The Idea
Al-Tawhidi and Miskawayh are presented here as two different answers to a single crisis. In one, critique, bitterness, and the exposure of the closed world in which he lived stand out; in the other, moral refinement and transformation stand out. The point is not that they are similar, but that each one opens a distinct path for understanding how the old Arab thinker confronted the human predicament in a troubled society.
Its Place in the Book’s Argument
This claim serves the book’s broader argument because it prevents tradition from being reduced to a single voice or a single solution. The comparison between Al-Tawhidi and Miskawayh makes it possible to show diversity within the tradition itself: social critique on the one hand, and ethical construction on the other. In this way, the text moves toward a reading that sees the crisis through the plurality of responses to it, not through a single complete model.
Why It Matters
The importance of this claim lies in the fact that it places Arkoun before a living, plural tradition, not before isolated names. Through this distinction, it becomes possible to understand that humanism does not appear in one form, but through different responses to historical distress. This helps the reader grasp that the question is how the tradition thinks about the human being, not who is the most important among its men.
Reading Questions
- How does the text understand the difference between Al-Tawhidi’s response and Miskawayh’s response to the same crisis?
- Is the comparison meant to highlight contrast, or to show a broader horizon of unity that brings them together?