I have seen debates and read forum posts in which Aristotle is touted by Muslims as the Greatest Philosopher ever. Do you think this is a deservedly pride filled claim by Muslim's since they saved Aristotle's works and brought to the West making the Enlightenment possible ? Or do you think of this as a failure to accept the progressive nature of human learning?

I think it betrays a flawed kind of thinking where the authority themselves matters more than what the authority says.

I'm not familiar enough to comment, but I'd say it's more relevant to say how much useful progress a particular philosopher made. Anyone can (in theory) successfully employ established philosophy after relevant training.

Aristotle as far I am aware proved absolute divinity/beauty/greatness/justice.  Aristotle perhaps didn't go by the common "The God of the universe is One" approach, but he showed it is one, absolute, and the source of all beauty, glory, justice, and praise, and that it's perfect in the absolute perfect way.

He proved it beyond doubt to anyone who has any sincerity to their inward nature.

It's all together a different thing if humans put to doubt everything they know.

God has been proven for a very long time.

Did you plan on fleshing that out, or just telling stories about Aristotle (and what everyone else knows, and their sincerity, and their inward natures)? Because from here, it doesn't look like it has anything to do with Aristotle.... more a setup for your allah fetish.

(June 29, 2016 at 5:13 am)chimp3 Wrote: I have seen debates and read forum posts in which Aristotle is touted by Muslims as the Greatest Philosopher ever. Do you think this is a deservedly pride filled claim by Muslim's since they saved Aristotle's works and brought to the West making the Enlightenment possible ? Or do you think of this as a failure to accept the progressive nature of human learning?

If you look at the history of the muslim world, they were the ones preserving the classic knowledge and writings. They were also the ones still doing actual research on medicine or technology.

If the west hadn't come into closer contact with them, we wouldn't even know the basic importance of hygiene.

Truth is, early islam, all through the middle ages, was much more tolerant and more interested in learning than the christian west. You may write that down as the rulers offering more opportunities. But it can also be down to the christian world being dominated by one central religious authority, the pope, whereas Islam always was what the rulers wanted it to be. There never was an ultimate authority to set up any kind of dogma.

It also had more than a little bit to do with the umma subjugating nations full of professional scribes and scholars with a long history of curiosity. No point in sugar coating how they came to be holding the torch all those years.

(June 29, 2016 at 5:12 pm)Rhythm Wrote: It also had more than a little bit to do with the umma subjugating nations full of professional scribes and scholars with a long history of curiosity.

Yeah, but the west didn't do it. By dogma they only copied what the pope wanted. And it was almost exclusively monks doing it. It's not christianity alone being at fault for not furthering education, but it played a major role in losing knowledge. Not at Byzanz, but at every region adhering to the roman catholic dogma.

The umma wasn't any friendlier to knowledge that ran counter to their own narrative.  I have no interest in excusing the catholics for their horseshit, but I'm also not interested in any retconning where the islamic empire was a beacon of thought and discovery.  It wasn't.  Their newly acquired scribes managed to preserve -some- of what was lost, and they failed to execute a few displaced peoples who were told to convert or die, who later commented on indian systems that became known as algebra, for example.  Their medical knowledge? Galen (and company)....a source of great shame when you point to galens words in their magic book.

That was the extent of their contribution...as a faith..which has since been inexcusably inflated.  Mostly by themselves. Sure, they had their heads screwed on tighter than the christians, for a time...but is that saying much? Their order to conquered peoples wasn't even -about- preserving knowledge, it was about preserving the appearance of legitimacy as a tradition of texts and scribes and history...and they knew that no one could read it in the first place...least of which themselves.

The affrontery in all of this (not from you, mind you, lol) is that they effectively stole persia and greece...and then....and now..attempted to take credit for what remained after wanton destruction, by ordering their captives to translate it into arabic.