Imām al-Haramayn al-Juwaynī's Approach to the Definitions of Knowledge

Muhammed Selim Kaya; Sabri Yılmaz

Makale detayları

Imām al-Haramayn al-Juwaynī's Approach to the Definitions of Knowledge

Yazarlar:

Muhammed Selim Kaya | Sabri Yılmaz

Yayıncı:

Burdur Mehmet Akif Ersoy University

Ana Başlıklar:

Kelam

Dergi:

Burdur İlahiyat Dergisi Issue 8, pp.86-107

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001321162

pISSN:

2980-2407

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 Scholars have long focused on issues such as the definition, possibility, parts, and value of knowledge. So much so that after a while, scholars, especially those who wrote in the field of kalām, made it a custom to treat the subject of knowledge systematically in their works. Their approach to this issue played an important role in the theological systematics they established. The theologians first tried to define knowledge, but they could not produce an unanimous definition. There were even some who stated that knowledge itself is self-evident and cannot be defined. Each thinker tried to come up with a definition in accordance with his own mindset. The theologians approaches to knowledge in line with their world of thought and the perspective of the sect they belonged to influenced the theological systems they tried to put forward. Therefore, the approach to the definition of knowledge stands out as one of the main factors determining the theological method of the thinker. Asharism, which is one of the active schools in the development process of theology, is analyzed in two parts: the mutaqaddimūn and the mutaahkhirūn. The main reason for this distinction is the systematic inclusion of the topics and terms of classical logic in theology. Although the general opinion of thinkers is that this distinction began with Imam al-Ghazālī, its roots go back to his teacher Imām al-Haramayn al-Juwaynī. Al-Juwaynīs approach to the definitions of knowledge, which is positioned in an exceptional place with his changing ideas and original criticisms, is important for understanding both his changing world of mind and the theological method that shaped the intellectual history in this field. As a matter of fact, in his works written in his early years, he analyzed the definitions of knowledge and criticized them within the framework of certain criteria. The first issue that comes to the fore when his criticisms are examined is his effort to include the knowledge of Allaah in the definition of knowledge, as seen in many of the Ahl al-Sunnah scholars. As a matter of fact, al-Juwaynī, who approached the definitions that he analyzed by using the semantic method, criticized the terms in these definitions by emphasizing that they did not include the knowledge of the eternal. Another noteworthy point is some issues that he found contrary to the theory of had that he built using classical logic terms. This is evidence of his being a key point of distinction in the history of kalām. Indeed, he endeavored to formulate a systematic theory of knowledge before conveying his views on the definitions of knowledge. In the early stages of his scholarly life, al-Juwaynī stated that the definition of knowledge attributed to his teacher al-Bāqillānī, Knowledge is the knowledge of the known as it is, was more accurate, but in his later works, he criticized this definition and argued that a complete definition for knowledge could not be put forward. This is because a definition is made only to make a closed element more explicit. It is difficult to find a phenomenon more explicit than knowledge. For this reason, al-Juwaynī emphasized in his last period that knowledge cannot be easily defined and that the truth of knowledge can only be reached through research and taxation.

 Scholars have long focused on issues such as the definition, possibility, parts, and value of knowledge. So much so that after a while, scholars, especially those who wrote in the field of kalām, made it a custom to treat the subject of knowledge systematically in their works. Their approach to this issue played an important role in the theological systematics they established. The theologians first tried to define knowledge, but they could not produce an unanimous definition. There were even some who stated that knowledge itself is self-evident and cannot be defined. Each thinker tried to come up with a definition in accordance with his own mindset. The theologians approaches to knowledge in line with their world of thought and the perspective of the sect they belonged to influenced the theological systems they tried to put forward. Therefore, the approach to the definition of knowledge stands out as one of the main factors determining the theological method of the thinker. Asharism, which is one of the active schools in the development process of theology, is analyzed in two parts: the mutaqaddimūn and the mutaahkhirūn. The main reason for this distinction is the systematic inclusion of the topics and terms of classical logic in theology. Although the general opinion of thinkers is that this distinction began with Imam al-Ghazālī, its roots go back to his teacher Imām al-Haramayn al-Juwaynī. Al-Juwaynīs approach to the definitions of knowledge, which is positioned in an exceptional place with his changing ideas and original criticisms, is important for understanding both his changing world of mind and the theological method that shaped the intellectual history in this field. As a matter of fact, in his works written in his early years, he analyzed the definitions of knowledge and criticized them within the framework of certain criteria. The first issue that comes to the fore when his criticisms are examined is his effort to include the knowledge of Allaah in the definition of knowledge, as seen in many of the Ahl al-Sunnah scholars. As a matter of fact, al-Juwaynī, who approached the definitions that he analyzed by using the semantic method, criticized the terms in these definitions by emphasizing that they did not include the knowledge of the eternal. Another noteworthy point is some issues that he found contrary to the theory of had that he built using classical logic terms. This is evidence of his being a key point of distinction in the history of kalām. Indeed, he endeavored to formulate a systematic theory of knowledge before conveying his views on the definitions of knowledge. In the early stages of his scholarly life, al-Juwaynī stated that the definition of knowledge attributed to his teacher al-Bāqillānī, Knowledge is the knowledge of the known as it is, was more accurate, but in his later works, he criticized this definition and argued that a complete definition for knowledge could not be put forward. This is because a definition is made only to make a closed element more explicit. It is difficult to find a phenomenon more explicit than knowledge. For this reason, al-Juwaynī emphasized in his last period that knowledge cannot be easily defined and that the truth of knowledge can only be reached through research and taxation.

 Scholars have long focused on issues such as the definition, possibility, parts, and value of knowledge. So much so that after a while, scholars, especially those who wrote in the field of kalām, made it a custom to treat the subject of knowledge systematically in their works. Their approach to this issue played an important role in the theological systematics they established. The theologians first tried to define knowledge, but they could not produce an unanimous definition. There were even some who stated that knowledge itself is self-evident and cannot be defined. Each thinker tried to come up with a definition in accordance with his own mindset. The theologians approaches to knowledge in line with their world of thought and the perspective of the sect they belonged to influenced the theological systems they tried to put forward. Therefore, the approach to the definition of knowledge stands out as one of the main factors determining the theological method of the thinker. Asharism, which is one of the active schools in the development process of theology, is analyzed in two parts: the mutaqaddimūn and the mutaahkhirūn. The main reason for this distinction is the systematic inclusion of the topics and terms of classical logic in theology. Although the general opinion of thinkers is that this distinction began with Imam al-Ghazālī, its roots go back to his teacher Imām al-Haramayn al-Juwaynī. Al-Juwaynīs approach to the definitions of knowledge, which is positioned in an exceptional place with his changing ideas and original criticisms, is important for understanding both his changing world of mind and the theological method that shaped the intellectual history in this field. As a matter of fact, in his works written in his early years, he analyzed the definitions of knowledge and criticized them within the framework of certain criteria. The first issue that comes to the fore when his criticisms are examined is his effort to include the knowledge of Allaah in the definition of knowledge, as seen in many of the Ahl al-Sunnah scholars. As a matter of fact, al-Juwaynī, who approached the definitions that he analyzed by using the semantic method, criticized the terms in these definitions by emphasizing that they did not include the knowledge of the eternal. Another noteworthy point is some issues that he found contrary to the theory of had that he built using classical logic terms. This is evidence of his being a key point of distinction in the history of kalām. Indeed, he endeavored to formulate a systematic theory of knowledge before conveying his views on the definitions of knowledge. In the early stages of his scholarly life, al-Juwaynī stated that the definition of knowledge attributed to his teacher al-Bāqillānī, Knowledge is the knowledge of the known as it is, was more accurate, but in his later works, he criticized this definition and argued that a complete definition for knowledge could not be put forward. This is because a definition is made only to make a closed element more explicit. It is difficult to find a phenomenon more explicit than knowledge. For this reason, al-Juwaynī emphasized in his last period that knowledge cannot be easily defined and that the truth of knowledge can only be reached through research and taxation.

 Düşünürler öteden beri bilginin tarifi, imkânı, kısımları ve değeri gibi hususlara odaklanarak fikir üretmişler ve görüşler serdetmişlerdir. Öyle ki bir zaman sonra özellikle Kelâm alanında kalem oynatan âlimler eserlerinde sistematik bir şekilde bilgi konusunu işlemeyi âdet haline getirmişlerdir. Onların kurmuş oldukları kelâm sistematiğinde bu konuya yaklaşımları önemli bir rol oynamıştır. Kelamcılar söz konusu meselede genelde ilk olarak bilginin tanımını yapmaya çalışmışlar, fakat ittifak edilen bir tanım üretememişlerdir. Hatta bilginin bizzat kendisinin apaçık olduğunu belirterek tarifinin yapılamayacağını dile getirenler de olmuştur. Her düşünür kendi fikir yapısına uygun bir tanım ortaya koymaya çalışmıştır. Kelamcıların düşünce dünyaları ve mensup oldukları mezhebin bakış açısı doğrultusunda bilgi konusuna yaklaşımları ortaya koymaya çalıştıkları kelâm sistemlerini de etkilemiştir. Dolayısıyla bilginin tanımına yaklaşım bir anlamda düşünürün kelâm yöntemini belirleyen temel etkenlerden biri olarak öne çıkmaktadır. Kelâm ilminin gelişim sürecinde etkin ekollerden biri olan Eşarîlik, mütekaddimûn ve müteahhirûn olmak üzere iki kısma ayrılarak incelenmektedir. Bu ayrımın temel nedeni klasik mantığın konu ve terimlerinin sistematik bir biçimde kelâm konularına dâhil edilmesidir. Düşünürlerin genel kanısı bu ayrımın İmam Gazzâlî ile başladığı yönünde olsa da kökleri hocası İmâmul-Haremeyn Cüveynîye uzanmaktadır. Değişen fikirleri ve orijinal eleştirileriyle müstesna bir yerde konumlandırılan Cüveynînin de bilgi tanımlarına yaklaşımı, onun hem değişkenlik gösteren zihin dünyasını hem de bir anlamda bu alandaki düşünsel tarihe yön veren kelâm yöntemini anlamak için ehemmiyet arz etmektedir. Nitekim o, ilk yıllarında kaleme almış olduğu eserlerinde bilgiye dair ortaya konulan tanımları tahlil ederek belirli ölçütler çerçevesinde eleştirilerde bulunmuştur. Onun söz konusu eleştirileri incelendiğinde öne çıkan ilk husus, Ehl-i Sünnet âlimlerinin birçoğunda da görüldüğü üzere bilginin tanımına Allah Teâlânın bilgisini dâhil edebilme çabasıdır. Nitekim incelemeye yöneldiği tanımlara semantik yöntemi de kullanarak yaklaşan Cüveynî, söz konusu tanımlarda yer verilen terimlerin kadîm bilgiyi kapsamadığını vurgulayarak eleştirmiştir. Dikkat çeken diğer bir husus ise klasik mantık terimlerini kullanarak binâ ettiği had kuramına aykırı bulduğu bazı hususlardır. Bu, onun kelâm tarihindeki ayrımın kilit noktası olmasına delil teşkil etmektedir. Nitekim o bilginin tanımlarına dair görüşlerini aktarmadan önce sistematik bir bilgi kuramı oluşturmaya gayret etmiştir. Cüveynî ilmî hayatının ilk dönemlerinde, hocası Bâkıllânîye nispet ettiği Bilgi, bilinenin olduğu gibi bilinmesidirmârifetidir. şeklindeki bilgi tanımının daha doğru olduğunu ifade etmekle birlikte daha sonraki dönemlerinde kaleme almış olduğu eserlerde mezkûr tanımı da eleştiriye tâbi tutmuş ve bilgi için tam manasıyla bir tarif ortaya koyulamayacağını ileri sürmüştür. Zira tanım ancak kapalı olan bir unsurun daha açık bir hâle getirilmesi için yapılır. Bilgiden daha açık bir olgu bulmak ise zordur. Bu sebeple Cüveynî son dönemlerinde bilgi hakkında kolaylıkla bir tanım yapılamayacağını, bilginin hakikatine ancak araştırma ve taksîm ile ulaşılabileceğini vurgulamıştır.

Makale detayları

Imām al-Haramayn al-Juwaynī's Approach to the Definitions of Knowledge

Yazarlar:

Muhammed Selim Kaya | Sabri Yılmaz

Yayıncı:

Burdur Mehmet Akif Ersoy University

Ana Başlıklar:

Kelam

Dergi:

Burdur İlahiyat Dergisi Issue 8, pp.86-107

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001321162

pISSN:

2980-2407

Kalām

Epistemology

Knowledge

Definition of Knowledge

Imām al-Haramayn

al-JuwaynīKelam

Epistemoloji

Bilgi

Bilginin Tanımı

İmâmu’l-Haremeyn

Cüveynî

Sayı

Makale detayları

Yazarlar: Muhammed Selim Kaya | Sabri Yılmaz

Yayıncı: Burdur Mehmet Akif Ersoy University

Ana Başlıklar: Kelam

Dergi: Burdur İlahiyat Dergisi Issue 8, pp.86-107

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 6/2024

Belge Dili: Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.): 2001321162

pISSN: 2980-2407

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Muhammed Selim Kaya | Sabri Yılmaz

Yayıncı:

Burdur Mehmet Akif Ersoy University

Ana Başlıklar:

Kelam

Dergi:

Burdur İlahiyat Dergisi Issue 8, pp.86-107

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001321162

pISSN:

2980-2407