"The aim of moral discipline is to purify the heart from the rust of passion and resentment till, like a clear mirror, it reflects the light of God." (Al-Ghazali)
Is Al-Ghazali's theory on happiness really anything more than a combination of Socrates' and Christianity's view of happiness?
From what I read, this theory is very similar to both Christianity and the ancient Greek philosophers' view on happiness. Al-Ghazali says that it is important to truly know yourself and that you have to act morally in order to reveal your union with God. This can be essentially translated into "it is important to reflect deeply on yourself and your life, and you have to act morally in order to be a reflection of God to the world". These are both concepts that were established long before Al-Ghazali was even born. Socrates and Plato and Aristotle all championed the importance of higher thought to get to a perfect stage of happiness in one's life, and Jesus championed the importance of following a moral path in order to provide an example for others to reach Eternal happiness in Heaven.
So is Al-Ghazali really so different? Other than the fact that he is speaking to a different audience, I don't think so. Just like many of the other theories we've studied, the philosophers and holy men have been catering to a certain audience and therefore there are slight variations. For example, Christianity is only different in that there is a faith, and a doctrine, and a set of religious beliefs. Buddhism is different in that it was preached on a totally opposite side of the world-- to people of a different culture-- where there is no faith involved. Therefore, this Islamic way of looking at happiness is only different in that there is a different set of religious beliefs and cultural practices tied to it. Sure, one could argue that Al-Ghazali is different because he emphasizes the importance of this physical ecstatic experience with God, but one could argue the same thing for different time periods in the Christian development. You need only look at The Ecstasy of St. Teresa to realize that Christians thought similarly. And even then, if you look at Muslims today, the majority are not Sufis and do not practice the art of Whirling Dirvishes just as many Christians don't put that much particular emphasis on anything as similarly physical.
Al Ghazali argues that prophets are the happiest people because they have reached the ultimate goal of human existence, which is unification with God. He argues that we cannot achieve happiness physically but spiritually. It slightly like Buddhism in the way that we have to purge our bodies of the desires of the physical world since they only bring small pleasure. It seems quite impossible to live only seeking spiritual fulfillment. Through Sufi dancing you lose your body to experience the spiritual flight but it leaves much to be desired once the experience ends. Al Ghazali was a poor and would not have been able to enjoy many of the pleasures this world can offer. Are these this the disgruntled rumblings of a man?
ReplyDeleteIt also bothers me that only a small select few can achieve the supreme happiness. Christianity at least offered the carrot of Heaven for solace. Al Ghazali seems to offer nothing for those of not in the select few.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI don't necessarily think that once the dancing or music ends the experience ends. Naturally the person descends from their spiritual high, but I think that the experience leaves them a little bit better off than when they first started. Being able to forget the troubles of life for a little bit can help put things in a better perspective. I think that after their dances and musical experiences they are a little closer to achieving happiness because with everything in a better, more correct perspective, they can better live their lives according to God's will which brings them closer to God and makes them happier.
DeleteDeanna,
DeleteAl Ghazali does mention that there are other levels of happiness, however much lower than the ultimate "ecstasy" that comes when one is in union with the divine. What he stresses is that why settle for lower levels of happiness when you can strive to achieve the absolute best and highest level of happiness? He says only a few can truly reach this end goal, but again with there being lower levels of happiness this means those who never reach it can still reach happiness. In my perspective, it is actually much like Christianity in the sense that only the select few actually make it to Heaven- which in order to do so they must complete actions that bring them closer to God as one who wants to reach ultimate ecstasy must act in a way to bring him closer to God as well.
Al Ghazali was poor by choice -- he had a lucrative Baghdad professorship but left it. Does that change anything?
DeleteI think the fact the he was poor by choice shows how much he believed in the idea of reaching ecstasy through unification with God. He chooses to leave physical pleasure and happiness to live in spiritual happiness. But he has also experienced what it is like to be on the wealthier and more privileged side of life, so he will never wonder what it is like to not be poor. I think if he were poor his entire life, he wouldnt be able to choose the spiritual life as easily or been able to think of the philosophies he discovered. I think it is much easier to come from a privileged background and choose the spiritual life and nearly impossible to come from an impoverished background and not want worldly pleasures. Looking at it from that perspective, his philosophy on happiness may be even more inaccessible.
Delete"The ultimate ecstasy...lies in discovering through personal experiences one's identity with the Ultimate Reality"
ReplyDeleteDoes Al-Ghazali's view of happiness allow to achieve different levels of happiness rather than a "hit or miss" approach?
I dont think that Al-Ghazali's belief of "ecstasy" is something that suddenly happens, but closer you live in the example of the prophets the happier you will be.
I agree with you. Like all the philosophers and their views on ultimate happiness, it's a process.
Deletei agree with you both. i think it is a slow gradual process that we have to work to achieve.
Delete“Al-Ghazali refers to two ways of achieving the ultimate of happiness: through dance and music.”
ReplyDeleteIs music an effective way to lift one’s mood and make on happier in general?
Personally, I think music is very helpful in lifting a person’s mood. Beyond just the tone or words of the song being happy or relatable, it allows a person to tune out of reality. Music is the perfect thing to turn to when stressed because once it’s playing (sometimes a little too loudly) the person listening doesn't have room in their head to think. Their mind is consumed with a tangle of sounds and coherent thoughts are no longer feasible. Music allows people to get to a place where concerns about themselves and the world in general can’t bother them. There is simply no room for them, and when this happens, after the music is off, everything is in a little bit better perspective.
Jensen, I totally agree that music is an effective way to become a happier person. I would also say that playing music, along with listening to it is equally (if not more) beneficial. I am currently in 'prayer and med' right now, and I often play my drum set as my required meditation. There is just nothing like truly losing yourself to the beat of the music. Its calming, but unlike say watching tv, it also stimulates your brain.
DeleteI would say that Al-Ghazali uses song and dance like the Buddhists use meditation. As a way to clear your mind. I do not think he sees the music in itself spiritual, but it can be used as a means to achieve spirituality and a clear mind.
I completely agree with both of you. Music has a way of directing all your thoughts and energies into one thing, so you can take a step back from life for a little while and give yourself time to calm down. I dont know if anyone else does this, but while studying for a big test or preparing for something, I always listen to music when I hit that point of over-studying. It has a way of calming your mind and making your stress disappear. Nothing feels better than having all your cares and stresses disappear, and that's what comes from completely immersing yourself in something. In a sense, isnt this kind of an Epicurean idea?...Happiness from a loss of stress or worry (ataraxia).
Delete"We cannot imagine how to be happy, but such wild imagination is the secret to happiness"
ReplyDeleteIs it true? Can your imagination lead to happiness?
I think yes and I also think that people with stronger imaginations seem to be happier. If you look around, innocent children with wild imaginations have a tendency to wear the biggest smile, for the most part at least. As an 18 year old, my imagination isn't as extreme or exciting as it once was, but it still works; so when I listen to music or see art, I think that is us experiencing someone else's happiness. I think this because when you are using your imagination, you're openning your mind and freeing yourself from anything that could restrict you.
So yes I believe that happiness can be found through your imagination or at least its one of the steps into reaching it.
I agree with you Maddie. I also agree that imagination can lead to happiness becuase it requires thought. And through that thought you can find what makes you happy or what could make you happy.
DeleteWhile I do agree that imagination can certainly free you of your struggles and make you happy, I think this only works to a certain extent. People could start to just 'live in their imaginations' and become so disillusioned with the life they actually lead, that they become more unhappy. So yes, with a child who believes anything in the world is possible, the imagination is certainly a source of joy. And for any adult who knows how to use their imagination well, it can be a source of joy as well, but I think there are still many situations were disillusionment can occur and actually take away a person's happiness.
Delete"His task was to transform Islam, away from the mere adherence to rules, to the inward mystery of a live encounter with God."
ReplyDeleteIs this talking about turning to one's self to find the answer or is it even suggesting a slight turn from the organized religion?
If this is talking about one's relationship with God then I really agree with this. I think people who grow up under a certain amount of rules in their religion and are constantly learning all the rules can sometimes have an issue with their relationship with God. I think this is really good because sometimes people need to stop studying all the rules and work on their relationship with God which in this case is suppose to help us achieve happiness as well
Erica, I completely agree. I feel that you can't be "reasoned into faith", you have to come to it through looking inwards at yourself.
DeleteI agree Erica. I think this goes back to what Mrs. Rowley was talking about when she said the 'obedience to assent' thing. We're sometimes focused so much on the rules that we forget to legitimately work on our relationship with God. However, if you focus more on your relationship with God, following the rules will come naturally to you and you'll be happier.
DeleteDo you feel like this is really different at all from Christianity? Like I said in class yesterday, there is the whole thing about "you'll never be able to come to faith through logic and reason." It is illogical. Al-Ghazali admits that, so you have to have faith and internally come to God instead...
ReplyDeleteI definitely think there are lots of similarities between his teachings and those of Christianity. Al-Ghazali is Islamic (or wait, Muslim if he practices Islam? I can't remember?) and Christianity have a lot in common with their backgrounds and teachings and some would go as far to say that the two even worship the same God. So it's really not all that surprising that the two share the same ideas about salvation being based on faith and not facts.
DeleteWill, logically speaking, if you cannot come to something through logic it is illogical. insert emoticon of your choice.
Delete"Everyone perceives even in that bewildering state, that something is amiss, that we are living in an inauthentic life that needs correction. This nagging feeling is the source of our greatest joy, for once we become conscious of it we can be led in the opposite direction"
ReplyDeleteIs Al-Ghazali's teaching about knowing one's desires but deciding to act in an opposing way to these desires a way to rid oneself of desires or to embrace them?
I think that he's saying we will always feel this nagging feeling of "inauthenticness" in our lives caused by our natural want for physical pleasures/material things, even when we are at this "ecstasy" because having consciousness of it allows us to have the natural instinct to go against it and to do the actions which go against our desires. This means we have to embrace our desires, rather than rid ourselves of them such as Buddha taught, in order to reach happiness because knowing our desires allows us to act in a way that is selfless and for others, instead of for ourselves. I guess this also means we will suffer a bit by knowing what we desire but never allowing ourselves to have it, which is a very Christian teaching in my opinion as God teaches us to overcome Earthly pleasures to be closer to Him- as does Al-Ghazali teaches for us to become closer with the Divine.
Stephanie, I can agree if "embracing" doesn't always lead to action except for the desire to move toward God.
DeleteI see this as being similar to the "knowing what you do not know" phenomenon. Once you are aware of what is the problem, you can work to ameliorate it. Good stuff here!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Euphoria is achieve when we lose consciousness of the self and become focused on something we are completely and ultimately related to."
ReplyDeleteFocusing on an outward force rather than focusing on the self is something that many of the philosophers that we have studied have taught. When we carry an idea of how we affect the world rather than how the world can affect us, we are looking to a larger idea. How is this similar to the idea of Moral obligation? How is it different?
Sounds like kids high on ecstasy at a rave to me. Seriously.
DeleteApplying this to a moral obligation to serve/live for other is the challenge, but it is the right interpretation.
or too many Orange tic tacs? Just kidding!! totally kidding.. it does sound a little eccentric but after taking into account the extremes they go to to achieve this, the jargon is understandable. I think that this relates to so many other ideas that have been presented thus far. To be honest it is all starting to run together.
Delete"He who knows himself is truly happy." "Self-Knowledge consists in realizing that we have a heart or spirit which is absolutely perfect, but which has been covered with dust by the accumulation of passions derived from the body and its animal nature."
ReplyDeleteIs the heart truly perfect? Do we believe that passion as a result of nature taints our heart and spirit?
I think you have to develop your heart and spirit.Its not simply pure with people given the job of figuring out how to take of the "dust", but the human heart and spirit is something that is developed over a period of time. Through experiences and growth, people begin to create more depth and meaning as opposed to something that was preexisting.
Alexandra,
DeleteI agree that the heart isn't just pure to start out with and that we gathered all this dust on it over time that we then have to figure out how to take off to get back to its virgin state. Or even born pure with us needing to simply dust it off. If the heart was perfect I feel like we would have a much more clear instinct of how to reject passions and uncover dust, but in reality, yeah, we need much thought and experiences in order for us to come to the conclusions of what are the right things to do. That in turn, helps our spirit and faith grow... it's not just there already.
If a soul is initially perfect, then it should not be able to be so easily influenced by "animal instincts"
DeleteI agree with Alex, I feel that the soul is initially perfect, but because of free will, it is up to the decisions we make.
DeleteI think we are born with our heart and soul in a neutral state. Through life experience and knowledge we experience desire or passion. You cannot desire something you have never seen or heard of before (experienced).
Delete"He who knows himself is truly happy"
ReplyDelete"It would seem that genuine happiness is not a state most people can attain"
"The highest function of the soul is the perception of truth"
"Al-Ghazali writes that unhappiness is created by enslavement to desire"
Does Al-Ghazali say anything interesting that has not already been said before? Can anyone give any examples?
To me it seems like literally everything Al-Ghazali says is already part of other philosophies. I'm not saying he didn't come up with these conclusions on his own, but I honestly can't find something original or different that he has said. Maybe he just combines old ideas in a new ways.
Joey this is my paper topic. Most of the things he is talking about have been stated previously. The only new thing really is spiritual fulfillment through song and dance but that is slightly alike to meditation in Buddhism.
DeleteThe fact that he wrote this in a 6000 pages of text I hope means that something was original!
DeleteDetermining what he created and what he "borrowed" is key.
I totally agree with Joey. I am starting to find that there are so many similarities in each new idea we study. I think that it has turned into an issue of what is easiest. I think that in class discussions we analysis we are looking for the easiest path.
DeleteI strongly agree with caroline and joey, even though its been said that none of these people have spoken to each other or had contact with each other before releasing their beliefs or philosophy, i think that a lot of them have started to run together. But Ah- Ghazali seems to sound most like borrowed information or just a combination of many different philosophers.
DeleteAndrea - I asked this question to Deanna as well...did Al-Ghazali read the classical philosophers? Probably. Had he read Christian theology? We need to find out.
ReplyDeleteI definitely think that he would've read up on all the different, important faiths and traditions. It would only make sense since he was such a prominent professor-- if someone asked him a question about another faith or tradition or philosophy, he would've needed to be able to answer that question and also say why he personally believed Islam was better.
DeleteAlso, (this will be clearer in my paper), I don't think this combination of seemingly already established philosophies is a bad thing.
"Everyone perceives even in that bewildering state, that something is amiss, that we are living in an inauthentic life that needs correction. This nagging feeling is the source of our greatest joy, for once we become conscious of it we can be led in the opposite direction"
ReplyDeleteIs Al-Ghazali saying that we dont find joy in the present and in the search for happiness, we find happiness? Basically our greatest happiness is reached when we are in search of it after recognizes that it is not present.
I dont agree with this because it seems as if it can be a never ending cycle. Basically we are driven in the search of happiness and the realization that happiness is not present will continue to drive us.