The History of Philosophy in Islam — Reading Notes

A Scholar’s Cautious Beginning

De Boer’s preface is notable for its modesty. He calls his work “the first attempt” since Munk, but immediately qualifies it as “not a completion.” He lists debts to Dieterici, de Goeje, Goldziher, and others, yet regrets he cannot “duly indicate” their contributions. This transparency sets a scholarly tone: the author is aware of gaps in his sources and does not claim finality.

The translator’s note adds a layer of mediation. Jones aimed for “a faithful reproduction” and thanks de Boer for revising proofs. This collaborative framing reminds readers that the English text is twice-removed from the original Arabic and Greek sources. The preface also explains transcription choices, such as pronouncing z as a soft s, a detail that hints at the technical hurdles of rendering Arabic names for a German- and English-speaking audience.

Farabi’s Logical Architecture

The excerpt on Farabi (Al-Farabi) is the most detailed in the sample. De Boer presents Farabi’s theory of knowledge as a ladder: immediate certainties (axioms), judgments, inference, and proof. The “doctrine of Proof” is called “Logic properly so called,” and it must “generate science,” not merely guide it. De Boer highlights Farabi’s preference for Platonic Dichotomy over Aristotelian Polytomy, a technical choice that reflects broader debates about method.

Farabi’s treatment of probability is equally striking. He ranks disciplines from necessary science down to poetry, which he condemns as “a lying and immoral absurdity.” De Boer notes that Farabi integrated Sophistic, Rhetoric, and Poetics into a “Dialectic of the Seeming,” subordinating them to the pursuit of certainty. The discussion of universals—ante rem, in re, post rem—and the question of whether existence is a predicate show Farabi grappling with problems that would later occupy medieval Scholastics.

The Translator’s Invisible Hand

Edward R. Jones’s translation, published by Luzac & Co. in 1903, is the only version available in this edition. The translator’s prefatory note is brief but revealing: he thanks de Boer for revising proofs, implying a collaborative process. Jones’s stated aim is “faithful reproduction,” yet the English prose carries a formal, late-Victorian cadence. Sentences are long and clause-heavy, as in “By combining representations or ideas, judgments result, and these may be either true or false.”

Readers should be aware that the translation may introduce its own interpretive slant. De Boer’s original Dutch was published in 1901; Jones’s version appeared two years later. The text includes foot-references and an index of personal names, but no bibliography beyond a mention of Brockelmann and Ueberweg-Heinze. The absence of a modern critical apparatus means that some references may be outdated or inaccessible to contemporary readers.

This edition preserves a foundational work in Islamic philosophical historiography, but its value lies as much in its method as in its content. De Boer’s careful delimitation of his sources and his focus on logical theory offer a window into early 20th-century Orientalist scholarship. Readers should supplement it with more recent studies to fill the gaps de Boer himself acknowledged. The text rewards those who approach it as a historical document of scholarly practice, not merely a survey of ideas.

Reading de Boer’s quiet tracing of necessary and probable knowledge, I found myself back in a lamplit room, years ago, where a friend’s marginalia in Aesthetic as Science of Expression and General Linguistic — Reading Companion softened the hard edges of Croce’s logic. Both books felt less like arguments than invitations to sit awhile with uncertainty, letting its weight settle gently, like dust on a windowsill.