Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, Guest Anon said:

But, doesn't inductive reasoning, by its nature, produce probabilistic conclusions as opposed to certitude? In light of this, I'm curious to know how induction can provide certitude.

That is what Shahid Sadr was trying to argue against. He argued that there comes a point where inductive reasoning can also result in certainty (what he calls al-tawalud al-dhaati - autogenousism). It is too complicated to explain on a ShiaChat post, but you can see the application of his epistemology in his works on legal theory very clearly, in 'ilm al-rijal, and also in theology (see the work The Revealer, The Messenger, The Message).

Wasalam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/18/2019 at 8:42 AM, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

Salam,

So, recently I watched this video where the guy was giving an introduction to Ibn Taymiyya's book, rad 'ala mantiqiyyin, where Ibn Taymiyya refuted aristotelian logic, including the concept that deduction can bring certainty. The translation of the book can be read here but if you are not familiar with aristotelian logic, it would be a pretty difficult read. 

I was just wondering if someone here who is well versed with aristotelian logic could explain to me if Ibn Taymiyya's arguments were sound and valid and if in fact Ibn Taymiyya did indeed prove that logic can indeed not bring certainty. 

If it is true that deduction cannot bring certainty, then I do not see how we can have certainty in the existence of God.

Now I was reading a work which explained Ibn Taymiyya's alternative to logic, and it was the fitra, or the idea that if we were not corrupted, we have a willingness to accept that Islam is the truth. Ibn Taymiyya's proof for this is basically the general human psyche to desire a higher purpose and to call on God in times of need. Although, I do not see how these proofs are strong. As in how does a tendency to do certain actions or believe in things actually make those beliefs true and certain? I just don't see how it follows. How would one actually prove those beliefs to be true? Arguing like this to an atheist, that "nah I won't prove to you that God exists with deduction because in fact it is an inherent disposition" seems very fallacious.

Ibn Taymiyyah knows what he is talking about.  

I would take that advise very very seriously.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Guest Anon said:

But, doesn't inductive reasoning, by its nature, produce probabilistic conclusions as opposed to certitude? For example, every house I have observed on a particular street is red, therefore the next house I see  on the street is also probably going to be red. In contrast, deductive arguments, which are sound and valid, provide certain conclusions, like mathematical truths.

In light of this, I'm curious to know how induction can provide certitude.

 

23 hours ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

The problem isn't inherently with deduction. The problem is with the majority of premises used in deduction and that they do not provide the type of certainty that the philosophers are actually trying to seek. Even Shahid Sadr has critiqued this extensively, hence he had to come up with his induction-based certainty (in his work Logical Foundations of Induction).

Ibn Hussein,  I would really appreciate if you could give us an example of his induction based certitude.  You have sparked my curiosity as well.

Upon perusing online and skimming through some of Sadr’s works it appears so far that Sadr is not using “certitude” to mean 100% certitude?  He is using certitude to mean something very practical, perhaps something highly reliable.  

But it doesn’t quite qualify as “absolute certitude” in my books.

 

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

That is what Shahid Sadr was trying to argue against. He argued that there comes a point where inductive reasoning can also result in certainty (what he calls al-tawalud al-dhaati - autogenousism). It is too complicated to explain on a ShiaChat post, but you can see the application of his epistemology in his works on legal theory very clearly, in 'ilm al-rijal, and also in theology (see the work The Revealer, The Messenger, The Message).

Wasalam

With al-Sadr's inductive process, can the same theological conclusions of God not being in a place or having a body and that he doesn't have parts like a face or hands be reached? As well as concepts like infallibility and the necessity of nubuwwah and imamah with the principle of lutf? And also, could one use this process to reach similar conclusions of Shia philosophers on concepts like asalah al-wujud? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...