Sohravardi and the Question of Knowledge

Epistemological Principles of Sohravardi

Sohravardi’s writings do not contain a systematic discussion of epistemology. However, in a number of different places in his works, Sohravardi deals with epistemological questions. By gathering and analyzing pertinent passages we can outline the general features of his epistemology and arrange them in a systematic way.

The first step of Sohravardi’s epistemology is his rejection of radical skepticism. This kind of Cartesian doubt is not reasonable; and if it occurs there is no logical way to escape from it. In Sohravardi’s process of rejecting this kind of skepticism he asks whether the skeptic thinks that his position is right or wrong, or is he skeptical about it? If he thinks that his position is right, then he believes in a true statement and is no longer a radical skeptic. If he thinks that his position is wrong, then again he rejects radical skepticism. If he is skeptical even about his position regarding skepticism, one can ask whether he has doubt about his doubt, or if is he certain about it. If he is certain about his doubt, then he accepts a truth, and if he is doubtful about his doubt, then discussion with such a person is useless and he must be treated in another way (1/212).

Rejection of skepticism means that one is never without some certain knowledge. The second step of Sohravardi’s epistemology naturally follows the rejection of radical skepticism and is the premise that self-evident truths exist, meaning that there are some fundamental truths that are not based on any other truth (1/211). If all statements are based on other statements, it leads to infinite regress. Without some basic knowledge no knowledge is possible; therefore, in Sohravadi’s view there must be some basic self-evident truths as foundations for other knowledge (2/18).