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

Al-Ghazà ¢là ®, Causality, and Knowledge ABSTRACT: Few passages in Arabic philosophy have attracted as much attention as al-Ghazà ¢là ®'s discussion of causality in the seventeenth discussion of Tahà ¢fut al-Falsafa, along with the response of Ibn Rushd (Averroà «s) in his Tahà ¢fut al-Tahà ¢fut. A question often asked is to what extent al-Ghazà ¢là ® can be called an occasionalist; that is, whether he follows other Kalà ¢m thinkers in restricting causal agency to God alone. What has not been thoroughly addressed in previous studies is a question which al-Ghazà ¢là ® and Ibn Rushd both see as decisive in the seventeenth discussion: what theory of causality is sufficient to explain human knowledge? In this paper I show that al-Ghazà ¢là ®'s and Ibn Rushd's theories of causality are closely related to their epistemologies. The difference between the two thinkers can be briefly summerized as follows. For Ibn Rushd, the paradigm of human knowledge is demonstrative science; for al-Ghazà ¢là ®, in contrast, the par adigm 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-Ghazà ¢là ®'s stance in the seventeenth discussion sheds light on his critique of philosophy in the Tahà ¢fut: 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-Ghazà ¢là ®'s discussion of causality in the seventeenth discussion of Tahà ¢fut al-Falà ¢sifa, along with the response of Ibn Rushd (Averroà «s) in his Tahà ¢fut al-Tahà ¢fut. A question which has been addressed ... ...onalist reading of al-Ghazà ¢là ®, translates the same as 'sheer vilification,' referring to the philosophers. Marmura's is clearly the better translation (tashnà ®' being the verbal noun of 'to vilify'), indicating that al-Ghazà ¢là ® is in fact referring back to the criticism made by the philosophers. The passage is at Tahà ¢fut, p. 296. See also Riker, p. 319. (12) Tahà ¢fut, p. 300, p. 258. English translation p. 330, p. 278. (13) Tahà ¢fut, p. 296. English translation, p. 325. (14) Tahà ¢fut, pp. 295-6. English translation, p. 324. (15) Tahà ¢fut, p. 294. English translation, p. 322. (16) Qurà ¢n 35.43, cited at Tahà ¢fut, p. 292. English translation, p. 320. See also Tahà ¢fut, p. 302, English translation, p. 333. (17) Tahà ¢fut, p. 296. English translation, p. 325. (18) Tahà ¢fut, p. 298. English translation, p. 327. (19) Tahà ¢fut, p. 84. English translation, p. 70.