My directed reading (thanks, Max) is on Goethe and Iqbal..Orientalism and Islamic theology and the simple beauty of their poetry. I've started with (many) of Annemarie Schimmel's (see) books on the topic--Mystical Dimensions of Islam is the only one I've tackled so far. All this to say, what of gnosticism?
Let me get around to it. First, there is a passage in Mir's Iqbal that discusses Intellect and Love in Iqbal's poetry. Interesting that he separates the two, isn't it? Take this passage, for instance (quoted in excerpt form from Mir's 2006 publication from Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies):
"Intellect deals with the sensible world. It serves an important function in that it guides us through the maze of life by providing answers that are amenable to logical analysis. Since it operates on the physical world and in historical time, it has certain built-in limitations: 'Intellect is a prisoner of today and tomorrow; it is a worshipper of the idols that can be seen or heard.' It can witness only a slice of reality at one point in time--it is given to 'worshipping of the part'--and that is why the sages have failed to explain fully the truth about the human being, not to speak of the truth about the angels or God. Quite understandably...the intellect lacks certitude. Being unsure of itself, it is always busy weighing up the pros and cons of a matter, and...drags its feet in a situation that calls for bold action. Not so Love, which resides in the heart and, like the heart, is free from the limitations of time. Unlike Intellect, Love has no vested interests to guard and no ulterior motives to camouflage. ... Aluding to the idolatrous king Nimrod's attempt to burn Abraham the monotheist in a fire, Iqbal cites Abraham as the paradigm of Love:
'Love jumped fearlessly into Nimrod's fire--
Intellect, on the rooftop, is still absorbed in the view below.'
...The secrets of life are revealed not through book-reading but through active engagement with the realities of existence.
... Notwithstanding the differences between the two, Intellect and Love have a deep mutual affinity. In fact, they are united in essence, purpose, and function. Both are born of arzu--the 'desire' to seek and discover--both thus being goal-directed. Intellect, while it lacks the freedom and range of Love, is...indispensible as an organizing principle of life. ...after an exchange between Knowledge and Love, in which each argues for its superiority over the other, Love settles the argument in the following words:
'Come--turn this earthly world into a garden,
And make the old world young again.
Come--take just a little of my heart's solicitude,
And build, under the heavens, an everlasting paradise.
We have been on intimite terms since the day of creation,
And are the high and low notes of the same song.' "
'Love jumped fearlessly into Nimrod's fire--
Intellect, on the rooftop, is still absorbed in the view below.'
...The secrets of life are revealed not through book-reading but through active engagement with the realities of existence.
... Notwithstanding the differences between the two, Intellect and Love have a deep mutual affinity. In fact, they are united in essence, purpose, and function. Both are born of arzu--the 'desire' to seek and discover--both thus being goal-directed. Intellect, while it lacks the freedom and range of Love, is...indispensible as an organizing principle of life. ...after an exchange between Knowledge and Love, in which each argues for its superiority over the other, Love settles the argument in the following words:
'Come--turn this earthly world into a garden,
And make the old world young again.
Come--take just a little of my heart's solicitude,
And build, under the heavens, an everlasting paradise.
We have been on intimite terms since the day of creation,
And are the high and low notes of the same song.' "
What to make of it...
It's hard to get around an Aristotelian reading of 'intellect' as reason, which pushes the reader against the text. It is difficult for me to accept that man's highest capacity is not reason, but love. Not to simplify too far, because Iqbal's Love here is love applied with Intellect. I want to push against the text and take offense, thinking that throwing out my oh-sacred-reason is somehow degrading. My mindset, western-educated, is hard-pressed to accept the kind of thinking required to understand eastern poetry and Islamic theology.
Schimmel's book was on Sufism, gnosticism in Islam. How does the Sufi relate the Intellect and Love? Is it an analogous 'dichotomy' to faith and reason?
I am also enjoying God and the Philosophers right now. The authors deal with how strange it is to think of faith and reason in opposition to one another. At first glance, they do have separate realms and separate reaches. But does forsaking one for the other lead to gain or loss of understanding? I can only be convinced that choosing one side--Intellect or Love, reason or faith--limits the thinker. Intellect, reason.. what is intelligible to it is limited: material (perhaps?), within my limits as a finite being, incomplete (imperfect). Is the order and connection (thanks Spinoza) of things totally within my grasp as a material, finite, incomplete being?
I think not. In which case, the exploration of existence via Love--faith--seems the logical (sigh) choice. If reason can lead me to truth about this world, why can't faith lead me to truth about its order? About what makes this world the way it is? About metaphysics and God? Should I rule it out?
Yes, I have made it obvious that I'm still operating under reason. Maybe it's a flaw. Am I capable of thinking with both capacities? Would I even have both if I weren't?
And so here we are, gnosticism. What does one give up by choosing faith (gift of faith, revelation) over reason? Clearly my Intellect is limited--otherwise I'd know all this already. Maybe I do. Would I be aware of it?
What is there to gain by utilizing both? Do gnostics engage with God only through faith? How close can one get to God through reason? What can be taught, and what is left that must be experienced? Why doesn't God give the gift of faith to everyone? Besides that it's a *gift*. Why do people so often feel like rats in mazes where the crazy scientist forgot to throw in the cheese?
Thoughts for the day. Feel free to (please) answer my questions. Do it.
It's hard to get around an Aristotelian reading of 'intellect' as reason, which pushes the reader against the text. It is difficult for me to accept that man's highest capacity is not reason, but love. Not to simplify too far, because Iqbal's Love here is love applied with Intellect. I want to push against the text and take offense, thinking that throwing out my oh-sacred-reason is somehow degrading. My mindset, western-educated, is hard-pressed to accept the kind of thinking required to understand eastern poetry and Islamic theology.
Schimmel's book was on Sufism, gnosticism in Islam. How does the Sufi relate the Intellect and Love? Is it an analogous 'dichotomy' to faith and reason?
I am also enjoying God and the Philosophers right now. The authors deal with how strange it is to think of faith and reason in opposition to one another. At first glance, they do have separate realms and separate reaches. But does forsaking one for the other lead to gain or loss of understanding? I can only be convinced that choosing one side--Intellect or Love, reason or faith--limits the thinker. Intellect, reason.. what is intelligible to it is limited: material (perhaps?), within my limits as a finite being, incomplete (imperfect). Is the order and connection (thanks Spinoza) of things totally within my grasp as a material, finite, incomplete being?
I think not. In which case, the exploration of existence via Love--faith--seems the logical (sigh) choice. If reason can lead me to truth about this world, why can't faith lead me to truth about its order? About what makes this world the way it is? About metaphysics and God? Should I rule it out?
Yes, I have made it obvious that I'm still operating under reason. Maybe it's a flaw. Am I capable of thinking with both capacities? Would I even have both if I weren't?
And so here we are, gnosticism. What does one give up by choosing faith (gift of faith, revelation) over reason? Clearly my Intellect is limited--otherwise I'd know all this already. Maybe I do. Would I be aware of it?
What is there to gain by utilizing both? Do gnostics engage with God only through faith? How close can one get to God through reason? What can be taught, and what is left that must be experienced? Why doesn't God give the gift of faith to everyone? Besides that it's a *gift*. Why do people so often feel like rats in mazes where the crazy scientist forgot to throw in the cheese?
Thoughts for the day. Feel free to (please) answer my questions. Do it.
Dang, if you wrote shorter posts my comments could be shorter.
ReplyDelete1) I know where the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies is. I used to walk by it all the time. =D
2)Love and Intellect. Very interesting. At first, I was like, "Wait! You can't separate the two! Dante! Dante!" But then I thought about it more and I think there might some truth to what's being said.
1 Cor. 13:2 "If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing." So, I think that clearly love IS greater than 'intellect' by the fact that it completes it. But I don't know, perhaps I also am reading too much Aristotle into the discussion...
3) "If reason can lead me to truth about this world, why can't faith lead me to truth about its order?"
-It might be helpful to define exactly you what mean by faith, becuase I think I'm a little confused. But I'll pretend like I understand and say something anyway.
Oh, and another thing, sure you're a finite and material (and spiritual) being, but how are you also incomplete? What is it that makes humanity incomplete?
But I agree (of course) that reason and faith shouldn't be pitted against each other. I don't know, however, that faith can necessarily lead to truth so much as it makes us capable of attaining it. (Of course, I could be wrong, especially since I'm not appealing to Scripture in saying this.) It seems to me that faith is the hand that opens the door and reason is the legs that take us through it. I think faith is also a response to reason. Perhaps we can think of reason as a line that ends in an arrow. Faith is a response to that arrow, a postulating the continuation of the line. I don't know if that even makes sense. But therefore, faith without reason (and therefore without evidence) is mere undirected postulation--and therefore pretty much useless.
4) But if you're also talking about 'thinking with both capacities', it's possible that I've misunderstood what you mean by 'faith'.
And I don't know enough about Gnosticism to comment on the rest.
And if I've said anything incredibly stupid, lemme know that I may desist my erroneous thoughts.
Peacelovebye.
1) I'm jealous. It'd be awesome to work there.
ReplyDelete2) I figured you'd quote that one--but you walked right into the problem I thought you would.
--problem a: 'fathom all mysteries' reminds of gnsoticism, which was part of the questions. it's knowledge gained viz gift of prophecy (specifically) and not through education or reason.. which seem much closer to what is meant by Intellect. so is this just another aspect of faith, considering it is another spiritual gift?
--problem b: you say that this verse leads you to think that love 'completes' faith.. then you (agreeably) suggest that it is faith that opens the door and reason that allows us to walk through it. backwards? hmm.
3) re: your comment 4
I attempted to make things clearer by directing you toward the gift of faith--so either that kind of faith or faithful action (not necessarily springing from a gift of faith). a litter better? ah.
noo
we've commented ourselves into a hole. fix it?