Two years ago I undertook a difficult and challenging path, inspired by the research I had done for my undergraduate thesis. I had wanted to find out more about the underpinnings of politics and International Relations and was particularly intrigued by the philosophical background of Ruhollah Khomeini and Dr Ali Shariati. Revolutionary Islamism, and in particular the Iranian experience of it, seemed to spark a different interpretation and evaluation of Islam than I had previously imagined. The tired dogma of separating religion from the state was something I had never really questioned until I was introduced to Shariati, Khomeini and, later on, Qutb. Today I submitted my final thesis, thus completing the requirements for my Masters in Philosophy and the journey has been a fascinating one.
When I first began philosophy, I was quicky bewildered by the depth, scale and diversity of the people I was asked to read about, yet I also found that it took me almost a year to collect myself and gain any bearings on the subject. This was because the style that my university had opted for was to introduce us to philosophy with what I now believe is a sterile, almost clinical division of the subject into subject areas. The introductory subject of General Philosophy was divided into the horrifyingly named categories of Logic and Metaphysics, Epistemology and Methodology, Ethics and Political Philosophy. I was swimming in an ocean, in complete darkness, and had no idea where to begin. The classes on logic were difficult for me to place in any context and the books we were asked to read on ethics made no sense whatseover, they just started talking about a subject, posed some dilemma's, and proposed solutions that felt like somebody was pinning jelly to the wall. Political Philosophy was focused almost exclusively on the writings of the dreadful John Rawls, Robert Nozick and a dash of Mill. In short, it was absolutely awful.
My first big break began when I started with Greek Philosophy. The writings were in clear language, they had a historical context and background that I was familiar with, and they possessed an amazing depth and many layers of complexity that I had found was missing from the English and American philosophical texts I was being asked to study. Plato's Republic had been a strong favourite of mine since my undergraduate days, but truly grasping the scope of what this work was meant to accomplish astounded me. In my first year, I trundled along clumsily, working my way through Plato's texts and trying to understand. Aristotle was not so much of a favourite of mine in that period, and I favoured the literary flare which is Plato's dialogues, finding them more accessible and less intimidating. This changed with my second year though.
In that year I began Arabic philosophy, and reading Kindi, al Farabi and Avicenna had an enormous impact on the way I would approach the subject. What had been an unmountable horse in the first year now became tamed, contextualised and sized. I found an enormous appreciation of the Aristotelian project. Metaphysics made sense after I read al Kindi's "On First Philosophy" and logic was, for the first time, brought to life by my reading of al Farabi and Avicenna. The Arabs studied philosophy, and wrote down their thoughts, as intelligent men who were trying to understand, and then explain, what the Greeks had been trying to say. They were not always right, but as an introduction to the subject it was invaluable to me. I picked up Plato's texts again, seeing them in a new light. Then when I went to Syria I had the complete works of Aristotle printed out at a local stationery so that I can refer to them easily in my research or to read parts of it when I had spare time. For the first time during my course I could actually see why philosophy was called the mother of all sciences. Surprisingly, reading Kant, Nietzsche or Foucault was no longer as difficult or as bewildering and awe-inspiring as I had first imagined them to be. When I say awe-inspiring, it is the sheer reverence I may have felt in coming across their powerful statements with all their explanatory magic of the modern condition. I read Kant and saw the shadow of Aristotle in his ethics, Nietszche was clearer in his writings and Foucalt was, well, Foucalt - a flash in the pan with a funky name, though he is still kind of a big deal. Truly I could see the truth of the statement that all philosophy after Plato and Aristotle was merely a footnote.
Some will disagree I am sure, and they are welcome to jump onto this subject from wherever they see fit or find it more comfortable. But would you rather drink from the origin of the water fountain where the water is cleaner, even if colder, than from the pool with all the floating matter? Surprisingly some people opt for the latter and in those cases I must concede that even philosophy is no cure for a distorted soul. Regardless, after almost two years on the subject I feel I still know very little if nothing at all, a humbling fact. Yet the subject has made a huge impact on my perspective, arguments and general outlook. I am still not certain of which path to continue on from here, but far from surrendering to a bewildered nihilism, I emerge with a sense of purpose and confidence.
.
