Ibn Rushd/Averroes
Basketactortale
Shipmate
in Purgatory
I may be straying into an area that I shouldn't be. But I'm curious how some of you understand the lineage of your ideas.
I'm interested in Greek philosophy and the ways that the ideas have become part of many of our thought processes.
I'm reading a really interesting book about Averroes, which is part of the story I was not aware of.
Averroes (Ibn Rushd) was an Islamic judge and medic from Moorish Spain in the 12th century. He was also a philosopher and was really interested in Aristotle. He liked the idea that one could "know things" by working them out rather than accepting theoretical axioms. So we understand what a circle is because we've seen roughly circular things around us and when we see another circle in a different context we associate it with our experience. This is in contrast to a Platonic idea that there exists a "circle" form which we compare reality to.
He was no translator so was working from Aristotle's books in Arabic, sometimes with the ideas morphed into other things. But he still managed to write long commentaries on Aristotle. And when the original Greek was essentially lost in the West in the mediaeval period, it was these commentaries which were used, translated again into Latin.
The thinking influenced Thomas Aquinas and I read helped to develop the idea of systematic theology in the Roman Catholic church. The book I'm reading says that the influence of Averroes helped to develop the idea that there were two kinds of knowledge and that the one could usefully be studied (for example astronomy) alongside and separate from theology. Also the idea that one could use reason to justify beliefs, so Averroes seems to think that divine laws governing human behaviour could be worked out by a thinking person.
Isn't it a bit strange to contemplate that this understanding of Christian theology came from/via an Islamic philosopher working from quite badly mangled ancient Greek philosophy?
I'm interested in Greek philosophy and the ways that the ideas have become part of many of our thought processes.
I'm reading a really interesting book about Averroes, which is part of the story I was not aware of.
Averroes (Ibn Rushd) was an Islamic judge and medic from Moorish Spain in the 12th century. He was also a philosopher and was really interested in Aristotle. He liked the idea that one could "know things" by working them out rather than accepting theoretical axioms. So we understand what a circle is because we've seen roughly circular things around us and when we see another circle in a different context we associate it with our experience. This is in contrast to a Platonic idea that there exists a "circle" form which we compare reality to.
He was no translator so was working from Aristotle's books in Arabic, sometimes with the ideas morphed into other things. But he still managed to write long commentaries on Aristotle. And when the original Greek was essentially lost in the West in the mediaeval period, it was these commentaries which were used, translated again into Latin.
The thinking influenced Thomas Aquinas and I read helped to develop the idea of systematic theology in the Roman Catholic church. The book I'm reading says that the influence of Averroes helped to develop the idea that there were two kinds of knowledge and that the one could usefully be studied (for example astronomy) alongside and separate from theology. Also the idea that one could use reason to justify beliefs, so Averroes seems to think that divine laws governing human behaviour could be worked out by a thinking person.
Isn't it a bit strange to contemplate that this understanding of Christian theology came from/via an Islamic philosopher working from quite badly mangled ancient Greek philosophy?
Comments
The attitude might have been "truth is the truth wherever it comes from", yet I am not sure this makes much sense. If the Pope is in direct communication with God, why would the best route for theological truth be via Islam?
I feel there's something similar to a category error going on here; in layering a scientific understanding of progress on the world of philosophy.
That Ibn Rushd's understanding of what Greek philosophers were saying was skewed is somewhat tangential to whether his critiques are valuable.
I was raised Catholic, and maintain a passing interest in the RCC, and I have never heard it claimed that the Pope's communication with God is any more direct than that of anyone else.
Plato and Aristotle, also referenced in your post, were pagan philosophers who also had a major influence on Catholic theology, via Augustine and Aquinas respectively, regardless of any papal hotline to the Almighty.
That's interesting. You don't think that in the 12th century, the Papacy wasn't claiming to speak on behalf of God? That heresy means disagreeing with God because you disagree with me?
I mean no, that's not what heresy means. Aside from anything else, heresy would mean denying the collective wisdom of Church Tradition, not the beliefs of an individual Pope. Remember that papal infallibility wasn't yet a doctrine.
I suppose this is my thoughts process. The locus of developing Christian thought moved away from Jerusalem and Judaism and towards Rome, where Greek philosophy was influential. To the extent that in the mediaeval period when Aristotle was "lost", they persisted with wanting to direct their thinking even though the available sources were inaccurate translations via Islamic sources.
It's even more confusing when these roots of ideas are unacknowledged by modern Christians.
Ok practically speaking it meant disagreeing with the current inhabitant of a throne in Rome.
Sorry, what do you mean by Aristotle being "lost"? Do you mean being spiritually "lost" or that his writings weren't available? Because they had Latin sources that weren't by Averroes afaik?
The fact that the medieval church used a lot of Pagan Greek and Islamic sources is pretty well-known, I learned about it in my very secular and ordinary history lessons at school. For eg it's well-known that alchemy comes from an Arabic term.
It's also possible that they were there in the depths of the Vatican library but nobody thought to look for a while.
This was news to me too, I recently read it in this book.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_of_the_Greek_Classics
I believe the reason there weren't many medieval Latin texts of Aristotle is that there weren't many ancient Latin texts of Aristotle to copy from. The Romans seem to have preferred the Stoics.
(*) Some might say henotheism, but if so Aristotle would support that too.
Unacknowledged by which modern Christians? Ok - I am perhaps guilty of assuming that more of what I know is common knowledge than is actually the case, but any competent introduction to Aquinas will at least namecheck the role of Averroes in introducing Aristotelian thought to the late Medieval period. It's not a secret. While modern Christians have a wide range of educational backgrounds and certainly there are plenty of modern Christians - especially Protestants (*) - who neither know nor care who Aquinas was nor know anything about his ideas - I'd guess that the majority of modern Christians who care about Aquinas knows about Averroes.
(*) Traditional Protestant theology was based on a rejection of Aristotelian ideas.
Why do you say, it's news to you too? Just because you didn't know something you assume other people didn't know it either?
I see others have taken this up, so I'll just note that I see it this way too--
To the best of my knowledge, the church has always recognized where they were getting their sources from. The fall of Rome and other trauma meant that access to the classics in their original forms was severely limited by the time of the middle ages, so naturally they grabbed whatever they could find--and having it in translation, or from a Muslim, wouldn't matter to them at all. The church has always acknowledged that God spoke to the "pagans" as well as to Israel, with the Magi as the prime biblical example of this--and so you find the Sibyls, for example, treated like the counterparts of Isaiah and Jeremiah, at least to an extent. The same with Virgil. I just don't see this ignorance you speak of. And I'm neither RC nor a scholar of historical theology and philosophy, so if I know it, there are a great many other people who must know it too.
Now one can argue whether they "ought" to have allowed Greek thought to shape their theology as much as they did, or whether they would have done better to stick to a more purely Judaic form. But the mere fact of what happened has never been in dispute, to the best of my knowledge.
And no, the pope has never been held to have a direct line to God almighty, as others have said already...
For one thing, Aquinas points out that while tradition may be sufficient to explain Christian belief to people who already accept that the tradition is true, if you're explaining Christian belief to a heretic or Muslim or pagan, you have to start from common ground.
Yes. FC Copleston SJ's A History Of Western Philosophy certainly contains chapters on Averroes, all nice and legal under an imprimatur.
And the Catholic philosophy courses I took at university certainly covered the pagan forebears of Augustine and Aquinas. I can't quite recall if they mentioned the Islamic intermediaries, but even if they didn't, I don't think it was because of some plot to erase them from public awareness.
Avicenna (Ibn Sina) is also worth mention here. He was arguably more influential on Aquinas than Averroes - there are pages of Aquinas's writings on metaphysics (e.g., De Ente et Essentia) that could almost be straight out of Avicenna.
I have no idea if his ideas still hold sway. I'm not sure if that kind of systematic/analytical theology is much done nowadays.
I hadn't ever thought before that Plato's idealised city in the Republic resembled the Islamic caliphate, but apparently Averroes could square that circle.