Skip to main content

The Unity of the Intellect I


 Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews has a review up of a new book on Averroes' thought, especially on the critical question of the unity of the intellect.

The book is by Stephen R. Ogden, of Notre Dame' s philosophy faculty. 

The review is the work of Kendall A. Fisher, of Gonzaga University. 

Averroes on Intellect: From Aristotelian Origins to Aquinas’ Critique | Reviews | Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews | University of Notre Dame (nd.edu)

Averroes is the philosopher known in the Arab speaking world as Ibn Rushd. One of the propositions for which he is well known among scholars in the history of philosophy is, as I mentioned above, that of the unity of the intellect. This is the proposition (which Averroes attributed to Aristotle) that all human beings share a single eternal intellect. Further, this single intellect is separate from our material selves.  

It is an exegetically tricky question whether Averroes was right to read Aristotle that way. But it hardly matters: Averroes was neither the first nor the last to use the pose of a commentator upon an agreed august authority to advance his own views. 

The Averroes/Aristotle argument for only One Human Mind proved to be so powerful that it introduced the issue of "double truth" when the Latin speaking world acquired some of the pertinent texts, as the Spanish Conquistadors were capturing formerly Moorish cities with solid libraries. 

It was shocking that this soul-like thing, the Aristotelean Mind, could be attributed to the whole of mankind. How is God supposed to condemn some of us and save a remnant of us, after all, if we are all One? So the "Latin Averroists" apparently started saying that the truth according to reason is not the same as the truth according to faith -- that they have the faith and so reject the inference of the unity of the intellect, but they don't have any good REASON to reject it and don't think anyone else does either. 

One of Thomas Aquinas' chief roles in the development of the theology of the western church was as the guy who answered Averroes. He gave exegetical arguments that Aristotle didn't mean what Averroes had him meaning, and philosophical arguments that anyone who DOES mean that is in error. This became canonical and allowed the Church the confidence to crack down on the whole doubleness-of-truth thing.     




Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti
7 comments
Read more

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers
Post a Comment
Read more

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak
13 comments
Read more