3

This is the gentleman I am referencing:--

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahab_al-Din_Yahya_ibn_Habash_Suhrawardi)

This is an example of his philosophy and/or theology:--

"Whoever knows philosophy (hikmat) and perseveres in thanking and sanctifying the Light of the Lights, will be endowed with royal glory (kharreh) and with luminous splendor (farreh), and—as we have said elsewhere—divine light will further bestow upon him the cloak of royal power and value. Such a person shall then become the natural ruler of the universe. He shall be given aid from the high heavens, and whatever he commands shall be obeyed; and his dreams and inspirations will reach their uppermost, perfect pinnacle." [English]

"و هر که حکمت بداند و بر سپاس و تقدیس نور الانوار مداومت نماید، او را خرّه کیانی بدهند و فرّ نورانی ببخشند، و بارقی الاهی او را کسوت هیبت و بهاء بپوشاند و رئیس طبیعی شود عالم را، و او را از عالم اعلا نصرت رسد و سخن او در عالم علوی مسموع باشد، و خواب و الهام او به کمال رسد." [Translated from Old Persian; not modern, Farsi or Arabic]

-- Hossein Ziai, "The book of radiance", Mazda Publisher, 1998. pg 84-85. Note that Ziai, whose extensive studies establish Suhrawardi as a rationalist thinker rather than an "Oriental mystic" translates the word Hikmat (wisdom) as "philosophy" rather than "wisdom," as is more common.

This is a notable reference:--

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_light)


I should clarify I am much more interested in Zoroastrianism, and relatively less in Islam. --[This is not a comment on the nature of Islam.]--

In which Stack Exchange website should he be discussed? Is this appropriate for the Philosophy Stack Exchange?

  • Reads like metaphysics and categorically not philosophy. – Mr. Kennedy Jul 8 '18 at 1:49
  • 2
    @Mr.Kennedy Hello, my friend. You are welcome to disagree in respectful and civil terms. I am however confused by your usage of the term, metaphysics, as most people would regard metaphysics as a subset of philosophy. – Tautological Revelations Jul 8 '18 at 15:56
  • Philosophers do not argue about imponderable claims; metaphysicians do. Metaphysics are not philosophy, and this because philosophy is "love of wisdom", not "love of metaphysical speculation", not "love of hermeneutics", not "love of dialectic." Wisdom requires knowledge, not opinion, belief or personal view, else how does one "know" who or what is wise? – Mr. Kennedy Jul 8 '18 at 16:07
  • see also: philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/42076/23399 – Mr. Kennedy Jul 8 '18 at 16:32
  • And what is the knowledge obtained or hypothesis advanced by "Whoever knows philosophy (hikmat) and perseveres in thanking and sanctifying the Light of the Lights, will be endowed with royal glory (kharreh) and with luminous splendor (farreh), and—as we have said elsewhere—divine light will further bestow upon him the cloak of royal power and value"? Hint: none. – Mr. Kennedy Jul 8 '18 at 17:16
  • See this post here: (philosophy.meta.stackexchange.com/a/3697/30380) – Tautological Revelations Jul 8 '18 at 17:18
  • Feel free to expand your comments into a full answer, so long as the answer complies with Stack Exchange's standards, and is of high-quality; etc., etc. – Tautological Revelations Jul 8 '18 at 17:25
  • I'll stop this discussion here. – Tautological Revelations Jul 8 '18 at 17:29
  • Thank you for your civil input. – Tautological Revelations Jul 10 '18 at 9:21
  • @TautologicalRevelations - You are right to question the separation of metaphysics from philosophy. They are the same thing. I have no idea how a person could do philosophy but not metaphysics. I don't know anywhere on SE you can discuss this philosopher. You could discuss his metaphysical view on Philosophy SE if you can extract it from his flowery presentation. He does not appear to be theist and seems to be promoting the perennial message of mysticism, which may be found in Zoroastrianism. You may not be looking into Islam but keep an eye out for Sufism. . – PeterJ Aug 7 at 12:52
  • @PeterJ Thank you for your input. I'll consider what you have to say. It is true that he does not fit 100% into any Stack Exchange website, but we can still try our best to find the best website for this. I supplied two sources in my previous comment from Western Canon philosophy. – Tautological Revelations Aug 8 at 12:06
  • @PeterJ "[...] ... if you can extract it from his flowery presentation. [...]" ~ PeterJ This is a legitimate concern. – Tautological Revelations Aug 10 at 11:17
8

Given the Wikipedia article and the quote are correct, I see nothing wrong in exploring his writings in the context of Philosophy.SE:

He seemingly argued for a cosmology, including some kind of a monistic ontology (emanation from the light of lights - somewhat similar to Spinoza but with more of an idealistic flavour), and critically commented on Avicenna. This is philosophical metaphysics, even if it may be in context of and reference to theological considerations. This is simply how philosophy at that time looked like everywhere (more precisely: where Abrahamic religions were prevalent) and I cannot see how it is much different from the philosophy of e.g. the Christian St. Thomas Aquinas or especially the Judaic Kabbalah.

That being said: As long as the question and its answers can be based on English translations, it should be perfectly fine to ask about the specifically philosophical aspects of his work. The more this goes from philosophical considerations towards the specific questions of how to interpret, say, Allah in the light of Qur'an (or other religious texts) according to the cosmology developed, this becomes more of a borderline case, as this tips into specifically theological considerations.

  • This comment promptly resolved the issue. So, I'm going to mark this question as answered. TY for your input. :) :D – Tautological Revelations Jul 2 '18 at 9:39

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .