I tend to lean towards minimalism in life generally. Whether in design, aesthetics, productivity, travel, wearables, or relationships, I operate under the principle of “less but better.” Minimalism values simplicity, essentials, necessity, and lightness.

However, I have come to realize that this instinct can be dangerous when pushed too far into the realm of metaphysics.

Applied to metaphysics, minimalism becomes a form of prudence: a caution against bloating ontology on the basis of language alone. This is what I loosely call semantic minimalism. And this is one of the principles upon which the Mu’tazila framework can be understood.

Using the Mu’tazila framework, you will repeatedly ask:

  1. Is it necessary to map every word to a corresponding reality?
  2. Can we maintain reality as simple without unnecessary multiplicity?
  3. Can certain terms remain at the linguistic branch without the need to commit and push into ontology, so that reality remains clean and minimal?

At the outset, the Mu’tazila framework appears simple and sophisticated, which is intellectually appealing, at least to me. But in metaphysics, this minimalism leads to a number of issues in Kalam. Among the most well-known are:

  1. Affirming divine attributes only as descriptions of the essence, not as real entities subsisting in God
  2. Affirming the Qur’an as a created entity
  3. Treating divine justice as rationally necessary rather than purely volitional

These issues force the framework into a kind of conceptual fork. This is where the Ash’ari enters and presents itself as an attempt to resolve these tensions, and it does so with remarkable elegance.

What I have come to appreciate in the Ash’ari framework is that metaphysics cannot be governed by a single rule applied universally. When there is a need to minimize, one minimizes. When there is a need to maximize, one maximizes. This produces a metaphysics that is careful and robust, though it results in a conceptual density, and sometimes what feels like redundancy to the masses.

Nevertheless, Ash’ari framework, in this sense, represents a balanced architecture: avoiding the over-reduction of the Mu’tazila on one side, and the clutteredness of anthropomorphism on the other. It is not maximalism or minimalism, but ontological moderation - placing things where they are due.

Please note dear reader:

This is a Commute Log entry: a short, spontaneous reflection and mostly musings written within a limited window, meant to capture my line of thought in motion rather than a settled or exhaustive position.

For more of Commute Log: tasnimr.com/commute-log