Aristotelianism in the Islamic philosophical tradition
In his philosophical writings, Averroes attempted to return to
Aristotelianism, which according to him had been distorted by the Neoplatonist tendencies of Muslim philosophers such as Al-Farabi and Avicenna.
[34][35] He rejected al-Farabi's attempt to merge the ideas of Plato and Aristotle, pointing out the differences between the two, such as Aristotle's rejection of Plato's
theory of ideas.
[36] He also criticized Al-Farabi's works on logic for misinterpreting its Aristotelian source.
[37] He wrote an extensive critique of Avicenna, who was the standard-bearer of Islamic Neoplatonism in the Middle Ages.
[38] He argued that Avicenna's theory of
emanation had many fallacies and was not found in the works of Aristotle.
[38] Averroes disagreed with Avicenna's view that existence is merely an
accident added to essence, arguing the reverse; something exists
per se and essence can only be found by subsequent abstraction.
[39] He also rejected
Avicenna's modality and
Avicenna's argument to prove the existence of God as the Necessary Existent.
[40]
Relation between religion and philosophy[edit]
During Averroes' lifetime, philosophy came under attack from the
Sunni Islam tradition, especially from theological schools like the
traditionalist (Hanbalite) and the
Ashari schools.
[41] In particular, the Ashari scholar
al-Ghazali (1058 – 1111) wrote
The Incoherence of the Philosophers (
Tahafut al-falasifa), a scathing and influential critique of the Neoplatonic philosophical tradition in the Islamic world and against the works of Avicenna in particular.
[42] Among others, Al-Ghazali charged philosophers with non-belief in Islam and sought to disprove the teaching of the philosophers using logical arguments.
[41][43]
In
Decisive Treatise, Averroes argues that philosophy—which for him represented conclusions reached using reason and careful method—cannot contradict revelations in Islam because they are just two different methods of reaching the truth, and "truth cannot contradict truth".
[44][45] When conclusions reached by philosophy appear to contradict the text of the revelation, then according to Averroes, revelation must be subjected to interpretation or allegorical understanding to remove the contradiction.
[44][41] This interpretation must be done by those "rooted in knowledge"—a phrase taken from the Quran, 3:7, which for Averroes refers to philosophers who during his lifetime had access to the "highest methods of knowledge".
[44][45] He also argues that the Quran calls for Muslims to study philosophy because the study and reflection of nature would increase a person's knowledge of "the Artisan" (God).
[46] He quotes Quranic passages calling on Muslims to reflect on nature and uses them to render a
fatwa (legal opinion) that philosophy is allowed for Muslims and is probably an obligation, at least among those who have the talent for it.
[47]
Averroes also distinguishes between three modes of discourse: the
rhetorical (based on persuasion) accessible to the common masses; the
dialectical (based on debate) and often employed by theologians and the
ulama (scholars); and the demonstrative (based on logical deduction).
[41][46] According to Averroes, the Quran uses the rhetorical method of inviting people to the truth, which allows it to reach the common masses with its persuasiveness,
[48] whereas philosophy uses the demonstrative methods that were only available to the learned but provided the best possible understanding and knowledge.
[48]
Averroes also tries to deflect Al-Ghazali's criticisms of philosophy by saying that many of them apply only to the philosophy of Avicenna and not to that of Aristotle, which Averroes argues to be the true philosophy from which Avicenna has deviated.
[49]