According to Ibn ‘Arabi, the “philosopher” — which for him practically means the skeptic — is incapable of knowing universal causality except by observing causations in the outward world and by drawing from his observations the conclusions that impose themselves on his sense of logic. According to another Sufi, Ibn al-’Arif, intellectual knowledge is only an “indication” pointing to God: the philosopher only knows God by way of a “conclusion,” his knowledge only has a content “with a view to God,” and not “by God” as does that of the mystic.

But this distinguo is only valid, as we have said, if we assimilate all philosophy to unmitigated rationalism and forget in addition that in the doctrinaire mystics there is an obvious element of rationality. In short, the term “philosopher” in current speech signifies nothing other than the fact of expounding a doctrine while respecting the laws of logic, which are those of language and those of common sense, without which we would not be human; to practice philosophy is first and foremost to think, whatever may be the reasons which rightly or wrongly incite us to do so.

But it is also, more especially and according to the best of the Greeks, to express by means of the reason certainties “seen” or “lived” by the immanent Intellect, as we have remarked above; now the explanation necessarily takes on the character imposed on it by the laws of thought and language.