|
|
Dr Ali Muhammed Rizvi
|
Ali is interested in Philosophy as a way of life.
He values ancient and medieval philosophical techniques. He finds favour with the Stoic and the Epicurean, as well as the Islamic Sufi practices.
He offers Philosophical Consultancy services in Brunei, Singapore and Malaysia, and he conducts a Philosophical Counselling practice in Brunei.
He is currently a Lecturer in Philosophy and Critical Thinking at the University of Brunei Darussalam.
Ali was born in Pakistan. He is based in Melbourne, AUSTRALIA.
|
|
Academic Qualifications
-
BA & MA , Modern Philosophy & Islamic Philosophy (Karachi, Pakistan)
-
MA, Contemporary French & German Philosophy (Warwick, England)
-
MPhil, Social Philosophy & Political Economy (Karachi, Pakistan)
-
PhD, Philosophy & Sociology (La Trobe, Melbourne)
Background
Ali Rizvi studied analytic and Islamic philosophy at the University of Karachi, Pakistan. During this time, he also became interested in German and French philosophy (so-called continental philosophy), particularly the work of Michel Foucault. Upon his graduation from the University of Karachi, Ali pursued his interest in continental philosophy at the University of Warwick, England. His dissertation at Warwick dealt with the philosophical connection between Kant and Foucault, and argued that Foucault could philosophically be read as a Kantian, long before the idea became commonplace. This thesis was submitted as part of his MA in continental philosophy from Warwick.
Following this, Ali continued his research in England for a further two years on Foucault and his social philosophy especially regarding his views on governmentality, capitalist rationality and the possibility of system wide resistance to capitalism. Part of this research was later presented as an MPhil thesis at the Institute of Business Management, Karachi where he was awarded an MPhil in social philosophy.
Ali's doctoral work was on the great contemporary German philosopher and sociologist Jürgen Habermas, which was undertaken at La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia. A year into his work, Ali was offered a full merit scholarship for his PhD from the University of Melbourne, the Australian National University, and La Trobe University, where he decided to stay.
Ali's thesis on Habermas involved debates on naturalism, anti naturalism, realism and anti realism which led to an increased interest in analytic philosophy, particularly the work of John McDowell and Robert Brandom. Ali earned his doctorate from La Trobe University in 2007 and in 2008 his thesis was awarded a merit citation by the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, La Trobe University.
In February 2006, Ali joined Universiti Brunei Darussalam (UBD) as a visiting lecturer to teach informal logic and critical thinking, before taking up the position on a full time basis in July that year. In 2009, he led the establishment of the first ever philosophy programme in Brunei at UBD. The programme currently offers various breadth courses in philosophy as well as a minor in philosophy.
Before coming to Brunei, Ali taught philosophy, critical thinking, and business ethics at La Trobe University, Melbourne, the College of Business Management, Karachi, and the University of Karachi. Ali was also a research fellow at the Islamic Research Academy, Karachi for over a decade where he participated in research groups on contemporary western thought and the history of south Asian Muslim thought.
Current Teaching
In the past six years, Ali has taught the following courses:
-
Introduction to Logic (Both formal and informal, several times.)
-
Introduction to Reasoning and Thinking (A course in critical thinking, several times.)
-
Central Issues in Philosophy (An introductory course in Western Philosophy, several times.)
-
History of Modern Philosophy, Descartes to Hume (Twice.)
-
Business Ethics (Several times.)
-
History and Philosophy of Science and Technology (Twice.)
-
History of Modern Philosophy, from Hegel to Postmodernism (Once.)
-
Environmental Ethics (Twice.)
-
Environmental Philosophy (Once.)
-
Media Ethics (Once.)
Current Research
Ali’s current research is focused on three main areas: In theoretical philosophy his work has increasingly converged on the issues of naturalism and anti naturalism, realism and anti realism. He has dealt with these issues with reference to major theorists such as Habermas, McDowell and Brandom among others. Working on these issues requires keeping abreast with debates in contemporary epistemology, metaphysics and philosophy of language.
In practical philosophy, he is interested in the role of religion in the modern world especially in the public sphere, the nature of morality and issues related to the environmental predicament. In Islamic philosophy, he is currently investigating claims by some modern Islamic thinkers about the role of empiricism in Islamic philosophy.
Besides these three main areas he continues to be interested in issues in political economy, business ethics and issues related to capitalism in general, especially in the context of exploring the nature of capitalist rationality.
Work in Progress
-
Minimal empiricism and conceptual realism: McDowell, Habermas and beyond.
-
Foucault on revolution and political spirituality.
-
Foucault on governmentality, biopower etc.
-
Rawls on reasonable comprehensive doctrines versus unreasonable comprehensive doctrines.
-
Iqbal on empiricism and rationalism.
-
Ghazali and Cartesian doubt: a reassessment.
-
Islam and the challenge of anthropocentricism.
-
Science and Technology and their role in Modern Society.
-
Modern Philosophy and Islamic culture.
-
Ibn Taymiyya’s critique of Greek philosophy and logic.
-
Islam and Environmental Ethics.
-
Islam and Animal Ethics.
Dissertations
-
Habermas’ conception of ‘transcendence from within’: An interpretation. La Trobe University, Melbourne, 2007.
-
The dissertation elaborates the logic of Habermas’ claim that a this-worldly transcendence is possible without presupposing any otherworldly transcendence and without sacrificing naturalism.
Selected Publications
-
-
“Islamic Environmental Ethics and the Challenge of Anthropocentrism,” American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences, 27 (3): 2010, pp. 53-78. (PDF version)
-
“Pragmatische Wende,” in Habermas-Handbuch: Leben – Werk – Wirkung, Herausgegeben von Hauke Brunkhorst, Regina Kreide und Cristina Lafont, Verlag J.B. Metzler, Stuttgart, 2009. (papers presented to Juergen Habermas on his 80th birthday)
-
[http://www.amazon.de/Habermas-Handbuch-Leben-Wirkung-Hauke-Brunkhorst/dp/3476022390]
-
(with J A Ansari and S Z Arshed) “Capitalist Subjectivity, Capitalist Governance and the 'Anti Globalisation Movement'”, Business Review 3(2), 2008: 27-47.
-
Towards theorising post modern activism: A Foucauldian perspective”, Market Forces 3 (1), 2007: 56-64.
-
Foucault and Capitalist rationality: A reconstruction,” Market Forces 1 (4), 2006 : 23-33. [http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=abstract&id=297264]
-
Reading Elden’s Mapping the Present” Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy Vol 1, No 1 (2005): 177-184
-
[http://www.cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/28/10].
-
Reading Owen's Between Reason and History: Habermas and the idea of Progress,” Reconstruction 5.1(Winter 2005).
-
[http://www.reconstruction.ws/051/rizvi.shtml#0]
-
Methodology underlying Ghazali’s critique of Greek Philosophy,” Jareedah A Journal of the Bureau of Research and Translation, University of Karachi, 2005.
-
A critique of John Gray’s “False Dawn: The Delusion of Global Capitalism,” Pakistan Business Review Vol. 2 No. 2 (2000): 89-96.
-
What is wrong and what is not wrong with postmodernism,” Muslim Education Quarterly, CambridgeVol. 14 No. 4. 1997.
Conference Papers
-
“Foucault and capitalist rationality: A reconstruction”, presented at a conference at the Australian National University 2002.
-
“Validity claims, unconditionality, universality and Modernism in Habermas: A reappraisal,” presented at the annual conference of the Australasian Philosophical Association 2004.
-
“Habermas’ critique of Quine and Heidegger: A reassessment,” presented at the 11th Australasian Postgraduate Philosophy Conference, University of Melbourne.
-
“Reclaiming the idealist heritage of critical theory,” presented at The Future of Critical Theory 17-18 November 2005, University of Melbourne.
-
“Habermas and Kantian idealism: Conjunctions and disjunctions” presented at the Society for European Philosophy and Forum for European Philosophy Joint Conference 8-10 September 2007 University of Sussex, Brighton, England.
-
“The philosophical foundations of Habermas’ critique of ethnocentric liberalism” presented at the XXII World Congress Of Philosophy 30 Jul-5 Aug, 2008, Seoul, Korea.
-
“Splitting the Difference: Habermas and McDowell on Naturalism,” presented at the 4th joint Conference of Forum for European Philosophy and Society for European Philosophy, 29 – 31 Sep 2008, at University College Dublin, Ireland.
-
“Minimal Empiricism, Tribunal of Experience and Conceptual Realism: McDowell, Habermas and Beyond,” presented at Australasian Association of Philosophy Conference 2010, Sydney Australia, 04-09 July 2010.
Recent Work
A Critique of Modern Philosophy and Plea for Philosophy in Islamic Culture.
In this paper I make a case for a genuine and legitimate role for philosophy in modern Islamic culture. However, I argue that in order to make any progress towards reinstating such philosophical activity, we need to look deep into the nature and essence of modern philosophy. In this paper I aim to do this precisely by challenging modern philosophy’s self conception as an absolute critique (i.e. a critique of everything/anything).
I argue that such a conception is not only misconceived, it is also ideological in character. Looking back to its origins, I develop a genealogy of modern philosophy’s self-understanding in order to deconstruct it and disassociate it from other possible alternative conceptions of philosophy. I argue that we should reject the notion of philosophy as absolute critique, as it is ideologically motivated and oppressive. Instead, I argue for a more modest conception of philosophy as a subject which provides tools for developing human powers of reflection.
The Independence/Dependence Paradox within John Rawls’s Political Liberalism.
Rawls in his later philosophy claims that it is sufficient to accept political conception as true or right, depending on what one's worldview allows, on the basis of whatever reasons one can muster, given one's worldview (doctrine). What political liberalism is interested in is a practical agreement on the political conception and not in our reasons for accepting it.
There are deep issues (regarding deep values, purpose of life, metaphysics etc.) which cannot be resolved through invoking common reasons (this is the fact of free reason itself), and trying to resolve them would involve us in interminable debates and would hamper the practical task of agreement on the political conception.
Given the absolute necessity of a political society which is stable and enduring, it is thus wise to avoid these issues in founding a political society and choosing its basic principles - this is the pragmatic part of Rawls's position. In this paper I argue that this strategy leads Rawls into a paradox: (i) although the intention is to stay independent of comprehensive doctrines, the political conception is in fact totally (and precariously) dependent on comprehensive doctrines (not just on one doctrine but on each and every major doctrine in society).
It is dependent on them: for its conceptualisation as an independent idea, for its justification, for the check of its reasonability in relation to the external world, for the formation of identities and value inculcation and hence for the formation of its model citizen; (ii) the very search for independence makes the political conception more dependent on comprehensive doctrines, and by extension makes it potentially more prone to intervention in and tampering with comprehensive doctrines (it is enough to show that it is a strong conceptual possibility to cast doubt on the whole strategy).
Thus, for example, the political conception relies on the hope that “firmly held convictions gradually change” and that it would “in fact . . . have the capacity to shape those doctrines toward itself”. The purpose of the Rawlsian conjecture is to give these “hopes” a concrete, practical form by giving advice to proponents of the comprehensive doctrine on how they can do all this and “try to show them that, despite what they might think, they can still endorse a reasonable political conception”. I further argue that this paradox can be overcome by making the core of political liberalism more flexible.
Biopower, Governmentality, and Capitalism Through the Lenses of Freedom: A Conceptual Enquiry.
There is a theme running throughout Foucault’s analyses of governmentality, biopower, the changing nature of state and its relation to society, and neo-liberalism. The theme is particularly clear in the contrasts he makes between governmentality and the arts of government in previous centuries (the reason of state and the theory of police, etc.), biopower versus disciplinary power, and the modern state versus the early modern state (and medieval state).
The theme is that of freedom, the nature of freedom, and its relation to other notions such as power, rationality etc. Foucault wants to reject a certain notion of freedom.
Let us call it a negative notion of freedom, which sees freedom in terms of absence of something else, something it is not: A way out. Specifically, negative freedom is seen as absence of repression and domination, notions which are in turn associated with power. Hence, negative freedom becomes absence of power, and the way to freedom is a way out of power relations. In this view, power is domination. The assumption is that where there is power there is no freedom and where there is freedom there is no power. Let’s call this the ‘exclusory’ hypothesis; power and freedom, according to this hypothesis, are mutually exclusive.
But this, Foucault argues, is to misunderstand the nature of modern freedom and power, and the way they operate in modern societies. Such notions of freedom and power might have some relevance to early modern and medieval societies, but they are quite inadequate in understanding our contemporary societies.
One of the insights of the analysis is that freedom is a great managing power (and not just a liberating force), and power is not necessarily something bad (it can lead to either domination or freedom). Freedom, and a particular positive notion of freedom, is the paradigm of the new techniques of government, the new art of government.
Freedom is meant here not as an ideology (although that is important as well, even though much less important than is normally thought), but simultaneously as the principle (mechanism) through which the system works. Freedom in this sense is not to be understood primarily as the property of will (in the tradition of human rights and legal discourses), but as the freedom of movement and freedom of circulation – freedom to develop, grow, enhance – and is applied to both people and things (that is both to physical and human capital).
The new art of government is not primarily based on prohibitions and exclusions, but is “carried out through and by reliance on freedom of each.” In this paper I will step aside from issues of interpretation and try to investigate the conceptual advances made by Foucault’s analyses; how some of his conceptual tools can be used in understanding capitalist rationality, and how this rationality can help deconstruct certain traditional myths about capitalism.
Testing The Limits of Liberalism: A Reverse Conjecture.
Heythrop Journal. forthcoming.
In this paper, I propose to look closely at certain crucial aspects of the logic of Rawls’ argument in Political Liberalism and related subsequent writings. Rawls’ argument builds on the notion of comprehensiveness, whereby a doctrine encompasses the full spectrum of the life of its adherents. In order to show the mutual conflict and irreconcilability of comprehensive doctrines, Rawls needs to emphasise the comprehensiveness of doctrines, as their irreconcilability to a large extent emanates from that comprehensiveness.
On the other hand, in order to show the possibility and plausibility of the political liberal solution he needs to emphasise that most of these doctrines are reasonable: i.e., they are willing to cede a portion of their authority to political liberalism for the right reasons. Yet, if they are willing to cede a portion of their authority to a political conception they cannot be as comprehensive as we initially thought they were.
All these elements highlight the tension in the argument itself. I suggest that many of these tensions can be removed by making Rawls’ account more flexible. In this context I propose certain amendments to Rawls’ account, which may overcome some of the tensions mentioned above.
Islamic Environmental Ethics and the Challenge of Anthropocentrism.
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ISLAMIC SOCIAL SCIENCES 27 (3):53-78. 2010.
Lynn White’s seminal article on the historical roots of the ecological crisis, which inspired radical environmentalism, has cast suspicion upon religion as the source of modern anthropocentrism. To pave the way for a viable Islamic environmental ethics, charges of anthropocentrism need to be faced and rebutted. Therefore, the bulk of this paper will seek to establish the non- anthropocentric credentials of Islamic thought. Islam rejects all forms of anthropocentrism by insisting upon a transcendent God who is utterly unlike His creation.
Humans share the attribute of being God’s creations with all other beings, which makes them internally related to every other being, indeed to every single entity in this universe. This solves the problem that radical environmentalism has failed to solve, namely, how to define our relation with nature and other beings without dissolving our specificity. Furthermore, Islamic ethics structures human relations strictly around the idea of limiting desires. The resulting ethico-legal synthesis, made workable by a pragmatic legal framework, can sustain a justifiable use of nature and its resources without exploiting them.
The exploitation of nature is inherently linked to the exploitation of one’s self and of fellow human beings. Such exploitation, according to Qur’anic wisdom, is the direct result of ignoring the divine law and the ethics of dealing with self and “other.” Only by reverting to the divine law and ethics can exploitation be overcome. The paper ends by briefly considering possible objections and challenges vis-à-vis developing a philosophically viable yet religiously oriented environmental ethics.
Philosophical Foundations of Habermas’ Critique of Particularistic Liberalism.
Minerva - An Internet Journal of Philosophy 14 (12):35. 2010.
Jürgen Habermas has emerged as a sharp, and occasionally harsh, critic of the Bush administration’s policies since the Iraq war. Habermas has developed this critique in several of his short pieces and interviews, some of which are available in fine collections in both English and other languages.
However, the occasional and journalistic character of Habermas’ political interventions often hide the theoretical basis of his critique. In this paper, I argue that Habermas’ critique of the Bush administration’s foreign policy emanates from, and is founded upon, his conception of modernity, and specifically his views about the relationship between “particularity” and “generality.”
The purpose of this essay is to demonstrate how Habermas’ critique can actually be read as a critique of particularism, which Habermas sees operating behind American (and British) foreign policy, and which, in his view, compromises the key achievements of modernity (especially in its Kantian version.).
Foucault and Capitalist Rationality: A Reconstruction.
Market Forces 1 (4):23-33. 2006.
The relation between the regimes of the accumulation of men and the accumulation of capital is problematised in the works of Michel Foucault. The paper challenges the prevailing wisdom that the relation between these regimes is contingent. The fundamental question of the conditions of the possibility of relation between the two regimes is raised. It is argued that both regimes are primordially related.
Focusing on the Foucauldian analysis of the regime of the accumulation of men and its constituent elements an effort is made to thematize the primordial relation between the two regimes. It is shown that freedom is the condition of the possibility of a primordial relation between the two regimes. It is explained why freedom plays such a fundamental role in making possible and sustaining a capitalist order.
The dual role of freedom as a principle of diversity and a principle of management is stressed. It is argued that capitalism as an order is conditioned upon the production and reproduction of individuals and populations that are simultaneously useful and free. It is also the condition of such an order that docility is produced without hampering utility. Freedom makes possible the enhancement of utility without making it unmanageable.
Reading Elden's Mapping the Present.
Cosmos and History 1 (1):177-184. 2005.
|
|
|
Site Spot