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.
📌 3 Key Takeaways
🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this short analysis, we will compare Ibn Rushd’s justification of the causality principle to the suspicions and objections of al-Ghazālī.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Nevertheless, our analysis of the issue will center on al-Ghazālī’s and Ibn Rushd’s conceptions of nature.
💡
Conclusion & Impact: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.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Ibn Rushd · al-Ghazālī · causality
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.
BİRGÜL, M. F. (2011). Discussion of Causality Based on the Conceptions of Nature of Ibn Rushd and al-Ghazālī. Ilahiyat Studies, Cilt: 1 - Sayı: 2, 241–258. https://ajindex.com/articles/852537
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.)