Averroism


Also found in: Dictionary, Wikipedia.

Averroism

 

a trend in medieval philosophy founded by the 12th-century Arab philosopher ibn-Rushd (Aver-roës). Averroism developed the materialistic tendencies of ibn-Rushd’s interpretation of Aristotle—the idea of the eternity and, consequently, the absence of creation of the world, the mortality of the soul, and the theory of double truth—separating and even opposing knowledge to faith, philosophy to theology. Thus, in Averroism an antitheolog-ical tendency revealed itself—that “joyous free thinking,” which, as Engels put it, came to the Romance peoples from the Arabs and paved the way for the materialism of the 18th century (see his Dialectic of Nature, 1969, p. 7). Averroism was disseminated in Western Europe as a result of the Latin translations of ibn-Rushd’s works; its main representative there was Siger de Brabant, who was criticized by Thomas Aquinas in De unitate intellectus contra Averrois-tas. The persecution of the Averroists by the Catholic Church did not end their influence on European philosophy, as the appearance of the Spanish philosopher Lully in the 13th century demonstrates. In Italy, especially at the University of Padua, Averroism remained an influence until the 16th century. In 1513, Averroism was condemned by the Benevento council.

REFERENCES

Renan, E. Averroes i averroizm. Kiev, 1903. (Translated from French.)
Trakhtenberg, O. Ocherki po istorii zap.-evrop. sr.-vek. filosofii. Moscow, 1957.
Ley, H. Ocherk istorii sr.-vek. materializma. Moscow, 1962. (Translated from German.)
O’Leary, De Lacy E. Arabic Thought and Its Place in History. London, 1939.

S. N. GRIGORIAN

References in periodicals archive ?
Keywords: Ramon Llull, Averroism, Pagan Philosophy, Scholasticism, Medieval University.
What transpires from De Bellis's reports and interpretations is a confluence of late medieval Aristotelianism, recent Averroism, humanism, and Renaissance Platonism.
Descartes' Averroism is however a revised Averroism; while Descartes' tripartite division of humanity shares certain goals with Averroes', they remain fundamentally different in inspiration and intention.
Returning to Leon in the years 1216-1236, what is truly amazing is that such a large movement with all its social and popular implications could have gotten its impetus from readings of Aristotle's libri naturales and, in all probability, from the version commented on by Averroes, since everything proposed by this Leonese group, as Martinez Casado makes clear, brims with a radical Aristotelianism and even, at points, that brand of Averroism that was both radical and popular.
Among the topics are Plato and Aristotle on the vocation of the philosopher, Maimonides and the imagination, Paduan Averroism reconsidered, Maimonides and Spinoza on good and evil, philosophy and religion in Spinoza and Luzzatto, and Harry A.
Bradley, Bergson, Russell and Whitehead, for he continues: "I am referring to a revivified form of Averroism, whose historical curve can be traced, via our own Renaissance and via the Cambridge school till at last, the most refined and precious flower of empiricism, it finishes as a new and extremely subtle version of recent American realism" [ibid].
I am not an expert in this area and do not read Arabic although I have spent some time in the "Middle East" yet I venture to say that Islamic humanism developed by Ibn Sina who founded Avicennism, and Ibn Rushd who founded Averroism, on the basis of interpretations of Aristotelianism, Neoplatonism, and Neopythagoreanism, introduced a synthesis of Aristotelism and Islamic theology on the unity of God and the immortality of the soul to the Arab world, and then played a role in transmitting both Greek and Hindu philosophy to the Christian West.
That is, prior to the Nominalist critique of Averroism, "natural things were not objects as such.
He had to be careful of course not to appear too close to Averroism.
The aim of the work is rather highly formulated and one may doubt whether it could be realized in a single volume: to reconstruct "the reception of Aristotelian psychology in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries with special references to the relevant schools in antiquity and the Middle Ages--Alexandrism, Neoplatonism, Averroism, and Thomism" (29).
Pinto, whose paper is very much dependent on Alain de Libera's studies on Aquinas and Averroism, seems fond of oversimplified dualisms.