Islamism and Modernity; Lou Dobbs is Right教育阿特拉斯大學
未找到專案。
Islamism and Modernity; Lou Dobbs is Right

Islamism and Modernity; Lou Dobbs is Right

4 分鐘
|
June 10, 2002

CNN’s Lou Dobbs has come in for criticism for saying something sensible and insightful. It is too vague and too politically correct to call America’s post-September 11th conflict a “war against terrorism.” He observes that “the enemies in this war are radical Islamists who argue all non-believers in their faith must be killed. They are called Islamists.” He emphasizes that “this is not a war against Muslims or Islam. It is a war against Islamists and all who support them.”

“Islam” is the name of the religion founded by Mohammad, and believers are called “Muslims,” but “Islamism” is the name for the political-religious ideology of Osama bin Laden and others like him in many countries.

What are the goals of the Islamist jihad? Some commentators maintain that the conflict is between Islam and the West as civilizations, each of them united by a shared history, religion, and way of life.

Fourteen centuries ago, armies inspired by Mohammad created an Islamic empire stretching from Spain to Afghanistan. Christendom was its only enduring enemy and rival. For nearly a millennium, Islam was the stronger civilization: wealthier, more powerful, and more advanced culturally.

"a jihad…should be waged against modernity..."  —Sayyid Qutb

By the seventeenth century, however, the tide turned. The scientific and industrial revolutions vastly increased the wealth and the military power of the West. After the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I, the Middle East was taken over by European nations and broken up into colonies and protectorates. Today, despite decolonization, the countries of this region remain poor and backward by comparison not only with the West but also with the booming economies of East Asia. The result, say many observers, is a feeling of humiliation at the rise of what many Muslims see as an inferior culture.

This certainly represents part of the truth, but not the fundamental truth. The current war is not against the United States or even the West per se but against the culture of modernity. Modernity was born in the Renaissance and Enlightenment in the West but it is not inherently tied to any one society. Modernity is based on the theses that reason, not revelation, is the instrument of knowledge and arbiter of truth; that science, not religion, gives us the truth about nature; that the pursuit of happiness in this life, not suffering in preparation for the next, is the cardinal value; that reason can and should be used to increase human well-being through economic and technological progress; that the individual person is an end in himself with the capacity to direct his own life, and thus deserves rights to freedom of thought, speech, and action; and that religious belief should be a private affair, tolerance a social virtue, and church and state kept separate.

Islamists are clear that they hate this worldview. Sayyid Qutb, a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, insisted that “a jihad…should be waged against modernity…The ultimate objective is to re-establish the Kingdom of Allah upon earth.” Bin Laden himself says, "The love of this world is wrong. You should love the other world...die in the right cause and go to the other world." Islamist Mawlana Abu'l-A’la Mawdudi wrote, “no one can regard any field of his affairs as personal and private. Considered from this aspect the Islamic state bears a kind of resemblance to the Fascist and Communist states."

Anti-modernism is not unique to the Islamic world. In the eighteenth century, Jean-Jacques Rousseau held that feeling, not reason, is the essential human capacity, that civilization is the chief cause of human woe, and that people should be forced to submerge their individuality in collective life. In the nineteenth century, the Romantic movement elevated feeling over reason and “unspoiled” nature over the new industrial economy. Socialists wanted to restore a communal society, as did many conservatives. On the other hand, many leaders in Islamic lands have sought to bring the benefits of modernity to their own countries—most notably Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder modern Turkey.

At the deepest level, the war on terrorism is the latest phase of a continuing struggle to achieve the promise of modern civilization. The threat posed by the Islamists comes not from their Islamic background but from their anti-modernist creed. This is a profoundly anti-human outlook, and there can be no compromise with it. As we take aim at the terrorists who have attacked us, we must also take intellectual aim at the ideas that inspire them—wherever those ideas are put forward.

大衛·凱利

作者簡介:

大衛·凱利

大衛·凱利是阿特拉斯協會的創始人。作為一名專業的哲學家、教師和暢銷書作家,他一直是客觀主義的主要支援者超過25年。

Google Plus

David Kelley Ph.D
About the author:
David Kelley Ph.D

David Kelley founded The Atlas Society (TAS) in 1990 and served as Executive Director through 2016. In addition, as Chief Intellectual Officer, he was responsible for overseeing the content produced by the organization: articles, videos, talks at conferences, etc.. Retired from TAS in 2018, he remains active in TAS projects and continues to serve on the Board of Trustees.

凱利是一位專業的哲學家、教師和作家。1975年獲得普林斯頓大學哲學博士學位后,他加入了瓦薩學院哲學系,教授各級課程。他還曾在布蘭迪斯大學教授哲學,並經常在其他校區講課。

凱利的哲學著作包括倫理學、認識論和政治學方面的原創作品,其中許多作品以新的深度和新的方向發展了客觀主義思想。他是認識論論文感官的證據》的作者;客觀主義中的真理與寬容,論客觀主義運動中的問題;粗獷的個人主義:仁慈的自私基礎;以及《推理的藝術》,這是一本廣泛使用的入門邏輯教科書,現已出版第 5 版。

凱利曾就廣泛的政治和文化主題發表演講和出版。他關於社會問題和公共政策的文章發表在 《哈珀斯》、《科學》、《理性》、《哈佛商業評論》、《弗里曼》、《論原則》等雜誌上。在1980年代,他經常為 《巴倫週刊》財經和商業雜誌 撰寫有關平等主義、移民、最低工資法和社會保障等問題的文章。

他的著作 《一個人的生活:個人權利和福利國家》 批判了福利國家的道德前提,並捍衛了維護個人自主、責任和尊嚴的私人替代方案。1998年,他出現在約翰·斯托塞爾(John Stossel)的ABC/TV特別節目“貪婪”中,引發了一場關於資本主義倫理的全國性辯論。

作為國際公認的客觀主義專家,他廣泛地講授安·蘭德、她的思想和作品。他是電影《阿特拉斯聳聳肩》的顧問,也是《阿特拉斯聳聳肩:小說、電影、哲學》的編輯

 

主要作品(部分):

概念與自然:對現實主義轉向的評論(道格拉斯·拉斯穆森和道格拉斯·登厄伊爾)”,《理性論文》第 42 期,第 1 期,(2021 年夏季);這篇對最近一本書的評論包括對概念的本體論和認識論的深入探討。

知識的基礎。關於客觀主義認識論的六講。

存在的首要地位”和“感知的認識論”,傑斐遜學院,聖地牙哥,1985年7月

普遍性和歸納”,在GKRH會議上的兩次演講,達拉斯和安娜堡,1989年3月

懷疑論”,約克大學,多倫多,1987年

自由意志的本質”,波特蘭研究所的兩場演講,1986年10月

現代性黨”,卡托政策報告,2003年5月/6月; 導航員,2003年11月;一篇被廣泛引用的文章,關於前現代、現代(啟蒙)和後現代觀點之間的文化分歧。

"I Don't Have To" (IOS Journal, Volume 6, Number 1, April 1996) and “I Can and I Will” (The New Individualist, Fall/Winter 2011); Companion pieces on making real the control we have over our lives as individuals.

思想和意識形態
價值觀和道德觀
宗教與無神論
哲學史