Al-Ghazâlî, Causality, and Knowledge Essay -- Arabic Philosophy Philos

Al-Ghazl, Causality, and KnowledgeABSTRACT Few passages in Arabic ism have attracted as much attention as al-Ghazls discussion of causativeity in the seventeenth discussion of Tahfut al-Falsafa, along with the result of Ibn Rushd (Averros) in his Tahfut al-Tahfut. A headland often asked is to what extent al-Ghazl preserve be called an occasionalist that is, whether he follows other Kalm thinkers in restricting causal agency to God alone. What has not been thoroughly addressed in antecedent studies is a question which al-Ghazl and Ibn Rushd both see as peremptory in the seventeenth discussion what theory of causality is sufficient to condone human fellowship? In this paper I show that al-Ghazls and Ibn Rushds theories of causality are closely related to their epistemologies. The difference between the devil thinkers can be briefly summerized as follows. For Ibn Rushd, the paradigm of human friendship is demonstrative science for al-Ghazl, in contrast, the paradigm of human knowledge is (or at least includes) revelation. Yet both remain committed to the first step of Aristotelian science and its underlying principles. Thus, I suggest that al-Ghazls location in the seventeenth discussion sheds light on his critique of philosophy in the Tahfut namely, philosophy is not inherently incoherent, but simply particular in scope. I in addition briefly compare this position to that of doubting Thomas Aquinas, in order to place the view in a more than familiar context. Few passages in Arabic philosophy have attracted as much attention as al-Ghazls discussion of causality in the seventeenth discussion of Tahfut al-Falsifa, along with the response of Ibn Rushd (Averros) in his Tahfut al-Tahfut. A question which has been addressed ... ...onalist reading of al-Ghazl, translates the same as sheer vilification, referring to the philosophers. Marmuras is clearly the give away translation (tashn being the verbal noun of to vilify), indicating that al-Ghazl is in f act referring spine to the criticism made by the philosophers. The passage is at Tahfut, p. 296. See also Riker, p. 319.(12) Tahfut, p. 300, p. 258. incline translation p. 330, p. 278.(13) Tahfut, p. 296. English translation, p. 325.(14) Tahfut, pp. 295-6. English translation, p. 324.(15) Tahfut, p. 294. English translation, p. 322.(16) Qurn 35.43, cited at Tahfut, p. 292. English translation, p. 320. See also Tahfut, p. 302, English translation, p. 333.(17) Tahfut, p. 296. English translation, p. 325.(18) Tahfut, p. 298. English translation, p. 327.(19) Tahfut, p. 84. English translation, p. 70.