There is a lot of talk these days about which values and principles are universal and
which are not. It is as though, in these times of general relativity, we needed to recall
that there is some form of absolute, or some point of reference, that can transcend our
many different points of view or, more indirectly, our loss of points of reference. In an
age of postmodernity, deconstruction and postmodernism (of a conceptual inflation
that causes our old relations with truth to implode), and in which so many concepts
speak of the end of orders and logical systems, of narrations and coherent narratives,
and, finally, of ideologies of political totality and human finalities, we suddenly begin
to describe the status of certain values and principles as ‘universal’. If we look at
things from afar, or even a little more closely, it seems that the feeling of loss of
meaning and all points of reference internally is overcompensated for externally (i.e.,
vis-à-vis other civilizations), by a strong, determined will to speak out, express or
even possess the universal. Perhaps the claim that we, as opposed to the Other, are in
possession of universals restores to us what the postmodernist experience has taken
away from us. There is a certain intellectual, and even psychological, logic to these
communicating vases: this has to do with doubts. And it always has to do with power.
But what do we mean by ‘universal’? Given that, as we have seen, we are all –
each and every one of us – searching for meaning, truth and peace . . . then where will
we place that which is universal in human experience? In the nature of the questions
we all ask, or in the possible similarities between our different answers? Or in both?
Where does he or she who sees, defines and speaks of universals speak from? These
are not new questions, and they were formulated increasingly naturally (and
recurrently) in Western philosophy with the emergence of the autonomous rationalism
of Descartes and especially Spinoza. An answer had to be found to what is, after all, a
basic question: do we discover universals ‘top down’ by identifying a Being, Essence
or Idea that is the cause of everything, or thanks to a ‘bottom-up’ process which
allows human reason to identify common features that we all share, despite the
diversity of human beings and elements? Hegel used the term ‘concrete universal’ to
describe the idea of a Type or ideal Being (or a transcendental Given) that is the cause
of beings and things as opposed to the ‘abstract universals’ we construct thanks to the
use of a reason that identifies the generic characteristics of beings and things. This is
also the meaning of Schopenhauer’s distinction between Ideas and Concepts: the very
essence of the universal means that it has different origins and a different nature. Even
at the very heart of Western philosophy, or in the dialogue between civilizations and
religions, we cannot get away from these questions about the origin and nature of the
universal. The simplicity of this exposition might give the impression that Socrates,
who postulated the existence of Ideas, opted for ‘top down’ or a concrete universal,
whilst the Kant who described the categories and qualities of pure Reason opted for
an abstract universal constructed by rational deduction. But if we look more closely,
we find that things are much more complex than that: Socrates deduced his a prioris
from what he thought were inductions, just as Kant clearly had an a priori idea of
what he thought he had discovered thanks to the rigour of his deductions. All this is
highly complex and paradoxical. There is, nonetheless, a simple truth, and we must
have the wisdom to accept it: the way in which we say we accede to the universal says
a lot about our preconceptions (or even our state of mind) when we begin to think. We
should remember that.
All (non-theistic) spiritual or religious traditions have some notion of the
universal. The concept of a universal refers, in one way or another, to a Being, Idea or
Way (a concrete universal) that speaks, a priori, of the essence of human experience.
No matter whether we believe that Nature is inhabited by a soul or souls, that we must
free ourselves from the ego and the prison of the eternal rebirth through an initiation
or self-transcendence, or that we must recognize the One and practise a rite . . . each
and every one of us implicitly assumes that truths and ritual and ethical exigencies
must, respectively, be regarded as universally true. Truth (insofar as it is a value) and
meaning (for itself) are, quite logically, regarded as the truth and meaning of
everything. The assumption that there is such a thing as an a priori universal does not,
however, necessarily imply that, for spiritualities and religions, there is no legitimacy
in constructing the universal on a rational basis, or that the two paths can never
converge. As we shall see, the two approaches are not mutually exclusive, but that
depends, once again, on the mental attitude of the thinker or seeker in question. This
is not simply a matter of determining how we believe we can discover the universal,
but of being able to listen to (though one might not always understand) the other’s
apprehension of the universal. It is a matter of listening to what she/he says about it,
of understanding where she/he is speaking from, and of learning to apprehend
different forms of the universal: the transcendental universal, the immanent universal,
the inner universal, the universal of the heart, the universal of reason . . . and even the
nihilist universal of nothingness and non-meaning. The question of the universal is
therefore primarily a question of ways, paths and states of minds.
I am trying very hard to understand what you are saying.
Ophelia was told to go to a nunnery by Hamlet, in Shakepeare’s Hamlet. She aught to be isolated from society, not to be a ‘breeder of sinners’, but rather she should only pray and serve God in solitude. The feeling of alienation in society, as a Muslima, is a gift from Allah (S.B.T.). It means that one is in possession of the truth of being. From this state one can assume a role in society as being oneself, being close to The Creator, without being dragged through the disordered and unhealthy realities of others. One is a responsible individual with his/her own reality, and free to be in society. A person who follows Jesus (A.S.), in essence according to the Biblical teachings, may wish to retire as a nun or monk, living in a nunnery or monastery. Followers of The Qur’an, which in essence is the Character of The Prophet (S.A.W.), teaches the Muslim to be involved in society’s life, and all of the world is a Mosque with realities. A Universal truth here may be that, isolation, alienation, to be in a nunnery, even to be in a prison, or in a cave, brings one close to oneself, being in a way free, being with a Universal Being.
However, when a believer’s mind is locked up in a medicinal prison, one is not completely free to be. Sometimes the “powerful” law and doctors impose “treatment” to moderate/alter a citizen’s functioning and thinking. This raises an alarm when this dealing may be considered a Universal good in societal affairs. Is it ethical, in the case of a believer, to have to be less alive? Although medicine is considered a Universal good, having a so-called “paranoid psychotic” mind trapped in a medicinal prison is a complication: The mind is so complex that why should the “sufferer” suffer more, having to sacrifice oneself, because of the impurities in a medicine causing actual sickness? There seems to be hardly any truth in this medicine for the pure and living mind. When a believing mind-patient is traumatised, sick and tired of being on medicine, he/she should be given the right to give it up, just to be oneself, to be pure, to have self-control and to be free: A truth.
Well, “Universal” seems to say that most of us believe this to be true…in our time. Only the passage of time and careful historical analysis may be capable of bringing us close to “Truth” in our time. I like to define “Wisdom” as that which has proven to be “good for Humanity and Our Planet Earth”. Only the passage of time seems to be able to prove the “Truth” of any of our ideas, beliefs and philosophies. New knowledge ever has the chance of changing any or all of our Human Concepts. King Asoka of India created what many historians today believe to have been the best of all Human Societies. Sadly, it lasted only about 39 years.
could one say that some principles are universal but their implementation is relative?
Thank you for this meticulous discussion, which helps to show that concepts and ways of searching for meanings and values are not as black and white as they are sometimes claimed to be. While some people, (especially, as mentioned, those who wish to dominate and who feel insecure unless they do so) might feel uncomfortable without this black-and-whiteness, the perception that there is far more overlap than many suspect is liberating in two ways: it frees one from fear and distrust of the Other and thus enables positive and constructive interaction, and it also helps us to a clearer understanding, and greater appreciation, of one’s own beliefs and values.
ISIS is a shame, but our individuals and individual lives are full of pride, source of pride and gratitude. Jibreel AS attested too.
some thoughts on how to relate to universal truth – there are some voices or one voice at a particular juncture, that carry more importance, more wattage, that are trusted more. if one happens to be given such a pedestal of trust, respect and importance, then please atleast appreciate it, honor it and play the part. there have been voices that expressed the truth, but they were not taken seriously. but when this voice expressed, it was analyzed & explored with more gusto and credibility. it was heard and trusted to provide all the information collected through years. that is what is meant by saying “i needed you…” in particular contexts to understand the truth. God Sent for this purpose…the relationship between the teacher and a student is such that the teacher teaches, the student absorbs, learns the pivotal aspects and subject matter, the teacher strengthens the student with knowledge and truth such that the student can stand on their own and hold on to the truth, while still engaging with the teacher on advanced levels progressing through phases towards new phases of truth. if one can actually see, one will realize that it gets more interesting, rewarding and fun for the teacher to engage with the student as the student gets better. likewise for the student. this is ofcourse a model of respectful and honest relationship between individuals who acknowledge each other on reality and real terms. it’s understandable ofcourse that in today’s age one may not be getting any aspects of truth, thus it’s so good to have so many languages for universal truth )) there is absolutely no need for just one truth, look from afar the various angles for such different versions of truth. this article is such a lovely read.
and since there is a universal truth, why make some truth a priority, why invest emotions, time, energy, precious life into virtual reality behind a difficult veil )) absolutely no need )) We as Muslims must go back to the sources and intellectually reclaim what the original message was meant to be, rather than what we see in today’s distorted, problematic, crooked world with no appreciation or confidence in people.
and for peace to prevail, analyzing one voice more doesn’t mean to offend or discount another voice of trust and value, its just that a patient should get a doctors opinion too for the symptoms before confirming and believing the diagnosis. but if the doc runs around changing the diagnosis and action plan…crazy world.
and it’s not about strategy or using people, nobody is naive or being smart to use people. use for what purpose? what’s in it for me or you in this crazy show for hundreds of people to sit back and enjoy with some drinks and pop corn?! this type of a burden is unbearable and definitely not on the list of ambitions, until recently. now bring it! let it come. lets see how this and the next generation shapes the mould and writes history. do we agree? same thoughts?
yes, it’s personal to solve our universal problems. since the first meeting of the minds to these progressed discussions on coming up with solutions. just dont post then the thoughts of yesteryears onto a contemporary ummah.