Content area
Full Text
The "major Islamic philosophers," writes Deborah Black, "produced no works dedicated to aesthetics, although their writings do address issues that contemporary philosophers might study under that heading."1 The aim of this essay is to show how classical Islamic philosophy may be studied within a framework of aesthetics. To achieve this goal, I will bring together the metaphysics of Abu Hamid al-Ghazali (1058-1111)2 and the aesthetics of Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860). In comparing and contrasting al-Ghazali with Schopenhauer the focus will be on the underlying themes common to both thinkers. The two central themes involve the issues of suffering and knowledge. There are, in addition, five shared themes that will emerge from the analysis to follow. The commonalities that emerge will also serve to highlight important differences, especially with regard to presuppositions made by each author. Importantly, though, it will be argued that due to the shared themes, Schopenhauer's aesthetics can act as a framework to view the metaphysics of al-Ghazali as a theory of aesthetics.
Al-Ghazali on Suffering
The source of suffering, for al-Ghazali, was located in his desire for "the essence" of knowledge. Suffering for him began in his youth, when the realization dawned on him that within his community there existed a parity among the different faiths. He noted that the tendency was for the Christian children to grow up as Christians, young Jews to grow up in Judaism, and young Muslims in Islam.3 This observed parity subsequently had the effect of loosening the grip of tradition and conformism. Al- Ghazali then describes an upsurge of a powerful "interior force" within him, desiring only certainty about the essence of knowledge:
Certain knowledge is that in which the thing known reveals itself without leaving any room for doubt or any possibility of error or illusion, nor can the heart allow such a possibility. One must be protected from error, and should be so bound to certainty that any attempt, for example, to transform a stone into gold or a stick into a serpent would not raise doubts or engender contrary probabilities. I know very well that ten is more than three. If anyone tries to dissuade me by saying, "No three is more than ten," and wants to prove it by changing in front of...