Welcome back to the Deep Dive. Today we're taking
a journey that starts a long way from the usual
intellectual centers you might think of. We're
not in Rome, not in Athens. No, we are dropping
ourselves right into the heart of 12th century
Al -Andalus, what we now call Spain. Specifically,
into Cordoba. And at this time, Cordoba was this
just... bustling, brilliant center of learning.
It's really where Western Europe first started
to rediscover its own classical roots. And our
focus is on a monumental figure, a man whose
authority became so immense in Europe that he
was known simply by a title, the commentator.
We're talking about Abu al -Walid Muhammad ibn
Ahmad ibn Rushd. Better known to the Latin West,
of course, as Averroes. And when we say he was
a polymath, we truly mean it. Our sources are
just filled with awe at the variety of fields
he was proficient in. We're talking philosophy,
medicine, law, astronomy. Right. This wasn't
a man who just, you know, dipped his toe into
a few subjects. Not at all. He mastered them,
all of them. He was, in a very real sense, a
kind of universal genius, but born four centuries
before the Renaissance really got going. Absolutely.
So the mission of this deep dive is to unpack
the story behind these grand titles. We want
to reveal how this Andalusian scholar became
the definitive authority on Aristotle for both
Christian and Jewish Europe. And why he's so
often called the father of rationalism. into
how his really radical defensive reason led to
his own books being burned on the caliph's orders
in his own lifetime. It's an incredible story
of intellectual rigor versus, you know, political
reality. But before we jump in, let's just clarify
the names, because for a deep dive, clarity is
everything. Good idea. Ibn Rushd is his original
Arabic name. Avaros is simply the Latinization.
And that probably came from how it was pronounced
in Spain, right? It's believed so, yeah. The
Ibn prefix can sound a bit like oven or abin
in Spanish pronunciation. And from there, it's
a short hop to Avaros. But whether you call him
Ibn Rushd or Avaros, those titles are what really
matter. The commentator for his just unparalleled
analysis of Aristotle. And father of rationalism
for making the audacious claim. That philosophical
reason isn't just, you know, compatible with
faith, but that it's actually a religious obligation.
That really sets the stage. Let's start by walking
through the high stakes, politically charged
life that he lived. So Averroes was born in Cordoba
in 1126. And this wasn't a humble beginning.
Not at all. His family was already deeply, deeply
rooted in public service, especially in the legal
establishment. They were, you could say, legal
royalty. And not just any legal family. His grandfather
was a massive figure in the city. A huge figure.
He served as the chief judge, the qadi of Cordoba.
And at the same time, he was the imam of the
great mosque. This was under the previous dynasty,
the Almerevids. So to be born into that family.
It meant he was basically destined for the highest
levels of religious and legal authority. Exactly.
And that context is so vital because it completely
shaped his education. He received what the sources
call an excellent traditional education, which
meant a deep, deep immersion in the Islamic sciences.
So what did that entail specifically? It meant
studying fief, which is jurisprudence, hadith.
the traditions of the Prophet Muhammad and, of
course, theology. Specifically, he was part of
the Maliki school of law, which was the dominant
legal tradition in al -Andalus. And the sources
even mention he memorized Imam Malik's Muwata.
Yes, which is this enormous collection of legal
traditions. Memorizing it is a monumental feat.
It shows his mastery of traditional Islamic law
was absolutely complete. So he was a superstar
jurist just waiting to happen. But the thing
that really defined him, the thing that created
all that tension later in his life was that he
didn't stop there. That's the crucial hinge.
He didn't just accept the traditional curriculum.
He aggressively pursued what were called the
sciences of the ancients, Greek philosophy, mathematics,
medicine, science. He wanted both worlds. He
insisted on both worlds. He sought out the works
of Greek thinkers and their Muslim predecessors.
We know for a fact he studied the works of Ibn
Bajjah, who was also known as Avin Pace. And
he was one of the earliest advocates for a pure
form of Aristotelianism in the region, right?
That's right. So this means Avros was completely
fluent in the language of sacred texts and in
the language of cutting edge rational philosophy.
He could code switch between them perfectly.
And that dual fluency put him on the map very,
very quickly. By 1153, he's already in Marrakesh.
Which was the capital of the powerful Almohad
Empire at the time. And he's not there as a tourist.
He's engaged in advanced scientific work, specifically
astronomical observations. What was he trying
to do? His goal was incredibly ambitious. He
was trying to find the physical laws that govern
the movement of the planets and stars. It was
this early, bold attempt to reconcile the mathematical
models of the cosmos. Like Ptolemy's. Exactly,
with the physical reality described by Aristotle.
Now, the sources say this particular research
program didn't succeed, but it really highlights
his commitment to physical science and observation
from an early age. But the real game changer
for his career came through a friendship. He
connects with the philosopher and court physician,
Ibn Tufail. And that relationship led to his
famous introduction to the ruling caliph, Abu
Yaqub Yusuf, around the year 1169. This is the
moment where his academic knowledge becomes a
major political asset and, well, later a liability.
Right. And that initial meeting is just this
classic anecdote. It perfectly illustrates the
tightrope walk of being an intellectual in the
Kallus court. It does. The caliph, who really
prided himself on his own learning, asks Averroes
a question that was just explosive in theological
circles. He asks him whether the heavens were
created in time or if they had existed eternally.
Let's just pause on that. That was not a casual
question. That was the central charge of heresy
leveled against philosophers by the Orthodox
theologians. To answer eternal meant you were
denying God's absolute creative power over time
itself. It was a potential death sentence. So
how did Averroes handle it? He was initially
very cautious. The sources say he sensed the
danger and just stayed silent. But the caliph
was persistent. And then he did something amazing.
He started showcasing his own deep knowledge
of the subject. He wasn't just testing it. No,
he was inviting him into a real discussion. He
started talking about the views of Plato, Aristotle,
and other Muslim thinkers on this very topic.
He proved he wasn't trying to trap Averroes,
but that he genuinely wanted to explore the question.
Which must have put Averroes at ease. Yeah. He
realized he was in the company of a genuine,
philosophically -minded patron. Completely. And
so he then proceeded to explain his own nuanced
position, which impressed the caliph immensely.
Averroes later remarked that the caliph had,
and I'm quoting here, a profuseness of learning
I did not suspect. That's the ultimate academic
seal of approval. And that one meeting secured
his entire career trajectory. See, the caliph
had complained to Ibn Tufaw before about how
difficult Aristotle's original texts were. Too
dense, too complex. So the caliph then commissioned
Averroes to write clear, accessible commentaries
to basically unlock Aristotle's wisdom for him
and for the court. Talk about a mandate. And
the rewards came almost immediately. In 1169,
Averroes is appointed quadia judge in Seville.
Two years later, in 1171, he's appointed quadia
back in his hometown of Cordoba. And during this
period, he's just unbelievably productive. He's
a judge, he's traveling, but he's also writing
constantly. The sources show it was a period
of intense productivity. He's writing philosophy,
law, and medicine, all while holding down this
very demanding public office. And his rise just
continued. In 1182, he succeeds his friend Ibn
Tufayl as the court physician. And later that
same year, he gets the ultimate family honor.
He's appointed chief qadi of Cordoba, the exact
same prestigious office his grandfather had held.
He's at the absolute pinnacle of power, of scholarship,
of royal favor for more than a decade. But we
know how these stories go. The political winds
can shift violently. And they did. The sources
tell us his fortunes reversed just dramatically
around 1195 under the new caliph, Abu Yusuf Yaqub.
It was a sudden and shocking fall from grace.
Completely. Averroes faced charges, a tribunal
was held in Cordoba, his teachings were formally
condemned, and his philosophical works were ordered
to be collected and burned in public. And he
was banished. He was banished to Lucina, a city
near Cordoba. It served as a sort of temporary
exile. That's the ultimate irony, isn't it? The
man who was commissioned by the caliphate to
clarify philosophy is now condemned by that same
caliphate for his philosophical views. Why? Why
the sudden shift? Well, modern historians are
pretty clear on this. It was less about a genuine
intellectual change of heart from the caliph
and more about... Cold, hard political maneuvering.
Okay, so what was the political situation? The
caliph was locked in a fierce existential war
against the Christian kingdoms in the north of
the Iberian Peninsula. And to rally the populace
to maintain morale and unity, he desperately
needed the support of the orthodox religious
establishment. The Ulema, the religious scholars.
Exactly. And the Ulema had always seen a pharaoh's
brand of radical rationalism as deeply, deeply
threatening to their authority. Because he was
challenging their method. their right to be the
sole interpreters of scripture. Precisely. So
by publicly condemning Averroes, by burning his
books and banishing him, the caliph was performing
a very calculated political act. He was sacrificing
his star philosopher to appease the powerful
traditional religious bloc whose support he needed
to win the war. So philosophy was a luxury. It
was fine when the court was stable and curious,
but when political survival was on the line,
the rationalist had to go. It truly just underscores
the fragility of intellectual freedom when it
clashes with state power. Now, he was eventually
recalled to court in Marrakesh shortly before
he died in 1198, which suggests the political
pressures had eased up. But the damage was done.
And the incident just stands as this potent symbol
of the tension between reason and traditional
authority. OK, so moving from his life to his
work, the sheer volume is. It's almost unbelievable.
Our sources say over 100 books and treatises.
And covering a wider array of subjects than any
of his predecessors. But the reason we call him
the commentator, the reason he has that singular
title is Aristotle. His dedication to Aristotle
was total. I mean, he took on this monumental
task of commenting on nearly all of Aristotle's
surviving works. Right. And as you noted, the
only major exception was Aristotle's politics,
which for whatever reason had been lost to the
Islamic world at that time. But since politics
was unavailable. Averroes didn't just ignore
political science. He found a substitute, a pretty
major one. He did. He wrote comprehensive commentaries
on Plato's The Republic instead. He used it as
the foundational text for political science.
And then he synthesized Plato's political framework
with the concept of the ideal Islamic state,
which had to be based on Sharia law. That ability
to adapt and fill in these huge intellectual
gaps really speaks volumes about his scholarly
drive. It really does. So let's dive into the
commentaries themselves. This is really where
he organizes his legacy. And he wrote three distinct
types for different purposes. Yes. These three
levels of commentary were tailored to different
audiences and different needs. The first level
were the short commentaries or the jammy. And
these were for beginners. Essentially. Yeah.
They were simple, straightforward summaries of
the doctrines, probably written early in his
career, intended for students or anyone who just
needed a quick reference, a sort of Aristotle
for dummies, if you will. Okay, and the next
level up, this was probably the most important
one for the caliph who commissioned him, the
middle commentaries. The talkies. And yes, these
were the paraphrases. They were designed specifically
to clarify and simplify the original Aristotelian
texts. These were the works meant to solve the
caliph's frustration, to make dense philosophy
accessible to an educated layman, to the court.
So they summarized the arguments without getting
bogged down in all the tiny textual disputes.
Exactly. But then you have the third level. The
truly defining works, the ones that earned him
that singular title, the commentator in the West,
the long commentaries, the Tafsir or the Shar.
And these were a completely different beast.
A completely different beast. These were massive,
line by line, exhaustive analyses. They would
include the complete original text of Aristotle.
And then that would be followed by Averroes'
extensive dissection, his comparison of different
interpretations and his defense of the ideas.
Definitely not for a general audience. No. These
were meant for serious, advanced scholars, and
they contain the highest degree of Evro's own
original philosophical thought. And his mission
within all these commentaries wasn't just to
explain Aristotle. It was, as he saw it, to purify
him. He wanted to restore the philosophy to its
original teachings. Why did he feel Aristotle
needed purifying? Because he believed that the
previous and hugely influential Muslim philosophers,
specifically Al -Farabi and most importantly
Avicenna, had corrupted Aristotle. They had woven
in Neoplatonic concepts that he felt had no place
there. Okay, let's slow down here because this
is where the philosophical nuance is critical.
What exactly did Neoplatonism inject into the
conversation that Averroes found so distasteful?
The primary injection was the doctrine of emanation.
Now, Aristotle's physics explained the world
through, you know, change, movement, causation,
things you can observe, but not through a kind
of flowing hierarchical process of creation.
So what is emanation? Emanation, as Avicenna
adopted it, proposed that the entire cosmos flows
downward from the singularity of God in these
successive stages. It's like a waterfall of being.
First come the pure intelligences, then the celestial
spheres, and finally, at the very bottom, our
physical world. So a tiered waterfall -like creation
model. Precisely. And Averroes argued that this
concept of emanation was utterly fallacious and
completely foreign to Aristotle's actual surviving
works. For him, Avicenna wasn't interpreting
Aristotle. He was replacing Aristotle's logic
and physics with this mystical cosmological system.
So Averroes saw himself as correcting the historical
record. He did. It sounds like an internal battle
over the true inheritance of Greek thought. If
you follow Avicenna, you're following a synthesis.
a blend. If you follow Everose, you're a purist.
You follow the original text. It's interesting
because he even agreed with some of the critiques
that the anti -philosophy theologian Al -Ghazali
had leveled against Avicenna. Yes, but for completely
different reasons. Al -Ghazali said Avicenna's
emanation was heresy because it wasn't in the
Quran. Everose said it was simply bad philosophy
because it wasn't in Aristotle. He also tackled
this huge metaphysical issue, the relationship
between existence and essence. Now, this sounds
very abstract, but it has huge implications for
how you understand what reality even is. It's
highly technical, but let's try to make it concrete.
Avicenna held what we called the distinction
between essence and existence. For him, essence
is what a thing is. It's blueprint, you know,
dogness or chairness. And existence is just an
accident that gets added to it later. Like having
the architectural plans for a house. That's the
essence. And then actually building it is adding
the accident of existence. Perfect analogy. And
Averroes completely rejected that ordering. He
argued the reverse. Absolutely. He said you don't
start with a pure essence that then accidentally
becomes real. Something is. It exists, per se.
You can only figure out its essence, its blueprint,
through a later process of abstraction and examination.
For Averroes, existence is the primary reality.
Essence is what you derive from that reality.
That's a deep sh**. deep disagreement. This wasn't
about minor textual points. This was about the
fundamental nature of reality itself. Right.
And Averroes' goal was just to strip away all
this metaphysical complexity that had built up
over centuries and return to what he saw as Aristotle's
clear empirical common sense logic. And that
commitment to intellectual honesty, regardless
of the source, is summed up so well in that Famous
quote from the sources. It is. He wrote that
if wisdom has been previously inquired into,
it behooves us to seek help from what he has
said. It is irrelevant whether he belongs to
our community or to another. That declaration,
that truth is truth, regardless of the faith
of the person who found it, that's the hallmark
of the rationalist spirit that defines his entire
body of work. So this philosophical work, as
we discussed earlier, was happening in an extremely
hostile environment. The whole project of philosophy
was under fire. Very much so. Most notably from
the Ashari theologian Al -Ghazali, whose work
The Incoherence of the Philosophers was this
massive attempt to just dismantle the entire
structure of Avicennan philosophy and accuse
its followers of, well, non -belief. And this
political and theological pressure is the necessary
context for Avra's most important standalone
work, Fossil Amical. The decisive treatise on
the harmony between religious law and philosophy.
written in 1178 and this was not just a defense
of philosophy it was a counter -attack his central
thesis is monumental the compatibility of reason
and revelation that they can coexist he argues
they can do more than coexist they must agree
because as he says truth cannot contradict truth
his argument was so elegant If revelation from
scripture and reason from philosophy are both
valid paths to the one ultimate truth, then they
cannot ultimately conflict with one another.
But, I mean, they inevitably seem to conflict,
especially on these big cosmological questions
like the creation of the universe. So what did
Evero say about handling those clashes? this
is his most radical move he says that if the
conclusion you reach through rigorous demonstrative
philosophical reason appears to clash with the
literal text of scripture then what then the
scripture must be interpreted allegorically The
literal text, by necessity, must yield to the
proven truth of reason. Wait, let's slow down
on the implications of that. Traditionally, the
religious scholars, the Ulama, held the absolute
authority for interpreting scripture. By making
the literal text yield to the rational conclusion,
Avros isn't just defending philosophy. He's fundamentally
challenging the entire religious establishment's
intellectual power. He is shifting the entire
burden of interpretation. He argued that this
difficult duty of allegorical interpretation
falls only to those rooted in knowledge, which
is a phrase he takes directly from the Quran.
And for Averroes, who are the people rooted in
knowledge? The philosophers, the masters of logic.
He created a hierarchy of understanding, and
he placed the most rigorous intellectual method
philosophy at the absolute apex of religious
scholarship. That's a heavy burden to claim,
and as he found out, a potentially fatal political
position to take. And he went even further. He
argued philosophy wasn't just permissible, but
an active religious obligation. He actually issued
a fatwa, a formal legal opinion, suggesting that
philosophy was likely an obligation or wajib.
His logic was simple and, he argued, rooted in
scripture itself. The Quran frequently calls
on believers to study nature, to reflect on the
world. And he asks why. Because the deeper your
empirical and rational study of nature becomes,
the more profound your knowledge of God, whom
he calls the artisan or the maker. So if God
commands reflection and philosophy is the most...
rigorous method of reflection, then the serious
study of philosophy is, in effect, a religious
act of worship. Precisely. It completely turns
a theologian's critique on its head. He's saying,
you must do this to be a better Muslim, provided,
of course, that you have the intellectual talent
for it. And to make this system manageable for
society, he formalized his famous three modes
of discourse, which define how different people
can access truth. Yes, and these modes are defined
by their logical rigor. At the bottom, you have
the rhetorical mode. This is based on persuasion,
using imagery, metaphor, arguments that are highly
accessible. And that's the Quran's primary mode.
Averroes says yes, because its message has to
reach the common masses, the fishermen, the farmer,
the merchant, in order to guide them to salvation.
It has to be persuasive. Okay, then there's the
middle ground. That's the dialectical mode. This
is based on debate, using plausible opinions
and arguments that are often probable but not
absolutely certain. And this, crucially, is the
method used by the theologians, the ulama. So
he's saying they're good at debate. But their
method can only achieve high probability, not
absolute certainty. Exactly. And that brings
us to the pinnacle, which is only for the elite.
The demonstrative mode. This is based on pure,
necessary logical deduction and demonstration.
It yields absolute, certain knowledge. The exclusive
domain of the philosopher. The exclusive domain
of the philosopher. By classifying the theologian's
method as merely dialectical, he intellectually
undercut their authority, stating they simply
couldn't achieve the highest level of truth.
He also applied this rigor to defining God's
nature, especially in his work The Exposition
of the Methods of Proof. He found a lot of flaws
in the standard proof for God's existence used
by the various Islamic sects. Yeah, he criticized
the prevailing cosmological arguments, you know,
arguments based on cause and effect or contingency
as being logically unsound or at least vulnerable
to philosophical attack. So what did he offer
instead? He presented two arguments for God's
existence that he claimed were both logically
sound and aligned with the clear purpose of the
Quran. And these were teleological arguments.
Arguments based on design and purpose. So cosmological.
asks, why is there something rather than nothing?
Teleological asks, why is everything so perfectly
arranged? That's a great summary. His first was
the argument from Providence. He looked at the
fine tuning of the natural world, the orbit of
the sun, the predictability of the moon, the
location of rivers, the precise environment humans
need to flourish. Averroes argued that this vast
systematic arrangement suggests a creator who
is deliberately concerned with the welfare of
mankind. It points to a benevolent designer.
And the second argument. The argument from invention.
This focused more on the micro level on worldly
entities like animals and plants and their complex
internal systems. He said these things appear
so clearly invented or fabricated, exhibiting
a design and function that just can't be explained
by accident. Therefore, they necessitate a designer
who is God. So by focusing on observation and
purpose, he's grounding his theology in the empirical
reality that Aristotle loved. He is. And he even
tried to moderate one of the most volatile theological
debates of his time, the pre -eternity of the
world. As we mentioned, Al -Ghazali used this
very issue to accuse philosophers of outright
unbelief of Kufr. Avro stepped right into that
fire to cool things down. He did. He argued that
the difference between the two positions, whether
the world was created from nothing at a specific
moment or whether it has existed eternally, was
subtle and nuanced. It wasn't nearly severe enough
to warrant a charge of unbelief. So how did he
reconcile the idea of an eternal world with the
Quran's description of creation? He argued the
conflict was mostly semantic. He pointed to Quranic
verses that mentioned pre -existing entities
like God's throne and water, suggesting that
something was eternal. His final conclusion was
that the Quran implies only the form of the universe.
Its present arrangement and structure was created
in time, but its underlying existence has always
been connected to God. And he basically told
the theologians to back off. He sharply criticized
them, the muticalimen, for addressing these complex
cosmological questions that, in his view, only
truly belong to the advanced domain of philosophy.
He was carving out a rational middle ground.
Now, Averroes wasn't just a philosopher. He was
a scientist and a political theorist. Let's look
at his pioneering work in these other fields,
starting with political philosophy, where, as
we said, he had to rely on Plato. Right. Because
Aristotle's politics was missing, he was commenting
on Plato's The Republic. And that meant he had
to interpret it within his own cultural and religious
context. He synthesized Plato's ideals with the
structure of the Islamic state. So for him, the
ideal state had to be based on Sharia. It had
to be. And he interpreted Plato's famous philosopher
king as being the imam or the caliph, essentially
merging the spiritual and temporal rational ruler
into a single ideal figure. And this interpretation
also justified the use of force, didn't it? It
did. He taught that the ideal state uses two
methods to instill virtue in its citizens. Persuasion,
which uses those rhetorical, dialectical, and
demonstrative methods we talked about. And coercion.
He justified war as a necessary last resort,
supported by Quranic principles, for those citizens
or external enemies who could not be brought
around by reason alone. But his views on women,
which he derived from his reading of Plato, are
genuinely startling for the 12th century. They
are profoundly advanced. I mean, Averroes explicitly
called for women to share administrative and
public roles with men. He went so far as to include
serving as soldiers, philosophers and even as
rulers. That is a striking critique of his own
society. It's a massive critique. He argued that
the prevailing Muslim societies of his time were
unjustly limiting women's public participation.
And he deemed this restriction not just unfair,
but actively harmful to the state's overall economic
and political well -being. You're wasting half
the state's talent. He also used Plato's model
of political decay to analyze the history of
the caliphate itself. Yes, he saw the initial
ideal period, the Rashidun Caliphate, as a reflection
of Plato's ideal state. But he observed that
it had deteriorated into less virtuous forms
of government, following that classic platonic
path from a democracy rule by honor and the military
to an oligarchy rule by the wealthy, then to
a democracy, which Plato saw as ruled by the
volatile mob, and finally to tyranny. And he
saw his own time as being on that downward slide.
He saw his contemporary political situation as
being firmly on that downward slide. Yes. OK,
let's switch gears completely. His medical contributions.
Even though he confessed to having pretty limited
clinical practice. Yeah, he said he only treated
myself, my relatives, or my friends. Despite
that, his theoretical output was massive. It
was. His major medical text, Alculiat Fi Al Tib,
or Cullegit as it was known in Latin, became
a staple textbook across European medical universities
for centuries. It was a comprehensive treatise
on general medical principles. But inside it
were some breakthroughs that truly overturned
the old, glenic, and earlier era of medical thinking.
What stands out in terms of anatomy? His work
on vision. For centuries, the prevailing theory
from Galen was that the lens of the eye was the
primary light sensing organ. Averroes may have
been the very first person to correctly identify
the retina as the part of the eye responsible
for sensing light and color. That's a huge step
toward modern ophthalmology. It changes the entire
understanding of how vision actually works. It's
a critical step. And his neurological insights
were also way ahead of their time, particularly
concerning complex diseases. What are we talking
about here? Two things jump out. First, he provided
some of the initial clinical descriptions of
the signs and symptoms of a condition that modern
physicians immediately recognize as Parkinson's
disease, decades and decades before it was formally
named in the West. He described the tremors,
the rigidity, the gait changes. And the second
one. His theory on the pathology of stroke. He
moved away from the dominant Galenic theory,
which often attributed strokes to peripheral
obstructions or blockages far from the brain.
Erivers proposed that strokes were caused by
the obstruction of arteries directly within the
cerebrum, the brain itself. Which is remarkably
close to our modern understanding of ischemic
and hemorrhagic strokes. It's much, much closer.
But if we want to talk about true intellectual
fireworks, the single most controversial idea
he ever put forward, we have to talk about his
psychological theory. The unity of the intellect.
The unity of the intellect. This is where Latin
Averroism gets its name, and this is why the
church condemned him so fiercely. This concept,
which he lays out in his long commentary on Aristotle's
On the Soul, is complex and incredibly radical.
So what was the problem he was trying to solve?
He was grappling with this fundamental problem.
How can individual humans, who are mortal and
made of matter, achieve universal certain knowledge?
knowledge that seems to transcend any one individual.
And what was his startling conclusion about the
hardware that makes this kind of thought possible?
He argued that there is only one material intellect
and the single intellect is common to all of
humanity. And crucially, this universal intellect
is unmixed with any individual human body. It's
separate, it's eternal, and it's shared. Okay,
let's unpack that. Think of it as a like a single
shared cloud server that hosts all of humanity's
Potential knowledge. That's a fantastic modern
analogy, yes. But that immediately raises a massive
obvious problem. If we all share the same universal
brain software, where does me stop and you begin?
How do we account for the unique individual thoughts
and experiences that make us distinct people?
That is the billion -dollar question. And Navarro
has accounted for individual experience by introducing
a concept he called Or what became known as cogitatio
in Latin. Cogitatio. That's the root of Descartes,
I think. Therefore, I am. Precisely. For Averroes,
cogitatio is the individual process that happens
in our specific physical human brains. It involves
the active consideration of particular things
that each person has encountered. Your individual
sensory input, your memories, the specific life
experiences that are unique to you. So the body
is individual, the experiences are individual,
but at the highest rational faculty itself is
universal and shared. That's the theory. I can
immediately see why this was so controversial.
If the intellect is universal and separate from
my body, it severely undermines the Christian
and Muslim theological concept of individual
immortality and the distinct personal soul. Exactly.
If our best part, our rational mind, is shared,
what's left of the unique you after death? That
was the heart of the critique, and that is why
it was so violently rejected by theologians like
Thomas Aquinas. It threatened to render individual
moral responsibility indistinct, or at the very
least, highly questionable. Okay, and finally,
let's just touch upon his work in astronomy,
which was driven by his commitment to pure Aristotelian
physics, even if it led him into, well, a conceptual
dead end. He was a very harsh critic of the dominant
mathematical model of his time, which was the
Ptolemaic system. Ptolemy used these clever devices
like epicycles and eccentrics, basically, circles
moving on other circles, to accurately calculate
the bizarre observed movements of the planets.
And the model worked for prediction. It was accurate.
But Averroes had a philosophical objection to
it. His objection was that it didn't reflect
physical reality. Aristotle's physics demanded
uniform, perfectly circular motions all centered
on the Earth. Ptolemy's mathematical tricks violated
that physical purity. And he had that famous
quote about it. Yes, he famously declared that
the astronomy of our time offers no truth, but
only agrees with the calculations and not with
what exists. He wanted an astronomy where the
physics and the math aligned perfectly. He tried
to lead a reform, but was he successful in fixing
it? He ultimately confessed that he failed to
resolve the inconsistencies between the observed
heavens and the requirements of pure Aristotelian
physics. He said he lacked the time and the knowledge.
But his philosophical demand for physical reality
over purely predictive math deeply influenced
later astronomers in Al -Andalus, like Nur ad
-Din al -Batruji. And he still used observation
to make important points. He did. He used his
own observations, like the fact that the star
Canopus was visible in Marrakesh, but not up
in Spain, to provide more empirical evidence
for the already established theory of a spherical
Earth. So we have this massive intellectual figure,
a judge, a doctor, a philosopher, whose works
were literally burned in his home country because
of political expediency. And yet he becomes the
commentator. So where did this monumental influence...
truly take root. Paradoxically, it flourished
in the West, in the Latin Christian world. You
have to remember, after the fall of the Western
Roman Empire, vast portions of Aristotle's corpus,
the very foundation of Greek philosophy, have
been lost to Europe. And Averroes' commentaries
were the key. They were the essential intellectual
apparatus to reintroduce Aristotle to Western
Europe. He essentially handed them the keys to
their own classical past, along with a detailed
instruction manual. The translation efforts began
in the early 13th century. Yes, in earnest, notably
by a man named Michael Scott, starting around
1217 in places like Paris and Toledo. And because
the commentaries were so comprehensive and so
definitive, Averroes was simply known in Latin
Christian writings as Octaridus the commentator,
as if there were no other. And his writings quickly
ignited an intellectual firestorm. They gave
rise to this whole philosophical movement known
as Latin Averroism. A movement centered in the
major universities, particularly Paris and Padua,
and it included major figures like Sigur of Brabant.
And these thinkers took Averro's core rationalist
principle that reason must be followed wherever
it leads, and they applied it fearlessly. They
pushed ideas that seemed to directly contradict
church doctrine, like the pre -eternity of the
world and, of course, that single universal intellect.
And this pure rationalism. Nationalism drew immediate
and fierce condemnation from the Catholic Church.
Of course. The church authorities saw this as
an existential threat to revealed truth, and
it all culminated in the 1277 condemnations by
the Bishop of Paris, Étienne Tampier. He targeted
219 specific theses. Many drawn directly from
Aristotle and Averroes. He specifically banned
teachings like that the world is eternal and
that there is only one universal intellect in
all men. It was this desperate attempt. to curb
the tide of secular rational thought that was
pouring into the universities. But this clash
also led to arguably the most important synthesis
in Western thought, the work of Thomas Aquinas.
Right. Aquinas, the preeminent Catholic theologian,
desperately needed Aristotle's logical framework
to build Christian philosophy. He relied heavily
on Averroes' interpretation to even understand
Aristotle. But he fought tooth and nail against
the Averroist conclusions that contradicted faith.
He wrote a whole treatise against it. A detailed
critique specifically targeting that psychological
doctrine, titled On the Unity of the Intellect
Against the Averroists. So Aquinas basically
used Averroes' scaffolding, but he tore down
the roof and walls to build his own house. That
is a perfect way to put it. He appropriated the
method while rejecting the most politically and
theologically dangerous results. But even with
these high profile condemnations and critiques,
Latin Averroism was incredibly resilient. It
persisted in university halls, especially in
Padua, well into the 16th century. Now let's
contrast that with the reaction in the Jewish
tradition. The Jewish reception was immediate
and overwhelmingly positive. Averroes lived at
the same time as Maimonides, the most important
medieval Jewish thinker. And Maimonides received
Averroes' texts and just praised them immensely.
What did he say? He said he received lately everything
Averroes had written on the works of Aristotle
and that Averroes was extremely right. Wow. Coming
from Maimonides, that's a huge endorsement. And
it meant his works were translated into Hebrew
almost immediately. Extensively, peaking in the
14th century. Jewish thinkers, including major
figures like Gersonides, they saw Averroes as
this crucial, reliable bridge between Greek intellectual
tradition and monotheistic philosophy. They just
didn't have the same theological resistance that
the Christian church did to many of his rationalist
ideas. Okay, so back in the Islamic world where
he was from, his immediate... impact was, surprisingly,
quite modest. Why was his reception so muted
compared to his global reach? The sources point
to two main reasons. First, geography. Al -Andalus
was the far western fringe of the Islamic civilization.
It was distant from the big intellectual hubs
in Baghdad, Cairo, and Persia. And the second
reason. The Avicennan school of philosophy, the
one Averroes fought against, was already deeply
dominant in the East. So Arrero's insistence
on a purer, stricter Aristotle. It felt a bit
like a throwback to scholars who were already
engaging with newer philosophical trends. So
he was mostly dormant in the East until much
later. Correct. He only experienced this massive
resurgence, a kind of cultural revival, during
the 19th century intellectual movement known
as al -Nada in the Arabic -speaking world. Modernizing
Muslim thinkers engaged with his work, seeing
his emphasis on reason and the harmony of faith.
philosophy as a powerful indigenous inspiration
for updating and strengthening the Muslim intellectual
tradition. His enduring recognition, though,
is really sealed in the Western cultural canon.
I mean, it spans centuries. He's a permanent
fixture. You look at Raphael's magnificent fresco,
The School of Athens, painted in 1501. Averroes
is depicted prominently. He's wearing his green
robe and turban, and he's peering out from behind
Pythagoras. It symbolizes his role as the essential
link to classical wisdom. And while Raphael was
respectful, Dante Alighieri gave him a less flattering
but still very recognized placement. Yes. In
Dante's 14th century divine comedy, Averroes
is described as the man who made the great commentary.
And he's placed among other virtuous non -Christian
thinkers like Saladin in the first circle of
hell limbo. So, not eternal punishment. but still
outside the saving grace of Christianity. But
it signifies his importance. Absolutely. He's
also referenced by Chaucer in the Canterbury
Tales as one of the great medical authorities.
And even in modern literature, he remains this
figure of deep contemplation. I'm thinking of
that Jorge Luis Borges short story. Which fascinatingly
features his attempts to translate and understand
Aristotle's poetics when, in his own culture,
there was no tradition of live theatrical performance
to reference. It's a beautiful story about the
limits of cultural translation. And the fact
that we have a moon crater, an asteroid, and
even a plant genus, Everola, named after him,
it just underscores the magnitude of his intellectual
footprint. He remains the primary symbol of that
rigorous synthesis of law, science, and philosophy.
So what does this all mean for us? We've traced
the life of a man who was a chief judge and court
physician, a master of law and medicine, whose
philosophical brilliance led to his works being
burned. Yet, by securing Aristotle's place, he
became one of the essential sparks that reignited
the intellectual engine of Europe. He defined
the boundaries between faith and reason and offered
groundbreaking insights into everything from
women's roles in the state to the structure of
the human eye. And his legacy really comes down
to that radical tension he explored, the tension
between the individual self and universal truth.
And for you, the listener, you've heard about
his most controversial concept, the unity of
the intellect. If we are to believe Averroes,
if there's only one universal material intellect
that is shared by all of humanity. Does that
fundamentally reframe our understanding of individual
thought and collective consciousness? Or is our
unique self, our moral identity, truly found
only in the cogitation of that individual process
of active consideration and experience of the
specific things that only you have encountered?
That's the deep dive you get to continue on your
own.