Todays study aims to answer a question that can be categorized as a philosophy of science inquiry. If I have to be honest I first tried to answer the “discuss: mens sana in corpore sana” essay question but I did not like it anymore halfway through so may this secondary analysis count as my second attempt towards ending the fall of the soul.
The lectures on Avicennan metaphysics at a University that I cannot name for now were interesting. The discussions were sometimes leading to no particular avenue in my ungraduated opinion and given the incentive to answer in a free fashion I have to admit that I have grown a tad bit wary of the mutazilla since at the risk of putting myself out of the bahr of the philosophers the discussions held at the aforementioned University do tend to cross the limits of what human reason naturally is able to accept.
Alas so is the way of God if I can be forthcoming. This essay question “discuss why empiricism-only enthusiasts are metaphysical nonentities” is nicer to answer then the one which requires a specialized training in scholastic philosophy since the excruciating beauty of latin renders most minds unable to answer. If I have to make an attempt at answering “mens sana in corpore sana” I would have to start with “nomen est omen.”
Since this gnomology does both answer and not answer the logos spermatikon which embodied this sorry attempt of a study, I can only hope to live up to its lofty fire. With the introduction of some of these arabic Ideas laid forth it becomes easier to return to the happy circumstance of consideration. At the risk of impugning myself on a starting point since the tradition has put the ideas of “mens sana in corpore sana” and “discuss: empiricism et scholae” in the family of reason we can take some time to meditate on the modalities that are supposed to be found for these ideas.
This brings the additional context of “medieval metaphysicians” in a certain light.
One thing which I now argue is shared in the questions of discuss if Avicenna’s thought can be separated from his break with the sunnah and the excellent discussion about the relation between al-’aql and the face is that both seem french to me in direction. Perhaps I lack etiquette and this would be something to be desired but it seems to me that foremostly “mens sana in corpore sano” prima facie manifests the intention of the whisperer and to a lesser vehicle the racism of Avicenna’s system as well.
So this is how I feel about the corpus. If the logos or “kalam” that is read to this point makes involuntary body movements it could be accepted as a sign that indeed ‘aql based philosophy is to be preferred over every other discourse of signs. For me this would be the case. This would however seem to incongrue with the Qur’an since the Qur’an does not know lazy spelling signs as is used in this space. Thus the signs “kalam” and “… that indeed ‘aql ….” can be said to be given different weights.
Thus does the curiosity arise of how a body of muslim philosophers can convene on a supposed connection between latin thought and a semitic high Poetry. But again the body of muslim philosophers would argue that the individuation of worlds does not want to collapse into a noun again. “Mens sana in corpore khair” does make sense to me. But it is unforgiving to consider the possibility that Aristotle was indeed a bit of a clown. I am not sure if this still agrees with abstract thought so may God have mercy and show us the path through the minutiae of the three expressions of the soul.
One thing to note is that while empiricism-only philosophy is incoherent to a point the alternative cannot do solely as the one mode of living. That is to say perhaps Avicenna is more refined than Aristotle and yes this should be a reason to interact with his writings in a primary fashion rather than specializing in the more universal way of the first teacher but this is not a reason to abandon aristotle altogether. I mean to say that yes we love Aristotle and it would indeed be wonderful to dedicate specialized works to his habitat but there is enough love to not limit ourselves to the adab of Aristotle.
Rather I say it is unwise to keep repeating the same discussions with only differing names. Would it not be good abandon fancy for discipline? Yes it is wonderful to think on proofs and the metaphysical path of causation and perhaps this leads to a life that is filled with deeper delights than the lives of politicians but the philosophical adagium that change is both necessary and sinister seems empty if deprived from the mercy that only like-minded souls bring down.
Then ultimately a neglect of the metaphysical while not instantaneously fatal will ultimately lead to a weeding out of the conditions that allow for flourishing. So have we arrived at a conclusion that shows how latin wisdom sayings and lights of the analytical philosophical theology are arranged according to specific conditions not always intelligible to humans strong with will. Thus doth God teach the signs to the wise. May our intentions find the right amount of resistance.
Astaghfirullah.
Leave a Reply