Sohravardi and the Question of Knowledge

Knowledge by Presence

The third step is the declaration that knowledge is of two types: knowledge by correspondence (al-‘ilm al-husuli ), and knowledge by presence (al-‘ilm al-huduri ). In knowledge by correspondence there is a mediator between the knower and the object known. In this kind of knowledge the knower does not have immediate access to the object of knowledge; rather his awareness of the object is through the image of that object in his/her mind. However, knowledge by presence is direct knowledge in which the object known is identical with the knower or at least it is on the presence of the knower.

Sohravardi relates that at one time he found himself frustrated in his efforts to solve the problem of knowledge. At this point Aristotle appeared to him in a dream-vision, telling him that the key to solving the problem of knowledge is paying attention to knowledge by presence, and that the true sages are those who have acquired this type of knowledge (1/72-74). The primary instance of this knowledge is self-knowledge. In a lengthy discussion Sohravardi argues in various ways that self-knowledge does not depend on any mediator such as an image or a form; for in that case one would be aware of the image or form, not of himself. In other words, what “I” know in knowledge by correspondence is “it,” not “I;” the image is “it,” not “I” (1/487).

If I had knowledge of myself via an image of myself, how would I know that the image corresponds to myself? To know that an image is an image of myself I must already know myself, in which case I see that the image corresponds to myself, realizing that this is my image. But if I have no knowledge of myself except through an image, how will I realize that this image corresponds to myself? Moreover, if my essence knows itself through its image, it means that essence knows itself through its attribute/accident, and this is absurd. Essence knows itself before knowing any attribute (2/111). Again, knowledge through a form is universal/general, for the form is applicable to many instances; but self-knowledge is particular and cannot be universal (1/484). Therefore, self-knowledge is immediate and identical with the self.

The soul itself is presence, never absent from itself; this awareness is identical with the soul. However, this does not mean that the soul knows everything about itself; nor does it necessitate the soul knowing the external and internal parts of its body (2/112). Humankind knows itself constantly and is not unaware of itself in any moment: this knowledge does not depend on body. Sohravardi in Partov Nameh writes: “Know that you may forget each part of your body … and you may neglect each body and accident (‘arad), but you never forget yourself, and you know yourself without knowing these things. Thus, your essence is not any of these” (3/23). This is, according to Sohravardi, a proof of the immateriality of the soul. He continues: “You call yourself ‘I,’ and you can refer to parts of your body as ‘it,’ and whatsoever you can call ‘it’ is different from the one in you who says ‘I;’ for whatever is ‘it’ for you is not ‘I’ of you…thus you are beyond all these” (3/23). Another proof of the immateriality of soul is that

humankind is able to perceive abstract meanings; if it were corporeal it could not perceive abstract meanings.

According to Sohravardi, the soul’s knowledge of itself and its faculties and immaterial realities are immediate and by presence. Other immaterial realities such as angles’ knowledge are of this type. Knowledge of God is also immediate. God’s self-knowledge is identical with His essence and His knowledge of other things is by illumination; God knows them directly, not through their forms or images; they are themselves God’s knowledge.

The most fundamental principle of Sohravardi’s philosophy, and since his time in Islamic philosophy in general, is knowledge by presence. According to some accounts, self-evident truths also depend on this knowledge. Without self-awareness no knowledge is possible. Furthermore, self-knowledge is immediate, does not depend on any other knowledge and is not acquired knowledge. Knowledge by correspondence depends on knowledge by presence, because knowledge by correspondence is knowledge via concepts or forms, and our knowledge of concepts and forms is immediate, not via other concepts or forms; otherwise we would face an infinite regress. Therefore, all conceptual knowledge depends on immediate knowledge.

One of the characteristics of immediate knowledge is that it is immune from error. Error takes place when a mental form does not correspond with its object. Because in knowledge by presence there is no mental form, and knowledge and the object known are in some way united, there is no place for correspondence or non-correspondence, and thus talk of error is irrelevant.