After al-Ghazālī and his hierarchical synthesis of mysticism, philosophy and law, ʾAbū l-Walīd Muḥammad bin ʾAḥmad bin Rušd (ca. 1126-1198) – better known as Ibn Rushd, or Averroes, inEurope– tried to reinstate Aristotelian philosophy. But, without its Neo-Platonic additions, by systematically commenting on and recapitulating Aristotle’s work. Too him, Philosophical insight in truth is strictly abstract and demonstrative; it provides us with the correct and rational interpretation of the truths of revelations and the Qur’ān.
Legion and Truth
Ibn Rushd came from a family famous for its Islamic judges and lawyers. He, too, was part of the family tradition, and in the Islamic world he is chiefly a famous historical figure because of his legal work. As a judge, he thought that disputes on Islamic law (and thereby on Islam) were merely consequences of differences in interpretation. Philosophy could aid in that, since the correct interpretation needed reason.
He never doubted the truth of Islam, although (especially in Europe) he is nowadays remembered as the main example of the rational scientific enlightenment in the early days of Islam. Islam never had to deal with the strong opposition between religion and reason, like European Christianity. The popular remembrance of ibn Rushd is therefore awarding him a rationality more separated from Islam than was the case in reality. Western followers incorrectly saw arguments in his work for the double truth doctrine, which implies that philosophy and theology both hold their own truths, which can differ. Furthermore, the image does not hold up because ibn Rushd was everything but enlightened regarding humanism. For him, philosophy, theology, law, and politics belonged to the elite, which should think and keep an open dialogue. The masses would have but to follow.
The Incoherence of the Incoherence
In his most famous philosophical work, The Incoherence of the Incoherence (Tahāfut al-Tahāfut) ibn Rushd set out to undo al-Ghazālī’s alienation of Greek philosophy. As such he refuted al-Ghazālī’s denial of the eternity of the world, of resurrection and the afterlife, and his denial of God’s knowledge of particulars.
Ibn Rushd sacrifices Neo-Platonism in favor of Aristotelian philosophy. He considered everything to have its own nature and its own causes of effect, matter, form and goal. For instance, he abandoned the theory of emanation, and instead uses the notion of causality and the Aristotelian notion of principle. And although he did create a Islamic philosophy without emanation, he is still closer to Neo-Platonism than to Aristotle. Indeed, in his cosmic scheme he did not arrange the spheres by a chain of causes or emanations, but in hierarchy of nobility. He also rejects ibn Sīnā’s distinction between existence and essence; according to him, ontologically, they are one. Only in our reason can we distinguish between the two.
Everything that can be thought of is immaterial and infinite, yet requires a human intellect that can imagine it. This is the domain of humanity as a whole; it is universal. The speculative or passive intellect is individual and temporary. Here, we find the connection between matter and intellect: in our thoughts, which transcend our own individual nature. In connection to God, to the immaterial and infinite objects of thoughts, we can find our happiness.