ibn Harm

Author: harmenscholte

  • Is metaphysics possible? (#1)

    Todays lecture will concern the topic of the possibility of metaphysics God-willing.

    It can be argued for various reasons that metaphysical investigation is intrinsically impossible since its aim, which following Aristotles deliverance is to investigate being qua being. As such it follows that metaphysical inquiry can be considered to be ephereal since it seems absurd to think that objective knowledge about the fundamental constitution of reality is possible from the works of entities that make up that same reality.

    If humans live in the world of being how can they be expected to come to true conclusions about the principles that temporally come prior to their (the human) substances?

    Let us muse together on this question and see if we can formulate some answers to this extended question in following lectures.

  • Inquisitiveness

    If there is one thing which I have learned during formal philosophical training is that inquisitiveness i.e. nieuwsgierigheid is a impolite hermeneutic.

  • ‘Aql in Muslim thought

    There are different conceptions to the ‘aql in medieval Islamic philosophy and the answer to these different conceptions lies in the روح.

  • On progress #2

    The possibility of progress in philosophy seems evident given that humans sometimes recoil in disgust when considering past actions.

    Coincidentally this seems a differentiating principle vis-a-vis humans and animals since animals do not seem to have physical responses to previous behaviour.

  • On form

    During the course of my Artistic studies the thought has arisen that the only improvement in ones art i.e. the only progress one makes in art is improvement of form. That is to say only technical expertise improves.

    If this were to be true Avicennan epistemology would triumph over Mulla Sadra’s epistemology.

  • The Wonders of the Mind

    Today I want to discuss the Mind and her powers with you. A lot of people have dabbled a bit in philosophy and upon hearing that you pursue formal education in Philosophy or extratemporally take an interest in discussion broach topics like sollipsism. Before continuing let me state that I believe that philosophical thought arises in communion.

    The mind is extraordinary in that it allows us to:

    • go back to the past
    • replay previous events
    • synthesize new futures based on previous experiences

    Not all of these are accessible to all people. For example not everybody can synthesize previous experiences into predictions about the future. An example of this third mode of the mind is creating new recipes by adding the tastes of ingredients together in the mind. Also as dabbling home chefs might have experienced a theoretical good combination of flavours might not in practice work out that well. This would confirm the adagium that theory and practice do not always align.

    These abilities however also make it possible to lose oneself in thought or without cliche that the divine also knows a bodily aspect. This bodily aspect is pursued by exercise, meditation or prayer. Prayer can be seen as uniting both theoretical and bodily practices since it involves language and movement. This can also be said for meditation if meditation involves mantras. Another aspect that can influence the mind is food, for example foods like:

    • coffee
    • meat
    • diary

    Can influence the habitas of the self. Furthermore food can also influence mental states which is expressed in revulsion of vegetarians to meat eating. The importance of food to culture can also be derived from the many proverbs deriving from food for example:

    • Love goes through the stomach

    The attention of philosophical exercises to food is also seen in the archetypes of celibates and monks as well as the communal rituals of fasting (Abrahamic traditions). Another example is the seperation of diary and meat in Hebrew tradition. In my personal experience some people following Christian tradition have certain weekly days associated with corresponding food. Muslims sometimes fast on mondays and thursdays following tradition of Muhammad.

  • Power and control

    Power comes with responsibility whereas control can relate in limited space to mere control of ones personal environment. Privacy seems to be connected with control.

    Power would be an increase in space and should go with stewardship (khalifa) but this does not always occur which can be understood as evil. Epstein had power but did not exercise stewardship or as Sufi thought would phrase it: “putting things in their right place.”

    It is by no means uncontroversial that the right space for young women is not the company of old white men.

  • God on earth? Studying the themes of “The Great Gatsby”

    It is no surprise for those with intimate knowledge of the American psyche that abundance of extravagance is associated with divinity in America. The novel by Fitzgerald is then the work par excellence that connects these themes of money and the creator of the known universe.

    Gatsby is a melancholic man which is for example expressed in his wish to reconnect with his love from five years in the past.

    As with regards to the divinity aspect of The Great Gatsby the theme of Ethics results from a accidental killing by car of a women that is not tied to Gatsby but who is the mistress of Gatsby opponent in romance vic. Tom Buchanan.

    This theme of Ethics has been further broached by Gatsby’s pursual of a married women (Daisy) which Christian ethics already warns against “do not covet your neighbour’s wife” from the laws vis-a-vis Moses.

    Gatsby pursues his romantic ambition by organizing parties which are supposed to attract Tom and Daisy so he can charm the wife of Tom.

    The character of Daisy is perhaps the most interesting character of the novel since she choses to entertain Gatsby’s advances but can not seem to make up her mind with regards to leaving her husband. On a vulgar level the novel can be read as a simple case of zina.

  • Mimetics

    Trend in modern philosophy, not sure yet whether it holds any merit. Will get back to you if I know more

  • On the destructive drive

    Friedrich Nietzsche related creativity to a creative and a destructive drive. I propose that destructive drive or dionysian drive is malaligned with reality. Instead I propose a framework of two drives which are the 1) creative drive, and 2) exploitative drive.

    The creative drive wants to create for merely the process of creation itself. This is the “lighter” of the two drives.

    The exploitative drive is not bad in the laymans use of the term but instead it refers to “pressing where it hurts” as Harvey Specter from Suits would say.

    Another way to look at this framework is to rebrand it as the “initiative drive” and the “purificative drive.”