Averroes, On the Harmony of Religion and Philosophy: Ellie Anderson and David Peña-Guzmán
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 лют 2025
- Dr. Ellie Anderson and Dr. David Peña-Guzmán, philosophy professors and co-hosts of Overthink podcast, discuss the medieval Islamic philosopher Averroes' essay, “The Decisive Treatise Determining the Nature of the Connection Between Religion and Philosophy” from his book On the Harmony of Religion and Philosophy. They give some background on Averroes' defense of Islamic theology before breaking down his hierarchy of the rhetorical, dialectical, and demonstrative classes. How does Averroes use this categorization of kinds of thinkers to describe the relationship between philosophy and Islam? What does Averroes’ metaphor of doing philosophy as drinking water tell us about both faith and reason?
Graphics and editing by Aaron Morgan
Enjoy our work? Support Overthink via tax-deductible donation: www.givecampus...
Join our Patreon for exclusive episode segments, monthly Zooms, and more: / overthinkpodcast
Website: overthinkpodcast.com
Facebook: / overthink-podcast-1054...
Apple podcasts: podcasts.apple...
Spotify: open.spotify.c...
Buzzsprout RSS: feeds.buzzspro...
Find us on Instagram, Twitter, and TikTok at @overthink_pod
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Since I read Ibn Rushud's work in Arabic I would like to also clarify that the literal words he used in his title referred to Philosophy as "Wisdom" (The Arabic word for it is : Hikma) and referred to Religion as "Sharia" (which can be understood as law or religion depending on the context) so it's really interesting that even though the translation could change the meaning of the words (and Arabic is a language that is very rich in metaphors) the meaning of the context was kept in the translation since he also had a lot of quarrels with other theologians (like Al-Ghazali) about whether philosophy is against religion or not. And it's a quarrel that still persists in today's Muslim majority societies.
Then there is the difficulty that according to Islam the Quran is literally the word of God, witch leaves little room for interpretation. Additionally it is very action focus and not to contemplation. I wonder how much it comes the idea that all human predication of God is equivocal.
@@ricardogarcia-vi6hvAll things that you've stated have been disputed matters historically. There's rich debates on each side. But Muslims still survived despite those debates, demonstrating that they are a diverse group, just like any other people, that cannot be homogenized.
@@ricardogarcia-vi6hv If you look up the word “fiqh” youll find a definition like “the style of jurisprudence understanding”
The same with a word like “madhab”. A Muslims understanding of Islam tends to be local. Therefore Islam tends to be de-centralised. You tend to follow your local mosque.
For example Egypt and Saudi discourage for Muslims in Germany, Belgium and Norway to fast during the summer times, but Muslims in Norway and Belgium tend to not even discuss this. They just eat once a day and tend to not follow the fatwa of a country thousands of miles away, explaining to them what is possible or not.
@NotAnotherDude Is not that a problem? If you don't have an orthodox universal understanding of Islam you cannot claim that dangerous versions of Islam are wrong.
@@ricardogarcia-vi6hv there is a book called “refuting isis”, Muslims don’t have that problem.
There is a zigzag between “integration” and “discrimination”.
If you want to force Muslims to integrate into “correct” Islam, then you’re discriminating Muslims that are from a different way of life.
Even if you objectively know that fasting during Ramadan is law. It depends on where you are from how the jurist will deal with this.
In Iran eating during Ramadan is no problem, but not wearing a headscarf is a huge problem.
Whether you are the one telling people about orthodox Islam, doesn’t change how society sets the bar.
Islam never claimed to solve this “problem”. The Quran says “we created you in tribes so you may learn from one another”
Forcing people to do “correct” has to happen intrinsically within a society. They tend to have reasons for being hypocritical as thus our society.
Thank you! Love you both and appreciate the work.
A very interesting discussion. I have ordered the book and subscribed.
i suggest reading into ibn taymiyyas philosophical critique of (ibn rushd) + his critique of aristotles formal logic
How did you read my mind 😅 tnx for this. But talk about his politics and contemporary relations
I think the main opponent(s) in Averroes' mind were not Christians per se that think Islam was not compatible with theoretical/philosophical truth seeking, but rather those within Islamic circles at the time who were opposed to philosophy (i.e. Aristotelian metaphysics) thinking that its key assumptions were not compatible with Islamic faith, saying that philosophy leads one to accept the eternity of world, impossibility of bodily resurrection, and the necessity of causality; seen as incompatible with a Creator God that created the world ex nihilo and can do whatever he likes with his creation without any constraints by natural necessary causes. This was put forward by Al-Ghazali in his work titled 'Incoherence of philosopy/philosophers'. Averroes' main concern was to refute the arguments put forward by Al-Ghazali, showing that philosophy is not only compatible with Islam, but actually something that is obligatory on Muslims if they are obliged to attain knowledge.
Hello, could you please create a playlist for a systematic study of Hegel's "Science of Logic" - "The Greater Logic"? It would be great if it could start from pure being and sequentially derive all the other categories. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find any resources in English that seriously study dialectics. Everything I found online are Russian resources that systematically explore dialectics, but attempts to translate discussions directly from Russian to English are often inaccurate and require a specialist in grammar and language for precise translation. It would be extremely helpful to create such a playlist for those studying dialectics who want to learn Hegel's dialectical method but struggle to progress due to some unclear terms that need clarification (those who have studied Hegel's dialectics will understand what I mean!).
In Japan, comparative studies, such as those on Nāgārjuna’s thought and Wittgenstein’s philosophy or Shinran’s thought and Marxism-though these have no direct historical connection-are being conducted. Are you interested in the “harmony” between Buddhism and philosophy?
Talk about ibnu Rushd 😊
This is definitely not related, but is that the bird chirping sound on the background?
Please do “Ibn Taymiyya Against the Greek Logicians” translated by Wael Hallaq
Summary: “Ibn Taymiyya, one of the greatest and most prolific thinkers of medieval Islam, held Greek logic responsible for the "heretical" metaphysical conclusions reached by Islamic philosophers, theologians, mystics, and others. Unlike Ghazali, who rejected philosophical metaphysics but embraced logic, Ibn Taymiyya considered the two inextricably connected. He therefore set out to refute philosophical logic, a task which culminated in one of the most devastating attacks ever levelled against the logical system upheld by the early Greeks, the later commentators, and their Muslim followers. His argument is grounded in an empirical approach that in many respects prefigures the philosophies of the British empiricists. Hallaq's translation, with a substantial introduction and extensive notes, makes available to a wider audience for the first time an important work that will be of interest to specialists in ancient and medieval philosophy and to historians of logic and empiricist philosophy, as well as to scholars of Islam and Middle Eastern thought.”
They aren’t discussing Greek logic as a field of study. They are discussing thinking about exoteric and esoteric classism within education.
The field of study is merely an example used, going further discussing this example is just zooming in.
They are zoomed out, whether certain fields of study should be encouraged or discouraged per se.
You people should do session on krishnamurthi and david bohm on question of truth and reality.Abrahamic religions cant moves beyond conception of God.
oh you should really go a bit deeper into Abrahmic ones. I admit that the mainstream ones have always preferred the topic of god, but their lesser known works deal with a variety of topics you might find interesting. Anyways, I admire Krishnamurti for his originality and beauty.
Hi my prof published a book "THE UNRAVELLING OF INTELLIGIBILITY " .I saw that ur podcast was about philosphy and stuff .So can u "review" it .That video will get a lot of views cause the author (Hasan Spiker) is very famous philosopher in muslim intellectual circles
Averroes real name is Ibn Rushd
His often latinized name is misspelled. One v but two r
Because, vero, suggests truth, Av-veroes might be understood as good and A-veroes might be understood as not good.
In Greek, ευχαριστώ, meaning, thanks, may be said to have the ευ- meaning, good. Couldn't it have meant, of, from Indo-European origins? Similarly with a spelling of the scholar's name, Avveroes?
A-veroes could have been influenced by the Greek with the initial a- conveying negation. So, there might have been different usage in different schools of thought.
Was the Chinese philosopher's name, kung-fu tse, taken into scholarship in the west in a form close to a word now known, confusione?
Do those who study the flow of ideas consider such questions?
Season's Greetings!
I guess someone here just has to say this to you. Have you considered that you might be overthinking this?
Not quite sure the framing is correct since Ibn Rushd is in a long line of established philosophers: Al-Kindi, Al-Farabi, Al-Razi, Ibn Sina, even Al Ghazali who alongside the huge translation movement of Greek texts were at the forefront of philosophy at the time. There's no way Ibn Rushd, decades and centuries on from these thinkers is trying to defend Islamic Reason from the christians, who haven't even had a St Thomas Aquinas yet.
أفكار ابن رشد هي أفكار رائعة تتناسب مع المستقبل و الحياة المعاصرة ، أفكار عقلانية منفتحة على الاختلاف و التنوع ، لكن للأسف الثقافة الاسلامية رفضت هذه الأفكار و اختارت أفكار ابن تيمية المتشدد و المتطرف و لهذا يجب العودة لأفكار ابن رشد حول الدين بالنسبة للمجتمعات الاسلامية لكن الأمر أكثر تعقيدا لأن رجال السياسة لهم رأي آخر لأن وجود التطرف يخدم السياسيين بحيث يسمح لهم باختلاق الصراعات باسم الدين و باستعمال الشعوب الغبية و المتخلفة ...
لا يمكننا الهروب من هذا لأن الطريقة التي عاش بها النبي والصحابة محفوظة ومشرعة للمسلم اليومي لتقليد فعل النبي والصحابة إلى الأبد وهذا التقليد هو عمل أخلاقي وفضيلة عند الله، والنص مفهوم. ليكون مقدسا أيضا. الإسلام في شكله الحقيقي لا يمكن ممارسته ومن هنا الصعوبات التي يواجهها المسلمون في العصر الحديث. لا يمكن القيام بهذه القفزة
@@Lastman1900 I meditate - (for decades now) - for these insisted upon jumps - (above) - just cannot be made - and a vertical evolution - within the heart - is preferred by me/others.
Oh you may enjoy "Islam Between East and West" by Alija Izetbegovic.
To bring the discussion to a more modern context. Should Muslims read lgbtq poetry for the sake of “learning”?
If non-believers in the Quran are described as “people who don’t ponder”.
Shouldn’t a Muslim atleast ponder about; mein kampf, satanic religions or rap music.
Averroes tries to solve this problem by giving the responsibility of pondering about these topics to the collective.
Everything should be teached and pondered, but not by every Muslim individual… including the very book you’re reading is not for the masses to read.
Maybe this helps with understanding this book. If you agree that the sharia has the obligation of pondering for Muslims. Can anything be a taboo?
In the end I disagree with the divide between born-masses and born-elites. That to me was a big jump in his argumentation.
Being in harmony with religion is not a good sign for philosophy....
Why ?
@@SkipEditinghe probably believes if it ain’t secular it ain’t right.
@@SkipEditing because philosophy is about making questions and religion is about the opposite.