Synthesis or Antithesis
1
Religious intellectuals in Iran are the synthesis of a confrontation- confrontation of traditional Islam and the modern era. They want to be modern without sacrifying their piety. In this perspective, it is important to see how [far] modern these intellectuals are, in order to examine the success of their project.
2
What is the real nature of modernity? We can list the achievements of the new era (science, rule of law, democracy, etc.), but is it possible to trace these attributions back to some basic mind-sets as the “adequate basis for modernity”?
Some people try to show that modernity is not standing on anything and is just a dynamic force of negation. It is in this context that they put freedom as the real nature of modernity, since freedom is nothing but “being allowed to do…” and it doesn’t provide any content. It is the same with rationality which is “being congruent with…” You can fill the blank as you wish and it doesn’t really jeopardize our definition of freedom and rationality.
3
I don’t think that modernity is just about frameworks and I believe it provides some contents as well. I see continuity and order in modernity, which I can not explain it just with a void framework. I think beyond the modernity’s respect for freedom or congruity, there is a grater respect for individual’s values and drives, namely “individualism”. Rationality is nothing but congruity of “individuals’” drives and perceptions; and freedom is targeted to “individuals’” will. According to this model, individualism takes precedence to rationalism or liberalism.
4
Iranian religious intellectuals are willing to adopt some achievements of modernity; however, as long as they haven’t adopted the humanistic backbone of modernity, they won’t succeed in their project of modernization.
These intellectuals are quit bashful when it comes to deciding about “individualism”. They talk about the crisis of morality in the west and bring up post modern thinkers to support (or cover up!) their fear of a “full-fledge modernization”. I think all of these criticisms are nothing but defeating the entire purpose of Muslim intellectualism.
5
I think it is easy to sense a “latent individualism” in Dr. Soroush’s “doctrine of temporal interpretation of Islam” (and probably that is why it makes fundamentalis mullas frearful). The activation of this latent individaulism depends on lots of different causes and conditions with a little share left for intellectuals. However, as far as logose is concened, religious intellectuals should stop being bashing about individualism.
Religious intellectuals in Iran are the synthesis of a confrontation- confrontation of traditional Islam and the modern era. They want to be modern without sacrifying their piety. In this perspective, it is important to see how [far] modern these intellectuals are, in order to examine the success of their project.
2
What is the real nature of modernity? We can list the achievements of the new era (science, rule of law, democracy, etc.), but is it possible to trace these attributions back to some basic mind-sets as the “adequate basis for modernity”?
Some people try to show that modernity is not standing on anything and is just a dynamic force of negation. It is in this context that they put freedom as the real nature of modernity, since freedom is nothing but “being allowed to do…” and it doesn’t provide any content. It is the same with rationality which is “being congruent with…” You can fill the blank as you wish and it doesn’t really jeopardize our definition of freedom and rationality.
3
I don’t think that modernity is just about frameworks and I believe it provides some contents as well. I see continuity and order in modernity, which I can not explain it just with a void framework. I think beyond the modernity’s respect for freedom or congruity, there is a grater respect for individual’s values and drives, namely “individualism”. Rationality is nothing but congruity of “individuals’” drives and perceptions; and freedom is targeted to “individuals’” will. According to this model, individualism takes precedence to rationalism or liberalism.
4
Iranian religious intellectuals are willing to adopt some achievements of modernity; however, as long as they haven’t adopted the humanistic backbone of modernity, they won’t succeed in their project of modernization.
These intellectuals are quit bashful when it comes to deciding about “individualism”. They talk about the crisis of morality in the west and bring up post modern thinkers to support (or cover up!) their fear of a “full-fledge modernization”. I think all of these criticisms are nothing but defeating the entire purpose of Muslim intellectualism.
5
I think it is easy to sense a “latent individualism” in Dr. Soroush’s “doctrine of temporal interpretation of Islam” (and probably that is why it makes fundamentalis mullas frearful). The activation of this latent individaulism depends on lots of different causes and conditions with a little share left for intellectuals. However, as far as logose is concened, religious intellectuals should stop being bashing about individualism.
posted by Homonomos at 11:45 PM
<< Home