“In the Christian intellectual environment of the thirteenth century, apparent conflicts between argumentation in natural philosophy and argumentation in matter sof theological doctrine became exceptionally acute. The newly introduced writings of from the ancients — Greek philosophy and science, accompanied by Arabic and Hebrew commentary — rigorously set forth propositions alien to fundamental dicta of Christian faith: for example, the enternity of the world, the impossibility of individual immortality, and the radical noncontingency of existence as such. Averröes’ rendering of the Aristotelian writings contributed heavliy to these conflicts. Aristotle was read in the medieval faculties of arts as the staple of natural philosophy and science, and Averröes was read as his primary interpretive adjuct. In fact, in later medieval writings Averröes is merely referred to as “the Commentator”. Thus, since he put forward analyses understanding Aristotle to deny the creation of the world in time, personal immortality, and the contingency of existence, such views attained wide currency among masters of arts.The response from the theological side was early and direct. ‘Arabic’ commentary was forbidden to be read in 1210 and 1215 [quite a feat, considering that Averröes died in 1198], and permitted only with censoring in 1231, at the University of Paris. Albert the Great published a treatsie, Contra Averroistas, and Thomas Aquinas [Thomas bloody Aquinas, damn it!
] wrote about 1269, at a time of great intellectual controversy at Paris, a Tractatus de Unitate Intellectus Contra Averroistas.”
— Stuart MacClintock, in the article on Averröes,
The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (New York 1967), p. 222.
Posts