Logic and Tradition: New Light on al-Farabi's Philosophy of Logic

This article provides a brief overview of al-Farabi's contribution to science. Abu Nasr al-Farabi was the greatest philosopher and scientist of his time. Initially, he completed his studies in Farabi and Bukhara. Later, he went to Baghdad, where he studied and worked for a long time. During this time, al-Farabi mastered several languages and various branches of knowledge and technology. The article identifies specific problems of ignorance in the ethical philosophy of al-Farabi, the founder of the actual political and ethical philosophy, especially Farabi's synthesis of ancient and Muslim traditions. The paper reveals the place of the Platonic political concepts. We introduce the influence of Farabi's ideas on the further development of ethical thought in Islam. In addition, the article indicates the thoughts and treatises where al-Farabi implacably and harshly criticized ignorant, weak and lazy managers, unworthy to lead even small communities. In his works, he gives the characteristic features of a "rule".

Al-Farabi, an Islamic philosopher, focused on the correlation between logic and language, particularly regarding the process of reasoning. He classified logic into eight components, which align with the eight books of the Aristotelian Organon, and delineated logic as a system of rules governing thought. He asserted that the objectives of logic are to govern and direct reason towards correct thinking, establish measures to prevent mistakes and assign significance to comprehensible acknowledgments of error. As Aristotle's logic encompasses a set of methods aimed at effectively persuading others, regulating debate, uncovering truths, and attaining certainty, Al-Farabi regarded the formal rules of logic as heuristics (mental shortcuts that help people make quick decisions), rather than as laws of a scientific theory. He analogized logic to tools like rulers and compasses, which are employed to guarantee precision when measuring physical objects that are susceptible to errors. Further, he characterized it as a science based on rules that regulate the mental processes involved in comprehending abstract concepts served as the basis for Ibn Sina's subsequent enhancements. Al-Farabi's philosophy of logic and language is expounded in his writings, and he deserves to be regarded on par with Plato, Aristotle, Kant, and Hegel in this aspect of his work.

Scholars disagree about the correct interpretation of Alfarabi's Political Regime and Virtuous City, treatises that have striking similarities, yet notable differences. For some, the treatises encapsulate Alfarabi's philosophy; for others, they express only politically salutary opinions. Both interpretations fail to explain why he wrote parallel works. If both reflect Alfarabi's genuine philosophic doctrines, why did he compose separate but parallel treatises, both written when his philosophy was mature? Alternatively, if the treatises are political or rhetorical, why did Alfarabi compose two versions, and why did he choose these two accounts rather than others? To answer these questions, I discuss several overarching differences between the treatises, concluding that each work has an inner coherence and develops a distinctive narrative. I offer suggestions to account for the works’ distinctive orientations, both to persuade doubtful readers of their philosophic significance and to suggest to both groups of scholars reasons for their systematic differences.

The article deals with the problem of the civil state in the philosophу of al-Farabi. Although the origins of the scientist’s views on civil politics go back to the ideas of Plato and Aristotle about wisdom, common sense and courage, he managed to form his own political and legal concept based on medieval Eastern philosophical teachings. The main philosophical views of the scientist about the civil society are presented in many of his treatises, especially in such as “Aro-u ahl madinati al-fazil” (Views of the residents of a virtuous city), “As-siyasatu al-madaniyat” (Civil policy), “Tahsil ala as-saada” (On achieving happiness), etc. The author claims that al-Farabi paid special attention to such concepts as “the first ruler”, “just ruler”, “perfect person”, “imam”, “philosopher”, which means a person who is worthy to lead a civil society. Since, according to the teachings of al-Farabi, the first ruler is not limited to simple knowledge and for this reason must be elected among the people.

The article is devoted to the study of the category of “perfection”, presented in the philosophy of Al-Farabi in the following natural-scientific, historicalphilosophical, social, ethical and aesthetic treatises: “On the Views of the Inhabitants of the Virtuous City”, “On the Origin of Sciences”, “Indicating the Path to Happiness”, “Civil Policy”, “Aphorisms of a Statesman”, “The Great Book of Music”. While analyzing the category of “perfection”, Al-Farabi places it in the context of achievement of human happiness. The study concludes that the category of “perfection” in AlFarabi’s treatises manifests itself at the ontological, axiological, religious, social, ethical and aesthetic levels of philosophical understanding.

AMA Announcement: Monday 2/19 12PM ET - Debra Satz on political philosophy, public policy and the ethical limits of markets

I’m Debra Satz, the Marta Sutton Weeks Professor of Philosophy at Stanford University and co-host of the Philosophy Talk radio program. I grew up in the Bronx, and was the first of my family to go to college. From there, I graduated from City College of New York and received my PhD from M.I.T. where – after toying with the idea of writing on the philosophy of logic – I wrote a dissertation focusing on Marx’s theory of social progress. Although I have traveled far from where I began, my experiences growing up in the Bronx continue to influence my work and thought. My philosophical work has been broadly concerned with the economic preconditions for a democratic society of equals. But rather than approaching this question at a very high level of abstraction, I have focused on the ethics behind the creation and operation of particular markets. Markets in the abstract are models of freedom and equality. Freedom because each has the choice to enter into, or refrain from entering, any particular exchange. Moreover, because each of us is linked through countless others, no one is under the thumb of any particular person. This latter point also underwrites our equality. In theory, neither is dependent on the other and each has the right to refuse a deal which we view as unfair. But, in reality, many markets depart very far from that theory. Some markets involve agents who are asymmetrically situated: One person desperately needs a good that only the other has (think of credit markets in the developing world); or, one person has relevant knowledge that another person lacks (think of the market for used cars). Moreover, some markets involve risks that fall on others besides the transacting agent (think of exchanges that generate pollution); or markets where others are transacting on our behalf (think of child labor markets where parents transact on behalf of their children, or governments where dictators transact debt on behalf of their populations). My book, Why Some Things Should Not be For Sale: The Moral Limits of Markets develops a theory that distinguishes between ordinary markets that resemble abstract markets and what I call noxious markets. Noxious markets are characterized along four parameters: weak agency, background vulnerability and inequality of the transacting agents, harms to individuals, and harms to society. My book examines markets in body parts, commercial surrogacy, child labor and prostitution. Importantly, I argue that the fact that a market is noxious does not entail the conclusion that we should ban it. It may be possible to increase agency (by giving parties better information) or address third party harms through regulation. But a message of my work, which resonates with a long tradition of political economy (where figures such as Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Karl Marx and RH Tawney are central) is that not all markets are the same. I also have interests in the distribution of educational opportunities, where I have argued that the sharp divide policy makers and philosophers draw between adequacy approaches and equality approaches is overdrawn. A theory of distributing educational opportunity that is adequate for a democratic society will have strong egalitarian elements. In addition to pursuing my interests in education (which was my path out of poverty), I am writing a paper which examines the role of the state’s distribution of in kind goods (such as health care) for a democratic society of equals. I look forward to discussing my work with you on reddit! Links of Interest: My book: Why Some Things Should Not be For Sale: The Moral Limits of Markets. Thanks to OUP can purchase it 30% off from their site with promocode AAFLYG6. A newer co-authored book dealing with the relations between ethics and economics: Economic Analysis, Moral Philosophy and Public Policy, Third Edition My Stanford Encyclopedia Article on Feminist Perspectives on Reproduction and the Family My Ethics article “Equality, Adequacy and Education for Citizenship” My class day speech at Stanford University on the Moral Limits of Markets The Philosophy Talk radio program which I co-host

Relevance. The article explores the potential of utilizing the logotherapeutic approach as a theoretical foundation for developing new strategies in societal and political advancement, particularly in the context of overcoming existential vacuum and the search for meaning in life during global crises. The concept of happiness is considered as an indicator of a sense of meaningfulness, self-realization, and freedom of will at both personal and societal levels, aligning with the understanding of happiness in logotherapy. The aim is to examine and systematize modern global approaches to the constitutionalization of happiness and its social and political implementation, and to compare them with the logotherapeutic understanding of meaning and happiness. The methodological basis is a comparative-analytical approach that integrates the interpretation of philosophical and psychological sources, statistical data analysis, contemporary context review, and extrapolation of logotherapeutic principles into the socio-political domain. Special attention is given to the phenomenon of existential frustration as a shared challenge for both individuals and society. It is established that the constitutionalization of happiness has been implemented at the state level in many countries. Contemporary methodologies for measuring and indexing the level of happiness in various countries, such as the World Happiness Index, are examined. The study analyzes the inclusion of the eudaimonic approach in the indexing process and reviews the experience of specific countries. It identifies risks of distortion of the principles of self-transcendence within totalitarian systems. The conclusions justify the relevance of implementing logotherapeutic ideas into political discourse, particularly through an orientation toward meaning. It is shown that such approaches can foster increased personal responsibility, the development of autonomous motivation, and the foundations of a humanistically oriented state policy. The limits of the research lie in its theoretical character; future research may focus on empirical testing of the proposed hypotheses. The practical significance lies in the potential to design new educational and governmental programs that address the deep existential needs of the individual. The social implications include a potential decrease in levels of social apathy, anxiety, and political alienation.

The paper focuses on the review of current literature on formal philosophy. Special attention is paid to the review of the book «Introduction to Formal Philosophy» [Hansson, Hendricks, 2018]. The book is a consistent introduction to the problems of formal philosophy, a research tradition that relies on the precise mathematical tools in order to study traditional philosophical problems. The methods of formal philosophy are successfully applied not only to the problems of ontology, epistemology and philosophy of language but also relevant for the problems of ethics, axiology and social philosophy. The book demonstrates that it is not correct to identify formal philosophy with another area of study – philosophical logic, since formal philosophy uses not only logical methods of analysis, but also uses the tools of game theory, decision theory, probability theory, Bayesian statistics, and other theories. Although the book has a propaedeutic character, it also contains some open problems. These problems include the aggregation of the opinions of the group under the condition of a conflicting base of premises in the theory of public choice, there are still open problems in the interpretation of Arrow’s impossibility theorem and others. Certainly, formalization in itself is not a general solution to the particular philosophical problem, but only a tool that allows to formulate a problem in a more rigorous and precise way, which sometimes allows to reveal some unexpected consequences, some implicit contradictions and new solutions. Despite the importance of the concept of coherence in ethics, decision theory, philosophy of law, Bayesian epistemology, philosophy of science, the existing formalizations of the concept of coherence are highly specialized for epistemology, researchers recognize the lack of the relevant explanatory models. Overall, the book is an excellent introduction in to the field of formal philosophy, which provides a general overview of different aspects of formal philosophy and the opportunity to study particular research topics by means of an extensive bibliography accompanying each of the chapters.

There is a tendency among scholars to identify Alfarabi’s political philosophy in general and his theory of the state in particular with that of Plato’s The Republic. Undoubtedly Alfarabi was well versed in the philosophy of Plato and was greatly influenced by it. He borrows the Platonic concept of the philosopher king and uses it in his theory of the state. However, we argue that the identification of Alfarabi’s virtuous city with that of Plato’s The Republic is an inaccurate assessment as it involves overlooking Alfarabi’s unique religiopolitical context. Alfarabi was a Muslim political philosopher, and the present article intends to understand Alfarabi’s theory of the state in light of his historical context. The article shows that, viewed through the prism of Islamic religion and political history, Alfarabi’s virtuous city seems distinct from that of Plato’s The Republic.

Five dogmas of logic diagrams and how to escape them

A Fresh Look: The Social Competence of Information Science

The article examines the content and meaning of the concept of "happiness" in the works of Abu Nasr Al-Fārābi and Yusuf Khas Kajib Balasagun and compares the general thoughts and conclusions of two thinkers on the issue of "happiness" and analyses the compatibility and continuity of their opinions. As a result of the research, it was determined that the problem of "happiness" was the main problem in the social and ethical philosophy of Al-Fārābi and Yusuf Khas Hajib Balasagun, and the compatibility and continuity of their general and specific philosophical thoughts on "happiness." Al-Fārābi proposed the doctrine of the "virtuous city" as a political and moral ideal and the concept of "happiness" as the goal of achieving this ideal. At the same time, according to the philosophy of the great thinker, "happiness" is considered the ultimate goal of a man. However, he warned that a virtuous citizen can only achieve happiness in this world and the next. On the basis of these opinions and conclusions of Al-Farabi, authors have revealed that Yusuf Has Kajib also connected the concept of “happiness” with virtue and a number of moral qualities, such as generosity, honesty, and justice, which lead to “happiness.” The importance of the article will undoubtedly be the basis for profoundly revealing the essence of the political and social philosophy of Al-Fārābi and Yusuf Khas Hajib, identifying new aspects, and theoretically and methodologically determining the continuity of their ideas on "happiness" with modern society.

Al-Farabi categorized cities, the smallest scale of a political association, into four types: the virtuous city, the ignorant city, the wicked city, the diverted city, and the erring city. Al-Farabi terminology indicates that morality is the red-line that differs the nature of each city, although there is no straightforward statement in his treaties. Despite many admirations by later philosophers on Al-Farabi’s political philosophy, his concept is still considered a utopia. Also, it seems that no historical account mentioned any (Islamic) empire, applying Al-Farabi’s ideas on politics. Even Ibn Khaldun criticized Al-Farabi’s concept based on the pragmatic perspective of civilization. However, this fact does not imply the irrelevancy of Al-Farabi’s politics in the practical realm. The question is only regarding what extent Al-Farabi ideas work with politics, particularly modern politics? This study aims to correlate Al-Farabi ideal concept and modern politics. The methodology of this research is qualitative conceptual analysis since the two variables are in the theoretical realm. It can be concluded that Politics in Al-Farabi’s notion strongly connected with Ethics and Morality rather than Authority. An ideal state can actualize through the collective consciousness of true felicity, by which the type of cities is divided. Although Al-Farabi’s political philosophy is quite unapplicable, particularly in the modern age, its role as the highest political principles is undeniable. The essential aspect of Al-Farabi’s political employment in the modern era is his fundamental idea, i.e., ethical society. Establishing an ethical state is more critical than Al-Farabi’s political application entirely.

Although Rousseau's thought has had a vast influence on political ideas and diverse political movements, the seeming absence of a coherent and consistent philosophy has puzzled his interpreters. Some have tried to get at the bottom of apparent inconsistencies in their search for the unity underlying his thought. This article is a sympathetic and plausible interpretation of Rousseau's understanding of happiness as the unifying basis of his moral and political philosophy, contrasting his theory with other kinds of moral and political thought. Happiness for Rousseau is, not a utopian dream, but a condition attainable by different kinds of people in a wide variety of circumstances.