Cover story
Photo by Nader Davoodi
Soroush interview:
Travelers on one ship
Part Three
Sadri: You mean Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions"?
Was that not published a few years earlier?
Soroush: Yes, but his book apparently did not find wide circulation
until later, especially in England. I remember that the ideas of Karl Popper,
Paul Feyerabend, and Imre Lakatos (whose death coincided with the first
year of my studies) dominated class discussions.
Among the earlier philosophers, the ideas of Pier Duhem, who had greatly
influenced Imre Lakatos, too, were discussed. Later on I moved on to more
contemporary philosophers. But those were extracurricular readings. Not
only in the philosophy of science but also in mathematics. We were introduced
to modern epistemology and logic. For instance, we studied the theories
of Church and Goedel.
Sadri: How about symbolic logic? I understand that was quiet
popular in those years.
Soroush: I was exposed to mathematical logic, which was one of
the main components of my education. I had to pass an examination on it
before I could enter the research phase of my studies. Mathematical logic
was a completely new discipline for me as well. Set theory had been gradually
found its way to Iranian universities, but it was mostly taught in mathematical
and technical schools, and its philosophical implications remained implicit.
I did not limit myself to the philosophy of natural science, though.
My specialization at the University of London was in the philosophy of
science, and a prerequisite of the postgraduate program in this field was
an advanced degree in one of the natural sciences. I was a chemist, and
my classmates were mathematicians, physicians, biologists.
They came not only from disparate disciplines but also from different
parts of the world. I tried to explore other avenues by applying the ideas
of the philosophy of natural sciences to other areas of human knowledge.
For instance, I conducted a relatively detailed survey of the philosophy
of history, which I consider one of the branches of the philosophy of science.
I found that most of the issues that were discussed in philosophy of
science were applicable to the philosophy of history. Then I gradually
explored the philosophy of social sciences. and the philosophy of religion.
This latter interest, however, bloomed somewhat later.
Philosophy of science was a true revelation for me. It opened up new
horizons and marked a significant turning point in my intellectual development.
It made me question, review, and revise my previous understanding of the
Aristotelian philosophy and metaphysics.
I like to think of my time in England as "the period of constant
contemplation." I ate, drank, slept, and walked philosophy. I was
bombarded by challenging questions and stimulating insights. I was constantly
at work sifting, revising, synthesizing, reconciling, and distinguishing
different components of my education and knowledge.
Particularly, I was grappling with the questions of the relationship
between science and philosophy, that is, science and metaphysics. No single
waking minute would pass, whether walking, riding on the subway, sitting
at home, or working in the library, unless I was struggling with some serious
and grand problem.
Sadri: Would you characterize this period more as a distressful
and critical period or an exciting and exhilarating one?
Soroush: It was both exciting and stormy. My mind was in constant
turmoil. It was also exhilarating because I felt I was making great progress
achieving significant breakthroughs in my thought. I distinctly felt the
advance; things were gradually falling into place. This left me at once
invigorated and frustrated.
During this period, in addition to my academic duties, I was involved
in two more activities. The first one was revisiting the works of Rumi.
This was a critical period. Rumi had lost most of its freshness and luster
for me. I was beginning to question his approach. It had become difficult
for me to feel any harmony and congeniality with him. Our paths seemed
to be diverging.
I started to re-read Rumi, but I had many questions, and it had become
difficult for me to enter his world. I often would find his arguments strange,
unpalatable, or incredible. But I kept struggling to reconcile the new
knowledge with the old sensibilities.
My other involvement had to do with developments in Iran, where the
political struggle was intensifying. Hosseinieh Ershad had been shut down
by the government, Shariati was under arrest, political prisoners were
on the rise, and the Shah's regime was openly clashing with demonstrators.
The news of these developments reached us in continuous waves. In the meantime,
Shariati's books had become the fulcrum of education in the ever-expanding
Islamic student associations.
Sadri: What period was this?
Soroush: This was around 1973 and 1974. I participated in some
of these meetings. I learned from and admired the works of the late Shariati,
but I felt his teachings needed to be substantially fleshed out and supplemented
before they could become incorporated into a comprehensive educational
text.
Some people who were more radical, or at least more vociferous in their
opposition to the regime of the Shah, expressed their affiliation with
the Islamic guerilla group in Iran, the Mojahedin. Therefore, in some of
these meetings one of the major pamphlets of this group entitled: Shenakht
or Epistemology was distributed. I found it rather superficial and
propagandistic. My criticism of it led to a criticism of the Marxist ideology
as it was introduced in Iran.
As time passed, around 1977, I laid the foundation of a series of books
that I completed while I was still in England. The first book in these
series was entitled: What is Science, What is Philosophy? followed
by Philosophy of History. My lecture series on "Critical Observations
on Dialectical Opposition" was later published and it was received
with great enthusiasm in Iran.
Also, the books entitled: Science and Value and The Dynamic
Nature of the Universe were written in this period. The latter was
my last publication on traditional metaphysics. It was, thank God, a successful
undertaking. Great scholars in the field -- Tabatabai, Motahhari, even
Khomeini -- read and praised the book.
In that book, I had attempted to synthesize Molla Sadra's theory of
movement in essence, in a lucid and understandable manner, with some of
the insights of the modern philosophers. This was my last dialogue with
Molla Sadra. I have not terminated this meditation, but I have not revisited
his work in recent years either.
Of course, our paths diverged. I have found thinking along those lines
increasingly difficult and cumbersome. Consequently, I turned to other
methods of thought. Particularly, the historical approach. Naturally, when
Iran's Islamic Revolution gained momentum, I reflected on the relationship
between the revolution and religious thought while preparing to return
to Iran. My return opened a new chapter in my life, as novel issues and
challenges emerged on the horizon.
Sadri: What year was this?
Soroush: Let me see, in September of 1979, a few months after
the revolution, I returned to Iran. I was appointed the chair of the Department
of Islamic Culture in Tehran's Teachers' College. After the closing of
the universities, I became a member of the Advisory Council on Cultural
Revolution where I stayed for four years. Later, I resigned from Teacher's
College and became a member of the Academy of Philosophy and finally, the
Research Center for Humanities and Social Sciences, a position I still
retain.
But before getting further along let me clarify an important point.
In the Advisory Council on Cultural Revolution our main task was reopening
of the universities. This is a point that is unknown to many people. Universities
had been closed for political reasons. It was after this event that the
council was appointed by Mr. Khomeini, who was the political leader of
the government at the time.
This council was composed of seven people and its mandate was to revise
the curriculum and to lay down the procedures for reopening universities
with the help of the professors who had been released from their routine
duties. There were close to one thousand professors who were cooperating
with us in different committees of the council. Others joined the Center
for Academic Publications. They composed articles, books, translations,
and curricula for universities and colleges.
The committee, then, was charged with reopening universities, not closing
them, as some have charged. I stayed in the council for four years. I resigned
as soon as it turned into the Headquarter of the Cultural Revolution. I
no longer saw a role for myself there ... CONTINUED
HERE
- Introduction
- Part
one
- Part
two
- Part
three
- Part
four
- Part
five
- Part
six
Interviewer
Mahmoud Sadri is an associate professor
of sociology at Texas Women's University. He has a doctorate in sociology
from New York's New School for Social Research. For more information see
his page at the Texas
Women's University. He is the coauthor, with Aruthur Stinchcombe, of an
article in "Durkheim's Division of Labor: 1893-1993" Presses
Universitaires de France, 1993. To top
- Send a comment to the interviewer
- Send a comment for The Iranian letters
section
