Averroes (Ibn Rushd)

Latest BBC “In Our Time” is an excellent discussion on Muslim philosopher generally known as Averroes. Worth listening to in it’s entirety. (Ibn Rushd on Wikipedia)

Points of interest for me …

Etymology – I have a thing about spotting B’s and V’s but it’s so clear here. The patronymic family naming prefix “son  of” or simply “from” or “out of” in the Av, Ab, Ave, Aven, Von, Van, Bin, Ben, Ibn, (and all the European son / sen suffices of course) The whole B, V, M, Mp, Mb, N blur. The two versions of the name here are just alternate pronunciations of the same underlying concept of being someones child, and clearly just an evolution of the sound in the telling from Proto-Indo-European (Aryan) origins. But I’m no expert.

Ave … Roes / Rush
Ibn … Rushd / Rushdi / Rashid

(The other example that fascinates me is the R & T – rta / art / craft – combinations that Pirsig dwells on.)

Afterlife – as Aristotle’s continuity of intellect, in limbo in the Dante “Divine Comedy” sense, but also as a continuous (eternal) semantic web whose Platonic forms are merely intersected by temporary brains and individual minds.

Philosophy – as the definitive reading of religious texts. Supported by rationale that only the examined life can provide (“look around” says the Quran). Hierarchical interpretation from the head of a “church” down simply being different abstractions or metaphorical simplifications for different practical purposes. From scholars and theologians down to the “masses”. (Nice lead into St Thomas Aquinas later “scholastic” work.)

Fascinating. Nothing new under the sun.

3 thoughts on “Averroes (Ibn Rushd)”

  1. “continuous (eternal) semantic web whose Platonic forms are merely intersected by temporary brains and individual minds.”

    This is very, very nice.

  2. Thanks Alice. Not sure I actually invented that … just joined other people’s words together.

  3. A reply to this question might help me out a great deal in writing a dialogue for my Philosophy class.
    “Write a dialogue between Aristole (Greek philosopher) and Ibn Rushd or Averroes (Muslim Philosopher) restricted to the following question:

    “Is reason both necessary and sufficient for knowledge?”

    Any overview into the general stances taken by the two would be welcome. I have been able to point out Aristotle’s philosophy on reason but can’t seen to separate Ibn Rushd’s philosophy on reason from his stance that God encourages us to seek knowledge through reason. You seem to be knowledgeable on the subject. Thank you.


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.