Akdeniz İlahiyat Dergisi

Öz

Yalçın Koç is not only a scientist, thinker, and theorist but also a sage and an original intellectual striving to reconstruct philosophical thought. This article does not focus on his diverse intellectual abilities but instead examines his position within Turkish-Islamic philosophy and the philosophical system he calls nazariyat (theoria). Although Koç does not regard himself as a philosopher, his nazariyat thought paves the way for evaluating him as a system philosopher.
Koç’s understanding of nazariyat is an attempt to establish a theoretical framework independent of the philosophical traditions visible in the Greek-Latin Church territory (the West). According to him, philosophy as practiced in the Greek-Latin Church territory and in the Arab and Persian lands under its influence has deviated from hak (truth) and has been shaped by a mode of thinking that fails to reach hakîkât (absolute truth). For this reason, Koç critically deconstructs Western philosophy and its philosophers while developing his own methodology, which he calls nazariyat. It is important to note that nazariyat should not be confused with theory. Theory (kuram) is a mode of thought produced through mental reasoning within a language, whereas nazariyat is an experiential process that begins with the contemplation of a fundamental reality, relying on the naturally active faculties of the soul, such as memory, imagination (muhayyile), and comprehension (idrak). In this respect, Koç’s nazariyat differs from the epistemological processes of classical philosophy and proposes an alternative way of thinking (tafakkur).
The article, considering historical debates on the definitions of philosophy and philosophers, defines a philosopher as “a wise person who, without compromising truth, offers metaphysical solutions to the problems of their era.” Philosophy, in turn, is equated with hikmet (wisdom). In this context, Koç’s works, spanning 17 books and based on nazariyat, suggest that he fits this definition as a seeker of truth.
Koç’s nazariyat aligns with the concept of the hakîm (sage-philosopher) in Turkish-Islamic thought. In this regard, the article briefly touches on the roots of Turkish-Islamic philosophy, highlighting the role of Al-Farabi, whom Avicenna (Ibn Sina) referred to as the "Second Teacher" after Aristotle. It is noted that Al-Farabi’s choice to write in Arabic rather than Turkish is seen as unfortunate for the Turkish-Islamic intellectual tradition. In contrast, Koç consciously thinks and writes in Turkish to address this gap, constructing a unique conceptual vocabulary. His philosophical critiques are often compared to Al-Ghazali’s critiques of Peripatetic (Meşşâî) philosophy, provided that they are not reduced to mere political polemics. However, Koç’s criticisms extend beyond a particular philosophical school; they encompass the entirety of Western philosophy and the traditions influenced by it. In this framework, Koç delineates the boundaries of the philosophies he critiques through the term Greek-Latin Church territory, arguing that these philosophies fail to engage with hakîkât. In Koç’s view, philosophy as practiced in the Greek-Latin Church territory
and in the Arab and Persian lands influenced by it consists merely of speculation (fikriyat, logia). To be confined to speculation is to lack nazariyat.
Koç’s nazariyat can be regarded as the philosophical counterpart to Al-Ghazali’s revival movement in the religious sciences. His aim is to abandon the traditional arguments of classical philosophy and rethink truth while constructing a new system at the conceptual level. Although Koç does not see himself as a philosopher, his intellectual systematization and solutions to fundamental philosophical problems suggest that nazariyat constitutes a distinct school of thought. As of today, this school does not appear to have withered. Rather, Koç nourishes it, breathing new life into its foundations. He reconstructs its core concepts and establishes an entirely new philosophical language.
In conclusion, regardless of whether Koç’s work is classified as philosophy, his structured intellectual production and critical approach justify viewing him as a philosopher. Just as Al-Ghazali, despite rejecting the title of philosopher, came to be recognized as one over time, Yalçın Koç may also be regarded similarly in the future. His nazariyat not only offers a novel mode of thought but also has the potential to awaken a dormant intellectual tradition.