[Damir]

Adura kaže:
Ako se ova izjava gleda 'ocima zapadnjaka' to bi izgledalo ovako.Gazali je bio protiv 'razuma' posto su 'teolozi' , po zapadnjackom zhvatanju vise skloni dogmama. Samim tim, po zapadnom shvatanju Gazali je bio protiv filozofa , odnosno protiv razuma, odnosno protiv nauke.....i na posljetku Gazali je bio 'razlog'degradacije nekadasnje islamske filozofske misli.

Nakon sto si se provalio, ne ostaje ti nista nego da se pokusavas vaditi na dramaticne razlike medju civilizacijama. Procitaj moj post gore pazljivo. Niti ja, niti autori koje sam citirao nigdje ne kazu da Ghazali (teologija) potpuno ignorira razum, pa ni Ibn Taymiya (ne moras pitati Kalema), a niti kazemo da srednjovjekovni filozofi negiraju postojanje Boga. To bi bilo ravno samoubistvu. NIje niko gloginja jeo. A nisam ni ja.

Jasno je svima da je vecina srednjevjekovnih ucenjaka imala upliva u vise disciplina. Ali to nije bila poslastica samo Islamske, nego i svaih drugih kultura, pa i krscanske. Sjeti se samo Leonarda Da Vincija koji je bio i slikar, i matematicar, i fizicar, i lijecnik, itd.

U svakom slucaju, ako ti jos uvijek nije jasna razlika izmedju teologije i filozofije i njihovog gledista spoznaje, opet procitaj moje gornje postove i osobito citate.

Adura kaže:
Uglavnom Ibn Rush uopste nije polazio od Razuma. Po Ibn Rushdu razum je sluzio u spoznaji Boga,ali razum sam po sebi nije nikada bio cilj.

A ko je ikad rekao da je razum cilj. Samo supljaris. To ni danas cak ni marksisti ne govore. Razum je u filozofiji sredstvo za spoznaju svega, pa i Boga. A Ibn Rushd jeste polazio od razuma i spekulativne misli. Dokaz za to ti je i sljedeci tekst u kojem Ibn Arabi (s ovim ostajem pri temi lanca) opisuje svoj susret s Ibn Rushdom.

"I spent the day in Cordoba at the house of Abu al-Walid Ibn Rushd. He had expressed a desire to meet me in person, since he had heard of certain revelations I had received while in retreat and had shown considerable astonishment concerning them. In consequence my father, who was one of his closest friends, took me with him on the pretext of business, in order to give Ibn Rushd the opportunity of making my acquaintance.

"I was at the time a beardless youth. As I entered the house, the philosopher rose to greet me with all the signs of friendliness and affection, and embraced me. Then he said to me "Yes", and showed pleasure on seeing that I had understood him. I, on the other hand, being aware of the motive for his pleasure, replied "No". Upon this Ibn Rushd drew back from me, his colour changed and he seemed to doubt what he had thought of me. He then put to me the following question, "What solution have you found as a result of mystical illumination and divine inspiration? Does it coincide with what is arrived at by speculative thought?" I replied "Yes and no. Between the Yea and the Nay the spirits take their flight beyond matter, and the necks detach themselves from their bodies".

"At this Ibn Rushd became pale, and I saw him tremble as he muttered the formula 'there is no power save from God'. This was because he understood my allusion... After that he sought from my father to meet me in order to present what he himself had understood: he wanted to know if it conformed with or was different from what I had. He was one of the great masters of reflection and rational consideration. He thanked God that in his own time he had seen someone who had entered into the retreat ignorant and had come out like this - without study, discussion, investigation or reading".
'Sufis of Andalusia' transl. by R. W. J. Austin, 1971. Reprint Beshara Publications, 1988. p23.

Necu prevodit s engleskog, jer vidim da dajes linkove na engleskom, pa si ga bezbeli progovorio. Prije si stalno trazio da ti se prevodi s engleskog. Ali eto samo da prevedem ono podebljano. Ibn Arabi kaze za Ibn Rushda (Averroesa) da je bio jedan od najvecih majstora razmisljanja i racionalnog rasudjivanja, te prije tog kaze da je htio da vidi s mladim Ibn Arabijem da li se njegov racionalisticki pristup poklapa s Ibn Arabijevim mistickim iskustvima.

Adura kaže:
Tema doduse nije filozofija ali sam si se poceo petljati u to , pa bi volio da mi objasnis sta su temelji tvojih saznanja, zacnije koja djela(cisto sumnjam da si citao 'nesuvislost filozofije' i 'nesuvislost nesuvislosti'....za razliku od mene kojem su ta dva djela bila tema na polaganju ispita iz filozofije...9 sam dobio da se pohvalim ).Al da ne grijesim dusu , mozda si ti to i procitao?

Procitao, dragi Adura, prije mnogo godina, a sad s tobom evo i osvjezavam stvari. A meni se sve cini da si ti uletio u neke detalje, a da si preskocio osnovu.

Nego, reci mi kod koga si to polagao islamsku filozofiju i na kojem fakultetu. Mozda ti znam profesora, pa da mu napomenem da rastumaci studentima elementarne razlike izmedju teoloskih i filozofskih argumenata. Ako ti jos uvijek nije jasno, vidi gornje citate u gornjim postovima.