Therese-Anne Druart

Where should one begin to study Arabic Philosophy?, January 25, 2007

First, I include the table of contents because it isn't included here on Amazon:

Table of Contents:

Acknowledgments, p. v;
Preface, p. vii;
Majid Fakhry; "The Arabs and the Encounter with Philosophy"; pp 1-17;
Fadlou Shehadi; Commentary: "The Continuity in Greek-Islamic Philosophy"; pp 19-25;
Therese-Anne Druart; "The Soul and Body Problem: Avicenna and Descartes"; pp 27-49;
Thomas P. McTighe; Commentary: "Further Remarks on Avicenna and Descartes"; pp 51-54;
Charles E. Butterworth; "The Study of Arabic Philosophy Today" w/ Appendix; pp 55 - 140;
George N. Atiyeh; Commentary: "Another Aspect of Arabic Philosophy"; pp 141-154;
Contributors, p. 155;
Index, p. 157;

The article by Butterworth is especially noteworthy; it is a wonderful, if dated, resource on the state of research in the study of Arabic Philosophy of a generation ago. The frank nature of this essay by Butterworth is really quite remarkable. For instance, he labels the work of F. W. Zimmerman and O. Leaman 'misosophic, misologist, and philodoxic'. Butterworth goes on to say of Zimmerman that his "position is set forth quite clearly in the preface and introduction to his previously cited translation of al-Farabi's commentaries On Aristotle's 'De Interpretatione' and rests on the assumption that the Arabs have no philosophy of their own..." Butterworth quotes Leaman as saying that these Islamic philosophers "were perfectly capable of writing on either religion or philosophy without worrying about the relationship one has to the other." (p. 98) Implying, of course, that only we 'wised-up' moderns could ever wonder about the connection! This whole section of Butterworth's essay, pages 94 - 98, deserves to be considered carefully.

Now, I can hear many of you objecting that Butterworth is a Straussian... Gasp! Well, so he is; but none of the other contributors (Majid Fakhry, Fadlou Shehadi, Therese-Anne Druart, and George N. Atiyeh) are and both Druart (in the Preface) and Atiyeh treat Butterworth's article with respect. Indeed, Atiyeh in his reply to (actually, more of a continuation of) Butterworth's article does not bother to defend either Leaman or Zimmerman. In fact, he doesn't even mention them. Butterworth, near the end of his essay says of Leaman's 'Introduction to Medieval Islamic Philosophy' that it "caused something of a stir among those interested in Arabic Philosophy." (page 139.) The note hanging off this remark cites only two reviews, one of Butterworth and the other by the well-respected Michael Marmura.

Butterworth's article is really aimed at a position that was once more common in academic circles in the West; the belief that Arabic (and/or Islamic) Medieval philosophy merely existed as a conduit of ancient philosophy to the Latin West. Now, a generation later, one can only hope that this view is a museum piece. The unsigned Preface (I assume by Druart) says of Butterworth's paper that it, "is really a mine of information. The research tools available for the study of Arabic Philosophy are few and often of poor quality. One can only be grateful for his pioneering work in presenting such an introduction to current research in this field of study, even though not everyone will fully agree with some of his evaluations." The targets of Butterworth's 'evaluations', btw, are not those that deny the centrality of political philosophy, as the Straussians understand it, in Medieval Arabic philosophy but rather those that deny the originality and importance of the Arabic contribution to philosophy in the Middle Ages.

Now, once you grant all that will the scholarship on the Falasifa (i.e., Islamic philosophers) be a perpetual orgy of agreement? But this collection is full of scholarly disagreement! For instance, in his article Fakhry concentrates on the first encounter between the Falasifa, the ancient Greeks and the West during the Middle Ages. In his commentary on this essay Shehadi objects that Fakhry concentrates far too much on the most thoroughly Greek trends of the Arabic philosophers and thus misses that "one should have no hesitation in calling al-Ghazali and Abd al-Jabbar philosophers." I think the case for Ghazali stronger than the case for Jabbar but that is merely a quibble on my part. I found myself in agreement with much of this article by Shehadi; and also the article by Fakhry, - after all, they aren't only at cross purposes... The discussion between Druart and McTighe was also quite interesting. I haven't read enough of contemporary Islamo-Arabic philosophy to even risk an opinion on the article by Atiyeh.

The point is that there is scholarship on the medieval Falasifa that is as controversial, interesting and informative as contemporary scholarship on ancient and modern philosophy. The scholars and works discussed by Butterworth will provide the beginning student many excellent places to start his studies. For example, some of the authors I discovered in this article when I first saw it back at the end of the eightiies, and am grateful that I did, are Alfred L. Ivry, Barry Kogan, Muhsin Mahdi, Michael Marmura, Shlomo Pines, and Mohamed Sherif. Over the years I have often used this article in order to decide what author or book to read next.

So, if you are at all interested in Arabic (or Islamic) philosophy all these essays will interest you. And if you are starting out in the study of the Falasifa Butterworth's article will be a godsend. Unfortunately, his article ends, rather the appendix to it ends, in 1987. Now, a generation later, I say that we could surely use another article in the same vein!… (mer)