Medieval Isma'ili Neoplatonism

[smithm29]

I’m working on a project on Isma’ili Neoplatonism at Holy Apostles College and Seminary. Part of the project requires that I track my progress with a blog, which I’m keeping at arabicphilosophy.wordpress.com (the name is a bit of a misnomer, as the primary philosophers I’m working on are not Arabs, but Persians). These are some of the guys whose work led to the development of Aquinas’ philosophy, even if in a roundabout way. If anybody is interested in the Islamic Neoplatonism of the Ismai’li (specifically al-Sijistani, but also al-Kirmani to a lesser extent), I invite you to my blog to follow my progress, comment when I get something wrong, and maybe point out resources that I’m unaware of.

Here I’ve copied the text from my “about” page so that you can have an idea what I will be writing about over the next two months or so.

It seems that what I am searching for has changed since I first wrote this “about” page. A detailed thesis will follow in a week or two, but here is a brief outline of what I intend to do, as I initially posted on another forum when I was looking for information.

According to the early “Islamic” neoplatonists like al-Farabi and ibn Sina, God did not create the world. (I put Islamic in scare quotes because I do not believe most Muslims would consider that an acceptable view.) Instead, it emanated from him by necessity, the same way that heat emanates from me by necessity. al-Sijistani and al-Kirmani maintained the emanationist viewpoint, but they understood the need for God to create, so in their system, God created the first intellect. When the first intellect contemplated its perfection, the rest of the universe emanated from it. For them, God is so separate from all of creation that we cannot even contemplate him, and instead contemplate the first intellect. Prophets also receive prophecy by participating in the first intellect- and after death, we return to the first intellect. All of this is demanded in their system because of their strict formulation of Tawhid.

Having said all of that, no- I don’t believe that al-Sijistani and al-Kirmani are in the mainstream. In fact, I think the consequences of their formulation of Tawhid and subsequent cosmology sets up an alternate god in the form of what they call the “First Intellect”. In their system, his sole purpose is to create the first intellect, who is then responsible for the entire history of the universe. I want to show how they reduce God to an impotent being, more comparable to Anaxagoras’ nous than to God as understood by Muslims, and how their system requires that the true object of worship is the first intellect, not the creator.

 

[levinas12]

I’m working on a project on Isma’ili Neoplatonism

There was tension in Neo-Platonism … whether God was a part of the universe … or totally outside (in Plotinus, the “One” which is beyond “Being”) … how does this show up in Isma’ili … I haven’t had a chance yet to visit the blog …

 

[smithm29]

In Isma’ili thought, God is completely outside of creation, unknowable and entirely unlike anything which can be described. I don’t know if you’re familiar with the “double negation” of al-Sijistani, but it should help explain how “alien” their conception God is. It basically says that nothing can be said of God, but that nothing can be not said of God.

So…

God is not a substance. God is not not a substance.
God is not incorporeal. God is not not incorporeal.

…and so on.

 

[levinas12]

In Isma’ili thought, God is completely outside of creation, unknowable and entirely unlike anything which can be described. I don’t know if you’re familiar with the “double negation” of al-Sijistani, but it should help explain how “alien” their conception God is. It basically says that nothing can be said of God, but that nothing can be not said of God.

So…

God is not a substance. God is not not a substance.
God is not incorporeal. God is not not incorporeal.

…and so on.

Is this similar to negative theology in the Christian tradition? In Isma’ili thought, does the “unknowable and totally other” God reveal Himself to us … because how else would we know about Him?

 

[smithm29]

I don’t know much about theology, but from what I understand of negative theology, Isma’ili double negation goes a step further. Instead of saying what God is not, you can say nothing about God. In negative theology, God is not X. In Isma’ili double negation, God is not X, however, God is not not X.

“because how else would we know about Him?”

We don’t. According to al-Sijistani, we know about the first intellect, not God. Prophecy even comes through the first/universal intellect, which is the sole created being.

 

[Betterave]

According to the early “Islamic” neoplatonists like al-Farabi and ibn Sina, God did not create the world. (I put Islamic in scare quotes because I do not believe most Muslims would consider that an acceptable view.) Instead, it emanated from him by necessity, the same way that heat emanates from me by necessity. al-Sijistani and al-Kirmani maintained the emanationist viewpoint, but they understood the need for God to create, so in their system, God created the first intellect. When the first intellect contemplated its perfection, the rest of the universe emanated from it. For them, God is so separate from all of creation that we cannot even contemplate him, and instead contemplate the first intellect. Prophets also receive prophecy by participating in the first intellect- and after death, we return to the first intellect. All of this is demanded in their system because of their strict formulation of Tawhid.

Fascinating. So God creates, rather than emanates, because *creation *is not necessary (but presumably also not not necessary?), while *emanation *is necessary (and thus cannot properly apply to God).

The First Intellect contemplates and thus emanates as a matter of strict necessity. (In other words, God freely creates a world by creating a subsistent principle of order from which the world is derived and governed, and this according to the necessity of this principle’s own created orderliness.)

So does this imply that God does not *contemplate *what he creates (though he also does not not contemplate it) - instead, he rather *wills *it (and we cannot contemplate God because willing as such surpasses intellection and is not a possible object of contemplation)?

In saying we cannot contemplate God, is there a way to avoid saying that we also cannot not contemplate God?

 

[Nooj]

(the name is a bit of a misnomer, as the primary philosophers I’m working on are not Arabs, but Persians).

I think it’s fair to call them part of Arabic philosophy if they wrote their works in Arabic.

Fascinating stuff. So much of what is written about Islam in the general public is the Sunni branch of it. Rarely the Shi’a, even rarer the various denominations within that. Do you know how well received the works you’re studying are within the Ismai’li tradition? Are they rejected or still studied?

 

[smithm29]

Fascinating. So God creates, rather than emanates, because *creation *is not necessary (but presumably also not not necessary?), while *emanation *is necessary (and thus cannot properly apply to God).

The First Intellect contemplates and thus emanates as a matter of strict necessity. (In other words, God freely creates a world by creating a subsistent principle of order from which the world is derived and governed, and this according to the necessity of this principle’s own created orderliness.)

So does this imply that God does not *contemplate *what he creates (though he also does not not contemplate it) - instead, he rather *wills *it (and we cannot contemplate God because willing as such surpasses intellection and is not a possible object of contemplation)?

In saying we cannot contemplate God, is there a way to avoid saying that we also cannot not contemplate God?

There’s actually a few really interesting questions here. I don’t have time to answer them now, but I’ll try to get at them tonight. I think I’ve broken them down here- correct me if I have them wrong.

1. *]God creates rather than emanates
   *]Creation is not necessary
   *]Emanation is necessary
   *]God does not contemplate creation (God does not know particulars)
   *]Does double negation apply to us and our actions related to God, or simply God and our understanding of him?
   

   I think it’s fair to call them part of Arabic philosophy if they wrote their works in Arabic.
   
   Fascinating stuff. So much of what is written about Islam in the general public is the Sunni branch of it. Rarely the Shi’a, even rarer the various denominations within that. Do you know how well received the works you’re studying are within the Ismai’li tradition? Are they rejected or still studied?

   My main interest has been in these two historical thinkers, but I’ve found a few things about the current state of things. Isma’ili are considered heretics by many Shi’ite, and simply non-Muslims by many more. They are accused of undermining the Qu’ran by believing that God is unknowable and unapproachable. So, whether they still accept these teachings or not, they’re accused by other Shi’ites of accepting them.

 

[Betterave]

There’s actually a few really interesting questions here. I don’t have time to answer them now, but I’ll try to get at them tonight. I think I’ve broken them down here- correct me if I have them wrong.

1. *]God creates rather than emanates [right, and is it possible to spell out what exactly that means?]
   *]Creation is not necessary [but not not necessary?]
   *]Emanation is necessary
   *]God does not contemplate creation (God does not know particulars) [but also God does not not know particulars?]
   *]Does double negation apply to us and our actions related to God, or simply God and our understanding of him? [this smells like a false dichotomy… or rather a distinction without a difference]

 

[smithm29]

1. *]God creates rather than emanates [right, and is it possible to spell out what exactly that means?]
   *]Creation is not necessary [but not not necessary?]
   *]Emanation is necessary
   *]God does not contemplate creation (God does not know particulars) [but also God does not not know particulars?]
   *]Does double negation apply to us and our actions related to God, or simply God and our understanding of him? [this smells like a false dichotomy… or rather a distinction without a difference]

1. 
   I’m waiting on a front end alignment right now, so I thought I’d take a quick stab. I’m on an Archos, so forgive typos. The double negation is used to deny attributes, not actions. So you must say “God is not A”. That must immediately be followed up with “God is not (not A)”. Saying that God originated thefirst intellect doesn’t require negation because it is not descrbing God.
   
   Note the word “originates” (ibda’ – technically ‘the origination’) instead of “creates”. For al-Sijistani, origonation is God’s alone, and it implies no change in God. There is, therefore, no need to negat it. Is it pure wordplay? Maybe.

 

[smithm29]

I’ve added some notes on Paul Walker’s book about al-Kirmani. al-Kirmani wrote after al-Sijistani and changed some of his ideas on cosmology. He maintained al-Sijistani’s double negation, but went further to remove God from creation and intelligibility. He is also quite clear about the fact that it is the first intellect that we aspire to be most like, because it only reflects on itself and on the God it knows it came from.

Anyway, if there’s interest: arabicphilosophy.wordpress.com/2011/02/27/al-kirmani-notes/

I know there are questions remaining here that I haven’t yet answered. Hopefully, they’ll be answered in various posts through the coming week.

 

[levinas12]

This is beginning to sound like Derrida and “differance” … or Heidegger with Sein under erasure … neither “x” nor “not x” … and neither that also …

 

[smithm29]

I’m afraid that my knowledge of phenomeology is almost non-existent. What little I have comes solely from von Hildebrand’s book The Heart (which I really recommend to anyone with an interest in affectivity).

I’ve posted quite a bit since the last time, including a rough thesis. The gist of what I’m looking for is this: since the Isma’ili have a completely transcendent God who cannot be known by analogy or through His attributes, how do they worship? The answer is that true worship consists in knowing that God is unknowable, that He is One, and in contemplation of the universal intellect, which is the only being originated directly from God.