Rationalist Islām: Difference between revisions
No edit summary Tag: Manual revert |
No edit summary |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
===Christian=== | ===Christian=== | ||
== | ==Cognitive dispositions== | ||
===1. [[The Law of Identity]]=== | |||
“whatever is, is; whatever is not, is not.” | “whatever is, is; whatever is not, is not.” | ||
| Line 81: | Line 67: | ||
Every entity or proposition is self-identical and distinct from its negation. | Every entity or proposition is self-identical and distinct from its negation. | ||
===2. [[The Law of Non-Contradiction]]=== | |||
“nothing can both be and not be in the same respect.” | “nothing can both be and not be in the same respect.” | ||
| Line 87: | Line 73: | ||
Nothing can both be and not be in the same respect. | Nothing can both be and not be in the same respect. | ||
===3. [[The Principle of Sufficient Reason (minimal intelligibility form)]]=== | |||
“every real state of affairs has some reason or ground.” | “every real state of affairs has some reason or ground.” | ||
| Line 93: | Line 79: | ||
Every real state of affairs is intelligible; it has some reason, ground, or explanation for why it is rather than not, even if that reason is intrinsic. | Every real state of affairs is intelligible; it has some reason, ground, or explanation for why it is rather than not, even if that reason is intrinsic. | ||
===4. [[Recognition of Contingency]]=== | |||
“some things exist but could, in principle, not have existed.” | “some things exist but could, in principle, not have existed.” | ||
| Line 99: | Line 85: | ||
There exist beings whose non-existence involves no contradiction. | There exist beings whose non-existence involves no contradiction. | ||
===5. [[Denial of Vicious Circularity and Infinite Explanatory Regress]]=== | |||
Explanation cannot be self-grounding or infinitely deferred; every chain of dependence must terminate in something self-sufficient. | Explanation cannot be self-grounding or infinitely deferred; every chain of dependence must terminate in something self-sufficient. | ||
==Conative dispositions== | |||
===1. Preference for truth over comfort=== | |||
===2. Desire for personal development=== | |||
===3. Desire for the maximisation of global wellbeing=== | |||
===4. Desire to actively participate in the maximisation of global wellbeing=== | |||
===5. Tendency for self-sacrifice=== | |||
==The Rational Entailments== | ==The Rational Entailments== | ||
From the | From the cognitive and conative dispositions follows a series of entailments that together constitute the framework of Rationalist Islam. They are not adopted as beliefs, asserted as doctrines, or accepted by tradition, but are said to follow by necessity from the structure of reason itself. | ||
Each entailment represents what any rational intellect must affirm once it accepts the laws of thought and the intelligibility of being: that contingent existence requires grounding, that explanation must terminate in the self-sufficient, and that the pursuit of knowledge within each domain must proceed according to the logic appropriate to that domain. What follows, therefore, are not articles of faith but the logical unfoldings of reason — the positions that reason itself necessitates concerning existence, knowledge, and ethics. | Each entailment represents what any rational intellect must affirm once it accepts the laws of thought and the intelligibility of being: that contingent existence requires grounding, that explanation must terminate in the self-sufficient, and that the pursuit of knowledge within each domain must proceed according to the logic appropriate to that domain. What follows, therefore, are not articles of faith but the logical unfoldings of reason — the positions that reason itself necessitates concerning existence, knowledge, and ethics. | ||
| Line 111: | Line 109: | ||
Rationalist Islam proceeds on the principle that no claim is exempt from reason’s jurisdiction. Every position is derived — not asserted — by applying the Five Prior Rational Commitments. What follows is a continuous sequence of conclusions that any rational agent should grant once those priors are accepted. | Rationalist Islam proceeds on the principle that no claim is exempt from reason’s jurisdiction. Every position is derived — not asserted — by applying the Five Prior Rational Commitments. What follows is a continuous sequence of conclusions that any rational agent should grant once those priors are accepted. | ||
=== | ===1) Metaphysical rationalism=== | ||
=== | |||
===2) Primacy of existence=== | |||
Reason first encounters that something is. Existence is therefore metaphysically prior to the conceptual profiles (essences) by which we sort and compare things. Essences mark the ways existence can be instantiated; they do not outrank existence itself. This primacy blocks nihilism (that nothing ultimately is) and prevents treating essences as free-floating items that would themselves demand an unexplained ontological status. | Reason first encounters that something is. Existence is therefore metaphysically prior to the conceptual profiles (essences) by which we sort and compare things. Essences mark the ways existence can be instantiated; they do not outrank existence itself. This primacy blocks nihilism (that nothing ultimately is) and prevents treating essences as free-floating items that would themselves demand an unexplained ontological status. | ||
| Line 119: | Line 118: | ||
“Existence” is not a genus with species under it. It is the act of being by which anything is actual rather than merely possible. Because things exist in many ways and to different degrees, the unity of existence is analogical (or graded) rather than univocal. This explains how diverse realities can still be comparable as “more or less actual” without collapsing them into sameness. | “Existence” is not a genus with species under it. It is the act of being by which anything is actual rather than merely possible. Because things exist in many ways and to different degrees, the unity of existence is analogical (or graded) rather than univocal. This explains how diverse realities can still be comparable as “more or less actual” without collapsing them into sameness. | ||
=== | ===3) Necessary existence=== | ||
Given (i) the Principle of Sufficient Reason (no brute facts), (ii) the contingency of many things (they could have failed to be), and (iii) the rejection of vicious circularity and infinite regress in explanation, reason requires at least one reality that exists by itself—not by participation or derivation. This reality’s non-existence is impossible; its existence is necessary. This terminates explanatory dependence without remainder. | Given (i) the Principle of Sufficient Reason (no brute facts), (ii) the contingency of many things (they could have failed to be), and (iii) the rejection of vicious circularity and infinite regress in explanation, reason requires at least one reality that exists by itself—not by participation or derivation. This reality’s non-existence is impossible; its existence is necessary. This terminates explanatory dependence without remainder. | ||
=== | ===4) Necessary simplicity=== | ||
To terminate explanation non-arbitrarily, the Necessary Existent cannot be composed of parts, properties, or principles that would themselves require a further ground. Composition implies dependence. Therefore, the foundation is simple: its essence is not really distinct from its existence; what it is does not stand apart from that it is. | To terminate explanation non-arbitrarily, the Necessary Existent cannot be composed of parts, properties, or principles that would themselves require a further ground. Composition implies dependence. Therefore, the foundation is simple: its essence is not really distinct from its existence; what it is does not stand apart from that it is. | ||
=== | ===5) Absolute necessary simplicity=== | ||
Simplicity is comprehensive: no composition of form/matter, essence/existence, act/potency, universal/particular, subject/accident. Any real internal plurality would reinstate explanatory demands and forfeit ultimacy. Absolute simplicity ensures the foundation is explanatorily final. | Simplicity is comprehensive: no composition of form/matter, essence/existence, act/potency, universal/particular, subject/accident. Any real internal plurality would reinstate explanatory demands and forfeit ultimacy. Absolute simplicity ensures the foundation is explanatorily final. | ||
=== | ===6) Oneness of being=== | ||
From absolute simplicity follows unqualified unity. There cannot be two necessary beings: any differentiating feature would either be ungrounded (violating PSR) or would introduce composition (violating simplicity). Unity is not an optional attribute; it is entailed by necessary existence under PSR. | From absolute simplicity follows unqualified unity. There cannot be two necessary beings: any differentiating feature would either be ungrounded (violating PSR) or would introduce composition (violating simplicity). Unity is not an optional attribute; it is entailed by necessary existence under PSR. | ||
| Line 137: | Line 136: | ||
The unity at the source does not deny plurality below. There is one existence diversely received in finite modes. Multiplicity reflects limits in receivers, not a plurality in the source. This avoids both monistic collapse (erasing real difference) and dualistic rupture (splitting being). | The unity at the source does not deny plurality below. There is one existence diversely received in finite modes. Multiplicity reflects limits in receivers, not a plurality in the source. This avoids both monistic collapse (erasing real difference) and dualistic rupture (splitting being). | ||
=== | ===7) The rule of one=== | ||
At the summit, being and oneness are convertible: the more actual a thing, the more internally one it is (less division, less unrealised potency). This rule explains why derived realities exhibit fragmentation and limitation while the foundation does not. | At the summit, being and oneness are convertible: the more actual a thing, the more internally one it is (less division, less unrealised potency). This rule explains why derived realities exhibit fragmentation and limitation while the foundation does not. | ||
==== | ===8) [[Eternal Creation]]=== | ||
===9) Gradation of Reality=== | |||
Finite things differ by degree of actuality and perfection. “More being” means more power, intelligibility, and independence; “less being” means more limitation and dependence. A graded ontology reconciles unity at the source with diversity in the effects and provides an objective scale for value and excellence. | Finite things differ by degree of actuality and perfection. “More being” means more power, intelligibility, and independence; “less being” means more limitation and dependence. A graded ontology reconciles unity at the source with diversity in the effects and provides an objective scale for value and excellence. | ||
| Line 147: | Line 148: | ||
Being presents modes and orders: necessary/contingent; possible/actual/necessary; intelligible/mental/physical; formal/energetic/informational. Recognising these dimensions prevents category mistakes (e.g., treating mental time as if it were foundational becoming) and sets the stage for precise accounts of time, mind, and matter. | Being presents modes and orders: necessary/contingent; possible/actual/necessary; intelligible/mental/physical; formal/energetic/informational. Recognising these dimensions prevents category mistakes (e.g., treating mental time as if it were foundational becoming) and sets the stage for precise accounts of time, mind, and matter. | ||
=== | ===10) Compatibilism=== | ||
Illusion of Libertarian Free Will (and Rational Agency) | Illusion of Libertarian Free Will (and Rational Agency) | ||
| Line 153: | Line 154: | ||
Libertarian “could-have-done-otherwise” at the moment of action, ungrounded by reasons, is incoherent under PSR. Yet rational agency remains: we act from reasons that express our form, character, and understanding. This reasons-responsive (compatibilist) agency preserves responsibility while avoiding metaphysical indeterminacy that would reintroduce brute facts. | Libertarian “could-have-done-otherwise” at the moment of action, ungrounded by reasons, is incoherent under PSR. Yet rational agency remains: we act from reasons that express our form, character, and understanding. This reasons-responsive (compatibilist) agency preserves responsibility while avoiding metaphysical indeterminacy that would reintroduce brute facts. | ||
=== | ===11) B-theory of time=== | ||
The dependence structure described above favours time as an order of states rather than an ontological “flow” in the foundation. On the B-theory, events are tenselessly ordered (earlier-than/later-than). Change is real as difference across the order, not as a metaphysical becoming at the ultimate level. This preserves causality and explanation while avoiding reifying “passage” as a primitive. | The dependence structure described above favours time as an order of states rather than an ontological “flow” in the foundation. On the B-theory, events are tenselessly ordered (earlier-than/later-than). Change is real as difference across the order, not as a metaphysical becoming at the ultimate level. This preserves causality and explanation while avoiding reifying “passage” as a primitive. | ||
=== | ===12) [[Consciousness]]=== | ||
Consciousness is the indubitable datum: all inquiry is conducted within it. Within a graded ontology, consciousness is not an inert by-product but an intensity of actuality through which being is self-revealing in finite centres. Denying consciousness to make room for a purely extrinsic materialism undermines the very conditions of knowing. | Consciousness is the indubitable datum: all inquiry is conducted within it. Within a graded ontology, consciousness is not an inert by-product but an intensity of actuality through which being is self-revealing in finite centres. Denying consciousness to make room for a purely extrinsic materialism undermines the very conditions of knowing. | ||
=== | ===13) Analytic Idealism=== | ||
(Meta-Consciousness, Dissociation, Reassociation)==== | |||
Unity and gradation motivate a model in which a meta-conscious field grounds many finite streams. Individual minds are dissociations—bounded, rule-governed perspectives within the field. Exceptional states (deep sleep, near-death, mystical union) exemplify reassociation, i.e., loosening or widening of the bounds. This is not a licence for speculation; it is a way to render mind-world relations intelligible under the prior ontology. | Unity and gradation motivate a model in which a meta-conscious field grounds many finite streams. Individual minds are dissociations—bounded, rule-governed perspectives within the field. Exceptional states (deep sleep, near-death, mystical union) exemplify reassociation, i.e., loosening or widening of the bounds. This is not a licence for speculation; it is a way to render mind-world relations intelligible under the prior ontology. | ||
=== | ===14) Perdurantism=== | ||
If finite minds are dissociations within a wider field, there is no a priori reason to assert that the onset of one’s conscious stream coincides with biological birth. “Prelife” names the rational openness—consistent with the priors—to pre-embodied conditions of perspective without committing to any particular folklore. | If finite minds are dissociations within a wider field, there is no a priori reason to assert that the onset of one’s conscious stream coincides with biological birth. “Prelife” names the rational openness—consistent with the priors—to pre-embodied conditions of perspective without committing to any particular folklore. | ||
By the same token, the cessation of bodily function need not entail annihilation of perspective. “Afterlife” denotes reassociation of the informational/intentional structure that constituted a person’s perspective with a wider scope. This is a metaphysical possibility that naturally follows from the mind-model; its specific contours require evidential inquiry. | By the same token, the cessation of bodily function need not entail annihilation of perspective. “Afterlife” denotes reassociation of the informational/intentional structure that constituted a person’s perspective with a wider scope. This is a metaphysical possibility that naturally follows from the mind-model; its specific contours require evidential inquiry. | ||
Given the B-series, the felt flow of time is a feature of consciousness—our way of accessing successive states—rather than a fundamental becoming. This clarifies memory, anticipation, and temporal phenomenology without elevating them to ontological primitives. | Given the B-series, the felt flow of time is a feature of consciousness—our way of accessing successive states—rather than a fundamental becoming. This clarifies memory, anticipation, and temporal phenomenology without elevating them to ontological primitives. | ||
===15) Physical empiricism=== | |||
Natural World / Material Dimension | Natural World / Material Dimension | ||
| Line 187: | Line 185: | ||
Because contingent facts can only be discriminated by observation, test, and replication, science is reason’s mandated method for the natural world: model, predict, measure, attempt to falsify, update. This is not an optional cultural choice; it is the epistemic application of PSR and contingency to nature. Where controlled experiment is impossible (e.g., cosmology), methodological surrogates (consilience, retrodiction, robustness checks) carry the same rational aim. | Because contingent facts can only be discriminated by observation, test, and replication, science is reason’s mandated method for the natural world: model, predict, measure, attempt to falsify, update. This is not an optional cultural choice; it is the epistemic application of PSR and contingency to nature. Where controlled experiment is impossible (e.g., cosmology), methodological surrogates (consilience, retrodiction, robustness checks) carry the same rational aim. | ||
====16) Maximisation of | ====16) [[Maximisation of Personal & Global Wellbeing (Constrained)]]==== | ||
Ethics and Value | Ethics and Value | ||
| Line 213: | Line 211: | ||
The ideal governor unites wisdom (ends) and techne (means), is accountable to demonstrable truth, and orders institutions to the common good. Historical forms vary (council, imamate, constitutional technocracy), but the rational principle is stable: competence guided by virtue under intelligible law. | The ideal governor unites wisdom (ends) and techne (means), is accountable to demonstrable truth, and orders institutions to the common good. Historical forms vary (council, imamate, constitutional technocracy), but the rational principle is stable: competence guided by virtue under intelligible law. | ||
====18) [[Philosopher King]]==== | |||
====19) Intellectual Accommodation==== | ====19) Intellectual Accommodation==== | ||