 Today we travel back to the year 1150 of the Common Era, in order that we may illuminate one who is perhaps the most influential figure of Islamic philosophy. He was known to his people as Abu Awalid, Muhammad ibn Rashid, and to the Western philosophical tradition, as simply Averuiz. He served for a time as Chief Justice of Seville, until being appointed sometime later as Court Physician of Marrakesh. This would be until his banishment, due to public resentment we are told, to Lucina in 1194, where he stayed until his death in 1198. I give this quick summary of his various positions to illustrate that, though he is known as a great man by posterity, and all traditions would gladly have him as part of their ranks today, this was not entirely the case during his own lifetime. This should not come as any surprise, as it was the fate of more than a few great men and women who unwaveringly traveled the philosophic path, and by so doing, stepped on the proverbial toes of the traditions held by the general public of their time. It was not only his position as a philosopher that gained him fame, but also his work in medicine, being one of the greatest physicians of his time, in the first to explain the function of the retina, as well as to recognize that an attack of smallpox conferred subsequent immunity to its victim. It will be our task to cover his philosophic positions regarding logic, metaphysics, ethics, politics, religion, and God. I will do my best to cover the most significant portions of these disciplines, but as with most of these great minds, their work spanned decades, and covering it all within a single video would require a bit more time to say the least. Regarding his philosophical contributions, the most notable are his commentaries on Aristotle. Many in future generations would even bestow upon him the title of the commentator for the thoroughness which he displayed while completing these works. It will also be from these commentaries which we take from when attempting to extract an accurate depiction of his true beliefs. This seems strange, for one would think that it would be from his various original minor treatises, that we would find this information, but this is not the consensus for a veroese. The reason for this stems from the audience which each work was meant to be consumed by. It was clear enough that he takes the position that what may be true in philosophy, among the educated, can also at the same time be false and harmful for religion and the morals of the general populace. So let us, starting with logic, inquire into the meaning of existence as a veroese would come to define the philosophic craft. Logic to a veroese can be defined as the study of the conditions and rules that rightly guide the mind toward the conception of essences and the ascent to propositions. From this definition it is clear enough that logic ranks among the most important disciplines which a philosopher must undertake, going so far as to claim that one who has been instructed in the art of logic is one who is educated. Much like those around during his time, a veroese separated logical processes into five different types of argument, demonstrative, dialectical, rhetorical, poetical, and fallacious. Of these five he paid special attention to the demonstrative arguments as he believed that it was the most perfect kind of reflection using the most perfect kind of inference and was the only logical path which ends with some form of certainty. In a commentary which he named the book of demonstration he elaborates on Aristotle's posterior analytics and it is here where we will likely find the most accurate depiction of his position regarding demonstrative argument. He illustrates the following three forms of demonstration, absolute demonstration, demonstration of existence, and demonstration of the cause. The first absolute demonstration is not typically possible outside of mathematics as it establishes the existence of a thing on the basis of a cause that is known prior to its effect. In the realm of natural science or metaphysics, the mode which we must opt for is a demonstration of existence which establishes a thing's existence without any grasp of its cause. This is due to the point at which we must start, that being with the accidental sensible features of things. This he ruefully admits is not ideal since it lacks the degree of certainty which accompanies absolute demonstration, but they are the cards we must play in the sciences resting outside the bounds of mathematics. It is also this difference in certainty through the different forms of demonstrative argument which dictates the superiority of some sciences over others. His interests are not limited to the demonstrative forms of argument and much is said on where and how the dialectical form should be utilized. In terms of communicating with the common individual we should prefer the rhetorical or poetical statements. This aversion to the use of dialectics and communicating with the lay person stems primarily from the way it is typically utilized versus the way in which it should be utilized. According to Averwes dialectical argument should come from a place of commonality where both parties involved start from a list of set rules which they commit themselves to. They are not parties whose sole objective is to defeat the other in verbal combat or bludgeon the other over the head with their point of view. He said the communal enterprise can be achieved in its utmost perfection only by both partners. They can have something in common when their aim is the assessment and the deduction of truth or the realization of their training. Thus the respondent should perfect his response if he intends that aim because the basis of partners is the one who aims at the destruction of the communal enterprise. But if their aim is to struggle against and defeat the other then they will have nothing in common. This is not the method of dialectic. To conclude our review of Averwes's commentary regarding logic we will look to his findings as it pertains to the logical value of judicial inferences. Inference in law refers to a rational conclusion that has been deduced or proved from presented facts. It was his view that these inferences produced nothing beyond mere opinion and though Juris during his time came to call their judicial inferences syllogisms Averwes rejected this believing that what the Juris spoke of unlike true syllogisms lacked the capacity to deduce the unknown from the known. If one truly desires success in the study of Juris prudence and in the study of logic they must approach them separately or risk failure in both. Like my previous video concerning the philosophy of Giordano Bruno much of Averwes' metaphysical doctrine cannot be taken apart without losing some context so when reviewing his metaphysics we will endeavor to keep firmly in mind aspects of his psychology natural philosophy and theology. Our starting point must be substance as it carries the greatest degree of certainty as it pertains to existence according to Averwes. As we observe it substance is an amalgam composed of more essential metaphysical ingredients called matter and form. Matter we can understand as halfway between absolute non-being and actual being. It is homogenous, deprived of the divisions of individual forms and all things share this body that is numerically one. Formless and eternal it carries within it the potential to become all things. In this state of pure privation matter can only exist in the soul in order that it may exist externally it must be actualized by our other metaphysical ingredient form. Averwes insists that we must think of form too as substance and in fact as substance proper. This is due to form alone accounting for the essence of any one thing. Form is the primary substance only because it is the cause of the determinant substance and the determinant substance comes to be substance only by it. When actualized by form its initial state is that of the three dimensions and not as it will appear to you and I in its composite form e.g. human beings or bookcase. The three dimensions that constitute the nature of body are the first state in matter and matter cannot be devoid of them in any instance of generation. These dimensional prerequisites are essential to the existence of contraries Accidents as he would come to call them are attributes of substance which come and go from an enduring subject and depend entirely on this host subject for its existence much like a virus attaching itself to a host and necessarily perishing along with it though when the virus dies the host endures. Where we part from this analogy is that with subject and accident the fundamental difference is one of cause and effect. Accidents are the effect which rely upon its subject for its existence but are not part of the substance. Prior to moving forward we should investigate a veroise's belief regarding celestial bodies as it holds significance to later parts of this video. In similar fashion celestial bodies e.g. stars planets and moons were composed of matter and form but in the case of these bodies their matter was of the incorruptible and indivisible type. They were also alive full of pleasure and delighted in themselves what moves them is their desire or souls if you will and their final cause is the beauty of the celestial intelligence. Their significance is so profound that if the motion of the heavens were destroyed the world in its totality would be destroyed. This universe of ours has always been and a veroise approaches the question of a first cause to an eternal universe by explaining essential and accidental causal orderings. Causes that are essentially ordered are simultaneous such that the prior stages are a condition for the effects on going existence. Here without a first cause endless such series would be actually infinite all at once. If we are to avoid an infinite regress of movers there must be many or at least one unmoved mover. Accidental orderings take place over time as when rain comes from a cloud the cloud comes from vapor and vapor comes from a prior rain. This ordering avoids the trap of infinity as materials are simply used corrupted and then reused. If there is a first mover it reasons to assume that there then follows an eternal first thing moved which a veroise points out to be the outermost fear of the stars. There is a moved thing that is first by nature which moves the whole and which terminates every movement whose mover is external. The mover of this first moved thing is of itself not a body and is absolutely and essentially unmoved. Within all organic matter there inhabits a soul which has three distinguishable operations the nutritive sensory and rational levels. We will move past the nutritive for a better view of the sensory and rational levels. The foundation of cognition at all levels is its passivity meaning that regarding the five senses they are but the medium by which the external world transmits its causal regularity to our one true principle of sensation the common sense. Each of our higher sensory power such as imagination memory and the cognitive power rely on the common sense to integrate information stemming from sensory organs. The purpose these higher sensory powers serve is ultimately to reveal the substantial differences between individual things. This ability distinguishes human beings from the lower animals as in their case there can be no distinctions beyond sensory information that is superficial. For a bird to conceive of universal concept it must have at its disposal the powers of the intellect. There were two intellectual powers that he distinguishes from one another these being the agent and material intellects. The agent intellect illuminates imagined intentions making them universal while the material intellect acts like a matter like potentiality for receiving forms in the intelligible domain. In other words it is where abstract forms are coordinated into concrete thought. These substances are eternal since according to Averwes the human species is eternal and can be thought of as aspects of the soul. The way in which he came to recognize these aspects of the human soul was by an examination of these distinct propositions there as follows. One human beings think abstractly. Two abstract thought is impossible for corporeal beings and three human beings are corporeal. There are contradictions here that he wishes to see solved and for this purpose he conceives of what we know as the extended mind thesis meaning that a being's cognitive system extends beyond the individual organism. Human beings are indeed corporeal but the agent and material intellect are not so. They belong to the human soul but exist in a separate domain and the partial control which we assert over them allows for abstract and concrete thought. Other corporeal beings lack this aspect of the intellectual powers which leaves them as holy corporeal beings and therefore unable to think abstractly. Much like Francis Bacon Averwes took the position that philosophy when studied superficially would lead one away from religion but after deep study and much contemplation would lead one to a greater understanding between religion and philosophy. He could not uphold the dogmas associated with the holy books but believed in their importance and upholding morality in the general populace. We cannot expect a people strained with economic in opportunities to find the time and energy to explore philosophy with any seriousness. Instead of calling it a question the word of the established religion, the philosopher should hold their tongue and confide within his established circle avoiding the making of waves in the populace when practicable. He derives his argument for the existence of God from Aristotle's physics, relying on the establishment of God as first cause. An important distinction here is in the categorization of God, not as any efficient cause, such as when one actually moving body brings another body from potential to actual motion, but as final cause. It is in the mediation of the celestial spheres that this cause is manifest. While God cannot act directly on the world of temporal material things, he does, because they are eternal. Serve as the final causes inspiring the celestial intelligences. The temporal cannot proceed from an absolutely eternal being, but only from an eternal being which is eternal in its substance, but temporal in its movements, namely the celestial body. I would like to pass on to the connection of Aeroes made between philosophy and Islamic law, or Sharia. It should be known that he had no wish to set philosophy at the service of any kind of theology. Instead, these writings are more appropriately classified as philosophical considerations on religious text and theological issues. It is in the decisive treatise wherein he states his case for the use of philosophy as a method of religious reflection and vice versa. He is adamant that philosophy does not go against Sharia, but is complementary to it. He states, since the law is true, we, the Muslim community, know firmly that demonstrative reasoning does not lead to disagreement with what the law sets down, for truth does not oppose truth, but rather agrees with it and bears witness to it. Because he believes Sharia to be truth, it falls upon the common person as well as the philosopher to seek adherence to its ways, the way in which these two groups come to the truth may be different, but the finish line remains the same. Politics, for Aeroes, is a practical science which can be separated into that which is theoretical and that which is more on the practical side. For its theoretical aspects, he looks to Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics and sought to explain the connections between our actions, virtues, and vices. True human felicity comes about through an understanding of and connection to the agent intellect itself, though the ordinary, non-philosophically inclined individual should follow the Quran and the prescriptions which it dictates. If successful in conjoining with the agent intellect, the philosopher becomes one of the eternal incorporeal beings and is made like under God. Even the philosopher, however, would be wise to utilize prayer in the Quran. Moving on to the practical aspect of Aeroes' politics, he breaks from his usual tradition of commentating upon Aristotle's work and takes Plato's Republic as his source. He will examine how these dispositions become established within souls and how they are perfected and impeded. The Republic is perhaps chosen for this here second part for its implied assertion that the city is as the man, meaning that the theoretical has as its end what the practical seeks to achieve, this being the governance of cities. He takes what is dialectical in the Republic and throws it away or consolidates it within three books. Within these three books, he observes what qualities make up the virtuous city and the individuals that rule over them. There is also an observation of non-virtuous governments and how they compare to those that are virtuous. He has his criticisms of the Republic but stands with Plato on the position regarding women. He laments that during his own time, women in these cities are not prepared with any respect to the human virtues. They frequently resemble plants. There being a burden upon the men in these cities is one of the causes of poverty. Following his death in 1198, he was succeeded by a reported 39 disciples which stayed true to their master's philosophic and scientific beliefs, though his reception among the general Islamic community was checkered, until its revival in the ideological debates of the Arab Renaissance. This was not to say that in the years prior to the Renaissance, he was without influence. Many in the philosophic and scientific fields drank deeply from the waters which he labored so diligently to cleanse. This was especially true in the Jewish community, where he may even have passed Aristotle in particular circles. Let us hear the advice given by the Jewish scholar, Moses Alzmanino. Do not squander your time with the epitomies and middle commentaries of Averwes, but read only the long commentaries, for if you read the long commentaries carefully, you will have no need to read any other book in order to understand anything of natural sciences. As for Western Europe, they likely gave Averwes the warmest reception, and by 1250, most of his commentaries had already been translated to Latin. These seas were not all calm, however. Certain ideas which he espoused in his commentaries were particularly concerning to intellectual and religious leaders, so much so that there was produced a list of condemned propositions which made its way out of the University of Paris in 1270, and again in 1277. Regardless of this complex reception among the various creeds and philosophic disciplines, we stand here today with gratitude for the contribution which this one life made to our understanding of natural science and philosophy. If you have found his work to be as interesting and admirable as I, then let me know in the comments below. And as always, thank you for talking philosophy with me. Until next time.