A Critical Analysis of Henry Corbin’s Thoughts on the Comparison of Suhrawardī’s Philosophy with Greek Philosophy

Henry Corbin is a western commentator of Suhrawardī’s Illuminationist philosophy. His thoughts in relation to interpreting this philosophy are based on t’awīl (hermeneutics), phenomenology, metahistory, and comparative philosophy. The present paper is the first attempt at addressing this subject, and it is intended to critically investigate Corbin’s thoughts regarding the comparison of Suhrawardī’s philosophy with those of Plato, Aristotle, and neo-Platonists. Here, the authors have explored Suhrawardī’s innovative ideas so that the differences between them and the thoughts of the above-mentioned philosophers are disclosed. They have also presented a general critique of Corbin’s methodology and its defects in the conclusion. Comparative philosophy, which is sometimes called intercultural philosophy, requires philosophers to deal with various cultural, linguistic, and philosophical trends with an emphasis on the fundamental principles underlying the philosophers’ thoughts and to study the differences and similarities among their views. In Corbin’s view, comparative philosophy has functioned as the gateway of the correct perception of philosophical thoughts in the history of philosophy, and that is why he has compared Illuminationist philosophy with the philosophical views of Plato and Aristotle. He believes that Suhrawardī’s philosophy has been derived from Plato’s views, which seems to have its roots in his idea that the origin of philosophy is Greece. Corbin considers him as the Plato of the world of Islam; however, he ignores Suhrawardī’s innovations, the differences between his philosophy and that of Plato, and his criticism of Aristotle.