Al-Farabi's Practical Philosophy

Like al-Ghazalli, al-Farabi emphasized that philosophy was a practical discipline as well as a theoretical one. He criticized those "futile philosophers" who do not apply their reasoning to their lives. Note that this critique is not the same as Hume's "armchair philosophy." Hume criticizes philosophy itself for being impractical, but al-Farabi is objecting to impractical philosophers.

As I noted in an earlier post, al-Farabi conceived the purpose of society to be "true happiness" or philosophical enlightenment, and to aid in achieving this goal, philosophers must become excellent practitioners of the arts of rhetoric and poetics so that they may communicate abstract truths to other members of society. And in order to know which abstract truths to communicate, the philosopher must strive above all to reach true happiness himself. The philosopher will then, like a physician, "balance the humours" of society by healing the souls of people and guiding them towards truth and justice.

The mirror image of al-Farabi's argument is that all practical action is philosophical. That is, all humans are rational - their actions can be rationally explicated. Observing a person's actions, one can determine what kind of philosophy or which abstract truths they are evidence of. One can then inquire whether those truths are correct. A practical example: you see a man violently stab another man to death. The assailant claims that he is acting righteously by punishing a sinful man.

What kind of truths would a person have to hold to commit such an action?

The attacker would have to believe that he could distinguish between sinful and righteous behavior, that it was acceptable for him to mete out punishment for sinful behavior, that it would be better to kill a sinner rather than to instruct him in right behavior, and that violently stabbing was an acceptable method of killing a fellow man.

Al-Farabi would have us then ask: would a truly righteous and just man hold such beliefs? Answering this question is a practical method for judging actions, including our own. To the example, I doubt that many honest people would respond that killing our brothers is better than instructing them. It is a certain thing that all children will misbehave at some point. It is how they learn social norms and the rules of right action. But how do parents respond to misbehavior? If all parents killed their children when they misbehaved, then no children would reach adulthood and the society would disappear. It is a much better and more just choice to instruct, and death is the least useful punishment imaginable. Punishing misbehavior by inflicting death will in fact prevent justice from ever forming. This is why al-Farabi instructs philosophers to use rhetoric and poetics to advance their aims rather than swords.