From a children’s tale to Socrates and the Qur’an, the need for logic and sound reasoning is universal.

Nasraddin Hodja is a well-known folktale character in the Middle East. He is famous for his wit, which is apparent in the wisdom-filled stories that have been ascribed to him for eight centuries. Although Hodja was not a philosopher, many of his tales contain elements that demonstrate philosophical concepts and principles. As an example, the story of Hodja’s pot neatly exercises a fundamental philosophical method, i.e. the Socratic method or reductio ad absurdum. This story, though apparently simple and funny, has a deep philosophical dimension and teaches us the Socratic method in a very accessible way. The story goes as follows:

One day, Nasraddin Hodja borrowed a pot from his neighbor. After he had finished using it, he took it back to the neighbor with a smaller pot put inside it.
When the neighbor saw the smaller pot, he was surprised.


“What is that?” he asked.


“Well, said  Hodja, when I borrowed your pot it was pregnant and it gave birth.”


The man smiled and accepted both pots.

A few days later, Hodja borrowed the pot again but this time he did not return it.
The neighbor was rather cross. He went to Hodja and asked, “What about my pot?”


“I am very sorry,” said Hodja, “but it died.”


“Don’t make jokes with me,” replied the neighbor. “How can a pot die?”


“If you believe that it brought a child into the world,” said Hodja, “why can’t you believe that it died?”
 

In this story, Nasraddin Hodja suggests that his neighbor’s behavior of accepting the smaller pot is improper, by indicating an absurd consequence of his behavior, namely that a pot can die if it can give birth. This method is commonly used in philosophical argumentation since the Ancient Greeks. We can see similar examples in Plato’s dialogues. For example, in the Republic, Cephalus defines justice as speaking the truth and paying the debt. However, Socrates shows that this definition logically leads to some absurd consequences. Let us assume that somebody lends us arms when his mind is right, but wants them back later when he lost his mind. According to Cephalus’ definition of justice, we should give the arms to that insane and crazy person since they are not ours but his. Yet, no one would approve such an act. Once Cephalus encounters this counterexample, he understands that his initial definition has some problems; he approves Socrates’ point and tries to modify his idea of justice. Thus, the dialogue continues. Different definitions are introduced and checked by this method.

We can display the logical structure of the Socratic method in the following way. In a conversation, somebody holds an assumption, and makes a definition or claims something. The other person shows that this assumption, definition, or claim leads to an absurdity. For this reason, this method is also called reductio ad absurdum, i.e. reducing to absurdity. Since the initial assumption leads to something unacceptable, it is unacceptable as well by logical inference. Then the person who held that assumption is forced to abandon or modify it. See Table 1 for a comparison of these examples.

Table 1

The Socratic method is one of the basic methods that we use in reasoning. We use it in daily life, in sciences, and in any area where we engage in rational thinking. The strictest kind of absurdity is a contradiction, i.e. accepting and denying the exactly same thing under the same conditions. Because of this, logicians and mathematicians call the Socratic method, “the indirect proof,” or “proof by contradiction.” See the appendix for an example of the proof by contradiction in mathematics.

Interestingly enough, we also see this method in the holy books. For example, the Qur’an frequently suggests people use their rationality and carefully think about the universe. It is remarkable that, in the Qur’an, we find arguments that rely on the reductio ad absurdum method. For example, let us consider the following verse: “But the fact is that had there been in the heavens and the earth any deities other than God, both (of those realms) would certainly have fallen into ruin. All-Glorified God is, the Lord of the Supreme Throne, in that He is absolutely above all that they attribute to Him” (21:22). This verse proposes that one must have observed disorder in the universe if that person associated partners with God’s activity in the universe. Since this is not what we observe, the initial assumption is incorrect. This example shows that the Qur’an addresses the rationality of human beings, and suggests actively using that faculty.

As we have seen, deriving absurd consequences from an assumption and denying it on the basis of those absurdities is a common and fundamental way of reasoning that is exercised in many different areas and aspects of human life. It is called by different names over history, namely “the Socratic method,” “reductio ad absurdum,” or “proof by contradiction.” Yet, the basic idea behind these technical terms is the same. Most of us probably exercise this method without thinking about it.

Appendix

Theorem: The number that is equal to itself, when added to itself, is zero.

Prove that for any x, x is a number; if x +x = x, then x=0.

1. x+x=x (assumption for conditional/direct proof)
2. x is not equal to 0. (Assumption for indirect proof/reductio ad absurdum)
3. x+x=2x (by addition)
4. x=2x (since “x+x” is common for both the 1^st and 3^rd steps, by the principle of transitivity)
5. 1=2 (cancel x’s) –Contradiction
6. x=0. (The assumption that leads to the contradiction in the 5^th step must be false. Therefore, it is false that x is not equal to 0. Thus, x=0 is true.) Indirect proof is complete.
7. If x+x=x, then x=0. (Conditional proof is complete)

The infinite! No other question has ever moved so profoundly the spirit of man; no other idea has so fruitfully stimulated his intellect; yet no other concept stands in greater need of clarification than that of the infinite. David Hilbert

The concept of infinity has always fascinated humankind. The excitement and awe that are affiliated with the very idea of this concept inspire us. Poets, philosophers, artists, astronomers, mathematicians and ordinary people have pondered the questions related to infinity over the centuries. Is the universe finite or infinite? Is matter or space infinitely divisible? Is there eternal life? Where does a finite being get the idea of infinity from?

In this article, we first consider the concept of infinity from a mathematical point of view and then try to explain how that is connected to Divinity and the Attributes of God. An incorrect understanding of infinity in mathematics leads to seemingly irresolvable paradoxes; likewise, an incorrect understanding of the Attributes of God leads to an incomplete or incorrect understanding of creation.

Mathematical infinity

Any serious consideration of infinity inevitably leads to mathematics, where the concept has its deepest roots. Mathematicians use the symbol ∞ to denote infinity. To many people infinity is a sort of number that is larger than all other numbers. However, that is not an adequate description of infinity. Strange things can happen in the realm of infinity. Many intuitive ideas fail when infinity enters into the picture. This leads to apparent paradoxes. Here is one example that is attributed to David Hilbert (1862–1943), the famous mathematician whose quotation appears above.¹ Consider a hypothetical hotel with infinitely many rooms. On a stormy night all the rooms of the hotel are occupied, and a wet and miserable couple shows up asking for a room. The concierge comes up with this clever idea to make room for these people. He says, “The hotel is full but here is what I can do for you. I can move the guests from room 1 into room 2, the guests from room 2 into room 3, and so on. The guests in room n will move into the room n+1, for each n = 1, 2, 3, …”.

So, if we can have a hotel with infinitely many rooms it is possible to accommodate an incoming guest even if the hotel is totally full. But then we see that by a similar reasoning we can accommodate any number of guests, and in fact infinitely many more guests! Clearly, this is not possible in ordinary hotels with finitely many rooms that we are familiar with.

To get more sense of what might happen in the realm of infinity let us consider a couple of other examples. You would have no trouble accepting that two sets have the same number of elements if there is a one-to-one correspondence between them. For example, the set {Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday} has seven elements because it is in a one-to-one correspondence with the set {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7} given by Monday1, Tuesday2,Wednesday3, Thursday4, Friday5, Saturday6, Sunday7. Note that there are other possible ways of setting up a one-to-one correspondence between these two sets but what matters is the existence of one such correspondence.

There is absolutely nothing surprising about this example. We all know that there are seven days in a week. However, if the concept of infinity pops up in a similar situation, counterintuitive conclusions are obtained. You may be surprised to find out that the set of all positive integers {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,…} is in a one-to-one correspondence with the set of even positive integers {2, 4, 6,…}. One way of setting such a correspondence is

1 2 3 4 5

← ← ← ← ←

2 4 6 8 10 …

Therefore, there are as many even (positive) integers as there are of all (positive) integers (this is a mathematically correct statement), even though the set of even integers is a strictly smaller subset of all integers. Such a situation is not possible with finite sets.

There are other well-known examples of “paradoxes” involving infinity such as Zeno’s paradox, and Gabriel’s horn.²

Treating infinity as if it is like other numbers, even with the assumption that it is greater than all other numbers, is a major reason for these “paradoxes.” Their resolutions are obtained with a proper understanding of the nature of infinity and the concept of limit. For example, adding or subtracting one element, or any finite number of elements, from an infinite set does not change its size. In some cases adding or subtracting infinitely many elements from an infinite set does not change its size either!

Even mathematicians struggled with the idea of infinity a great deal before rigorously formulating the concept and the rules about it. The fundamental notion of modern calculus is limit, which is intimately connected to infinity, in terms of either infinitely small quantities referred to as “infinitesimal” or infinitely large quantities. It took mathematicians a long time to formulate the modern rigorous definition of limit, the rules involving infinity and infinite quantities, and sets of infinite size.

Infinity and understanding the Attributes of God

While the concept of infinity is essential in mathematics, it is not the only field where it is so important. Another field in which the concept is very important is theology. The concept of infinity is intimately connected to the concept of Divinity. In mathematics, compared to infinity all numbers are equal, and equally small. This fact is mathematically expressed as a/∞ for any number a, whether it is 7 or 17 million. This is parallel to the theological fact that compared to God we, and the rest of the creation, are infinitely small. Nobody can claim to be greater than any other human being or any other being in the universe, no matter how powerful or wealthy he or she might be. Therefore, we cannot attribute to anybody greatness to the degree of regarding him or her as divine. Nursi expresses this view in the following words:

“O human! It is a Qur’anic principle that you must not consider anything other than God Almighty as greater than you to the degree that you worship it. Nor must you consider yourself greater than anything and thus claim greatness before and dominion over it. For, just as all creatures are equally far from being the Object of Worship, they are also equal in being creatures.”³

We have seen that treating infinity like other numbers (even with the understanding that it is greater than all other numbers) leads to seemingly irresolvable paradoxes. Similarly, treating God like humans leads to an incomplete and incorrect understanding of God and the creation. God is not only greater than all that is created, He is also not bound by the kinds of restrictions that created beings are subject to. With His infinite power, creating one flower is as easy for Him as creating all the creatures on earth every spring. Creating all the trees in the world is no more difficult for God than creating one piece of apple. He can create countless things at the same moment. Creating a trillion things is no more difficult for Him than creating one thing.

Unfortunately, it is all too common to see the evidence of attributing incorrect characteristics and restrictions to the Almighty. For example, some “try to free God from the burden of special acts of creation”4 by attributing the development of species to evolution, natural selection, and random phenomena. They do not seem to understand that it is no “burden” for God to create anything, whether it be a tiny individual or billions of species. He can create a great number of things at once. He is not forgetful or incompetent. Nothing He does interferes with another one of His actions. He continues to create every moment everywhere in the universe and He has power to do so. He is closer to every one of us every moment than we are to ourselves: Assuredly, it is We Who have created human and We know what suggestions his soul makes to him, and We are nearer to him than his jugular vein (Qaf 50:16). Therefore, there is no burden for God in dealing with special acts of creation.

Since we are subject to many restrictions as humans, we may fall into the error of attributing similar restrictions to God. So, we need to be more careful when we consider the Attributes of God. One of the restrictions by which we are bound is time. Unlike us, God is above and beyond time. Many people have difficulty comprehending the idea of destiny (or qadar, or divine decree in Islamic literature). If we understand that God is not restricted by time, it becomes much easier to understand this concept. Since He is beyond time, He does not need to “wait” to see the consequences of events in the universe. While it is not our purpose to have a full discussion of this important article of faith here, we want to point out one of its connections with the topic. A detailed explanation of divine decree can be found in Said Nursi’s Twenty-sixth Word.5 Those who do not understand that God is not restricted by time ask questions like, “What was God doing before creating the universe?” This question is meaningless with a proper understanding of the Attributes of God.

Attributing to God deficiencies by which we are constrained, such as forgetfulness, tiredness, and incompetence, is a great mistake, one similar to treating ordinary numbers like infinity. It leads to paradoxes that we cannot resolve. It prevents us from having a proper understanding of God and the creation. We can only understand the mystery of the creation by a proper understanding of its Creator, and we need to be very careful when talking about the Attributes of this Creator.

Nuh Aydin is an associate professor of Mathematics at Kenyon College, in Ohio, USA.

Notes

1. Maor, E. To Infinity and Beyond: A Cultural History of Infinity, Birkhauser, 1987. See also http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/d/davidhilbe181572.html; http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Quotations/Hilbert.html; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel
2. Ibid.
3. Nursi, Bediüzzaman Said, The Gleams, Seventeenth Gleam, NJ: Tughra Books, p. 160.
4. Collins, F. S. Language of God, Free Press, 2006, p. 140.
5. Nursi, The Words, Twenty Sixth Word, NJ: Tughra Books, pp. 479–494.

The rational attempt to combine philosophy and wisdom and the refutation of this possibility by human experience must have been matters that preoccupied Nursi’s thought for a long time. This must have prompted him to review his philosophical position and, consequently, reconsider the established view among Islamic philosophers that philosophy and wisdom are connected in an inclusive way, like siblings or in an associative way, like friends.

It is at this point in his life that the “New Said”² appeared. He shed his old philosophical guise and put on a new one, the robe of wisdom. Here we see the demise of Said the philosopher and the birth of the New Said. This radical transformation in the life of Said Nursi has two aspects; one critical and the other constructive. In this article, we will discuss the critical aspect. Said Nursi’s revolution and the criticism of the connection between philosophy and wisdom.

The critical aspect of this transformation can be seen in Nursi’s preoccupation with the criticism of the combination between philosophy and wisdom in its inclusive and associative forms. This was a triple criticism: logical, moral, and figural. This is not to be wondered at, because basically the sage does not stop at the logical criticism of views as does the philosopher. He goes beyond to the moral criticism of views, since he does not regard these views as abstract, but as linked to praxis and would thus re-evaluate them in accordance with their practical effects. He then goes a step further and examines the views from the point of view of their aesthetic value, thus producing a figural criticism.

We can start by showing how Nursi exercised such a triple criticism on the first connection between philosophy and wisdom (i.e., an inclusive connection). In the writings of Nursi, this inclusive connection is built on two basic principles: ¹) The Principle of Founding Tradition on Reason: this stipulates that tradition (i.e., transferred religious knowledge) should be interpreted on the basis of reason when it appears that it (i.e., tradition) contradicts reason. ²) The Principle of Using Reason in Tradition: this stipulates that rational concepts are means to the explanation of the facts of the tradition.

1. The criticism of the inclusive connection between philosophy and wisdom

a) Logical criticism: Said Nursi holds the view that the founding of tradition on reason, on which the inclusive connection is based, is a baseless option because reason is no less in need of foundation than tradition. Such a foundation cannot come by way of reason itself as long as this reason consists one of “that which is circulating among the people”³ and is not a new kind of reason of which philosophy has no knowledge.⁴ Moreover, this principle leads to the interpretation of tradition in a manner that becomes distorted as the reason known among people does not have the scope, objectivity, or freedom that are required for the understanding of tradition.⁵

Nursi also believes that the principle of using the concepts of reason to explain the meanings of tradition, on which the first kind of connection between philosophy and wisdom is based, does not exalt tradition but, rather, denigrates it by creating the impression that the rational bases are deeper and more stable than the bases of tradition. Moreover, reason is useless in defeating opponents, because it remains confined to warding off objections in an abstract rational way acceptable by the opponents. Reason does not, however, rise to presenting the facts of tradition in a manner that combines the heart and the mind and which could characterize these truths.⁶ It may, indeed, lead to the full distortion of these truths.⁷

b) Moral criticism: Nursi stresses that the adoption by the philosopher of the foundation of tradition on reason makes the heart ache with ills that are surmounted by arrogance as the philosopher creates a criterion for measuring the Revelation with his defective and limited mind, that is, speech with boundless perfection.⁸ He also stresses that the use of philosophical concepts in Qur’anic studies-particularly natural and metaphysical ones-leads those who do so to the deification of nature and the abandonment of the deification of the Creator.

c) Figural criticism: For Nursi, the philosopher who advocates an inclusive connection between philosophy and wisdom is like one who is walking through a tunnel or one who is seeking shelter in a cave,⁹ thus becoming a ghost who is invisible though his identity is known and his traces can be seen. He ends by suffocating in this tunnel before completing the journey. The standing of such a person, as defined in the Qur’an – the essence of wisdom – is that of the misguided.¹⁰

Hence, Nursi thinks that the two philosophers whom he frequently mentions, Al Farabi and Ibn Sina, are among those who are misguided,¹¹ because they advocated an inclusive link between philosophy and wisdom; a view similar to the sophistry of the Christians. Ibn Sina went further than Al Farabi¹² in enacting that view. Since Nursi was deceived by their cunning and believed that their view was true, he himself was on the verge of becoming misguided like them, but for the shining of God’s name Al-Hakim (the All-Wise) to guide him and correct his thoughts and deeds.

Acting on the principle of the inclusive connection between philosophy and wisdom leads a person to become weak in faith and argument, to cling to appearances, to become conceited and misguided.

We turn now to the second mode of connection between philosophy and wisdom, the associative one, to see how Nursi exercised his triple criticism. This mode, as we said, is based on three principles: astonishment, questioning, and proof-finding.

The criticism of the associative connection between philosophy and wisdom.

a) Logical criticism: Regarding the principle of philosophical astonishment,¹³ what actually happens is that philosophy does not act upon a sense of the wondrous and miraculous, but rather on that of the strange and anomalous.¹⁴ There is a wide gap between the two feelings. The first stems from the perfection of creation in things, while the second emanates from the imperfection in those things. Most of philosophical knowledge is built on what is familiar and ordinary. However, when it speculates on what is miraculous or supernatural, philosophy still takes the familiar (maruf) as its basis.

As for the principle of philosophical questioning,¹³ it is uncontrolled in its objectives concerning beings, thus falling into confusion and dissipation in every direction. Such an approach does not attain the required answers, leading the questioner to excessive perplexity or even great torment.¹⁵

Concerning the principle of philosophical proof-finding,¹³ the proof is a series of propositions under perpetual threat of invalidation. If we wish to ward off that threat, we have to supply proof for each of these propositions through another series of propositions that are, in turn, open to invalidation and so on. We have barely warded off invalidation from one series of propositions when we have to bring many others to it, and this process continues incessantly.¹⁶

b) Moral criticism: Since philosophical astonishment fundamentally is a sense of the strange and is never a sense of wonder, it leads the philosopher to two pitfalls: One is “blocking off the extrapolation of lessons”; if philosophy does not wonder at the ordinary and familiar, then it does not enable the philosopher to extrapolate lessons and wisdom from what is ordinary and familiar. The other pitfall is “opening the path to the denial of God”; if philosophy throws a veil of familiarity on things, it prevents the realization of divine power and the acceptance of its infinite graces.

Since philosophical questioning is an uncontrolled process, it leads to two things, both of which are fatal deprivations. One is “that it loses the mystery of the oneness of God.” Raising too many questions without guiding objectives or satisfactory answers betrays the fact that the question is deprived from the mystery of the oneness of God. Were the philosopher aware of that mystery, his questions would revolve on set goals and he would attain the answers to them within the framework of those goals that are derived from the oneness of God.¹⁷ The second is “the loss of the feeling of happiness”, because the philosopher, failing to find answers to his various questions or to achieve responses for his various demands, will find himself in great misery.¹⁸

Since philosophical proof-finding is a chain of propositions that is open to invalidation, it leads to two things, both of which are great evils. One is “clinging to the created causes rather than Creator.” Philosophy confines its evidence-seeking to created beings rather than the Almighty Creator or, as Nursi puts it, philosophy examines at these beings as names and not as particles.¹⁹ Inevitably, such an approach leads the philosopher to the worship of natural causes.²⁰ Second, is “clinging to the self alone.” Just as the philosophizing person examines beings in their natural causes, he also looks at himself in the same way; i.e. as an object,²¹ thus falling into self-worship.²²

c) Figural Criticism: For Nursi, the philosopher who advocates an association between philosophy and wisdom is like one who walks in a vast desert, subjected to terrors on every side, such as the fury of the sea, the danger of storms, or the darkness of the sky. These will scatter his dismembered body along the road and his condition will be like that assigned in the Qur’an to those on whom God’s anger descends.²³

If we compare this figural criticism of the associative mode with the previous figural criticism of the inclusive mode, we will find that those who advocate figural criticism are worse off than those who propound the latter. The fact that the former walks on the face of the earth or under the sky – the symbol of Revelation – and the sun – the symbol of light – indicates that his challenge of the divinity of the All- Wise is far greater than the arrogance of the other philosopher who only seeks a path under the ground, where there is no sun and no sky. Also, the fact that the associative advocate”s dismembered body is thrown by the sea onto the side of the road indicates that his deed is like that of a Pharaoh and he, therefore, deserves the same fate in dying and becoming a lesson to others.²⁴ The other philosopher, the advocate of the inclusive mode, is only seen as a ghost. Hence, his body will not be left behind for people as a lesson, but only his traces will serve that function. Consequently, the great peripatetic philosopher, who is only sparingly mentioned by Nursi, Ibn Rushd, is counted by him among those who are an object of God”s wrath,²⁵ because he advocated an associative mode between philosophy and wisdom and acted accordingly. In this, Ibn Rushd became a renegade, like the rebelling Jews.²⁶ Nursi was also deceived by Ibn Rushd’s cunning and held his opinion to be true. Thus, he also was in danger of being exposed to God”s wrath but for the name of God the Merciful (Al Rahim) shining on him to guide him to the Straight Path. Acting on the principle of association between philosophy and wisdom leads to a person”s losing insight and awareness and failing to admit God”s graces. Such a person will neither be happy, nor saved.

* This is an abridged version of Prof Abdel Rahman’s article which was published in Hira (issues 3 and 4, 2006), a quarterly magazine in Arabic (www.hiramagazine.com).

Notes

1. . This study institutes a basic move in terminology: the word ‘philosophy’ is used to designate the knowledge posited by man, thus speaking of ‘human philosophy,’ but not employing the term ‘Qur’anic philosophy.’ On the other hand the term ‘wisdom’ is used here to designate knowledge revealed by God.
2. . Nursi was actively involved in the social and political life before World War I. After the war he perceived that a religious revival was possible only through an intellectual enlightenment using sciences and spiritual illumination through faith, worship, and good morality. He later called this change of perception as the transition from the Old Said to New Said.
3. . We find this description in the following passage: ‘I saw God”s laws as mountains hanging from the sky. Anyone who clings even to a part thereof will ascend and be happy. I say that anyone who goes against those laws, relying on the mind circulating among men in an attempt to reach the paths of heavens through earthly means, is a fool like the Pharaoh who wanted his minister Haman to build him a tower (of clay to reach the sky).’, The Arab Nuri Mathnawi, p. 165.
4. . He says: ‘It is an established principle that if reason and tradition contradict one another, reason would be deemed the basis and the tradition would be interpreted accordingly. But for this to proceed, the reason should be a genuine one.’ The Polishing Stone of Islam, p. 29.
5. . He says: ‘Know you philosophizing person who upholds reason over tradition and who accordingly interprets the tradition that you distort the tradition as your mind, made rotten by vanity and the immersion in philosophical matters, was not capacious enough for the tradition… Your mind is your shackle and by tradition you are transported.’ The Arab Nuri Mathnawi, p. 190.
6. . He says: ‘In this way, they do not manage to give the true image of Islam conforming to that form of action. They graft the tree of Islam with the twigs of wisdom, which they think deep-rooted, as if they are thus strengthening Islam. But triumphing over the enemies through this mode of action is not of much weight. Also this mode implies some denigration of Islam. Therefore, I abandoned this method and actually demonstrated that Islam”s foundations are so profound and well-established that the deepest bases of philosophy cannot reach them, but must always remain superficial in comparison to them.’ Writings, pp. 569-570.
7. . The Polishing Stone of Islam, p. 35-36.
8. . He says: ‘How ignorant is he who grew vain with the philosophical arts rendering them the criterion for the sacred studies of the Qur’an.’ The Arab Nuri Mathnawi, p. 77. Elsewhere, he says: ‘I have witnessed the growth of the philosophical science in the growth of sickness and seen the growth of sickness in the increase of rational science. For the moral illnesses are conducive to rational sciences just as the latter breed illnesses of the heart.’ Ibid., p. 158.
9. . The symbol of the ‘cave’ in Said Nursi The Sage has the converse significance of the ‘cave’ in Plato and the ‘vault’ in Descartes. For Plato, those who descend into the cave are the ignorant who know only the shadow of things, compared to the philosopher who knows the essences of things themselves (The Republic. Book Seven) For Descartes, they are the blind people who live in utter darkness, compared to the philosopher who lives in bright light (An Essay in Method. Part Six). For Nursi, on the other hand, the one who seeks shelter in a cave is the philosopher himself, whom Plato deems as the truly knowledgeable person, and whom Descartes holds to be the truly insightful person.
10. . He says: ‘Thus, the first path is that of the misguided, described in the Qur’an as the ‘stray’. This is the path of those who fell to the idea of Nature and adopted the ideas of naturalists…’ Words, p. 650.
11. . He says: ‘This earth is “nature” and “natural philosophy”. The tunnel is the path taken by the people of philosophy with their ideas in a bid to reach the truth. The footprints I saw were those of famous philosophers like Plato and Aristotle. The voices I heard were those of cunning ones like Ibn Sina and Al Farabi… Yes, I found sayings and tenets by Ibn Sina in several places, but these voices totally ceased; in a sense he could not make progress. He suffocated.’ Words, p. 648.
12. . Signs of Miraculousness, p. 36.
13. . The ground for the view of associative connection between philosophy and wisdom is the belief that philosophy acts on three principles that are not found in wisdom: One, the Principle of Astonishment: the philosophical act has its origin in the feeling of astonishment vis A vis the effects left on the psyche or the things on the horizon. Two, the Principle of Questioning: the philosopher poses one series of questions after another series, looking for answers to them. Three, the Principle of Proof-finding: in proving its tenets, philosophy relies on intellectual evidence that may attain the highest degree of certainty.
14. . He says: ‘The philosophy reached by man veils the miracles of divine might and the marvels of the Almighty”s mercy by the curtain of uniformities, causing a failure to see the signs of (God”s) oneness under these regularities and these great blessings. It does not show them nor indicate them. However, if philosophy perceives some special peculiarities that depart from custom, it directs its attention and concern to them.’ Annexes, p. 358
15. . He says: ‘If that mind becomes confounded in the mire of misguidance and the denial of God, it becomes an instrument of torture and a cause for disturbance in its combination of the sad pains of the past and the terrible fears of the future.’, Illuminations, p. 19.
16. . He says: ‘The difference between my path in the distilling of benefit from the Qur’an and the method of thinkers and philosophers is that I dig wherever I am and water comes out. They, on the other hand, insist on laying pipes and ducts to bring the water from afar. They build long chains and ladders to the Throne above to bring down the water of life. As they rely on these causes, they have to place millions of proof-keepers all along these lengthy roads to preserve them from the destructiveness of the devils of illusions.’ The Arab Nuri Mathnawi, p. 170.
17. . He says: ‘With the secret of the oneness of God, the sealed secret of the perplexing questions is uncovered. From whence comes the flood of existing beings and the train of creatures? Whither is fate? Why did they come and what are they doing…’, Illuminations, p. 14.
18. . He says: ‘But for the oneness of God, man would have been the most wretched of creatures, the lowest of beings, the weakest of animals, and the saddest and most tortured and pained of sentiments. Illuminations, p. 18.
19. . He says: ‘The Qur’anic view of beings makes them like particles; i.e. they express a meaning that resides elsewhere. They express the epiphany of the Best Names and the Supreme Attributes of the Great Creator that are manifested in beings. On the other hand, the dead look of – materialistic – philosophy mostly views the beings as names [whose meaning resides in them] and its foot thereby slips into the slough of nature.’ Annexes, p. 90.
20. . He says: ‘As for philosophy, it looks at existing beings from the point of view of their aspects that regard their entities and their causes.’ The Arab Nuri Mathnawi, p. 77.
21. . Words, p. 646.
22. . He says: ‘The misguided people of this age ride on the “ego” that roams with them in the valleys of loss. The righteous people cannot serve the Truth except by abandoning the ego. Even if they are right and correct in their use of the ego, they have to leave it behind so that they will not look like the others, because then they would be, like them, suspected of self-worship.’ Writings, p. 549.
23. . He says: ‘The second path alluded to – ‘those who are the objects of God”s anger’ – is that of those who worship causes and consider that creation and creating are the acts of intermediaries, which alone, in their view, are effective. They want to reach the Truth of truths and God, the Exalted, through mind and thought alone like the peripatetic sages.’ Words, p. 650.
24. . This an illusion to the Qur’anic verse: ‘Today we save your body alone to make you a sign for those who come after us. Many are heedless of our signs.’ The Sura Yunus, verse 29.
25. . Nursi avoids mentioning Ibn Rushd by name – contrary to what he did with Al Arabi and Ibn Sina – but he refers to him by referring to the quality he was famous for; i.e. as ‘the Cynic’, since he is the greatest exegete of Aristotle. We do not wish to go into the reasons that led him to such circumspection here. It is enough to say that he may have done so in kindness to Ibn Rushd and as a gesture of politeness to his contemporary followers.
26. . The Signs of Miraculousness, p. 36.

When we look at our bodies, we see that everything is taken care of already: respiratory systems, nervous systems, and all others work without our control. It is as if we dwell in a palace where everything is already optimized and automated for our living conditions³ Therefore, being the resident of this palace, the ego is responsible for using these given faculties in a way to keep harmony between inside and outside. This tells us that it is the ego that must emulate the concept of “accelerated motion.” If we rephrase this concept, we can say that it is the ego that must undergo a continuous change in order to achieve beauty and order inside and establish harmony between inside and outside. Considering that our knowledge of ourselves and of the world around us is limited, how can we educate our egos to achieve this harmony? Let’s make a journey into the major human to answer the question concerning the minor universe.

First observation

We see that everything in the universe changes, and nothing remains unchanged. Slow or fast, nature is in a continuous motion and change. Thus nature is never the same twice. Interestingly, within this continuous change, we see periodicities. Although things are never the same on a small scale, we see repeating epochs on a larger scale, such as the alternation of day and night, the cycle of the seasons, and the birth-growth-death period in all living things.

Second observation

We also observe that the great cycles of change that take place in the universe conceive a criterion or a point around which they rotate. For example, the planets assume the sun as their axis of rotation; the stars take the galaxy center as their axis of rotation.

Third observation

When we look at nature, we see that there is solidarity between the living and non-living things through which non-living ones become sustenance for the living ones. We also see solidarity among living things⁴ to sustain each others’ existence on Earth so that none of the species leave the stage.

Fourth observation⁵

Another fact that catches the eye is multi-tasking in nature. For example, we see air as a conductor of light, sound and heat; we see it entering our lungs and participating in our bodily reactions. Again the same air goes into other living things and functions in those systems in harmony. Soil is another example. We see the soil as a nest for all kinds of seeds, which function differently from each other; and the same soil is used for the construction of the bodies of living things and even their homes.

In order to have the beauty and the order of the major universe reflected on the minor one, i.e. human, the change and periodicity, the assumption of a criterion (an axis of rotation), the solidarity, and the multi-tasking must be represented in the human ego, which is responsible for the body it is dwelling in.

Role shift⁶

In our daily lives, we take on different roles depending on our positions. A successful person is the one who recognizes the requirements of each of these roles and, therefore, is able to adjust himself according to these requirements. A person who is a boss at work is not supposed to act like a boss at home. Either a parent role or the spouse role must be recalled. However, the following two mechanisms may prevent such a role shift: the resistance of the ego to change (inertia) and the strong desire of ego to become the axis of rotation for its surroundings.

Axis of rotation

Some of our attitudes imply rejection of any ties to a Supreme Power. This leads to a sub-conscious assumption by which we consider ourselves as the axis of rotation for everything and everybody else. However, the universe is not created according to our selfish comfort; and other people also have their own ego which tempts them to the same sub-conscious assumption by which they may consider themselves as the axis of rotation. It is obvious that in a family or in a society where everybody wants to be the axis of rotation, conflicts will arise, and soon the unity will collapse. A dynamic ego, on the other hand, would recognize a Supreme Power and try to change according to the manners described by Him. Recognition of the Supreme Power also requires introspection and self-criticism according to the criteria explained by that Power. As a result of this introspection and self-criticism, a dynamic ego will apologize for its transgressions, leading to self-change.

Sometimes it is possible to gain by losing

The solidarity embedded in nature represents itself in two main ways. One involves directly helping each other for survival, such as between a mother and her children. The other is by self-sacrificing for others’ survival, such as plants becoming food for animals, and animals becoming food for plants in a cyclical manner, etc. Based on these two solidarities, life on Earth has continued for thousands of years. Similarly, in a healthy relationship, people not only help each other but also self-sacrifice for others. If any of the members of this relationship tries to fix himself/herself as the center and incessantly ask for sacrifice from the other, the relationship collapses sooner or later. An example of such a collapse is the current state of the environment. The excessive and irresponsible actions of human beings towards nature in the recent centuries has led to human comfort at the expense of the strength of life on Earth.

The superheroes: soil, water, fire, air

In terms of multi-tasking, we observe in nature superheroes that do everything but do not get credit: soil, water, fire, air. None of these has an ego. They do not have a conscious mind, either. Somehow, they are working everywhere we see, doing miraculous things. Furthermore, they are obedient to us; we can use them however we want. The coexistence of super-powers and obedience is something that is in complete contradiction to the superhero picture we have in mind.

According to our perception, a superhero can do everything, solve every problem, etc., but most of all, a superhero works alone and has his own rules. Unfortunately, in real life, we hardly observe a superhero that is, say, a good family member or a good teacher who can educate new superheroes. This is because real life and super-powers have opposite requirements: patience vs. speed, self-sacrifice vs. self-realization, giving birth to multitudes vs. remaining as “The Hero.” Without proper education, super-properties will eventually lead to a super-ego that idolizes itself. This type of a character does not make up a healthy personality and is a threat to the survival of the society. From this, it can be deduced that self-improvement and self-realization, if not motivated properly, lead to self-idolization, which is not the way to go for an ego. So, what is the ultimate motive for an ego?

Based on the example of the supers of nature, a suggested statement of the ultimate goal or motive for the ego is being of use as much as, and as best as, possible without gaining credit. However, this statement is not going to satisfy and/or motivate the ego. This is because the ego’s nature requires some “food” for survival. We would not be humans without our egos. So what is the food of the ego? Some people feed their egos with self-satisfaction, which leads to arrogance or pragmatism. Some others choose to take other people’s pleasure as their ego food, which does not work in the long run, since nobody has the power to give all the time without receiving. As a third choice, some people prefer to choose God’s pleasure as a survival for their ego, which looks more promising compared to the other two in terms of self-satisfaction and service to other people.

Challenge in the ego education: Inertia

As human beings, the more we grow, the more we build our own personality/ego and show a sub-conscious resistance to change. This is similar to a train that has already accelerated and which will require a great force to change direction and/or slow down. In another way, it is similar to a piece of brittle solid, like ice, which will break into pieces when hit by a hammer. This solid form of ego is the result of lack of education and sincere love; it eventually becomes a thick, opaque veil in front of the eyes of its carrier, and filters all the warnings coming from outside that point to a need for change⁷ So, how are we going to keep our egos ready for change?

Based on the examples of the train and ice given above, two principles can be seen in order to facilitate the change for ego: obedience and love. The train is subject to the train tracks, therefore it is obedient to the direction shown by the track; it does not go as its inertia requires. Also a piece of ice will not shatter into pieces when hit by a hammer, if that ice is melted⁸ What melts the ego is the heat of love and affection sourcing from the heart. So, to keep our egos ready for changes, we must find a reliable track to obey and the heat of love to melt our egos.

The scenic view

The big picture drawn in this article is based on an alternating motion model with respect to a reliable point of reference. This vision is similar to the rotation of the Earth, both around its own axis and around the sun, which leads to the change of day and night and the alternation of seasons. This continuous change gives birth to the continued existence of life on Earth, where incredible beauties are displayed everyday, every moment. It is up to us to use the free will given by our Designer to preserve the dynamic character of our ego by which we can become the best of creation. It is also our free choice to give in to the inertia that is inherent in it.

Notes

1. Nursi, S., Epitomes of Light, Kaynak, p. 439.
2. Nursi, S., The Letters, Kaynak, Vol. II, p. 16.
3. Nursi, S., Epitomes of Light, Kaynak, p. 258.
4. ibid.
5. Nursi, S., The Words, Vol. I, Kaynak, pp. 211-214.
6. ibid, pp. 251-253.
7. ibid, Vol. II, pp. 238-239.
8. Nursi, S., Flashes Collection, Sozler Publications, p. 220.