﷽
Welcome to Episode Five of the Middle Ground Podcast. This is Part I of a conversation between myself, brother Dawud Aleman, and Naveid Siddiqi, a scientist and engineer by trade and curious cat by night. Brother Naveid is going to help guide us as we discuss science and in particular some old-but-new-again theories from thinkers like Donald Hoffman who purport that you cannot trust what you see. As usual, we discuss all topics in light of the Qur’ān and statements from the Prophet, ﷺ.
Other references in this episode:
The Parable of the Cave;
The Noble Lie;
Empiricism;
Rationalism;
Both of the above can be found in Greek Philosopher Plato’s “Republic”. As for The Parable of the Cave, it serves as a metaphor for the nature of human perception, reality, and enlightenment. In the parable, prisoners are chained in a dark cave from birth, facing a wall. They see only the shadows of objects behind them, cast by a fire, and believe these shadows are the only reality. One day, a prisoner is freed and exposed to the outside world. At first, he is blinded by the sunlight, but as his eyes adjust, he realizes the true nature of reality (or at least a less fake version of reality than the one in the cave!). The prisoner then returns to the cave to free the others, but they are skeptical and resist, preferring instead the familiarity of their artificial shadow-reality. The parable illustrates Plato's theory of forms (see empiricism below), where the world of shadows represents the world of appearances, and the outside world represents the realm of eternal truths and forms. It emphasizes the philosopher's role as the enlightened one who must guide others toward knowledge.
The Noble Lie is a concept also found in Plato's “Republic.” It is a deliberate falsehood constructed and perpetuated by the rulers of an ideal city-state to maintain social order and harmony. In Plato's proposed utopian society, individuals are divided into three classes: rulers, warriors, and producers. The Noble Lie tells a tale about the origins of these classes, claiming that they were created by the gods and that each person's nature is predetermined accordingly. The lie aims to instill a sense of duty, loyalty, and social cohesion among citizens. By convincing individuals that their roles in society are ordained by divine forces, Plato believes it can prevent social unrest or discontent. The Noble Lie illustrates Plato's authoritarian approach to governance and his belief in the philosopher-king's authority to shape societal beliefs. However, it also raises ethical questions about the manipulation of truth for the perceived greater good and the implications of deceiving a population to maintain social harmony.
The Parable of the Cave and The Noble Lie, both found in Plato's “Republic,” are interconnected in the context of Plato's philosophical and political ideas. They share a common theme of enlightenment and the role he feels philosophers ought to play in guiding society, though they address different aspects of these concepts.
One – The role of the philosophers: In both The Parable of the Cave and the concept of The Noble Lie, philosophers play a crucial role in the ideal city-state. In the cave allegory, the philosopher who escapes and returns to free the prisoners symbolizes the enlightened individual who comprehends higher truths and must guide others to that knowledge. The rulers who create the Noble Lie are also portrayed as philosopher-kings or guardians responsible for shaping and maintaining the city's moral and social order.
Two – Enlightenment and Truth: The Parable of the Cave emphasizes the transformative power of philosophical enlightenment and the difference between the world of appearances (shadows) and the world of eternal truths (outside the cave). The Noble Lie, on the other hand, introduces the idea of a constructed myth or falsehood that is believed to be true by the citizens to maintain social harmony. It raises questions about the nature of truth and how truths or beliefs are used to shape society.
Three – Social Order: Both The Parable of the Cave and The Noble Lie are concerned with maintaining social order. The Parable emphasizes the need to guide individuals from ignorance to knowledge, which is essential for a just society. The Noble Lie is a tool used to instill values, duties, and social cohesion in the citizenry, preventing social unrest and division.
Four – Philosopher-Kings: The concepts are also linked through the notion of philosopher-kings or rulers who are philosopher-like figures with the responsibility of governing the ideal city-state and guiding its citizens. These rulers are seen as the enlightened few who understand the higher truths and use their wisdom to shape society.
As for Empiricism (and Rationalism), empiricism and rationalism represent contrasting approaches to acquiring knowledge. Empiricism posits that all knowledge is derived from sensory perception, emphasizing the role of the five senses in shaping our understanding of the world. In contrast, rationalism argues that some knowledge is obtained solely through reasoning (a flawed and limited human endeavor no matter how brilliant s/he may be), asserting the existence of forms of knowledge independent of sensory experiences.
Rationalists extend their beliefs to the existence of non-spatiotemporal entities (i.e. thing which do no exist in a place or at a specific time. For example, despite that no two snowflakes look alike, all snowflakes exude a snowflake-ness that can be universally recognized), suggesting that certain knowledge transcends sensory perception. Empiricists, on the other hand, contend that knowledge is contingent on direct sensory encounters. However, they encounter challenges when it comes to understanding properties. Empiricists deal with property-instances rather than properties themselves, giving rise to questions about the nature of properties. Some empiricists deny the existence of properties as independent entities, while others propose that properties are identical to spatiotemporal entities.
Those who advocate the view that properties are identical with spatiotemporal entities are compelled to perceive properties as compositions of their own instances. This concept poses issues regarding uninstantiated properties, those without a concrete representative. Empiricists typically reject the existence of properties that lack a direct concrete instance.
The limitations of empiricism are highlighted by the particularist nature of sense-perception. Sense-perception reveals only particulars, while human understanding and descriptions of the world rely on universals or categories, which are not directly sensed. Empiricists cast doubt on the existence of universals due to their non-spatiotemporal nature. Yet, universals play a fundamental role in human thought, language, and explanation, making it challenging to reject their existence solely based on empiricism.
Universals are understood through particulars via sense-perception. Since they are non-spatiotemporal, empiricists are skeptical about their existence. Universals are integral to explanations, and empirical observations alone cannot establish their existence. Logic dictates that empiricism cannot provide observational evidence for universals, making it difficult to accept empiricism when universals are so deeply ingrained in human cognition.
For more on empiricism, see Empiricism and Its Limits by J. M. Kuczynski (now only available as an audiobook).
Is Reality Up For Grabs? Muslims & Science