Averroism

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As Averroism is called one on the Arab philosopher Averroes declining (Ibn Rushd) direction in the European philosophy of the late Middle Ages and the early modern period . It caused a sensation because of the theological consequences of the views that it represented or that were assumed by the opposing side. “Averroist” is not a self-designation of the supporters of this direction, but a term coined by their opponents with a polemical intention. Since Averroes and the Averroists were Aristotelian, it is a current within Aristotelianism .

A considerable part of the works of Averroes, who died in 1198, had been accessible to Christian scholars since the thirties of the 13th century, as Michael Scotus had translated a number of sometimes extensive commentaries by the Arab philosopher on the writings of Aristotle into Latin . The impact in the Latin-speaking world was enormous. In the late Middle Ages, the scholastics used to speak of Aristotle as “the philosopher” and of Averroes as “the commentator”. “Averroism” does not mean the broad reception of Averroes in its entirety, but only a number of theologically and philosophically highly controversial positions which, in the opinion of the opponents of averroism, are characteristic of this direction.

Although Averroes believed that his teaching was in complete harmony with the Koran , his philosophy found little resonance in the Islamic world in the Middle Ages and in the early modern period. However, it received attention from Jewish scholars. Based on Hebrew Averroes translations, a Jewish Averroism developed in Spain and southern France. To distinguish it from the Jewish, the averroism of Latin-speaking scholars is also referred to as Latin averroism.

Concept history

The expression "Averroist" (Latin Averroista ) is first attested in 1270 in the book On the unity of the intellect against the Averroists ( De unitate intellectus contra Averroistas ) of Thomas Aquinas . Thomas coined it as a battle term that was directed against the so-called people. He was not concerned with general polemics against Averroes and his interpretation of Aristotle or against the prevalence of Aristotelian ideas in late medieval university studies. All scholastic scholars, including the Anti-Averroists, were in a sense Aristotelian because the writings of Aristotle were authoritative textbooks in university operations everywhere. Averroes' commentaries on Aristotle were also recognized as fundamental; its content was largely indisputable or at least not considered offensive. The conflict concerned only certain points in the teaching of Averroes that were explosive for theological reasons. Therefore, thinkers strongly influenced by Averroes were not necessarily considered Averroists, but only those philosophers who represented one or more of the positions denounced as Averroistic at the time. Even according to today's usage, only the representatives of the then controversial teachings of Averroes can be described in this way.

The term "averroism" was first coined in the 19th century by Ernest Renan , who published his study Averroès et l'averroïsme in 1852 . The formation of the term is problematic, since Renan did describe individual theorems as specifically averroistic, but no medieval thinker represented all these theorems together, so that one can hardly speak of a uniform doctrine. Renan was accused of wanting to "find modernity in the Middle Ages". Since in the 13th century the denounced doctrines were not yet considered defining features of a specifically averroistic philosophy, for this period more recent research often - following a suggestion by Fernand Van Steenberghen - speaks of a "heterodox" instead of averroism (of which as theological acceptable doctrine deviating) Aristotelianism. Often the opponents of the theorems did not (or not primarily) hold Averroes responsible for the "false doctrines", but rather Aristotle or "the Arabs".

The term “political averroism” has been coined in the research literature. This is how some researchers describe the political philosophy of Marsilius of Padua in particular . A connection between Averroistic ideas and the political stance of this church-critical philosopher is assumed. One sees an analogy between an averroistic separation of knowledge and belief and the political striving for an unbundling of state and church, and it is asserted that the way of thinking of the averroistic intellectual doctrine has been transferred to political philosophy. However, it has not been possible to precisely determine the content of “political averroism”. In recent research, the use of this term is largely judged very critically.

features

The differences of opinion between the thinkers who were fought as "Averroists" or as followers of the "false teachings" of Aristotle or "the Arabs" and their opponents primarily concerned the following "Averroist" positions, which were particularly controversial and therefore in modern terminology specific characteristics of averroism are:

  • the doctrine of the unity and uniqueness of the intellect (often imprecisely termed "monopsychism"). The Averroists believed that the intellect - both the active ( intellectus agens ) and the absorbing, passive ( intellectus possibilis ) - is only one and therefore the same in all people, because it deals with general concepts, natural laws and logic, which always and are the same everywhere. One should not actually say “This concrete person Socrates knows something”, but “In this person Socrates, as in all others, the general intellect manifests itself by bringing about knowledge”. The Averroists assigned a key role in the world order to the active intellect; some even identified him with God.
  • denying an individual immortality. According to church teaching, the individual soul is immortal and the individual as such is personally responsible for his conduct before God. Insofar as a person is understood as a rational being, the intellect is responsible for controlling his behavior. But if this - as the Averroists believe - is one and the same who is equally active in all people (insofar as the physical conditions allow this in the individual case), the assumption that each individual is personally liable before God for his or her acts and omissions loses theirs Basis. If the person dies, all that remains is the active intellect that existed before the person was conceived. So the individual perishes as such, and only the general intellect is imperishable. Thus there is no personal survival of death and therefore no otherworldly reward or punishment. Averroes' belief that God's providence applies to genera and species, not to individual individuals, fits this assumption. God takes no notice of the fate of individuals.
  • the eternity of the world. Like Aristotle, Averroes taught that the physical universe has no beginning and no end in time. He rejected a creation out of nothing; for him, creation occurs at every moment. Although he believed that his conception was compatible with the idea of ​​God as Creator, Christian opponents of averroism saw a contradiction to the biblical doctrine of creation and eschatology , which includes the announcement of a future end of the world.
  • Autonomy of reason. Reason may not be restricted in its conclusions by anything in its own area of ​​competence, and it is responsible for everything that is accessible to it. This view is not specifically averroistic, but is formulated particularly sharply in averroism.
  • The Averroists were more or less inclined to believe that world events are determined ; at least they discussed deterministic ideas. Opponents accused them of this assumption being incompatible with the doctrine of human free will . Theologically, free will was very important, because without it there was no basis for any otherworldly reward or punishment.

history

Islamic world

In the Islamic world, Averroes was little received in the Middle Ages and in the early modern period. Although he was valued as a legal scholar and listed in reference works as a well-known author, his philosophical ideas were hardly considered or met with rejection. Therefore, for the period before the 19th century, one cannot speak of Islamic averroism in the sense of a philosophical or theological trend. However, Averroes found individual readers. Among them were his immediate disciple Ibn Ṭumlūs as well as Ibn Taimīya , Ibn Chaldūn , Ahmad ibn Mustafa Tashköprüzade (16th century) and Mullā Sadrā .

Latin averroism

When the works of Averroes became known from the thirties of the 13th century, Christian scholars received them at first impartially and with great esteem. It was only after the middle of the 13th century that influential theologians recognized the explosiveness of some of the Aristotelian teachings presented by Averroes in their full scope. The Franciscan Johannes Peckham and the Dominican Robert Kilwardby sharply attacked this theologically problematic body of thought, and Albert the Great also turned against the Averroistic intellectual doctrine. In 1270 Thomas Aquinas wrote his pamphlet on the unity of the intellect against the Averroists (the traditional title may not be authentic). Thomas, who was himself an Aristotelian, took on an important role in the fight against the heterodox Aristotelian. His resolute demeanor contributed to the fact that the philosophers attacked as Averroists came more and more under suspicion of being heretics . Even Roger Bacon attacked the Averroists violently.

Conservative church circles had long been suspicious of Aristotelian natural philosophy. This led in 1277 to the condemnation of 219 Aristotelian and Averroist theses at the Sorbonne by the Parisian bishop Étienne Tempier . Nevertheless, there were still Averroists in Paris who were more or less open to their views, and the dispute in France and England moved well into the fourteenth century. The Averroists were accused of teaching a “double truth” - a philosophical one which, in their opinion, described the real situation, and an incompatible theological one, to which they only professed outwardly, since the Church prescribed this. Although no Averroist explicitly spoke of a “double truth”, there was in fact a discrepancy in some points between what was taught philosophically and what the church's doctrine of faith said.

Typical of the Averroists of the 13th century was their exuberantly expressed enthusiasm for philosophy, which they understood not only as a teaching, but above all as a way of life. In scientific work they saw the only natural meaning and purpose of life, the highest good and happiness, and in the philosophers the elite of mankind, who realize being human in a perfect way. In doing so, they tied in with an idea of ​​Averroes which he had expressed in the prologue of his commentary on the physics of Aristotle. There he wrote that only man who deals with scientific theory is man in the true sense of the word, because only he can realize the perfection that is inherent in his nature as a possibility, and that is where happiness and eternal life consist for him.

Siger von Brabant and Boetius von Dacien are considered to be the most prominent Averroists of the 13th century . Siger, however, referred to Aristotle more directly than to Averroes. Johann von Jandun emerged as a radical Averroist in the early 14th century , who came into open conflict with the church for other reasons. For him, only the appeal to nature and reason was permissible in science; the doctrines of belief stood unrelated to the philosophical statements. Johann's contemporaries Thomas Wilton and Johannes Baconthorpe were other leading representatives of the averroistic ideas. On the side of the opponents, Raimundus Lullus made a name for himself with a work written in 1310 in which he wanted to prove the teachings of Averroes to be erroneous ( Liber reprobationis aliquorum errorum Averrois ).

Scholastic Aristotelianism was only able to gain a foothold in Italy relatively late - towards the end of the 13th century - and with it Averroist ideas also emerged. The Aristotelian philosophy then found numerous followers, particularly in Bologna and Padua , but only a few of them adopted the Averroistic intellectual doctrine. Prominent Averroists in Bologna were Thaddäus of Parma and Angelus of Arezzo, who tried to work out a closed system in the early 14th century.

Italian averroism opposed not only the ecclesiastical hierarchy, but also important parts of the humanistic movement. Some of the humanists were Neoplatonic and anti-Aristotelian; In general, they were very critical of the scholastic science in which averroism had spread. The Aristotelians among them sought direct access to the works of Aristotle and distrusted medieval commentary, especially since da Averroes, who had no knowledge of Greek, had relied on Arabic translations.

The Italian Averroists did not form a homogeneous group. They were usually worldly-minded Aristotelians who held different views and did not reverence Averroes as a special authority, but only more or less shared his views on individual important issues. The terms “Paduan Averroism” and “School of Padua”, which are often used in research, are therefore questionable.

Averroistic ideas met with limited approval in Italy beyond the end of the Middle Ages. In 1513 the Fifth Lateran Council condemned the doctrine of the unity of the intellect and Pope Leo X proclaimed in the Bull Apostolici regiminis the individual immortality of the soul as a binding ecclesiastical dogma that had to be taught at universities. This ecclesiastical clarification shows that there was an influential Averroistic current at that time. To hers temporarily Pietro Pomponazzi (1462-1525), who himself explicitly called himself a Averroists, so took an expression commonly used by opponents as a self-designation. The doctrine of the intellect and the question of the immortality of the soul were discussed until the early 17th century. The last Italian Averroist was Professor Cesare Cremonini († 1631), who taught in Padua .

Jewish averroism

The Jewish reception of Averroes began in the 12th century with Maimonides , who knew at least part of the Arab philosopher's oeuvre and recommended it to be read. From 1232 many works by Averroes were translated into Hebrew, some even several times. The best-known representatives of Jewish averroism were Isaak Albalag in the 13th century and Mose Narboni (Mose von Narbonne ) and Levi ben Gershon (Latin Gersonides) in the 14th century . The Jewish Averroists dealt with the problem of the conflict between the truth claims of philosophy and revelation. Isaak Albalag represented a relatively radical variant of averroism. The attitude of the other two thinkers was more moderate.

Albalag emphasizes the elitist character of philosophy in contrast to the revelation intended for the masses. Faith and philosophy follow different paths; whoever is incapable of philosophy remains dependent on revelation. After one has ascertained the truth in a philosophical way, one can also search and find it in the revealed scriptures by interpreting them symbolically in such a way that there is a correspondence with what is philosophically known. Mose Narboni is committed to consistent Aristotelianism and sees Averroes as the best interpreter of Aristotle. Gersonides comments on numerous writings by Averroes, but attaches great importance to the independence of his own philosophical position.

Until the end of the 15th century, the Averroist movement remained alive in Judaism in Spain and southern France. Elija Delmedigo taught in Italy in the late 15th century , who combined the philosophy of Maimonides with Averroistic ideas and worked as a translator of Averroes (from Hebrew into Latin).

literature

  • André Bazzana et al. (Ed.): Averroès et l'averroïsme (XII e –XV e siècle). Un itinéraire historique du Haut Atlas à Paris et à Padoue . Presses Universitaires de Lyon, Lyon 2005, ISBN 2-7297-0769-7 (especially important for Jewish averroism)
  • Jameleddine Ben Abdeljelil: Ibn Ruschd's philosophy read intercultural (= intercultural library . Volume 4). Bautz, Nördlingen 2005
  • Jameleddine Ben Abdeljelil: Three Jewish Averroists: The high point and decline of Jewish averroism in the Middle Ages. In: Asian Studies / Études asiatiques 62, 2008, pp. 933–986
  • Luca Bianchi: The Bishop and the Philosophers. In: Kurt Flasch , Udo Reinhold Jeck (ed.): The light of reason. The beginnings of the Enlightenment in the Middle Ages. Beck, Munich 1997, ISBN 3-406-42310-8 , pp. 70-83
  • Jean-Baptiste Brenet (Ed.): Averroès et les averroïsmes juif et latin. Actes du Colloque International (Paris, June 16-18, 2005) . Brepols, Turnhout 2007, ISBN 978-2-503-52742-0
  • Dragos Calma: Etudes sur le premier siècle de l'averroïsme latin. Approches et textes inédits. Brepols, Turnhout 2011, ISBN 978-2-503-54291-1 .
  • Convegno internazionale L'averroismo in Italia (Roma, April 18-20, 1977) (= Atti dei Convegni Lincei . Volume 40). Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Rome 1979
  • Hermann Greive : Averroes, Averroism. III. Averroism in Judaism . In: Lexicon of the Middle Ages (LexMA). Volume 1, Artemis & Winkler, Munich / Zurich 1980, ISBN 3-7608-8901-8 , Sp. 1295.
  • Ludwig Hödl : About the averroistic turn of Latin philosophy of the Middle Ages in the 13th century. In: Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 39, 1972, pp. 171-204
  • Ludwig Hödl: Averroes, Averroism. II. Latin averroism . In: Lexicon of the Middle Ages (LexMA). Volume 1, Artemis & Winkler, Munich / Zurich 1980, ISBN 3-7608-8901-8 , Sp. 1292-1295 ( online , without the references).
  • Friedrich Niewöhner , Loris Sturlese (Ed.): Averroism in the Middle Ages and in the Renaissance. Spur, Zurich 1994, ISBN 3-9520127-4-2
  • Markus Zanner: Design features of the Averroes reception. A religious studies contribution to the history of the reception of the Islamic philosopher Ibn Ruschd (= Regensburg Studies on Theology , Volume 61). Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main 2002, ISBN 3-631-36629-9 (dissertation University of Regensburg 2001)

Remarks

  1. ↑ Friedrich Niewöhner: Averroism . In: Religion in Past and Present , 4th Edition, Volume 1, Tübingen 1998, Sp. 1023.
  2. ↑ Fernand Van Steenberghen: The Philosophy in the 13th Century , Munich 1977, pp. 341-350, 370-376.
  3. ↑ Wolfgang Hübener offers a research overview : Unprecedented reflections on the possible meaning of the topos “political averroism”. In: Friedrich Niewöhner, Loris Sturlese (Ed.): Averroism in the Middle Ages and in the Renaissance , Zurich 1994, pp. 222–238 (Hübener pleads for keeping the term). See Charles Edwin Butterworth : What is Political Averroism? In: Friedrich Niewöhner, Loris Sturlese (Ed.): Averroism in the Middle Ages and in the Renaissance , Zurich 1994, pp. 239–250.
  4. ↑ Roger Arnaldez: Ibn Rushd . In: The Encyclopaedia of Islam Volume 3, Leiden and London 1971, pp. 909-920, here: 919; Anke von Kügelgen: “Averroists” in the 20th Century - On Ibn Rušd's reception in the Arab world . In: Friedrich Niewöhner, Loris Sturlese (Ed.): Averroism in the Middle Ages and in the Renaissance , Zurich 1994, pp. 351–371, here: 351f.
  5. ↑ Ulrich Rudolph: Islamic Philosophy. From the beginning to the present , 3rd, extended edition, Munich 2013, p. 77.
  6. ^ Albert Zimmermann: Averroes. In: Lexicon for Theology and Church (LThK), 3rd edition, Volume 1, Herder, Freiburg im Breisgau 1993, Sp. 1309-1312, here: 1311.
  7. ↑ See Theodor W. Köhler : Fundamentals of the philosophical-anthropological discourse in the thirteenth century , Leiden 2000, pp. 610–622.
  8. ↑ Dag Nikolaus Hasse: Averroica secta: Notes on the Formation of Averroist Movements in Fourteenth-Century Bologna and Renaissance Italy . In: Jean-Baptiste Brenet (ed.): Averroès et les averroïsmes juif et latin. Actes du Colloque International (Paris, 16-18 June 2005) , Turnhout 2007, pp. 307-331, here: 316.
  9. ↑ Maurice-Ruben Hayoun, Alain de Libera: Averroès et l'averroïsme , Paris 1991, pp. 43-53.
  10. ↑ Maurice-Ruben Hayoun, Alain de Libera: Averroès et l'averroïsme , Paris 1991, pp. 54-67. Cf. Maurice-Ruben Hayoun: L'averroïsme dans les milieux intellectuels du judaïsme: Moïse de Narbonne (1300-1362) and Eliya Delmédigo (v. 1460-1493). In: André Bazzana et al. (Ed.): Averroès et l'averroïsme (XII e –XV e siècle). Un itinéraire historique du Haut Atlas à Paris et à Padoue , Lyon 2005, pp. 275–305, here: 275–296.