696 ROMAN SEIDEL
physical tradition, Being can certainly not be restricted to the perceptible world
of senses only. It has to include ideas that may be thinkable but lie beyond the
scope of what can be known by experience. Whereas Kant shows that one has to
distinguish carefully between what can be thought by the human mind and what
can be known by it, Ḥā‟erī is convinced that the Kantian notion of Being, as it is
displayed in his discussion of the ontological proof, has to be reconsidered.
What is most intriguing about Ḥā‟erī‟s approach, especially in the context of
transcultural reception of knowledge, is the fact that there are some recent stu-
dies of Western Kant-experts firmly rooted in the tradition of a metaphysical or
ontological interpretation of Kant‟s thought.35 This tradition has its origins in the
beginning of the 20th century, with Martin Heidegger being one of its most
prominent exponents.36 These thinkers are in a somewhat similar, although not
identical, manner concerned with re-establishing the role of Being within the
system of Kantian thought.
It would be a promising task to, for instance, compare Ḥā‟erī‟s approach to Kant and his references to Molla Ṣadrā with recent ontological readings of Kant in a German academic context. This may be but one opportunity for a dialogue between European and Iranian scholars interested in Kant, since for both of them there would be a whole tradition to become aware of, the Iranian tradition of Mollā Ṣadrā, and the German tradition of ontological interpretations of Kant.
Kant, Freedom and Autonomy
I now turn to another aspect of Kantian thought, namely his practical philo- sophy, and its reception in Iran. Again, there are many thinkers working on Kant in this context. I shall discuss an account of an Islamic intellectual from Iran, who may serve as a good example for the liberal religious spectrum.
Moḥammad Moǧtahed Šabestarī, an Iranian intellectual and critic of the current political establishment, started his career in the theological seminars of Qom, studying Islamic Law and Theology as well as philosophy and mysticism. In 1970, Šabestarī became director of the Shiite Islamic Center in the Imam Ali Mosque in Hamburg, where he was later succeeded by the former Iranian Pre- sident Mohammad Khatami. He also learned German and was able to pursue his
It would be a promising task to, for instance, compare Ḥā‟erī‟s approach to Kant and his references to Molla Ṣadrā with recent ontological readings of Kant in a German academic context. This may be but one opportunity for a dialogue between European and Iranian scholars interested in Kant, since for both of them there would be a whole tradition to become aware of, the Iranian tradition of Mollā Ṣadrā, and the German tradition of ontological interpretations of Kant.
Kant, Freedom and Autonomy
I now turn to another aspect of Kantian thought, namely his practical philo- sophy, and its reception in Iran. Again, there are many thinkers working on Kant in this context. I shall discuss an account of an Islamic intellectual from Iran, who may serve as a good example for the liberal religious spectrum.
Moḥammad Moǧtahed Šabestarī, an Iranian intellectual and critic of the current political establishment, started his career in the theological seminars of Qom, studying Islamic Law and Theology as well as philosophy and mysticism. In 1970, Šabestarī became director of the Shiite Islamic Center in the Imam Ali Mosque in Hamburg, where he was later succeeded by the former Iranian Pre- sident Mohammad Khatami. He also learned German and was able to pursue his
-
35 See for instance FICARA, 2006; BICKMANN, 1996; NEUMANN 2006.
-
36 For an overview of the ontological interpretation of Kant in the 1920ies, see BAERTSCHI,
2004.
No comments:
Post a Comment