A Road Map for the Islamization for the Human Sciences

Republished: An Interview with Allameh Misbah Yazdi (Part Two)

Subject of the event: Islamic Human Sciences

Location: Imam Khomeini Educational and Research Institute, Qom, Iran

Date: 1389 S.H. (2010)

Q: What are, in your opinion, the central points that ought to be addressed when speaking of the human sciences?

I can think of three main points in connection with the human sciences. The first is the definition of the human sciences, and it would be more appropriate to give this point first priority. It is one of the conceptual presuppositions of any discussion on the human sciences: We must determine what is the correct definition of human science in our view and examine the premises and presuppositions on which the diverging definitions of human science rely. The second point that deserves to be considered is that a number of the human sciences form the basis of other sciences. And the third and final point is to reflect on the role of religion relative to the human sciences.

Q: Fundamentally speaking, what is the factor that necessitates the bifurcation of science into the human and the non–human?

Let me begin my answer by posing this question: Is the division of science into human and non–human a logical division based on a true thematic opposition or is it an arbitrary division? In contemporary academia, science is generally divided into three principal categories: the natural or empirical sciences, the basic sciences, and the human and social sciences. This classification is exhaustive only if science is first divided into fundamental and non–fundamental and then the non–fundamental is further divided into the empirical and non–empirical. The basic sciences are those in which the presuppositions of the other sciences are demonstrated. As an example, mathematics is counted among the basic sciences as it is employed in all the natural sciences. In the same vein, since all natural sciences are to a greater or lesser extent in need of physics, it is considered a basic science. The non–basic sciences are then classified as natural or human.

This classification, however, seems to be logically inaccurate. First of all, we must first determine what “natural” signifies when used to describe the natural sciences. It is only then that we can legitimately distinguish those sciences that are basic in regard to the natural sciences from those that are not. If we wish to obtain an exhaustive classification of science, we must undertake a comprehensive comparison between the natural and human sciences.

The definition of “human” is fairly clear, whereas “natural” lacks such a clear–cut definition that could decisively determine what we mean when we speak of the “natural sciences.” are we speaking of inanimate nature, in which case biology–even vegetable biology–should be excluded from the scope of natural science? Now, if we are determined that natural science should in fact include such sciences, how are we to define “nature”? Whatever decision we finally settle on would be a result of convention and agreement. We may, for instance, decide that by “natural” we designate those sciences that are unrelated to the human being.

But what about the human being and anthropology? There are two types of anthropology. One is material anthropology, which is what is commonly understood by the term and which is restricted to the physical development and features of the human body. The second is philosophical anthropology, which is what we discuss; it has as its topic the reality of the human being and considers whether the human being is possessed of a supersensible soul? and if there is such a soul, which of the body or soul constitutes the fundamental essence of the human being? what is the relation governing the soul–body interaction? How are we to understand the genesis and end of the human being? What is his position in the cosmos? etc. Usually the latter type is set apart from the former by designating it as philosophical anthropology. At any rate, however, it is my conviction that all such discussions and debates are a matter of convention; there is no substantial value in embarking on a philosophic or rational examination concerning the criterion that distinguishes human from non–human sciences.

Interviewers:

Dr. Mohammad Fanaei, PhD in Philosophy of Religion, Full professor of Imam Khomeini Educational and Research Institute

Dr. Ali Mesbah, Doctor of Philosophy of Religion, Associate Professor of Imam Khomeini Educational and Research Institute

Dr. Mahmoud Namazi Esfahani, PhD in Philosophy of Religion, Assistant Professor of Imam Khomeini Educational and Research Institute