Philosophy is described as the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole or of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience. The term philosopher, from ancient Greek, is a person who practices philosophy, especially one who deals with or learns philosophy as an academic discipline. Philosophy is also used in the sense of “wisdom” because when philosophers are mentioned more “wise” people come to our minds. Philosophical methods include questioning, critical discussion, rational argument, and systematic presentation [1, 2]. For centuries, philosophers have illuminated their own time as they shared their thoughts on the universe, life, and science.

However, this was not always the case: many thinkers and philosophers were killed because of their ideas, while some were exiled, and some had to leave their countries for their own safety. Between the two world wars many German scientists were forced to leave their country to save their lives and continued their services in exile for other nations. For instance many German academics who escaped from the chaotic environment of Germany in those years ended up in Turkey where they made great contributions to the university reform that started in 1933 [3]. Ironically, after 2016, many Turkish academic staff had to leave Turkey and migrated to Western countries such as Germany, Sweden, and England.

I am an academic who left his country and came to the United Kingdom in 2020. I recently read a biographical work about Fethullah Gülen. Among many aspects of his life, I was particularly impressed by the fact that Gülen, as an imam with supposedly a classical training, read both Eastern and Western classics and examined western philosophy during his youth.

David Hume, whose name I saw for the first time in the same book on Gülen, was one of the most important names of Western philosophy as a Scottish philosopher, economist, and historian who lived in the 18^th century [4]. Gülen, who read almost all the important western classics tried to get to know Shakespeare, Balzac, Voltaire, Rousseau, Kant, Zola, Goethe, and also read Russell, Pushkin, and Tolstoy. Many philosophers and thinkers are identical with the nation or society in which they grew up. Greece comes to mind when they say Plato, and China when they say, Confucius. Shakespeare brings to mind England, Balzac France, and Goethe Germany. However, as in the example of Avicenna and Einstein, some philosophers or scientists also acquired a universal identity.

I was surprised that the names of David Hume, who lived in Scotland in the 18^th century, and Fethullah Gülen, who still lives in America, are on the “philosophers of religion list” together [5]. During my visit to Edinburgh, a statue of an imposing figure reclining in a chair on the Royal Mile further increased my curiosity about him. The Scottish philosopher David Hume was probably one of the most important philosophers of his time, known as the Age of Enlightenment. Since he was a historian, economist, librarian, and essayist as well as a philosopher, who is best known today for his highly influential system of philosophical empiricism, skepticism, and naturalism.

Although they have lived in different geographical and time periods, philosophers have always been influenced by each other. Albert Einstein, in 1915, wrote that he was inspired by Hume’s positivism when formulating his theory of special relativity. Similarly, Immanuel Kant credits Hume as the inspiration who had awakened him from his “dogmatic slumbers” [4]. Although some Western writers argue that Imam Ghazali declared war on philosophy with his work “The Inconsistency of Philosophers” (Tahafut al-Falasifa) and that’s why the environment of free thought has disappeared in the Islamic world; those who approach the subject more broadly and objectively state that Imam Ghazali influenced names such as Pascal and Enlightenment philosopher David Hume in the West [6].

Hume’s thinking showed the crucial importance of logic and evidence in deciding what conclusions could be reached within human understanding and pointed out its probable limits. According to him, it is in vain to expect that any logic, which speaks not to the affections, will ever engage him to embrace sounder principles [7]. Here are several quotes from David Hume [8]:

“Be a philosopher; but, amidst all your philosophy, be still a man.”

“Beauty in things exists in the mind which contemplates them.”

“Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.”

“Custom is the great guide to human life.”

“Liberty of any kind is never lost all at once.”

David Hume’s philosophical works include A Treatise of Human Nature, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, and Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. In addition, he wrote the massive six-volume The History of England, which became a bestseller and the standard history of England in its day. Being his very important philosophical achievement, A Study of Human Understanding and a Study of Moral Principles has been accepted as one of the most important in the history of Western philosophy. Hume is one of the world’s great philosophical voices and will remain an outstanding philosopher.

Fethullah Gülen, on the other hand, is an influential scholar from the Muslim world, and have inspired millions to take part in a movement of intercultural-interfaith dialogue and educational activism. Gülen movement represents novel approaches to the synthesis of faith and reason, education, spirituality, and peaceful co-existence in diverse societies [9]. In his writings he touches on a variety of disciplines from economics, philosophy, sociology, history, religion, to literature [10]. Although he also read Western philosophy, thought, and literature, his thinking is not governed or shaped by Western thought [11]. However, Gülen is effective in seizing upon the statements of philosophers critical of science, and the developments in modern science that contradict earlier discoveries or find agreement with the Islamic viewpoint. It has also been argued that in the mold of “new intellectuals,” Gülen combines the ideas of classical and modernist Islamic thought with references to secular thinkers like Albert Einstein, David Hume, and Immanuel Kant. Remarkably, he is careful to choose sources and cite evidence in agreement with the Islamic interpretation of nature. He cites Hume, who argues that an event recurring repeatedly in the past does not necessitate its repetition in the future given similar circumstances. Gülen expands upon Hume’s argument to say that the forces of nature cannot be understood by reason alone and must be understood within a larger metaphysical context [12, 13].

His philosophy transcends commonly held dichotomies. He reconciles science and religion, sacred and profane, mind and heart, east and west, and modernity and tradition [14]. At the core of his philosophy lies the human being and their education. He argues that the right type of education and socialization plays a key role in bringing up loving, compassionate, and peaceful human beings. The core values of his thinking are “hospitality, wisdom, compassion, and charity … grounded in love” [15]. According to Gülen, science and knowledge should seek to uncover the nature of humanity and the mysteries of creation. Any knowledge, including scientific knowledge, is commendable especially if it sheds light on the mysteries of human nature and enlightens aspects of existence left in the dark. Again, according to him, “There are many scientists in many different countries in today’s world but even if they were to work all together they are not enough to establish a new, happy, and seamless world.” For this reason, he argues that there is a need for a new way of thinking, a new approach to science, a new life philosophy, and new educational institutions [16]. Gülen promotes trustworthiness, compassion, integrity, hard work, dedication, prudence, humility, and altruism and that these values must be taught by living a life that exemplifies them [17, 18].

In the philosophy of Gülen, education is a life-long process of transformation. Gülen’s philosophy for peace involves achieving inner and outer peace and is based primarily on transforming the individual. He argues that peace on earth can be achieved by peaceful individuals [19].

Jon Paul, the author of the first critical English-language biography of Gülen, says that although there are very distinguished thinkers who analyze, criticize and deconstruct phenomena and systems in today’s world, very few of them are still able to actively offer alternatives and implement their ideas; Fethullah Gülen can be considered among these very few intellectuals [20]. Indeed, Gülen was among the world’s top 100 intellectuals selected by “Foreign Policy” in 2008. It is understood that Gülen, who was influenced by the intellectuals of his age by reading both local and global philosophers, also greatly benefited from the intellectual legacy of the influential Sufi scholar and writer Bediüzzaman Said Nursi [21]. Like Nursi, who was forced to exile and isolation in his country and imprisoned for many years, a great portion of Fethullah Gülen’s life, especially the last two decades, have been spent in exile as he faces unbelievable accusations in his own country.

Conclusion

The example of Gülen and Hume being listed in the philosophers of religion inspires me to think how knowledge and wisdom are fruits of all humanity. Although the religion of Islam emerged in the Arabian Peninsula, the philosophy, logic, and systematicity that existed in its essence and spirit emerged in the Khorasan. German philosopher J. W. Goethe says that “Science and art belong to the whole world, and the barriers of nationality vanish before them.” According to French chemist Pasteur, “Science knows no country, because knowledge belongs to humanity, and is the torch which illuminates the world.”

References

1. Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. “Philosophy”. Encyclopedia Britannica, 20 Aug. 2020, https://www.britannica.com/topic/philosophy. Accessed 28 July 2021.
2. “Philosopher” Wikipedia, Free encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher. This page was last edited on 18 July 2021.
3. Aras, Şükrü., Armutcu, Ferah., Dinç, Gülten. “In the history of Department of Biochemistry of Istanbul Medical Faculty (1933–1957) three German scientists; Werner Lipschitz, Felix Haurowitz and Zdenko Stary. Turkish Journal of Biochemistry 40;5 (2015) 423-430.
4. “David Hume” Wikipedia, Free encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume. This page was last edited on 25 July 2021.
5. “List of philosophers of religion” Wikipedia, Free encyclopedia. This page was last edited on 5 October 2020, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophers_of_religion.
6. “Al-Ghazali” Wikipedia, Free encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ghazali. This page was last edited on 15 July 2021.
7. David Hume: An enquiry concerning human understanding. Edited by Millican Peter. Oxford University Press, July 10, 2008.
8. David Hume – Quotes. https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/45726.David_Hume. Accessed July 11, 2021.
9. Gülen M. Fethullah. Pearls of Wisdom. Tughra Books, Abridged edition 2007.
10. Yucel, Salih. 2014. “Gulen as a spiritual leader in a global Islamic context.” In Salih Yucel & Ismail Albayrak (Eds.) The Art of Coexistence: Pioneering Role of Fethullah Gulen and the Hizmet Movement. Tughra Books.
11. Hermansen, Marcia. (2015) “Who is Fethullah Gülen: An Overview of His Life”. In Hizmet means service: perspectives on an alternative path within Islam, ed. Martin E. Marty. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
12. Yavuz, Hakan. “The Gülen Movement: The Turkish Puritans,” in Turkish Islam and the Secular State. Yavuz and Esposito, eds. (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press), 2003.
13. Saritoprak, Zeki and Sidney Griffith. Fethullah Gülen and the ‘People of the Book.’ The Muslim World 2005; (95): 329-340.
14. Khan, Maimul Ahsan. The vision and impact of Fethullah Gülen. New York: Blue Dome Press, 2011.
15. Yaman, Adnan. 2020. “Addressing anti-foreigner sentiments in Europe: Fethullah Gulen’s philosophy of peace, Master’s Thesis, University of Jaume I.
16. Gulen M. Fethullah. Toward a Global Civilization of Love and Tolerance. The light, Inc. 3r impression New Jersey, 2006.
17. Gage, Tom. Gülen’s dialogue on education: A caravanserai of ideas. Seattle: Cune Press, 2014.
18. Conway, Trudy D. Cross-cultural dialogue on the virtues: the contribution of Fethullah Gülen. London and New York: Springer Science & Business Media, 2014.
19. Esposito, John and Ihsan Yilmaz. Islam and peacebuilding: Gülen movement initiatives. New York: Blue Dome Press, 2010.
20. Pahl, Jon. Fethullah Gülen: A Life of Hizmet. New Jersey: Blue Dome Press, 2019.
21. Greg, Barton. Fethullah Gülen and Said Nursi “Muslim world in transition: Contributions of the Gulen Movement” 2007, London. https://www.gulenmovement.com/fethullah-gulen-and-said-nursi.html. Accessed July 28, 2021.

Even though Kant has very original insights that opened new gateways in the history of philosophy, his so-called “critical philosophy” is not devoid of defects. This article aims to present Kant’s account of causation and critically evaluate it.

Kant’s famous remark about his awe for “the starry heavens above me, and the moral law within me,” which is written in his gravestone, shows his orientation in philosophy. While he was interested in explaining the features of the universe and the nature of our theoretical knowledge, he did not ignore the practical aspect of our life that concerns with how to act in the right way. That is to say, ethics and natural science were main disciplines Kant tried to understand. However, this paper examines his analysis of theoretical knowledge and the natural science by focusing on his account of causality.

An introduction to Kant’s “critical philosophy”

Before Kant, there were two important traditions in modern philosophy: rationalism and empiricism. On the one hand, the rationalists assumed that we could obtain knowledge of the world by trusting in the power of our minds. Kant considered them to be dogmatic in the sense that they dogmatically assumed this idea without examining the nature and limits of our minds so as to see whether we can really achieve this goal or not. On the other hand, the empiricists usually distrusted the power of the mind in its attempt to know the world, and in its most extreme case, in Hume, it led to skepticism. In response to these two approaches, Kant suggested to examine critically the nature and limits of the mind and see to what degree we can have knowledge at all. This is called “critical philosophy.”

For Kant, our minds are not passive receivers of representations like mirrors. A normal flat mirror reflects the image from an object as if it is the same except in a two-dimensional way. It was a common attitude among philosophers before Kant to treat the mind like a mirror. The mirror does not change the form of the object. Likewise, the mind does not affect or change the form of the objects, it just receives them. However, Kant changed the whole picture. He treated minds as active filters. Whatever is reflected on it is shaped in a certain way. On this view, the mind is like a concave or convex mirror, or colormatic glasses but it is not like a flat mirror.

According to Kant, the mind has three faculties with different functions. These faculties are sensibility, understanding and reason. Through sensibility we get the raw material of experience. This material is structured and shaped by space and time which are not outside the mind but are the pure forms of the faculty of sensibility. What we get through this faculty is called “intuition.”

The faculty of understanding provides us with concepts, especially with “the pure concepts,” or categories, of which there are twelve in total, and are used in organizing the intuition. In brief, what is reflected on the mind as coming from the world is structured by the a priori forms of intuiton (space and time) to which the twelve categories of mind are applied.

Kant’s postulation of the mind as an active factor in obtaining knowledge is considered to be “the copernican revolution” in philosophy. Kant has a formula which depicts his system very well: “Thoughts without content are empty, intuitons without concepts are blind.” In order to have understanding, we should both have intuition and concepts. These two conditions should be fulfilled for a genuine and reliable understanding. First, concepts without intuiton do not give us understanding; we can just think about them and never be sure whether they are something about real or not. According to Kant, concepts such as soul, God, and free will are ideas to which no intuition corresponds. Second, if there were no ordering role of the mind, all the information we got from the world would be chaotic. For instance, we would not be able to identify a certain individual as a human being, an animal of a different sort or even as an object, because we lacked an ability to order and classify the information. Therefore, according to Kant, the world appears to us differently from as it is in itself due to the ordering character of the mind.

Kant calls the world as it appears to us “phenomena” and the world in itself “noumena.” The latter is beyond the limits of the legitimate realm of theoretical knowledge. We cannot understand it, and we cannot theoretically know anything about it: we can only think about it. Ideas such as those of God and free will are directed toward the nounemal realm. They belong to the faculty of reason and have a regulative role in ordering and unifying our experience. However, they are empty according to Kant. That is to say, there is no corresponding intuition to them in our experience. Thus, we cannot decide whether they really exist or not by theoretical knowledge. This conclusion of Kant’s critical philosophy may suggest an agnostic position towards God, (actually it led many people to become agnostics) according to which human beings can neither affirm nor deny the existence of God. However, Kant thought that he found a reason for believing in God in another domain, namely in practical reason and knowledge. Nevertheless, Kant’s attempt to show the illegitemacy of theoretical knowledge regarding neumena undermines itself. This can be seen especially in his analysis of causality.

Synthetic a priori truths

Kant takes mathematical science and natural science for granted. He accepts them as successful sciences and tries to understand the conditions under which they are possible. His conclusion is that these sciences can be grounded only on “synthetic a priori judgments.” There are two important conceptual distinctions here: the analytic-synthetic and the a priori-a posteriori. The former is a semantic distinction, the latter is epistemological. A statement is analytic if its predicate-concept is included in the subject-concept, otherwise it is synthetic. The proposition that all black cats are black or that bachelors are unmarried is analytic. A black cat is black, the predicate is embedded in the subject here. And bachelors are by definition unmarried because a bachelor is a single male. However, the color of my cat is not included in its definition. A priori judgments are known independently of experience whereas a posteriori ones are known by appealing to experience as a justification. We know that everything is identical to itself without any experience. But we need some experiential evidence to affirm the statement that the Morning Star is identical with the Evening Star. It was a scientific discovery that those stars were actually the same, namely Venus.

For Kant, all analytic judgments are a priori. He also claims that there are synthetic a priori statements. This is a bit unusual because we normally know synthetic statements by experience. How can we know a statement a priori if its predicate is not included in the subject? Kant explains the possibility of such judgements by appealing to the mind’s role in shaping experience. According to him, by applying the categories to intuition, we put what is in our minds into our experiences. So, “we can cognize of things a priori only what we ourselves have put into them.” In other words, the categories shape the experience and we know that aspect of experience a priori since it belongs to us. The conceptual distinctions presented so far enable us to understand Kant’s account of causality better.

Causality

From a historical point of view, Kant’s account of causality was a response to Hume’s scepticism about causation. Let us first see what Hume said about this issue. Hume points out that we only observe correlated events in nature, and that there are some regular correlations and some irregular ones. For instance, we always observe that lightning precedes thunder. On the basis such regular correlations, we infer that the events in question are also causally related. That is to say, lightning causes thunder. However, according to Hume, we never observe causation between events. What is observed is just that two events are correlated in a regular manner. Causation is what our mind is inclined to infer when faced with such regularities. Causal links are produced by the human mind as subjective mental operations. So, there is no objective causality between events: it is our subjective interpretation of the regularity between them.

If we consider the fact that electrical charges are regarded as the common causal factor behind lightning and thunder by contemporary scientists, we can appreciate what Hume said. We do not observe causal links. Perhaps, sometime in the future, scientists will propose another physical factor as the cause for thunder, lightning and maybe for electical charges. Since we do not observe causal links, we can never be sure about what causes what. Hume extends this skepticism so far that nothing really causes anything else. There is no objective causation; there are just correlations in our experience. In other words, he also denies the objectivity of the universal causal principle, namely that every effect or event must have a cause.

As a response, Kant distinguishes two different levels in analysing causation. On the one hand, he tries to prove the objectivity of the universal principle of causality. Kant is aware of the difficulty of proving it on the basis of experience. Such a universal principle cannot be based on experience. Kant considers this univeral principle as a synthetic a priori truth. It is valid for anything we experience because all our experience is shaped by the category of causality. He formulates this principle in the following way: everything that happens presupposes that which it follows in accordance with a rule.

According to Kant, the phenomena consisting in irreversible sequences indicate the causal order. As an example of irreversible sequence, he mentions the sequence when we look at a ship moving down the river. In this case, what we apprehend is an objective process. And its order cannot be arranged otherwise than in this very succession. So, when we watch the ship’s departure, the order in which our visual states occur is not up to us. As a conclusion, Kant argues that in irrevesible cases, the apprehension of one perception which occurs necessarily succeeds that of the other which preceded according to a rule called “the law of the connection of cause and effect.”

On the other hand, Kant’s analysis of irreversible sequences does not suggest anything about particular causal relations. A particular sequence of irreversible representations does not enable us to identify the cause of the event in question: it only indicates that the event in question must have a cause (in the sense that some other event precedes it), even if we do not know what this cause is. Kant expresses this point by saying that “Everything in nature, as well in the inanimate as in the animated world, happens or is done according to rules, though we do not always know them….”

While there are some ambigious passages indicating as if Kant has identified some necessary causal links between particular events (such as that the sunshine caused the warmth of a stone), those passages should be interpreted under the light of this general statement here. The reason simply is that Kant aims to exemplify his view of causation in such contexts rather than identifying some particular causal links.

A fundamental problem with Kant’s analysis of causality

As we have seen, Kant treats the universal principle of causality as a synthetic a priori truth. In doing so, he limits causal ascriptions to the phenomenal realm because it is the phenomenal realm not the noumenal realm, which is shaped by our minds. So, according to Kant causal talk about noumena, things in themselves, is not legitimate and does not give us theoretical knowledge.

However, the question that should be answered in this regard is if the human mind interacts with noumena. If so, how does it interact? In some passages, Kant seems to consider noumena to be an empty and limiting concept. We cannot know anything about this realm (even whether or not noumenal objects such as free will, soul and God exist), therefore it is just a heuristic device indicating what is beyond our theoretical knowledge. Thus, we cannot say anything about the relationship between the mind and noumena, because noumena are beyond our understanding. Otherwise, anything we say can only be an illegitimate speculation.

Nevertheless, such passages do not represent Kant’s whole philosophical outlook. As a fundamental aspect of his critical philosophy, Kant assumes that our experience is shaped by us but not totally created by us. There is an external element to experience that is independent of us. He must accept that there are noumenal objects even though we do not know what they are. They are not just conceptual tools formulated to define the phenomenal realm. In fact, there are several passages in which Kant explicitly ascribes causal efficiency to the noumenal realm.

For instance, when Kant distances himself from the idealist philosophers who claim that everything we perceive is mind-dependent and there is no objective reality outside the mind, he claims that “there are bodies without us, that is, things which, though quite unknown to us as to what they are in themselves” and that we know them “by their representations which their influence on our sensibility procures us.”

As another example, this time regarding the free will of human beings, Kant thinks that human beings are free with respect to the noumenal realm but under causal determination with respect to phenomenal realm. When he tries to account for moral responsibility, he presents the free will as having its own causal power to be able to appropriate particular human actions. The following is an explicit remark: “The will is a kind of causality of living beings so far as they are rational.”

As it is clearly seen, Kant is forced to accept that the realm of things in themselves (noumena) causes the realm of appearances (phenomena) and this is exactly what undermines the very foundation of his critical project as limiting theoretical knowledge to phenomena.

Conclusion

Kant certainly has an insight in making a distinction between phenomena and noumena; however, his way of distinguishing these two realms undermines his own critical philosophy. There is a similar distinction made by Muslim theologians between dhahir (phenomena) and batin (noumena). In their case, categories of causality and existence for instance are legitimately applicable to noumenal realm, but they argue that we do not know how they are applicable. According to them, for instance, we know that God exists but we do not know how He exists. His existence is quite different from our existence. As Descartes says: “A finite mind cannot grasp [adequately] God, who is infinite. But that does not prevent [the finite thinker] having a perception of God, just as one can touch a mountain without being able to put one’s arms around it.” As a conclusion, Kant’s distinction between phenomena and noumena should be improved so that it enables us to ascribe existence and causality to the noumenal realm even in a minimal sense.