Philosophy

Philosophy

The Other and Epistemic Confrontations: A Comparative Study of the Views of Ibn Arabi and Paul Feyerabend

Document Type : Scientific-research

Authors
1 . Ph.D. Candidate of History of Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
2 Corresponding Author, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Ale- Taha Institute of Higher Education, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to compare the approach of Ibn Arabi and Feyerabend in facing the "other" and epistemic confrontations. Despite the background and historical differences of these two thinkers, both of them consider "the other" and epistemic confrontations as an opportunity to upgrade and elevate the epistemological dimensions of a person. Ibn Arabi's and Feyerabend's approach to the system of existence is closely related to their view in the field of epistemology. The encounter of these two thinkers with "the other" and different opinions is rooted in their ontological system. In Ibn Arabi's ontological system, the difference between beings is due to the difference between divine names. This existential and ontological difference also finds its way to the field of knowledge and causes a plurality of opinions and ideas. From Feyerabend's point of view, existence is a complex and rich thing, and the possibility of understanding its truth is completely ruled out. In the eyes of both, the possibility of being able to grasp the whole truth from a specific point of view is ruled out. Instead of recommending the elimination of the "other", they recognize multiple opinions and refer to epistemological confrontations as an opportunity to strengthen views and gain a deeper understanding of the truth.
Keywords
Subjects

 
Abdollahi J. (2023). Epistemological Comparison of Rational Disagreement in Kuhn and Feyerabend Viewpoints. Philosophical Thought; 3 (4) :357-378. [Persian]
Christensen, D. (2013), Epistemic modesty defended. In: The Epistemology of Disagreement: New Essays. David Christensen & Jennifer Lackey (eds.) New York: Oxford University Press.
Conee, E. (2009) Peerage. Episteme 6, no. 3: 313– 23.
Feyerabend, P. (1962). Explanation, reduction and empiricism. In H. Feigl & G. Maxwell (Eds.), Scientific explanation, space and time, Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science (Vol. III, pp. 28–97). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Feyerabend, P. (1968). Outline of a pluralistic theory of knowledge and action. In S. Anderson (Ed.), Planning for diversity and choice (pp. 275–284). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Feyerabend, P. (1975a), Against method (1st ed.). London: Verso Books.
Feyerabend, P. (1975b). How to defend society against science. Radical Philosophy, 11(1), 3–8.
Feyerabend, P. (1978). Science in a Free Society. London: New Left Books.
Feyerabend, P. (1981) Reply to criticism: comments on Smart, Sellars and Putnam. In: Realism, Rationalism and Scientific Method: Philosophical Papers. Cambridge University Press: 104-131.
Feyerabend, P. (1999a). Conquest of Abundance: A Tale of Abstraction Versus the Richness of Being. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Feyerabend P. (1999b). Preston J. Paul K. Feyerabend: Knowledge, Science and Relativism. Cambridge University Press.
Feldman R. (2007), “Reasonable Religious Disagreements”, In: Philosophers Without God: Meditations on Atheism and the Secular Life, Antony L (ed) ,Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 194-214
Kidd, I. (2012), Feyerabend, Pseudo-Dionysius, and the Ineffability of Reality. Philosophia 40, 365–377 (2012)
Kraft, J. (2021), Incommensurability and Wide-Ranging Arguments for Steadfastness in Religious Disagreements: Increasingly Popular, But Eventually Complacent, Topoi 40, 1147-1159
Mill, J. S. (1859). On Liberty. Broadview Press.
Shaw, J. (2017), Was Feyerabend an anarchist? The structure(s) of ‘Anything Goes’. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Part A, 64, 11–21.
Taghavi, M. (2016). The Origins of Feyerabend’s Anarchistic Epistemology. Philosophy of Science, 6(2), 1-14. [Persian]
Zivyar, F., Jebraily, S. Y., & Etemadi Bozorg, A. (2019). Feyerabend; myth-making myth-maker from the universal critique of science and religion to pluralism and the majority vote. Science and Religion Studies, 10(1), 145-160 [Persian]  
Volume 24, Issue 1 - Serial Number 46
September 2026
Pages 167-189

  • Receive Date 12 January 2025
  • Revise Date 10 February 2026
  • Accept Date 05 April 2025