مفهوم العقل عند طه عبد الرحمن

Thank you.

I don't know if Iwan intended to present this session because I work in another branch of the Shari'at. I'm in Jabiri and Mr. Suleiman is in it. But if it's a presentation, it's known that it can track the generations that worked on the philosophical question of the Arab culture. Hontwan, Shukmel, and Ahmadi. Then moving on to Ahmed Ibn Sayyid, for example.

Then a little bit more, we can add to them, exactly, Mr. Taha Abdur-Rahman, Abdul Aziz Al-Ihbabi, who founded the philosophical movement in Morocco, and maybe he will meet Taha also in working on the topics of philosophical terms and so on. Today's session about Taha Abdur-Rahman, what is the closest description of Taha Abdur-Rahman, or the closest job Taha Abdur-Rahman has done?

In philosophy, Gildo Loos says that philosophy is the main function of the creation of concepts. I don't think that an Arab philosopher could create a philosophy like what he did. When we go to a workshop and hear the expression of the concept of the mind, this is a questionable and problematic question, of course, because it seems that there are more than one.

-

and Hegel and all of these currents, so it was also divided in Arabic philosophy into different currents. Perhaps we can find a concept of reason in Archon that differs from Jabir and, of course, differs from Taha, Abdulrahman. Perhaps it is a good opportunity that today we understand more with Mr. Al-Ba'ish, Mr. Saliman Al-Ba'ish, who is more concerned with the question of morality and religion, about how he created

or how Taha Abdurrahman came up with the concept of the mind in the context of the Arabic philosophical question I will give him the opportunity to present the material and then we will listen to the interventions and there may be some interventions between him and Salih to record some of the issues about what he presents I thank you once again Mr. Saliman and welcome you Welcome Mr. Saliman, please go ahead In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Merciful I thank you all for the invitation

Thank you for your presence and thank you Mr. Othman Dr. Taha Abdurrahman is a Moroccan philosopher, his main specialty is the philosophy of language and logic He is a great logic expert, also known in the middle of logic But at the beginning of his work, he worked on the philosophy of language and logic Then he entered into modern criticism and producing Islamic philosophy

or from a theological perspective according to its terminology After decades of research and observation, he settled on a philosophy called the "Ethical Philosophy" He wrote some late works in it, perhaps the first work in it is "The Spirit of Religion" and "The Question of Work" Then "The Moral Concepts" He wrote a number of works in it from 2005 or 2006 and later

This term, the term "the mind" is one of the most common terms in all human classes, in the case of the scholars, the non-students, the theorists, and the practicals. So I don't think there is a term that people use.

or at least it is one of the few terms that are the most common among people. Then if we ask ourselves about the definition of this mind, we will find that there is something of a mystery. This is the nature of the most common terms, due to their connection with people, it seems as if they are stable and clear. Then when you come to define it, there is a clinging.

Especially since this term is a moral term And most of the moral terms are more used in people than the sensual ones Since the sensual ones can be used more than the sensual ones to define and adjust them In any case, the famous definition for people Before we get to what Taha Abdulrahman said in Aqlaaniyah The common definition for people or the basis of opinion for people is that the mind is a mere vision

The meaning of the word "nathar" is "mujarrad" which means "much" The word "nathar" is used to refer to the sight but the meaning of the word "nathar" is the mental one "Mujarrad" means "mujarrad" from the feeling and the action So it is a "mujarrad" which means "mujarrad" from the feeling and the action

It is clear that this definition here is not a work of the mind and not a feeling This is a very important entry because most of what we will read or what we will talk about and most of what this philosopher worked on is this issue Is the mind a work or a vision? Is the mind a work or a self? A core that is inherent in a person

And it will be clear why this issue is important. First, what is related to action is the self. We say there is an action and there is an action. Or we say there is a essence and there is a manifestation. The manifestation is the attribute. When we say that...

For example, this red rose, its attribute is red, but in terms of essence, material, and self, it is a rose. So, there is an attribute and there is an essence. There is work and there is self. The common definition in our culture is that the mind is only self and essence.

Especially that he is called by a name, if the mind says that it is a essence or a self. This meaning will be a lot of criticism and philosophy of the Prophet in his works about this meaning. Where did this common meaning come from? Before we talk about the degree of his correctness or his mistake, where did it come from?

We will ask this question later, where did he come from? Not only now, but even within the Islamic culture. Anyone who reads about Islamic heritage will see that at least

As for Islamic philosophers, they have a consistent meaning. Then we will find in the speaking field this unclear difference between using the mind as a self and a work. If we come to jurists and the pious, we will find another direction as will be revealed, God willing. Mr. Taha Abdurrahman believes that this mental or work-based abstraction is better to obtain exploitation.

and created a number of basic problems. We will find that these problems are the source of the paper that will show his opinion and also show the problems and solutions. We can follow in the sum of his deeds, he has been writing since the 70s.

He started his work in the 70s, then he wrote in the 80s, then in the 90s, and then in the beginning of 2000s, his work increased. Most of it revolves around the problem of the mind among Muslims. He has a funny story about why he cares about rationality. He says that when the defeat of 1967 happened,

Before that period he was a poet and when the defeat happened it was a big shock for him as it was a big shock for many Arabs and Muslims especially intellectuals and thinkers. He said that what is this mind that defeated Muslims? I doubt that it is a Western mind that needs to be studied. He says about himself that he said that his night was

"Drinking and drinking is a matter of course" as the poet said. Then he went to study logic to learn what the mind is. This effort that he put in, really, came with a very deep and very strange creativity.

and answer many questions as he will do. Of course, he will not answer all of them. Time does not allow it. But I mean, from my point of view, this project will discover the secrets of this project and the specialties that it actually has. So, there are a number of problems, as Taha Abdurrahman says, which were created by the saying that the mind is self.

For example, the contradiction between the mind and logic. Also, the definition of the mind as a essence. Also, the division between the mind and the feeling. The division between the mind and the heart. The division between the mind and the morals. The division between the mind and the shara. The division between the mind and the revelation. The division between the mind and the faith. And each one of these issues was explained and explained.

How this chapter happened and what is arranged on it, then what are the aspects in it We will quickly go through some of these points as this philosopher has explained them First, of course, notice the word chapter, the meaning of the word chapter has repeated with us And Tahrir al-Rahman says in his book, The Spirit of the Hadath, that the Hadath is distinguished by its chapter

It is like a separation mechanism between things For example, it separates human senses, science and morals, religion and science It is a mechanism or a system in thinking that separates things

While the religious and moral perspective is a connection between things It is a connection perspective And it will be clear to us that the reason for this is this idea The idea that the mind inside a person is a core As if it is separated from his other perceptions And therefore it will be clear to us how this separation theory has led to the division of a person

to the division of his perceptions from each other. While if we say that rationality and reason are works that penetrate or dissolve all the works of man, we will not find a division between rationality and all the works of man, including his heart, his faith, and moreover, his other works. First, the division between reason and logic.

We know the word logic, we consider it the science that researches in the intellectual fields. Notice that the word logic is a pronoun. It is supposed to be a noun, not a logic. But the Arabs translated it to logic. This word is an Arabic translation, the problem will be translated to the translation. The word logic is an Arabic translation of the Greek word Logos.

Dr. Abdulrahman, an expert in the Greek language, says that the Logos in Greek expresses the words of the mind and the tongue. It expresses the rational and the verbal. While in Arabic,

We don't combine these two words with one word, but we use the same terminology and the same pronunciation. While the Greeks used to combine the two meanings in this word.

When the Arabic translator came to translate the word Logos, he found that there is no word that covers these two meanings, so he chose the word Natoq, so they made the Natoqia to have the same rational meaning and they said it's logical. For example, we find in the famous translation of the Greek, that the human is an animal.

and a rational animal. The translation is famous as a rational animal. But sometimes it is translated as a rational animal because of the correlation between rationality and rationality. Of course, in the Arabic Madlun, not every word is rational. There are words that have no rationality.

There are words that do not have a single word of the word "Aqil" but the Arabic word "Aqil" has a verb for the word, meaning it prevents it from saying what it should not say For example, we say that the Aqil does not lie, the Aqil does not pronounce bad words, so we consider that there are words that the Aqil prevents its saying, so it indicates that there is a difference between the Aqil and the Nutq

Also, if the word is actually used in the Greek translation, then the Arabs make the work more important by this expression in the mind.

Meaning that the connection between speech and mind is between us, or a human being, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person, or a person

The word "fadhil" is a moral description. He says: "They call the wise one who is good in the pursuit of good and avoid the evil." So, who uses his mind to pursue evil, what do they call him? He said: "As for those who fall into the pursuit of evil, they call him a fool." They don't call him a wise man.

This indicates that Arabs specialize in the definition of reason for moral work. Of course, moral work is a work of art. This is a Muslim philosopher who speaks Arabic, but his culture is Greek. However, Arabs describe that they separate between the two.

or describe the rationality with work, moral work. The second problem is the fundamentalism of the mind. When we say the fundamentalism of the mind, it means that the mind is fundamental. And the fundamentalism of philosophy is what it does by itself, and not what it does by others. Meaning, the speech does by itself, the sight, for example, does by itself, does by the eye. They say that the mind does by itself. The mind has a defined self, which is present in itself.

Of course, they differed, and we will mention in a little while where this word came from. But the ancient philosophers, Muslims at least, say that this body is a neural body, not a physical body. And they say that this body, which is the mind, is a gentle body, not dense, and a spiritual body, not physical. This is the old saying. And therefore, they come out of the womb exactly where they were.

But they make it spiritual. What do modern people say in modern modern philosophy? Their principle is nothing but the body. Modern philosophy of mind and mind

It is not called the philosophy of the mind, but only as a definition of knowledge, which is consciousness and the brain. So, the place of this consciousness is the brain. Maybe we will discuss this idea of consciousness in contemporary philosophy later. Anyway, it is clear that the definition of the essence or the consideration of the essence of the mind has been derived from several problems, including the fact that the mind is empty.

It is true that this is not present in India, but it is present in the philosophical research. Why? He said because the origin of the mind is divine. Notice, of course, modern philosophy has almost derived the philosophical from the divinities. But we are looking at the origin of this saying. Why was the mind considered fundamental? The Greeks...

their prophecy and their genius in natural and even in logic and in mathematics and even in morals and politics and the city and what have you they have a special and known prophecy and in the long run, is this prophecy or that they invested in it that is said about other nations or about prophecies that preceded them such as Judaism and Abrahamism this is another research but they had a problem with divinities because they did not have prophets

So they were forced to build deities through the mind. They say, for example, they talk about the first reason, which the first reason for them is translated by some Arabs as the god or Allah. But this first reason is not a creator, and in the end, it is a mental idea, not a description, it is not a description, but it is a mental idea within the mind.

And considering a number of attributes that they put on this first element, the principle of the world, especially that they say that the world has no beginning, the world is old for them. But it remains that there is this first element that must be present to understand this cosmic existence. They say that this first element has one origin, which is the first mind.

Then he extracted from this one, one. Because they have a problem in the heart. Because one cannot be extracted from it except one. So he extracted ten minds. And each mind is a god for what is after him. The first mind, then there is the active mind, the beneficial mind. Ten minds. Then from the ten minds, the world was extracted. Of course, the idea of the hearts is not in the creation. Because the Muslim philosophers, when they wanted to transfer these words, they got involved in it.

We know that the Greek translation receives a type of Islam There are several forms of how the Arabs received the Greek translation Last week I had a paper with this title, which is the forms of Arabic translation of the Greek translation And it is summarized in four types There is the first type, which is translated into philosophy, which is the philosophical type

The wisdom was born in it, the philosophy is the origin and the first philosophy is the religion or the Sharia through it, and this is an example For example, when philosophers like Farabi, Ibn Sina, and Al-Kindi, who are the imams of Islamic philosophy, and even after them, Abu Al-Waleed Ibn Rushd, they don't talk about the creation from where it is created, but rather its breasts

The first reason for them is not the Creator. They don't have the concept of the Creator. The concept of creation doesn't exist in Greece, but the concept of creation. There is a difference between the concept of the Creator and the concept of the Creator. Because the Creator creates from nothing. And the Creator is the one who creates from something.

For example, the idea of the breasts. The Creator creates from nothing, while the breasts are what the world produces without any will. And their example is the sun. The sun produces the rays of the sun without any will. They say that the world was created by Allah in this way. And also the first example is the prophethood of the Prophet, Bilfayyid. They have a group of interpretations.

They put the center of this wisdom and the law is the one who is to be justified because they are the philosophers. They did not return the religion. On the contrary, they believe in it. As Bensina said, it is the greatest principle of the world, regardless of the truth of this faith and how they explain two facts. This is another topic. But the intention is that they did not declare the return of the religion

and the prophets as the answer of the philosopher Abu Bakr Al-Razi not the interpreter but the philosopher Al-Tabib who is from Talmid Al-Kindi or for example who used to believe in the gods and disbelieve in the prophets or for example the Rwandan who used to speak then

He was a very good philosopher, he was a great scholar of the prophets and the divinity. He was also one of the students of the Kendi. But these philosophers were the ones who were the first to do so. So when they wanted to first the ten minds, they named them with the pen, the preserved tablet, and Gabriel, and Jesus, and they didn't mean the facts of these names, they meant the Greek facts. The important thing is that the mind was the gods.

The gods were the rational ones. From here came the idea of the eternity of the mind. There are texts for Ibn Sina and Al-Farabi that talk about the eternity of the mind and the eternity of the soul.

The other types of acceptance are the one of the last and the last acceptance of the Gazali, may Allah have mercy on him, who is the one who responded to the Greek saying, "The confident and the one who accepts the machine" which is logic. Then we have Abu-Luidi bin Rushd, who accepted the two, but separated between them and made them two independent truths.

They were connected to his truth, or two paths, and two paths, which made the religion and wisdom two paths that lead to one truth. I really don't know what this truth is that leads to these two. Because he says that they are two brothers from Rabaa, and I also don't know who the mother of the Marziah is, but this is what Allah has said, may Allah have mercy on him.

And he wrote his famous book which is the chapter of the article between wisdom and the nation and the connection and the truth is that they are separated The third and the fourth is the opposite completely, which is the balance of wisdom through the foundations of the nation

The revelation became the origin of the religion and the translations were based on it. This is what is known as Bintaymiyyah. In his books and his discussions with philosophers, he used to start from the revelations in his evaluation of the religion. So, the first problem is the existence of the mind and the origin is the destruction of the mind in Greece, as stated in the ten minds. The second problem is the formation of the mind.

so that the mind is a physical thing and stable and independent and deals with the senses it has limits and this happens now in modern studies with the brain of course, for example, they determine where the site is

the preservation, the location of intelligence, the location of thinking, and certainly it is a very deep and great research, but the difference remains with it, is this awareness really only inside the body? This is an issue because most contemporary intellectual philosophers use a term, in fact, a religious term to express the question of where is awareness?

It is a term that modern people translate, for example, the late Archon and others, and Adel Mustafa is also a famous translator, they translate this term as "inbithaq" They say that "wai" is "inbithaq" Then you ask what is this "inbithaq" and what it means, they say for example, they represent it as the spirit of the team You say the spirit of the team, there is no one with a specific person, but it is a spirit

Where is it? It is said that it is in the brain or the spirit of the world or the spirit of the nation. And this is said by philosophers who are surprised to be able to determine such a thing. For example, the example of Buber or Putnam. A number of philosophers do not find a solution to the problem of consciousness unless they say that it is a memory. It is clear that this memory is separated from the brain.

So it's as if we have to.. but in the end they say that there is nothing outside the brain. And there is a philosopher in Australia called.. Chalmers.. he says that.. he calls the problem of the mind.. or the awareness.. I'm sorry.. the awareness is the problem that.. he calls it the difficult problem.. and the term; the difficult problem..

It means that it is not difficult in the sense that we do not know anything about our knowledge of the brain and how consciousness happens. And we will get this knowledge later. No, this is not called difficult. The difficult issues are the issues that naturally do not accept the solution. Charles Mars says that these are issues that do not accept the solution.

Of course, from the religious point of view, this seems reasonable because this awareness is not of this material or this body. It is something else. But of course, due to the weakness of the Muslim community in their philosophical and religious backgrounds in modern knowledge, they do not enter this spectrum. It is a strange spectrum for us. But we must receive it and try to read it through

He says, "The mind is considered a body, and we study it as we study bodies. When this is faced, we consider it a work. If we consider it a work, we will talk about movement, and we will talk about formation, and we will talk about the meaning of living, because physicality means stability.

while the action means movement, change, renewal and also the accumulation. The practical and the practical intention of the mind is against the idea of stability. This meaning will be clearly increased if we mention that the mind is the source or the place of the heart because the heart is rotating. This is what is against the idea of physicality and stability.

Some Muslims wanted to make the idea of physicality less common in Greece, so they said it is a trick. The trick is as if it is between the logic, between the physicality and the action. Ibn Taymiyyah sometimes says that it is a trick, although he also says that the mind is a form and a attribute.

It seems to me that the idea of the seed has a problem to be described by the mind because the seed meets the instinct. If we say that the instinct is the memory or the power because the instinct is the self and not the mind.

The natural instinct is what confronts the mind in philosophy. The natural instinct is a self-defined thing. It is the meanings that are inherent in the human being. It is the valuable meanings. It is also the seed that confronts the human being. It is something that is planted inside the human being. It is like a seed that is planted inside the human being. It means that it is the seeds that the survival preserves.

So, if a person and an animal share these characteristics, because they push him to stay, but because these characteristics push him to cross his limits, to commit injustice and to attack, the instinct is

To organize this relationship between the primordial and the primordial So if we say that primordial is the factors of survival or the primordial nature is the means of survival Meaning that a person survives to be at the animal level which allows him to do anything to preserve his survival As we see in the animal world for example

For example, if you look at the documentary programs now, on its abundance and quality, you will notice that the animal world is a world that is attacked alternately and in succession in order to survive. For example, the lion's female, if it came to the lion's female, yes, the male, if it came to its children, it sees the general nature and the kindness and so on. But if the time of hunting came, it turned into another creature because it was looking for its remains and its children. At the time, man does not do this. Man, yes, he wants to stay, but

He distinguishes that he has something that makes him rise from the world of survival and destroys all his principles and values. In any case, this is the idea that the mind is a work and not a thing.

The last part of this topic is the essence of the mind. The essence of the mind is the expression of the modern term, the human being. If we say that the mind is self and the memory is self, we will also say that the rest of the perceptions will be self. We will say that the mind is self and the memory is self. We will say that the mind is self and the memory is self.

the sense of his kind, whether it is hearing or vision, will be the same. This means that there are a number of qualities inside the human being. Of course, it is clear that it is unreasonable. This also ignores the unity of the human being and the complete cognitive forces and the abundance of the actions of these cognitive parts, some of them together, and the interference of their effects and the effect of some of them on others. We also notice that these cognitive parts are attributed not to

and it is attributed to the human being as if these perceptions are actions within the human being that are attributed to the human being, which means that the self is one and it is the one that gathers all these perceptions, including the mental perception. Of course, this saying is similar to the saying of the modern saying of the human being, and the strange thing is that it is almost a result of a similar behavior.

The term "human destruction" is a famous saying by the French philosopher Foucault, and it means the death of man. It doesn't mean the death of man as Nietzsche said, but it means that the human science has destroyed man. We have the economy that reads the economic man,

The doctor reads the person from his own understanding

The psychology of the person is that he studies from his individuality and his psychological background and the first impressions on him, whether it was his childhood or his past, whether it was in the way of Jung or according to the psychological education. And the social science is that he studies from his individuality in a group and all the science is separated from himself. So this person becomes as if he is divided between several sciences. He says above that this is a dead end. This person is from where he is one. He has one.

and privacy. It is known that the first human science was born in the 19th century by the hands of Dalta and other German philosophers. It is a escape from the natural knowledge. When the natural science began to strengthen, these philosophers feared that human beings would apply the natural theories that nature studies. So they invented this knowledge and called it the spiritual science.

to highlight the personality of this person. But throughout this stage, whenever this human science tried to take its independence and take advantage of its life,

Natural sciences have increased in power and people have been attracted to it. This continued throughout the 20th century. In the late 90s and before that, human studies were active. Then, after the technological revolution, there was a lack of it. This meaning was studied by the famous historian,

The author of the book "The Intelligent Human" I forgot his name. We have seen this transformation, especially the last one. Of course, now with artificial intelligence or the smart agreement, there will be a very double problem. Anyway, this is the idea of dividing the human which is produced from the consideration of the mind itself. There is also the mind

is a cognitive action similar to sight and hearing. If we say that sight is a cognitive action, it recognizes images through the eye, its eye area. And hearing recognizes sounds, a cognitive action that recognizes sounds, and its tool or area is the ear. So, the mind will also be a cognitive action. And what is the tool that...

The machine that balances the eye in the sight and the ear in the hearing for the mind We will say as the Quran clearly and clearly states, which is the heart I will explain this First, if we say that the mind is a conscious action What does this mean? It means that the mind

The Arabic word "Aqla" means "tie" It means "tie" It means "tie" It means "tie" We know that Arabic symbols try to refer to specific values There is a claim in the research

linguistics and linguistic research, that the origin of language is feelings, and then they are used in the meaning of words. This is a place of conflict, but this is the famous one. But there are problems on this origin. But this exists. So, the mind is a link and a bond, and this benefits three meanings. This is one of the issues that the late Jabari was concerned about, and he may object to some of its results, in any case.

The meaning of the word "Aqil" in Arabic means three things. First, it means to control. We say that the mind controls the person from doing a mistake.

and also the meaning of the control and preservation of what man gets, we say that man is intelligent in the meaning of control and preservation and there is the meaning of the collection and the collection is the awareness and understanding

When we say that a person gathers knowledge, it means that he understands it and understands it. We know that reading is originally a collection, and writing is also originally a collection, as they say. If a person wrote, they said that he collected the letters, the words, and the meanings. And so on if he read. So, collection is one of the meanings of the binding and the binding. And all three of these meanings are the binding.

The "kaf" is a negative link and the "zabt" is a collective link, which means it keeps and the "jam'" is a continuous link, which means it reaches between the two knowledge. According to him, it is possible to say that the mind is the perception of man for the connection between two things. When you ask me what is the mind, I will tell you that the mind is the perception of man. Notice that now we are saying the perception of man. After a while, we will clarify this definition by introducing another word.

We will say that the mind is the perception of the human being of the relations between two things. Not being a perception means that it is an action. So, the mind is an action of perception. One of the notes that Dr. Abdelrahman said in his research is that the substance of mind in Arabic is a translation of the substance of relationship. We know from some of the scholars like Ibn Fares and others of the Qamusites

It is called the type of longing, that there are relationships between the words, if it is a longing relationship Even if the order of the letters changes, this relationship is one of the meanings of the mind And Ibn Taymiyyah notes that the Qur'an does not use the mind except in the form of the action in more than 49 topics

The mind never uses the word "quran" in its name, but it always uses it in the form of a verb.

For example, they understand that fiqh is the meaning of the mind, fiqh and understanding. So, the same thing, they use it in the form of the verb. So, he never used the name of the name or even the name of the verb. Okay, there is also the separation of the mind from the feeling. This is also one of the problems. And this is the meaning of the tajreed.

As if the mind has no effect on the senses, and this is the main thing people use. The mind is just a stimulus, there is no effect on the senses. The word stimulus is supposed to mean the opposite, it means a stimulus of something. And therefore,

From here, the word "muthl" appeared in Greece. We know that Plato, as a result of the development of the mental concept in Greece, there were the gods, the ten minds. Then, after that, Plato came and simplified the theories of those before him, such as Thagoras and those before him.

Then, of course, Aristotle came, and he was the one who approached a great extent of the transgressions of Greek sayings, so that he approached the saying that the mind is work, but he still had some effects. Anyway, this idea of the extraction of the mind from matter is better than the sayings of the myth. What is the myth? The myth is a world, according to Plato, in the facts of things, but the facts are nuclear.

The famous example of Plato is the cave, where there are people locked in a place and they see the world, not the world itself, between them is a veil, but they see the shadows of this world. So what they see is the shadows and not the facts. So we, by Plato's call, see the shadows of the facts and the facts are in the world of the prophet.

There is no doubt that Plato, in this position, of course, the talk is very long, but what concerns me is that there is a mix, that is, there are correct elements in Plato's theory, and there are wrong elements in a clear way. The correct elements are that he mixed between two sayings, the sayings of the homonyms and the sayings of the adjectives. What is the difference between the two sayings? Homonyms are a derivation from a material feeling. For example, the idea of the circle,

There is no such thing as a circle, but we derive the idea of a circle from the fixed things that we see. For example, we derive the idea of a circle from the sun or from the orange. The idea of a circle is a mental idea, isn't it? It is a mental tool, a mental formula that we read through.

The circle is a triangle, the numbers are just a triangle, it doesn't have an external existence, it's not an external existence. If we say it doesn't have an external existence, it means it doesn't have an external existence, but it has a mental existence. So, it indicates that it is derived from the actual reality. So, the square, the circle, for example, the idea of man, when we say man, there is nothing called man outside, there is only oil.

There is Uthman, there is Sulaiman, there is so and so, there is a specific person. But the idea of a person as a person is present, the common one, what we call the common one, is present inside the minds.

These are the definitions. The definitions are made up of parts that exist in the world. What are the definitions? The definitions are not just definitions. The definitions are fixed, constant, and constant meanings within a person. He did not make them up from a place because they are not from the facts. For example, the moral meaning. The meaning of good and evil.

and the meaning of love and kindness and mercy and these meanings are not derived from the world of existence they are the meaning of the human being and they came with the human being from another world and the proof is that if we use the idea of the possible worlds in the logic of mathematics the possible worlds is that we assume

For example, a world without a circle.. a man who was created in a world without a circle.. he can't imagine or know anything called a circle.. because he didn't see it with his eyes.. and it is not present inside him.. nothing called a circle was born inside him.. but he is longing for it from the world.. So, if he went to a world without a circle.. he won't imagine it.. there are many forms that are not present in our world.. we don't know them.. because they are not present in our world.. So..

In a possible world, there is no circle, he won't know the circle

In a possible world, there is no triangle, because we don't know the triangle. In a possible world, there is no square, no number, no this and that. We don't know these things. But if we assume a possible world, which has no mercy, no love, no justice, then a person will keep longing for these meanings. If we assume that a person was born in a prison, for example, we would hear about it in Hitler's prison or the Fulag or anywhere else.

and he was born in it, and he lived in it with oppression, and he will remain longing for freedom, and longing for justice, and longing for mercy, and longing for friendship, and so on. He will be longing for all these meanings. Because his meanings cannot be longing for that place. But they are meanings that are inside the human being. So what Plato did is that he mixed these meanings. Yes, there are meanings that are really exemplary, not from reality.

Because it means a duty, not a reality And it is a value And the value job is to make the existence to a duty This is the value job, to make the existence to a duty So, this ideal world, this limited chapter is better for problems So, people say, if they want to praise a person, they say, it is realistic

or they say, be realistic.. and if they want to blame a person.. they say that it is an ideal idea.. and that this idea is an ideal idea.. and as if there is a complete separation between these two opinions..

And it seems to me, and God knows, that this came from these legends. In addition to the legend of, for example, the utopia that Thomas More wrote, that utopia is an ideal world, imaginative. At the moment, for us, there is no such meaning. We do not separate, notice, there is a division, as I told you. Western thought, modern thought in general, is the source of these divisions. At the moment, for us, we do not separate. And the evidence is that we, I mean, this division is not separated from our reality.

On the contrary, it is completely mixed with reality. And that person is found to be in a state of depression and depression. Sometimes he gets too attached to these idealistic meanings and gets depressed. And sometimes he gets weak and depressed. And this idealistic moment for us Muslims is a historical moment.

not a specific moment, but the moment of prophethood and the moment of prophethood is a historical moment and even what came after it, yes, it is not its exemplary but what matters is that this moment is a moment within history which indicates that it is possible, not necessarily to be achieved because of specific characteristics but I mean that it is a historical moment and not just a moment from history, it is a reasonable moment

in a practical way within the human language and human life. So when we say that man is an exemplary person, this is a compliment because we can be sure of it. By the way, there is no real human being with the full meaning of this word. Because if every person seeks change,

A real change, at the level of the job, at the level of health, at the level of social In all levels, a person seeks to raise his level Because there is a reality and he wants to raise it to a better reality than it This is the ideal, to raise it to a model model, the model is the model that you seek to ask for But people only preserve in the field of moral idealism

So if they want to justify and justify themselves, that is, not to be loyal to morals, they say this is an idealism and we are human and so on. While in reality, if a person, of course it is impossible, we cannot find a person, the nature of a person, the creation of a person, that he is a person who looks to the highest, always and forever.

Of course, people differ in achieving this characteristic in all fields, but there is no person who is satisfied with his condition at all levels.

Yes, the idea of separating the mind from the senses is the most sacred thing for the mind, as we said in the 10 minds. Also, human senses are intervening, so if we separate the mind from his senses, there will be gaps. If we say that the heart is what gathers the mind, it is the place of the mental sense.

And the idea is that the heart is the collective, as we said before, that the meanings of the mind is the collective. The heart is the one that gathers all the senses of the human being and makes them think. So, if we say that the heart is the place of these senses, we will say that we said a little while ago that the mind is a sense.

We will say now that the mind is the perception of the heart for these meanings that are linked to two things. Therefore, what indicates the intervention is that the Qur'an describes the sight without a mind as blind.

Even though he is being seen, heard and sensed. So, if someone sees something that he doesn't understand, even though he sees it as a picture, he doesn't understand it, and it is considered blind. This indicates that the mind interferes with these sensory perceptions. If we don't avoid it, we lose this balance between these perceptions. In any case,

The big problem is the separation between the mind and the heart. The mind, in general, is the place of emotions and reactions. The mind doesn't belong to the heart. The Quran, as you know, belongs to the mind. It's completely against it. Because there is no greater than the intervention of the mind in the heart to make

The mind is the action of the heart. The mind is the action and the heart is the action. There is no more intervention between the mind and the heart.

The old philosophers make the emotions and reactions to the mind and not to the heart, and not to the mind, but they make us follow them. But the contemporaries have completely separated them, especially since the moment of enlightenment with Voltaire and Enlightenment philosophy. We know that Pascal

between people, and it is a Christian philosopher, he said that the heart has evidence that the mind does not have. We know that evidence is a rational concept. He said that the heart has evidence other than evidence. This is a solidification. Some people think that this word is a approximation. No, it is a solidification of the separation between the mind and the heart. Of course, in Christianity, this meaning is understood to some extent, but in Islam, it is not so at all.

This chapter is very common among Muslims. If we don't ask for the two, maybe the Sufis, they have made the heart their high position. So, if we go to the books of jurisprudence, we hardly find the heart in the presence of Allah, except maybe in the evening of the intention.

But the heart is not considered the center of the mind at all And I think this is a big loss because if research had developed early on in Muslims with the awareness that the mind is a work of the heart and the research was directed in this way there would have been many different results Of course, we notice that the heart

that the heart is mentioned in the Quran more than 122 times.. So, I mean.. I mean that.. the shortening of the study of the heart.. is a philosophical and intellectual study.. I mean.. it is a big problem, in fact.. and I find this clearly.. in the Islamic heritage. So, the heart is the place of the mind.. or I can say that the mind is an action of the heart.. as the eye is the place of the sight.. and so on..

So the heart is the self, the complex, from which all the forces of perception are separated. So the mind is the perception of the heart for the relationships between things. And perhaps this complex, this is a useful observation, because it explains to us some of the cases that man faces. This complex of multiple perceptions inside the heart, explains, and the heart, notice, the heart is called the heart to turn.

and we said that when we say that the mind is an action, it means that the action is capable of turning and moving and not something rigid and rigid like mathematics for example one plus one equals two it is not possible to have this discussion or that in this sense if we consider the mind with these only these simple things it becomes a strained mind but if we describe the mind as an action if we expand it

So if the heart is upside down and the action itself is upside down

and the heart was full of a set of perceptions, we understood why a person talks without feeling. Suddenly, a person finds himself convinced by an idea, then he feels it without feeling it. Or he has a position of something, then he feels that he changes his position without understanding it. Sometimes he has the ability to discover this cause, so he explains it or explains it. Sometimes he is not sure that this is the cause, but he is looking for reasons. Sometimes he gives in that he does not know.

The reason is that the heart is the collection of all human senses. So, his hearing, his sight, his feeling and his information are all collected. The heart collects them, so that it is an active part of the mind, and then produces results from it. These are constantly changing results because the heart is called a heart to change. Subhanallah, in its original form, it is as if it is upside down. In any case,

One of the effects of the separation between mind and heart, as Taha Abdurrahman calls it, is the negation of religious practice. This is a big problem that needs a long pause. In short, the idea is that studying the jurisprudence of religious texts is only based on the manifestations of texts.

So that it does not exceed the content of the texts that are in the context of the heart understanding Meaning that the meanings behind the texts are valuable meanings that the heart understands, not the appearance of the vision The mind is called the only mind, it does not understand it The only mind understands the aspects of things

Therefore, as long as the language is also a pure mind, and the religious texts are also read by a pure mind, we will not know its principles. But if this mental perception is connected to its original and heart, the heart will not know the meanings of these texts, and it will not know them from the point of view of the pure mind. And this is what we call the values, which are the purposes of Sharia.

There was a big division in the past. Maybe a few scholars who were interested in it were left, whether they were Muslims or others. It is not surprising that

Most scholars who are interested in the principles of Sharia are moralists, because of their interest in the idea of morals and values For example, Al-Azim Abd Al-Salam, Al-Ghazali, Abu Hamid, Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Al-Qayyim, and Shatibi are the most famous who are loyal to the principles of Sharia And they are all moralists who are loyal to the ethical issue

And of course, the lack of moral and moral distance. This is the worst result of the lack of moral distance due to the separation of the heart from the mind. We have reduced morality to limited actions.

within a person. At the same time, we differentiate between the mind and the heart, and the heart is the place of this moral value. Therefore, we will limit morality to certain actions. At the same time, morality is a comprehensive action. An action of a person's actions does not separate from morality. Even his moral view or the mere view should have a moral result.

Also, the consideration of morals as perfect is necessary. Morals are not just completeness as some scholars say, but they are necessary. And the evidence that they are necessary is that we imagined a possible world, we applied the other possible world, and we imagined a world that does not have the morals of the blind.

Meaning that there is no trust between people, no communication between people, no tolerance between people, no mercy, no justice, no compassion. Life will be a hell, it will not be tolerated. People do not appreciate the value of morals because it is present as a subordinate building for them. It may be that it is sometimes lacking. The essence is that man is a moral being.

and not a rational being. The essence is that man is a moral being. This is the real definition of man, that he is a moral being. The difference between man and animal is not his mind,

All modern studies prove that animals have a level of rationality. They prove that they have a strategic rationality. As we see, we are not experts in documentary films. So how can the experts say that? There are experts in the animal world who talk about the rationality of the animal. The rationality of the human and the rationality of the animal is different in rank and not in the mind itself. What distinguishes the human from the animal is the morals.

Some people might say that animals have morals, but they don't have morals in the sense of choice Because morals are the feature of freedom, which means that morals are to choose and to do

There are two terms: freedom, morality, action and action. They are one term. The action of a person is something he chooses. And no action of a person is separated from a moral description. As long as we say that the two main values in morality are good and evil. In rationalism, the main value is error and right. Error and right in the sense of sport, not in the sense of... While the main value in morality

For example, beauty is the beauty of beauty, and in politics, it's the friendship and enmity, as they say. While in the moral morals, the ruling one is the value of good and evil. There is no work for a person that cannot be described as good or evil. And this shows that a person chooses himself. Imagine that a philosopher like Nietzsche, who knows about the moral position,

He doesn't define man as rational, he is a practical philosopher, not a rational philosopher. He is a rational critic. He defines man as a stabilizing being. The function of man is not to be separated from the balance of things. He always has a value to be preceded by. It is true that Nietzsche's concept of value is different. He disputes Nietzsche because Nietzsche's balance is vital.

I mean, the vital values, the values of vibration, power, and life, which are fundamental powers. But regardless, the important thing is that he sees that man's feature is that he is a stabilizing being. He doesn't get rid of this stabilizing.

So every action of a human being should be done through his description or through his values. For example, animals don't do this. Some animals are described as living. This is a shame. It's true that there are names. I mentioned before that philosophers are

A French philosopher who specialized in this kind of ethical research And she used to criticize philosophers who describe animals as having morals And she says that these behaviors are a kind of predisposition to know the animal, for example, the death of the dog It is predisposition, the purpose of which is survival And not that the dog is born to be named or to be adopted The dog is the dog, the animal is the animal This is one of the features that Haroso mentioned, for example The difference between the animal and the human is that the human differs from his tenth grandfather

For example, the dog, which was used by the prophet himself.. his grandfather is not different from the 10,000 dogs.. the dog is the dog..

Regardless of the biological evolution, the nature of the dog is that the human changes, his soul changes, he changes from his father, he changes from himself, he constantly changes, he is a human, today he is not a human, tomorrow because he has a will. In any case, the feature that separates the human from the animal without doubt is the moral feature. Okay, I'm sorry Moulana, if you can bear with me. I will conclude, the last point,

There is another very important topic that we will discuss in the future, which is the relationship between the mind and religion, whether it is the law, revelation, text, or news.

This is very important and it may be a waste of time, but it is time to spend it. In any case, the relationship between Sharia and rationality has led Taha Abdulrahman to invent three minds.

It is the mind, as it is called, in relation to this mind in Sharia, the mere mind. It does not mean the mere mind that we talked about a little while ago, the moral one, but it means the mere work of Sharia. This mind, he sees that it is useful in obtaining what is called the pragmatic, for example, it is a practical mind, it is a practical mind, its standard is the success.

But it is not the religious work that is the center of it, and therefore it has nothing to do with the values of revelation. So it is just a mind of religious work that guarantees these values, the values behind the manifestations.

Because the mind is dealing with the phenomena, the mind is just, when we add to it a value or values, it becomes dealing with another level of non-reality. The Hadith has separated between the mind and religion. I see for example, the philosopher Kant says that the mind only understands the world of Newton, the world of time and space.

What is called the world of Newton and the world of time and space The mind is only aware of this world There are things outside this world that Immanuel Kant does not deny But he says these are the worlds of things in themselves, our minds do not realize Our minds are only aware of the world of time and space How do we realize these other things? He says we realize them from the practical side And he puts three examples for it, for example, the idea of freedom And the idea of God And the idea of

I think I forgot the word "Aqil" or "Nafs" There are three principles that Kant knows and doesn't know. There is no doubt that Kant's "Aqil" has a lot of knowledge about the concept of "Deen" Because the concept of freedom is in the realm of something itself, meaning this other realm. Whereas the realm of nature that we are in, Kant doesn't have freedom, he calls it the realm of necessity. We all notice the opposite.

We all feel that we live in the world of nature, the world of freedom, unless morality has been reflected in the world of freedom. We live in the world of nature, the opposite of what this philosopher says, we live in a world of freedom and choice. We choose and do while the values, the moral standards are behind these phenomena.

The second mind is the mind that is attached to the religious work. The mind of the Prophet is attached to the religious work. The attached mind has been equipped by his companion when he was a worker of the religious work with these meanings. The meanings of goodness, the meanings of truth, and the meanings of religion in general. But this attached mind

It means that it guarantees that its goals are correct and guaranteed. The previous mind does not guarantee, for example, in the mind of the mind, the value of science. Did science guarantee us good? It did not guarantee. The evidence is nuclear bombs and the world has no problems with it. We all know the film that appeared recently about the nuclear bomb and the moral issues that it poses.

So, science is completely separated from morality. What is the phenomenon of existential philosophy? It is a kind of..

Anger over the failure and promise of the knowledge that was given by enlightenment So this view is not completely separate from the moral values There is no guarantee whatsoever, no guarantee whatsoever What guarantees the commitment of knowledge to it? And so now for example in the West there is something called the practical morals There are the rules of morals and the concepts of

for example, the Haukamah and the Nazawah, all of them are very difficult to apply. In religious work, the person in his inner self is committed to these meanings. But in short, because this religious work in this rank, the rank of the 'Aqil Musaddad', it only shows you the direction, but it does not guarantee, just the general work of Sharia, meaning on the level of jurisprudence, it does not guarantee you to achieve the full level of these meanings. What guarantees you

The realization of the complete level of rationality is another mind, which is called the supported mind. All of these terms are legitimate. The supported mind is also the legitimate mind, but it is more in the ranks of work. For example, in the famous hadith, "My servant is still not as close to me as I supposed him to be."

"And then, no matter how much I approach him with the eyes of the eye" So there is the superficial approach and the eye-catching approach So this approach that this person is doing, this person is doing, is doing this moral meaning Because he is approaching from the source of values and the source of morals And for that reason, the hadith has a side At the end, he says: "So if I loved him, no matter how much I approach him with the eyes of the eye, even if I love him" "So if I loved him, I would be his hearing, and his sight, and his sight that he sees"

This is the perception of man. Man perceives with his hearing, vision and hand. These are three aspects of him. If the Hadith comes and says that with this Hadith expression, Allah became himself, of course, it is not meant to be a solution, but it is meant to be this support, the support of Allah to it, man became supported. All the knowledge of man became supported by this. Anyway, I hope we return to this point in a little while.

The concept of evidence, Mr. Abdelrahman, is of course a rational characteristic But there is a difference between the argument in the Hadathah, which is only a short argument, and two other arguments Which are the logical argument, which is called the mathematical argument And the experimental argument, which is the experiment through the microscope And in regards to the Islamic view, whether in the Islamic tradition or in our view, up to this point And the natural view, basically, is this There are five evidences

These two evidences are not doubtful in their authenticity but they are not absolute in their limits And the other three evidences are the evidence of the Shahada The Shahada is when a person confirms a fact and then he testifies to it This is a legitimate evidence, a practical evidence, and a natural evidence Even in Western courts they work with it And the strange thing is that the applied sciences, which are the material and experimental sciences

They are transferred by the testimony. Not every student can study every issue and get it done for the first time. This is impossible. So what makes students trust the research of their professors? Trust. They trust what they have learned from theories and build on it. There is no one who will go back to the issue number one. Because all evidence will go back to evidence before it goes back to the big explosion.

At a time when what is needed is to make a testimony We accept the testimony of the scholars Is there anyone among us, if I am not mistaken, who has seen the earth? No! But we trust these scholars whom we are informed about Is there anyone among us who understands the idea of the center of the sun and the earth? No, we don't understand these things But we trust these scholars and we testify This is a testimony, this is evidence

And Bertrand Russell says that most of the human knowledge, and Bertrand Russell is well known, the famous mathematician and atheist, he says that most of the human knowledge is transmitted through the witness. And the other evidence is the news. What is the news? The news is the confidence that you get from the witness. So the witness, until it is transmitted to you, needs a witness. Then, and all of these four have features that others may need. The fifth is not needed by others. It is a personal, short evidence, and it is the perception of the heart.

What is called the inner feeling or the heart perception or the inspiration or the innate perception or whatever it is There is a perception inside a person, it is a feeling called Plantinga, the American philosopher called it the basic beliefs Sometimes for me, we call it innate or we call it the inner feeling as Ibn Taymiyya says, he divides the feeling

To a visible feeling and a feeling of falsehood A visible feeling that comes to my face Can I deny it? I can't deny it A person reaches a state of suffocation This is a mental disease As Bensina says, whoever doubts the heat of the fire, let him be satisfied with it

So that you can get back to him and his insights and be a equal person But this feeling is more profound than the feeling of the inside So in your inside you realize that there is something So you realize that good is good and evil is evil Also from the evidence of Taha Abdulrahman, this is the fifth evidence There is a concept of the verse that we need to talk about it after a little while in the discussions A very central concept

The meaning of the verse is not the meaning of the verse or a part of the Qur'an, but the meaning of what is opposite to the outward. When he talks about the outward, he talks about the verses. The same outward, the human being is outward, the sun is outward, the rain is outward, but we look at it as a verse with another perspective. There is also the concept of the natural.

Thank you Mr. Suleiman. I said at the beginning of the session that Iwan was determined to come to you to discuss this matter. Because the first thing is that the matter that was presented is frankly very deep for the benefit of the project of Taha Abdulrahman, not only that.

What is the order of your readings of the project of Taha Abdulrahman? It is clear that this is not only a translation. And this is the old problem of philosophy, isn't it? Is Ibn Rushd a translator or a translator? Or a hard worker or a servant? It seems that Mr. Suleiman also surpassed this problem by explaining the project of Taha Abdulrahman. We were also in a debate in Morocco about what is philosophy. So the majority of the trend

I don't hide that I was one of them. I don't blame Taha Adhrahman Faylash Shoufan. I'm just asking. And the discussion was about Taha being involved in the knowledge, in the Sufism. And this involvement is what made him end his definition of the mind after we say that he destroyed all the knowledge.

The waves that he wanted to put a definition of the mind to end with the mind to the heart and perhaps this is the essence of what the Arafatians say that the mind is a hijab in the end, but the heart is the truth. I don't want to interfere, I mean, in my opinion, I tried to make this a joke and open the door more. The main conclusions that we ended up with, Taha Abdulrahman, wanted to produce an intellectual, self-centered, alternative to what has been

I think this is the first summary that I can say. The second one, Abdelrahman, is a new version of the science of speech. It is a lesson of the science of speech in its accuracy and dignity, which was worked on by a number of science of speech currents. I want to open the door for people, for the entrances of Mr. Suleiman, so that I am not a hindrance or a barrier between them.

I think the issues that I just presented are very important and I am very happy with them because they are ready to be discussed. I will leave you to comment on what I said. In fact, I am not very interested in proving or denying that Abdurrahman Faisal is a philosopher. Of course, for me, I consider him a philosopher, but this is not important. If we want to prove this, the definition of a philosopher

It's not a philosophical definition. People now promote Dolou's definition. They say that philosophers are the creators of concepts. But that's not true. That's one of the purposes of philosophers. If we look at Ibn Rushd, for example, who is one of the symbols of Islamic philosophy. He is the reference of Jabari, may Allah have mercy on him. Ibn Rushd defines philosophy

Two definitions, one that Ibn Rushd calls the Greek definition and another that belongs to the Islamic definition. The definition of philosophy is the view, of course, philosophy in general, the famous definition for it is that it is a pure view, the same definition of the mind. They say that philosophy is a pure view or a rational view.

This famous definition Of course there are many definitions for philosophy Even Spongebob Kant, this French philosopher, said that it has more than 200 definitions And he was mocking, he said that every philosopher has a definition Even he said that if two philosophers met and agreed on a definition, then none of them is a philosopher So the definition remains open But Ibn Rushd says that it is the view

in the present tense, from where it is present. This is the view of the Greek, the definition of Aristotle. The view in the present tense, a rational view of course, from where it is present. Now, in the discovery of the method of evidence, and also in the article's chapter, the philosopher explains that the view in the present tense, from where it is present, is the indication of its existence. Who is its existence?

If we want to apply this to any of the critics, who will apply this, he will be considered a philosopher according to Abu Al-Waleed bin Rushd. In this sense, he is against his opponent, bin Rushd.

In the sense that opponents who are far from the philosophy of religion and morality do not realize this meaning, but rather look at philosophy from a scientific point of view. The disaster that has been faced with philosophy in the modern era is that it has been subjected to science.

Science in the modern sense, meaning that philosophy has become a part of science while science is one thing and philosophy is another Science is a study of the past, modern science is a study of the past, philosophy is not a study of the past, philosophy has another function And what made some philosophers, some modern scientists say that philosophy is dead? They want philosophy to be just a follower of science, because it is not a follower of science, it is a supporter of science It is a supporter and it gives meaning to science

The subject of knowledge... Before knowledge, but maybe later, of course, the end of the word, the active mind, this is what ended the schools, even in the language of the society, what is known now, cannot describe any action that has the action of the language itself.

True, you are right. What is the heart?

What is the heart? The heart is not this thing. The heart is the meaning of the human's inner self. Meaning, if a person is a heart and a mold. The mold is the outward, while the heart is the inner self. And there is no lack of the inner self. Lack of the inner self is this inner perception power. When you come back to yourself and think, who is this who thinks?

This is the inner self. You can say it is the soul, the consciousness, or the level of the soul, the level of the heart, the level of the secret. I have a question for you. For example, if the philosophy of the dark is not the view of the knowledge,

Yes, it's just the role of science. Science, not philosophy. The problem we have here is that philosophy cannot be legal. Meaning that there cannot be a rational law from the beginning. As long as it is only related to the activity of a certain individual. And the perception and so on. And this is a problem that philosophers need to solve. Taha didn't fall into it either. Let's not talk about Taha, Abdulrahman. I will give you two examples. Okay. There is no controversy in that they are philosophers.

An old and a modern example. The first one is Aristotle. No, not Aristotle, but Socrates. Socrates is the philosopher who sent down philosophy from the heavens as compared to the earth. And he didn't mean to send it down from the heavens, from the world of the gods. No, he meant it from nature. Because Greek philosophy is centered by nature. It is centered by science. While Islamic philosophy is centered by man. Science is the function of nature.

The philosophy is not the job of nature, it is the job of man. So, what is man? This is a way to know man. If you know man, and that's why we say that Aristotle is a moral philosopher. He is the first moral philosopher. His work is all about morals. He goes and when his famous stories are told, Aristotle...

Socrates is the moral philosopher He dealt with philosophy from the perspective of the human being, from among the Greek philosophers Another example is Martin Dresden

The greatest English philosopher, the greatest mathematician, the most famous atheist, far from religion. Yet he writes a book called "Tasawwuf and Logic" In the first and second articles he decides one fact, and he says that the greatest men, scholars mean, are those who have combined the mind and tasawwuf. He doesn't mean tasawwuf and tasawwuf, but these meanings. Why did he say this? He gave two examples, he gave an example of this, Plato and Plato.

He says that the logical one goes to the farthest point of the logical and mathematical theory and reaches its limits. So, this mathematical and logical one realized that this mind has limits.

But he also realizes that there is something behind these boundaries And he wants to know it As long as he reaches the very top of these boundaries This is all written and written So in order to get this knowledge beyond the boundaries of the mind He will not indulge in the mind Because the mind has boundaries He will not indulge in anything beyond it And he will look for another way to indulge in it What is it? He said it is the tawaf, it is the heart

Whether you call it contemplation, or inner realization, or... Far from religious worship, and some people feel sensitive about it. But man is more than limited to mathematics or meaning. The conclusions of Taha Abdurrahman are that it is a spiritual philosophy.

No, the conclusion of the Prophet is that man is... - It's a relative morality - Yes, this is another topic - Yes, it's relative - Yes, it's not wrong, let's talk about the relative morality topic This is another topic, I can talk about it later, but let's stay on the same topic The story is the story of perception, and the perceiver is one being, it shouldn't be divided by this perceiver

This one doesn't want to be separated. He realizes with his mind, heart, and feelings all the powers that Allah has granted him. And these realizes affect each other.

They don't separate each other. I think that the human being is a stranger regardless of whether he is Ta'ha or not. When he thinks about philosophy and sees that the philosophy that unites man and does not separate him is the benefit of man. What is the philosophy that makes man happy? Now we will see the whole modern experience. It is very close to the Indian five-dimensional thought.

Do you think that the role of philosophy is the ultimate solution? I don't know. We don't need to add all elements to a strange philosophy. No, I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that. Thank you. I didn't mean to say that I want this, but I meant that you don't need this. We need to say that the source of the Arab philosopher

This is one of the issues of Taha Abdulrahman. He says, why did I write the philosophy of philosophy? For the sake of the Arab appreciation of independent philosophy. It's not necessary. What do they lack? Why should they belittle the Indians, or belittle the Chinese, or belittle the Westerners? They have a language, and they have a heritage, and they have... These are the philosophers. Most of them are Christians. What makes philosophers... They have the philosophy of religion, more than...

And let it be, and let it be. Man is also a religious being. Man, according to modern anthropology, I don't want to show that this is a matter of conflicting the mind with religion, for example. We wanted to get rid of it. I will open the door to the audience, so that you don't just interrupt. I am clear from the beginning. No problem.

I thought you would say, and this is a famous idea of the three-minded people, the mind, the mind, the mind, and the mind, that this is the opposite of the Jabir. Yes, the proof, the knowledge, and the statement. Yes, and of course, many people say this, and of course, there is no relationship between them. Because the way of the Jabir, may Allah have mercy on him, is to make it three directions.

It's not a contradiction, the knowledge is separate. Exactly, but it makes the knowledge separate from each other, meaning it's complementary. When Taha Abdurrahman builds it in a vertical structure, he says that the minimum limit that is not dependent on it is the mind. There is no mind that is supported or blocked other than this third.

and adds the mind because the Sharia is a mandatory act. This mind should be built on it. A mind that is solid and the highest rank is the one who achieves it. This is the difference between the two sayings. In the name of Allah, the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful. First of all, I thank you for your contribution in this matter. You have already touched upon the matter. I also thank Mr. Ghassan.

I have points that are not classified, but they were raised during your speech. Among them, is the mind a essence or a result? I think or think that it is a result, more than it is an essence. Because when we say that it is an essence, this means that it does the human being, and the human being is an essence. So does the essence do the essence? This is the question.

And the evidence that it is a symptom is that man is free of mind while he is a fetus. The fetus is almost without mind. And yet, it is described as a human being and there is no mind, which indicates that the mind is a symptom and not a essence.

Unless we say that the essence can do essence The second point is that the mind does other things, which are brain cells Perhaps previously they didn't explain it much Now the research has explained that the mind does through brain cells Just like the ear does with the ear and the eye does with the eye So I think it does with brain cells

The third point is that wisdom and religion are passed on to the Creator. You were saying that the two of them are sisters, but we haven't been able to determine what they are passed on to. I think they are passed on to the Creator, especially since he believes that religion is the only religion. It's not the belief in the existence of God. This is my opinion.

I'm sorry, I didn't understand the last point. He says that the Sharia and wisdom are two different things. You said that they are two different religions. Exactly. Considering that the religion is the revealed religions and not just the belief in the false. There is a definition of the meaning of the religion. Also,

The issue of the heart view, I have noticed how the heart view reaches the goals. Because the heart view reaches knowledge or philosophy or something like that. But it became clear now with your discussion with Mr. Ghassan that humanity is the purpose in general. And I believe that humanity is part of the mind. Because when life is devoid of morals and human values, this is a source of pain.

And one of the mental processes is to push pain. All mental processes related to human life are the removal of evil and the removal of pain. And for that reason, I believe that morals and human values are part of mental processes. That's all I have to say. But I have one more question. How did the Arabs deal with the ten minds? I don't know. You didn't mention it or I didn't understand it. I don't know. Thank you.

Can we take a question from the audience? I agree with you that the mind has values. Yes, this is the required level. But the rational level is just... That's why the research of science is based on the idea of subjectivity. What is subjectivity? It is the isolation of the subject from the self, from the self's values.

So the only rational or philosophical view is to isolate your values. And this is impossible regardless of whether it's possible or not. It's not the right thing to do. How can a person evaluate his study? And therefore, the idea of morality has a problem because

I mean, if you say that morality is something that is self-evident, it's as if you're not giving morality a theoretical dimension. There's nothing called a lie in a direct way. There's no existence for values. I said a while ago that these meanings are specific meanings, separate from man.

As for the idea of knowledge, it has been repeated. In fact, if we think about the subject of knowledge, what does it mean? Knowledge is a research that does not leave any doubt. But at the end of the day, it is as if a person reaches a stage where he receives knowledge with his heart. And if we think about it, we find that it returns to philosophy.

Because the philosophers of Ibn Sina and Al-Farabi, the Arab scholars who started the Greek philosophy, were the ones who received these sayings from the Greek philosophers and said about the idea of breasts and the idea of the chest. So, prophethood is something that is acquired, not a divine creation. It is something that is acquired because these minds, as the ten supposed minds, are the Greek philosophy is a genius philosophy, but it is a false philosophy.

Because it wanted to close an empty space without any revelation. How can you answer about

and the fields that humans do not understand at all, which are the fields of the creation of the world and the pre-existence of man without any revelation. Therefore, they tried to fill these gaps with these sayings. The idea of the ten minds is a solution, more than a truth. But over time, it has become a worship of gods and it inspires people with light and prosperity, and it is received by a few people, especially those who are the Arafat.

This is completely against the philosophy adopted by Taha Abdurrahman Because Taha Abdurrahman completely rejects any non-legal meanings For example, his idea of the "Muqasid" There is no way to achieve the "Muqasid" except through the legal way For example, there is a concern among modern people about the "Muqasid" They are divided into two parts The legalists say

They abandoned the principles of jurisprudence, for example, some scholars of jurisprudence abandoned the principles of jurisprudence because they didn't say that the principles would be used by some opponents, for example, from the scholars. They said that we should achieve these meanings without sticking to the Sharia.

Some researchers claim that they can achieve goals without sticking to the Sharia. For example, this is a statement by a philosopher. What do philosophers say about this? They say that Sharia is a public discourse. We, the elite, don't need Sharia. Because Sharia is the policy of the public. And we, the elite,

We don't need these policies We can achieve our goals without the help of Sharia Therefore, we are working with the results that Sharia wants to achieve with these people There is no doubt that this is unacceptable, whether it is Sharia or not Because there is no way to reach the goals that the Sharia has set for us except by the way the Sharia has set them How can we think, how can we prove

that you can achieve what you want without the means that you have set. So the means is part of... And every purpose and intention that is achieved without the means will turn against them.

So, this is what some moralists describe as "intellectual" This is a very serious thing because intellectualism ultimately leads to the origin of both the Ghanoush and the Eastern philosophies But it goes back to the existence of these things In the Islamic perspective, there is no such thing For example, what is the difference between the speech and the philosophy? The speech

is to prove religious beliefs with rational evidence. This is what the speakers did. What is philosophy? There is the philosophy of religion and there is philosophy. The philosophy of religion is the origin of man.

in the establishment of his religious needs and not from religious confessions. In other words, there are atheists in the philosophy of religion. When we say the philosophy of religion, it is not necessarily that it is derived from the philosophy of the religious. There is a religious philosopher.

There is a religious philosopher, he may be a non-believer, but he philosophizes religion as a fundamental need in human. For example, social scientists used to say, until the 1950s, they used to say about the idea of stages. They say that man was in the beginning, he was mythologically, then he was metaphysically, then he was scientifically.

Man becomes the scientific being, and therefore, every stage is beyond man's previous stage. They talk about religion as a stage that has ended, and they use a very strong term, some people refer to it as Peter Berger, he used to refer to it in his book called The Holy Cross. This philosopher is a well-known American sociologist. He wrote a book, probably in the 70s, called The Holy Cross, which talks about the withdrawal of religion from the world.

Why? Because of these stages, because science will solve the problem of religion. Peter Berger published a book called "The Religions of the World" in the late 2000s. He said that the results of anthropology proved that religion is a constant for man. It's not a stage, it's a thing inside man. Therefore, he will not withdraw.

Unless we withdraw from the human being, as long as there is a religion Regardless of whether this religion is pagan, divine, or revealed, this is another topic Anthropologists or atheists say that there is something that distinguishes this human being So, it has appeared that those who recognize the human being as a religious being We know that the definitions of the human being, every philosophy, every sect, is based on the definition of the human being The anthropologists recognize the human being as a religious being

Mr. Sulaiman, I have a question about rationality. I know that all Mr. Sulaiman's discussions on rationality, on interpretations, heart interpretations and mind interpretations,

I don't think there are many objections to this. The objection to the problem of the Ta'a of Ibrahim Ibrahim or the position of the Ta'a of Ibrahim Ibrahim is clear. It is clear. That the intellectuals in the Arab world, since its creation in the modern era, have been linked to the Western orientalism. And this connection

Many people who founded this ideology did not follow it, but they thought that there is a common denominator in this ideology that can be applied to it.

So the development of this rationality was the development of Western regression. And to this day, rational regression is what the Western universities and Western research centers do in theoretical or natural science.

The problem, or even the philosophy, is that there are universal meanings, such as human rights and other universal meanings that this philosophy participates in. The problem that is raised in the case of God, may God be merciful, is that many of his interpretations are found in the books of the interpreters, found in the books of the Sufis. Is his advantage that he came up with concepts or logical terms to include in these interpretations that the interpreters worked on?

The other point is that those who object to what Taha Abdurrahman said in many of his books is that he is a barrier or a curtain or a wall that prevents us from intervening in contemporary rationality. Contemporary rationality does not mean that we should be exempt from what the West is proposing, but rather that we should enter into the debate in a specialized way.

This is the problem. When I see that the Prophet wants to recognize the mind, the heart, and many of his books, there are many objections. I don't see many of these objections. The other point is

The question is, does it form

I mean, adopt this philosophy Because if you said that the meanings you suggested are all of them, we can use them as an explanation, we can use them as a jurist, we can use them as a pious person I mean, if Taha Ibn Al-Ahmad suggested himself as a scholar of the law, no problem, he started to explain But he doesn't get into conflicts, so that's the problem I'm happy to answer this question, it's an excellent question

If you give it three points, it can be two points. I said at the beginning that it is not important to call him a philosopher. This is a description that is not important. Call him a philosopher, a wise, a writer, or whoever he is. So I say, okay, Abdulrahman.

Regardless of my opinion, these statements, whether they are useful or not, the interaction with those who say them, or the conflicts between him and Al-Arqona and Jabari, these things are not... The assumption that the debates and disputes are useful, because the controversy that happens between them is very useful, whether between Jabari and Taba Ibn Rahman or others. But let's take this issue, the issue that you mentioned is very excellent, and it is the issue of the universe, the understanding of the universe.

What is equal to the universe is something else. What is equal to the universe is the universal concept of the universe. Because the universe is a Greek concept. And the universal concept is intellectual or philosophical. The universal philosophy is not called the universal philosophy of the universe, it is called the universal philosophy of the universe. It has a political dimension. Because of the modern state and these existing problems. In any case, there is nothing called a solid universe.

There is no such thing as a whole world. A philosopher would say that this is a whole world. This is not there. There is a universal and universal concept, or we call it "layin" . This is the "layin" common.

What is his idea? His idea is that Descartes, a French philosopher, goes to this universe, and we study him in Africa, in the Arabian Peninsula, and in Asia, as a French philosopher, a French universal philosopher. So he rises to this level, and he is a French philosopher.

and Hobbes becomes an English philosopher. If you call French philosophy, which is one continent, French, German, English, and Italian, and we have American philosophy, and we have even more than that, not only philosophy,

Even the epistemology, which is considered to be a science that is supposed to be an input for natural knowledge We have the French epistemology, the English epistemology, and the American epistemology And the French epistemology is specialized in features that are closer to biology and so on So, the universe needs clothes

It's a great thing, but you need to wear it. This clothing is inherited by man from his language, from his culture. No man can jump like this.

Of course, of course, this is it. There is no human being who goes to the cosmic level except by his language, his thoughts, his texts, and his background. The Arabic will not be the English philosophy, it will not be. He should know this, it will not be. But he means the issues. It is not wrong. And it will not be a French philosophy. Good? He is in the issues itself. Exactly. I participate in the issues in the human rights, I participate in them not because I am French,

As an interpretation. An interpretation of truth, goodness, beauty, and human rights. All of these are the philosophies. But this is a universe, right? It is a universe, but everyone is pushing it out of their culture. Where do they push it? I mean, no human is attached to the air. No one is attached to the air. So you start from your own idea. So, are the English moralists the same as the French moralists? No.

They are different. What is it that the Arabs should accept in the Arab world? Why? Do they have palaces? They don't have palaces. They only have a blind tradition. And this is what people think that a colored person cannot be like a European person. They don't believe them, so they say that this idea was stolen from someone else. And this idea was given to someone else. They cannot understand that it is possible to... Take for example, Wael Hallaq.

A good example, Wael Hallaq differs from Taha Abdulrahman Taha Abdulrahman belongs to a state of modernity called the multiple modernities Most people promote statements that they don't accurately and accurately achieve Taha Abdulrahman belongs to what is called the philosophy of multiple modernities And this is a trend known in philosophy While Wael Hallaq belongs to the trend of the one philosophy The one philosophy group has two states

They start from one point and the result differs They start from the idea that one event cannot be multiplied and it has good and bad, they all agree But the example of the bird and the swan says that its evil is against its good Because it starts from the idea of the left and the colonization and this and that and the colonization So he says we should leave it with its good and evil because its harm is greater

While the other, the opposite of him, the Arab Emirate and others, say that yes, there is harm and benefit in the incident, but we have to overcome the side of the benefit. We don't have to bear the harm. There are no means for us. This multiple incident does not say this. It says that the Chinese incident is not the American incident.

that modernity is a spirit, a certain value, a certain mechanism, a certain innovation, and it is something that is formed in the Chinese, in the Indians, and in the Americans. What makes the Arabs exceptional without them? They must have a special modernity. And this is what we value. And this is what the Halaq, Ata Abdul Rahman, said. It is true that the Halaq wrote a book called "The Reform of Modernity",

And it is a shame for Ta'ha Abdulrahman to distinguish between the spirit of the present and its reality. He says that in this way, you accept the spirit that has made you colonized.

He says, "I don't reject all the Hadathah. I set a certain standard to accept goodness and reject what harms us. We don't need it." He needs a main argument. He says, "If you stopped your stance," in his famous reply, he said, "If you said what you said, you would have violated the good that the Hadathah produced." This means that he doesn't want to close the door or not to say anything.

In the matter of logic, the first philosopher to study the theory of the possible universe in the Arab world was Taha Abdur-Rahman in the 70s. I don't want to turn the lesson to defense. But I don't think that there is anyone who can explain it, at least until years ago. Maybe now a new generation has appeared. But whoever explains it in understanding the Western logic, he will not find a solution. The evidence is that he was the only member in some Western logical societies, such as the Hijaj Society.

in Belgium, which is the head of a parliament. This is what made them far from the current philosophical reality. How is the introduction and the result? On the contrary, it is evidence that their understanding of these logical and hijab developments is based on their knowledge of the Mujtajidat. On the level of pedagogy and teaching, it is understood. But on the level of the reality of the question of Arabic philosophy, its contributions are less than that of the Mujtajidat.

Thank you, Mr. Suleiman, for the informative answer that you asked at the beginning. And thank you, Mr. Ghassan, for inspiring us to think and disagree.

First of all, I want to say that there is a moment where my mind couldn't stop at one word. You mentioned, Mr. Ghassan, when you said that Taha Abdurrahman is involved in Sufism. I immediately thought, is our religious orientation considered as involved? And is there a philosopher or thinker or a person

can be neutral or just his religious identity when he proposes any proposal. This is the first point. Dr. Suleiman's question is that if there is something that I consider myself as a human being, which is generally attributed to it, it is that we are in a very difficult situation to reach the stage of being a person of the state

or we try to balance it. For example, if we try not to associate it with Western philosophy or Western modernity, so that we don't feel we are reaching a place of contradiction or contradiction or division in one way or another.

I like Taha Abderrahman's approach to the whole, in his attempt to combine the mind and the heart. My question is from your point of view, Doctor, from your reading of the book of the Prophet, Taha Abderrahman. In this attempt to combine the mind and the heart, what is it that Taha Abderrahman has missed? Is it the human being that is combined in this combination? Or is there

This is the natural unconscious human tendency. Of course, the expression of the intended person is in the knowledge. And if the knowledge is a form of religion, it is not the only reality in the form of religion. And it can be as a position of knowledge, as a position, for example, as a victory for the position of the mind, which is not the heart in my estimation. So this is the answer. The attitude here is that he himself

I think he is closer to a philosopher, if I put it this way. He is a new Ibn Sina. I think Ibn Sina is not a philosopher, in the end. But the last part, what did you hear? What is the most important problem? Yes, yes. What is the most important problem? What is the most important problem?

Yes, it is one of the tools that Taha Abdulrahman has been using since a very early age, which is the concept of unity and communication. He tries to achieve perfection, and the philosopher Taha Abdulrahman's supporter does not mean that he is a perfectionist.

I mean, it's not a model of the ideal. No. In my opinion, it's just that in the existing speeches, it represents a distinctive addition that should be built upon, not stopped at.

He tried to start from a moral point of view, that is, to define man. First, he introduced man to his philosophy, because philosophy starts from defining man. If Greek philosophy introduced man to a rational being, he introduced him to a moral being. So, he made morality the personality and feature of man.

And so he divided all his other visions into this one, whether it is to evaluate the modernity, or to evaluate the knowledge, or to evaluate the existence. And of course, he is a believer philosopher. He does not hide this. He says, I declare that there are philosophers, for example, the philosopher Kant, for example.

from Christian philosophies that are hidden because of what? Many modern philosophers hide religious elements because of their dissension or media pressure or something similar. This man announces his statements with all transparency. It is true that he encountered many accusations, problems and misunderstandings because of this announcement. But this is his usual thing. Is the Prophet Muhammad Sinai? No, he is not Sinai at all.

Not at all Sinuism And whoever reads Al-Taa'a Abdul Rahman knows that he is far from Sinuism Because he is against the so-called philosophy And he considers Arab philosophers, like Sinu Al-Farabi, not Muslim philosophers He considers them Greeks who speak Arabic

All of them, Ibn Sina, Al-Farabi, and he doesn't believe in knowledge He doesn't believe in knowledge in the Arabic language or in knowledge These are things that people say about things they don't know He believes in knowledge in the term "knowledge" in its religious meaning He sees that there is no contradiction between rationality in the Quranic meaning or knowledge in the Quranic meaning or the statement, but rather he chooses

to translate the concept of Logos which leads to this confusion to the concept of Quranic revelation because the concept of Quranic revelation is fulfilled by the pronunciation and it is fulfilled

with the mental meaning and since this statement is being conveyed in a moral way it means that he has combined these three meanings without conflicting between them it is not necessary to say that morality is something or that knowledge is something because there are forms like Mulla Sadra or these these are very far from the philosophy or the view that Ta'ir al-Rahman is calling for it is simply

There are no meanings behind this meaning. He is calling for a moral vision that starts from a religious text. Religious text, as long as you are a believer, how can you separate your view of religion? Now, for example, allow us for a little more time, two or three minutes. Now, for example, there is a term in modern philosophy called the post-scientific term.

The term "Science" was given by Charles the American and Habermas the German The principles of Science, it's not that Science has ended, they meant a deeper development than Science The point is that Science in its first development was to compete with Religion

Now it is not needed, it has become stagnant and there is no room for return So we have to invest the benefits of the expression that religion brings We are talking now about a Western perspective, not my perspective, a Western perspective I do not accept it in this way, but I will clarify what he says He says that as long as we become scientists and the general public is not worried about him

So, we have to re-enter the religious people in the public sphere. Because we are missing in the public sphere these religious elements, morals and spirituality. Then he says that the religious people, when we ask the religious people to enter the public sphere, we can't tell them to put their beliefs in the house. We can't. Man is one being. He can't separate his beliefs and morals and say, "Leave them somewhere else." He can't.

So, whoever comes without these morals, he has a position of these morals. Either he considers it a culture or he considers it limited or restricted in another way. And so is religion. At the time, religion has a relationship with the deepest part of man, which is his body.

The real one is deeper than the human being And all other imaginations of the human being are affected by this depth Whether it is conscious or unconscious I don't take the theory that magnifies the unconsciousness of the human being But in fact, there are influences inside the human being that sometimes hide him The human being cannot know everything he thinks about, even all the elements that affect him I pointed this out to him a little while ago That the heart, since it gathers all these perceptions And gathers all these negative perceptions, and gathers them

There are things that he doesn't care about, he says them and he doesn't care about them. To sum up, Taha Abdulrahman is one of the rational philosophers, but not in the western sense, but in a very consistent sense with his linguistic context, his heritage, and his approaches. He balances between rational thinking, which he considers to be an action, and between his moral and moral submission, which is derived from revelation.

and he is fully aware of creativity and he sees that there is no creativity except through this combination between this physical dimension in man and his heritage because man's heritage is a guarantee for the cultural existence of man but if this cultural existence of man is divided then it only gives him an identity existence I am a heritage

But it cannot enable me to start from this invention, from this heritage, unless I grab onto the soul of the heritage. And grabbing onto the soul of the heritage does not come from parts, but rather from grabbing onto the whole. So if a person grabs onto the soul of his heritage, which is in the past, he can jump into the future.

The connection between man and the universe is the way Allah created him, it's a time-based connection, it's connected to the past, present and future. And its connection to the past is not to be linked to it. If the heritage was just a logic that I go to, this is a big problem. The purpose of it is to give me a clue to start from it, to learn from it the words that will pierce the time. Such as morals, values, these meanings are not time-based. The lie will remain a lie, and the lie will remain a lie, and beauty will remain beauty, and truth will remain truth.

While the tools are the ones that time has created. And man needs his tools. But his values and his deep foundations are out of time. They are permanent meanings. The morals of Aristotle's days are the morals of today. Thank you for this presence. Thank you for the interaction. And I apologize for the lengthening and excitement. I got excited a little. Thank you all. In the name of the audience and the noble presence, I thank Mr. Salman. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.