One of the most perplexing ideas within philosophy, theology, human sciences and mysticism discourses is the question of ‘Self’ and its realization. There are many contrasting views within universal history of intellectual concerns about what it really means to realize the ‘Self’. Is there any hidden nucleus within the shell of human soul that needs to be extracted through ascesis or modern formal education is capable of cultivating the equilibrium within the heart of modern man? In this article the question of individual realization as a conscious process of anti-alienation is under investigation by comparing three distinct paradigms of ‘Individual Realization’ in relation to Satori (Buddhist Tradition), Enlightenment (Modern Tradition) and ‘Irfan (Islamic Tradition) by concluding that the realm of realization within the parameters of self is of transcendental nature that trespasses the myopic fetters of naturalistic constraints.

Introduction

There is no doubt that the catchword within the Liberal tradition in regard to the human self is ‘Education’. The importance of education is so paradigmatic within the Liberalism that some of its proponents claimed God makes Man and Education makes him a Gentleman. In other words, there is a specific conception of education that is embedded within Liberal Tradition that takes the divine creation in the person of Man and brings out the potentialities to a higher stage of dynamism. What is a gentleman? There are two answers for this question; one is of a historical-social character and the other one is of a philosophical nature. The former is historically associated with a man of gentle birth, who was entitled to bear arms, ranking above a yeoman in terms of social class and hierarchy. In this sense the idea of Gentleness, which is a universal and a divine grace to the Mankind was hijacked by a minority in order to serve their ill-purposes and perpetuate their family position within economic aristocracy system, which is a distorted reflection of spiritual aristocracy based on personal and spiritual achievements. In the second sense, which is closer to the spirit and letter of Liberal Tradition, the idea of gentleness is closely related to a philosophical conception of human existence. The anthropological philosophy which lies at the bottom of this understanding is related to the dual equation of Nature and Nurture. The first one is divine and the sum of all potentialities which are collected and embedded within the Image of God in the person of Primordial Man and the second pair is what one calls culture. By culture one intends in the liberal tradition a process, which attempts to refine and bring out the good qualities embedded in the human nature and at the same time remove, so to speak, the ‘weed’ from the garden of personality. This metaphor brings to mind the idea of garden in an agricultural context and it is not very farfetched to think in this sense in relation to Liberal notion of education either. The image of human existence and how to bring the good qualities out from the human soil is similar to the art of gardening and as the result for a perfect gardening is a garden full of beautiful flowers without any weeds, the result of good education should be the realization of gentleness. What is the meaning of gentleness within the liberal anthropological philosophy? The liberal philosophy, unlike the radical Enlightenment anthropology, does not assume that human nature is the repository of all virtues in need of Rousseauian methodology to bring out the Emilian personality out to the open nature. The liberal notion of education is based on the assumption that Man is a repository of vices and virtues and the role of society is not to be conceived as all-inducing and all-powerful demiurge that draws all it wishes on the Tabula Rasa of man’s nature. Hence the idea of ‘Educator’ as a ‘Gardner’ made in the image of a. ‘Cultivator’ is born within Liberalism. The whole process of education and the fundamental elements of upbringing are related to the idea of ‘Cultivation’ and as the gardener is in need of a pair of scissors to cut the weeds and let the flowers and grass grow into a proportionate form, the educator needs to have at its disposal a conceptual tools to cut the vices and facilitate the growth of virtues in the person of Man. This process of cutting the weeds of vice and facilitating the growth of flowers of virtue is called education and would lead to Gentleness or, to use a philosophical term, Moderation and, to use a religious term, Nobility of Soul. Unlike the notion of Enlightenment that was endorsed by French radicals and would not in any sensible and intelligible way lead to ‘Light’, the Liberal notion of education is what one may term as a process towards removing of the clouds of ignorance that ultimately would allow the Man to see the Sun of Light within his own Garden based on an incessant and tireless process of cultivation. The idea of cultivation is not to be confused by the idea of modern notion of ‘culture’, where the solemn ideals of ‘proportion’, ‘wholeness’, ‘beauty’, and ‘geometry’ are alien notions and irrelevant for anybody who is interested in cultural activities within modern context. Within Liberal Tradition, the idea of education is to be resembled with the art of Gardening or the primitive farming, where the whole attempt was to find the ‘right position’ for each and every seed and flower in the garden or the farm. In this tradition, the education is to man what farming is to the wild land and the end result is Gentlemanliness. The pristine meaning of gentleness is to be ‘Noble’ and the term in the philosophical tradition is not fundamentally different than having ‘high moral qualities’ and being ‘magnanimous in deed’. To be magnanimous within Liberalism in its religious aspect is not different and could not be even fathomed without education and the latter is not even conceivable without having ‘Knowledge’ of ‘First principles’ and intellectual contemplation. In other words, one finds out that to be noble is not to belong to a privileged social or political class whose status is usually indicated by a title conferred by sovereign authority or descent. On the contrary, to be noble means to be capable of knowing, to use Erich Fromm’s maxim, the art of truthful living and finally it should come as a surprise to notice that the primordial meaning of ‘nobility’ has nothing to do with social class or political affiliation, though they may have historically hijacked it socio-politically, but with noscere, namely ‘Knowledge’. In Liberal tradition what leads to nobility is education and that is Light and enlightening due to the fact that it leads the student to find out about his true nature and the real nature of virtues and vices within his own self. The noble man is man in the Image of God and education brings him towards this state of being and this is realization of knowledge or noscere and nobility. This conception is not fundamentally distinct from the idea of illumination and knowledge in Islamic philosophy of ‘Irfan and is essentially related to the notion of Satori in Zen Buddhism.

The Light and Gnostic Tradition of ‘Irfan

‘Irfan; the term itself means ‘recognition’ or ‘acquaintance’. At the heart of this term there is an idea, which is essentially interconnected with the reality of the process that is assumedly leading towards ‘Irfan, namely the notion of ‘cognition’. Within the modern paradigm of knowledge¹ when one thinks of ‘Knowledge’ one does think of it in a very institutional sense and it is hard not to forget the realisational dimensions of knowledge-pursuit.² What are the realisational dimensions of knowledge-pursuit?

The modern concept of knowledge is substantially based on a socialized understanding of knowledge-pursuit. That is to argue that the epistemological basis of modern education is premised upon the idea of utility for collective conscience and the institutions which are materialized expressions of the will of society. The concept of utility is not as negative as some critics may argue but it contains many vast fields of human existence both individually and collectively and moreover it is not totally alien to the idea of religiosity as such. By ‘utility’ within modern episteme one intends to convey the idea of ‘usefulness’ in practical terms but the terms of practice are not all determined by the philosophy of ‘Utilitarianism’ in its crude instrumentalist sense. On the contrary, the concept of usefulness and the terms of praxis are of a higher and more subtle level, which are best expressed by the radical school of Pragmatism in American tradition of philosophy by men such as C. S. Peirce, William James, John Dewey, and Herbert Mead. The nub of their philosophy, which constitutes the substantial elements of the idea of ‘Utility’ is the capacity to cope with life. A true education should give one a useful tool to cope with existential ups and downs of life and the utility of the education could be measured at the stage of life once one enters into the battleground and the meaning of measurement is not what quantitatively-inclined educators endorse. By measurement is intended the extent and degree one has traversed upon the map of life and overcome its de-centralizing forces upon individuality and nobility. But these latter aspects have al but disappeared from early modern education which was an extension of liberal tradition and the second phase of modernity that is concomitant with the reign of quantity and now with the third phase of modernity upon us, where the commercialisation is the reigning philosophy, there is not much to be said in terms of ‘Realization’ and ‘Knowledge-pursuit’ within modern frame of philosophy.

On the contrary, the ideas of education and ‘Irfan are both of the same roots, where the seeker of gnosis is a student who aspires to be educated in its primordial sense. That is to say, the idea of cognition is not what one intends within institutional and socialized context of modern education based on ‘Utility-index’. First of all, the term ‘cognition’ is not referring solely to traditional conception of science, where it separates the observer from the observed and encircles the ultimate goal of science in knowing in a rational sense, which is independent of the observer. The kind of knowledge which would be powerful enough to enable us to realise the tenets of essential truths within the realm of primordial self is fundamentally related to ‘consciousness’ or the subject’s experiencing of the object. In other words, the observer cannot be separated from the observed, for it is precisely their relationship that is relevant for realization within the paradigm of ‘Irfan. When it is admitted that the point of reference in cognitive approach is not solely the mental process by which the subject acquires knowledge within physical parameters of phenomenal reality, then the scope of cognition is enlarged enough to embrace ‘perception’, ‘intuition’, ‘reasoning’, ‘intellection’, ‘inspiration’, and ‘revelation’. Once the parameters of cognition is redesigned in this fashion, one would realize that this is not very far from the Liberal idea of education, which seeks to bring out the noble nature of man into the light based on ‘noscere’ and this is the primordial meaning of ‘cognition’, namely knowledge. In other words, ‘Irfan is the educational process whereby Man attempts to rescue the soul from falling into the realm of vices and losing the capability to be-come realized as the divine image in its primordial sense. How to achieve this is what ‘Irfan attempts to impart to those who seek ‘cognition’, namely by an individual approach to the realm of Truth. One must stop thinking in terms of collective, social, political, and so on and so forth. The realm of Truth is as communal as it is individual. The Face of God is as Universal as it is Personal and the uniqueness of divinity is beyond rational cognition but it is within the realm of re-cognition or attainable once Man embarks upon the path of enlightenment and realization of nobility in one’s self.

Within the formal institution of knowledge, unlike the Liberal Tradition (despite of what many today wrongly thinks of contemporary education as an expression of Liberal Education) and the Tradition of ‘Irfan, the pursuit is primarily concerned with the physical dimensions of reality and normal states of awareness. The complex edifice of reality is always understood within the parameters of unintentionality. That is to argue that the subject’s experiencing of the object, which Brentano and Husserl deemed fundamental to phenomenological understanding of reality, is neglected and consequently the complete knowledge of the structure of phenomenal worlds is lost and phenomenal world is wrongly equated with physical (sense data) world. Or whatever that appears to the sight in its myopic sense is called reality and the vast phenomena that appears in consciousness, including perceptions, imagination, thoughts, recollections, intellection, noble dreams, and so on and so forth are omitted from the domain of cognition, which ultimately would lead to the eschewal of the very realisational dimension of knowledge within modern education. The disappearance of this aspect from knowledge-pursuit is not a formal loss, which could be rectified, in an institutional sense but it is a spiritual poverty in its very fundamental sense, namely manslaughter at best or murder at worst.

When one talks of ‘Irfan within Sacred tradition of Islam, one thinks of ‘Gnosis’ and by that one intends a very specific notion of knowledge, which embrace the entire gamut of man’s existential faculties and the individual attempt based on devotion to the realization of noble man. Within the parameter of ‘Irfan, the pursuit of knowledge is not confined to what one acquires formally and rationally. On the contrary, the pursuit of knowledge is exactly the rendering of fundamental meaning of ‘pursuit’ in its essential sense, namely to follow incessantly after the ray to its source of origin. This is called by Gnostics ‘knowledge by presence’ and the beam of light when ignited within the darkness of man’s seventh solitude gives rise to a qualitatively different kind of individuality, i.e. ‘Arif or the Enlightened One. The aim of education when is taken in its existential sense is not the impartation of disconnected or domain-connected knowledge but a holistic sense of outlook based on an experiential knowledge that results in an individuated self or a noble man. This is to view life and whatever it offers in a very existential sense and it is an attempt on behalf of Man to confront life fully and in all fronts and levels of being by avoiding to determine the nature of reality a priori without travelling through.

Satori and Enlightenment

Satori is the heart of Zen; an Awakening or Enlightenment. It is the Awakening to one's Original Face and Primordial Nature, to the ultimate reality of all.³ It is an Awakening of the Heart flowering into endless compassion for all beings. Almost all Buddhist sects can be called religions. There are many sects in Buddhism, but the core or essence of them all is the experience called Satori or self-realization. The theories and philosophies of all the sects are but the clothing covering the core. These outer wrappings are of various shapes and colours, but what is inside remains the same. And the core, this experience, is not adorned with any thought or philosophy. It is merely a fact, an experienced fact, in the same way that the taste of tea is a fact. A cup of tea has no thought, no idea, no philosophy. It tastes the same to Buddhists as it does to anybody else. There is no difference at all.

One may ask what makes this experience happen. Well, quite simply, it is when certain conditions are present to the consciousness of a human being, and a reaction occurs. This reaction is called the Zen experience. The reaction of this experience is always the same, regardless of the beliefs we may hold or the colour of our skin. It could be compared to playing billiards. When we hit the balls with the same amount of power and in the same direction, all the balls roll along the same course and at the same angles, regardless of their colour.

Now one may wonder, what are the conditions that bring our consciousness to the experience. It is to concentrate with our mind in one-pointedness, and to forget ourselves in it. The one-pointedness is achieved sometimes in breath-counting, sometimes in what we call ‘following the breath’, sometimes just sitting, and sometimes working on koans. You will notice that all these ways point inwardly. It is a very interesting fact, but when we concentrate on an object outside ourselves, for example as in archery where we aim at a target, no matter how strong the concentration may be, we cannot attain the Zen experience. So in Zen practice, when we want to attain Satori, we have to be absorbed inwardly.

Here one must remember that the experience attained by Zazen practice is not a thought or a philosophy or a religion, but merely a fact, an existential happening. And strange as it may seem, the experience of that fact has the power to free us from the agonies of the pains of the world. It emancipates us from the anxiety of all worldly sufferings. No one knows why that experience has such wonderful power, but it does. This is the most important point, and it's the most difficult to try to explain by a linguistic frame of knowledge which is not based on existential findings.

In the Zen experience, a certain unity happens, subject and object become one and we come to realize our own self-nature in its primordial sense. This self-nature cannot be seen, it cannot be touched, it cannot be heard. Because of these characteristics, one refers to is an ‘empty’ (in Japanese, ku) but its activities are infinite. So, one says the Zen experience is the realization of the empty-infinite of one’s self-nature or one’s essential-nature, as it is often called. When this happens, the fact is accompanied by a great peace of mind and tranquillity will reign supreme. At that moment, one feels as though the heavy burdens one has been carrying in the heart or on one’s shoulders, indeed all over the body and soul, suddenly disappear as if thrown away. The joy and happiness at that time is beyond all words. This is called Satori, or self-realization, or enlightenment.

What is one going to attain by doing Zazen? There are three categories:

1. Developing concentration of the mind.

2. Satori-awakening, enlightenment.

3. Personalization of Satori.

The first, to develop concentration is of utmost importance in establishing and maintaining a successful life in this world. The ability to concentrate calms the surface of our consciousness. This is most necessary in making correct decisions, and for receiving external impressions and information the right way. Also, when the mind is deeply absorbed, it does not easily yield to the influence of external circumstances. And, moreover, when we want to actualise ideas, which arise in our heart, or when we want to accomplish some work or business, a strong concentration of mind is indispensable.

The second, Satori, is the most important to a Mahayana Zen Buddhist. Dogen Zenji, the great Zen master who brought Soto Zen to Japan, has clearly stated that without enlightenment there is no Zen. This Satori does not happen necessarily by mere concentration. This is especially true, if the mind is brought to one-pointedness in the objective world. And even if this is achieved inwardly our life problem, the problem of life and death, cannot be solved fundamentally by concentration. It can only be resolved by enlightenment and the personalization of that magnanimous experience. So if one wants to free oneself from the anxiety of the sufferings of life through Zazen, the Satori experience should be the main purpose for practicing Zazen.

The third aim of Zazen, the personalization or embodiment of Satori, comes as a matter of course only after having attained Satori. This is the nub of education in realisational aspect. To attain this experience of enlightenment in order to accomplish our ultimate personality is very difficult indeed, and requires an extremely long period of time. The experience itself is only the entrance. The completion is to personalize what we came to realize in the experience. After washing away all the ecstasy and glitter in the experience, the truly great Zen person is not distinguishable in outward appearance. He is a man who has experienced deep enlightenment and consequently extinguished all illusions, but is still not different externally from an ordinary man. Through Satori and Zazen, one would be-come an integrated person. Enlightenment is the goal of Zen Buddhism. One can understand enlightenment as knowledge of the truth; but this knowledge is not the accumulative and rational knowledge as one comprehends within secular paradigm. Satori, however, is a form of enlightenment, which is at the bottom of realized notion of education. A monk went to the Zen master wanting to know more about the truth of enlightenment. When he asked this question of the Zen master, the master replied, ” Do you hear the sound of that running brook.” Yes, I hear it,” answered the monk. “ That is the entrance to the truth” the Master replied to him.

When the beam of light has been ignited within the heart and the rays of Light realized within the realm of primordial self, the birth of noble man is not very far off. This is what Satori is about in its permanent sense and this is the true aim of education within Buddhist tradition.⁴

The Realisation and Alienation of the Self

The very term of ‘Individual’ is metaphysically possible if there are, at least, two fundamental realities present. One is the idea of ‘Freedom’ and the second one is the idea of ‘Conscience’. The entire edifice of individuality boils down to these very two significant aspects without the birth of an individual would be inconceivable if not impossible. Regardless of the tradition one adheres (the school of Satori, the school of ‘Irfan, or the school of Liberalism) it is not possible to think of the birth or the death of individuality without consolidating the metaphysical importance of freedom and conscience within the realm of Self. Otherwise one would pave the way for the entrance of a mechanistic notion of self, which could do without either, and the result is ‘socialization’ (in the place of conscience) and ‘hedonism’ (in the place of liberty). There are many definitions of ‘conscience’ within secular thought but to cut a long story short it would not be inappropriate to classify the mainstream ones as a refined derivation from the concept of socialization within modern socio-cosmogony. Within this school of thought (popularly considered as the Modern Paradigm), there is no inherent capacity within human self (such as soul or conscientious cordial seat) that could rise above particularities and point out towards universal Good, Beauty, Love, and Care beyond the relational contingencies. The human self born and bred within this paradigm is nothing but a particular expression of the grandeur ‘Collective Conscience’ that permeates like the almighty goddess within all corners of human psyche and socius.⁵ It is hard not to wonder then how spiritual innovations, poetical voyage of discoveries, grandeur visions of art, sublime schemes of architecture, sorrowful sonnets, doleful songs, heart-touching stories and many others aspects, which breath life into our universe come about?

Within the modern socio-cosmogonical paradigm the liberty of self is measured by reference to the scope of its external expressions and the length of the sustenance of such sporadic (and mainly free of moral-ethical considerations) events that crystallize the very content of self-expressions. That is to argue that the reality where the self is moving within is not an expression of Intelligible Brahman but a construction accumulated by haphazard mobility of a blind evolutionary process. This is to deny that the physical universe is only a ‘container’ of meaningfully expressed ‘contained’ realities that fall under a hierarchy of intelligible orders and responsive to both the ‘container’ and the ‘contained’. Within this scheme of thought, then, the question of self and its realization or self and its alienation are not similar to what the proponents of socialization have so far argued by denying a) the intelligibility of Reality, b) the necessity and existence of intelligible soul within each self as conscience, and c) the relation between liberty and conscience as the ‘inner voice’.

When the conscience as ‘inner voice’ is premised as an inevitable source of self-realization and the individual heed to this voice as the first necessary step towards expression of liberty, then it is not farfetched to see the ontological absence of each of these as powerful expressions of self-alienation.⁶ It would be careless of the author to assume that the concepts of ‘self’ and ‘alienation’ are very recent innovations within contemporary thought and moreover to deny the fierce modern debates on how to rectify the illness caused by alienation of human self. Needless to mention that modern secular thinkers do admit that alienation is as real as rain in the spring and its prevalence as detrimental as the spread of poison within human physical body. However what is of disagreement is not the reality of an individual dimension called ‘self’ or even the powerful dis-ease, which might cause the self to be paralysed, namely ‘alienation’. None of these are at risk or there is no theoretical need to defend and prove that these are real and not fictional problems. In other words, there are many points of agreements between secular school of thought and religious school of thought in terms of problems but what is not agreed upon is the ‘source’ of each and individual problem, which might affect the realization of self or alienation of self.

Within the secular school of thought, the centre of reality is the conventions which make up a collective unit called ‘Society’ and the textures of what these realities are all but ‘impermanent expressions’ of known and unknown forces of material origins. By material origin the proponents of this school do not intend crude or vulgar notions of ‘materia’ but argue that matter is not a physical object without any intelligence. On the contrary, it embraces within its substantial make-up a very variegated form of intelligibility but what they do deny is the source of ‘material intelligence’ in any extra-material composition. In their view, ‘materia’ is intelligible but there is no source to return to but circularity and best to regard it as a self-independent sphere unto itself. The trick in this position is the very semantic definition of ‘intelligibility’ and what one should make of the role of it in relation to the matter within scientific discourse of modernity. One of the highest forms of intelligible expressions or what made an expression intelligible has traditionally been the ability to ‘apprehend’, comprehend’, or ‘understand’ and ultimately put it in expressible format. Nobody can dispute that any matter is capable of such expression but the scientific discourse has altered few rules of the metaphysical game by arguing that even the very simple inorganic matters within physical universe do express themselves comprehensively. But what makes such a grandiose expression go amiss is the ‘format of expression’, which by the aid of scientific hand would come to comprehensible light. When this fact is comprehended in the light of science anybody would admit the intelligibility of the matter and confess the closed nature of the physical universe as a sufficient system unto itself and realize the intelligible character of the matter. But the question remains unanswered and that is ‘who’ brought all these to the light?

A scientist is a human being and regardless of his/her denial of the intelligible reality beyond and above the material realm he is a doomed expression of intelligibility but what he does within the secular school of thought is to be a spokesman of matter by relying unknowingly on ‘intellectual faculties’ that operate above ‘sensible’ and ‘material’ realms. This choice is not a scientific result, which even it was it was a very insignificant choice, but a metaphysical ignorance. By employing this term ‘metaphysical ignorance’ it is not intended to pass a moralistic judgment, which is normal to pass when one is unable to reason and produce reasonable critique, which would finally pave the way for the intelligible contemplation. On the contrary, this term refers to a very essential point, which is absent from modern philosophy of science due to the fact that the craftsmen within this school are all but inattentive to the holistic nature of reality and the spirit which envelopes its nature, namely purposefulness. This is inaccessible to materialist school of science, which reduces the multifarious dimensions of reality to phenomenon and again re-reduces the phenomenal world to material system of physicality. In this context, the term ‘ignorance’ is not fraught with ethical connotations but it has a very strict metaphysical message to convey, namely ignarus = not to know of. Not to know of what? Within this context ignarus refers to a mind which does not know of the degree of knowledge and stations of reality that are expressed gradually (i.e. stage by stage) in each level of reality according to the potential realm of each and one level of reality. The lack of the unfolding process of reality and to conceive of Realness as either a Big Bang or one-dimensional expressible demonstrative self-contained stage is metaphysically considered as ‘ignorance’. To be ignorant of the stage of reality in relation to physical dimension and natural order would express itself in misconceived approach to utilization of natural resources, which is a minor reflection of the greater ignorance before the degrees of reality in relation to Human Self that does express all three levels of reality: sensible, reasonable, and intelligible. Now the question is how to view the realization or alienation of self in relation to multilayered nature of Reality? In any realization there must be essentially a glimpse of ‘realness’ that is aimed to be released or brought forward or the lack of it, which would surely lead to alienation. If the whole gamut of reality is confined to the sensible realm and educational system erected accordingly then what is realized is nothing but a cripple self, which is incapable of nobility and truthful expression. Or again, if the gamut of realness is stretched as far as the abstract realm of reason, then the self is not fully expressed and its cordial dimension ignored in toto. A total self-realization should bring about the forces of all three dimensions of reality into the heart of human soul and therefrom set on to realise fully the entire empire of potentialities into the dynamic realm.

The major theories of self-realization or self-alienation are grandly operative either within the sensible realm or the reasonable domain and even when the proposed theories set to rectify the ills of non-realization, one alienating force is replaced by a multiply one and the goose chase goes on ad infinitum. This endless attempt to rectify the alienating forces and pave the way for realizing forces of self to express itself is related to the complexity of human psyche (within psychoanalytical discourses) and human society (within social-philosophical discourses). Although it is undeniable that human existence and all the dimensions of human life, whether individual or collective, are of great complexity nevertheless it should be re-emphasised that the complexities of human life are not of the same order under debate within modern secular discourses.

When one thinks of realization there must be something to be realised and the lack of what is there to be realized is what may lead to alienation. The conviction that life is without purpose or meaning is associated with a loss of existential values and within modern discourses of existentialism is equivalent to outrageous mood of anxieties, which ultimately would lead to alienation, and loss of self. However it seems the conviction that life is with purpose within this discourse is a matter of ‘individual choice’ and related to social dimensions and unrelated to cosmological aspects of reality. This self-realization of self-alienation is disconnected from the wider reality which envelopes man in his entirety and ensures that his entire self is in deep relation to the all-embracing force of reality, which does express itself in the fragrance of a rosaceous as well as in the tears of an orphan child. In other words, the purposefulness of social reality cannot be established without any essential connection to the cosmological purposefulness, which embraces all aspects of reality in its matrix by expressing itself in all levels of realness.

In psychiatry and clinical psychology, alienation is not regarded as a mental disorder in and of itself. It is recognized as playing a role in antisocial personality disorder, which is characterized by a lack of interest in the rights and feelings of other. This approach to lack of realization of self is based on socialization-paradigm and does not relate in any profound sense to the idea of Satori, ‘Irfan, or Nobility as discussed above. Historically speaking the current modes on the question of realization is related to the philosophical atheism that goes back to Ludwig Feuerbach who developed his philosophical atheism from a negative reaction to Hegel.

He sees man's nature as a social being to be grounded on sensible reality as opposed to Hegel's 'pure thought'. He calls Hegelian Philosophy ‘the last prop of theology.’⁷

He does use Hegel’s concept of self-alienation, the return of the absolute Spirit to itself from a self-alienation in Nature, in his philosophy. He substitutes man for the Absolute Spirit. He sees this substitution as a transformation of theology into anthropology. Thus, religion becomes a philosophical anthropology. We shall look at two aspects of this philosophy_,First, how man's dependence on Nature leads to a projected God of man’s self-consciousness. Secondly, how he views Christianity as the apex of religions.

In his work The Essence of Religion Feuerbach considers historical religion. Man begins by venerating the forces of Nature because he is conscious of his dependence on the outside world. The concept of personal gods or a God arises from self-projection. In polytheism man deifies the qualities which differentiate one man from an other. We see anthropomorphic deities each with a unique personal characteristic. In monotheism man projects his concept of man as essentially a social being into a unified transcendent God. The evolution from polytheism to monotheism takes place when man realizes he can manipulate Nature for his own purposes. He then sees Nature as that which exists for him. This implies an intelligent Creator with a purpose. This Creator is nothing more than a projection of man's own essence into an infinite personal Deity. This Creator becomes the expression of man’s alienation from himself. This objective God

… is the absolute positive, the essence of all realities, while man is the negative, the essence of nothingness.⁸

This alienation in religion must be overcome. It is just a stage in man's development of self-awareness until he realizes this objective essence is really his very own essence. Thus, we start with a dependence on Nature and progress to religion. In religion we progress from polytheism to monotheism. Finally, we progress from God to the essence of self.

Feuerbach sees Christianity as the apex of religion. The Trinity is a projection of the power of love in the essence of man as a social being. The Incarnation unites the word God with the word Man to make a God-Man. He sees this God-Man as achieving the link between humanity and its projection God. We must develop this insight a bit further by reversing humanity as an attribute of God to see God as an attribute of man. This reversal overcomes the self-alienation in religion. Man realizes God is really his own idealized essence projected into a transcendent image. This allows man to recover faith in himself regarding his power and future.

Love is the universal law of intelligence and nature—it is nothing else but the realization of the unity of the species on the plane of feeling.⁹

We see by this statement the only positive aspect of love in Feuerbach’s philosophy even though he had to destroy Christianity to arrive at it. Thus, Christianity becomes nothing more than a means to an end for man's self-awareness.

In conclusion, Feuerbach sees man as evolving in his self-awareness from dependence on Nature to the idea of God as a projection of man's self-consciousness. Christianity is seen as the apex of religion because it links the humanity to the Divinity. We must further evolve to realize the divinity of humanity. Then we will see God as nothing more than a projection of our essence.

The philosophical metaphysics of modernity within social theory is not essentially different than the scientific discourse, which empties the symbolic texture of reality by dividing it into various disciplines and domains without any symbolic significance. To realize then is even conceptually a disputed question and the lack of it is itself an epi-phenomenon due to the fact that ‘Self’ does not have any interior dimensions capable of harbouring any potentiality for inner consciousness and dynamic awareness. For, there is no inner dimension and the self is a tapestry of disconnected sporadic imprints of events and incidents and what keeps this elusive persona together is the imposing social force, namely collective conscience.

On the other hand, the process of self-realization in each of the three traditions of Zen, Islam and Liberalism is an attempt to transform the subject by awakening the inner voice of conscience and bring about all the dispersed forces of moral agent into unity, integrity and balance. This realization happens by the light of soul-searching. No new knowledge is acquired, but old assumptions fall away. No effort in the world can make you what you already and actually are. The truth behind ego is a no-thing-ness too close for investigation, since it is the very source from which the attempt to investigate arises. Seeing this makes it clear that the activating agent in all your actions is not a fictional ‘me’, but the universal energy, or one's true Self. The belief in a ‘me’, as well as the seeking for enlightenment, is seen through by no-one as nothing but the playful activity of this primal activating energy. The cosmic joke in the journey of the seeker is that the energy that fuels the seeking is precisely what is being sought. In Zen this is called riding an ox in search of an ox. Wei Wu Wei compared it to looking for your spectacles, not realizing that they are on your nose and, were you not looking through them, you wouldn't be able to see what you are looking for.¹⁰ IT awakens to itself or, more to the point, IT is Awakeness itself. It is the light in which all apparent opposites reveal their interdependence and ultimate One-ness; it is the clarity in which the illusion of separation dissolves. The witness and that which is witnessed merge into witnessing, while the illusion of past and future dissolves into the clarity of timeless presence. As It Is, life is not a meaningless absurdity. The meaningfulness of life is not bestowed upon by mortal man, either individual or collective. The meaning of life is inherent in life and once it is not obvious to the very eyes of mankind in its collectivity, then it is the beginning of Great Occultation. Life has no meaning beyond itself. The Beyond is manifested as Life and the whole existential universe of man is implicated within the matrix of manifested Beyond. It is always at the point of completion and, simultaneously, as fresh as the morning dew at the dawn of creation.

Notes

1. On this issue see the author’s ‘The existential relevance of religious thought in modern social philosophy’ in SUFI Illuminations, Vol. 3 No. 1 Spring 2002, 34-43.

2. Elizabeth Sirriyeh: Sufis and anti-Sufis :the defence, rethinking and rejection of Sufism in the modern world, Richmond, Surrey: Curzon, 1999.

3. James Kirkup: Zen contemplations /James Kirkup..[1st ed.]...Osaka: Union Services, 1978.

4. Nishida Kitaro, Intelligibility and the Philosophy of Nothingness. Three Philosophical Essays. Translated and introduced by Robert Schinzinger in collaboration with I. Koyama and T. Kojima; The International Philosophical Research Association of Japan. Greenwood Press, Publishers. Westport, Connecticut.

5. Kolak, Daniel: Self and identity: contemporary philosophical issues /Daniel Kolak, Raymond Martin..New York: Macmillan; Toronto: Collier Macmillan, 1991

6. Seyyed Ahmad Rahnemaei, The Concept of Self-Realisation in the Educational Philosophies of John Dewey and Allama Tabatabai, Ph. D. Thesis at McGill University, Canada, 1999.

7. Frederick Copleston, Fichte to Nietzsche, in A History of Philosophy, Vol VII, ed. Edmund Sutcliffe, Maryland: The Newman Press, 1965, pp298.

8. Ibid. pp297.

9. Ibid. pp298

10. Wei Wu Wei, The Tenth Man, Hong Kong University Press, 1966.

Ibn Khaldun Narrow Induction

Mohamed Katch

Abstract

This study was an attempt to verify the accusations directed to Ibn Khaldun by western and eastern scientists regarding his use of a fake induction in his study of the political, economical, educational, ….. aspects of the social phenomenon. In this, the author used a new method he developed –positive super meta-physics-. The study consists of five phases: Ibn Khaldun induction between modernity accusations and unfamiliarity with the heritage, Ibn Khaldun’s method between the other and the self, Ibn Khaldun’s life and its effect on the investigation of the social phenomenon including the educational phenomenon, analysing some parts of the “Muqaddimah”, and verifying the accusations directed to Ibn Khaldun. The study concluded that Ibn Khaldun used amplifiante –incomplete- induction, complete induction and hypothetical field induction respectively. I nominated this process “wide induction”. In writing down his “Muqaddimah” he used hypothetical induction in writing what he concluded in the form of a heading or a rule. Then he used complete induction to apply it on all parts of the phenomenon, and then he used incomplete induction to confirm that the phenomenon is within the borders of the rule. I nominated this “Narrow induction”. Ibn Khaldun used this method in his study of various cases of one phenomenon for example, the educational phenomenon inside the social phenomenon rather than the whole phenomenon. I have summed up the result of this study in the form of a drawing at the end of this article. It includes the new method I discovered that Ibn Khaldun used.

Introduction

Some researches suggest that Ibn Khaldun used a scientific distinct method in studying the educational phenomena in different countries. Mahros Ghaban observed that:

His method consisted of several methods including live observation, and the historical, comparative, and inductive methods.¹

However, contemporary scientists suggested that Ibn Khaldun used a fake induction, Mahros says:

They claim that he did not use induction to extract results but he put results first then uses events induction to prove its correctness based on preset premises².

Mahros’s work laid doubt on Ibn Khaldun induction method in treating the educational phenomenon in his book (Ketab El-Ebar) which he wrote in Ibn Salam’s castle. However, there is a consensus on the pioneering of Ibn Khaldun works in politics, economy, philosophy, sociology, education, psychology, and medicine.

There are various views and concepts for induction, quoting Ibn Sena ‘It is a whole judgement on the presence of his judgment in the parts of the whole. If the induction allows for generalization of results on the whole parts without reservation it is induction complete, however if results cannot be generalized because some parts were not represented in the results its induction amplifiante (incomplete).³ So “there is a complete induction that allow generalization on all parts without reservation, while incomplete induction does not allow generalizing the result because some parts are not represented in the results”.⁴ Narrow induction is different from the previous two, it is as the author procedurally suggests: defining what the researcher –Ibn Khaldun- concluded through living, observation, and subjective experience. It is not an inference that the researcher performs, he does not move from the whole to the part, and it is not a complete induction because it attempts to verify a special case reached through incomplete, then complete induction, and hypothetical deduction.

The accusation Mahros quoted from other scientist regarding Ibn Khaldun’s alleged fake induction will be examined through the following procedures:

1- Ibn Khaldun induction between modernity (modern Western scientists) accusations and unfamiliarity with heritage (Eastern scientists).

2- Ibn Khaldun method between the other (Western scientists) and the self (Eastern scientists).

3- Ibn Khaldun’s course of life and its relation to his investigation of the socio-educational phenomenon.

4- Activating Ibn Khaldun induction in his Muqaddimah on the socio-educational phenomenon (analysing the chapter “Ibn Khaldun an Imam and Innovator in educational research, and sections five and six).

5- Settling the essence of Ibn Khaldun induction between accusations and facts.

1- Ibn Khaldun Induction between Modernity Accusations and Unfamiliarity with the Heritage

A- Accusations directed to Ibn Khaldun regarding his induction method: A study suggested that the major accusation directed to Ibn Khaldun by western scientists professionals in socio-educational knowledge was that he used an arbitrary and fake kind of induction.⁵ Mahros says:

Ibn Khaldun did not use induction to come to conclusions but he put conclusion first then uses events and facts induction to prove its correctness based on a preset premises. Critics support this view by unjustly selecting certain incidents to demonstrate that Ibn Khaldun’s method was not experimental induction nor pure deduction but a mixture of both.⁶

B- Accusation directed to Ibn Khaldun regarding his treatment of the socio-educational phenomenon inductively: Ibn Khaldun attached the educational phenomenon to the social phenomenon and applied one rule on both. He saw science and education as a natural reflection of the development of society, thus there is a positive relation between construction and science and learning industry, and the opposite is true, the decline of the society is followed by a deterioration of this industry. Ibn Khaldun did not believe in the separation and independence of the educational phenomenon from the social phenomenon, rather it is dependent on it and is governed by its laws⁷, Mahros says:

Some western scientists added that Ibn Khaldun did not pay attention to the quantitative measurement of phenomena, in other words he did not present a numerical description of the educational aspects of the countries he mentioned in his “Muqaddimah” like for instance educational surveys about schools, its students and teacher ...etc except for short hints about the number of studying years, students and teachers.⁸

C- The accusations directed to Ibn Khaldun regarding his inductive conclusions about the socio-educational phenomenon, for example: It is said that a major portion of his observations and conclusions which he developed as rules or generalizations is in fact no more than hypothesis fit for accounting for some partial instances, and it is inappropriate to be nominated as rules or laws or general principles fit for all times and places. Take for example, some generalizations that came as headings for his chapters in his “Muqaddimah” Mahros quotes Ibn Khaldun:

Scientists are the furthest of all people from politics and its ideologies”, “Occupation with writing hinders achievement” and “Arabs are very far from industries “provision of education is a prerequisite for science development”, “travelling after knowledge and meeting scientists is a additional kind of education, and “science learning is a complementary industry for urban not Bedwian.⁹

D- Accusation directed to Ibn Khaldun regarding his induction of a social phenomenon indirectly related to the socio-educational phenomenon: This is manifested in what they called geographical determinism. Mahros relied on Ibn Khaldun’s description of the temperament and behaviour of deviated people like the people of Ethiopia and Sudan of as more related to animal behaviour rather than to human, that religion, education, and learning is missing amongst them attributing this to being far from moderate regions as an evidence of this accusation.¹⁰

Mahros also affirm that Ibn Khaldun was wrong in his conclusion that the weather influences people’s temperament as well as the colour of their skin, and that he did not correctly understand nature and human soul, describing his conclusion of being unscientific as was the science of his age.¹¹

E- Unfamiliarity with profound reading of heritage for those who study Ibn Khaldun: Mahros’s repetition of accusations directed to Ibn Khaldun without verifying them. In his study –Ibn Khaldun’s contribution in comparative education- Mahros supported the west in judging Ibn Khaldun induction in the treatment of the socio-educational phenomenon as fake. He Justifying this by:

The way he recorded, and that he put the rule or the result and the beginning of the chapter as contemporary engineers do in inducting their theories. The researcher suggests that he agrees with this justification to clear some of the accusations leaving the rest of them for others to clear.¹²

Mahros adds that:

Ibn Khaldun explained the social phenomena including the educational one unilaterally and developed a single law for the phenomena justifying this by saying that historical events do not totally support or reject what Ibn Khaldun said.¹³He agrees with Ibn Khaldun critics regarding his educational quantitative measurement and lack of figures and statistics in the Muqaddimah by pointing out that the state in his age was not concerned with statistics in general not withstanding educational statistics.¹⁴

He also agrees with the western scientists in saying that Ibn Khaldun described some of his observations and conclusions as general laws while it is no more than presumptions.¹⁵ He also suggests that Ibn Khaldun was wrong in the geographical determinism. He used historical events to judge the incorrectness of Ibn Khaldun’s opinion saying that “most of the regions which he Ibn Khaldun considered deviated had taken the path of science and learning which developed their temperaments and behaviour, and they followed various religions breaking the laws of Ibn Khaldun’ determinism that controlled their potential to develop and promote because of the geographical conditions.¹⁶

I find an excuse for the researcher –Mahros- by one of Ibn Khaldun’s laws that states “the defeated always tends to follow the victorious”. Arab world suffered from colonialism until he get used to it, probably addicted to it, and became a vessel of its colonialist though blindly taking it for granted and lost its ability to think. Colonialism departed but left civil and research societies prepared to receive the products of its intellect.

2- Ibn Khaldun’s Method between the Other and the Self

A- Ibn Khaldun’s method in the mind of the other: Based on logic and philosophy we will discuss this, then try to describe method as it is for the other:

A1- Ibn Khaldun’s logic

Modern philosopher criticized the Aristotelian logic in favour of calling for a new logic; the logic of experimental materialistic science. Moslems who criticized this logic did this to defend their Islamic creed, except for Ibn Khaldun who criticized Aristotelian logic based on its deficiency to reform it and understand social life as it is in reality according to Ali El-Wardy. In this Ibn Khaldun is similar to a great extent to modern philosophers.¹⁷

Melhm Khorbany quotes Mahgob Bin Melad in suggesting that:

Ibn Khaldun criticized conceptual logic for its inability to reveal the new because it relies on general abstract principals that cover some but not the whole reality.¹⁸

Mostafa El-Shaka quotes De Poor contradicts Shmet in his work “The History of Philosophy in Islam” he says:

Aristotelian-Plutonian thought influenced Ibn Khaldun, and that he criticized the principals of rational philosophy. Others suggest that Ibn Khaldun refused philosophy and logic as did the Ghazali, as is clear in the chapter headed “Invalidating Philosophy” in his Muqaddimah.¹⁹

Pons Boigues; the Spanish Orientalist states that Ibn Khaldun is one of the greatest characters representing the long range history of philosophy.²⁰

Ali El-Wardy quotes Gameel Saleeb, and Kamel Ayad saying:

Ibn Khaldun had no conceptual logic because he criticized the three principals of Aristotelian logic. Rationality logic, Ibn Khaldun affirms that human mind is unable to comprehend divine or social issues, causal principal, Ibn Khaldun affirms the inability of the human mind to comprehend the relation between cause and effect. In this Ibn Khaldun is similar to the modern scientific approach.²¹

From the previous discussion, the author concludes that some had acknowledged the pioneering of what Ibn Khaldun wrote in his Muqaddimah, while others attributed the pioneering to themselves, but the vast majority suggested that Ibn Khaldun sought to correct the path of investigating the social phenomenon in general and socio-educational in particular through conceptual research logic concerned with the mental image of the phenomenon, and induction logic concerned with the material image of the phenomenon. Ibn Khaldun suggests that the two are not detachable.

A2) Ibn Khaldun’s research philosophy

In a conference held by Durdel Institute in 1995, a paper was presented about the contribution of Islam in social research, it mentioned that Ibn Khaldun not only lied the foundations of the scientific approach in the study of the social phenomenon, but he also was the first to use scientific methodology in the study of econo-political phenomenon, and that he was distinguished in the study of history included in his Muqaddimah.²²

Social positivism philosophy Studies -which August Conte wrote its history during the French revolution in 1789- affirms that Ibn Khaldun who was born in Tunisia in 1332 was the first to scientifically study the social phenomenon in the same way natural phenomena were studies and that he was the first to use experiments and observations.²³

Mahmoud Ismael quotes Arnold Twinby; the contemporary history philosopher:

Ibn Khaldun has trodden a bath no one before him did, and that he was a precedent, that orientalist evaluate him as a great philosopher and thinker. Altamera describe him as a great intellectual power, inventor, and a non preceded genius who has accomplished an innovative works.²⁴

Thus we can see that contemporary scientists has acknowledged the pioneering of Ibn Khaldun’s positivist, experiential thought through which rational philosophy advocates in its conceptual form are criticized for its neglect of extension for the under investigation phenomenon.

A3) Ibn Khaldun’s research method

As one Orientalist says about Ibn Khaldun that he take facts as his premise, Ian creep says:

These facts that he concluded through his vast experience in life, and his continuous observations of construction status –the social phenomenon particularly the educational one- and the news he heard. He does not rely on transfer only, but he closely examine news and facts based not only on conceptual reality –objectivity- but also on the materialist reality in his endeavour to reveal its concrete causal relations.²⁵

Contemporary research on positivism theory acknowledges Ibn Khaldun role in suggesting the possibility of using control and interpretation, and scientific prediction in the study of the social phenomenon-and the educational phenomenon as a sub-system-. Scientific method has to a certain extent succeeded in monitoring the social phenomenon and investigate it in a dynamic context despite the static theory that the nature of the social phenomenon needs as scientific model.²⁶

If it is true that philosophy is an abstraction and incorporation of the spirit of the age, methodology would be more appropriate to incorporate the spirit of the age. If Beacon’s name were connected with the experiential method, what would we have to say about Gaber Bin Hyan and El-Bayrony. Ibn El-Hythem Yomna says:

This led the German orientalist Edward Sacho to say that Abo El-Ryhan El-Byrony (362-440H) is one of the greatest men in Islamic civilization, and the greatest intellect in the middle ages.²⁷

Ali El-Wardy says:

If this was the case with Ibn Khaldun who shared his ancestor Ibn El-Hythem in inducting what happens during vision and investigating visuals, and distinguishing particles charachersitic²⁸ would he be such a pioneer in economy, politics, education, psychology, and sociology without a scientific experimental method?²⁹

The author concludes as Bendokrochi suggest, human history is a whole, if one epoch was to be cut or a contribution was to be ignored man would need primitive tools to be able to live. By analogy, Ibn Khaldun applied the experimental method known induction on the social phenomenon including the educational one as did his ancestors in the natural phenomenon.

B- Ibn Khaldun’s method in the self

B1) Ibn Khaldun’s logic

Ali El-Wardy says that Ibn Khaldun believed that there are three kinds of logic:³⁰

1- The discovering logic: appropriate to investigate divine and spiritual issues.

2- Rational logic: appropriate for the investigation of analogical issues like geometry, and mathematics.

3- Sensory logic: appropriate for the investigation of social and political issues.

Ali Abd El-Wahid Wafy says:

That Ibn Khaldun suggested that he mastered logic in its conceptual form which study the case and analogy conceptually, and material forms which study the case and analogy materialistically, in other words the validity of their elements and matching to reality.³¹

Mahmoud El-Said El-Kordy says:

Ibn Khaldun contradicted the Aristotelian deductive logic, which was not purely conceptual but rather materialistic, thus its analogy was to prove a known fact, rather than to discover a new one. It is consequently as Ibn Khaldun said a logic searching for the truth not in it or in its structure, as is Ibn Khaldun’s logic.³²

If the Khaldunian logic is inductive and experimental different from the Aristotelian logic which was formal moving from the general to the particular, and as thus judged as an abstract gestalt logic concerned not with validity but with the concept that do not totally apply to the partial cases. Ibn Khaldun tackled this by combining both the form and the essence, the concept and extension, induction and deduction.

B2) Ibn Khaldun research philosophy

Melhm Khorbany says:

Some suggested that Ibn Khaldun relied on a scrutinizing principal consisting of four interrelated dimensions:³³ temporal dimension, logical dimension, epistemological dimension, and methodological dimension (Pragmatic).

Mahros says:

Others argue that his study of the social phenomenon –and the educational one- was based on a Islamic fundamental reference.³⁴

Mohsen Mahdy says:

Ibn Khaldun was not but a faithful scholar for old philosophers particularly Ibn Roshd. It seems than Ibn Khaldun was the only thinker who tried to construct a societal science based on the principals of the old philosophy, finally he says that he used the same philosophical foundation on which modern sociology was based.³⁵

Mostafa El-Shaka says:

Scholar suggest that if the individual is the child of his environment and a product of its culture, Ibn Khaldun is no exception, his scientific and research product was based on an explicit Islamic background. He was a Moslem scientist, and a scholar in Fikh (doctrine), thus, his achievements were indeed an Islamically based.³⁶

B3) Ibn Khaldun research method

N. Schmidt says:

That Ibn Khaldun in spite of his Islamic nature, was a philosopher like August Kont, and Herbert Spencer.³⁷

And Mostafa El-Shaka says:

Others suggest that the most distinguishing characteristic of Islamic Arabic thought is the fundamentality of knowledge would it be religious or humane.³⁸

Ibn Khaldun was born in a recessed civilization period in the 14^th century, yet his Muqaddimah was a fertile source of cognitive generated discipline combining temporal, civilized, and cognitive dimensions allowing him to produce an intellectual dimension reflected in the mixture of specialties in human knowledge which opens the ways of integration and discovery of the total facts for the mind. This was the scientific experimental method which was known in Europe after the collapse of Islamic civilization known as induction in the study of the socio-human-educational phenomenon. Then it was modified to include abstract observation and experiment to reach a conclusion based on induction and deduction, and eventually to generalization and laws.³⁹

Some compare Ibn Khaldun’s method with that of August Kont explaining that both believed that the appropriate method to investigate the social phenomenon should be a positivist method base on induction and observation. Mahros Ghaban outlines Ibn Khaldun’s method in investigating the socio-educational phenomenon as follow:⁴⁰

1) Sensory observation: Ibn Khaldun denies full dependent on the mind and ignoring reality which he relied on in his travels. This is demonstrated in his chapter about teaching children, when he described teaching methods in eastern part he confirms that he did this through hearings, but his description of the western parts was based on direct observation.

2) Historical method: Ibn Khaldun excelled his ancestors in the study of the socio-historical phenomenon. The latter relied only on monitoring and recording of events, while the former added matching events to logic and reality. This benefited him in the study of the socio-educational phenomenon.

3) Induction: He used induction as a method to reach the rules and laws governing the social phenomena in data collection from the present and the past, categorizing, and contrasting it, then generating the laws. His method was much similar to deduction used by engineering scientists.

4) Scientific comparison: Comparative education scientists noticed that Ibn Khaldun sought to demonstrate similarities and differences and causes as is shown in his comparison of science and education status in Baghdad, Basra, and Cairo on one hand and Spain, Morocco, and Africa in the other, as well as comparing education methods in different Islamic states.

We can notice that Ibn Khaldun was the first to use empiricism in the study of the socio-educational phenomenon, he was a pioneering positivist who preceded Beacon in activating the experiential method known with induction in the study of the socio-educational phenomenon. The following is an application to the study of the socio-educational phenomenon as recorded by a researcher, using his chapter headed “Science grow where construction and civilization spread”: