An interview with Abdolkarim Soroush by Shargh newspaper
\nDecember 2003<\/p>\n
\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0Q. Dr Soroush!\u00a0 I\u2019d like us to discuss the question of rationality. Would you be so kind as to begin by pointing out the different interpretations that there are of rationality and also mentioning your own chosen interpretation, so that we can go on from there?<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n A. Let me first say that I don\u2019t know what you mean by reason or rationality, and about what rationality you are speaking.\u00a0 This term has its own specific meaning in every school of thought or for every philosopher.\u00a0 For example, for Muslim philosophers, reason is Aristotle\u2019s reason.\u00a0 The moderns, post-moderns, etc. all emphasize a particular view of reason.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 In my article \u201cReason and Freedom\u201d, which appears in the book Sturdier than Ideology<\/em>, I\u2019ve explained that defining reason in a specific way is very difficult.\u00a0 Nevertheless, we can glance at it and outline it.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Reason can be viewed in two senses:<\/span><\/p>\n 1. Reason in the sense of the power of reasoning and ratiocination that God has granted to human beings.\u00a0 And this reason distinguishes human beings from animals.<\/span><\/p>\n 2.<\/span>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Reason in the sense of the substance of this power.<\/span><\/p>\n Let me explain by giving an example.\u00a0 Reason is like teeth, which have the power to chew.\u00a0 But teeth are merely a power and a capability granted to human beings by God.\u00a0 Now, the teeth have to be supplied with food as the substance of chewing. <\/span><\/p>\n Reason in the first sense does not concern us in particular.\u00a0 It suffices for us to know that it distinguishes human beings from animals.\u00a0 But reason and rationality in the second sense is important.\u00a0 In different eras, we encounter different rationalities.\u00a0 Even in a single era, we come across different rationalities, not a single rationality.<\/span><\/p>\n Of course, this is not to deny that there is ever anything self-evident in any era that is common to all rationalities.\u00a0 There are things that are self-evident to the power of reason.\u00a0 But even where these self-evident things are concerned, in any era, there is one particular self-evident thing. For example, nowadays, human rights is one of the self-evident concerns of our era and it is emphasized and taken into account by nearly everyone. <\/span><\/p>\n Now that we have learned that there are different reasons in any era, in inquiring about rationality and reason, we have to ask which reason and rationality we have in mind.\u00a0 For example, Dr Muhammad Abid al-Jabiri is an Arab thinker who uses reason in the positivist sense.\u00a0 In this rationality, the focus is on logic and mathematics.\u00a0 Hence, they view and assess everything from this perspective.\u00a0 So, for example, he sees mysticism as a totally irrational thing, because he assesses it using this rationality.\u00a0 Even his aversion to Shi\u2019ism can be explained in this way.\u00a0 He considers Shi\u2019ism to be laden with mysteries through and through, and he finds nothing rational in it in terms of positivist reason.\u00a0 He believes that things like Shi\u2019i logic and mysticism are nothing but a fairytale because of their incompatibility with positivist reason.\u00a0 When I was in the United States and when the issue of Al-Jabiri came up in my discussions with a Western professor, they accepted this assessment and underlined it. <\/span><\/p>\n In our own country, too, there are people who view things in this same positivist light and, since they know nothing about epistemology and are seeking a rationality in the sense of a rationality without prejudgments, they do not approve of things like mysticism. <\/span><\/p>\n The reason that these people are talking about is the reason that is specific to an individual and that no-one else shares;\u00a0 whereas this is completely wrongheaded and I cannot understand it. \u00a0I\u2019ll explain why it is incorrect.\u00a0 To make myself clear, let me give another example.\u00a0 A while back, I read something by Mr Ramin Jahanbeglou. He said that a Christian priest had said that he never allowed his religious ideas to enter into his philosophical thinking and that he tried to think using a rationality free of prejudgments.\u00a0 First of all, this is a totally unscholarly remark and a product of ignorance about epistemology. Secondly, do we attach importance to a thinker\u2019s assurances about his prejudgments?\u00a0 What matters is the thinker\u2019s writings to which one can turn to see what effect their a priori givens have had on their a posteriori ideas.\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n Look, Marx is the first sociologist of knowledge.\u00a0 Why?\u00a0 Because he considered knowledge to be interconnected, like other institutions.\u00a0 Knowledge today is not individual knowledge;\u00a0 it is a collective thing.\u00a0 What does this mean?\u00a0 It means that it comes into the arena, it comes to me, to you and others and flows and forms within the collectivity.\u00a0 For me, learning is this collective knowledge.\u00a0 An individual may obtain certain bits of learning in private and solitude.\u00a0 This individual is a learned person but learned based on learning that is a product of their own individual mood and condition.\u00a0 For example, it has been said that whenever Khajeh Nassir-al-Din Tusi stumbled on a new idea in solitude, he would become ecstatic and begin to dance.\u00a0 Now, anyone else may also become ecstatic when they come across new ideas in solitude, but this information does not constitute a field of knowledge.\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n When it comes to definitions, we say that, for example, the field of fiqh is that which flows within the community of faqihs;\u00a0 the field of geometry is that which flows in the community of geometers.\u00a0 This fluid field of learning grows or shrinks, is added to or amended within the community of scholars.\u00a0 On this basis, learning is not the accumulation of information in the mind;\u00a0 it consists of propositions that manifest themselves in spoken words and writing, and it is assessed by others.\u00a0 And this learning, which is what I accept, is a collective affair and it is in the course of this process that different reasons emerge.\u00a0 Precisely on this basis, we have philosophical reason, scientific reason and religious reason which coexist and interact with one another.<\/span><\/p>\n Q.\u00a0 You\u2019ve explained what you mean by rationality and reason, and epistemology\u2019s place in it.\u00a0 What I want to ask is:\u00a0 in the light of your definition of Abdolkarim Soroush\u2019s reason, with his many-sided ideas and his aim of creating a new rationality, in what kind of rational climate does he think?<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n A. Of course, putting this question to me may not be the right thing to do. I am not a good judge of my own ideas, because what others see in my words and writings is different from what I see.\u00a0 I express the data in my mind and I hear my own voice in a way that may be different from the way others hear it.\u00a0 For example, when the Mu\u2019tazilites used to run into each other, they would say: you\u2019re well, now tell me how I am.\u00a0 In other words, they viewed people\u2019s disposition from outside, because what others see is hidden to me. Of course, people who follow my ideas can, with a little attention, understand the rationality that I inhibit.\u00a0 Be that as it may, I will say a few words to shed light on the rationality in which I think.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 I am very keen on scientific and empirical reason (empiricism).\u00a0 The fact that I am a chemist myself, increases my liking for it.\u00a0 Of course, this reason is very important and many thinkers are ill informed about it.\u00a0 For example, if you read Hegel\u2019s writings, you\u2019ll this very clearly.\u00a0 He raises points about physics and electricity and other things which are all incorrect and result from his unfamiliarity with this field of learning.\u00a0 Similarly, philosophers have misunderstood some things from a different angle and failed to grasp this field.\u00a0 Let me give an example.\u00a0 Imagine a pigeon flying swiftly through the air and saying: I can fly so fast and so easily in this air;\u00a0 if this air and this slight obstacle was also removed, how much more easily and swiftly would I be able to fly.\u00a0 This statement reveals a failure to understand the function of air, which is one of the causes of flight and its absence would entail the absence of flight.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Philosophers have suffered from this same misconception.\u00a0 They imagined that they could remove all the obstacles impeding thought and even to remove the trifling obstacle known as experience so that they could think better;\u00a0 whereas, the absence of experience entails the absence of scientific thinking.\u00a0 This can be seen very clearly in the Kantian perspective.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 I am a nominalist and it is in this respect that I incline towards the Ash\u2019arites.\u00a0 Nowadays the world rests on modern science and what was discussed in the past as quiddity and essence is not very defensible,\u00a0 and I do not believe in it.\u00a0 Look, because of his concern for essence and quiddity, Ibn Khaldoun has failed to be seen as a sociologist.\u00a0 Hence, probing matters of this kind are not very beneficial.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 At the same time, I like \u201clogic\u201d very much and I try to build my ideas on a logical and coherent foundation.\u00a0 I am also very interested in rational analysis.\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Of course, all of this leads me not to pay too much attention to people\u2019s motives in presenting their ideas and views.\u00a0 Many thinkers attribute irrational criteria and intentions to a line of thinking by reading motives into it. For example, on the question of mysticism, to which I referred in my previous reply, Al-Jabiri considers it irrational precisely because he brings the question of motives into it.\u00a0 But let me ask these people:\u00a0 why and on what basis is mysticism irrational?\u00a0 What I believe is that we have two types of rationality:\u00a0 minimal rationality and maximal rationality.\u00a0 Minimal rationality means that, in any argument that is presented, the components must not be contradictory or paradoxical;\u00a0 it must form a coherent system. I believe in minimal rationality and, on the basis, I say that I don\u2019t consider mysticism irrational. <\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0I also believe \u2013 and I explained this to some extent in my previous reply \u2013 that even my book on the contraction and expansion of religious knowledge is like a crossword puzzle, which I am constantly engaged in solving.\u00a0 Now, if I want to change part of the puzzle, inevitably, other parts will also have to change.\u00a0 And this is what knowledge as a fluid process means.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 I think that I have managed to explain to some extent the theoretical climate which I inhabit for those who are interested.<\/span><\/p>\n Q.\u00a0 By outlining the reason and rationality that you inhabit, you have been able to elucidate to some extent your horizon and perspective. Now, I want to raise an objective example of your thinking in the public sphere so that, within this rational framework, you can explain your elements and principles and even motives.\u00a0 I am speaking about religious democracy where, as a thinker, you seem to place two concepts side by side.\u00a0 Does this democracy have religious elements with religious bases?\u00a0 If so, where does rationality fit in?\u00a0 Basically, tell us what you mean by this term.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n A.\u00a0 Let me begin by saying that I think a great deal about issues in the realm of political philosophy and this subject generates many of my theoretical concerns.\u00a0 I have new ideas in mind that I haven\u2019t had time to put in writing yet.\u00a0 Hence, I\u2019ll try to extract them from my mind as quickly as possible and speak about them so that researchers and critics can have access to them. <\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 At any rate, apart from this point, democracy is one of the propositions that has always been afflicted with confusion and misunderstanding.\u00a0 Hence, many religious people are afraid of approaching it.\u00a0 Politics, too, has its own particular meaning in which religion is not an element.\u00a0 Now, if we say that politics is the study of power or whatever other definition, religion does not appear as an element in it. <\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Of course, we have to make sure that we distinguish between two contexts.\u00a0 The context of definition, which is a mental context, and that which exists outside the mind, which is the objective context.\u00a0 In the context of definition, we opt for a particular definition and say that democracy or politics means this or that.\u00a0 Now, externally and in the objective context, other elements, such as religion, coincide with it and this is a different issue. Pay attention to this point:\u00a0 what occurs externally is coincidence not unity.\u00a0 Let me give an example.\u00a0 Water is water, with its definition and nature.\u00a0 Boiling is not part of its nature.\u00a0 In other words, we do not bring in the element of heat in defining water.\u00a0 Now, in the external and objective world, water coincides with heat and it boils.\u00a0 This is the coincidence of heat and water.\u00a0 In the case of politics or democracy, the same thing applies.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Let me ask you something:\u00a0 do we have secular democracy to make us talk about religious democracy now?\u00a0 Naturally not.\u00a0 We have democracy.\u00a0 But, in the analytic process, it is believed that if something lies at an elevation from this or other than this, it can both be this or other than this.\u00a0 Democracy lies at an elevation of this kind, so that, in the external and objective world, where it coincides with certain things, it can be secular or religious.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 I want to open up the discussion a bit to make this point as clear as possible.\u00a0 Some people assign an essence to democracy and define it in a specific way.\u00a0 I want to say that this is incorrect;\u00a0 that we do not have one democracy but many democracies.\u00a0 In the preceding term, I was teaching a course on democracy and Islam in the United States.\u00a0 The class contained students from various nationalities.\u00a0 I said to them:\u00a0 I don\u2019t expect you to know anything about Islamic debates, I will explain them to you myself.\u00a0 But we discussed the question of democracy together and we began by defining it;\u00a0 from ancient Greece to today.\u00a0 In these definitions, there was no specific definition intrinsic to democracy.\u00a0 What emerged was that a democracy prevailed in different eras depending on the conditions of the time.\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 I said to them:\u00a0 look, in defining democracy, you say, rule by the people over the people.\u00a0 But, today, if you are not a citizen of a country, even if you are a big scholar, you don\u2019t have the right to vote or even to work.\u00a0 You have to note carefully what characteristic you focus on and attach importance to in your definition of democracy.\u00a0 Religious democracy means that the values of religion play a role in the public arena in a society populated by religious people.\u00a0 But, in a secular society, some other characteristic is deemed important and focused on, and that becomes the basis for democracy.\u00a0 Hence, what alters the hue and colour of democracy is a society\u2019s specific characteristics and elements.\u00a0 This democracy both falls within the framework of modern rationality and has identifiable elements.\u00a0 It is in this way that we have a plurality of democracies in the international community.<\/span><\/p>\n Q.\u00a0 When you speak about religious democracy, you are seeking to establish a democratic system in a religious society.\u00a0 Now, let us assume that, one day, the people of a land decide that they do not want religion any more.\u00a0 Would this democracy allow them to set religion aside or does it impose conditions and limitations on the acceptance or rejection of religion?<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n A.\u00a0 Look, your question is ambiguous.\u00a0 Religion is for people and people determine their own relationship to it.\u00a0 In other words, it\u2019s not my business, your business or the ruling system\u2019s business what people do with religion.\u00a0 If people want to turn away from religion, it\u2019s not my business.\u00a0 You have to bear in mind that democracy occurs in the context of practice and it has to have an external manifestation.\u00a0 Even if we speak a thousand times about this or that kind of state, if it has no objective manifestation, it is undemocratic even if it is called democratic. <\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Let me say this: some people see fiqh as religion, whereas fiqh is the religious experience of religion.\u00a0 I am of the opinion that religion\u2019s most important function is ethics.\u00a0 In other words, if we were to change religion, I would put ethics in its place.\u00a0 A religion in which this element is lacking is no longer religion.\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 What I have in mind when I speak about democracy is democracy as the rejection of tyranny.\u00a0 In other words, my proposed democracy is an anti-tyranny theory.\u00a0 It is about what politics we should opt for that will allow us freedom of choice.\u00a0 This is my main intention when I speak about democracy.\u00a0 I\u2019ll put it in writing in the future in order to explain my intention clearly.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span>Translated by Nilou Mobasser<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" An interview with Abdolkarim Soroush by Shargh newspaper December 2003 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Q. Dr Soroush!\u00a0 I\u2019d like us to discuss the question of rationality. Would you be so kind as to begin by pointing out the different interpretations that there are of rationality and also mentioning your own chosen interpretation, so that we can go on […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ngg_post_thumbnail":0},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/drsoroush.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/drsoroush.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/drsoroush.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/drsoroush.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/drsoroush.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=93"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/drsoroush.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/drsoroush.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=93"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/drsoroush.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=93"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/drsoroush.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=93"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}