Thinking

Psychology and Sociology

People mix up between the inferred thoughts that result from the rational method (of thinking) and the scientific thoughts that result from the scientific method (of thinking). Due to this confusion, they consider psychology, sociology and education disciplines, as sciences. They consider their thoughts as scientific thoughts, for they resulted based on observations followed on children under different circumstances and different ages; or followed on different groups at different conditions; or on different actions of different people under different conditions. They called the repetition of these observations as experiments. The truth of the matter is that the thoughts of psychology, sociology and education are not scientific thoughts; they are rather (incorrectly concluded) rational thoughts. This is because the scientific experiments are the subjugation of the matter to conditions and factors other than its original condition and factors and the observation of the effect of that subjugation. In other words, it is carrying out of the experiments on the same matter, like the experiments of physics and chemistry. As regards the observation of a thing at different times and situations, it is not considered scientific experiments. Therefore, the observation of the child at different situations and different ages, and the observation of groups in different countries and at different circumstances, and the observation of actions from different people at different situations; all of that does not enter in the subject of scientific experiments, so it is not considered a scientific method. It is rather an observation, repetition of the observation and conclusion only. Thus, it is a rational method and not scientific method. Accordingly, the thoughts of so-called psychology, sociology and education sciences are rational thoughts, and they belong to the culture and not in the science.

Moreover, psychology, sociology and education sciences are speculative and subject to error; they are not of the definite matters. So, it is invalid to use them as a basis for judging on matters, nor it is allowed to use them as evidence for the validity or invalidity of matters. This is because they are not of the subject of scientific facts or scientific laws so as to say they are correct unless proved wrong. They are rather speculative information that came through speculation. Though they are concluded through the rational method, they are not of the subject of judging the existence of things, but rather of the subject of judging the reality of the thing. This sort of view is definitely speculative, and liable to error. Furthermore, these three disciplines: psychology, sociology and education sciences are built on erroneous bases, a matter that made many of the thoughts that they contain erroneous.

Psychology, in its generality, is built on its view towards the instincts and its view towards the brain. It views man to have many instincts, only some of them have been discovered, while others are not. Psychologists built on this view erroneous theories; a matter that led to the error that exists in many of the thoughts of psychology. Psychology views the brain divided into areas, where each area has a specific capability, and that some brains have powers not existent in their brains. Based on that, some people have capability to understand the languages, but not the mathematics. While others, in contrast to that, they have capability to understand mathematics but not the languages. Thus, there are erroneous theories that were built on this view. This, also, led to error in many of the thoughts of psychology.

The truth of the matter in all of this is that it is obscured by sensation through the following up the response, that man has a live energy that has two aspects: One of them requires the inevitable satisfaction, where man dies if it was not satisfied. The second requires satisfaction, but if it was not satisfied, man remains alive, though he feels pain and becomes worried due to the absence of satisfaction. The first aspect is represented in the organic needs such as the hunger and thirst and answering to the nature’s call. The second aspect is represented in the instincts, which are the religiousness instinct, the reproduction instincts and the survival instinct. These instincts are the feeling of deficiency, the feeling of the race survival and the feeling of the personal survival. There is nothing more than these three. Anything beside these three instincts are only aspects of the instincts, such as the fear, sovereignty and ownership are appearances of the survival instinct; reverence of the heroes and worship are appearances of the religiousness instinct; and the sexual inclination, fatherhood, motherhood and brotherhood are appearances of the procreation instinct. Thus, every one of the appearances belongs to one of these three instincts.

As regards the brain, the truth of the matter is that the brain is one and the same. Disparity and variance of the thoughts is due to the disparity and variance of the sensed matters and the previous information, and also due to the disparity of the power of linkage. There is no a capability that exists in one brain but does not exist in another. Rather, all the brains have the capability of thinking in every matter once the tangible reality, the senses, the previous information and the brain exist. The brains only vary in the power of linkage and the power of sensation, as the eyes vary in the power of sight, in strength and weakness, and as the ears vary in the power of hearing, in strength and weakness. Therefore, it is feasible to give everybody any information, and he/she has the capability to comprehend them. Accordingly, there is no basis to what came in the psychology of the capabilities in the brains or the same brain. Thus, the wrong view of psychology to the instincts and the wrong view of psychology to the brain, led to the error of the theories that were built on that view.

As for sociology, it is, in its totality, based on its view towards the individual and the society, ie, it is based on its individualistic view. Thus, its view moves from the individual, to the family, to the group (community) and to the society, on the account that the society is consisted of individuals. So, the societies, in their view, are considered separate from each other, and what suits one of them does not suit the other society. The sociologists built on this view erroneous theories that fundamentally led to the error of the thoughts of sociology. The truth of the matter is that society does not consist of individuals absolutely; for the individual together with another individual consist a group, but not a society. The group does not constitute a society unless permanent relationships developed amongst its individuals. If, however, relationships did not develop between its individuals, it would remain as a group. Accordingly, the presence of 1,000 persons as travellers in a ship does not make of them a society; they rather remain as a group. However, the presence of 200 people in one village makes of them a society due to the permanent relationships between them. Thus, the presence of the permanent relationships amongst the group is what makes of them a society. So, the study of the society must be a study of the relationships and not the group. However, what initiates this relationship between the individuals is the instinct (maslahah) they have. So, if they had an interest to them, a relationship would develop; but if they had no interest to them, then relationships would not develop. The interest would not develop a relationship unless there existed in it three matters; firstly, the thought of the two sides is unified in considering it as interest. So, if one side considers it an interest while the other considers it bad (evil),then no relationship would develop between them. So, in order that the interest exists, each one of them has to view it as an interest. Secondly, the emotions about the interest must be unified over the interest. If both sides were delighted of it or both were angry of it, then a relationship would exist. If however, one of them was delighted of it, while the other was angry of it, then no relationship will exist from it. Thirdly, the system that regulates this interest (maslahah) must be unified. So, if one of the two sides regulated the interest in accordance with a certain system, while the other side rejected that system, and regulated it in accordance with another system, then no interest would exist between them. Thus, the two sides must agree on the manner by which their interest is regulated. Accordingly, the society exists by the unification of the thoughts, emotions and the system between the individuals. However, these individuals would generate a system, specific to them. If they, however, wished to annex other individuals from other societies, then they have to refute the thoughts, emotions and systems acceptable to all of them, so as to make a society. Therefore, defining the society as individuals does not apply to the ideological society; it rather applies to a specific society. While the true meaning of society is that it is composed of people, thoughts, emotions and the systems. What is good to man in a certain place, in terms of the thoughts, emotions and systems is suitable for man in every place; and it changes the various societies to the same society, which is reformed by the thoughts, emotions and systems. The difference between the individual and man, is that when you study Mohammad, Khalid or Hasan, in regards to the characters which are not shared naturally by human beings, then you would have studied him as an individual. If, however, you studied Mohammad, Khalid or Hasan, in terms of what he has of natural characters that exist naturally in human beings, then you would have studied him as a human being, though you studied specific individuals. Thus, the reform of the society has to be radical, thou it is by studying the society, in its capacity as humans, thoughts, emotions and systems, and not as individuals. So, the view has to be a human outlook and not an individual outlook, even if the study was for a particular individual. This is the definition of the society; this is the correct view towards it; and this is the reality of the society, the reality of the group (jama’ah) and the reality of the individual. It thus becomes obvious that the error of the view of the society led to the error of the theories, and the error of sociology as a whole. In regards to what came in the sociology about the group (jama’ah), that its understanding of the matters is generally weaker than the individual’s understanding, and it is easier to be agitated emotionally then the individual. The correctness of this view does not result from the view about the society. It rather results from the prevalence of the numerous and frequent information over the individual information, thus leading to influence the view on reality. It also results from the fact that the aspect of the crowd that appears in the group agitates the emotions, for it is one of the appearances of the survival instinct. Accordingly, everything that is built on the view about the society is false; and whatever is correct of it, its correctness does not result from its view to the society, but from another reason. Therefore, sociology is invalid, because it is built upon a false view, that is the view towards the society and the individual.

As for the education sciences, they are built on psychology, and affected by the sociology theories, and result from the observation of the actions of the individuals and the conditions of the children. This makes the education sciences contain the right and the wrong at the same time. Whatever is built on psychology, and affected by sociology is invalid. Thus, invalidity led to false educational thoughts that led to the corruption of the syllabuses and methods of teaching. Considering the child not capable for some disciplines while capable for others is false. Therefore, dividing the teaching into scientific and literary, and allowing the person to choose what he studies based on his capability is of the most false views. This is contrary to the reality and harmful to the Ummah. Considering the person not capable to learn some disciplines, while capable to learn others, is also false, which led to deprive some people from studying some disciplines and deprived many people from continuing study.