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

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