Customer Reviews

The Philosophy of Seyyed Hossein Nasr (Library of Living Philosophers)

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I've noticed the writings of S.H. Nasr since 1995. While being a leading scholar on Islamic philosophy and intellectual tradition (that was how I first noticed his writings), he also holds an interesting 'traditional' views which he called (along with other Western Orientalists) 'perennial philosophy'.

From an editing point of view, I think this is a very solid selection of different views towards Nasr. The first part includes an intellectual autobiography written by Nasr, which does NOT give a full restatement of his philosophy (as it was for the other non-western philosopher in this series for S. Radhakrishnan), but it gives interesting personal background of Nasr's career under the context of a wide network of philosophers in both Iran and other countries. At the end of the book, there is a detailed bibliography of the works of Nasr in different languages. For someone who wants to study Nasr as a philosopher, this book is simply a must, as it makes clear with Nasr's own words on what he considers to be his more important works (e.g. I'd otherwise never have suspected that his editing of Islamic Spirtuality is considered by him to be one of the more important project in his career)

There are also many well-written articles by critics that makes the book interesting. The attacks by the Buddhist, Neo-Confucian standpoints, together with the critique by his collaborator M. Aminrazavi are very to-the-point which I don't think Nasr (nor any dogmatic traditionalist) can answer convincingly. But these exchanges do help clarify some reasons why Nasr's model for the transcendent unity of world religions (which is used as the basis for inter-religious dialogues) would need modifications. It is also interesting for me to also get to know more about Nasr's antagonistic attitudes (which I have suspected but never verified before this volume comes out) towards the other type of 'unity of religons' model propelled by Neo-Vedantist such as S. Radhakrishnan.

All in all, even though an expensive volume, it is a good buy if you are either interested in the thoughts of Nasr or in examining the potential basis for inter-religious dialogues.

Nasr is a premier philosopher of science and arguably the West's leading Islamicist.

This particular work draws together a wide range of responses to Nasr's writings from scientists, philosophers, and scholars of religion that are both highly laudatory and scathingly critical.

The extent of Nasr's influence can be judged by the academic, religious, and cultural diversity of the contributers.

Of special interest to those who are familiar with Nasr's philosophical vision already is that many of the arguments raised against his understanding of the "sophia perennis" are responded to here in one form or another through Nasr's exhaustive replies to each essay.

The only major shortcoming to this work is the absence of a contribution addressing some of the theological and philosophical problems surrounding Nasr's belief in a transcendent and esoteric unity of religions. This particular aspect of the Iranian philosopher's thought has sparked a considerable degree of dialogue among Muslims, much of it, no doubt, ridden by misunderstandings. A contribution by a non-perennialist Traditionalist such as the Shadhili Sufi Shaikh, Nuh Keller, or the Ba Alawi Cambridge professor, Abdul-Hakim Murad, would have completed this excellent volume.

Perhaps the editors did consider including a critical essay of this nature, but deemed it outside the field of the book, which is after all concerned with philosophy per se. But if there is anything one gets from Nasr, it is that philosophy and religion, conceived in the traditional sense, exist through a symbiotic interdependency: Religion provides a concrete method for the existential realization or "tahqiq" of philosophical truths whereas philosophy provides the Intellectual basis for religion.

Because Nasr's truly holistic worldview necessitates the mutual dependence of religion and philosophy, the absence of a critical essay questioning the legitimacy of Nasr's perennial philosophy from a theologically Islamic vantage point, (since that is the tradition through which he speaks), can't but be seen as a deficiency in an otherwise comprehensive collection of articles.

Finally, some readers might be troubled by Nasr's criticisms of modernity, such as his claim that the "the modern world is essentially evil and accidentally good," whereas the traditional world is "essentially good and accidentally evil." These statements have to be understood in the broader context of his philosophy.

For Nasr, the traditional world was pervaded by a tremendous sense of the Sacred and the Absolute, whereas the inception of modernity involved precisely the severing off of that awareness, resulting in what Max Weber would later dub the "disenchantment of the world."

Nazism was as much a product of that disenchantment as was secular liberalism, fascism, communism, and colonialism. All of these ideological strains were products of the Enlightenment. Modern day religious terrorism, guided as it is by a desire for a modern utopian state through the use of sophisticated modern weaponry and strategy is simply another expression of Modernity with the unique feature that it employs the symbology of religion.

Nasr has been an unrelenting opponent of Islamic fundamentalism in all its forms throughout his career because he sees it as a somewhat vigilante reactionary movement operating within the paradigm of the modern nation state, but even more so, because it lacks a well thought out metaphysical basis rooted in a traditional Muslim understanding of the world which respects both nature and human dignity.

To say then that Nasr's religiously based critique of modernity translates into a tacit endorsement of political terrorism is not only a gross misrepresentation of his outlook, but an indictment against one's own capacity to understand.

Book is about his philosophy in the form of critics written by other scholars in this field or against it. It starts with short biography of Dr.Nasr, mostly his activities written by him. It sounds a liitel strange when he praises himself but what is the difference if it is the truth. Main part of the book is various themas of his Perennial Philosophy. Each scholar has taken some aspects of his writings or known beliefs and either commented on it, supported it or tried to negate it. After each such writing, Dr. Nast has responded and gave his defence or clarifications on the issues that might have been mis represented or mis understood. This book is a quick and short way into his philosophy for lazy minds. Rather than reading his book "Knowledge and Sacred", you can read this book and get the whole idea. In his theory of Transendental Unity of Religions it sounds like he is building on the ayat that says similar to each man is born with a concept of God. Theory seems to be long strech and depends on definition of Religion. Besides the philosophy itself this book is worth to read for someone interested in unity of religions and view of contemporary Islamic scholar on philosphy of religion. One thing is important that you need to read this book with symbolism and mystisism in mind and in the context of the subject than you understand what he is saying, otherwise you could get crooked interpretations. One of the writers in the book had a wrong understanding about his statement about modern world and Mr. Nasr has given a good answer to it.

This book is a vital resource for anyone wishing to understand Seyyed Hossein Nasr's philosophy. The biography provides a rare insight into this leading philosopher. His breadth and depth of knowledge on subjects ranging from Physics to Theology as well as philosophy - Western and Islamic, is staggering. Though he would abhor the term - from a Western point of view - he is a Renaissance Man.

The essays and S.H.Nasr's answers are enlightening.

With the recent horrific events in New York, there are many who are asking just what it is about Islam that causes it, wherever it is actually put into political practice (e.g., Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Palestine, Libya, Syria, etc, etc) to be associated with such sub-human barbarism. Again and again we are told that these represent "aberrations" from the true spirit Islam, and that the vast majority of Muslims in the world have somehow gotten their own religion all wrong.
Well, here is a book by and about probably the greatest Islamic scholar in world, Seyyed Nasr. On page 260, he emphasizes that "the modern world [meaning the West] is essentially evil and accidentally good," whereas the traditional world (to which Islamic fundamentalists wish us to return) is "essentially good and accidentally evil."
Now, I have no doubt whatsoever that Nasr himself is not an evil or violent man. However, what he fails to understand is that this type of disgusting rhetoric is embraced by other Muslims as a warrant for genocide. In other words, if something is "essentially evil," for example, Naziism, we are not only permitted to destroy it, but morally compelled to do so. Bin Ladin is in full agreement with Nasr that the West is "essentially evil," which is why he not only feels no compunction in slaughtering thousands of innocents, but is utterly convinced that he has advanced the cause of good (and God) in the world. How could it be otherwise?
Professor Nasr ought to have the courage of his convictions, and leave the "evil" civilization, the United States, that has warmly embraced him since he fled Iran some twenty-three years ago. Better yet, he ought to get on his knees every day and thank Allah that he is not condemned to live in a Muslim theocracy where his foolish ideas are put into evil practice.