Philosophus Autodidactus
en.wikipedia.org73 points by niemandhier 16 days ago
73 points by niemandhier 16 days ago
A young boy raises himself on a deserted island and by power of his observations graduates from imitation animals to human behaviour.
A philosophical investigation in how our environment shapes us and how we transcend.
Probably the most important work of Islamic philosophy.
I read the original version several times when I was young ... The kid has been raised by an animal through observation, guessing and experimentation he cames to some discoveries and conclusions about life, death, elements of the universe, god ... he even become vegans and eat only falling fruits because he thought animal and plants are sentient just like humans but with different degrees of sophistication ...
Ibn Tufail is very famous in my country we have several schools, universities, hospitals in his name
From summaries, it seems like the novel explores ideas of human exceptionalism, such as humans having an innate ability to understand the world using only their own abilities to observe and reason. Unfortunately, these ideas seem to be contradicted by real-world cases of feral children[1], such as the disturbing case of Genie[2].
I agree that the story in the linked article is fanciful. But I don't know if Genie's case is such a clear counterexample. She was horrifically abused; a child growing up with animals would be much better off.
You are using a fallacy to probe the contrary: cherry picking specific cases.
While we already know (based on history) that most of the time "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." it is also true that people such as Ramanujan could see beyond using a basic set of learnt tools. There are few exceptional people that have exceptional intuition for some topics.
Wow, the comparisons to The Jungle Book are interesting, this is a globally well-known philosophical work.
For me two of the main points it analyzes are:
1. Can a person without language and without God’s Words transferred to him, reason and still find Him? Answer, of course, is yes.
2. Comparison between surface level understanding of the God’s Word vs. its “real,” hidden meaning. The two people Hayy meets symbolizes the two: Salaman, the first (representing the Sunni followers of Shariah) and Absal, the second (the Sufi, follower of the Tasawwuf). Hayy himself represents the Philosopher, I.e. pure reason.
This dichotomy goes right to the heart of Islamic thought. Hayy, first tries to teach his understanding to the inhabitants of the island rules by Salaman but then sees the futility of it and leaves with Absal.
Too bad the English Wikipedia page gives such a limited summary of the plot.
Ibn Tufail based this novel on a story that was translated from Greek to Arabic by Hunayn Ibn Ishaq (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunayn_ibn_Ishaq).
I realize it's allegorical in nature, but one of the conclusions made in the article is
> Reaching the absolute information is individual and simply any human being is able to achieve that.
Is that a reasonable conclusion? I'm curious how this jives with the 'on the shoulders of giants' concept that we've built a lot of our modern knowledge on.
In the end language fails to actually convey the real information, but one’s own discovery can be guided.
To understand a mathematical proof I follow the reasoning but the internal model I build looks different from what is presented.
How do you interpret "reaching the absolute information"?
I'm content with reaching the relative information about the bits of the universe that I find most interesting, and hope to add a few good and novel ones during the remainder of my lifetime.
Two areas where a community helps are (a) finding the known ways blazed* and (b) avoiding becoming a crank.
For the former it makes sense that one prefers to make good time. For the latter, finding a new way to get to new fields that may or may not be fertile may or may not be worth doing; finding a new way to get to existing fields that either (a) shaves trip time for those travelling light, or (b) is more easily passable for those travelling with a bunch of baggage, is definitely worth doing.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_blazing
EDIT:
Tiger got to hunt; bird got to fly; man got to sit and wonder 'why, why, why?' Tiger got to sleep; bird got to land; man got to tell himself he understand.
When Leonardo da Vinci was a boy, he went to the woods near his home and drew what he saw. He learned directly from nature.
What of every other child who did the same and wasn't Leonardo da Vinci?
There's multitudes of great individuals that are just unknown to history
The animal world was well established for eons before humans came along. I say some people have always been able to figure this out.
At one time you also have to figure that learning from nature was the most predominant way for eons too. The animal world is where behavior of some other thriving species can be observed somewhat clearly, and there are so many behaviors that can be mimicked in some way. Even a cave man could do it. Don't see how they could avoid it.
The most stark thing that many have handled as subtle, is the physical possibility to live no differently than animals, and following that example for eons build a culture that thrives as well as many of the species that have been in existence long before humans. Survival of the fittest in a dog-eat-dog world and all that.
But the human mind is so much different in so many ways compared to all other species, while having incredible physical similarity to some other species.
At the other end of the spectrum, observers having a different point of view may want to spend eons trying to avoid living like animals as much as possible. Resulting in a very stark difference in activities, conducted in completely different terms than animals do, or could even be capable of. That's the idea of humanity to begin with. Survival of the fittest in a non-dog-teach-non-dog world, something like that.
There's lots of choices there.
>There's multitudes of great individuals that are just unknown to history
This is what so many people forget.
When those multitudes get together or arise through population growth, not everything is lost to history, even if there is no documentation.
Sometimes they create great societies, and depending on how fortunate they can be protecting their creation from those who are not so great, a few of those cultural centers still exist today.
Not every one has been sacked, and not sacked completely at that.
And then there's the diaspora effect where displaced greatness disperses stealthily (akin to spores) under threat, or when a diluting force adopts a measure of found greatness.
As civilization goes, it looks like right now is just one of those times when those who can learn humanity from nature are vastly outnumbered by those who fail to do so.
> Survival of the fittest in a non-dog-teach-non-dog world
on that note, while attempting to figure out the origin story of food dye at rural australian b&s parties yesterday, I ran across: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01681...
"Ewes prefer subordinate rather than dominant rams as sexual partners" (alas, not "who do ewe choose?")
If the rams control mating*, obviously the physically dominant rams butt the subordinate ones out, and mate preferentially.
According to this study, by tying the rams to opposite corners and hence letting the ewes choose between them, the physically subordinate males got not just relatively, but absolutely, more action.
Is the ovine equivalent of a "soy boy" a "ma'am ram"? Do the ewes prefer them because they get serenaded with sweet nothings?
Elect me, my sweet embraceable ewe
Elect me, you irreplaceable ewe
A. "You awake?"
That's a lot funnier than my wall of text, and maybe contains a true bit of observed animal behavior for one species too.
Perhaps a nugget of wisdom about when animal-inspired approaches overwhelm the non-animal, some humanism is lost in the world at large, and that can be far & wide, but can also drill deep and affect the relations between mates. Animals in nature can set an even worse example for humans in this regard.
>rural australian b&s parties
I've really got to get out more. Sounds like the kind of place where you can come across all kinds of unexpected things.
this is the thread in which I was pointed to BnS resources: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40176315
> Animals in nature can set an even worse example for humans in this regard.
Or worse yet, domesticated animals (of which I claim we also count).
Want to run human societies according to pig practice? Get fascism. (TIL the weak piglets only die because we've bred domesticated pigs to have too big a litter [12-14]; wild sows have litters [4-6] they can feed)
(Want to run human societies according to sheep practice? Do we get manufactured consent or theocracy or ?)
Want to run human societies according to horse/cattle practice? Get feudalism.
Want to run human societies according to horse/cattle practice, in the regime where a little food waste is cheaper than a vet call? Get socialism.
See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40020982
(the use of the word "freemartin" in Brave New World tipped me off to the fact that in part Huxley used other domesticated species as a model)
So what are we supposed to take away from the initial comment?
That people known for their solutions often spend time considering the problems and prior art, or that playing in the woods as a child equates to a mastery of engineering, philosophy, and art later in life.
I'm not sure which. It's very hard to say, especially since none of us are LeonardoDaVinciologists.
That Leonardo was a great individual because he did what he did
>Leonardo was a great individual because he did what he did
Could also equally be that Leonardo did what he did because he was a great individual.
>So what are we supposed to take away from the initial comment?
Probably something that I can add to. That gives me an idea . . .
Sure, but aren't there great individuals who didn't study nature in that way?
When it comes to scholars, if they came along after Da Vinci, there is some likelihood they studied at least a little something descended from Leonardo himself.
Given the sheer number of individuals and methods of studying nature: certainly.
Anyone who's studied math or statistics for more than two minutes could answer that.
Exactly, so if there are multitudes of great individualss both have and haven't studied nature then why make a bald statement about the practice of a single individual? I'm asking what was being initially implied.
What of them? What does this even mean?
That, since your kids aren't likely to become the next Leonardo da Vinci, they shouldn't play outside? That playing in the woods as a child isn't a substitute for a world-class education later in life?
Did they teach you that at the university?
Because I'm pretty sure nobody else here is equating playing in the woods as a kid with becoming a famous artist and engineer later in life.
If "The Jungle Book" was written by Arabs.
An Arab. I expect the Jungle Book would look quite different if it were written by another European, say Kafka for example.