The Idea
The text argues that the traditional systems of legitimation in the principles of religion and the principles of jurisprudence are no longer able to perform their epistemic role as they once did. The point is not to deny their historical value, but to signal that new questions require new tools, and that simply relying on the inherited legacy as it stands is not enough to understand reality and its transformations.
Concise Formulation
The traditional systems of legitimation in the principles of religion and the principles of jurisprudence have lost their epistemic validity
Its Place in the Book’s Argument
This claim represents the basis for the call for a critical epistemology and new thought, because it locates the crisis in the structure of legitimation itself. If the old tools have lost their validity, then the argument moves from a merely partial critique to the necessity of reconstituting the way religious knowledge is thought.
Why It Matters
Its importance lies in clarifying the core of Arkoun’s project in this book: the disagreement is not only with certain results, but with the structure that produces those results. From this, the reader understands that his talk of renewal begins with a critique of the validity of older instruments of understanding before any other reform.
Reading Questions
- Does the loss of validity mean rejecting the principles of religion and the principles of jurisprudence, or revising their epistemic function?
- How does the text link the end of the validity of traditional legitimation to the need for new thought?
Degree of Documentation
High: the claim appears in a clear location in the book’s material.