Light in the Cave Tianyi ZHANG
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Light in the Cave A Philosophical Enquiry into the Nature of Suhrawardī’s Illuminationist Philosophy Tianyi ZHANG Trinity College Supervisor: Dr. Tony Street Faculty of Divinity University of Cambridge This dissertation is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy May 2018 Light in the Cave A Philosophical Enquiry into the Nature of Suhrawardī’s Illuminationist Philosophy Tianyi Zhang Shihāb al-Dīn al-Suhrawardī (d. 1191), founder of the Islamic Illuminationist tradition, is one of the most controversial and misunderstood Arabic philosophers. Corbin cultivates Suhrawardī as a mystic who revived ancient Persian wisdom; Gutas reads him as a follower of Avicenna (d. 1037); scholars like Ziai and Walbridge argue that he is an original and serious philosopher. But it seems that no reconstructions of Illuminationist philosophy are satisfactory. I propose a Cave Story approach, which relates Suhrawardī’s ambitious Illuminationist project to Plato’s cave allegory. By following this approach, I present a historical reconstruction of Suhrawardī’s Illuminationist philosophy, focusing on three areas: presential knowledge (epistemology), mental considerations (ontology and the problem of universals), and light metaphysics. Chapter I proves, by solid textual evidence, that Suhrawardī’s four Peripatetic works and Ḥikmat al-Ishrāq (The Philosophy of Illumination, his masterpiece and the only Illuminationist work) constitute one and the same Illuminationist project. Chapter II reconstructs Illuminationist presential knowledge, an original epistemology of particulars (without any universals involved) and the epistemological foundation of Illuminationism. Chapters III and IV prove philosophically that universals must all be mental considerations (i.e. things created by the mind), and real things must be particulars; this is Suhrawardī’s fundamental criticism of Peripatetic metaphysics. Chapter V reconstructs light metaphysics, a serious metaphysics of particulars (not universals). I conclude that Suhrawardī is an original and serious philosopher, who resorts to mysticism only for sound philosophical reasons, and who should not be taken as a follower of Avicenna; his Illuminationism is a philosophy of particulars rather than universals. DECLARATION This dissertation is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaboration except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text. It is not substantially the same as any that I have submitted, or, is being concurrently submitted for a degree or diploma or other qualification at the University of Cambridge or any other University or similar institution except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text. I further state that no substantial part of my dissertation has already been submitted, or, is being concurrently submitted for any such degree, diploma or other qualification at the University of Cambridge or any other University or similar institution except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text. It does not exceed the prescribed word limit for the Degree Committee of the Faculty of Divinity. Word count: 79,147 (including footnotes, references and appendices but excluding bibliography). Acknowledgement My deepest debt of gratitude is owed to my research supervisor, Dr. Tony Street, for teaching me how to be a good historian of philosophy, for spending many afternoons (which were truly enjoyable) discussing my work, and for saving me from countless language mistakes. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Prof. John Marenbon for showing me how to be a good philosopher in the first place, for discussing with me every chapter of my thesis, for many pieces of academic advice, and for holding the Medieval Philosophy Reading Group at Trinity College, Cambridge, from which I, like many others, have benefited a great deal. I am very grateful to Prof. Peter Adamson for raising many significant questions during the oral examination (viva), and for many pieces of advice. Warm thanks are due to Prof. Khaled El-Rouayheb, who kindly offered me many valuable suggestions. I would like to thank Prof. Douglas Hedley for holding the Plotinus Reading Group at the Faculty of Divinity, Cambridge. It was when attending a session of the reading group that I first had the inspiration that Suhrawardī’s Illuminationist project could be related to Plato’s cave allegory. I am also grateful to my colleague Mohammad Saleh Zarepour for many helpful and enjoyable discussions, and to Dr. Evan King for coming up with the brilliant title—Light in the Cave—for my thesis. I am truly grateful to Trinity College for supporting my PhD work by offering me a Trinity External Research Studentship (with the title of “Prince of Wales Student”), and also to Cambridge Trust for offering me a Cambridge International Scholarship (Honorary). Last but not the least, I would like to thank my family, especially my mother, Li Jin, for their endless love and spiritual support. This thesis is dedicated to my father, Yibing Zhang, who always lives in my heart. A Note on Abbreviations and Translations The following abbreviations are used in the dissertation. • Suhrawardī’s works Ḥ.Sh = Suhrawardī. Ḥikmat al-Ishrāq. In: Corbin (ed.) 2001. LMḤ = Al-Suhrawardī. Kitāb al-Lamaḥāt. 1969. LWḤ = Sohrawardī. Al-Talwīḥāt al-Lawḥiyyah Va al-Aršiyyah. 2009. LWḤ3 = Suhrawardī. Kitāb al-Talwīḥāt al-Lawḥiyya wa-l-ʿArshiyya (al-ʿIlm al- Thālith). In: Corbin (ed.) 1952. QWM3 = Suhrawardī. Kitāb al-Muqāwamāt (al-ʿIlm al-Thālith). In: Corbin (ed.) 1952. ṬRḤ3 = Suhrawardī. Kitāb al-Mashāriʿ wa-l-Muṭāraḥāt (al-ʿIlm al-Thālith). In: Corbin (ed.) 1952. • Others’ works I.K1 = Ibn Kammūnah. Sharḥ al-Talwīḥāt al-Lawḥiyyah wa-l-ʿArshiyyah (Vol. 1 Logic). 2012. I.K3 = Ibn Kammūnah. Sharḥ al-Talwīḥāt al-Lawḥiyyah wa-l-ʿArshiyyah (Vol. 3 Metaphysics). 2012. Sha = Shahrazūrī. Sharḥ Ḥikmat al-Ishrāq. 1993. Shī = Shīrāzī. Sharh-i Hikmat al-Ishrāq of Suhrawardī: Commentary on Illuminating Wisdom. 2005. NJ = Avicenna. Kitāb al-Najāt. 1945. Sh.I = Avicenna. Al-Shifāʾ: al-Ilāhiyyāh. 1960. Sh.N.D = Avicenna. Al-Shifāʾ: al-Manṭiq: al-Madkhal. 1952. ShWR = Avicenna. Le livre des Théorèmes et des Avertissements. 1892. RZ2 = Rāzī. Sharḥ al-Ishārāt wa-l-Tanbīhāt. Vol. 2. 2005. • Marks § = section ¶ = paragraph Examples: [Ḥ.Sh 107.9–16, ¶109] = Ḥikmat al-Ishrāq, page 107, line 9 to line 16, in paragraph 109 (if “¶” comes after page and line numbers, the citation is part of a paragraph). [Ḥ.Sh ¶107, 106.12–13] = Ḥikmat al-Ishrāq, the whole paragraph 107, page 106, line 12 to line 13 (if “¶” comes before page and line numbers, the citation is a whole paragraph). All translations in the text are mine unless otherwise indicated. When significant philosophical terms or expressions appear in the text, the Arabic terms and -al-nūr al ,اﻟــــﻨـﻮر اﻟـﻤـﺠــــ ّﺮد) their transliterations (in italic) are given in brackets, e.g. “immaterial light mujarrad)”, according to EI3 system (http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/pages/help/transliteration- islam). Chapters (e.g. Chapter V) and section numbers (e.g. 5.1.1 = Section 5.1.1 in Chapter V) are underlined for clarity. Table of Contents A Story—Suhrawardī’s Illuminationist Project 1 Introduction 3 The Cave Story approach 3 Scope and methodology 6 Chapter I From the Peripatetic Works to Ḥikmat al-Ishrāq 11 —The Relations Between al-Lamaḥāt, al-Talwīḥāt, al-Muqāwamāt, al-Muṭāraḥāt and Ḥikmat al-Ishrāq 1.1 Contents of the four Peripatetic works 14 1.1.1 Al-Talwīḥāt & al-Lamaḥāt 14 1.1.2 Al-Muqāwamāt 17 1.1.3 Al-Muṭāraḥāt 18 1.2 Peripatetic works as an essential part of the Illuminationist project 23 1.3 Significance of the Peripatetic works 26 1.3.1 The first answer: a philosopher of the highest rank 26 1.3.2 Four answers from the Cave Story 29 Chapter II Presential Knowledge and the Nature of Illuminationist Philosophy 33 2.1 The context of the theory of presential knowledge 38 2.2 Establishing Illuminationist presential knowledge 45 2.2.1 Self-apprehension 45 2.2.1.1 The argument from the particularity of the self 45 2.2.1.2 The argument from I-ness 48 2.2.1.3 The argument from the priority of self-knowledge 50 2.2.2 Apprehension of the body and bodily faculties 51 2.2.3 Apprehension of the pain caused by amputation 52 2.2.4 Visual perception 54 2.3 Presence as the nature of all human knowledge 59 2.3.1 Two conditions for knowledge 59 2.3.2 The nature of human knowledge 61 2.3.3 Illumination as the third condition 64 2.4 Presential knowledge as God’s knowledge 66 2.4.1 God’s presential knowledge of everything 66 2.4.2 God’s presential knowledge and His immutability and simplicity 69 2.5 Various degrees of presential knowledge 71 2.6 Summary of Chapter II 74 Chapter III On Mental Considerations—Univocal Existence 77 3.1 Two arguments against real infinite chains 80 3.1.1 Argument I: the argument by correspondence 81 3.1.2 Argument II: “the argument from the throne” 82 3.2 The real consideration—mental consideration distinction 83 3.2.1 What are mental considerations? 83 3.2.1.1 The real property—mental property distinction 83 3.2.1.2 Mental considerations as intellectual predicates 86 3.2.1.3 Why “considerations”? 88 3.2.2 A test for mental considerations 89 3.2.3 Suhrawardī’s purpose 92 3.3 Univocal existence vs. systematically ambiguous existence: Suhrawardī’s ontological position 94 3.3.1 Univocal existence and equivocal existence 96 3.3.2 Systematically ambiguous existence? 97 3.3.3 The relation between systematically ambiguous existence and real quiddity 102 3.4 Univocal