143 - Special Delivery: al-Ghazālī

Posted on

Al-Ghazālī’s search for truth leads him to philosophy, Ash'arite theology, and ultimately the mystical tradition of Ṣūfism.

download-icon

Themes:

Further Reading

Translations of the Deliverer from Error:

• W.M. Watt, The Faith and Practice of al-Ghazālī (London: 1951).

• R.J. McCarthy, Freedom and fulfillment (Boston: 1980).

 

• R.M. Frank, “Al-Ghazālī on Taqlīd. Scholars, Theologians and Philosophers,” Zeitschrift für die Geschichte der arabisch-islamischen Wissenschaften 7 (1991-92), 207-52.

• R.M. Frank, Creation and the Cosmic System: al- Ghazālī and Avicenna (Heidelberg: 1992).

• R.M. Frank, Al-Ghazālī and the Ash‘arite School (Durham: 1994).

• F. Griffel, Al-Ghazālī’s Philosophical Theology (New York: 2009).

• M.E. Marmura, Probing in Islamic Philosophy (Binghamton: 2005).

• F. Shehadi, Ghazālī’s Unique Unknowable God (Leiden: 1964).

• M.W. Watt, Muslim Intellectual: A Study of al-Ghazālī (Edinburgh: 1963).

In Our Time: al-Ghazali

Comments

bad_businessman on 3 June 2014

Losers?

"If you are a regular listener to this podcast, you have heard an awful lot of philosophy by now. How has it made you feel? Hopefully, curious, entertained and occasionally even enlightened. But it doesn't always produce these beneficial effects. Some people, unbelievably enough, actually think it's pointless and boring. Losers."

Like, seriously? As if this podcast and works it is covering aren't at times condescendingly elitist enough. I'm just an regular layman who had no knowledge of the field of philosophy whatsoever before listening to HoPwag, and I admit your podcast has been incredibly educating, but I'm glad I didn't start from this embarrasingly awful introduction. I get that it's just a joke, but paired with an unnatural scripted delivery it would be enough to put me off your podcast completely. I hope it wasn't intentional.

In reply to by bad_businessman

Peter Adamson on 3 June 2014

Losers

Gosh, I'm sorry you took the joke that way - I guess I thought no one would take it seriously. Hard to judge with humor sometimes. Perhaps you're right that I didn't deliver it well; I will think about rephrasing for the book version, since making people feel that philosophy is elitist or not for everyone is the opposite of what I want, of course.

In reply to by Peter Adamson

Jack Hughes on 28 August 2014

Don't Mind Him

Hi Peter,
I just wanted to say that I for one didn't take the joke in an offensive and elitist way and didn't want you to get the impression that this was how your average listener felt (not that I'm qualified to make that statement).
Keep up the good work!

In reply to by Jack Hughes

Bklaase on 24 August 2017

losers

We (me and my girlfriend), just listened to this episode and were very entertained by this particular bit. For us at least the delivery was perfect! We like the way such jokes do not try to draw attention to themselves ("am I right!?"-dynamic), and they are pretty sparse and not distracting at all.
Great podcast!

In reply to by Bklaase

Peter Adamson on 24 August 2017

Losers

Thanks - that's reassuring. I think I did cut it from the book version though!

In reply to by Peter Adamson

Spencer on 20 November 2022

Introductory text is just fine

I am listening to the History of Asia podcast. The second season is on Persia. In the current episode (#11), the presenter, Belgian Kristof Aerts, is discussing AL-GHAZĀLĪ. I thought hmmm, I think Peter discussed that guy. And sure enough, there are several episodes on him. So, these episodes have now been added to my ever-growing queue of history podcast episodes to listen (or re-listen) to.

By the way, I see the complaint about the introductory comments. I recall those comments from several years ago and did not for a millisecond think that Peter was being serious. I too at times get annoyed at things podcasters say, so I have some sympathy to the initial poster. But Peter's sense of humor gets a thumb's up from me.

In reply to by bad_businessman

Libertarian Heretic on 4 September 2017

The elite.

Don't worry buddy Trump is going to drain the swamp. That's why this toffee nose academic, Peter Adamson, is in Germany already. Soon enough we'll be rid of philosophers, environmental scientist and international relations scholars and all their so-called 'expertise'.
#MAGA
*sarcasm* for anyone that still needs a hint at this point on the thread.

In reply to by Libertarian Heretic

Peter Adamson on 5 September 2017

Teutonic Peter

Actually I didn't flee to Germany because of Trump, in fact I left the USA in summer 2000, so just before the election (or "election") of George W. Bush. So, a case of preemptive fleeing.

In reply to by Libertarian Heretic

Just a listener on 25 April 2018

You know, this is probably

You know, this is probably the saddest comment I've encountered yet. This site is filled to the brim with insightfulness and I have a great appreciation for the podcasts' host. All jokes I've picked up on have been gladly welcomed, so I'd agree that the fellar upstairs was a tad bit overblown, but the unjust picture you frame solely by that comment is incredibly distruptive and negative compared to Adamsons' approach regarding both his reply and the atmosphere his podcast tries to set up.

In reply to by bad_businessman

Brennan on 3 December 2018

Perspective?

Yes, How elitist of Peter Adamson for going through the entire history of philosophy, segmenting it into easily listenable parts and then sharing it with the world... for free. If only philosophers could come down from their ivory towers and speak to the people.  

 

Truth be told this is the first History of Philosophy podcast I have listened to. I giggled at the joke then proceed to enjoy the podcast. Thank you Peter.

Mr.Potatohead on 3 July 2017

Foucault a Ghazzalian?

Wael B. Hallaq wrote in one of his books something to the effect of 'Foucault was essentially a Ghazzalian' (I'm paraphrasing). I'm a bit mystified by this, seems like an unusual comparison really. I can't say I know all that much about Ghazali, but how exactly is Foucault a "Ghazalian'? He seemed to be talking about Shari'ah, ethics and morality at the time. Are there any similarities, or potential similarities, between Ghazali's ethical writings and the stuff Foucault was going on about in his day? I know Foucault earned a bit of infamy as a kind of Islamophile, we know he visited Iran, met Khomeini, read Henry Corbin and taught in Tunis, is it possible he even knew or Ghazali?

In reply to by Mr.Potatohead

Peter Adamson on 4 July 2017

Foucault and Ghazali

Wow, that's a weird one. Not sure I know enough about Foucault to guess!

In reply to by Peter Adamson

Mrpotatohead on 4 July 2017

Foucault and Ghazali sittin' in a tree....

Well it can't hurt to ask. I think he was trying to compare Foucault's ideas about a 'technologies of the self' to an ethical idea that Ghazali apparently has: 'techniques', which I think have to do with piety, prayer, following the law etc. Though again, I know virtually nothing about Ghazali. All this feels pretty vague and mystifying. You don't happen to know of any half decent monographs on Ghazali's ethics? If not what might he mean by 'techniques'? 

In reply to by Mrpotatohead

Peter Adamson on 5 July 2017

K-I-S-S-I-N-G

Oh, I see. Actually that does make a certain amount of sense: Ghazali like many ancient and medieval ethicists has a kind of "spiritual exercise" approach, as explored in the ancient context by Hadot (who was, I suppose, probably influenced by Foucault... ok, I'm just saying that because he's French). The key work for Ghazali would be the Mizān al-ʿAmal, or Balance of Action. See for instance this article.

haec it up on 11 September 2018

Naturalists

Thanks for the brilliant show! It's like a train of high culture spoilers.

I started reading "Deliverance from Error". In the second chapter he describes (among others) the view of "naturalists", for whom reason is dependent on the four humors, and the soul is not immortal. Who do you reckon Ghazali refers to? Did Galen put forward such a clear-cut thesis? And were other theistic philosophers bothered by this idea?

In reply to by haec it up

Peter Adamson on 17 September 2018

Naturalists

The word "naturalists" is actually common in medieval Islamic philosophy and refers to materialists if not even atheists. It's probably to some extent a rather hypothetical group of people - more a matter of a target to shoot at than real folks with a well defined view. However in this case he must indeed be thinking of Galen, or at least Galenists: Galen and the whole medical tradition obviously have a four humor theory, plus Galen did think that reason is dependent on the body - he argues for this in a treatise ("That the Traits of the Soul Depend on those of the Body") that was translated into Arabic and pretty widely circulated I believe.

metagenie on 21 February 2021

Is it possbile that the al…

Is it possbile that the al-Ghazali got some of his mystical insights from psychedelics? As you say, he does mention the opium and I bet people in the Seljuk empire were smoking weed as well, but what about shrooms and such?

 

In reply to by metagenie

Peter Adamson on 22 February 2021

Shrooms

That's an interesting one! I don't know for sure, but I have never heard of anything like that in connection with Ghazali. Maybe there is a drug historian out there who can tell us whether psychedelics were in use in the Islamic middle ages.

Add new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.