"The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion (to which few members of other civilizations were converted) but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do."
🧵 (1/)
– Samuel P. Huntington.
The modern secular world holds that values are not the sort of thing we can or should reason about.
Supposedly, true values are "self-evident", and/or knowable through so-called "intuition" (really, gut feelings), and/or not objective. (2/)
Sep 27, 2023 • 5 tweets • 1 min read
My current philosophical leaning is broadly Aristotelian, save that Aristotle's immanent realism is grounded in an exemplary realism, and all of the above is grounded in God.
I.e., exactly the position of the majority of Abrahamic philosophy, whether of the falasifa, post-Razi mutakalimin, some of the Akbaris, Catholic Scholastics, and Jewish followers of Rambam.
Jul 30, 2023 • 27 tweets • 4 min read
I certainly don't hate analytic philosophy (AP). It is the form of philosophy I am formally trained in, I think it has produced and continues to produce much of value, and I generally prefer its writing style.
I'm currently most sympathetic to the view that the principal and highest goal of philosophy is to help us uncover, *see*, and contemplate the haqa'iq (realities). (2/)
Jul 26, 2023 • 16 tweets • 3 min read
I think the best design argument for the existence of God is that the fact the world is intrinsically *intelligible* (as opposed to arbitrary, nominalistic, chaotic) indicates or demonstrates an Intelligence standing behind it.
The problem with many design arguments is that they posit some particular feature of the world or other (eg complex organisms or "fine-tuning") stands out from other features in evincing design.
These have (at least) three problems:
May 14, 2023 • 10 tweets • 3 min read
Islam is a civilisational endeavour.
As the universal religion of tawhid, nothing is excluded from the purview of Islam.
This includes that which undergirds all of life in the dunya: those things which we call 'civilisation'. (1/10)
What does this entail?
For one thing, it means pursuing strong states, strong economies, strong militaries, powerful technologies, influential media, etc – and everything (material and intellectual) which is needed to achieve these things. (2/10)
Apr 18, 2023 • 16 tweets • 4 min read
Plotinus on matter
This paper provides an overview of Plotinus' alternative view of substance to Aristotelian hylomorphism.
(There is some evidence to suggest Razi held a Platonist view of substance akin to this, just as he might have held to Platonist views of forms, space, and time.) (1/11)
Apr 18, 2023 • 34 tweets • 6 min read
Strong forms of occasionalism ('SO'), by which I mean those which deny the existence of any substances, essences, and universals in the world (besides, maybe, those of God and metaphysical atoms), *might* be incompatible with arguments for God's existence. (1/19)
The problems are both ontological and epistemological.
Ontologically:
How can we say that there are *things*, let alone that those things are *contingent*, let alone that a *universal* feature of contingent things is that they require a cause for their existence? (2/)
Apr 11, 2023 • 40 tweets • 7 min read
A quick argument for Platonism, defined here as the view that there exists a realm of intelligible entities outside of the sensible world and human minds, and that this realm is the constitutive ground for the content of the sensible world and human minds. (1/)
All of our putative experiences, apprehensions, knowledge, etc is suffused with intelligible content all the way through.
We do not (only) purportedly experience, apprehend, or know "raw" sense-data of the infinite flux of the world. (2/)
Jan 4, 2023 • 63 tweets • 9 min read
What objects constitute the world of sensible particulars?
The early mutakalimin were atomists.
Later mutakalimin, starting with Ghazali, had a variety of views: some being atomists, some Aristotelians, some other positions.
This has implications for causality. (1/)
Atomism is the view that the world of sensible particulars is ultimately constituted by, and only by, discrete units of matter ("atoms") and their "accidents". (2/)
Jan 1, 2023 • 18 tweets • 3 min read
Every science has limitations.
Take, for instance, physics:
1. The enterprise of physics is to explain physical states in terms of other physical states. It is outside the remit of physics to explain why any physical states exist at all. (1/)
2. Physics explains physical states in terms of other physical states by recourse to "laws" of physics. But it does not explain what these so-called laws are; nor why the cosmos follows these laws (rather than other laws or no laws at all). It takes laws for granted. (2/)
Dec 31, 2022 • 4 tweets • 2 min read
I've been perusing two interesting books on the philosophy of science: one defending Platonism, the other Aristotelianism. (1/3)
Berman argues that the objects studied by natural science are in fact Platonic forms; and not spatiotemporal particulars, immanent universals, mental constructs, or Aristotelian immaterial natures.
Summary: (2/3)
Dec 22, 2022 • 30 tweets • 5 min read
Classical Ash'arism, by which I mean here the school up to around the time of Razi, has a very strong appeal.
With only thin metaphysical assumptions, it can establish: the existence of God, the truth of Islam, the need for revealed morality; and (1/13)
through occasionalism, it (arguably) can reconcile itself to any possible natural-scientific finding whatsoever. (2/13)
Dec 21, 2022 • 4 tweets • 1 min read
For me the core appeal of "classical metaphysics" is that although I do not know the following to be the case:
I *hope* that there are (i) indubitable starting points for our knowledge, (ii) a self-explicating ground of all explanation, and (iii) the ability to move with (1/4)
demonstrative certainty from (i) to (ii).
That is, I hope that reality is ultimately explicable and in principle knowable, all the way through.
Ie, I hope that reality is, in its entirety, fundamentally rational and open to rational investigation. (2/4)
The current arrangement is mutually beneficial for Qatar and its immigrants.
Qatar has virtually open borders, including to some of the world's absolutely most impoverished people. (2/)
Nov 20, 2022 • 7 tweets • 2 min read
A few recent threads on classical metaphysics (presenting arguments I find interesting but don't necessarily agree with):
1. God is 'thought thinking itself' ('aql 'aqil ma'qul), and this explains all actuality and change in the universe
Does the Principle of Sufficient Reason ('PSR') establish that God must be the Good?
If we accept the PSR, what are the alternatives to God being the Good? (1/7)
1. "The Good is prior to God."
This is incoherent, as God is by definition that which is most fundamental, on which everything else depends; and He is dependent on nothing.
What we are labelling 'God' would therefore not be God if the Good were prior to 'God'. (2/7)
Nov 20, 2022 • 14 tweets • 3 min read
I saw a tweet the other day to the effect of "mathematics only approximates the universe". (1/10)
I realised that, if I were to make the exact same claim, I would have instinctually phrased it as "the universe only approximates mathematics" or "mathematics is only imperfectly realised in the universe". (2/10)
Nov 14, 2022 • 12 tweets • 2 min read
I don't know much about crypto so this could be way off base but I don't see how cryptocurrencies van succeed long term.
"All money is a social construct."
Well, maybe. But... (1/12)
All heretofore successful currencies in human history have either been things which have value independently of being a currency – precious metals (every culture in history has found gold and silver beautiful), livestock, grains, etc;
and/or (2/12)
Nov 8, 2022 • 33 tweets • 6 min read
For all of the wonderful goods of modernity, it clearly has some significant flaws too.
Perhaps one of the underlying causes of these flaws is an intellectual error - a belief that certain things are divorced from Being, or a rejection of Being itself. (1/)
That is, a denial that there are real essences of things, that those real essences exist in reality, and/or that knowledge of the real essences of things in reality is verifiable.
Ie, precisely a rejection of the Nasafi - Taftazani principle in the quoted tweet above. (2/)
Oct 25, 2022 • 14 tweets • 3 min read
Drawing a bifurcation between the "natural order" and God's activity is not only dangerously close to shirk - as it suggests there is an order independent of God - but it sets up a conflict between science and religion (and one which ultimately leads to atheism). 1/
The truth is, the "natural order" *just is* God's consistent activity.
That is, science merely describes the *regularities* of the "natural order". It does not explain them. 2/
Berman argues that the objects studied by natural science are in fact Platonic forms; and not spatiotemporal particulars, immanent universals, mental constructs, or Aristotelian immaterial natures.
1 subscribed
