İslam Felsefesi Çalışmalarında Yöntem ve Düşünce Tarihi Yazımı: Tashihçi Gazzâlî Araştırmalarından Hareketle Bir Değerlendirme

Burak Erman
{"title":"İslam Felsefesi Çalışmalarında Yöntem ve Düşünce Tarihi Yazımı: Tashihçi Gazzâlî Araştırmalarından Hareketle Bir Değerlendirme","authors":"Burak Erman","doi":"10.26650/iuitd.2022.1117151","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"When concerned with the issue of methodology in the study of Islamic philosophy, the matter of discussion usually involves the scope of Islamic philosophy. However, the suggestion is made that this problem must be considered within the general historiography of thought. Accordingly, this article recommends a theoretical basis regarding Islamic philosophy studies in Turkey through three historiography of thought approaches: the history of philosophy approach as presented by Jacob Brucker (1742-1744), the history of ideas approach as presented by Arthur Lovejoy (1936), and the intellectual history approach as presented by Quentin Skinner (1969). Historical causal explanations regarding the thoughts of a philosopher are suggested to be based on the philosopher’s overall system of thought according to the history of philosophy approach, on various contexts in which that thought is observed according to the history of ideas approach, and on the language and sociopolitical context according to the intellectual history approach. Moreover, this article concretizes the theoretical basis through evaluations of the revisionist al-Ghazālī studies by Richard Frank (1992, 1994), Frank Griffel (2009), Alexander Treiger (2012), and Kenneth Garden (2014). Lastly, some opinions about Islamic philosophy studies in Turkey are given using the approaches discussed in the article. Along with this, the article does not suggest a method, yet it examines three historiography of thought approaches and aims to raise awareness of these approaches as they are adopted.","PeriodicalId":130544,"journal":{"name":"İslam Tetkikleri Dergisi / Journal of Islamic Review","volume":"98 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"İslam Tetkikleri Dergisi / Journal of Islamic Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26650/iuitd.2022.1117151","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

When concerned with the issue of methodology in the study of Islamic philosophy, the matter of discussion usually involves the scope of Islamic philosophy. However, the suggestion is made that this problem must be considered within the general historiography of thought. Accordingly, this article recommends a theoretical basis regarding Islamic philosophy studies in Turkey through three historiography of thought approaches: the history of philosophy approach as presented by Jacob Brucker (1742-1744), the history of ideas approach as presented by Arthur Lovejoy (1936), and the intellectual history approach as presented by Quentin Skinner (1969). Historical causal explanations regarding the thoughts of a philosopher are suggested to be based on the philosopher’s overall system of thought according to the history of philosophy approach, on various contexts in which that thought is observed according to the history of ideas approach, and on the language and sociopolitical context according to the intellectual history approach. Moreover, this article concretizes the theoretical basis through evaluations of the revisionist al-Ghazālī studies by Richard Frank (1992, 1994), Frank Griffel (2009), Alexander Treiger (2012), and Kenneth Garden (2014). Lastly, some opinions about Islamic philosophy studies in Turkey are given using the approaches discussed in the article. Along with this, the article does not suggest a method, yet it examines three historiography of thought approaches and aims to raise awareness of these approaches as they are adopted.
当涉及到伊斯兰哲学研究中的方法论问题时,讨论的问题通常涉及伊斯兰哲学的范围。然而,有人建议,这个问题必须考虑在一般史学的思想。因此,本文通过三种思想史学方法,为土耳其的伊斯兰哲学研究提供了理论基础:雅各布·布鲁克(Jacob Brucker, 1742-1744)提出的哲学史方法,阿瑟·洛夫乔伊(Arthur Lovejoy, 1936)提出的思想史方法,以及昆汀·斯金纳(Quentin Skinner, 1969)提出的思想史方法。关于哲学家思想的历史因果解释,建议根据哲学史方法,基于哲学家的整体思想体系,根据思想史方法,基于观察思想的各种背景,根据思想史方法,基于语言和社会政治背景。并通过对Richard Frank(1992,1994)、Frank Griffel(2009)、Alexander Treiger(2012)、Kenneth Garden(2014)等人的修正主义al-Ghazālī研究的评价,将理论基础具体化。最后,运用本文讨论的方法,对土耳其的伊斯兰哲学研究提出了一些看法。与此同时,本文并没有提出一种方法,但它考察了三种思想方法的史学,旨在提高人们对这些方法的认识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信