Arabian and Jewish Philosophy of the Period

Article 3. Arabian and Jewish Philosophy of the Period

a) Arabian Philosophy; b) Jewish Philosophy.

a) Ar abian Philosophy. The Arabians, who are probably of Semitic origin, were made a united power by the religion of Islam which they adopted in the early 7 century. They achieved prominence as a nation, and founded kingdoms on three continents. Important in the History of Philosophy is the Arabian establishment in Spain. The Arabians made notable achievements in the domain of literature, and especially in poetry. In medicine, too, they were leaders, and The Canons of Medicine, a work by Ibn-Sina (Avicenna), was for many years the standard, and indeed the only, text-book of medicine. Progress was made in the natural sciences by Arabian scholars; and they developed a great body of theological speculation based on their sacred book, Al Koran. Their philosophy was largely Greek. They possessed translations of the works of Aristotle (made, not from the original, but from Syriac translations) and of Porphyry and other commentators on the Stagirite, who interpolated his teachings with Neoplatonic doctrines. It may be a fair characterization of the Arabian Philosophy to say that it is Aristotelean in form, but largely Neoplatonic in character. The Arab Philosophy flourished in the Orient and later in Spain. Its period of greatest vigor extended from the 9 to the 12 century. Two causes may be assigned for its disappearance: (1) determined opposition on the part of the lay-Arabs, who regarded philosophy as subversive of the doctrines of the sacred Koran; (2) the crushing of the Arab (Moorish) power in Spain in the 12 century. The chief Arabian philosophers may be divided into two groups, the first of which flourished in the Orient, and the second in Spain. (1) Arabian Philosophers in the Orient were: i. An-Nazzam (mid-9 century), who was the first Arabian philosopher of note. ii. Al-Kindi (mid-9 century), who was a famous student of philosophy in Bagdad. iii. Al-Farabi (10 century), who studied in Bagdad under a certain John, a Christian. Al-Farabi wrote commentaries on Aristotle’s works. He was held in high repute by the Scholastics. iv. Ibn-Sina (Avicenna) (980-1037), who was born of Persian parents in Bokhara. He practised medicine in Bagdad, and also taught philosophy there. He was a man of splendid talent. He died in prison, whither he had been sent for conspiring against some local chieftain. He wrote the famous Canons of Medicine, and, in the domain of philosophy, he wrote on Logic, on the soul, and First Philosophy. v. Al-Gazali (Algazel) (1058-1111), who was called “The Light and Pillar of Islam” because of his work in defending the orthodox doctrines of Mohammedanism. (2) Arabian Philosophers in Spain were: i. Ibn-Tophail (Abubacer; died 1185), who was a celebrated physician, mathematician, and philosopher. He wrote a book on the life of a man segregated from society, dealing especially with the development of the cognitive and appetitive life of such an individual. ii. Ibn-Badscha (Avempace) (died 1138), who spent the later years of his life at Granada. He wrote a work on the intellect in man. iii. Ibn-Roschd (Averroes) (died 1198), who was born at Cordova of distinguished Andalusian parents. He was a man of great talent, and was well versed in the liberal arts. He was accused of plotting against Islam, and was exiled to Morocco, where he died. He was the last great Arabian philosopher in Spain. His influence was felt throughout the 13 century among the Scholastics of the Golden Age. He wrote on the happiness of the soul; on the connection of the “abstract intellect” with man; on the substance of the world; and composed three commentaries on Aristotle. The origin of ideas was a subject much discussed by the Arabians. They held the strange doctrine that there is an active intellect subsisting in itself and common, in its functions, to all men. Aristotle had taught that man’s intellect has an active and a “passive” function : the active intellect abstracts the intelligible species (abstracted mental representation of the essence) from sense findings, and impresses this upon the passive intellect, which reacts to the impression and expresses the idea. Now the Arabs did not admit an active function in the intellect of each individual man. Individual intellect, they said, is only passive. The active intellect which abstracts the intelligible species is one, self-subsistent, and common to all—or rather, communicates its function to all. This “abstract intellect” furnishes intelligible species to individual men upon the occasion of their sensation, and thus they are enabled to express ideas by their personal and individual passive intellect. Thus far Avicenna and his followers. But Averroes taught that the “abstract intellect” is both active and passive; and limited the mental possession of individual men to the fancy, or imagination-faculty, whereby they form sense-images of things. The general abstract intellect gets its materials from the sensa-tions of men, renders them intelligible (suitable to be grasped by the understanding), and re-impresses them upon the minds of individuals as ideas. Upon this doctrine Averroes bases his proof that individual immortality of souls is impossible, since everything in individual men (including the material faculty of imagination) is material and must perish. But he teaches the contrary in his theological writings based on the Koran. Here we find in Averroes himself the origin of that later doctrine of a twofold truth, taught by the Averroists of the 13 century. In Metaphysics, the Arabians are fairly Aristotelean except in the matter of the origin of things. The range of entities, they teach, is like a ladder. On the top rung is God, the Perfect Intelligence, the Absolute Good. On the bottom rung of the ladder of being is Prime Matter. Between the two is a series of intelligences, descendingly imperfect, the lowest intelligence being that which (as we saw above) is common to all men. This intellect (agens) not only puts intelligible species into human minds, but impresses forms in Prime Matter and so constitutes the universe of real genera and species. Now, whence came the intelligences that hold the intermediate position between God and Prime Matter ? Arabian philosophy furnishes a sufficiently complex answer to this question, but, ultimately, it amounts to this: the intelligences emanated from God (pantheism). Some Arabian philosophers teach that Prime Matter also emanated from God. Averroes denies this doctrine, and declares that Prime Matter is eternal and self-existing, and in its nature opposed to God. God did not act upon Prime Matter through the medium of intelligences in time, but from eternity. Averroes feels that creation in time would mean mutability in the immutable God. Hence, the emanated intelligences, the forms these impress in matter, and Prime Matter itself are all eternal, and their mutual relations and activities are also from eternity.

Remarks: This doctrine of the origin of things is obviously false. It falsely supposes the impossibility of creation from nothing. It falsely postulates the eternity of the world. It falsely implies that God needs secondary causes in His action upon the world. It falsely supposes that creation in time would mean a change in God.

b) Jewish Philosophy. After the dispersion of the Jewish race, learned Hebrews devoted themselves to the study of Old Testament Scripture, and, if they philosophized at all, they followed their great Philo of Alexandria. Between Philo (1 century) and the 10 century there was no outstanding Jewish philosopher. But the History of Philosophy must mention some Hebrews of the 10, 11, and 12 centuries. These lived among the Arabians of the East or in Spain, and show Arabian influence in their doctrines. The chief Jewish philosophers of the period were: i. Saadias (about 892-942), who was born in Egypt. He wrote a philosophical treatise dealing with Old Testament truths. ii. Solomon Ibn Gebirol (called Avicebron or Avicebrol) (1020-1070), who was born at Malaga. His work, The Fount of Life, had considerable fame among the Scholastics. iii. Moses Maimonides (1135-1204), who lived in Egypt and Palestine. He wrote a Guide for the Perplexed, designed to confirm the Faith of those racked by doubts. The doctrine of these Jewish philosophers, like that of the Arabians, is a commingling of Aristoteleanism and Neoplatonism. Avicebron follows the Arabians in his doctrine of a universal soul emanating from God. This world-soul, consisting of matter and form, produced forms both spiritual and bodily. The world-soul itself interpenetrates everything. Maimonides remained unaffected, for the most part, by Arabian influence. He treats skilfully of the nature of God, of creation, and of the Divine Law. He errs, however, in asserting that we cannot make even a distinction of reason among the attributes of God because of the Divine Simplicity (i. e., indivisibility). He declares creation from nothing as a revealed truth, and says rational science is powerless to prove such creation impossible. In treating of the Divine Law, Maimonides introduces the subject of freedom in man and the origin of evil. He rightly teaches that the human will is free, and that sin is to be ascribed to the freely willing sinner, and is in no sense necessitated. Here we must mention the Greek philosophers of the 9 and succeeding centuries, who settled in Constantinople after being banished from Athens by the Edict of Justinian (529). These philosophers are sometimes grouped into what is called the Byzantine School, a name which derives from the ancient Bysantium, later called Constantinople. Byzantine philosophers of the 9 century were Michael Psellus, the Elder ; and Photius. 10 century: Suidas, Arethas, and Nicetas. 11 century: Michael Psellus, the Younger. 12 century: Michael Ephesius, Joannes Italus, and Anna Comnena, daughter of the Emperor Alexis. 13 century: Nicephorus Blemmydes, and George Pachymeres. From the Byzantines in the early 13 century, the Scholastics of Western Europe received the original and complete works of Aristotle which they had known hitherto only in imperfect and interpolated Arabic translations of Syriac versions.

THE PERFECTION OF SCHOLASTIC PHILOSOPHY (12OO-I3OO) During the 13 century Scholasticism had the field of Philosophy practically to itself. There was no notable achievement in philosophy among the Orientals of the time: the Jews and Arabians had no great philosophers after Maimonides and Averroes. Nor had the Greeks of the period more than one or two philosophers of minor importance. There were, indeed, anti-Scholastics in Western Europe, but Scholastic Philosophy so far surpassed all contemporary systems in vigor and perfection that it dominated the age. In this period Scholastic Philosophy passed through its ultimate stages of intrinsic development and achieved perfection. The speculation of centuries preceding the 13 had advanced from a very limited attempt to set forth the truths of Faith in philosophic fashion to a system of philosophy that pushed rational inquiry to the utmost limit in every branch of the science. During the same period of formation and development attempts had been made again and again to mark off the proper limits of philosophy as distinct from theology. This widening of scope and this persistent effort to define the field of philosophy bore fruit in the 13 century. The limits of philosophy and theology were accurately determined ; the relations of these sciences were clearly established; complete and coherent treatises on philosophy were written. The chief Scholastics of this Period of Perfection agreed in fundamental principles and leading doctrines ; hence we rightly flay that Scholastic Philosophy is one philosophy. Yet each 219