Discussion of causality based on the conceptions of nature of Ibn Rushd and al-Ghazalī
Article Sidebar
Abstract
In this short analysis, we will compare Ibn Rushd's justification of the causality principle to the suspicions and objections of al-Ghazālī. Nevertheless, our analysis of the issue will center on al-Ghazālī's and Ibn Rushd's conceptions of nature. Therefore, our article aims at illuminating two points: first, there is a fundamental difference between the conceptions of nature and generation of the two philosophers; second, this structural difference constitutes the real cause of disagreement over the causality principle.
References
Al-Ghazālī, Abū Ḥāmid Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad, al-Munqidh min al-ḍalāl (eds. Jamīl Ṣalībā and Kāmil ʿAyyād; 7th ed., Beirut: Dār al-Andalus, 1967).
Al-Ghazālī, Deliverance from Error and Attachment to The Lord of Might and Majesty [al-Munqidh min al-ḍalāl], in W. Montgomery Watt (trans.), The Faith and Practice of al-Ghazālī (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1953), 19-85.
Al-Ghazālī, The Incoherence of the Philosophers (Tahāfut al-falāsifa) (A parallel English-Arabic text translated, introduced and annotated by Michael E. Marmura; 2nd ed., Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 2000).
Ibn Rushd, Abū l-Walīd Ibn Rushd al-Ḥafīd Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad al-Qurṭubī, Tafsīr Mā baʿd al-ṭabīʿa, 3 vols., (ed. Maurice Bouyges; Beirut: Dār al-Mashriq, 1991).
Ibn Rushd, Tahāfut al-Tahāfut, 2 vols., (ed. Sulaymān Dunyā; Cairo: Dār al-Maʿārif, n.d.)
Ibn Rushd, Averroes' Tahafut al-Tahafut (The Incoherence of the Inco-herence) , 2 parts in 1 volume, (trans.with introduction and notes Simon van den Bergh; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987).
Ibn Sīnā, Abū ʿAlī Ḥusayn ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAlī, Risāla fī aqsām al-ʿulūm al-aqliyya, in Rasāʾil fī l-ḥikma wa-l-ṭabīʿiyyāt (Istanbul: Maṭbaʿat al-Jawāʾib, 1298 H.)