Universities without a metaphysical vessel

Science and scientific knowledge came to the fore as one of the most distinctive hallmarks of Western civilization alongside its rise. Moreover, by being incorporated into a narrative shaped by Orientalist rhetoric, they played a significant role in rendering the East passive. This process of passivization, in turn, gave rise to a defensive reaction asserting that the East had also made substantial contributions in the past to the scientific developments that became prominent in the West. This defensive reflex was instrumentalized as a means of bolstering self-confidence, based on the assumption of having had a share in the emergence of contemporary scientific progress. Yet within such a reflex, what that scientific knowledge actually was, and which metaphysical vessel it drew nourishment from, was not sufficiently discussed. It is precisely this problem that the 10th issue of Teklif magazine – each issue of which investigates a particular question – addresses in a comprehensive manner. Rather than evaluating all the themes covered in the issue, this article will focus on the matter solely in the context of our universities in Türkiye.

Ihsan Fazlıoğlu offers a comprehensive definition of science in order to provide a basis for discussion: “Science is the systematic, coherent, and evidenced knowledge of phenomena and events within a particular sphere of reality, produced within the limits of inferential/deductive/procedural reason according to predefined principles and methods, and which is shareable, verifiable, and reproducible.” Following this comprehensive definition, scientific knowledge in the discussions is evaluated as knowledge obtained through a method. In this respect, while there is generally no problem in terms of methods and techniques, the fundamental issue emerges – again as Fazlıoğlu points out – in relation to the “propositions of meaning upon which science is built.” As propositions of meaning are derived from propositions of belief, explanatory propositions (spheres of reality) are in turn constructed on the basis of these propositions of meaning.

Fazlıoğlu refers to the propositions of meaning constructed on the basis of propositions of belief as a metaphysical vessel. In fact, the metaphysical vessel resembles the hidden layers in conventional artificial intelligence systems. What we observe is only the output – the sphere of reality – derived from the input belief propositions. Yet the most critical stage of the process takes place in the intermediate layers between input and output (that is, within the metaphysical vessel). Therefore, without a metaphysical vessel that ensures coherence and unity among the parts, it is not possible to produce science. In this sense, although Western civilization appears to distance science from metaphysics, in reality, it relies on propositions of meaning and explanation that are directly connected to the metaphysical vessel of its own civilization.

From a societal perspective, possessing a metaphysical vessel also reinforces self-confidence and makes it easier to confront new forms of knowledge. Fazlıoğlu points to the situation of early Muslim thinkers as an example of such confrontation: “Without a metaphysical vessel, how can connections be established among diverse parts? Instead, one simply submits to tradition. Early Muslim thinkers transformed ‘tawḥid,’ a creed and belief, into propositions of meaning – a metaphysical vessel. For this reason, they were able to confront everything that came their way. Let us consider that they faced the most advanced ancient philosophical-scientific heritage of the Mediterranean world and encountered many different perspectives. They were not taken aback” Through this observation, Fazlıoğlu in fact indirectly sheds light on a fundamental problem experienced in our universities today. While we have no difficulty in terms of belief or our understanding of tawḥid, the problem we face lies in overlooking the relationship between scientific knowledge and the metaphysical vessel. As a result, unable to construct our own metaphysical vessel in response to scientific knowledge produced on the basis of the prevailing Western metaphysical vessel, we end up submitting to the existing mainstream.

At this point, the metaphysical vessel can also be understood, in the context of scientific knowledge, as an immune system. When an immune system is absent, weakened, or not reinforced, it becomes impossible to confront or combat new diseases. Fazlıoğlu elaborates on this problem and notes that the greatest dilemma facing contemporary Muslims in this regard is that they engage with the “philosophical-scientific accumulation of the age solely through creedal beliefs”. Consequently, a persistent state of bewilderment and lack of direction emerges – a pathological condition, so to speak, resulting from a weakened immune system.

Yet, as noted above, in every period when a metaphysical vessel grounded in the belief in tawḥīd was woven (that is, when the immune system was updated and strengthened), such confrontations did not lead to confusion or disorientation. On the contrary, these encounters were carried out with ease, allowing for the construction of new spheres of reality. Moreover, there was not a single metaphysical vessel; rather, multiple metaphysical vessels and diverse explanatory systems could coexist. Today, the crises we experience arise because our connection with the metaphysical vessel we have inherited is deficient, has not been updated, and therefore has not been carried into the present. Accordingly, the starting point for resolving our problems remains the same. As Fazlıoğlu states: “This is precisely the kind of method we must first establish. We can train mathematicians, physicists, chemists, and biologists, yet the question of within which metaphysical vessel they operate always stands before us as an unresolved problem.”

Where do our universities stand when it comes to constructing our own metaphysical vessel for each discipline? Beyond the question of competence, where do they position themselves in this regard? These are issues that need to be discussed with composure and clarity. Without a strategy or a roadmap in this context, it will not be possible to make real progress. On the other hand, another major problem – pointed out by Tahsin Görgün – is the extent to which our universities take our own country as a central concern: “A society that cannot make itself – its constituent individuals, institutions, and its particularity – an object and source of knowledge cannot discover and develop its own particular/distinct existence, and therefore cannot sustain its existence.”

Therefore, while the fundamental problem concerns the construction of our metaphysical vessel, an adjacent and inseparable issue relates to how our universities perform in bringing the full range of our country’s problems onto their agenda – without confining them solely to technological domains – and in producing solutions to these problems. It is evident that we face serious difficulties on both fronts. In fact, the second problem area identified by Görgün appears to be directly linked to the first. Universities that fail to make the construction of their own metaphysical vessel a central concern cannot be expected to take up the country, with all its problems, as a primary object of inquiry. This is because such an engagement is directly tied to a form of consciousness that begins with values of belonging to this place and is concerned with carrying them into the present. In this way, while the metaphysical vessel is continuously woven across all disciplines – including the social sciences (that is, while the immune system is strengthened) – it becomes possible, on this foundation, to construct contemporary spheres of reality emerging from that metaphysical vessel and relating to the current problems of our country. The alternative is the picture of fragmentation we face today. Fragmentation is the result of lacking a unifying whole that binds the parts together – that is, of being without a metaphysical vessel, or an immune system.

Of course, it would not be fair to place the entire burden of these problems solely on the shoulders of our universities. As Görgün points out, there must also be institutional mechanisms capable of integrating universities into these processes. For a long period, our country lacked such institutional mechanisms that could employ and steer scientific knowledge toward practical purposes; as a result, universities were largely left to their own devices. In this context, our universities produced knowledge primarily through the dominant scientific disciplines of Western civilization and, in general, failed to make the problems of our country a central concern. The scientific knowledge thus produced was directly connected to the metaphysical vessel of Western civilization. Moreover, when one recalls past experiences, it becomes clear that our universities, far from bringing the country’s problems onto their agenda, for a long time even served as instruments of a one-sided indoctrination centered on Western civilization.

In this context, the major transformation experienced in recent years – across fields ranging from education and healthcare to transportation and infrastructure, from the defense industry to foreign policy – has enabled large segments of society that were long excluded to move to the center, generating a significant momentum of development in Türkiye. This transformation is not limited to physical investments alone. A long-interrupted sense of self-confidence has been renewed, and the possibility has emerged of establishing a healthier relationship with history and carrying it into the present (that is, updating the immune system). One of the most distinctive features of this period is that every institution and organization contributing to this growth has also emerged as a significant actor when considered as a distinct component. In this way, by creating an alloy among institutions, a strong momentum has been achieved. In assessing this opportunity, it has become increasingly clear that universities are now the most critical actors. This is because problems in every field ultimately converge on – and become entangled with – the performance of our universities. This knot must now be untied. How these relationships are managed will determine whether this historic opportunity can be effectively utilized and whether a genuine leap forward can be made from the current point. As Ayhan Çitil points out, “Achieving this requires knowing our own intellectual heritage, understanding the point contemporary sciences have reached, becoming aware of the needs of society, and possessing integrity and intellectual character. All of these must come together”.

For this reason, our universities are compelled to orient themselves toward two essential areas. First, they must re-establish a connection with our own metaphysical vessel – the source from which discipline-specific scientific knowledge emerges – by critically examining it, updating it, and reconstructing it anew. Second, they must transform the historical opportunity our country has gained in recent years into a genuine advantage by bringing all of our problems onto their central agenda. This agenda-setting should not be limited to university-industry collaboration but should encompass all fields and disciplines. Undoubtedly, this entails embarking on a highly demanding path. Yet there is no alternative, nor is there a shorter route.

In sum, the fragmentation observed in our universities today is not the result of methodological or technical inadequacy, but rather of a fundamental disconnection concerning the horizon of meaning within which knowledge is produced. Scientific knowledge inevitably rests upon a metaphysical vessel; a university system that renders this vessel invisible, or that submits itself to another civilization’s metaphysical ground, cannot genuinely comprehend – let alone transform – the problems of its own society. The core challenge facing our universities lies in their ability to re-examine the inherited world of belief and meaning not as a nostalgic reference, but as a living and productive foundation capable of constructing today’s spheres of reality. Only on such a foundation can the social, economic, and political issues confronting our country be addressed in an integrated, interdisciplinary manner, and the historical opportunity be transformed into a genuine leap forward. Otherwise, fragmented knowledge production, directionless confrontations, and a persistent state of bewilderment will continue to prevail.

DAILYSABAH