's allowed to you1:40:26 know logic itself can be molded by Holy1:40:30 Scripture and so such a consequence1:40:32 never should be denied in creatures but1:40:35 the logical principle still holds true1:40:36 citizen creatures no one things are many1:40:39 things and each of them yes1:40:43 which is called having your cake and1:40:45 easing it I think but anyway exactly and1:40:47 that's what that can't likes to do and1:40:49 actually that's what1:40:51 Aristotle likes to do but you know1:40:53 that's another story you can't get into1:40:54 that1:40:55 um but in any case I mean just to sum up1:40:57 because I mean there's there's so much1:40:59 here and it is a bit unwieldy I I did1:41:01 know that before I started1:41:04 um and in a way1:41:06 um1:41:07 I wish I could have got through much1:41:09 more1:41:10 um but uh1:41:12 but but I think I'll just end on this1:41:16 point here if you'll allow me1:41:19 um1:41:20 which is that um1:41:23 now there's neat chewing it didn't get1:41:25 to him it must be an early nature don't1:41:27 recognize him at all yeah that's really1:41:29 yeah yeah his famous handle but mustache1:41:32 uh which was very prominent in later1:41:33 years it was yeah and he looks um Almost1:41:37 Human yeah yeah almost even there and um1:41:41 um in any case I mean just to sum up um1:41:44 so I mean we've we've we've approached a1:41:48 lot of different very very fundamental1:41:50 hysterical and philosophical questions1:41:52 and problems here1:41:53 um uh uh the last thing I'd like to say1:41:57 is just that1:41:58 the Assumption so widespread today in1:42:03 Islamic and Western countries alike and1:42:06 throughout the entire world is that1:42:08 non-empirical discourse1:42:12 is fundamentally subjective that is1:42:14 anything which is not the so-called hard1:42:17 senses1:42:19 you might have better or worse1:42:22 persuasive arguments but at the end of1:42:25 four things which uh you know four1:42:27 philosophical questions four theological1:42:29 opinions but at the end of the day1:42:31 ultimately they are no more than1:42:34 subjective and you are it's nothing more1:42:36 than you being convinced and so it's1:42:38 really a psychological property you know1:42:41 it's it's you know I like this it makes1:42:43 sense to me so I'm going to be whatever1:42:46 religion it happens to be I'm gonna1:42:47 believe whatever philosophy it happens1:42:50 to be about the world about ethics and1:42:52 so on1:42:53 but the the modern view which is now1:42:56 universalized effectively is that1:43:01 objective knowledge of such things is1:43:03 not even in principle possible1:43:06 um and so that's where this notion of1:43:11 Freedom comes in understood in this art1:43:14 what I call arbitrist1:43:17 um sense which is that it's not freedom1:43:20 in in some traditional model of1:43:22 self-mastery1:43:24 um or taking one's place in the hull or1:43:25 fulfilling one's true nature but it's1:43:28 this idea that uh Brad Gregory who who's1:43:31 beautiful book I've I thoroughly1:43:33 recommend to everyone the unintended1:43:34 Reformation he says the Supreme value in1:43:37 modern science is free Freedom of Choice1:43:40 per se1:43:42 regardless of what is chosen1:43:45 and the really important part of that is1:43:47 the regardless of what is chosen part if1:43:50 you start to tell someone else what they1:43:53 can choose and indeed the Criterion that1:43:56 they're allowed to have for preferring1:43:58 one thing over another you are simply1:44:01 oppressing them by imposing your own1:44:05 pseudo-authority upon them which is1:44:07 completely unjustified and again it all1:44:09 comes back to the idea non-empirical1:44:12 discourse including ethical valuations1:44:14 including metaphysical valuations what1:44:16 things really are Essences is all1:44:18 subjective1:44:19 and so the only legitimate response to1:44:22 that is this notion of radical Freedom1:44:25 you know of the individual and all we1:44:28 really have genuine true access to is1:44:31 our individual wills and no one can play1:44:33 with that you know that's completely up1:44:35 to us and everything in that domain is1:44:36 completely up to us now that is a1:44:39 profoundly1:44:41 idiosyncratically Western philosophy1:44:44 which presupposes this very1:44:46 idiosyncratically Western history and1:44:49 you know the sad thing is that so many1:44:51 people who want to do the right thing1:44:53 let's say people who you know in1:44:55 post-colonialism today for example that1:44:57 that field is that in which which um you1:45:00 know wants to decolonize curriculums and1:45:03 think the the the not very funny irony1:45:06 of that is1:45:07 their philosophy is the most1:45:11 idiosyncratically Western1:45:13 in the universe because it is the1:45:15 philosophy of modernism yeah1:45:18 this whole I mean just obvious Point1:45:20 there's this whole trajectory of this1:45:23 thought that's becoming Universal it1:45:26 seems to me it leads to the inevitable1:45:28 suicide of a civilization it's1:45:31 unsustainable it because you cannot you1:45:34 cannot build a civilization on such an1:45:36 Outlook or such a philosophy because it1:45:39 is without foundations it has no moral1:45:41 epistemological a little metaphysical or1:45:43 ontological foundations and therefore it1:45:45 collapses uh if nothing is solid and1:45:48 also it's the contradictions you1:45:50 mentioned you know if you were to feel1:45:51 you become a woman but we still do have1:45:54 science which talks about DNA in every1:45:56 human cell and the DNA just comes in1:45:59 male and female you know that's not gone1:46:01 away it's not it doesn't evaporate1:46:03 because we Elevate the will of1:46:06 everything else science is still telling1:46:08 us that in fact there are such things as1:46:10 males and females in the hard wiring of1:46:13 our biology in our genetics that's not1:46:15 gone away in fact that's a new discovery1:46:17 since Watson and Cricket of course DNA1:46:19 so the these both the paradoxes and also1:46:23 the the suicidal nature or the1:46:26 self-destructive nature of1:46:28 um our civilization but what what's1:46:30 particularly toxic for me is1:46:31 intrinsically toxic but is the way it's1:46:33 exported globally as a new kind of1:46:37 um Liberation or uh a call to Freedom is1:46:41 promoted by governments in Britain and1:46:43 America that you know uh and and the way1:46:46 it condescendingly preaches at Muslims1:46:48 and others just expect I just expect1:46:50 them to change their religions to1:46:52 conform to this latest it's a1:46:54 particularly odious and to me it seems1:46:57 like yet another instantiation of a1:47:00 colonial mindset that just absolutely1:47:02 needs to be Christian missionaries used1:47:04 to be liberal now it's this we're1:47:07 insisting we the West I mean the white1:47:08 West insists the rest of the world1:47:11 um Jolly well ought to come in line1:47:12 quickly or it will suffer economic and1:47:15 cultural penalties it comes at a price1:47:18 resistance comes at a price so1:47:19 absolutely and as you said I mean that1:47:21 you know a great a very clear1:47:24 manifestation of this is going on right1:47:26 now is the cutter World Cup I mean this1:47:28 extraordinary yeah but they now call1:47:30 virtual signaling I mean the German team1:47:33 which I think is why they went out so1:47:34 early to be honest but um doing other1:47:37 things in football apparently they were1:47:38 I mean1:47:40 yeah I mean just extraordinary so I mean1:47:44 final thing1:47:46 um in Islam non-empirical discourse is1:47:51 there is a science for it1:47:53 um it's it's a science of of objective1:47:56 and real knowledge1:47:57 um those abstract entities we were1:47:59 wondering what what on Earth do they1:48:01 correspond to1:48:03 um in the Islamic tradition specifically1:48:05 here you see the uh the the scheme of of1:48:08 of the Aquarian hierarchy of being1:48:11 um and and of course the aquary school1:48:13 although controversial today1:48:16 um was very very1:48:18 influential and acknowledged1:48:22 um in high places and and you know the1:48:26 the highest1:48:27 the highest kind of stratum of of the of1:48:30 the alamat in the ottoman world in the1:48:32 Mughal world1:48:33 what typically1:48:38 aquabarianism had its place1:48:41 um within the Islamic sciences and it1:48:44 even had a role of a kind of corrective1:48:47 role to the other Islamic senses and1:48:49 there were spiritual qualifications1:48:50 which were necessary1:48:52 um so it wasn't kind of entirely1:48:55 publicly accessible but accessible to1:48:58 everyone1:48:59 um but it did absolutely have its place1:49:01 to the extent that someone like Shakil1:49:03 islamib and Kamal uh Kamal Pash has1:49:05 added a very famous ottoman highest1:49:07 Authority in the ottoman World um Islam1:49:11 um it has his famous fatware defending1:49:14 IBN Arabian and um affirming1:49:18 um you know his his uh unquestionable1:49:21 and extremely important place1:49:23 um in the Islamic Sciences but1:49:26 uh in the aquabarian tradition in the1:49:29 platonic tradition broadly in in1:49:32 um uh avasen and uh certain1:49:37 interpretations of Abyssinian philosophy1:49:39 those abstract propositions which1:49:42 traveled can't so much and there's1:49:44 abstract principles which don't seem to1:49:46 correspond to anything but nonetheless1:49:48 our knowledge of the world depends upon1:49:51 them they do correspond in that1:49:54 correspondence theory but they1:49:55 correspond to1:49:56 intelligible reality so their1:50:00 understanding is not not that kind of1:50:03 uh abstract if Aristotelian1:50:06 understanding that what is fundamentally1:50:08 real are physical substances and we kind1:50:11 of abstract all of the intelligible1:50:13 properties from them but what's really1:50:15 real is the is the individual substance1:50:17 but rather their understanding is that1:50:19 what's really real is actually the ripe1:50:22 the the Unseen World1:50:25 um what the platonists would call the1:50:27 intelligible world and it really is real1:50:29 and it you know it's the dwelling place1:50:31 of the angels and it's the dwelling1:50:34 place of spirits and it's the dwelling1:50:36 place of in some sense forms however1:50:39 forms1:50:41 alludes to this that you know when you1:50:43 die you will realize that this world was1:50:46 you know comparatively speaking you know1:50:48 not the real world the real world is is1:50:49 the Unseen and uh that's when we will1:50:52 really understand the truth and1:50:54 realities of things so there's a sense1:50:56 of this is a lesser order of Affairs uh1:50:58 that's clearly in the Quran and the1:51:00 Hadith of course absolutely absolutely1:51:02 and and so yeah their their1:51:04 understanding of the of the world was so1:51:07 integrated with their their I mean1:51:10 they're they're revealed understanding1:51:11 of the world was so integrated1:51:14 um with the rational understanding their1:51:16 philosophies in this in these higher1:51:18 Traditions1:51:19 um that1:51:21 um these questions of what is objective1:51:24 reality how do we account for1:51:26 the problem of abstract truth which1:51:29 doesn't seem to correspond to the world1:51:30 that we can experience was explicitly1:51:33 dealt with1:51:35 um in terms of this scheme of the1:51:38 hierarchy of being1:51:40 um and so uh so to take just one example1:51:44 I mean our our concept of unity for1:51:48 example which is especially in the1:51:50 platonic tradition so important and the1:51:53 probably of the one of one the the one1:51:55 in the many and the one over the many1:51:56 which is the form1:51:58 um and that's where I place a positive1:51:59 there has to be a form because there has1:52:01 to be a one over the many let's say why1:52:04 do we look out on the world see lots of1:52:06 what are really just individuals but say1:52:08 oh no those are all humans those ones1:52:10 are humans and those ones are trees well1:52:12 none of the individuals are human nature1:52:15 itself so yeah none of the individuals1:52:18 nor the individuals taken together for1:52:20 account for what can account for why1:52:22 there is this human nature there in the1:52:24 first place so if a Blazer there has to1:52:25 be something prior which answers to1:52:28 human nature so1:52:31 you know to take the idea of the one I1:52:33 mean in this tradition you know so how1:52:35 do we account for this non-empirical1:52:36 concept for one it's no empirical1:52:38 property and yet we can't know the world1:52:41 without it well they'd say the one1:52:45 unfolds in in different spheres of1:52:48 existence it starts off with God's unity1:52:51 and that's where it originally comes1:52:53 from and it is this and and1:52:55 individuality as well1:52:57 so I mean in the medieval word what was1:53:00 known as the highest city so the the1:53:02 individual identity what is that it's1:53:06 not empirical property for them it's1:53:08 ultimately a reflection1:53:10 it's a shadow or a reflection of what is1:53:15 ultimately God's identity which is this1:53:17 and and God's unity and so these1:53:20 properties unfold through various1:53:22 degrees of being until they appear in1:53:24 our world and yet you know our world1:53:27 there's no such thing as the purely1:53:29 physical world yeah it's always imbued1:53:32 with the intelligible with the1:53:34 nonsensible with the metaphysical Even1:53:36 in our ordinary experience and I think1:53:39 the amazing thing is can't actually1:53:40 realize that1:53:42 but the only way he could grapple with1:53:45 this huge difficulty of how is it that1:53:47 sensible properties interact with1:53:49 non-sensible properties to produce1:53:52 knowledge when non-sensible properties1:53:54 don't seem to be part of the fabric of1:53:56 reality therefore his only way of1:53:59 dealing with that is say Well it must1:54:00 all be imposed everything's subjective1:54:02 whereas this had a way of this tradition1:54:05 had a way not just the Akbar injuries I1:54:07 mean it's all detailed in my book uh1:54:09 National but things as they are but not1:54:11 just the aquarium tradition by any means1:54:13 but I think in a way it's par Excellence1:54:15 the tradition which uh was able to deal1:54:18 with this in a really holistic manner1:54:19 but in our tradition1:54:22 um well there's a way for1:54:24 in some sense situating subjectivity1:54:28 within objectivity so that the1:54:31 subjective becomes an integral part of1:54:34 being and objective reality and uh so I1:54:38 mean as you can see there are a lot of1:54:40 complex things involved I think we've1:54:42 had enough for one day1:54:44 um so I'll stop there but uh but thank1:54:47 you very much for bearing with me no no1:54:49 so it's fantastic just uh finally uh you1:54:51 mentioned your your book things as they1:54:53 are but there's the Metacritic of cancer1:54:55 the possibility of metaphysics and the1:54:57 hierarchy of Freedom are these two books1:54:59 about to be published uh this year or1:55:01 the metaphysics uh of the the1:55:03 possibility is already out oh good1:55:06 finally see you sir I've just been1:55:08 staring at my presentation the entire1:55:09 time I couldn't see it1:55:11 um the the the possibility of1:55:13 metaphysics is already out uh the1:55:14 hierarchy is impressed it's any any day1:55:17 now probably in the next couple of weeks1:55:19 it'll appear on Amazon Sony uh get uh1:55:22 get hold of those two well uh well thank1:55:24 you very much in indeed uh Hassan uh for1:55:28 your erudition eloquence and your1:55:30 patience in uh in explaining uh all this1:55:33 uh I know a number of your students is1:55:35 to say tuna College are actually waiting1:55:37 to uh hear you uh this evening so uh1:55:40 thank you very much and I I would1:55:42 certainly get the these new works that1:55:44 you you just written have a read of1:55:46 those so um uh inshallah maybe another1:55:49 time we can discuss those uh works as1:55:52 well I mean if you still want to talk to1:55:55 me after all that of course well no I1:55:58 unfortunately you've just wasted my1:56:00 appetite for more unfortunately1:56:02 uh this is blogging theology after all1:56:04 this is what we do1:56:06 um1:56:07 it's also interesting that uh if there's1:56:10 a slightly silly point but we're both1:56:11 Englishmen in England converts to Islam1:56:14 and wearing suspiciously similar1:56:16 patterned shirts as well this is all1:56:19 very worrying it's extraordinary I just1:56:23 yeah amazing it diff up but um1:56:25 alhamdulillah God works mysterious ways1:56:28 India does oh thank you very much Hassan1:56:30 and uh good evening to you and until1:56:32 next time thank you thank you very much1:56:34 take care