Eyvaz Taha - Sep 06, 2007
Even if comprehending the world does not always result in a total understanding, changing it or adapting to it is a global concern. The politician tries to shape society according to the desires of the masses, while the Sufi attempts to adapt to the world. Marx considered transforming the world to be more important than understanding it, while Yunus Emre referred to the ideal world that exists in the memory of the perfect human being when he felt alienated from the changing world. Plato, Farabi, Machiavelli, and even George Orwell and Aldous Huxley, who lived and created more recently, described ideal societies that could be considered steps taken in the direction of changing the world.
So where are the theoretical roots of this idea located? How do Eastern and Western cultures approach the question of changing or adapting to the world? Even if this short article does not provide a definitive answer to these questions, it attempts to formulate the issue correctly.
It is also true that this brief article cannot fully clarify the essence of Eastern and Western civilizations in terms of changing or adapting to the world. Therefore, we will focus concisely on the worldview of Sufis in the Middle East. At the same time, the contemporary East, unlike its past, is now experiencing immense diversity rather than unity. For example, the worldview and approaches of Japanese, Indians, Iranians, Chinese, Turks, and Arabs toward the environment and nature sometimes show no resemblance at all. The East, having lost its wholeness due to imported technology, has experienced the consequences—both good and bad—of instrumental rationalism even more deeply in places like Malaysia and India than in Spain or Austria. Based on this, we aim to analyze the issue from a historical perspective—specifically from within the framework of the Muslim East since the decline of rationalism beginning in the late 11th century. It should also be noted that although the Sufi worldview constitutes the main current of Eastern culture, exceptions such as Nəʿmədaddin Kubra and Shams Tabrizi must be considered. This is because their thoughts cannot be explained through simple methods.
CHANGING THE WORLD
Science in its entirety carries the goal of understanding. However, modern science is not only aimed at comprehending the world, but more than that, it is directed toward transforming it. The desire to change the world and to realize this goal emerged through a complex historical process. Over the past 400 years, this process has led science to increasingly shift from theoretical activity (i.e., understanding the world) to practical activity (i.e., changing the world). We can say that what fundamentally distinguishes modern science from its ancient counterpart is its orientation toward practical activity. In essence, what we now call “science” found its ultimate expression in technology.
Despite this, it would be wrong to assume that this tendency suddenly emerged or that it had no roots in ancient Western civilization. In the ancient world, the Western human's perspective on nature had the potential to seek practical benefit from it. In Ancient Greece, as well as in medieval Christianity, it is possible to encounter philosophical and ethical views that serve the purpose of dominating both the world and humanity. Unlike the East, which was mainly occupied with the search for metaphysical mysteries, Greek civilization focused on the visible aspects of nature and material existence — one of its main features — and this was also an important direction in the work of the physiocrats. Physiocrats believed in the reality of nature and strove to understand it. Although they approached natural phenomena from different perspectives, they consistently viewed nature as material.
This attitude toward nature aligns well with the direction of modern science in the sense that it strips nature of its mystery and riddles and hands it over to the control of humanity. Since Ancient Greece, the West has tried to dominate nature by basing its approach on the belief in its materiality and by first acquiring theoretical knowledge. However, these views did not materialize effectively in practice due to the inefficiency of the methods used to study nature.
From an ethical perspective as well, Westerners have a consistent tradition of active engagement with nature and the surrounding environment. This view is even more pronounced in Protestantism and eventually becomes one of the core forces of modern culture. The attitudes that prioritize activity, work, and productivity as sacred values created the initial conditions for transforming nature. These ethical views, along with new philosophical pursuits, paved the way for the emergence of a science directed toward practical benefit.
Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, considered abandoning worldly responsibilities to be a consequence of egoism. He emphasized that certain religious duties also had secular value and thus supported the spread of a worldview in which "the fulfillment of worldly duties under any condition is the only path accepted by God, and in fact, what God truly desires." For this reason, all legitimate professions carry equal value in the eyes of God.
Bernard Barber succinctly interpreted the support pantheistic views gave to science as follows: According to pantheists, "by understanding nature, humans can better comprehend God, because God reveals Himself in natural events and processes." Thus, science is not opposed to religion — on the contrary, it provides a reliable foundation for faith. According to their conclusions, science is valuable and moral because it calls people to correct actions that lead to salvation, and it establishes the basis for fulfilling God's will. They gave the highest value to reason because they believed God had bestowed upon humanity the unique honor of attaining reason.
According to Max Weber, the Protestant ethic was one of the sources of the rationalization of life.
What does rationalization mean?
It is the organization of life through the clarification of the relationships between humans and their surrounding environment, based on the classification and division of different activities. When this happens, inevitably, the goal becomes to achieve maximum efficiency and productivity. Rationalism, in essence, is the foundational thought and philosophical basis that allows theoretical knowledge to be embodied in technology. In short, modern politics and culture must be built solely upon the factor of reason.
Nevertheless, the long-standing goals of Protestantism did not appear suddenly, and even in the darkness of the Middle Ages, we can encounter ideas in Western history that reflect the desire of Western man to change the world.
If work is accepted as the primary means of fulfilling human aspirations and diligence is viewed as a virtue in society, then we can see echoes of Protestant concepts in the writings of St. Augustine. For this reason, Karl Jaspers, when speaking about Augustine, sometimes confused him with Martin Luther or John Calvin, saying:
"Although Augustine is considered one of the pillars of the Church, he had a deep respect for working in this world and advanced arguments that supported the idea that 'work' should be useful."
These statements should not be surprising, because although St. Augustine is not considered a supporter of rationalism, in terms of his worldview, he stands at the root of a movement that later emerged as Calvinism. Augustine was indeed a supporter of rationalism, but this did not make him opposed to worldly diligence and productivity. And even if he saw the essence of such labor as being oriented toward God, people nonetheless ceased to be merely detached, contemplative, or purely observational, and began to engage in the affairs of this world. As a result, the West laid the foundation for a path where various forms of activity flourished, ultimately culminating in Calvinism — a doctrine that viewed work and productivity as a kind of worship.
Over the past 400 years, the convergence of these two intellectual and ethical currents led to scientific advancements. During this period, Protestant doctrine eliminated religious and moral barriers that had previously hindered the spread of a philosophy focused on worldly engagement. Moreover, by promoting diligence, it enabled humans to dominate nature. At the same time, it also transformed the way the world was understood and how nature was studied — moving away from scholastic philosophy's useless debates, and instead aiming to interpret all phenomena quantitatively.
In the modern world, the shift toward “quantification” is noteworthy. This is because it sheds light on all aspects of the new psychology and is highly significant in terms of the main goal pursued in this article — that is, the investigation and systematization of the theoretical foundations of transforming the world. When we approach the world from this perspective, it no longer consists merely of “substances.” Now, we are faced with a world defined purely by quantitative characteristics and governed by mathematical laws.
As Edwin Arthur Burtt pointed out, in this approach, instead of expressing objects through traditional concepts like accidents, causality, essence, image, matter, form, potential, etc., we now categorize them using concepts such as energy, motion, and change in time and space. As a result of this shift from substantial forms to mechanical understandings, nature — once imagined as a living, autonomous, and interactive being — loses all its mysterious qualities. In this downward progression, nature is turned into a set of measurable phenomena and objects, and is no longer perceived as anything other than a reservoir of energy available for consumption. Therefore, this process can rightfully be called the worlding of the universe.
Western man transforms the dormant energy of nature into consumer goods through technology. Technology is not only a means of intervening in nature; it also guides humans in constructing and operating the tools necessary to achieve the aforementioned goal. Without this way of thinking, humans likely would not have plowed the soil or shaped any stones.
For example, in ancient Judaism, while it was permitted to use stone in the construction of altars, it was required that the stone be whole and untouched by iron. Likewise, in the construction of the Jerusalem Temple, all stones were used in their natural form, and during construction, no sound of chisel, axe, or any other iron tool was heard.
René Guénon is not mistaken when he evaluates the increased use of metal in modern civilization’s construction as a shift from quality to quantity. This is because the existence of metal in the context we're discussing is the result of human intervention that brings about major changes in nature. As we have already said, such intervention could not have arisen without a mindset that empties the world of mystery and poetry, and views nature only functionally.
When we speak of the functional perception of the environment, we mean, for example:
-
A forest is a source of timber,
-
Stone is a construction material,
-
A river is a source of hydroelectric energy,
-
Wind is a force to drive sails or turn windmill blades.
If technology is not only the means of production but also encompasses the way of thinking that makes such production and application possible, then science finds itself in a critical position:
Does it precede technology, or follow it?
Clarifying this question is not that important, since both stem from a way of thinking that regards knowledge as power.
Knowledge and power are in a dialectical relationship, and we may consider one as the cognitive aspect of a new way of thinking, and the other as its technological aspect. However, we must not overlook that “knowledge and power” may, just like matter and energy, transform into one another — and both derive their motivations, directions, and hypotheses from this new way of thinking. For instance, before a person could desire to extract profit from the energy resources of nature, there must first have arisen a metaphysical worldview imagining nature as a reservoir of energy. Only after this idea becomes dominant does human activity reshape and reorganize nature in such a way that it presents itself as a network of measurable forces.
As Martin Heidegger writes:
"According to the new scientific way of thinking, nature is conceived as a network of calculable forces and is thus mastered. Modern physics is not experimental simply because it uses instruments to study nature — rather, physics begins by theoretically conceiving nature as a network of predetermined forces acting in opposition, and only then proceeds with experiments. The goal of these scientific tests is to discover what this organized, calculated nature reveals."
Thus, before science even began organizing nature’s forces for practical aims, it already penetrated it: Nature, in this view, is nothing more than a reservoir of extractable and calculable forces. And only after this redefinition, as Don Ihde says, is the human role defined — not as a voluntarily chosen task, but as an inevitable requirement of this new way of thinking: to dominate nature through technology.
This is why modern science is synonymous with power. Its fundamental goal becomes to gain the power to dominate nature. As Francis Bacon wrote:
“The fundamental goal of science should be to acquire practical power. The belief that science should serve the understanding of truth is incomplete. What use is science that cannot be put to practical use? Of course, the process of attaining scientific knowledge also involves understanding the truth, but today, the primary goal must be the acquisition of power. That is, man observes, tests, and studies things to understand their laws. Once he masters these laws, he uses them to dominate nature.”
Bacon’s clearly expressed idea ends with a turn toward quantification and the study of objects not for their hidden or felt qualities, but for their measurable characteristics.
For example, in the past, light was considered sacred and entirely qualitative. But today, that same light has been reduced to a purely physical phenomenon — a material entity whose wavelength and frequency can be precisely measured.
According to Bacon’s words, ancient science throughout history sought reality and tried to reach the ultimate essence of existence. In other words, ancient science searched for the real truth hidden between appearances and visible phenomena, but it neither attained the truth nor could it serve humanity. That’s why, despite the high scientific achievements of the Greeks and the perfection of their humanistic ideals, they were unable to serve the poor of Athens. They couldn't even build a dam, a bridge, or even a waterwheel, because their scholars, instead of focusing on material and everyday life, searched for truth everywhere — and ultimately found nothing.
However, one must note that Bacon, due to his obsession with concrete outcomes, forgot that the errors of scholastic thought cannot be entirely attributed to the incomprehensibility or inaccessibility of truth. Bacon set aside the idea of truth — the subject of human intellect — and presented instrumental rationalism as the inevitable destiny of the West. The principle of intervention into nature, proposed by him, later turned — in the hands of figures like Machiavelli, Hegel, Hobbes, Lenin, and McCarthy — into a tool not only for intervening in nature, but in humanity itself.
Undoubtedly, our modern world is filled with the direct consequences of this process — that is, the expansion of human and environmental intervention and manipulation:
-
the quest for “superstates” and the sanctification of the concept of power;
-
mass production in modern economics;
-
global colonialism in modern politics;
-
and attempts in modern communication to transcend all intellectual, cultural, social, and political boundaries.
Had this not been the case, islands of fascism and Nazism could not have suddenly emerged in the middle of the ocean of democracy. Perhaps beginning with the Renaissance, the notion of power had been elevated to the status of a metaphysical purpose of science. And as Bertrand Russell noted, the concept of power in the humanities coincided with the concept of energy in natural sciences.
This means that intervention directed at both man and nature can ultimately be unified in the image of the atom — forming a parallel between natural and social fascism.
The terrifying aspects of this quantitative and interventionist mindset could not have emerged in a short period of time. It took four centuries for humanity to truly feel the consequences of its own knowledge taking technological form in the atomic bomb. And as Michel Foucault later pointed out, “power that has seized life” became the most pressing issue in human existence.
We know that Bacon’s proposal for progress based on practical application has brought great benefits to science and has expanded human capabilities to dominate nature. However, at the same time, the technology created by humans has led to the formation of a fundamentally new kind of human being. In other words, we modern humans are technological workers and beings dependent on measurements. As Heidegger said, today humans have become more than objects of nature’s domination and experimentation — they themselves have become experimental objects.
Based on Nietzsche’s analysis, it appears that humans now want to use the realities of the world as a resource. Today, science is understood only as “a means of turning nature into an object of domination and a tool for consumption.” According to Nietzsche’s philosophy, this leads to the emergence of modern cognition’s doubts and has opened broad research topics in the 20th century regarding postmodernist critiques, leaving many profound questions unanswered.
Inspired by Nietzsche’s ideas mentioned above, Michel Foucault argues that while in the past religions demanded humans as sacrifices of the body, today science seeks to conduct experiments on us. That is, science wants to sacrifice humans as subjects of knowledge. Throughout his works, Foucault centers on the issue of “power,” asserting that humans in our culture have become subjects — here, “subject” means an entity characterized by being controlled and surrendered to another. It can be said that science and power together concretize humans as madmen, criminals, citizens, and so forth.
Beyond these philosophical reflections, the concept of intervention manifests itself more clearly in daily life. As we emphasized earlier, human intervention in the external world could not have been directed only at a nature devoid of humans. This intervention sooner or later was bound to turn against humanity itself. We believe that the accumulation of terrifying weapons of mass destruction and highly sophisticated technological means along with states not only creates certain political goals but also raises the prospect of creating another kind of human being — which should not seem an absurd possibility. Massive changes occurring in nature today, along with genetic science and neuroscience — responsible for human reproduction and behavior — and the use of information tools for “brainwashing” people, represent small signs compared to this threat.
Modern genetic science, based on thousands of successful results in biology and nature, has managed to create human varieties in Mexico and Colombia. Meanwhile, brainwashing has penetrated into the deeper layers of human psychology. Brainwashing by the power of negative information means has affected human consciousness and psychology so deeply that it changes habits and behaviors to fit the volume of capital and modes of production.
Link: https://anlamlar.blogfa.com/post/19