The Philosophical Foundations of the Human Sciences
As a primary premise, the human sciences, functioning as a form of conceptual software, hold a pivotal position in our lives and profoundly affect them. Furthermore, the disciplines within the human sciences are not homogenous or of a uniform category; certain disciplines and propositions possess a descriptive nature, outlining the human condition, the human species, and human institutions, whereas others are normative and prescriptive in nature.
The Detrimental Consequences of Western Human Sciences
Over the past 300 years, the human sciences have primarily crystallized within the Western world, with other nations subsequently adopting their achievements. While these sciences have brought substantial material progress to human societies, they have also entailed numerous detriments. Humanity has endured two world wars. Severe environmental degradation and manifold crises, such as the collapse of the foundational unit of the family in Western societies, have been the byproducts of these human sciences.
Therefore, we require a paradigm shift and transformation in the human sciences. This transformation is not exclusive to non-Western societies; rather, these very critiques exist within the West itself, where scholars have explicitly advocated for a transformation in the human sciences. Concurrently, revising the human sciences holds a twofold necessity for Muslim and indigenous societies such as ours in Iran, as the prevailing paradigms of the human sciences do not align with our religious and local perspectives.
The Revision of the Human Sciences Requires Philosophy
The entirety of the existing human sciences possesses inherent flaws and necessitates comprehensive revision. To attain superior human sciences—to remain shielded from their erroneous consequences while benefiting from their valid outcomes—we must draw upon other domains, specifically philosophy, rather than relying solely on the internal propositions of the human sciences themselves. In other words, we must forge a path from philosophy to the human sciences.
Two Divergent Perspectives on the Relationship Between Philosophy and the Human Sciences
When we raise the question concerning the relationship and interactions between the sciences and philosophy, at least two divergent perspectives emerge. Some elevate philosophy to the position of the master over other sciences, asserting that philosophy elucidates the rules and principles for attaining knowledge. Conversely, others contend that philosophy lacks such a foundational status and is merely a disciple and a servant to the human sciences.
For the purpose of this discussion, we must first articulate our intended meaning of philosophy, as the term has undergone significant transformations from ancient Greece to the present, assuming various meanings. These definitions are so distinct that we must consider the term an equivocal one. By “philosophy,” we refer to its meaning within the Islamic intellectual tradition—namely, the philosophical disciplines discussed in the Islamic tradition, encompassing ontology, philosophical anthropology, and epistemology—not the philosophy prevalent in the modern Western world. Therefore, our objective is to elucidate the relationship between ontology, anthropology, and epistemology with the human sciences.
My central claim is that the human sciences are influenced by, and reliant upon, the foundations of ontology, anthropology, and epistemology. This assertion is rooted in the philosophy of science; it does not stem from a political standpoint.
The sciences possess a hierarchical classification system, where each science is predicated upon another, and disciplines mutually influence one another. In technical terms within the philosophy of science, scholars discuss the constituent elements of sciences, positing that a science is composed of a subject matter, problems, and foundations (principles). Every science has a subject matter, and one of the primary criteria for classifying sciences is based on this subject matter. For instance, medical science investigates the human body from the perspective of health and disease.
Furthermore, every science relies on foundations and a starting point of knowledge, which encompass “conceptual principles” and “propositional principles.” Conceptual principles involve the precise elucidation of the terminology and vocabulary utilized within a discipline, as we sometimes observe individuals employing a term without possessing a rigorous definition for it. Propositional principles are propositions that are assumed as true but are not debated within the discipline itself. For example, a physicist utilizes the principle of causality in conducting experiments to reach a conclusion; that is, they seek the specific causes and variables of a phenomenon. This applies to other sciences as well. Now, if a physicist were to reject causality, experimentation would become meaningless to them; in other words, the physicist and chemist have adopted causality as an axiomatic presupposition. Yet, they never debate the principle of causality within the realm of physics, and if they were to do so, their discourse would be philosophical, not physical.
A sociologist analyzing the Islamic Revolution discusses the mutual influence and interaction of social, political, and economic events. Thus, research within one science is often contingent upon determining epistemic stances in certain other sciences, and this category of propositions is termed “propositional principles.”
Naturally, a scientist frequently conducts their activities without paying explicit attention to these foundations; however, they have undoubtedly adopted an unwritten and unconscious theoretical stance, as exemplified above by the physicist analogy.
The Problems of the Human Sciences Require Three Types of Knowledge
My assertion is that the problems addressed in the human sciences require the principles of ontology, anthropology, and epistemology, and an individual must first clarify their theoretical stance regarding these principles before engaging with the human sciences. Among these three categories, a strict vertical hierarchical system exists, with epistemology preceding the other two. We must seek the most fundamental principles of the sciences in philosophy, and within philosophy itself, the most critical branch is epistemology.
The discipline of epistemology investigates the subject of knowledge itself, just as psychology examines the human psyche. It explores the possibility, essence, methods, sources, and tools for acquiring knowledge. If we seek to acquire knowledge within the disciplines of the human sciences, we must first clarify our epistemological framework.
In the prevailing conception of the human sciences, most scholars tie the validity of science to empirical testability. This perspective stems from a specific epistemological view that posits sensory perception and experience as the sole sources of knowledge. If we question this paradigm and posit that, alongside sense and experience, alternative sources for acquiring knowledge exist, a fundamental shift will be generated within the science of epistemology.
In the subsequent stage comes ontology. Every science has a subject matter, and ontology does not discuss a specific, delimited being, but rather “absolute existence” (being qua being), which permeates all entities. Consequently, our perspective in metaphysics dictates our ontological viewpoints. If one negates causality, they cannot pursue causal links in history and sociology; conversely, if we validate causality in ontology, the path opens for us to analytically discuss human phenomena in the human sciences.
The Difference Between Anthropology in Islam and the West
The discussion of anthropology concerns our fundamental perspective on the human being—whether we consider the human as dual-dimensional (possessing both material and immaterial faculties) or uni-dimensional, etc. This profoundly impacts the human sciences. For example, logical positivists staunchly advocate for sensory perception, deeming it the exclusive avenue to knowledge of existence and negating the validity of all other pathways. They maintain that only propositions whose truth or falsehood can be verified through empirical testing and experience are valid. This claim is fundamentally epistemological; therefore, if a scholar adopts this foundation (logical positivism), when they transition to ontology, it will dictate their ontological framework, leading to disparate theoretical conclusions.
For instance, such a scholar will necessarily adopt materialism, as they consider sense and experience the sole avenues for acquiring knowledge, leaving them structurally incapable of conceptualizing anything beyond the empirical realm. Furthermore, when transitioning from ontology to anthropology, their adherence to materialism will necessitate viewing the human being as uni-dimensional and devoid of an immaterial aspect. Consequently, the dominant school in contemporary psychology, profoundly influenced by this positivist paradigm, is behaviorism, which analyzes the human being strictly upon this materialist basis.
Positivism advanced so far in its empiricist and reductionist approach, reaching an extreme, that a figure like David Hume declared that if a book contained neither mathematics nor empirical, testable matters, it should be consigned to the flames, for it holds no epistemological value. Categorically, when the foundations of ontology, epistemology, and anthropology differ across various schools of thought, their perspectives on existence, the human being, and consequently the human sciences, will inherently differ, leading to profoundly distinct societal and academic outcomes.
(An excerpt a speech at the “Philosophical Foundations of the Human sciences” session.)
