Based on a question posed by global philosophy of religion project regarding the absence of literal attribution of omnibenevolence to God in the Qur’ān, this paper aims to examine how to understand perfect goodness in Islam. I will first discuss the concept of perfect goodness and suggest that perfect goodness is not an independent attribute on its own and it is predicated on other moral attributes of God without which the concept of perfect goodness could hardly be understood. I will (...) examine perfect goodness by a specific emphasis on the attribute of justice as one of the conditions to be satisfied by a perfectly morally good being. In so doing, I will appeal to the distinctions made among great-making properties by Daniel Hill, and Al-Ghazālī’s definition of justice by applying them to God’s moral attributes. I will argue that justice has a crucial role in maximality-optimality balance between great-making properties and it seems quite difficult, if not impossible, to conceive of goodness without justice. Having said that, I will claim that the conceptual frame I suggest sheds light on why omnibenevolence is not literally attributed to God in the Qur’ān. Then, I will briefly show how the divine attributes mentioned in the Qur’ān and the discussions about divine names and attributes in the Islamic tradition supports the understanding of perfect goodness I defend. Consequently, I will try to show that far from indicating that the Islamic concept of God doesn’t involve perfect goodness, the Qur’ān establishes the proper meaning of perfect goodness by focusing on its constitutive attributes, and thus provides us with a sound conception of it. (shrink)

This thesis gets its fundamental idea from Herbert Marcuse’s critique of modern society. His analysis concerning the petrification of modern dichotomies is our starting point. We especially focus on the modern dichotomy of Logos and Eros, in more general terms, reason and desire. According to Marcuse’s analysis, petrification of dichotomies causes us to form a relation of domination and repression between our stated faculties. And this hampers modern individuals to use their capacities in their fullest sense. As a consequence of (...) not being able to use our capacities freely, our powers to criticize and create are degraded. After covering this analysis, as a way out from this condition of domination, we are looking Marcuse’s idea of reconciling the opposite faculties. Through his account of reconciliation, we try to discuss his accounts of aesthetics. And then we try to look at the political and social projections of his account of aesthetics. To be able to better understand Marcuse and find the starting point of his critique of modern dichotomies, we look at Friedrich Schiller in our second chapter. First off, we discuss his critique of modernity which is mainly based on modern dichotomies. After that, we try to discuss his account of aesthetics. We see that his account of Beauty and Freedom are closely related to each other and we see that those two terms stand at the center when it comes to reconciling modern dichotomies. And then, we try to understand how Schiller’s account of aesthetics is associated with his ethics and politics. On that, we see that aesthetic action gives us a better understanding of the relation between ethics, politics and aesthetics. Lastly, as a way to reconcile the opposite faculties, we look at our capacities to negate and create that are used in a creative action. (shrink)