I was excited to start to read The Aeneid by Virgil because I always wondered what happen to the Trojans that got away when I read the Odyssey. I found it interesting that in the introduction it states that Virgil is known for his style of writing, instead of the plot like Homer. However, to me it seems that Virgil should be known as the “finisher” of Homer’s epic. What I mean is that it feels that through the Aeneid Virgil is using epic style of writing to add on to what Homer’s story has left out. For example, in book 6 Aeneas and his crew run onto the same island that Odysseus and his crew landed on that happened to be the land of cyclops and actually meet one of Odysseus's abandoned ship mates. Virgil then proceeds to tell the story of what happened to said ship mate after he was left on the island. I also like how Virgil makes the Trojans appear to be heroes although they were defeated by the Greeks by having Dido persist that Aeneas must tell his story. I liked how Virgil made the Greeks seem like the “bad guys” of the story. He does this in the story of how they were burning down Troy and killing the innocent and the king begged the gods to have mercy on them in the afterlife because he had to suffer through watching his kingdom burn and his son being killed by the hands of the Greeks. However, in Homer’s epic the Greeks are seen as the heros because they take back Helen and destroy the place that “started the war.” Also how he attempts to save the trojans from humiliation by repeatedly showing that the Trojans weren’t being “stupid” when they let in the wooden horse, but were tricked by an elaborate act that the Greeks planned. I think that Virgil should be compared to Homer in the idea that they both wrote about the aftermath of the Trojan war, however they both picked different sides (Homer took the sides of the Greeks and Virgil took the side of the Trojans.) Also because it is easy to parallel the two epics the Odyssey and the Aeneid. So I find it wrong for the introduction to categorize Virgil as being “style” and Homer as being “epic” when both have similar styles within their epics.
I have heard and read about the story of the Trojan horse many times over the years. It’s funny that you bring up the fact that Virgil made it seem like the Trojans really weren’t being dumb when they let the horse into their walls, but were actually tricked by a well-thought out plan by the Greeks. I never recall hearing anything like that. My view was always that the Trojans were making a very obvious and huge mistake when they brought the large horse into the safety of their city. I like how Virgil shows the other side of the story how it was actually a young soldier pretending to be left behind as sacrifice by the Greeks. He portrays the Trojans as kind people who allow the young boy to come into their city. It really makes you realize that when you read and hear things, you have to take both sides into account and not believe everything when you hear it for the first time. I also really enjoyed how Virgil told the story of Aeneas after the destruction of Troy by the Greeks. You normally only ever hear of the horse being brought in and the great taking of Troy by the Greek soldiers. The strong character of Aeneas and his carrying of his father out of the city is often overlooked. It was a new spin that I really enjoyed.
Averroes and Plato have many similar views. I found that they both believe in a society where the educated are allowed to analyze things and the masses must only be allowed to look at certain things that are easily understood. This is a difficult concept to grasp for me especially growing up in a country where everyone is allowed access to just about all there is to offer in terms of education. This seems like it would be a good idea considering that many people could take things the wrong way but at the same time denying people information is difficult. It is also difficult to decide who would be allowed to view these things and analyze them. They say that only educated people have these privileges but where do they draw the line? What level of education is enough to analyze these things and are there exceptions? Averroes has said in his writings that men like Plato must be analyzed even though their religion differs science knows no religion. Plato also viewed science as something that was not based on religion and that should be studied regardless of where it came from as long as it is from a respectable source. They also agree on the idea of equal rights for women. I always assumed that women’s rights was something new but it seems now more than ever that women’s rights and equality was a topic of discussion back then and even thought to be a good idea. It is strange how two such influential figures could embrace something like that yet it still not be commonplace until very recently. Many of their ideas were the same if not similar and although I agree with many of the things they are saying I find many of them to be very difficult to institute in a real world setting. One of Averroes’ strongest points I believe is that we must study old experts on subjects and advance on them which is something I believe Plato believes as well.
I agree that it is quite difficult the kind of hierarchy that Plato and Averroes support! We do live in a world where anyone is able to attain education, but in a way I agree that to have only the smartest people make decisions for a country is wise and we do try to HEAD our country with wise people, but on the other hand, how do we know that the most philosophical people are what they say they are. It is hard to have any kind of trust that things are what they seem in our society and people can be so manipulative. Considering this, I think that Plato's system would fail greatly in our world today. It is not practical. Also, to address the conflict between science and religion, I believe that Averroes is right in saying that we cannot neglect studying science, but since there is not a specific line that he draws, I cannot agree with the principles on which he studies religion and science side by side. His belief of right or wrong having to do with these two things is very cloudy and unreliable.
I agree with Averroes's (and Plato's, to an extent) assertion that science and religion can and should be studied side by side. I've always wondered why so many religions reject science, when science can easily go hand in hand with them. I think that organized religion fears science because it has the capacity to influence people to question how religious texts have been interpreted, but I don't think that this should be seen as a bad thing. We should question the judgements of others, especially when it comes to the religion that we base our lives around. We should question the interpretations of our religious texts, because maybe those interpretations are wrong. Religion and science can and should be taken together as two paths to the truth, no matter what religion you do or do not believe in. In my opinion, everyone need not have the same religion (or any at all), but everyone should have science as one of their core beliefs. As a famous astrophysicist once said, "the good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
Today's class discussion really helped clarify Averroes a lot more, as well as the differences between Averroes and Plato. Learning about how much Islam emphasizes the duty of Muslims to study the scientific perspectives of the heavens and the earth, what Allah has created and continues to create signifies the position of Averroes on his take on philosophy versus that of Plato and other Ancient Greek philosophers. Averroes has stated various times in the Decisive Treaties that religion and science can come hand in hand since scientific inquiry does not contradict Islamic belief and philosophy. This is remarkable given the fact that Averroes is both a devout Muslim and an ardent philosopher. Averroes states that it is Islamic duty that Muslim study scientific inquiry, and many passages emphasize the importance of the ink of the scholar over the blood of the martyr, making it clear that Muslims value the importance of education over act of war and killing of humankind. This makes me think back to the Qur'anic version of Cain and Abel, where Allah lectures Cain that killing one man is equivalent of killing mankind. Averroes, or Ibn Rushd, shows proof of the importance of philosophy and education by stating that philosophy is necessary to keep humankind alive, just as drinking water is necessary to sustain an individual human physically, keeping in mind that just as philosophy can be misused or abused by lesser educated masses, water can be choked on. Furthermore, Averroes urges Muslims to attain as much knowledge as possible from actively reading materials, unlike Plato, who keeps the discussion going with regards to censoring works prone to evoking emotion in the warrior class, like Homer's the Iliad and the Odyssey. Because of the vast differences in the interpretations of Averroes with Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, Averroes warns Muslims to be careful about studying Ancient Greek philosophy since the teachings from works like Plato's Republic might contradict Islamic teachings.
We discussed in class how Plato’s Republic and Averroes’ The Decisive Treatise are similar in that both philosophers advocate for class separation and specialization. Plato especially stresses in Book IV the different roles that producers, auxiliaries, and guardians will take up, and how it is important that each of these separate groups be trained accordingly. Averroes emphasizes classification in a more subtle way in that he asserts that people will interpret the Scripture in different ways, and therefore certain classes of people should only be subject to certain kinds of intellectual material. Averroes believes that the “elite” are the people who can understand the Scriptures on an allegorical, deeper level, and the ignorant masses are those who can understand the Scriptures on only a literal level. Not only does Averroes believe that the masses cannot be exposed to the allegorical interpretations (because he believes it will lead them to disbelief), but he also believes that the elite have a responsibility to society to keep these allegorical learnings away from the ignorant masses; any elite person who relays these deeper interpretations to the masses is an unbeliever because he leads to the disbelief of others. “As for the man who expresses these allegories to unqualified persons, he is an unbeliever on account of his summoning people to unbelief” (66).
I think it is on this matter that Plato and Averroes differ slightly. In Book VII, Plato asserts that the goal of education is to drag every man out of the cave as far as they possibly can go, meaning that it would be ideal for every man to understand allegorical interpretations and the true deeper meanings behind societal functions and religion. This understanding in turn will direct the soul toward the right desires and a life of reason. Plato understands that it is unlikely for every man to achieve the mental capacity to be dragged out of the cave, but he advocates for this as the ideal. Averroes, however, believes that “allegorical interpretations, then, ought not to be expressed to the masses, nor set down in rhetorical or dialectical books” (66). Averroes does not think that most people should be subject to these teachings. However, Plato believes that at least everyone should be given the opportunity, through education to understand these deeper, allegorical teachings.
In our transition from Plato to Averroes, it is important to keep in mind the similarities between the two philosophers. It is apparent that they have large similarities when it comes to certain philosophical views.
The first similarity is that of a political sense. Both Plato and Averroes agree that an absolute monarch is the structure of choice. This monarch would be led by Plato’s “Philosopher King” because only the philosopher king has the true knowledge of all things on Earth and in Heaven. According to Averroes, extreme persuasion is needed to achieve this. The people must be taught at an early age that the absolute monarch is the best way. Also, Plato and Averroes both agree that the masses should not try to interpret scripture and read into certain things. Only the most educated of people are allowed to freely read all works of literature. This idea of censoring works of literature from the masses is due to the fact that the uneducated could easily misinterpret the text and become misinformed. Because of this, they should only be allowed to read easy works. I would like to know what texts the masses would and wouldn’t be allowed to read.
Upon further research, Averroes and Plato also had the same views when it came to equality for women, which, for that time period, is pretty surprising to me. Two extremely distinguished philosophers had an idea that wouldn’t become accepted until centuries later. This says a lot about the philosopher king idea. Maybe that is the answer in this day and age: have someone who has extreme amounts of knowledge would be better to lead the masses than the American president.
I agree, I noticed that the three classes Averroes mentioned paralleled with those listed by Plato. Averroes’ three classes of people and how they should interpret the Qur’an: the rhetorical class that should read it for its apparent meaning, the middle dialectic class and the third demonstrative class that is able to interpret the text for its allegorical meaning holds much in common with Plato’s producers, auxiliaries and guardians. Both authors seem to agree that only the most highly educated classes, the guardians and demonstrative class, should have access to certain information that the authors feel would be dangerous in the hands of the masses.
After our class discussion, I think that the most prominent similarity is that both Plato and Averroes both share the idea that there should be a strict division of classes. In Plato’s Republic he clearly laid out the blueprints for the perfectly just city. Part of his plan was to have very strict division between the classes composed of producers, auxiliaries, and guardians. Averroes also thought that people should be spilt into classes; the educated and the uneducated. The elite or educated people were the only ones capable of understanding verses in an allegorical sense. The educated were responsible for keeping the interpreted verses out of the hands of the uneducated, because the uneducated were only able to read verses in the literal sense. This censorship is similar to the ideas found in Plato’s republic. Plato also believed that certain information should be limited to the educated upper class, because it would be better for everyone as a whole. One difference I found between Plato and Averroes is that Plato only thought that the Philosophy Kings were the only ones that should being learning as much as possible. However in Averroes, he points out that every Muslim had a duty to learn. An except that supports this Islamic duty is, “Have they not studied the kingdom of the heavens and the earth, and whatever things God has created?” (p45) This quote supports Averroes’ idea that learning is an obligation that each Muslim has, and that religion and philosophy/knowledge are not two separate things.
I also found similarities between how Plato and Averroes supported their ideas by use of metaphors and allegories. In Plato’s Republic, the allegory of the cave was a big point that helped portray his philosophical ideas. In Averroes’ Decisive Treatise, Averroes used drinking water to describe how philosophy is necessary in life. Although there are always risks to drinking water (learning philosophy), the risks outweigh the benefits because there is always more to gain from learning philosophy.
I agree that the main similarity between Plato and Averroes is the division of classes. They both lay out what the classes do. Also with both there are three classes. I also agree that one of the differences is who should lead and who should learn. I also noticed that both of them used many metaphors and allegories.
In class we mentioned some of the similarities and differences between Averroes and Plato. One of the major similarities is that both Averroes and Plato understood that in order for their philosophies to hold true, they had to be able to control some of the information that the “masses” would receive. For Plato it was more about controlling the information that the youngest citizens would receive so each child would grow up to be what they deemed the best possible fit for the children. Averroes on the other hand is arguing that if the masses try to interoperate certain information in an allegorical it could lead to chaos due to their lack of knowledge in that area.
Personally I don’t like the idea of a few individuals at the top of a social class structure making a decision on censorship for an entire population. I have to say that both men (Averroes and Plato) make strong arguments for why they believe their censorship is for the greater good. But when it comes down to the action behind the ideas, I like to believe that if a society is being educated in the right ways, that the masses should be able to handle interoperating texts without the system falling apart.
I really liked your argument about the need for everyone to be educated, not just the people at the very top of the social structure. I don't believe that it is anyone's right to assume what people can and cannot believe or understand. People should have equal opportunity to study the same texts. I found it interesting how the failures of an educated man were forgiven, but those of an uneducated man were not. There was the assumption that the common people, unable to understand the allegorical meaning of the scriptures, will have their beliefs damaged. These masses are not given the chance to prove their ability to rationalize the allegorical context, nor to prove that being unable to understand this meaning will damage their beliefs. I think that the common people should be educated, because a few people on the top of the societal structure should not be able to determine the level of education that others receive.
In class I found the explanation of "the double truth theory" very interesting. The idea that there is still one truth but many paths that lead to it is a unique way of explaining the relationship between science and religion. It was also interesting that Averroes had limitations on who he thought was capable of looking for the truths. Like Plato, he believed that there should be different classes in society except his classes were much more basic: the uneducated and the educated. Plato had divided his perfect society into guardians, auxiliaries and producers. The difference between the two men was that Plato believed that the society should be ruled by one philosopher king and that no one else would be fit to do so. Averroes did not share that same belief. He only believed that the people who were educated could be allowed to make mistakes while looking at things allegorically instead of literally because that was one way that they could learn. But the uneducated people should not be allowed to look at things allegorically because if they make a mistake it will just corrupt their entire way of thinking.
Another aspect that Averroes and Plato shared was their emphasis on learning and looking for truth. For Plato, he believed that people needed to escape from the "cave" where they were unaware of the outside world and the knowledge it contained. Averroes compared learning philosophy to drinking water. Drinking water is essential even though their is the possibility of choking on it. But even chocking on it would be better than not having it at all. This is the same for learning philosophy because there is always a chance that it could lead to blasphemy but that would only happen when the wrong people interpret it in the wrong way. But both Plato and Averroes thought that "leaving the cave" and "drinking the water" were necessary for society to thrive.
I too thought the "double truth theory" was interesting. I feel as though the theory can apply to any truth, and not just in terms of science and religion. I feel that if two people have the same general view about something, chances are that they didn't settle on those views in exactly the same manner, but rather different experiences and different people and times will have influenced each person in a separate way in order for them to have settled on that.
Averroes' comparison of learning philosophy and drinking water was also something I enjoyed discussing. I found it to be incredibly accurate, which I think is why I enjoyed discussing it so much. It just kind of clicked.
In the The Aeneid, I found it interesting God/Goddesses made such an impact on the "mortals" lives. There was such a big emphasis on God/Goddesses working their powers for or against the mortals- mostly based on their feelings. Starting from the beginning of The Aeneid, we can see the influence of Gods on every day life. For example, Aeolus, the God of Wind, created the bad weather for the Trojans in aid of Juno who wanted to kill Aeneas for her own selfishness of protecting Carthage. Aeneas and the Trojans survive the ordeal thanks to no one else but a goddess, Venus, who happens to be Aeneas’ mother as well! This event in the beginning of the epic foreshadows the importance of the gods throughout the book and it also shows the importance of the gods in ancient Greek history.
In book IV, we see how gods interfere in the life of Aeneas. Juno proposes to Venus that Aeneas and Dido get married for her own self-interest of preventing him from reaching Italy. Venus knows that this is a ploy but goes along with it. Aeneas and Dido actually fall in love but never get married. I found it interesting how the gods easily got involved in such important matters such as love. Gods who are ”supposed” to be the “almighty” and “righteous” (at least in my opinion), are shown to do things for their selfishness and don’t mind that their actions have the potential to destroy humans, who do not have the power.
However I also found it interesting that Aeolus or Juno didn’t directly strike and kill Aeneas, but instead made trouble for him. Venus, who is also a goddess, didn’t seem to do anything “Godly” in terms of the first 6 books. This kind of showed me the difference of Gods and how they would use their power, depending on the type of power and position they are in (who is more powerful).
I also noticed the immense power the Gods and Goddesses had over the mortals. The amount of control they had over the world in The Aenied was surprising. If anything did not go their way, they would change something to make themselves happy. This confused me a little since, for a while, I thought Gods/Goddesses were self-less beings, who attempted to make the Earth a better place for all. According to The Aeneid, Juno had a personal hatred for Aeneas, so she used her everything in her power to make sure he did not successfully go to Italy. Even though Aeneas still got there, it was interesting to see how much trouble Juno caused him just because of her disinterest in him. This also made me wonder, maybe the reason Juno does this is because she has the most power, so no one else has the ability to trouble Aeneas as Juno did.
While reading Averroes, it became clearer to me how religion and science goes hand in hand. I am studying Political Science here and I have learned a lot about Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, and St. Thomas Aquinas but from what I have learned thus far is that the main thing for learning philosophy of humans is to acquire proper reasoning skills. I believe that Averroes argues the same thing when he mentions the water example.
Drinking the water is essential for living just like the want and need for logos (reasoning) and it can also harm you if you do not use it properly. Reasoning is essential for humans because we are not wired like other beings such as: lions hunting for survival, ants building their nests, bees getting pollen from flowers, etc.; humans acquire knowledge to learn of ways to improve their life and live a good life. Although Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates did not speak of religion much, St. Thomas Aquinas did!
In class, Professor Akman said that St. Thomas Aquinas was very against Averroes but I did not get that impression when I was learning about him in class. From what I understood was, he also believed that faith in religion was not the only thing needed to be a well-rounded and “good” person. Aquinas was very much a follower of Aristotle, Socrates, and Plato and also believed that with our knowledge of learning things, it will allow us to make up for the original sin that was first committed by Adam and Eve. I am not really sure if he completely hated and disagreed with Averroes, but I know that he also believe that, to some extent, religion and science is needed in order to make a person well-rounded and that you cannot have one without the other. Like I learned that: “Breathing is beautiful but you need both lungs to breathe” just like human life is a beautiful thing and you also need both science and religion to live a “good life”.
I agree with your first point that the text has both scientific and religious elements to it. Averroes uses chain arguments and deductive reasoning to explain how philosophy or “law” is essential in understanding and interpreting religious texts. I really liked the water theory as well; it’s a great parallel of how knowledge and philosophy is good for society if not abused. This is true for pretty much anything in life and you can even apply it to religion itself, if interpreted incorrectly or cynically, could lead to violent and corrupted followers.
Before going to class I was confused about whether the speech by Averroes was trying to analyze the Qur’an in a scientific version or if it was simply trying to emphasize that religion and science intercept in Islamic religion. I also did not grasp the indication that when the author mentioned Law he was talking about religion. Furthermore, I was having difficulties interpreting the text in all, but the discussion cleared it up. I wanted to point out that though the text is interpreted from a scientific perspective the author mentions different religious text. Those texts support the idea that in the Islamic religion it is important to have that scientific background as long as the person does not lose faith and knows how to balance the two. It was interesting to me to find out that the dark skin person in the picture could be such a great philosopher like Averroes. In the picture the audience can get the impression that he is merely an spectator hovering over the philosophers. The reader would not guess that he was someone who contributed to Western civilization by providing such a great analysis. In my opinion Averroes logic in Islamic law gave rise to the philosophy and intellectual aspect of religion conveying the idea that it is best when the two concepts intertwine. Averroes has not only proven to be an intellectual author but he is able to combine the critical approach to reading a text, and the canonical. I like the way that the author starts of by explaining what the speech will be about stating “… whether inquiry to philosophy and the logical sciences is permitted by the divine law”. The quote sets up the connection between the divine law and human wisdom. In my opinion Averroes does a fine job in directing his audience towards that discussion because it exemplifies that when you have a connection between religion and intellectual or science, there is no need to question the faith that a person already has.
I think you've accurately depicted how well Averroes balances the significance of both religious faith and scientific intellect. His insights were so profound that they had lasting effects on the work of other, non-muslim yet religious thinkers, such as St Thomas Aquinas. This theme of transcending religious borders is one that it is accepted by Averroes; He acknowledges that although the ancient greeks were pagans, they had established much great works which would be foolish to ignore. His capacity to effectively quote Quranic evidence to prove "...whether inquiry to philosophy and the logical sciences is permitted by the divine law" does not only highlight his scientific approach, but also highlights him as the first to do so. Certainly, Averroes is one to be studied in depth.
The idea of allegory is present in both literary works. Allegory is an effective tool for leading average people to live in accordance with the truths they cannot comprehend on their own. In The Decisive Treatise, allegorical interpretation is the process of turning an expression from a real perspective to a metaphorical significance. The diversity of people’s natural capacities to understand the inner meaning within the scripture is what differentiates the lower uneducated class to the demonstrative class who are well educated and capable of understanding complex/refuting ideas.
This reminds me of Plato’s allegory of the cave and how it is also pertains to the “inner meaning” of reality. For example, when a prisoner is released and realizes that the sun is the cause of all that is around him, he has then noticed the “Form of Good.” In other words, Plato discusses the prisoner’s new awareness of knowledge and understanding. At that point Plato has identified that the philosophers (who have recognized the Forms of Goodness) have the responsibility of being leaders and do not need to feel disapproved for those whom don't share his enlightenment.
I find it interesting that both these works use effective allegories to portray what reality is. Both Plato and Averroes have similar philosophies regarding the fact that there is a person who knows more and are qualified to receive information. The only leaders that I can think of who obtained those qualities in our society were unfortunately assassinated by the general (less educated) public. Do you think that there is a reason for this? Has the general public resented people with higher intelligence?
I found the similarities and differences between Averroes and Plato very interesting. Both of their works focus largely on education, with the concept of distinct classes playing a significant role. Just as Plato believed in rigorous education, lasting fifty years in the case of a guardians in his kallipolis, Averroes also argued for continuing education, with the main difference between his justification and Plato’s being religion. Averroes cites the Qur’an with quotations detailing the necessity of reading and reasoning in his argument for logic and critical thinking, as only with these tools can an individual understand the scripture. Averroes advocates for religious blindness when it comes to education, saying it does not matter what religious one believes in, if any at all, in the validity of science.
Averroes is also very similar to Plato in his support for his own “class system” of sorts. Just as Plato states that there is an intellectual superior who should rule, the philosopher-kings, Averroes states that only the highly education are free to study scripture. He states that only this elite can comprehend the allegorical nature of religious texts, whereas this would lead to a dissuasion of faith and heresy in the less educated. I am continually surprised by such elitism in writers such as Plato and Averroes, especially given how highly they value education. Possibly this is a difference stemming from the time period, as education is simply accepted as a necessity in today’s society, at least up to the high school level, so it seems odd that there would be an entire “class” of people viewed as unsuitable for reasoning and philosophy.
You raise a good point about how both Plato and Averroes felt education was a privilege, only belonging to the guardian or demonstrative classes.
Also in regards to the elitist views surrounding education, I think it reflects just how expensive it was to educate people during these past times. The costs of republishing stacks of books, no printing presses etc.
I guess it is so easy to take for granted, we have instant information at our fingertips whenever we want it. But it makes me wonder, how would Plato and Averroes have adjusted their philosophies after taking a good look at the modern world and how things have changed. That's for another blog though...
The class discussion today helped to clarify Averroes discussion or debate a lot.I learned that Averroes was the transmitter or translater of Aristotle and plato into islam. I would have never been able to link Plato and Averroes together. They both are in favor of "class systems." Averroes believes that only those who have completed their education are able to study scriptures just as those who study philosophy are fit to rule the masses according to Plato.
After reading the first three pages I grew frustrated with Averroes, it seemed as if the same was just repeating the same point over and over again. Philosophy is vital to religion and religious studies. I guess it was Averroe's scientific perspective or tone that was hard to follow. I thought that the concept of the drinking water that Averroes tied to studying philosophy in order to understand religion was a really good fit. He equated not studying philosophy with preventing a thirsty person from drinking water. It is possible that you might choke on water, but it's a lot safer to drink it than to not. A religious thinker must have a preliminary study of logic.
I also found it interesting today in class when the professor showed us how the similarities between english terms and arabic terms. Also, I would never have known how much of an Eastern influence there was during the Renaissance and the Dark Ages. Learning about the muslim polymaths has been enlightening and inspiring.
I definitely agree that the many similarities between english terms and arabic terms are interesting to learn about. It's incredible how much one culture has influenced today's cultures in so many large ways. I have enjoyed discussing this topic in class, especially because it relates a lot to present day cultures and topics.
I was very excited to see that we will be reading about a Muslim philosopher. In school were never really told to read anything that was not of the western culture. It was very surprising to me that Averroes and Plato as well as other philosophers that I was familiar with had the very same or very similar ideologies about life and science. The one thing that surprised me was the fact that this philosopher as well as many others of the Muslim religion use science and religion together a=to feed of each other. In the Muslim religion it is important for them to understand the sciences in order to understand and be in touch with their religion. Speaking from personal experience, science and religion was something that was not always seen together. I would always see science being used to disprove something about religion and religion being used to disprove science. A great example of this would be with evolution and the origin of human kind. Another idea that Averroes had which was surprisingly similar to one of Plato, for example, was the idea that not everyone should have all the knowledge and the power to rule a land. This is important because it they tell us that with everyone having knowledge or in Plato’s case reason, because if everyone does, who are the masses supposed to look up to in a leader position?
I was excited to start to read The Aeneid by Virgil because I always wondered what happen to the Trojans that got away when I read the Odyssey. I found it interesting that in the introduction it states that Virgil is known for his style of writing, instead of the plot like Homer. However, to me it seems that Virgil should be known as the “finisher” of Homer’s epic. What I mean is that it feels that through the Aeneid Virgil is using epic style of writing to add on to what Homer’s story has left out. For example, in book 6 Aeneas and his crew run onto the same island that Odysseus and his crew landed on that happened to be the land of cyclops and actually meet one of Odysseus's abandoned ship mates. Virgil then proceeds to tell the story of what happened to said ship mate after he was left on the island.
ReplyDeleteI also like how Virgil makes the Trojans appear to be heroes although they were defeated by the Greeks by having Dido persist that Aeneas must tell his story. I liked how Virgil made the Greeks seem like the “bad guys” of the story. He does this in the story of how they were burning down Troy and killing the innocent and the king begged the gods to have mercy on them in the afterlife because he had to suffer through watching his kingdom burn and his son being killed by the hands of the Greeks. However, in Homer’s epic the Greeks are seen as the heros because they take back Helen and destroy the place that “started the war.” Also how he attempts to save the trojans from humiliation by repeatedly showing that the Trojans weren’t being “stupid” when they let in the wooden horse, but were tricked by an elaborate act that the Greeks planned.
I think that Virgil should be compared to Homer in the idea that they both wrote about the aftermath of the Trojan war, however they both picked different sides (Homer took the sides of the Greeks and Virgil took the side of the Trojans.) Also because it is easy to parallel the two epics the Odyssey and the Aeneid. So I find it wrong for the introduction to categorize Virgil as being “style” and Homer as being “epic” when both have similar styles within their epics.
I have heard and read about the story of the Trojan horse many times over the years. It’s funny that you bring up the fact that Virgil made it seem like the Trojans really weren’t being dumb when they let the horse into their walls, but were actually tricked by a well-thought out plan by the Greeks. I never recall hearing anything like that. My view was always that the Trojans were making a very obvious and huge mistake when they brought the large horse into the safety of their city. I like how Virgil shows the other side of the story how it was actually a young soldier pretending to be left behind as sacrifice by the Greeks. He portrays the Trojans as kind people who allow the young boy to come into their city. It really makes you realize that when you read and hear things, you have to take both sides into account and not believe everything when you hear it for the first time. I also really enjoyed how Virgil told the story of Aeneas after the destruction of Troy by the Greeks. You normally only ever hear of the horse being brought in and the great taking of Troy by the Greek soldiers. The strong character of Aeneas and his carrying of his father out of the city is often overlooked. It was a new spin that I really enjoyed.
DeleteAverroes and Plato have many similar views. I found that they both believe in a society where the educated are allowed to analyze things and the masses must only be allowed to look at certain things that are easily understood. This is a difficult concept to grasp for me especially growing up in a country where everyone is allowed access to just about all there is to offer in terms of education. This seems like it would be a good idea considering that many people could take things the wrong way but at the same time denying people information is difficult. It is also difficult to decide who would be allowed to view these things and analyze them. They say that only educated people have these privileges but where do they draw the line? What level of education is enough to analyze these things and are there exceptions?
ReplyDeleteAverroes has said in his writings that men like Plato must be analyzed even though their religion differs science knows no religion. Plato also viewed science as something that was not based on religion and that should be studied regardless of where it came from as long as it is from a respectable source.
They also agree on the idea of equal rights for women. I always assumed that women’s rights was something new but it seems now more than ever that women’s rights and equality was a topic of discussion back then and even thought to be a good idea. It is strange how two such influential figures could embrace something like that yet it still not be commonplace until very recently.
Many of their ideas were the same if not similar and although I agree with many of the things they are saying I find many of them to be very difficult to institute in a real world setting. One of Averroes’ strongest points I believe is that we must study old experts on subjects and advance on them which is something I believe Plato believes as well.
I agree that it is quite difficult the kind of hierarchy that Plato and Averroes support! We do live in a world where anyone is able to attain education, but in a way I agree that to have only the smartest people make decisions for a country is wise and we do try to HEAD our country with wise people, but on the other hand, how do we know that the most philosophical people are what they say they are. It is hard to have any kind of trust that things are what they seem in our society and people can be so manipulative. Considering this, I think that Plato's system would fail greatly in our world today. It is not practical. Also, to address the conflict between science and religion, I believe that Averroes is right in saying that we cannot neglect studying science, but since there is not a specific line that he draws, I cannot agree with the principles on which he studies religion and science side by side. His belief of right or wrong having to do with these two things is very cloudy and unreliable.
DeleteI agree with Averroes's (and Plato's, to an extent) assertion that science and religion can and should be studied side by side. I've always wondered why so many religions reject science, when science can easily go hand in hand with them. I think that organized religion fears science because it has the capacity to influence people to question how religious texts have been interpreted, but I don't think that this should be seen as a bad thing. We should question the judgements of others, especially when it comes to the religion that we base our lives around. We should question the interpretations of our religious texts, because maybe those interpretations are wrong. Religion and science can and should be taken together as two paths to the truth, no matter what religion you do or do not believe in. In my opinion, everyone need not have the same religion (or any at all), but everyone should have science as one of their core beliefs. As a famous astrophysicist once said, "the good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
DeleteToday's class discussion really helped clarify Averroes a lot more, as well as the differences between Averroes and Plato. Learning about how much Islam emphasizes the duty of Muslims to study the scientific perspectives of the heavens and the earth, what Allah has created and continues to create signifies the position of Averroes on his take on philosophy versus that of Plato and other Ancient Greek philosophers.
ReplyDeleteAverroes has stated various times in the Decisive Treaties that religion and science can come hand in hand since scientific inquiry does not contradict Islamic belief and philosophy. This is remarkable given the fact that Averroes is both a devout Muslim and an ardent philosopher. Averroes states that it is Islamic duty that Muslim study scientific inquiry, and many passages emphasize the importance of the ink of the scholar over the blood of the martyr, making it clear that Muslims value the importance of education over act of war and killing of humankind. This makes me think back to the Qur'anic version of Cain and Abel, where Allah lectures Cain that killing one man is equivalent of killing mankind. Averroes, or Ibn Rushd, shows proof of the importance of philosophy and education by stating that philosophy is necessary to keep humankind alive, just as drinking water is necessary to sustain an individual human physically, keeping in mind that just as philosophy can be misused or abused by lesser educated masses, water can be choked on.
Furthermore, Averroes urges Muslims to attain as much knowledge as possible from actively reading materials, unlike Plato, who keeps the discussion going with regards to censoring works prone to evoking emotion in the warrior class, like Homer's the Iliad and the Odyssey. Because of the vast differences in the interpretations of Averroes with Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, Averroes warns Muslims to be careful about studying Ancient Greek philosophy since the teachings from works like Plato's Republic might contradict Islamic teachings.
We discussed in class how Plato’s Republic and Averroes’ The Decisive Treatise are similar in that both philosophers advocate for class separation and specialization. Plato especially stresses in Book IV the different roles that producers, auxiliaries, and guardians will take up, and how it is important that each of these separate groups be trained accordingly. Averroes emphasizes classification in a more subtle way in that he asserts that people will interpret the Scripture in different ways, and therefore certain classes of people should only be subject to certain kinds of intellectual material. Averroes believes that the “elite” are the people who can understand the Scriptures on an allegorical, deeper level, and the ignorant masses are those who can understand the Scriptures on only a literal level. Not only does Averroes believe that the masses cannot be exposed to the allegorical interpretations (because he believes it will lead them to disbelief), but he also believes that the elite have a responsibility to society to keep these allegorical learnings away from the ignorant masses; any elite person who relays these deeper interpretations to the masses is an unbeliever because he leads to the disbelief of others. “As for the man who expresses these allegories to unqualified persons, he is an unbeliever on account of his summoning people to unbelief” (66).
ReplyDeleteI think it is on this matter that Plato and Averroes differ slightly. In Book VII, Plato asserts that the goal of education is to drag every man out of the cave as far as they possibly can go, meaning that it would be ideal for every man to understand allegorical interpretations and the true deeper meanings behind societal functions and religion. This understanding in turn will direct the soul toward the right desires and a life of reason. Plato understands that it is unlikely for every man to achieve the mental capacity to be dragged out of the cave, but he advocates for this as the ideal. Averroes, however, believes that “allegorical interpretations, then, ought not to be expressed to the masses, nor set down in rhetorical or dialectical books” (66). Averroes does not think that most people should be subject to these teachings. However, Plato believes that at least everyone should be given the opportunity, through education to understand these deeper, allegorical teachings.
In our transition from Plato to Averroes, it is important to keep in mind the similarities between the two philosophers. It is apparent that they have large similarities when it comes to certain philosophical views.
ReplyDeleteThe first similarity is that of a political sense. Both Plato and Averroes agree that an absolute monarch is the structure of choice. This monarch would be led by Plato’s “Philosopher King” because only the philosopher king has the true knowledge of all things on Earth and in Heaven. According to Averroes, extreme persuasion is needed to achieve this. The people must be taught at an early age that the absolute monarch is the best way. Also, Plato and Averroes both agree that the masses should not try to interpret scripture and read into certain things. Only the most educated of people are allowed to freely read all works of literature. This idea of censoring works of literature from the masses is due to the fact that the uneducated could easily misinterpret the text and become misinformed. Because of this, they should only be allowed to read easy works. I would like to know what texts the masses would and wouldn’t be allowed to read.
Upon further research, Averroes and Plato also had the same views when it came to equality for women, which, for that time period, is pretty surprising to me. Two extremely distinguished philosophers had an idea that wouldn’t become accepted until centuries later. This says a lot about the philosopher king idea. Maybe that is the answer in this day and age: have someone who has extreme amounts of knowledge would be better to lead the masses than the American president.
I agree, I noticed that the three classes Averroes mentioned paralleled with those listed by Plato. Averroes’ three classes of people and how they should interpret the Qur’an: the rhetorical class that should read it for its apparent meaning, the middle dialectic class and the third demonstrative class that is able to interpret the text for its allegorical meaning holds much in common with Plato’s producers, auxiliaries and guardians. Both authors seem to agree that only the most highly educated classes, the guardians and demonstrative class, should have access to certain information that the authors feel would be dangerous in the hands of the masses.
DeleteAfter our class discussion, I think that the most prominent similarity is that both Plato and Averroes both share the idea that there should be a strict division of classes. In Plato’s Republic he clearly laid out the blueprints for the perfectly just city. Part of his plan was to have very strict division between the classes composed of producers, auxiliaries, and guardians. Averroes also thought that people should be spilt into classes; the educated and the uneducated. The elite or educated people were the only ones capable of understanding verses in an allegorical sense. The educated were responsible for keeping the interpreted verses out of the hands of the uneducated, because the uneducated were only able to read verses in the literal sense. This censorship is similar to the ideas found in Plato’s republic. Plato also believed that certain information should be limited to the educated upper class, because it would be better for everyone as a whole. One difference I found between Plato and Averroes is that Plato only thought that the Philosophy Kings were the only ones that should being learning as much as possible. However in Averroes, he points out that every Muslim had a duty to learn. An except that supports this Islamic duty is, “Have they not studied the kingdom of the heavens and the earth, and whatever things God has created?” (p45) This quote supports Averroes’ idea that learning is an obligation that each Muslim has, and that religion and philosophy/knowledge are not two separate things.
ReplyDeleteI also found similarities between how Plato and Averroes supported their ideas by use of metaphors and allegories. In Plato’s Republic, the allegory of the cave was a big point that helped portray his philosophical ideas. In Averroes’ Decisive Treatise, Averroes used drinking water to describe how philosophy is necessary in life. Although there are always risks to drinking water (learning philosophy), the risks outweigh the benefits because there is always more to gain from learning philosophy.
I agree that the main similarity between Plato and Averroes is the division of classes. They both lay out what the classes do. Also with both there are three classes. I also agree that one of the differences is who should lead and who should learn. I also noticed that both of them used many metaphors and allegories.
DeleteIn class we mentioned some of the similarities and differences between Averroes and Plato. One of the major similarities is that both Averroes and Plato understood that in order for their philosophies to hold true, they had to be able to control some of the information that the “masses” would receive. For Plato it was more about controlling the information that the youngest citizens would receive so each child would grow up to be what they deemed the best possible fit for the children. Averroes on the other hand is arguing that if the masses try to interoperate certain information in an allegorical it could lead to chaos due to their lack of knowledge in that area.
ReplyDeletePersonally I don’t like the idea of a few individuals at the top of a social class structure making a decision on censorship for an entire population. I have to say that both men (Averroes and Plato) make strong arguments for why they believe their censorship is for the greater good. But when it comes down to the action behind the ideas, I like to believe that if a society is being educated in the right ways, that the masses should be able to handle interoperating texts without the system falling apart.
I really liked your argument about the need for everyone to be educated, not just the people at the very top of the social structure. I don't believe that it is anyone's right to assume what people can and cannot believe or understand. People should have equal opportunity to study the same texts. I found it interesting how the failures of an educated man were forgiven, but those of an uneducated man were not. There was the assumption that the common people, unable to understand the allegorical meaning of the scriptures, will have their beliefs damaged. These masses are not given the chance to prove their ability to rationalize the allegorical context, nor to prove that being unable to understand this meaning will damage their beliefs. I think that the common people should be educated, because a few people on the top of the societal structure should not be able to determine the level of education that others receive.
DeleteIn class I found the explanation of "the double truth theory" very interesting. The idea that there is still one truth but many paths that lead to it is a unique way of explaining the relationship between science and religion. It was also interesting that Averroes had limitations on who he thought was capable of looking for the truths. Like Plato, he believed that there should be different classes in society except his classes were much more basic: the uneducated and the educated. Plato had divided his perfect society into guardians, auxiliaries and producers. The difference between the two men was that Plato believed that the society should be ruled by one philosopher king and that no one else would be fit to do so. Averroes did not share that same belief. He only believed that the people who were educated could be allowed to make mistakes while looking at things allegorically instead of literally because that was one way that they could learn. But the uneducated people should not be allowed to look at things allegorically because if they make a mistake it will just corrupt their entire way of thinking.
ReplyDeleteAnother aspect that Averroes and Plato shared was their emphasis on learning and looking for truth. For Plato, he believed that people needed to escape from the "cave" where they were unaware of the outside world and the knowledge it contained. Averroes compared learning philosophy to drinking water. Drinking water is essential even though their is the possibility of choking on it. But even chocking on it would be better than not having it at all. This is the same for learning philosophy because there is always a chance that it could lead to blasphemy but that would only happen when the wrong people interpret it in the wrong way. But both Plato and Averroes thought that "leaving the cave" and "drinking the water" were necessary for society to thrive.
I too thought the "double truth theory" was interesting. I feel as though the theory can apply to any truth, and not just in terms of science and religion. I feel that if two people have the same general view about something, chances are that they didn't settle on those views in exactly the same manner, but rather different experiences and different people and times will have influenced each person in a separate way in order for them to have settled on that.
DeleteAverroes' comparison of learning philosophy and drinking water was also something I enjoyed discussing. I found it to be incredibly accurate, which I think is why I enjoyed discussing it so much. It just kind of clicked.
In the The Aeneid, I found it interesting God/Goddesses made such an impact on the "mortals" lives. There was such a big emphasis on God/Goddesses working their powers for or against the mortals- mostly based on their feelings. Starting from the beginning of The Aeneid, we can see the influence of Gods on every day life. For example, Aeolus, the God of Wind, created the bad weather for the Trojans in aid of Juno who wanted to kill Aeneas for her own selfishness of protecting Carthage. Aeneas and the Trojans survive the ordeal thanks to no one else but a goddess, Venus, who happens to be Aeneas’ mother as well! This event in the beginning of the epic foreshadows the importance of the gods throughout the book and it also shows the importance of the gods in ancient Greek history.
ReplyDeleteIn book IV, we see how gods interfere in the life of Aeneas. Juno proposes to Venus that Aeneas and Dido get married for her own self-interest of preventing him from reaching Italy. Venus knows that this is a ploy but goes along with it. Aeneas and Dido actually fall in love but never get married. I found it interesting how the gods easily got involved in such important matters such as love. Gods who are ”supposed” to be the “almighty” and “righteous” (at least in my opinion), are shown to do things for their selfishness and don’t mind that their actions have the potential to destroy humans, who do not have the power.
However I also found it interesting that Aeolus or Juno didn’t directly strike and kill Aeneas, but instead made trouble for him. Venus, who is also a goddess, didn’t seem to do anything “Godly” in terms of the first 6 books. This kind of showed me the difference of Gods and how they would use their power, depending on the type of power and position they are in (who is more powerful).
I also noticed the immense power the Gods and Goddesses had over the mortals. The amount of control they had over the world in The Aenied was surprising. If anything did not go their way, they would change something to make themselves happy. This confused me a little since, for a while, I thought Gods/Goddesses were self-less beings, who attempted to make the Earth a better place for all. According to The Aeneid, Juno had a personal hatred for Aeneas, so she used her everything in her power to make sure he did not successfully go to Italy. Even though Aeneas still got there, it was interesting to see how much trouble Juno caused him just because of her disinterest in him. This also made me wonder, maybe the reason Juno does this is because she has the most power, so no one else has the ability to trouble Aeneas as Juno did.
DeleteWhile reading Averroes, it became clearer to me how religion and science goes hand in hand. I am studying Political Science here and I have learned a lot about Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, and St. Thomas Aquinas but from what I have learned thus far is that the main thing for learning philosophy of humans is to acquire proper reasoning skills. I believe that Averroes argues the same thing when he mentions the water example.
ReplyDeleteDrinking the water is essential for living just like the want and need for logos (reasoning) and it can also harm you if you do not use it properly. Reasoning is essential for humans because we are not wired like other beings such as: lions hunting for survival, ants building their nests, bees getting pollen from flowers, etc.; humans acquire knowledge to learn of ways to improve their life and live a good life. Although Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates did not speak of religion much, St. Thomas Aquinas did!
In class, Professor Akman said that St. Thomas Aquinas was very against Averroes but I did not get that impression when I was learning about him in class. From what I understood was, he also believed that faith in religion was not the only thing needed to be a well-rounded and “good” person. Aquinas was very much a follower of Aristotle, Socrates, and Plato and also believed that with our knowledge of learning things, it will allow us to make up for the original sin that was first committed by Adam and Eve. I am not really sure if he completely hated and disagreed with Averroes, but I know that he also believe that, to some extent, religion and science is needed in order to make a person well-rounded and that you cannot have one without the other. Like I learned that: “Breathing is beautiful but you need both lungs to breathe” just like human life is a beautiful thing and you also need both science and religion to live a “good life”.
I agree with your first point that the text has both scientific and religious elements to it. Averroes uses chain arguments and deductive reasoning to explain how philosophy or “law” is essential in understanding and interpreting religious texts. I really liked the water theory as well; it’s a great parallel of how knowledge and philosophy is good for society if not abused. This is true for pretty much anything in life and you can even apply it to religion itself, if interpreted incorrectly or cynically, could lead to violent and corrupted followers.
DeleteBefore going to class I was confused about whether the speech by Averroes was trying to analyze the Qur’an in a scientific version or if it was simply trying to emphasize that religion and science intercept in Islamic religion. I also did not grasp the indication that when the author mentioned Law he was talking about religion. Furthermore, I was having difficulties interpreting the text in all, but the discussion cleared it up. I wanted to point out that though the text is interpreted from a scientific perspective the author mentions different religious text. Those texts support the idea that in the Islamic religion it is important to have that scientific background as long as the person does not lose faith and knows how to balance the two.
ReplyDeleteIt was interesting to me to find out that the dark skin person in the picture could be such a great philosopher like Averroes. In the picture the audience can get the impression that he is merely an spectator hovering over the philosophers. The reader would not guess that he was someone who contributed to Western civilization by providing such a great analysis. In my opinion Averroes logic in Islamic law gave rise to the philosophy and intellectual aspect of religion conveying the idea that it is best when the two concepts intertwine.
Averroes has not only proven to be an intellectual author but he is able to combine the critical approach to reading a text, and the canonical. I like the way that the author starts of by explaining what the speech will be about stating “… whether inquiry to philosophy and the logical sciences is permitted by the divine law”. The quote sets up the connection between the divine law and human wisdom. In my opinion Averroes does a fine job in directing his audience towards that discussion because it exemplifies that when you have a connection between religion and intellectual or science, there is no need to question the faith that a person already has.
I think you've accurately depicted how well Averroes balances the significance of both religious faith and scientific intellect. His insights were so profound that they had lasting effects on the work of other, non-muslim yet religious thinkers, such as St Thomas Aquinas. This theme of transcending religious borders is one that it is accepted by Averroes; He acknowledges that although the ancient greeks were pagans, they had established much great works which would be foolish to ignore. His capacity to effectively quote Quranic evidence to prove "...whether inquiry to philosophy and the logical sciences is permitted by the divine law" does not only highlight his scientific approach, but also highlights him as the first to do so. Certainly, Averroes is one to be studied in depth.
DeleteThe idea of allegory is present in both literary works. Allegory is an effective tool for leading average people to live in accordance with the truths they cannot comprehend on their own. In The Decisive Treatise, allegorical interpretation is the process of turning an expression from a real perspective to a metaphorical significance. The diversity of people’s natural capacities to understand the inner meaning within the scripture is what differentiates the lower uneducated class to the demonstrative class who are well educated and capable of understanding complex/refuting ideas.
ReplyDeleteThis reminds me of Plato’s allegory of the cave and how it is also pertains to the “inner meaning” of reality. For example, when a prisoner is released and realizes that the sun is the cause of all that is around him, he has then noticed the “Form of Good.” In other words, Plato discusses the prisoner’s new awareness of knowledge and understanding. At that point Plato has identified that the philosophers (who have recognized the Forms of Goodness) have the responsibility of being leaders and do not need to feel disapproved for those whom don't share his enlightenment.
I find it interesting that both these works use effective allegories to portray what reality is. Both Plato and Averroes have similar philosophies regarding the fact that there is a person who knows more and are qualified to receive information. The only leaders that I can think of who obtained those qualities in our society were unfortunately assassinated by the general (less educated) public. Do you think that there is a reason for this? Has the general public resented people with higher intelligence?
I found the similarities and differences between Averroes and Plato very interesting. Both of their works focus largely on education, with the concept of distinct classes playing a significant role. Just as Plato believed in rigorous education, lasting fifty years in the case of a guardians in his kallipolis, Averroes also argued for continuing education, with the main difference between his justification and Plato’s being religion. Averroes cites the Qur’an with quotations detailing the necessity of reading and reasoning in his argument for logic and critical thinking, as only with these tools can an individual understand the scripture. Averroes advocates for religious blindness when it comes to education, saying it does not matter what religious one believes in, if any at all, in the validity of science.
ReplyDeleteAverroes is also very similar to Plato in his support for his own “class system” of sorts. Just as Plato states that there is an intellectual superior who should rule, the philosopher-kings, Averroes states that only the highly education are free to study scripture. He states that only this elite can comprehend the allegorical nature of religious texts, whereas this would lead to a dissuasion of faith and heresy in the less educated. I am continually surprised by such elitism in writers such as Plato and Averroes, especially given how highly they value education. Possibly this is a difference stemming from the time period, as education is simply accepted as a necessity in today’s society, at least up to the high school level, so it seems odd that there would be an entire “class” of people viewed as unsuitable for reasoning and philosophy.
You raise a good point about how both Plato and Averroes felt education was a privilege, only belonging to the guardian or demonstrative classes.
DeleteAlso in regards to the elitist views surrounding education, I think it reflects just how expensive it was to educate people during these past times. The costs of republishing stacks of books, no printing presses etc.
I guess it is so easy to take for granted, we have instant information at our fingertips whenever we want it. But it makes me wonder, how would Plato and Averroes have adjusted their philosophies after taking a good look at the modern world and how things have changed. That's for another blog though...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe class discussion today helped to clarify Averroes discussion or debate a lot.I learned that Averroes was the transmitter or translater of Aristotle and plato into islam. I would have never been able to link Plato and Averroes together. They both are in favor of "class systems." Averroes believes that only those who have completed their education are able to study scriptures just as those who study philosophy are fit to rule the masses according to Plato.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the first three pages I grew frustrated with Averroes, it seemed as if the same was just repeating the same point over and over again. Philosophy is vital to religion and religious studies. I guess it was Averroe's scientific perspective or tone that was hard to follow. I thought that the concept of the drinking water that Averroes tied to studying philosophy in order to understand religion was a really good fit. He equated not studying philosophy with preventing a thirsty person from drinking water. It is possible that you might choke on water, but it's a lot safer to drink it than to not. A religious thinker must have a preliminary study of logic.
I also found it interesting today in class when the professor showed us how the similarities between english terms and arabic terms. Also, I would never have known how much of an Eastern influence there was during the Renaissance and the Dark Ages. Learning about the muslim polymaths has been enlightening and inspiring.
I definitely agree that the many similarities between english terms and arabic terms are interesting to learn about. It's incredible how much one culture has influenced today's cultures in so many large ways. I have enjoyed discussing this topic in class, especially because it relates a lot to present day cultures and topics.
DeleteI was very excited to see that we will be reading about a Muslim philosopher. In school were never really told to read anything that was not of the western culture. It was very surprising to me that Averroes and Plato as well as other philosophers that I was familiar with had the very same or very similar ideologies about life and science. The one thing that surprised me was the fact that this philosopher as well as many others of the Muslim religion use science and religion together a=to feed of each other. In the Muslim religion it is important for them to understand the sciences in order to understand and be in touch with their religion. Speaking from personal experience, science and religion was something that was not always seen together. I would always see science being used to disprove something about religion and religion being used to disprove science. A great example of this would be with evolution and the origin of human kind. Another idea that Averroes had which was surprisingly similar to one of Plato, for example, was the idea that not everyone should have all the knowledge and the power to rule a land. This is important because it they tell us that with everyone having knowledge or in Plato’s case reason, because if everyone does, who are the masses supposed to look up to in a leader position?
ReplyDelete