Meditations versus the Deliverance from Error

There are several things to look into in the position taken up by Al Ghazali and Rene Descartes. Descartes is popular in the west in his advancement of philosophy in the west, while Al-Ghazali is criticized by some Muslim leaders for killing philosophy in the Muslim setting. The paper goes deeply into the contrasts and similarities between the two authors and aims to explain their thoughts and solutions in their beliefs.

‘Meditations’ and ‘The Deliverance from Error’ were written in different situations which affected how they attributed things. Things like their jobs and way of life played a role in the different stance took by the two philosophers. Both Rene Descartes and Abu Hamid Al Ghazali stayed and undertook their businesses as well as got educated in varied circumstances in quite contrasting social settings. Rene Descartes was an early 17th Century Christian of French origin while Al Ghazali was a Muslim that lived 500 years before Rene. Taking to the fact the cultural variation, the two individuals at a certain point in time aimed to focus on the basis and reality by being skeptical about their beliefs of what is the truth of things. In “Meditation” and “The Deliverance from Error” by Descartes and Al-Ghazali they guided readers in the search for truth both of philosophical ideology, taking into consideration that the two of them lived in different periods and underwent different experiences.

The two books had the single objective of looking for what is a reality. The commonality was that the books were focused in the search for the truth or backing what they believed was true. Al-Ghazali says in the start of his book that his desire began “with great earnestness” (Ghazali, 10). Similarly, Descartes states at the start of his book that “the enterprise appeared to be great” and concluded the paragraph saying “I shall at last seriously …… address myself…” (Descartes, 165-166). When one takes into consideration the practice of writing it was more serious endeavor in the 11th and 17th centurion than it is in the present time, Al-Ghazali and Descartes have statements that have added value to their beliefs. This did not incorporate the fact that Al-Ghazali’s words were recorded after his criticism, they were not just hypothetical philosophical musings, they were however inner feelings with inner impact to the two writers.

In the effort to prove what they believe is true, skepticism is applied followed by proof of what is wrong and right. This is what was applied in the ‘Meditation’ and ‘The Deliverance from Error’. It is from this basis, that the gradual process the two writers apply is to be skeptical regarding each and everything that can be doubted with the intention of discovering the reality behind it. Descartes begins by doubting his senses as a rigid basis, for “these senses are deceptive…” and it is beneficial not trust them as it can happen again. However Descartes does not issue any instances after this as a solid basis for his beliefs. One can assume that he is speaking about the common sensory deceptions. Al-Ghazali similarly comes across the same conclusion. However this was after an intense contemplative story that ended, “my reliance on sense-data is untenable” (Ghazali, 11).

The books made use of human senses so as to assist in acquiring the truth. The two writers applied these senses differently from each other. On one hand, man in the initial times were known to be making use of their senses, that in most instances played their roles free from the other parts. Al-Ghazali makes a mistake in collectively talking about them and naming all of them as being deceiving due to one of them not living to intended expectations. He says that the strongest senses are the one to do with seeing (Ghazali, 10). It is through assumption that that these sense of sight is able to lie to an individual; this similarly would play to the other senses hence making them not be trusted, as just two instances are given of senses that would lie and are sight-related. This is since these senses not reliant on anything; however this is a notion that is erroneous. The idea that a person perceives a shadow as being inactive with the help of sight that does not mean that a person’s sense of taste is unreliable, even if sight is the greatest sense. Most probably, Descartes was making reference to the aspect of optical illusions, may be through what he did with optics and astronomy. This was noted to have a connection to the Socratic aspect of a stick in water, or the “Deliverance from Error’s” instance. The dependence on natural sight is doubtful, just the way the sense of hearing with the happening of echoes and the skepticism that arises from wanting to know where the sound starts from (Descartes). Additionally, it can be debated that the sense of smell and taste are doubtful since they have been shown to be connected and the strong sense of smell may be changed by wind. However, human beings are not able to be less convinced if they are able to feel something with their hand. Given the person, their hand and the object may all be aspects of fiction in a world full of imaginary things, though this is another aspect to it.

Having made efforts to try and prove what is true and what is not, analysis of the findings is next. The two books contrast in the methods used to analyze their findings. The two philosophers question if anything is actual; they look into the cause and asses the probability that the world is a dream and that there is something that is much greater than reason in the same manner that reason is greater than the senses. Descartes states that there precise pointers that we are able to vividly vary wakefulness from sleeping, it is quite hard to convince Descartes that he is dreaming (Descartes, 167). Al Ghazali, using personification of his senses, looks into a closely similar aspect. Al Ghazali asks for assurances of the connection between sleeping and waking in reference to dreaming (Ghazali, 13). This is a logical process to take while looking for a correct assurance, and a vital stage when applying a complete and persistent uncertainty. If the senses can be made right by reasoning it out, can there be any other bigger method to correct incorrect rationale? If dream are actual and factual till they culminate, could perception of reality similarly be a dream that is almost to come to an end?

To this extent, the two books have a similar tendency in their criticism. Though, after being done with writing on the actuality of things, Al Ghazali refers to the religious answer to the question of different awareness, and later states that his works were not effective and in the end acquires meaning that it is not viable to create a rigid meaning (Ghazali, 15). Ultimately, he acknowledges divine power as the source of his knowledge.

On the other hand, Descartes does not attribute his knowledge as being from a divine setting, taking to fact that he has gone on to try and prove the actuality of God. He hence has to set a base of complete surety with limited assumption of the divine ability. He goes on to doubt stating that there is an ‘evil genius’ (Descartes, 168-169). Lastly, after doubting, Descartes closes that he is real they are in our minds.

The main contrast in the “Meditations” and the “Deliverance from Error” is that Descartes is skeptic about his religion while Al-Ghazali is sure that he has a God. This is a sense of erroneous attribution by the two people. It is quite impracticable that Al-Ghazali should states that God is misleading just as Descartes did, or attribute that reason arises from God (Descartes). Descartes existed in a setting that is agreeing, where religionas an aspect was a subject to an assessment and that God attribute as being evil would not be surprising. Another contrast is that Al-Ghazali is tightly entrenched to his Islamic religion that has no ‘issue with God,’ Descartes on the other hand starts with the problem of God and is keen on the human mind or secular philosophy.

There is also an aspect of similarity in the two writers. The writers opt to use first person, which is greater since it helps passing the reality that writers genuinely used their works for their own benefit just like others. It additionally issues a private attribution about the author.

The two authors apply similar metaphor connecting light with knowledge. Descartes states as the book ends “Lest the laborious wakefulness…. be spent not in daylight, but in the excessive darkness of the difficulties” (Descartes, 170). Here Descartes connects darkness with complexities and considering this is negative, light is seen as the aspect being aware or knowledgeable. Another connection is formed in Deliverance, where Al-Ghazali concludes with light being the source of knowledge (Ghazali, 15).

Lastly, the similarities in mode and content are assessed; it ought to be believed that Descartes was motivated by Al Ghazali’s book. There are several variations Descartes could have applied without doubting in the manner they did. Descartes is outstanding since ideas are above questioning until he acquires the reality to his knowledge without reaching a dead end and getting to divine power for assistance in getting his faith back.

Work Cited

Descartes, R. Meditations of First Philosophy. Whitefish: Kessinger Publishing, 2004. Print    press. Ghazali, Al. Deliverance from Error and Mystical Union with the Almighty. Washington: CRVP,     2001. Print Press.