Mario Bunge's worldview and its implications for the modernization of Arabic-Islamic philosophy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study relates philosophy of science and philosophy of religion. It compares a system of western thought and its implications for contemporary Arab-Islamic philosophy. The basis for this approach lies in the concept of worldview as rooted in the process of systematization of available human knowledge in a harmonious way. Actually, many secularists attack the religious outlook but fail to provide a coherent and systematic worldview of their own. Mario Bunge (b. 1919) overcomes such a deficiency and offers a coherent modern worldview. The philosophy of Taha 'Abd al-Rahman (born 1945), which attempts to modernize Arab-Islamic philosophy, is taken as the religious counterpart to Bunge's modern worldview. Since the late 1950s, Mario Augusto Bunge, a widely read and influential Argentinean-Canadian philosopher of science, has become a leading figure of what might be called the scientific humanist project. This project aims at rethinking Kant's combining of reason and experience, and this is why Bunge calls his new orientation ratio-empiricism. His philosophical endeavours culminate in a system of philosophy epitomized in the monumental nine-part Treatise on Basic Philosophy (1974-1989). Bunge's numerous works necessitate the study of the dynamics of worldview-construction and its relation to what he calls 'systemism.' Bunge's worldview is a synthesis of ontological materialism, epistemological realism, and what he calls ethical 'agathonism.' This synthesis forms a harmonious system that meets the requirements for a coherent worldview; it is the background of comparison for what Taha calls the 'spirit of modernity.'This study refers to Bunge's unified worldview (chapter 1) and articulates its overall dynamics (chapters 2 to 4). Chapter 5 on Taha and his 'spirit of modernity' attempts to show that the modernization of Arabic-Islamic philosophy cannot achieve philosophical sovereignty without the contributions of systematic philosophy. The comparative merit of this study is significant for Bunge's system, as it reveals its incompleteness: the rational, natural, and social sciences are studied in detail, while a great deal of the human sciences is not considered. But it is also significant for the Islamic outlook, as it presents a systematic response to the unified religious view and thus encourages religious persons in general, and Islamic philosophers in particular, to respond genuinely to Bunge's challenge.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".