Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes, On Intellect

Alfarabi, Avicenna, andAverroes, on Intellect
This page intentionally left blank
Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes, on Intellect THEIR COSMO O!IES, THEORIES O" THE ACTI#E I$TE THEORIES O" H&MA$ I$TE ECT ECT, A$%
Herbert A' %avidson
$e( )ork O*ford O+"OR% &$I#ERSIT) ,RESS -../
O*ford &niversity ,ress O*ford $e( )ork Toronto %elhi 0o1bay Calc2tta Madras 3arachi 32ala 21p2r Singapore Hong 3ong Tokyo $airobi %ar es Salaa1 Cape To(n Melbo2rne A2ckland and associated co1panies in 0erlin Ibadan
Copyright 45 -../ by Herbert A' %avidson ,2blished by O*ford &niversity ,ress, Inc' /66 Madison Aven2e, $e( )ork, $) -66-7 O*ford is a registered trade1ark of O*ford &niversity ,ress All rights reserved' $o part of this p2blication 1ay be reprod2ced, stored in a retrieval syste1, or trans1itted, in any for1 or by any 1eans, electronic, 1echanical, photocopying, recording or other(ise, (itho2t the prior per1ission of the p2blisher' ibrary of Congress Cataloging8in8,2blication %ata %avidson, Herbert A' 9Herbert Alan:, -.;/Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes on intellect< their cos1ologies, theories of the active intellect, and theories of h21an intellect = Herbert A' %avidson, p' c1' Incl2des bibliographical references and inde*' IS0$ 68-.8>6?@/;8A -' ,hilosophy, Isla1icBCD!reek infl2ences' /' Intellect' ;' "arabl' @' Avicenna, .A68-6;?' >' Averroes, --/78--.A' 7' ,hilosophy of 1ind' ?, Cos1ology, Isla1ic' I' Title' 0?@>'I>@%;A -../ ->;'.BCDdc/6 .-8;AA>7
-;>?.A7@/ ,rinted in the &nited States of A1erica on acid8free paper
Mark, EliEabeth, and Abigail
"OR
Ackno(ledg1ents
Chapters /, ;, and @, have gro(n o2t of an article p2blished in #iator ; 9-.?/:' Chapters 7 and ? re(ork articles that appeared in #iator -A 9-.A?: and #iator -? 9-.A7:, respectively' My (ife 3inneret read the entire 1an2script 1etic2lo2sly and did her best to n2dge 1e in the direction of clarity and logic' My colleag2es Hossein Fiai and Michael "ishbein gave 1e inval2able assistance, the for1er in the reading of S2hra(ardi, and the latter in 1atters of Arabic' Michael Cohen, for1erly of the &C A H21anities Co1p2ting "acility g2ided 1e thro2gh the h2rdles attendant 2pon the preparation of ca1era8ready copy' I e*tend (ar1est thanks to each of the1' All the translations are 1y o(n' os Angeles May -../ H' A' %'
Contents
-' Introd2ction, ; /' !reek and Arabic Antecedents, ? Stages of H21an Intellect, . The 3ind of Entity That the Active Intellect Is, -; The Active Intellect as a Ca2se of H21an Tho2ght, -A The Active Intellect as a Ca2se of E*istence, /. ConG2nction (ith the Active IntellectH I11ortality, ;@
;' Alfarabi on E1anation, the Active Intellect, and H21an Intellect, @@ Al8Madina al8"d@ila and al8Siyasa al8Madaniyya, @@ AlfarabiIs ,hilosophy of Aristotle, 7; TheRisalafial8cAJl, 7> 7> AlfarabiIs Co11entary on the $ico1achean Ethics, ?6 Concl2ding $ote, ?;
@' Avicenna on E1anation, the Active Intellect, and H21an Intellect, ?@ The E1anation of the &niverseH the Active Intellect as a Ca2se of the E*istence of the S2bl2nar Korld, ?@ Stages of H21an IntellectH the Active Intellect as the Ca2se of H21an Tho2ght, A; I1agination, Cogitation, Insight, .> ConG2nction and I11ortality, -6; ,rophecy, --7 S211ary, -/@
>' Reverberations of the Theories of Alfarabi and Avicenna, -/? AvicennaIs Isla1ic S2ccessors, -/? Reverberations in Medieval Le(ish ,hilosophy, -A6
Contents Reverberations in Scholastic ,hilosophy, /6. S211ary, /-A
7' Averroes on E1anation and on the Active Intellect as a Ca2se of E*istence, //6 !eneral Considerations, //6 The E1anation of the &niverse, //; The Active Intellect as a Ca2se of E*istence< Epito1es of the ,arva nat2ralia and the Metaphysics, /;/ The Active Intellect as a Ca2se of E*istence< The Co11entary on %e generatione ani1ali21, /@/ The Active Intellect as a Ca2se of E*istence< The ong Co11entary on the Metaphysics and Tahdf2t al8Tahdf2t 9%estr2ctio destr2ction21:, /@> S211ary, />@ ?' Averroes on the Material Intellect, />A Introd2ction, />A The Epito1e of the %e ani1a and the Epistle on the ,ossibility of ConG2nction, /7> A Minor Co1position on ConG2nction and the Middle Co11entary on the %e ani1a, /?@ AverroesI ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a and his Co11entary on Ale*anderIs %e intellect2, /A/ S211ary, /.> AverroesI Theories of Material Intellect as Reflected in S2bseJ2ent Le(ish and Christian Tho2ght, /.A A' Averroes on the Active Intellect as the Ca2se of H21an Tho2ght, ;-> The ,assage of the H21an Intellect to Act2ality, ;-> The ,ossibility of ConG2nction (ith the Active IntellectH I11ortality, ;/- ,rophecy, ;@6 AverroesI Shifting ,ict2re of the &niverse and of ManIs ,lace in It, ;>- Inde*, ;>?
Alfarabi, Avicenna, andAverroes, on Intellect
I$TRO%&CTIO$ The 1ost intensely st2died sentences in the history of philosophy are probably those in AristotleIs %e ani1a that 2ndertake to e*plain ho( the h21an intellect passes fro1 its original state, in (hich it does not think, to a s2bseJ2ent state, in (hich it does' Aristotle started fro1 the pres2pposition that h21an tho2ghts reflect the e*ternal (orld (itho2t distortion, the antithesis of (hat (o2ld be I11an2el 3antIs perspective' Reasoning that the presence of any inborn J2ality (o2ld color tho2ghts received by the h21an intellect and hence prevent the intellect fro1 perfor1ing its assigned task, he fo2nd the h21an intellect to be a Mpart of the so2lM (hich has the ability to Mbeco1e each thingM b2t in itself originally has Mno nat2reM (hatsoever other than the ability to think'- Then ca1e the state1ents that (ere to echo do(n thro2gh the cent2ries' Aristotle bro2ght to bear a dichoto1y pervading his entire philosophy, positing that the vario2s do1ains of the physical 2niverse disclose both a M1atterM and a Mca2seM or MagentM (hich leads the 1atter fro1 potentiality to act2alityH and he inferred that the sa1e distinction 12st also be Mpresent in the so2l'M At the side of the intellect that is (hat it is Mby virt2e of beco1ing all things,M by virt2e of acJ2iring all tho2ghts, an intellect 12st conseJ2ently e*ist that is (hat it is Mby virt2e of 1aking all things,M by virt2e of 1aking all tho2ghts'/ The intellect that is (hat it is Mby virt2e of beco1ing all thingsM ca1e to be kno(n as the potential or 1aterial intellect, and the intellect that is (hat it is Mby virt2e of 1aking all things,M as the active intellect so1eti1es also translated as active 1ind, active intelligence, active reason, agent intellect, prod2ctive intellect:' L2st (hat Aristotle 1eant by potential intellect and active intellectBCDter1s not even e*plicit in the %e ani1a and at best i1pliedBCDand G2st ho( he 2nderstood the interaction bet(een the1 re1ains 1oot to this day' St2dents of the history of philosophy contin2e to debate AristotleIs intent, partic2larly the J2estion (hether he considered the active intellect to be an aspect of the h21an so2l or an entity e*isting independently of 1an'; K' %' Ross has characteriEed Mthe fa1o2s Aristotle, %e ani1a ;'@'@/.a, -6, /-8//H @/.b, 7' Ibid' ;'>'@;6a, -68->' ; A sa1ple< E' Feller, %ie ,hilosophic der !riechen /'/, @th ed' 9 eipEig -./-: >?;8?> 9transcendent:H "' $2yens, devol2tion de la psychologic dIAristote 9 o2vain -.@A: ;6;8@, ;6A, ;-- 9transcendent:H K' Ross, Aristotle, >th ed' 9 ondon -.@.: ->; 9transcendent:H ide1, edition of AristotleIs %e ani1a 9O*ford -.7-: @>8@? 9i11anent:H L' Rist, M$otes on Aristotle %e ani1a /-
Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes, on Intellect
doctrine of the active reasonM as Mperhaps the 1ost obsc2re and certainly the 1ost disc2ssed of all AristotleIs doctrines'M@ Khile today the nat2re of the h21an potential intellect and active intellect is 1erely a proble1 of e*egesis, a con2ndr21 e*ercising historians of philosophy, for t(o 1illennia it (as a good deal 1ore' %espite, and also 2ndo2btedly beca2se of, the enig1atic J2ality of his (ords, the !reek co11entators on Aristotle, 1edieval Isla1ic, Le(ish, and Christian philosophers, and E2ropean philosophers as late as the si*teenth cent2ry pored over the 1asterIs (ords, seeking in the1 the key for deciphering 1anIs essence, 1anIs fate, and the str2ct2re of the 2niverse' Alfarabi 9d' .>6:, Avicenna 9.A68-6;?:, and Averroes 9--/78--.A: integrate the active intellect and h21an potential intellect into larger cos1ic sche1es' In each instance, the physical 2niverse co1prises transparent celestial spheres, in (hich the stars and planets are e1bedded, and a stationary s2bl2nar (orld, aro2nd (hich the celestial spheres rotate' A first s2pre1e being consisting in p2re tho2ght, and hence an intellect, presides over the entire cos1osH and there follo( other beings consisting in p2re tho2ght, that is to say, other intellectsBCDor, as they are conventionally ter1ed, intelligencesBCD(hich have the f2nction of 1aintaining the celestial spheres in 1otion' The active intellect, the ca2se of act2al h21an tho2ght, stands at the end of the chain of s2pernal intelligences' In Alfarabi, Avicenna, and the early Averroes, the intelligences, incl2ding the active intellect, are bro2ght into e*istence thro2gh a series of eternal e1anations initiated by the "irst Ca2seH and Alfarabi and Avicenna 2nderstand that the chain of e1anations e*tends to the celestial spheres and brings the1 into e*istence as (ell' All three philosophers locate the h21an potential intellect i11ediately after the active intellect in the descending order of e*istence' The active intellect plays a to(ering role in the philosophic syste1s of Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes' ike the generality of 1edieval Isla1ic and Le(ish thinkersBCDand in contradistinction to the 1aGority of Scholastic philosophersBCDthey did not do2bt that the active intellect is an incorporeal s2bstance transcending the h21an so2l and occ2pying a definite spot in the incorporeal hierarchy' Each of the1 2nderstood that the active intellect leads the h21an intellect fro1 the state in (hich it has a potentiality for thinking to a state in (hich it act2ally thinks, and each e*plained the 1anner by (hich the active intellect perfor1s that task' Each, in at least so1e of his (ritings, also sa( in the active intellect the ca2se of the e*istence of seg1ents or all of the s2bl2nar (orld' Each affir1ed the possibility of the h21an intellectIs entering a e2dae1onic state called conG2nction (ith the active intellect, assigned the active intellect a central role in h21an i11ortality, and b2ilt a rationale for the pheno1enon of prophecy aro2nd the active intellect' They each th2s espo2sed a cos1ic sche1e in (hich a hierarchy of beings consisting in p2re ;'>,M in Essays in Ancient !reek ,hilosophy, ed' L' Anton 9Albany -.?/: >678? 9i11anent:' See also R' HicksI edition of AristotleIs %e ani1a 9Ca1bridge -.6?: l*iv8l*i*' @ K' %' Ross, edition of AristotleIs Metaphysics 9O*ford -./@: l'c*liii' Ross hi1self changed his 1indH see n' ;'
Introd2ction
>
intellect 2nfolds 2ntil the active intellect is reached, in (hich the active intellect serves as the transcendent ca2se of a portion or all of the s2bl2nar (orld, in (hich the transcendent active intellect leads the h21an intellect to act2ality, and in (hich the relationship of the active intellect to the h21an intellect e*plains pheno1ena (ith religio2s overtones' The active intellect reached its c2l1ination in Avicenna, (ho sa( it as the direct ca2se of all, or virt2ally all, e*istence and all theoretical tho2ght in the s2bl2nar (orld, as, in effect, the vicar of !od on earth' A direct line of develop1ent is easily traced fro1 Alfarabi to Avicenna, and then for(ard to Averroes, b2t (hen one looks back beyond Alfarabi, no i11ediate predecessor appears' $evertheless, tendencies that crystalliEe in Alfarabi and Avicenna, as (ell as specific propositions advanced by the t(o, are discernible in the !reek co11entators on Aristotle, in $eoplatonic philosophy, and in Arabic (ritings before Alfarabi' That does not necessarily i1ply that Alfarabi took 1aterial at his disposal and hi1self 1olded it into a co1prehensive doctrine, (hich (as to be f2rther developed by his s2ccessors' The positions Alfarabi p2t for(ard 1ay be borro(ings fro1 lost philosophic so2rces and not his o(n innovations' The follo(ing chapter revie(s disc2ssions of intellect in late !reek and early Arabic philosophy not for their o(n sake b2t as backgro2nd for Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes' Chapters ; and @ e*a1ine the cos1ologies, the conceptions of the active intellect, and the theories of h21an intellect, espo2sed by Alfarabi and Avicenna, respectively' Chapter > st2dies the reverberations of the theories of Alfarabi and Avicenna, and especially the latter, in s2bseJ2ent Isla1ic, Le(ish, and Scholastic philosophy' Chapter 7 takes 2p AverroesI str2ggles (ith t(o iss2es on (hich he changed his 1ind several ti1es< the relation of the "irst Ca2se to the rest of the incorporeal hierarchy, and the active intellectIs role as a ca2se of the e*istence of the s2bl2nar (orld' Chapter ? atte1pts to 2ntangle AverroesI changing stands on another iss2e' %efining precisely the kind of entity that the h21an 1aterial or potential intellect is had not been a central the1e in Alfarabi and Avicenna' Alfarabi barely to2ched on the J2estion, and Avicenna dealt (ith it indirectly as part of the 1ore general J2estion of the nat2re of the h21an so2l' Averroes, by contrast, (restled (ith and agoniEed over the nat2re of the h21an potential intellect thro2gho2t his career, changing his 1ind repeatedly' Chapter ? traces the develop1ent of his tho2ght on the iss2e and then p2rs2es the s2bGect beyond Averroes into s2bseJ2ent Le(ish and Christian tho2ght that fell 2nder his infl2ence' Chapter A e*a1ines AverroesI treat1ent of the active intellectIs role in leading the h21an potential intellect to act2ality and his treat1ent of s2bGects related to the active intellectIs leading the h21an intellect to act2ality, na1ely, conG2nction (ith the active intellect, h21an i11ortality, and prophecy' ,roble1s connected (ith intellect 1ade 2p a considerable portion of the overall philosophic enterprise for the three philosophers disc2ssed, and their handling of those proble1s reveals so1ething of (hat can be called their philosophic styles' A (ord abo2t the philosophic style of each 1ay be in place here' %ifferent (orks of Alfarabi so1eti1es advance differing positions on a single iss2e' To acco2nt for
the discrepancies, scholars have s2ggested that AlfarabiIs (ritings disclose a develop1ent or, alternatively, that so1e of the1 e*press e*oteric vie(s, and others, esoteric vie(s' One striking trait e*hibited by Alfarabi is that he al1ost al(ays lays do(n his positions flatly, (itho2t arg21ent' My conGect2re is therefore that he 1ay si1ply have been dependent on (hatever so2rces (ere available to hi1 (hen he (rote,> and the differing positions he advanced on different occasions 1ay si1ply reflect the so2rces fro1 (hich he (as (orking at any given ti1e' As for Avicenna, he 1entions that he had developed an Moriental philosophyM (hich diverged fro1 the neoplatoniEed Aristotelianis1 he 2s2ally espo2sed' )et nothing of s2ch a distinctively Oriental philosophy has ever co1e to light' A 1edieval list of AvicennaIs co1positions na1es his Ishdrdt as the MlastM and MbestM of the1,7 and the theses espo2sed in the Ishdrdt, tho2gh for12lated in all2sive and high8flo(n lang2age, har1oniEe co1pletely (ith (hat AvicennaIs pri1ary philosophic treatises 1aintain' I accordingly ass21e that Avicenna (as consistent thro2gho2t his philosophic career and 1erely played (ith alternate for12lations'? Averroes, like Alfarabi, takes differing stands on certain iss2es at different ti1es, b2t in his case the reason is clear' Thro2gho2t his lifeti1e, Averroes labored to attain the tr2th, (hich for hi1 (as tanta1o2nt to recovering AristotleIs intent, and in the co2rse of rethinking iss2es, he repeatedly changed his 1ind' Altho2gh AverroesI overriding goal (as to c2t a(ay accretions and ret2rn to Aristotle, (e shall find that he did not al(ays s2cceed' On t(o iss2es, the relation of the 2niverse to the "irst Ca2se and the active intellectIs role as a ca2se of s2bl2nar e*istence, he grad2ally does reapproach gen2ine Aristotelian positions, (hile on another, the nat2re of the h21an potential intellect, he starts (ith (hat the consens2s of scholars today (o2ld dee1 to be the gen2ine position of Aristotle and then, in s2ccessive (orks, 1oves steadily off in the opposite direction, 2ntil he arrives at an egregio2s 1isreading' A re1ark on ter1inology< !reek and Arabic do not have separate ter1s for intellect and intelligence, b2t a convention originating in the atin Middle Ages disting2ishes the t(o, applying the ter1 intelligence to the incorporeal beings that in the Aristotelian (orld govern the celestial spheres, and e1ploying the ter1 intellect in other conte*ts' Since the convention has beco1e part of the idio1 of the history of philosophy and is 2sef2l, I disting2ish intellect fro1 intelligence even tho2gh only a single !reek or Arabic (ord 2nderlies the t(o ter1s' The na1e of a scholar (ith (ho1 Alfarabi st2died logic has been preserved' See M' Meyerhof, M#on Ale*andrien nach 0agdad,M SitE2ngsberichte der pre2ssischen Akade1ie der Kissenschaften, ,hilosophisch8historische 3lasse /; 90erlin -.;6: @6>8AH "' Rosenthal, The Classical Heritage in Isla1 90erkeley -.?>: >68>-' 7 The ife oflbn Sina 9L2EGaniIs biography of Avicenna: ed' and trans' K' !ohl1an 9Albany -.?@: .78.?' ? %' !2tas, Avicenna and the Aristotelian Tradition 9 eiden -.AA: -->8 -;6, 1akes the case against ass21ing an Oriental philosophy (hich differed s2bstantially fro1 AvicennaIs preserved philosophic syste1' >
!REE3 A$% ARA0IC A$TECE%E$TS
Here I shall e*a1ine !reek and early Arabic spec2lation on the follo(ing topics< 9-: the stages thro2gh (hich the h21an intellect can passH 9/: the type of entity the active intellect isH 9;: the 1anner in (hich the active intellect prod2ces h21an tho2ghtH 9@: the active intellectIs role in bringing the s2bl2nar (orld or seg1ents of it into e*istenceH and 9>: the rationale that the active intellect f2rnishes for certain religio2s pheno1ena' My obGect (ill not be to reprod2ce the syste1s of the philosophers disc2ssed b2t to dra( attention to state1ents and theories that shed light on Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes' As is hardly s2rprising, Aristotle constit2tes the starting point for 2nderstanding Alfarabi, Avicenna, and AverroesH certain post8Aristotelian !reek te*ts and early Arabic philosophic te*ts, nevertheless, also contrib2ted to the setting in (hich they (orked' The pertinent post8Aristotelian te*ts are< Ale*ander of AphrodisiasI %e ani1a-H a (ork entitled %e intellect2, (hich is like(ise attrib2ted to Ale*ander,/ altho2gh the attrib2tion has been J2estioned beca2se of discrepancies bet(een the %e intellect2 and Ale*anderIs %e ani1a;H ,lotin2sI Enneads@H The1isti2sI ,araphrase of AristotleIs %e ani1aH> The1isti2sI ,araphrase of AristotleIs
Ale*ander, %e ani1a, in Scripta 1inora /'-, ed' I' 0r2ns 90erlin -AA?: -8-66' Ale*ander 9N:, %e intellect2, in Scripta 1inora /'-, -678-;' Arabic translation< Te*te arabe d2 dIAle*andre dIAphrodise, ed' L' "innegan 90eir2t -.>7:, (ith pagination of the !reek givenH and Co11entaires s2r Aristote perd2s en grec, ed' A' 0ada(i 90eir2t -.7A: ;-8@/' $either edition of the Arabic version is (holly adeJ2ate' I have translated fro1 1y o(n ad hoc eclectic te*t, (hich I base on both editions and their apparat2ses, (ith corrections here and there fro1 the !reek' ; ,' Mora2*, Ale*andre dIAphrodise 9,aris -.@/: -;/8@/' Mora2* later changed his 1ind and decided that both the %e ani1a and %e intellect2 are gen2ine (orks of Ale*anderH see ,' Mora2*, M e %e ani1a dans la tradition grecJ2e,M Aristotle on Mind and the Senses, ed' !' loyd and !' O(en 9Ca1bridge -.?>: /.?,;6@' @ ,lotin2s, Enneades, ed' ,' Henry and H'8R' Sch(yEer / 9,aris -.>.: contains a 2sef2l English translation of the e*tant Arabic paraphrases of ,lotin2s, done by !' e(is' > The1isti2s, ,araphrase of AristotleIs %e ani1a, in Co11entaria in Aristotele1 graeca >';, ed' R' HeinEe 90erlin -A..:' Medieval Arabic translation, (ith the pagination of the !reek indicated< An Arabic Translation of The1isti2s ' ' ' on Aristoteles I%e ani1aI, ed' M' yons 9Col21bia, S'C' -.?;:' /
Metaphysics, 0ook -/7H a !reek co11entary on AristotleIs %e ani1a attrib2ted to Lohn ,hilopon2s?H and a different !reek co11entary on 0ook ; of the %e ani1a, also attrib2ted to ,hilopon2s, (hich is no longer e*tant in the original b2t is preserved in a atin translation'A Of these, only the t(o (orks carrying Ale*anderIs na1eBCDthe 1edieval Arabic philosophers (ere little inclined to J2estion the na1es on books and harbored no do2bts abo2t Ale*anderIs a2thorship of either (orkBCDand The1isti2sI paraphrases of AristotleIs %e ani1a and of Metaphysics -/, are kno(n to have been directly available to the 1edieval Arabs in Arabic translation' In the case of the %e intellect2 and of The1isti2sI ,araphrase of AristotleIs %e ani1a, the 1edieval Arabic translations have s2rvived and been p2blished' Khile no 1an2scripts of the Arabic translations of Ale*anderIs %e ani1a and of The1isti2sI ,araphrase of Metaphysics -/ are kno(n, 1edieval Hebre( translations fro1 the Arabic have been preserved' Avicenna refers to the vie(s of both Ale*ander and The1isti2s on the so2l,. and Averroes does the sa1e-6H in addition, Averroes J2otes a key passage at length (ere not even kno(n by na1e, b2t parts of the Enneads circ2lated in Arabic in anony1o2s and pse2depigrapho2s paraphrases, the 1ost notable of (hich is the Theology of Aristotle' The Theology of Aristotle is cited by Alfarabi as a gen2ine (ork of AristotleIs,-/ and Avicenna (rote a co11entary on it'-; The follo(ing Arabic co1positions fro1 the period preceding Alfarabi also have so1e pertinence< a paraphrase of AristotleIs %e ani1a attrib2ted to IshaJ ibn H2nain 9d' A?7:H a frag1ent fro1 a certain 0akr al8Ma(sili 9ca' .66:H the (ritings of 3indi 9ninth cent2ry:H a treatise on the so2l, of 2nkno(n date, (hich is attrib2ted 7 The !reek original and the Arabic translation fro1 the !reek are not e*tant' Medieval Hebre( translation fro1 the Arabic< The1istii in Arislotelis Melaphysicor21 libr21 A paraphrasis, ed' S' anda2er, in Co11entaria in Aristotele1 graeca >'> 90erlin -.6;:' ? ,hilopon2s, Co11entary on %e ani1a, in Co11entaria in Aristotele1 graeca ->, ed' M' Hayd2ck 90erlin -A.?:' A e co11entaire de Lean ,hilopon s2r le troisie1e livre d2 traite de IIa1e dIAristote, ed' M' Corte 9 iege -.;@:' . See Avicenna, M$otesM on AristotleIs %e ani1a, in Arist2 cinda al8 cArab, ed' A' 0ada(i 9Cairo -.@?: .A, -6-, --@, --7H M2bahathat, in Arist2 4Oinda al8cArab, -/6H Al8Pa(l fl Ah(dl al8$afs, in MaG12c RasaIil 9Hyderabad -.;>: ->' -6 See belo(, pp' /7A87., /?@8?>, /?A8A6, /A/8A@, /A?, ;/7' -- Averroes, Tafsir 1a bacda al8Tabica 9 ong Co11entary on Metaphysics:, ed' M' 0o2yges 90eir2t -.;A8-.@A: -@./8.@' -/ Alfarabi, Al 8La1c baina al8Hakl1ain, ed' A' $ader 90eir2t -.76: -6>87' Also printed in AlfarabiIs philosophische Abhandl2ngen, ed' "' %icterici 9 eiden -A.6: /AH !er1an translation< AlfarabiII s philosophische Abhandl2ngen a2s de1 Arabischen iibersetEt, trans' "' %ieterici 9 eiden -A./: @@8@>' Altho2gh several scholars have tried to interpret a(ay (hat Alfarabi says, he 2na1big2o2sly recogniEes AristotleIs a2thorship of the Theology' -; AvicennaIs co11entary is printed in Arist2 4Oinda al8 cArab 9n' . above: ;>8?@H "rench translation< M$otes dIAvicenne s2r la Theologie dIAristote,IM trans' !' #aGda, in Rev2e tho1iste >- 9-.>-: ;@78@67'
fro1 The1isti2sI ,araphrase of Metaphysics -/'-- ,lotin2s and his Enneads
!reek and Arabic Antecedents
to ,orphyry and e*tant only in Arabic' Avicenna refers to the ,orphyryBCDor pse2do8 ,orphyryBCDtreatise, criticiEing it harshly'-@ Of the (orks that have been 1entioned here, the 1ost i1portant for Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes are Ale*anderIs %e ani1a, the %e intellect2, ,lotin2sI Enneads, and The1isti2sI ,araphrase of AristotleIs %e ani1a' As already noted, parts of ,lotin2s (ere available to 1edieval Arabic readers in a paraphrase, and the other three te*ts (ere available in translation' Khere the Arabic translation or paraphrase of a !reek te*t diverges fro1 the original, the Arabic version is nat2rally 1ore ger1ane for o2r p2rpose, and I shall 2s2ally J2ote fro1 it'
Stages of H21an Intellect Each nat2ral do1ain, Aristotle reasoned, discloses a M1atterM that is MpotentiallyM everything in the do1ain, as (ell as an MagentM that 1akes everything in the do1ainH (hence he inferred that the so2l too 12st contain an MintellectM that is (hat it is Mby virt2e of beco1ing all things,M as (ell as an intellect that is (hat it is Mby virt2e of 1aking all things'M-> AristotleIs (ording s2ggested the J2alifications potential and 1aterial for the 2ndeveloped intellect2al fac2lty of the h21an so2l (hich can beco1e everything, that is, (hich can think all tho2ghts, and Ale*ander of Aphrodisias therefore co2ld, in a single sentence, call the initial state of the h21an intellect both MpotentialM and M1aterialM intellect'-7 Co11entators and philosophers (ere to ask (hat sort of thing the potential or 1aterial intellect is' Ale*anderIs reading of Aristotle led hi1 to concl2de that it is Monly a dispositionM in the h21an organis1,-? (hereas The1isti2s paid heed to state1ents of AristotleIs pointing in another direction' He learned fro1 Aristotle that the Mpotential intellectM does Mnot e1ploy a bodily organ for its activity, is (holly 2n1i*ed (ith the body, i1passive, and separate Qfro1 1atterR'M-A Since anything (ith those characteristics is perforce an incorporeal s2bstance, Averroes (ill consistently report that The1isti2s and others of a si1ilar 1ind took the h21an potential intellect to be an incorporeal s2bstance or, in another for12lation, a disposition inhering in an incorporeal s2bstance'-. A 1odern co11entator 2nderstands The1isti2s in the
-@ Avicenna 3' al8Ishardt (al8Tanblhat, ed' L' "orget, as e livre des theore1es et des avertisse1ents 9 eiden -A./: -A6H "rench translation< ivre des directives et re1arJ2es, trans' A' !oichon 90eir2t -.>-:, (ith pages of "orgetIs edition indicatedH Avicenna, ShifaI< %e ani1a, ed' "' Rah1an 9 ondon -.>.: /@6' l> %e ani1a ;'>'@;6a, -68->' -7 Ale*ander, %e ani1a 9n' - above: A-' -? Ibid' A@' -A The1isti2s, ,araphrase of the%e ani1a 9n' > above: -6>' -. Cf' belo(, pp' /7., /?., /A?'
-6
sa1e (ay'/6 The nat2re of the h21an potential or 1aterial intellect is 1entioned only in passing by Alfarabi, it is dealt (ith indirectly by Avicenna, b2t it beco1es central in Averroes' 0esides noting the e*istence of h21an intellect that can beco1e everything, Aristotle re1arked on the sit2ation (herein the h21an intellect has already Mbeco1e everythingMBCDin other (ords, already possesses a f2ll repertoire of tho2ghtsBCDyet is not act2ally thinking the1 at the 1o1ent' The h21an intellect in that condition is, Aristotle (rote, Mpotential in a certain sense,M beca2se it is not act2ally thinking' It is not, ho(ever, potential in the sa1e sense as Mbefore learning,M beca2se it has 2ndergone a passage to act2ality' It is no( Mable thro2gh itself to think,M 12ch like the M1an of scienceM (ho is able to e*ercise his kno(ledge at (ill b2t does not at the 1o1ent happen to be doing so'/- Ale*anderIs %e ani1a and the Arabic Aristotelians (ho follo( Ale*anderIs e*a1ple applied the ter1 Mintellect in habit2M bil81alaka: to the h21an intellect (hen it is in possession of a repertoire of tho2ghtsBCDtho2gh not necessarily a f2ll repertoireBCD (itho2t act2ally thinking the1'// A f2rther distinction, (hich altho2gh not bro2ght o2t in Aristotle is obvio2s, (as all2ded to by Ale*ander' Ale*ander co11ented that intellect in habit2 stands Mbet(eenM the p2re potentiality of the person (ho has not beg2n to acJ2ire intelligible kno(ledge and the f2ll act2ality of the 1an of kno(ledge c2rrently engaged in tho2ght'/; Intellect in habit2, the stage in (hich the h21an s2bGect has /6
Aristotle, %e ani1a ;'@'@/.b, >8.' Aristotle also disc2sses this sense of potentiality in %e ani1a /'>'@-?a, //ff' // See Ale*ander, %e ani1a A>8A7H %e intellect2 9n' / above: -6?H RasaIil al83indi, ed' M' Ab2 Rida 9Cairo -.>6: -';>A 9the notion (itho2t the ter1:H Avicenna, belo(, p' A@' !haEali, MaJdsid al8"aldsifa 9Cairo n'd': /./H Averroes, Epito1e of %e ani1a, p2blished as Talkhis 3itab al8$afs, ed' A' Ah(ani 9Cairo -.>6: A?' Else(here, Averroes 2ses the ter1 intellect in habit2 in the sense of the h21an intellect possessed of a repertoire of tho2ghts, b2t (itho2t the condition that the 1an is not thinking the tho2ghts at the 1o1ent' See Averroes, Iggeret Efshar2t ha8%ebeJ2t 9Arabic original lost:, ed' and English trans' 3' 0land, as Epistle on the ,ossibility of ConG2nction 9$e( )ork -.A/:, Hebre( te*t -/8-; 9the English translation, p' /?, incorrectly renders intellect in habit2 as MacJ2ired intellectM:H ide1, Co11entari21 1agn21 in Aristotelis de Ani1a libros, ed' "' Cra(ford 9Ca1bridge, Mass' -.>;: 9henceforth cited as< ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a: @.78.?' The1isti2s, in his ,araphrase of AristotleIs %e ani1a .>, also takes cogniEance of the condition in (hich intellect has 2ndergone a passage to act2ality, (itho2t its act2ally thinking at the 1o1ent, and he appears to call that state a habit2sH on .A, ho(ever, he appears to 2se the ter1 intellect in habit2 in the sense of h21an intellect (hen f2lly act2al, rather than (hen in an inter1ediate state of potentiality' Ale*ander and The1isti2s so1eho( tho2ght that the ter1 (hich in the preserved te*t of Aristotle, %e ani1a ;'>'@;6a, ->, J2alifies the active intellect, refers instead to a state or stage
of the developing h21an potential intellect' See !' RodierIs note to the Aristotelian passage in his edition of AristotleIs %e ani1a 9,aris -.66:' /; Ale*ander, %e ani1a A>8A7'
@6'
O' Ha1elin, a theorie de lIintellect dIapres Arislote el ses co11entate2rs 9,aris -.>;:
/-
--
the po(er to think at (ill b2t is not doing so, 1ay in other (ords be disting2ished fro1 act2al intellect, the stage in (hich the h21an intellect is act2ally thinking'/@ The stages of h21an intellect have no( increased to three< potential or 1aterial h21an intellect, h21an intellect in habit2, and act2al h21an intellect' Alfarabi and Avicenna recogniEed still another stage or state, (hich they called acJ2ired intellect'/> The ter1 acJ2ired intellect reflects nothing in Aristotle' It does appear in the !reek te*t of Ale*ander of AphrodisiasI %e ani1a, altho2gh it is inconspic2o2s there, serving only as a synony1 for intellect in habit2, that is to say, h21an intellect in possession of the ability to think yet not act2ally thinking'/7 The ter1 beco1es significant in the Arabic translations of Ale*anderIs %e ani1a and of the %e intellect2 attrib2ted to Ale*ander' 0oth Ale*anderIs %e ani1a and the %e intellect2 2se a different e*pression, Mintellect fro1 (itho2t,M a n21ber of ti1es, echoing a perple*ing passage in AristotleIs %e generatione ani1ali21, (hich refers to intellect that Malone enters Qthe organis1R fro1 (itho2t'M/? 0oth (orks, as (ill be seen, dee1ed it possible for an incorporeal s2bstance, and the active intellect in partic2lar, to enter the h21an intellect and beco1e the obGect of h21an tho2ghtH and they called that g2ise of the incorporeal s2bstance Mintellect fro1 (itho2t'M The sense of the e*pression is that s2ch an obGect of tho2ght already (as intellect (hen still o2tside, and before being tho2ght by, the h21an intellect, in contrast to intelligible tho2ghts abstracted fro1 1aterial obGects and rendered act2ally intelligible, and therefore act2al intellect, only 2pon entering the h21an intellect' In the Arabic versions of Ale*anderIs %e ani1a and the %e intellect2 attrib2ted to Ale*ander the (ords intellect fro1 (itho2t are not translated literally' They are generally rendered as MacJ2ired intellect,M and so1eti1es as Mintellect acJ2ired fro1 (itho2t'M/A The Arabic versions have an another pec2liarityH they s2bstit2te the ter1 acting 9facil: intellect for the 1ore precise ter1 active 9faccdl: intellect' Th2s, instead of speaking of an active, acJ2ired intellect, (hich (o2ld sho( 2na1big2o2sly that the active intellect is (hat is J2alified as acJ2ired, the Arabic translations speak of an Macting, acJ2ired intellect'M/. Altho2gh the collocation 3indi, RasaIil -';>A, dra(s s2ch a distinction, (itho2t the ter1 in habit2' The%e intellect2 -6?, and The1isti2s, ,araphrase of the %e ani1a .A, do not recogniEe the distinction bet(een act2al intellect and intellect in habit2' /> On the s2bGect of the acJ2ired intellect, see A' 0ada(i, M$e( ,hilosophical Te*ts ost in !reek,M Isla1ic ,hilosophical Theology, ed' ,' More(edge 9Albany -.?.: @8>H "' Rah1an, AvicennaIs ,sychology 9O*ford -.>/: .68.;H "innegan 9n' / above: -?/8?AH ,' Merlan, Monopsychis1 Mysticis1 Metaconscio2sness 9Hag2e -.7.: -@8->H and the references they give to earlier literat2re' /7 Ale*ander, %e ani1a A/' See E' Feller, %ie ,hilosophie der !riechen ;'-, >th ed' 9 eipEig -./;: A/7, n' /' /? %e generatione ani1ali21 /';'?;7b, /A' /A Cf' "innegan 9n' / above: -?/' /. Ibid' -A7, -A?' %e intellect2 -6., describes intellect in habit2 as Macting'M /@
-/
acting acJ2ired intellect is clo2dy, the Arabic translations do say eno2gh to 1ake clear (hat acJ2ired intellect 1eans' According to the Arabic, acJ2ired intellect Me*ists act2allyM;6 and is Min itself intellectM;-H it co1es to 1an Mfro1 (itho2tM;/H it Maids the intellect in Q1anRM and Mestablishes the habit2s Qfor tho2ghtR (ithin the 1aterial intellectM;;H it is the factor (hereby the potential intellect is Mled fro1 potentiality to act2alityM;@H it is Mgenerated in 2s fro1 (itho2tM;> and M(e think it'M;7 The descriptions reveal that a transcendent incorporeal entity, and the active intellect in partic2lar, is at iss2e' The added J2alifications MacJ2ired,M or MacJ2ired fro1 (itho2t,M f2rther indicate that the intellect in J2estion so1eho( belongs to 1an' In a (ord, the Arabic translator of Ale*ander sa( that the e*pression Mintellect fro1 (itho2tM denotes the active intellectBCDor other incorporeal for1sBCDinsofar as it so1eho( enters the h21an intellectH and for 2nkno(n reasons he rendered the e*pression as acJ2ired intellect' The Arabic does not 1isrepresent the intent of the original, altho2gh, by coining the ne( na1e, it does dra( additional attention to, and per1its a 1is2nderstanding of, the aspect of the active intellectBCDor of another incorporeal for1BCDthat enters 1an' ,lotin2s like(ise 2sed the ter1 acJ2ired intellect' He 1eant by it intellect2al kno(ledge that is acJ2ired by the so2l directly fro1 the s2pernal, cos1ic Intellect';? Alfarabi and, in so1e conte*ts, Avicenna (ill e1ploy the ter1 acJ2ired intellect to designate not an aspect of the active intellect, or of another incorporeal intelligence, (hich enters the h21an intellect, the sense the ter1 has in the Arabic translations of Ale*ander, b2t rather an 2lti1ate stage of the h21an intellect itself, a stage (herein the h21an intellect enGoys a certain close relationship (ith the transcendent active intellect' Kith the addition of the acJ2ired intellect, (e have a cadre of fo2r stages< 1aterial or potential h21an intellect, intellect in habit2, act2al h21an intellect, and acJ2ired intellect' The cadre does not appear precisely as s2ch in either Alfarabi, Avicenna, or Averroes' Each of the1, ho(ever, e1ploys a variation of it'
;6 ;-
Hebre( translation of the Arabic version of Ale*ander, %e ani1a .6, in ,aris, 0ibliotheJ2e $ationale, Hebre( MS A.@' ;/ "innegan -.-' ;; Ibid' ;@ Ibid' -.-' ;> Ibid' -A7,-.@H Hebre( translation of Ale*ander, %e ani1a .-' ;7 Hebre( translation of Ale*ander, %e ani1a .6' ;? Al8Shaykh al8)2nanl, ed' "' Rosenthal, Orientalia /9-.>/: @A68A-, paralleling Enneads >'7'@'
lbid'
!reek and Arabic Antecedents The 3ind of Entity That the Active Intellect Is
-;
AristotleIs 1eager re1arks on the intellect that is (hat it is by virt2e of M1aking all thingsMBCDs2bseJ2ently to be kno(n as the active intellectBCDincl2de both a s2ggestion that it is, and a s2ggestion that it is not, a transcendent s2bstance' "or he described it as Mpresent in the so2lM yet also as Mseparate Qfro1 1atterR''' and, in its essence, act2ality'M;A If pri1ary (eight be attached to the latter description and the active intellect is 2nderstood to e*ist in an 2nchanging state of act2ality, it (o2ld have to be an incorporeal s2bstance independent of the h21an organis1' The state1ent abo2t its being present in the so2l (o2ld then 1ean either that an aspect of the essentially transcendent active intellect enters the h21an so2l or else 1erely that a ca2se as (ell as a 1atter 12st be ass21ed in the case of so2l';. Sho2ld, by contrast, pri1ary (eight be attached to the state1ent locating the intellect that 1akes everything MinM the h21an so2l, and sho2ld the active intellect e*ist no(here b2t in individ2al h21an so2ls, the description of it as Mact2alityM in its essence (ill have to be interpreted a(ay' Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes, like virt2ally all Isla1ic and Le(ish philosophers in the Aristotelian tradition, accepted the transcendent interpretation (itho2t J2estion' And they did 1ore' They pinpointed the precise place in the incorporeal hierarchy (here the active intellect standsBCDthe (ords place, stands, and si1ilar ter1s being 2sed 1etaphorically here, of co2rse, since incorporeal s2bstances e*ist o2tside of space and ti1e' In the 1edieval Aristotelian 2niverse, a series of incorporeal intelligences parallels the series of celestial spheres, the transparent spherical bodies that carry the planets and stars aro2nd the earth' In the version of the Aristotelian sche1e of the 2niverse endorsed by Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes, the active intellect, the factor leading the potential h21an intellect to act2ality, is added as a final link to the chain of intelligences' It therein parallels the s2bl2nar (orld, (hich stands as the last and least cos1ic body, at the end of the series of celestial spheres' The sy11etry, as (e shall see, can be e*tended, thro2gh the ascription to the active intellect of f2nctions in respect to the s2bl2nar (orld (hich are analogo2s to the f2nctions each intelligence perfor1s in respect to the corresponding celestial sphere' $o kno(n thinker prior to Alfarabi identified the active intellect precisely as the last link in the chain of incorporeal intelligences, b2t the active intellect (as co11only taken to be a transcendent, incorporeal s2bstance' The earliest kno(n philosopher (ho e*plicitly@6 constr2ed the active intellect as a transcendent being Aristotle, %e ani1a ;'>'@;6a, -;, -?8-A' Ale*ander, %e ani1a 9n' - above: AA, In the co2rse of re(ording AristotleIs reason for positing an active intellect, (rites that a 1aterial factor and an agent 12st e*ist Min the case of intellect'M 0elo(, p' /6' @6 AristotleIs %e generations ani1ali21 /';'?;7b, /A, and the E2de1ian Ethics -/@Aa, />/., 1ay be read as constr2ing the active intellect as a transcendent being' Theophrast2s also ;. ;A
-@
(as Ale*ander' Ale*ander connected the active intellect i1plied in AristotleIs %e ani1a, 0ook ;, (ith the first, incorporeal, ever8thinking ca2se of the 2niverse established in AristotleIs Metaphysics, 0ook -/' He ass21ed that the t(o entities are identical, that the active intellect, the ca2se of the h21an intellectIs passage fro1 potentiality to act2ality, is nothing other than the "irst Ca2se of the 2niverse, the deity'@- ,lotin2s too, in a sense, constr2ed the active intellect as a transcendent entity' In his cos1ology, the "irst Ca2se of the 2niverse, called the One, eternally radiates, or e1anates, fro1 itself a cos1ic IntellectBCD(hich in t2rn radiates a cos1ic So2lH and a1ong the f2nctions for (hich the cos1ic Intellect is responsible are those of AristotleIs active intellect'@/ The1isti2s (as a third philosopher (ho placed a transcendent constr2ction on the active intellect' He reGected the identification of the active intellect as the "irst Ca2se of the 2niverse, or, to be 1ore precise, the proposition that the active intellect is the "irst Ca2se of the 2niverse and nothing 1ore' His reason (as that Aristotle had located the active intellect MinM 1anIs so2l'@; 02t The1isti2s also insisted on the transcendent character of the active intellect, or of its pri1ary aspect, beca2se Aristotle hadBCDin an analogy that (o2ld be analyEed and reanalyEed thro2gh the cent2riesBCDco1pared the active intellect to light'@@ The analogy of light entailed for The1isti2s that altho2gh rays fro1 the active intellect disperse and enter individ2al 1en, they have their origin in an e*ternal radiating so2rce, in a single transcendent Mactive intellectM e*isting o2tside and above 1an' In a c2rio2s bit of syncretis1, The1isti2s added that the transcendent active intellect, or transcendent aspect of the active intellect, fro1 (hich rays radiate and enter individ2al h21an so2ls, is the very entity ,lato had in 1ind (hen he co1pared the Idea of the !ood, the Mca2se of science and tr2th,M@> to the s2n, the so2rce of light'@7 Other instances of the active intellectIs being taken as a transcendent s2bstance are recorded in the t(o co11entaries on the %e ani1a attrib2ted to Lohn ,hilopon2s' Each of the co11entaries lists fo2r theories regarding the active intellect, and one ite1 in each list is of especial interest beca2se it approaches still f2rther (hat (as to be the conception of the Arabic Aristotelians' The !reek see1s to have constr2ed the active intellect as a transcendent beingH see The1isti2s, ,araphrase of the %e ani1a 9n' > above: -6/' @- Ale*ander, %e ani1a A.H cf' the %e intellect2 9n' / above: --;' @/ Cf' A' Ar1strong, The Architect2re of the Intelligible &niverse in the ,hilosophy of ,lotin2s 9Ca1bridge -.@6: @-' @; Aristotle, %e ani1a ;'>'@;6a, -;' @@ Ibid' ->8-?' @> ,lato, Rep2blic 7'>6A' @7 The1isti2s, ,araphrase of the %e ani1a -6/8-6;' ,lotin2s, Enneads >'-'A, had identified ,latoIs idea of the !ood (ith the One, that is to say, (ith the "irst Ca2se, (hich is beyond Intellect' If The1isti2s accepts the sa1e eJ2ation, his arg21ent that the active intellect cannot be the "irst Ca2se of the 2niverse is to be 2nderstood as contending only that the active intellect cannot be the "irst Ca2se and nothing 1ore, inas12ch as an aspect of it enters the h21an intellect'
->
co11entary attrib2ted to ,hilopon2s reports that a philosopher na1ed Marin2s@? vie(ed the active intellect as Mso1ething dae1onic or angelic'M@A A parallel state1ent in the co11entary e*tant in atin reports that Mso1eM thinkers identify the active intellect not as !od b2t Mas a certain other intellect, inferior to Hi1, positioned close to o2r QintellectR, (hich radiates 2pon o2r so2ls and perfects the1'M@. In both state1ents, and 1ore e*plicitly in the second, the active intellect is an incorporeal s2bstance o2tside 1an (hich stands close to 1an in the hierarchy of e*istence' Ale*ander, ,lotin2s, and The1isti2s, by contrast, located the active intellect at or near the top of the hierarchy of being' ittle is added by preserved Arabic (orks prior to Alfarabi' At least t(o Arabic (orks do not recogniEe the transcendent character of the active intellect' A paraphrase of the %e ani1a attrib2ted to IshaJ ibn H2nain speaks of the active intellect as the Mact2al intellectM and states its f2nctions briefly, (itho2t any s2ggestion that it e*ists o2tside the h21an so2l'>6 An obsc2re conte1porary of Alfarabi kno(n as 0akr al8Ma(sili arg2es against the proposition that the h21an intellect obtains kno(ledge thro2gh the action of an incorporeal being o2tside of 1an' He contends instead that the MprinciplesM of tho2ght, (hich are G2dg1ents abo2t Mthe 2niversal things,M 12st be innate to the h21an intellect' To e*plain the 1anner (hereby 1an beco1es conscio2s of the innate principles, 0akr al8Ma(sili has reco2rse to a ,latonic theory of re1iniscence'>- 3indi offered t(o distinct and, very likely, inco1patible theories of the ca2se of act2al h21an tho2ght' His brief treatise On Intellect 2nderstands the factor act2aliEing the h21an intellect to be a transcendent thinking being, (hich the treatise calls first intellect rather than active intellect and describes as the Mca2seM of Mall intelligible tho2ghts and secondary intellects'M>/ Connections (ith Ale*ander have been detected, or are tho2ght to have been detected, in the te*t,>; and therefore 3indi 1ight conceivably be reflecting Ale*anderIs position that the active intellect is identical (ith the "irst Ca2se of the 2niverse' @?
,hilopon2s 9n' ? above: >;>' "or the likely conte*t of Marin2sI state1ent, see H' 0l21enthal, M$eoplatonic Ele1ents in the %e Ani1a Co11entaries,M ,hronesis /9-.?7: A-' @. Co11entaire 9n' A above: ;6' >6 Ah(ani 9n' // above: -7A' >- S' ,ines, M a doctrine de -Iintellect selon 0akr al8Ma(sili,M St2di' '' in onore di' ' ' evi della #ida 9Ro1e -.>7: /';>A8;7-' >/ RasaIil al83indi 9n' // above: -';>?' Medieval atin translations of 3indiIs On Intellect< A' $agy, %ie philosophischen Abhandl2ngen des LocJvb ben IshaJ al83indi 9Minister -A.?: -BCD -- 9significant variants fro1 the preserved Arabic:H English translation< R' McCarthy, MAl83indiIs Treatise on the Intellect,M Isla1ic St2dies ; 9-.7@: -/>8/AH "rench translation< L' Lolivet, Iintellect selon 3indi 9 eiden -.?-: -87' dIhistoire doctrinale et litteraire d2 1oyen age @ 9-./.: /;8/?H Lolivet ;-8@-' >; Cf' E' !ilson, M es so2rces greco8arabes de -IA2g2stinis1e avicennisant,M
Archives
@A
,robably identical (ith a st2dent of ,rocl2s by that na1e'
-7
On a 1ore pla2sible reading, ho(ever, 3indiIs On Intellect is 2sing the ter1 first intellect for the Intellect that is the second hypostasis in the $eoplatonic hierarchy' A n21ber of considerations s2pport that reading< One of the Arabic paraphrases of ,lotin2s e1ploys the ter1 first intellect precisely in the sense of the cos1ic Intellect'>@ The Arabic te*t On the So2l attrib2ted to ,orphyry e1ploys the ter1 first intellect in a $eoplatonic conte*t and pres21ably again in the sense of the $eoplatonic cos1ic Intellect'>> The Le(ish philosopher Isaac Israeli 9ca' A>6.>6: repeats the 1ain points in 3indiIs acco2nt of intellect>7 b2t incorporates the1 into a $eoplatonic hierarchy of Creator8Intellect8So2l8$at2re'>? He apparently, therefore, took 3indiIs first intellect to be the second of the $eoplatonic hypostases' Ibn !abirol, a later Le(ish Arabic philosopher standing in the $eoplatonic tradition, e*plicitly applies the ter1 first intellect to the hypostasis Intellect, (hich is s2bordinate to the "irst Ca2seBCDincidentally adding that philosophers call the sa1e being Mactive intellect'M>A And pop2lar $eoplatonic literat2re, in general, 2ses the ter1s first intellect as (ell as active intellect for the cos1ic Intellect of the $eoplatonic hierarchy'>. There is finally an 2np2blished te*t that, in the G2dg1ent of the scholars (ho called attention to it, is 3indiIs (ork' The te*t defines M2niversal intellectM by the sa1e distinctive for12la that 3indiIs On Intellect e1ployed to define Mfirst intellectMH it defines 2niversal intellect, and the treatise On Intellect defines first intellect, as Mthe specificality of things'M76 Ass21ing that the ne(ly discovered te*t does belong to 3indS or at least reflects his tho2ght, (e have first intellect eJ2ated (ith 2niversal intellect and pres21ably eJ2ivalent to the $eoplatonic cos1ic Intellect' S2ch is one (ay 3indi represents the so2rce of act2al h21an tho2ght' He identifies it as the transcendent first intellect, (hich appears to be the second hypostasis in the $eoplatonic hierarchy, standing 2nder the "irst Ca2se of the 2niverse' In a separate (ork, entitled On "irst ,hilosophy, 3indi takes another See Theology of Aristotle, ed' "' %ieterici 9 eipEig -AA/: -@/, paralleling Enneads 7'?'/' K' 32tsch, M0in arabisches 0r2chstiick a2s ,orphyries 9N:,M Melanges de II&niversite St' Loseph ;-9-.>@:/7A' >7 A' Altraann and S' Stern, Isaac Israeli 9O*ford -.>A: ;>8;A' >? Ibid' @78@?' >A The Arabic original is lost' Medieval atin translation fro1 the Arabic< S' Ibn !abirol, "ons vitae, ed' C' 0ae21ker 9Miinster -A./8-A.>: >, 4T-., p' /.@H e*cerpts fro1 the Arabic in 1edieval Hebre( translation< iJJ2ti1, ed' S' M2nk 9,aris -A>?: >, 4T/>' >. See ong #ersion of the Theology of Aristotle, cited by ,' %2he1, e syste1e d2 1onde @ 9,aris -.-7: ;.A8@6-H RasaIil Ikh(an al8SJfaI 90eir2t -.>?: ;';A7, chap' @-H Ibn al8Sid 90atlay2si: 3' al8HadaIiJ, ed' and Spanish trans' M' As1 ,alacios, in Al8Andal2s > 9-.@6:, Arabic te*t ??H Spanish translation --AH 1edieval Hebre( translation< 0atlaG2si, ha8cAg2llot haRa,yoniyyot, ed' %' 3a2f1ann 902dapest -AA6: /?H 3' Macanl al8$afs, ed' I' !oldEiher 90erlin -.6?: >@H "' Rosenthal, MOn the 3no(ledge of ,latoIs ,hilosophy,M Isla1ic C2lt2re -@ 9-.@6: ;..' 76 Alt1ann and Stern 9n' >7 above: ;?8;A' >> >@
-?
tack' He reasons that since act2al h21an tho2ght co1es abo2t (hen the h21an intellect 2nites (ith the Mspecies and genera of things,M that is, (ith Mthe 2niversals of things,M those 2niversals 12st be the factor act2aliEing the h21an intellect'7- $o indication is given of the ontological stat2s of 2niversals' 3indiIs (ording does recall 0akr al8Ma(siliIs M2niversal thingsM that are innate to the h21an intellect' 02t since he speaks of the h21an intellectIs Mbeco1ingM act2al by 2niting (ith 2niversals, he (o2ld see1 to e*cl2de its being 2nited (ith the1 fro1 the o2tset' In other (ords, he see1s to e*cl2de 2niversalsI being inborn' He 1ight, of co2rse, 1ean that the 2niversals (hereby the h21an intellect is act2aliEed are e1bodied in, and s2pplied by, the transcendent first intellectH for, as (as G2st seen, he describes first intellect as the Mspecificality of things,M (hich is al1ost tanta1o2nt to saying that first intellect e1bodies the 2niversals of things' The state1ent that the M2niversals of thingsM act2aliEe the h21an intellect co2ld, therefore, 1ean that they do so (hen co112nicated by first intellect to the h21an intellect' The har1oniEation, like all har1oniEations, is te1pting, b2t since the passage describing 2niversals as the ca2se of act2al h21an tho2ght does not 1ention a transcendent intellect, (e sho2ld be(are of introd2cing one' The 2niversals in the passage 1ay si1ply be concepts abstracted fro1 physical obGectsH Isaac Israeli, (ho (as dependent on 3indi, o2tlined a process (hereby h21an concepts are refined fro1 sense perceptions thro2gh s2ccessive abstractions'7/ Or perhaps the 2niversals 3indi speaks of are abstract concepts s2bsisting in a ,latonic (orld of ideal "or1s' In the passage 2nder consideration, 3indi 1ay, then, very (ell be dis1issing the need for any transcendent agent to lead the potential intellect to act2ality' He (as f2lly capable of advocating diverse and inconsistent theories at different ti1es'7; Al83indi, in s21, offered t(o theories of the so2rce of act2al h21an tho2ght' According to one, the h21an intellect is led to act2al tho2ght by the transcendent first intellect, by (hich he probably intended the $eoplatonic cos1ic Intellect' According to the other, the h21an intellect is rendered act2al by the M2niversals of thingsM (ith no f2rther clarification' In yet another passage that 1ight, at first glance, appear pertinent, 3indi describes the heavenly bodies as the Magent of Qh21anR reason'M7@ There, ho(ever, he probably 1eant that the heavens generate the h21an rational so2l (ith its potentiality for tho2ght,7> not that the heavens lead the h21an rational so2l to act2al tho2ght'
RasaIil al83indl 9n' // above: -'->>' English translation< Al83indiIs Metaphysics, trans' A' Ivry 9Albany -.?@: -67' 7/ Alt1ann and Stern ;78;?' 7; Regarding 3indiIs eclecticis1, see "' Rosenthal, MAl83indl and ,tole1y,M Sl2di ''' in onore di ' ' ' evi della #ida 9Ro1e -.>7: /'@;A, @@7, @>@8>7' 7@ Rasail al83indl -'/>>' 7> See belo(, p' ;;'
7-
-A
The foregoing s2rvey discloses that post8Aristotelian !reek philosophers (ho constr2ed the active intellect, the ca2se of act2al h21an tho2ght, as a transcendent entity identified it (ith the "irst Ca2se of the 2niverse 9Ale*ander:H (ith ,latoIs Idea of the !ood 9The1isti2s:H and (ith the cos1ic Intellect that is the second hypostasis in the $eoplatonic hierarchy 9,lotin2s:' Or they took it to be a s2pernal being located belo( the deity and close to 1an in the hierarchy of e*istence 9vie(s recorded in both co11entaries on the %e ani1a attrib2ted to Lohn ,hilopon2s:' A1ong Arabic philosophic (ritings prior to Alfarabi, so1e recogniEe a transcendent ca2se of act2al h21an tho2ght, (hich they call first intellect 9a (ork of 3indiIs, the te*t attrib2ted to ,orphyry, Isaac Israeli:, and others reGect or ignore the notion of s2ch a ca2se 9IshaJ ibn H2nain, 0akr al8Ma(sili:' In 3indi alone, one (ork recogniEes a transcendent ca2se of h21an tho2ght, (hile another acco2nts for the act2aliEation of the h21an intellect (itho2t 1ention of it' %espite the range of precedents for a transcendent constr2ction of the active intellect or of the ca2se of act2al h21an tho2ght 2nder another na1e, no kno(n (riter before Alfarabi identifies the active intellect as the last link in the hierarchy of celestial intelligences, (hich parallels the s2bl2nar (orld as each incorporeal intelligence parallels its celestial sphere' Alfarabi (as the first kno(n philosopher even to ass21e an entity of the sort, let alone identify it (ith AristotleIs active intellect' The Active Intellect as a Ca2se of H21an Tho2ght The active intellect (as originally posited to help e*plain act2al tho2ght in 1an' Each nat2ral do1ain, in AristotleIs (ords, discloses a 1aterial factor, and also a Mca2seM or MagentM that stands to the other as MartM stands to M1atterM and Mprod2ces everythingM in the given do1ainH and therefore the so2l too 12st contain both an MintellectM that is (hat it is Mby virt2e of beco1ing all things,M by virt2e of receiving all tho2ghts, and an intellect that is (hat it is Mby virt2e of 1aking all things'M77 In representing the active intellect as an instance of the ca2se or agent that prod2ces everything in a given do1ain, AristotleIs intent (o2ld s2rely appear to be this< In each do1ain, a ca2se or agent operates on the 1aterial factor and leads it fro1 its state of potentiality to a state of act2ality' Si1ilarly, the intellect that is (hat it is by virt2e of 1aking all things is s2ch inas12ch as it perfor1s an operation on the intellect that is potential and rese1bles 1atterH and the operation perfor1ed by the intellect that 1akes everything on the potential intellect brings abo2t a ne( condition in (hich the latter has beco1e act2al and possesses act2al tho2ghts' A f2nda1ental proposition of ,eripatetic philosophy (o2ld co1e into play here, na1ely, as Aristotle e*plained else(here< Khenever M(hat e*ists act2ally is generated fro1 (hat e*ists potentially,M the transition fro1 potentiality to act2ality is effected Mby 1eans of (hat QalreadyR act2ally is Qin possession of the 77
Aristotle, %e ani1a ;'>'@;6a, -68->'
-.
characteristic in J2estionR'M7? Obvio2s as that reading of Aristotle 1ight be, a reading according to (hich the active intellect perfor1s an action on the potential intellect rendering the latter act2al, Ale*ander of Aphrodisias 1ay not have accepted it, and it has been challenged in 1odern Aristotelian scholarship'7A The 1edieval Arabic Aristotelians, for their part, (ere certain that (hen Aristotle co1pared the active intellect to the ca2se or agent in any given do1ain, he 1eant that the active intellect perfor1s a certain operation on the potential intellect and thereby brings it to act2ality'7. There re1ained the task of 2nderstanding ho( the active intellectBCD(hich the Arabic Aristotelians took to be a transcendent s2bstanceBCDprod2ces act2al tho2ght in the h21an potential or 1aterial intellect' Aristotle (as not of great help' He did offer several observations abo2t act2al h21an tho2ght< The h21an intellect Mthinks the for1s in the i1ages Qfo2nd (ithin the h21an i1aginative fac2ltyRM?6H Mintellect is QrelatedR to (hat is intelligible as sensation is to (hat is sense perceptibleM?-H the intellect hence Mis receptive of the for1M it thinks?/H Mact2al kno(ledge is identical (ith its obGectM?;BCDin other (ords, an intellect beco1es identical (ith (hatever tho2ght it thinksH altho2gh the h21an intellect receives a for1 and beco1es identical there(ith, the intellect is not Maffected,M or MalteredM in the process, and is, 1oreover, free of affection and alteration to a greater degree than sensation, (hich like(ise, according to Aristotle, is Mnot affected and altered'M?@ The state1ents tell 2s that the h21an intellect takes for1s fro1 i1ages in the i1aginative fac2lty, thinks those for1s, and beco1es identical (ith the1, (itho2t being altered in the process' 02t as for the role played by the active intellect, Aristotle offered only t(o 2ndeveloped analogies' "irst is the analogy already J2oted (hich co1pares the active intellect to the MartM that acts on 1atter' Then a fe( lines later, Aristotle co1pared the active intellect to MlightH for in a certain fashion, light 1akes potential colors act2al'' ' ,M?> The analogy (ith light 1ight (ell s2ggest that the active intellect leads the h21an intellect to act2ality by, in so1e sense, ill21inating (hat is Aristotle, Metaphysics .'A'-6@.b, /@8/>' Cf' ,rocl2s, Ele1ents of Theology, ed' E' %odds, /d ed' 9O*ford -.7;:, ,roposition ??H that proposition cannot be identified in the 1aterial kno(n to have been translated fro1 ,rocl2sI Ele1ents into Arabic' 7A See belo(, n' A6H K' %' RossI introd2ction to his edition of the %e ani1a 9O*ford -.7-: @;, @78@?' 7. One translation of the %e ani1a into Arabic in fact paraphrases Aristotle and has hi1 establish not an intellect that is (hat it is by virt2e of M1aking all thingsM b2t, instead, an intellect Mthat is an intellect by virt2e of 1aking the other Qpotential or 1aterial intellectR think all thingsMH see Averroes, ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a 9n' // above: @;?' ?6 Aristotle, %e ani1a ;'?'@;-b, /H cf' %e 1e1oria -, @@.b, ;-8@>6a, -' ?- Ibid' ;'@'@/.a, -?8-A' ?/ Ibid' ->8-7' ?; Ibid' ;'>'@;6a, /6' ?@ Ibid' ;'@'@/.a, ->, /.8;-H ;'?'@; la, >' ?> Ibid' ;'>'@;6a, ->8-?' 7?
/6
intelligible in the (orldBCDor, 1ore precisely, (hat is intelligible in i1ages presented by the i1aginative fac2lty to the h21an intellectH and the potential intellect beco1es act2al by, in so1e sense, vie(ing the ill21ined intelligible tho2ghts' S2ch a reading of the analogy can find s2pport in ,latoIs notion, s2rely kno(n to Aristotle, that 1an can Mlook atM the ideal "or1s'?7 AristotleIs %e ani1a does not, ho(ever, tro2ble to clarify (hat it has in 1ind' Having s2b1itted the state1ents abo2t act2al h21an tho2ght and the bald co1parisons to art and light, the %e ani1a t2rns a(ay to other 1atters and leaves the co11entators to their o(n devices' Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes have t(o e*planations of the 1anner by (hich the active intellect effects act2al h21an tho2ght' In one, the active intellect casts a kind of light on i1ages in the h21an i1aginative fac2lty and on the potential intellect itself, thereby enabling the intellect to discern (hat is intelligible in the i1ages' In the other, the active intellect f2nctions as a cos1ic trans1itter, contin2ally broadcasting all possible intelligible tho2ghts, and properly att2ned h21an intellects receive intelligible tho2ghts directly fro1 the active intellect' Antecedents for both e*planations can be fo2nd in the late !reek and early Arabic so2rces' To begin, Ale*ander of AphrodisiasI %e ani1a sho2ld be 1entioned' Ale*ander there re(ords the Aristotelian gro2nds for positing an active intellect as follo(s< MIn all things generated ''' by nat2re??' ' ' there is a 1atter,' ' ' (hich is potentially everything in the given do1ain,M as (ell as Man agentM that effects Mthe generation, in the 1atter, of the things the 1atter is receptive of'M The distinction bet(een 1atter and agent 12st also occ2r Min the case of intellect'M Hence, since Ma 1aterial intellect e*ists,M there M12st like(ise e*ist an active intellect (hich is the ca2se of the habit2s of the 1aterial intellect,M?A that Mhabit2sM being Ma for1 ' ' ' and perfectionM of the 1aterial intellect'?. Ale*ander (o2ld see1 to be saying that the active intellect acts 2pon the 1aterial intellect and prod2ces a habit2s for tho2ght in it' The ens2ing acco2nt of the active intellectIs role in h21an tho2ght p2rs2es a different line, (hich is of considerable interest in itself b2t not pertinent to the Arabic philosophers (ho1 (e are st2dying'A6 ?7
,lato, Rep2blic @A@CH E2thryphro 7E' ??
More precisely< MIn all things generated ''' by nat2re (hich do have a 1atter''' there is a 1atter''''M Ale*ander is leaving open the possibility of things that are generated, yet contain no 1atter' ?A Ale*ander, %e ani1a 9n' - above: AA' ?. Ibid' A>' A6 Ale*ander lays do(n the proposition that (hatever has a given characteristic to the Mhighest degree and pree1inently,''' is the ca2se of other thingsI being s2ch'M 9The converse (as
affir1ed in Aristotle, Metaphysics /'-'..;b, /@8/7< If so1ething is the ca2se of other thingsI having a certain characteristic, it itself possesses the characteristic to a higher degree': Ale*ander e*plains the proposition in a ,latonic spirit< Khen so1ething has a J2ality Mpree1inentlyM and
/-
The %e intellect2, (hich (as read by the Arabic philosophers as a co1panion piece to Ale*anderIs %e ani1a, 1akes a n21ber of points abo2t the active intellectIs role in prod2cing h21an tho2ghtH and they, altho2gh disGointed and probably not even consistent (ith each other, are highly pertinent' The first point is p2t th2s in the Arabic translation of the %e intellect2< Khat Mprod2ces intellect2al thinking and leads the 1aterial intellect to act2alityM is the MactiveM intellect, a being that is Mintellect in act2alityM and as a conseJ2ence Mact2ally ' ' ' and by its o(n nat2re ' '' intelligible'MAThe active intellect is, Mas Aristotle says,'' ' analogo2s to light,MA/ for Mlight is the ca2se 1aking colors that are potentially visible, act2ally so'M If the analogy (ith light (ere intended at face val2e, the active intellect 12st so1eho( ill21ine potential obGects of intellect and thereby transfor1 the1 into act2al obGects of intellect' 02t in the present passage, the %e intellect2 ignores the i1plications of the analogyA; and dra(s only the 2nfoc2sed inference that the active intellect leads the 1aterial intellect to act2ality< As light 1akes potential colors visible to the eye, Mso too this QactiveR intellect renders the 1aterial intellect, (hich is in potentiality, an act2al intellect'M The active intellect renders the 1aterial intellect act2al Mby fi*ing a habit2s for intellecting tho2ght Q!reek< the intellecting habit2sR inM the 1aterial intellect'A@ A si1ilar for12lation (as G2st 1et in Ale*anderIs %e ani1a' In (hat 1ay or 1ay not be an a1plification of the (ay the active intellect brings the potential intellect to act2ality, the %e intellect2 goes on to all2de to AristotleIs re1ark, in %e generatione ani1ali21, that Mintellect alone enters Qthe organis1R fro1 (itho2t'MA> The %e intellect2 e*plains, in the lang2age of the 1edieval Arabic version< Khen the active intellect Mbeco1es ca2se of the 1aterial intellectIs so1ething else has it Msecondarily,M M(hat Qhas the J2alityR secondarily receives e*istence fro1 (hat Qhas itR pree1inently'M He gives t(o e*a1ples< Mlight,M (hich is Mto the highest degree visibleM and is the ca2se of Mother thingsI being visibleMH and that (hich is to Mthe highest degree and pri1arily goodM and is the ca2se of Mother thingsIM being good' Applying the r2le to intellect, Ale*ander finds that the transcendent active intellect, (hich is Mpree1inently and by its o(n nat2re intelligible,M can M(ith reasonM be considered the Mca2se of other thingsI intelligible tho2ghtM 9Ale*ander, %e ani1a AA8A.:' In a (ord, the active intellect is kno(n to be the ca2se of h21an tho2ght not beca2se it is fo2nd to do anything, b2t inas12ch as it is the being (ith the highest degree of intelligibility' Ale*ander adds a f2rther bland consideration< MIf the active intellect is Mthe first ca2seM of the 2niverseBCDas Ale*ander in fact took it to beBCDit M(o2ld,M by virt2e of being the ca2se of the 2niverse, also MbeM the 2lti1ate Mca2se of the e*istence of all intelligible tho2ghts'M The active intellect 1ay, in other (ords, be dee1ed the ca2se of h21an tho2ght in the 1ost broad sense of being the ca2se of everything in the 2niverse 9Ale*ander, %e ani1a A.:' $either here nor else(here in the treatise does Ale*ander describe a definite action or operation perfor1ed by the active intellect on the h21an 1aterial intellect' A- A-%e intellect2 9n' / above: -6?86A' A/ A;
Ibid' -6?'
A@ %e intellect2 -6?' A> Aristotle, %e generatione ani1ali21 /';'?;7b, /A'
See Mora2*, Ale*andre dIAphrodise 9n' ; above: -/78/?'
//
abstracting, receiving, and conceiving every 1aterial for1 Qas an intelligible tho2ghtR,M it Mis called the acting acJ2ired intellect Q!reek< the active intellect''' fro1 (itho2tRMH for it is Mnot any part and po(er of o2r so2l, b2t rather appears in 2s fro1 (itho2t'MA7 If the state1ents J2oted so far 1ay be correlated, the %e intellect2 1aintains that the transcendent active intellect enters 1an fro1 (itho2t, it fi*es a habit2s for tho2ght in the h21an intellect, it thereby leads the potential intellect to act2ality, and the h21an intellect begins to think' Still a f2rther a1plification, or perhaps an alternative position, follo(s' Aristotle had dra(n a parallel bet(een intellect and sense perception,A? and the %e intellect2 plays on the parallel to e*po2nd (hat it calls MAristotleIsMAA reasons for Mintrod2cing an acJ2ired intellect Q!reek< the intellect fro1 (itho2tR'M The e*position begins (ith the assertion that (henever anything Mco1es into e*istence,M three factors 12st be present' These are Mso1ething 2ndergoing affection, so1ething active and a third thing,''' na1ely, that (hich is generated ''' fro1 the1'M In sense perception, the three factors are Mthe sense fac2lty,' ' ' the sense perceptible, and so1ething generated, na1ely, the perception M And by analogy, tho2ght too 12st contain a si1ilar set of three factors' The arg21ent foc2ses on the second of the factors fo2nd in all processes (hereby things co1e into e*istence, hence in sense perception, and hence in tho2ght as (ell' The second factor in all processes is Mso1ething active'M In sense perception, (here the %e intellect2 calls the second factor Mthe sense perceptible,M the te*t accordingly e*plains that the factor in J2estion is Mso1ething active,M an agent enabling the sense fac2lty to pass to act2ality' Since tho2ght reJ2ires the sa1e set of factors, it too 12st have a factor (ith the character of the second one in sense perception, (ith the character of the factor rendering the sense fac2lty act2al' And s2ch a factor in tho2ght can be nothing other than Man act2al active intellect'M ConseJ2ently, MG2st as there e*ist things that are act2ally sense perceptible and that render sensation act2al, so too there 12st e*ist things that, being the1selves act2ally intelligible, render the ''' intellect act2al'MA. There 12st e*ist Man act2al active intellect that renders the hitherto potential intellect capable of thinking,M Mbrings the 1aterial, potential intellect to act2ality,M and renders Mall e*istent things A7 %e inlellect2 -6A' A? AA
Above, p' -.' In the seJ2el, not J2oted here, the %e intellect2 ascribes plainly Stoic theories to this MAristotleMH see belo(, p' ;6' Feller, follo(ed by 0r2ns, the editor of the %e intellect2, therefore ingenio2sly conGect2red that MAristotleM is a copyistIs error for MAristokles,M the na1e of Ale*anderIs s2pposed teacher' See Feller 9n' /7 above: A->' ,' Mora2*, %er Aristotelis12s bei den !riechen / 90erlin -.A@: A; and n' 7, has responded that Ale*ander had a teacher na1ed Aristotle and that the reference is to hi1' See also "' Trab2cco, MII proble1a del de ,hilosophia di Aristocle di Messene e la s2a doctrina,M Ac1e -- 9-.>A: --?, --.' A. The Arabic 1an2scripts are garbled here' My translation is partly conGect2ral b2t it is co1patible (ith the !reek original'
/;
intelligible'M This factor in tho2ght, (hich parallels (hat is act2ally sense perceptible, and (hich brings the h21an intellect to act2ality, is an Mintellect''' entering fro1 (itho2t,M according to the original !reek' It is MacJ2ired fro1 (itho2t,M according to the 1edieval Arabic translation'.6 The %e intellect2 fails to identify (hat it is that is act2ally sense perceptible and that 1akes the sense fac2lty act2al' Khen Averroes later read the %e intellect2, he 2nderstood that in the case of vision, the act2ally sense perceptible is light,.- and the pages in the %e intellect2 co1ing after the state1ents G2st J2oted tend to corroborate AverroesI interpretation' The %e intellect2 no( arg2es the ne(, 2ne*pected proposition that the h21an 1aterial intellect is not, after all, (holly MpassiveM b2t is MactiveM as (ell, and f2rther that it develops spontaneo2sly, as the Ma1b2latory fac2ltyM in 1an spontaneo2sly passes to act2ality (ith ti1e'./ To ill2strate ho( the h21an intellect can be both active and passive, the %e intellect2 e*pands the repertoire of analogies by co1paring the h21an intellect to an additional pheno1enon, fire' "ire has t(o sides' It has an active side, (hich Mdestroys ''' 1atter,M b2t at the sa1e ti1e it also Mfeeds onM 1atter, and Minsofar as it feeds on 1atter, it passively 2ndergoes affection'M Si1ilarly, the Macting UfdcilR intellect in 2sMBCD(hich here 1eans the h21an 1aterial intellect, described in the lines i11ediately preceding as activeBCDboth Mseparates off for1s thro2gh its active side and Mtakes holdM of the1 thro2gh its passive side' est anyone s2ppose that recogniEing an active side of the h21an intellect leaves the transcendent active intellect otiose, the %e intellect2 insists< Altho2gh the h21an potential intellect develops spontaneo2sly, the active intellect MacJ2ired fro1 (itho2t QnonethelessR ' '' assists the h21an intellect'M The need for an active intellect is G2stified thro2gh the fa1iliar analogy of light, already 1entioned in an earlier passage of the %e intellect2, and at this point the %e intellect2 e*tracts a little 1ore fro1 the analogy than it previo2sly did' M ight'' ' prod2ces' '' act2al sightM and, conco1itantly (ith being Mseen itself,M renders McolorM visible' H21an tho2ght si1ilarly reJ2ires an active intellect that enters 1an and beco1es Man obGect of tho2ghtM 9according to the !reek b2t bl2rred in the Arabic translation:, thereby MperfectingM the already active 1aterial intellect and Mfi*ing the habit2s Qfor tho2ghtR in it'M.; In perfecting the h21an intellect, the active intellect beco1es itself an act2al obGect of tho2ght, G2st as light beco1es an act2al obGect of sight in the co2rse of activating the fac2lty of vision' In s21, the %e intellect2 first states generally that the active intellect renders the 1aterial intellect act2al by entering 1an fro1 (itho2t and fi*ing a habit2s for tho2ght in the 1aterial intellectH Ale*ander, or (hoever (rote the (ork, s2pports %e intellect2 --6' 0elo(, p' ;/>' ./ Ale*anderIs %e ani1a A/, instead contrasts the a1b2latory fac2lty, (hich beco1es act2aliEed nat2rally, (ith the intellect2al fac2lty, (hich does not' .; Ibid' ---' .- .6
/@
the state1ent thro2gh AristotleIs co1parison of the active intellect to light yet ignores the analogyIs i1plications' The %e intellect2 then develops another Aristotelian notion and co1pares the process of tho2ght to the process of sensation' The parallel (ith sensation leads to the concl2sion that h21an 1aterial intellect is activated by the active intellect in the (ay that the sense fac2lty is activated by (hat is act2ally sense perceptible' In a final clarification of the nat2re of act2al h21an tho2ght, the %e intellect2 s2b1its that the 1aterial intellect is itself active, like fire, and develops spontaneo2sly, like the a1b2latory fac2lty' 02t even (hen recogniEing an active side of the h21an intellect, the %e intellect2 still insists on the need for an e*ternal active intellect' The e*ternal active intellect enters the 1aterial intellect fro1 (itho2t and beco1es its act2al obGect of tho2ght, as light, besides ill21ining visible obGects, serves as the act2al obGect of vision' Of interest for 2s in ,lotin2s is not his f2ll doctrine of intellect b2t selected re1arks' ,lotin2sI cos1ic Intellect has a certain rese1blance to the Aristotelian active intellect, the ca2se of act2al h21an tho2ght, and the rese1blance increases (hen the active intellect is taken to be a transcendent s2bstance' It is hardly s2rprising, therefore, that ,lotin2s e1ployed (hat (as to beco1e the standard arg21ent for the e*istence of the active intellect as an arg21ent for the e*istence of his o(n cos1ic Intellect' In the (ording of the Arabic paraphrase of the Enneads, an intellect 12st e*ist (hich brings abo2t act2al tho2ght in so2l, beca2se Mpotentiality passes to act2ality only thro2gh a ca2se that is in act2ality si1ilar to Q(hatR the Qfor1er is inR potentiality'M.@ In the original !reek, the arg21ent is designed to prove that above the hypostasis So2l there stands the hypostasis Intellect' The Arabic paraphrase leaves 2ncertain, ho(ever, (hether cos1ic So2l or individ2al h21an so2ls are at iss2e' The anony1o2s Arabic paraphrase offering the arg21ent 1ight th2s be treated as a te*t belonging to the ,eripatetic 1ainstrea1, and the arg21ent read as establishing the e*istence of an already act2al intellect that brings the h21an rational so2l to the state of act2al tho2ght' ,art or all of h21an intellect2al kno(ledge is, for ,lotin2s, co112nicated to the h21an rational so2l directly by the cos1ic Intellect' ,lotin2s (rites that (henever Ma so2l is able to receive,M Intellect MgivesM it clear principles, and then Mit Qthe so2lR co1binesM those principles M2ntil it reaches perfect intellect'M.> In other passages the scope of the kno(ledge co112nicated by Intellect is broadened beyond Mclear principles'M In the (ording of one of the Arabic paraphrases of ,lotin2s< MThe intellect2al sciences, (hich are the tr2e sciences, co1e only fro1 Intellect to the rational so2l'M.7 And the paraphrase kno(n as the Theology of Aristotle brings Risala ft al8cll1 al8flahi, in ,lotin2s ap2d Arabes, ed' A' 0ada(i 9Cairo -.>>: -7A, paralleling Enneads >'.'@' "or the principle, see above, p' -A, and cf' Theology of Aristotle 9n' >@ above: ;A, paralleling Enneads @'?'A;' .> Enneads -';'>' .7Risdlafi al8cll1 al8flahl -7., paralleling Enneads >'.'?' .@
/>
the 1atter8for1 dichoto1y to bear, 1aintaining< So2l has Mthe stat2s of 1atter,M it Mreceives the for1 of Intellect, and Mreason occ2rs in so2l only thanks to Intellect'M.? The original !reek te*t of the last passage again had cos1ic So2l, and not the individ2al h21an so2l, in vie(' 02t AvicennaIs co11ent on the passage as it appears in the Theology of Aristotle, sho(s that he took so2l in the sense of the h21an so2l, and intellect in the sense of the Mactive intelligences'M.A On s2ch a reading, the h21an rational so2l is a kind of 1atter that is perfected and receives all its intellect2al kno(ledge thro2gh a for1 co1ing fro1 an incorporeal intelligence' ,lotin2s depicts the sit2ation of the h21an so2l vis a vis the cos1ic Intellect thro2gh a 1etaphor that (ill rec2r over and over again in Arabic literat2re' The so2l, he (rites, contains a sort of 1irror (herein i1ages of tho2ght and Intellect are reflected (hen the so2l orients itself properly to(ard the higher (orld'.. T(o 1ore passages deserve to be 1entioned' The first, (hich did not pass into the preserved Arabic paraphrases, says that 1an has intellect2al tho2ghts Min t(o (ays'M MIn intellect,M (hich see1s to 1ean insofar as the h21an intellect re1ains part of the cos1ic Intellect, 1an has intelligible tho2ghts Mall togetherMH Min so2l,M that is to say, in his rational so2l, (hich is an offshoot of the cos1ic So2l, or perhaps of the cos1ic Intellect, he has the1 M2nrolled and discrete, as it (ere'M-66 The second passage says that Mthe so2l contains an acJ2ired intellect c aJl 12ktasabR (hich ill21inates it Qthat is, (hich ill21inates the so2lR ' '' and renders it intellect2al'M-6- If (e do so1e violence to ,lotin2s by reading hi1 pri1arily in the Arabic paraphrase and fitting the scattered J2otations together in a synthesis, (hile ignoring 12ch 1ore that is central to his syste1, (e get the follo(ing< A transcendent Intellect has to be ass21ed in order to acco2nt for the passage of the h21an rational so2l fro1 potentiality to act2ality' Intellect2al kno(ledge is trans1itted directly by the transcendent Intellect to h21an rational so2ls that are properly oriented and ready to receive IntellectIs bo2nty' The h21an intellect is like a 1irror in (hich intelligible tho2ghts fro1 above are reflected' Tho2ght at a higher level, at the level of Intellect, is all together, (hich can be taken to 1ean that it is 2ndifferentiatedH at a s2bseJ2ent level, it is 2nrolled, (hich can be taken to 1ean that tho2ght beco1es differentiated as it descends into the h21an rational so2l' The relation of the h21an rational so2l to the intelligible tho2ght it receives isBCDas Aristotle already s2ggested and Ale*ander (rote e*plicitlyBCDa relation of 1atter to for1H and ,lotin2s adds that Mclear principlesM and the Mintellect2al sciencesM constit2ting the for1 of the rational so2l co1e directly fro1 the transcendent Intellect' 0eca2se tho2ght is acJ2ired by the h21an intellect fro1 Cf' AvicennaIs co11entary on the Theology of Aristotle 9n' -; above: ?/' MEnneads -'@'-6' -66 Enneads -'-'A' ,lotin2s held that the h21an intellect does not descend fro1 the cos1ic Intellect into the h21an body' See 0l21enthal 9n' @A above: ?;8?@' -6- Al8Shaykh al8)2nani 9n' ;? above: @A68A-, paralleling Enneads >'7'@'
.?Theology of Aristotle -6>87, paralleling Enneads >'-';'
.A
/7
above, act2al h21an tho2ght is acJ2ired intellect' Khen the foregoing state1ents, (hich are 1ade here and there by ,lotin2s, are th2s co1bined, they prefig2re AvicennaIs acco2nt of the 1anner (hereby the active intellect acts on the h21an intellect' T2rning to The1isti2s, (e find hi1 laying do(n the r2le that Mnothing is perfected by itself and inferring at once the e*istence of Man act2al, perfect intellect,M (hich leads the h21an intellect to act2ality and perfection' ,art of The1isti2sI G2stification for ass21ing a single active intellect for the entire h21an species is that all 1en grasp the sa1e Mco11on notions,M Mfirst definitions,M and Mfirst a*io1s,M (itho2t being ta2ght'-6/ His intent co2ld be either that the single active intellect co112nicates the principles of tho2ght directly to the h21an intellect, or that it enables the h21an intellect to discern the principles of tho2ght in sense perceptions and e*tract the1 fro1 there' In a possible echo of ,lotin2s, The1isti2s describes tho2ghts as Mall togetherM in the active intellect, (hile in Mthe potential intellect they are differentiated'M Tho2ghts that the active intellect Mgives 2ndividedly,M the h21an intellect Mcannot receive 2ndividedlyM b2t only in a differentiated 1ode'-6; $evertheless, despite having described the active intellect as giving tho2ghts 2ndividedly, The1isti2s does not 1ean that it conveys tho2ghtsBCD(ith the possible e*ception of the first notions, a*io1s, and definitions, (hich (ere G2st 1entionedBCDdirectly to the h21an 1ind' So 12ch is plain (hen he deploys AristotleIs analogy of light in order to e*plain the interaction of active intellect and potential intellect' The i1plication of the analogy receives 1ore attention fro1 The1isti2s than it did fro1 Ale*ander' The1isti2s (rites< Khen Mlight beco1es present in the potential fac2lty of vision and in potential colors, it t2rns the for1er into act2al vision and the latter into act2al colors'M In an analogo2s 1anner, the active intellect Goins Mthe potential intellect,M acts on it, and acts as (ell on 1anIs Mpotential intelligible tho2ghtsMH potential intelligible tho2ghts, (hich parallel potential colors, are sense perceptions, 1ediated by the i1aginative fac2lty and stored in the h21an 1e1ory' The active intellect t2rns the potential intellect into Mact2al intellectM and renders potential tho2ghts Mact2ally intelligible toM the h21an intellect'-6@ In other (ords, the active intellect, f2nctioning as a sort of light, activates both i1ages in the so2l, (hich are potential tho2ghts, and the h21an potential intellectH and it thereby enables the potential intellect to perceive act2al tho2ghts and to beco1e act2al itself' 0esides e*hibiting, after a fashion, ho( the active intellect renders the h21an intellect act2al, the analogy serves the f2rther p2rpose of helping The1isti2s grasp ho( the active intellect, altho2gh a transcendent being, can have been located by -6/ The1isti2s, ,araphrase of the %e ani1a 9n' > above: .A, -6;8@' There is a certain si1ilarity bet(een The1isti2sI position and the position of the %e intellect2 J2oted above, p' //, since according to both, the active intellect Goins the potential h21an intellect at the beginning of the latterIs develop1ent' -6; The1isti2s, ,araphrase of the %e ani1a -66' -6@ Ibid' .A8..'
/?
Aristotle in the h21an so2l< The active intellect is in itself one, b2t it breaks 2p and enters different h21an s2bGects, G2st as nat2ral light co1es fro1 a single so2rce and breaks 2p in the different s2bGects receiving it'-6> The1isti2s deploys the other Aristotelian analogy too and describes the active intellect as standing to the potential intellect as MartM stands to M1atter'M He appends a J2alification, ho(ever< Art and the artisan re1ain o2tside the 1atter they act 2pon, (hereas the active intellect Menters into the potential intellect thro2gh and thro2gh'M-67 Then The1isti2s p2rs2es the co1parison of the h21an potential intellect (ith 1atter along a different line' The several fac2lties of the so2l, he (rites, 1ake 2p a hierarchy in (hich each level has the stat2s of M1atterM in respect to the level above it, (hile the level above is the lo(er levelIs Mfor1'M The fac2lty of Msense perceptionM serves as 1atter for the i1aginative fac2lty, the Mi1aginationM as 1atter for the Mpotential intellect,M and the potential intellect as 1atter for the Mactive QintellectR'M In the last instance, the active intellect Mbeco1es one (ithM the potential intellect in the (ay M1atter and for1M constit2te a single entity' And 2nlike the inter1ediate levels of the so2l, (hich are both 1atter in respect to (hat co1es ne*t and for1 in respect to (hat precedes, the active intellect is not the 1atter of anything else' The active intellect is the so2lIs for1 in the Mtr2e sense,M the Mfinal for1,M the Mfor1 of for1s,M and in it the process c2l1inates'-6? The 2pshot is that the active intellect, or an aspect of the active intellect, enters the potential h21an intellect, penetrates it thro2gh and thro2gh, (orks fro1 (ithin, lights 2p the potential intellect and also casts a light on i1ages stored in the 1e1ory, and beco1es the for1 of the potential intellect' The active intellect is responsible for the first a*io1s of tho2ght and perhaps conveys the1 directly to 1an' After the active intellect has Goined the h21an potential intellect, the co1po2nd of the t(o constr2cts a corp2s of intellect2al kno(ledge' 0y Goining (ith the potential intellect and Mleading it to act2alityM the active intellect Meffects the intellect in habit2, in (hich 2niversal intelligible tho2ghts and 2niversal scientific kno(ledge reside'M-6A In early Arabic philosophy, both 3indiIs treatise On Intellect and the treatise On the So2l attrib2ted to ,orphyry 1aintain that a s2pernal being co112nicates act2al tho2ght directly to the h21an intellect' 3indi offers the standard arg21ent for the e*istence of an agent that prod2ces h21an tho2ght< Khenever so1ething has a certain characteristic potentially, it can only be act2aliEed by so1ething else already possessing the given characteristic act2allyH therefore the h21an so2l, (hich is potentially in possession of intelligible tho2ght, can be rendered act2al only Mthro2gh the first intellect'M-6. 02t 3indi does not 1erely concl2de that act2al Ibid' -6;H cf' above, p' -/' Ibid' ..' -6? Ibid' ..8-66' At several points, the Arabic differs slightly fro1 the !reek, and I have translated the latter' -6A Ibid' .A' -67 l6. -6>
RasaIil al83indl 9n' // above: ;>7H cf' ibid' ->>'
/A
h21an tho2ght entails an act2al intellect as its ca2se' Act2al tho2ght occ2rs (hen the h21an so2l M1akes contact QbdsharaR (ith intellect, that is, (ith for1s containing neither 1atter nor i1aginationMH and first intellect is the intellect (ith (hich it 1akes contact' "irst intellect Ms2ppliesM 912fid: (hat the h21an so2l Qh21anR so2l fro1 the first intellect'M--6 Ho( the h21an intellect 1akes contact (ith s2pernal intellect and (hat role sense perception plays in the process is left 2ne*plained' The treatise On the So2l attrib2ted to ,orphyry does not artic2late a f2ll theory of intellect b2t does affir1 that tho2ght co1es to 1an directly fro1 a transcendent so2rce' The treatise disting2ishes M1aterial intellect,M that is, the potential h21an MacJ2iresM 912stafid:, and the prod2ct is Mintellect acJ2ired Q12stafadR by the
to be the h21an intellect in possession of act2al tho2ght---H other (riters 2se the ter1 second intellect in a si1ilar sense'--/ M,sychic intellectM is Midentical (ith the QtranscendentR first intellect (hen they are in the 2pper (orld ' '' b2t is different fro1 it Qfro1 the transcendent intellectR (hen it Qthe psychic intellectR appears in the body thro2gh the 1edi21 of the so2l'M--; The brief treatise, annoyingly, also 2ses an alternative ter1inology and states that h21an Mintellect,M (ith no f2rther J2alification, co1es Mfro1M the Mintelligible (orldM and serves as Mfor1M of the h21an so2l'--@ Since, ho(ever, intelligible (orld is an appellation for the $eoplatonic cos1ic Intellect,--> the state1ent 1ay be har1oniEed (ith the previo2s J2otation as follo(s< Act2al h21an tho2ght consists in a for1 that co1es to the h21an so2l fro1 the transcendent first intellect, also called intelligible (orldH (hen the for1 is still in first intellect, the t(o are identicalH b2t (hen 1anifested in the h21an so2l, the for1 fro1 above beco1es distinct fro1 first intellect and is called second psychic intellect' The treatise On the So2l f2rther states that the h21an 1aterial intellect can never think (itho2t the aid of the Mesti1ative fac2ltyM 9(ahtn:, a physical fac2lty of the so2l'--7 That state1ent can be integrated (ith the others by 2nderstanding that (hen the 1aterial intellect conte1plates perceptions presented to it by the esti1ative fac2lty of the so2l, it prepares itself to receive act2al intellect2al tho2ght fro1 the transcendent Intellect' Avicenna (ill take a position along those lines' Ibid' ;>>8>7' 32tsch 9n' >> above: /7A, 4T4T;,@' --/ Ibn !abirol 9n' >A above: >, 4T;@H Alt1ann and Stern 9n' >7 above: ;7' Other senses of second intellect appear in the long version of the Theology of Aristotle, cited by' S' Stern, MIbn HasdayIs $eoplatonist,M Oriens -; 9-.7-: AA, .-8./H and in Alfarabi, Risalafi al8cAJl, ed' M' 0o2yges 90eir2t -.;A: -.' RasaIil al83indl ;>@, also 2ses the ter1, b2t the sense is 2nclear' --; 32tsch /7A, 4T@' --@ Ibid' 4T/' --> ,lotin2s, Enneads >'.'.H E' Feller, %ie ,hilosophie der !riechen ;'/, >th ed' 9 eipEig -./;: >A@8A?' --7 32tsch /7A, 4T;' --- --6
intellect, fro1 Msecond, psychic Qnafsa1R intellect,M (hich is sho(n by the conte*t
/.
Here (e have seen that a standard arg21ent developed for ass21ing a ca2se of the act2aliEation of the h21an intellect< Khenever so1ething passes fro1 potentiality to act2ality, the passage to act2ality is effected by an agent that itself already act2ally possesses the characteristic in J2estionH the passage of the h21an potential intellect to act2ality therefore i1plies an agent possessing act2al tho2ght (hich brings abo2t the transition 9,lotin2s, The1isti2s, 3indi:' If the concl2sion sho2ld be taken to 1ean that the ca2se of h21an tho2ght not only already possesses act2al tho2ght b2t that it consists in s2ch tho2ght, the arg21ent (o2ld establish an incorporeal, transcendent ca2se 9The1isti2sH the arg21ent is not e*plicit in ,lotin2s and 3indi, altho2gh they do have a transcendent ca2se of h21an tho2ght:' One e*planation of the (ay in (hich the transcendent ca2se effects act2al h21an tho2ght played on AristotleIs analogy of light' In The1isti2sI version, (hich dra(s the analogyIs i1plications 1ost clearly, the active intellect both casts a light on potential tho2ghts, (hich are i1ages in the h21an so2l, and also lights 2p the potential h21an intellectH it thereby enables the potential intellect to perceive act2al tho2ghts and to pass to act2ality' Another e*planation of the (ay the transcendent ca2se effects act2al h21an tho2ght represented the transcendent ca2se as directly f2rnishing either all h21an tho2ghts 9probably ,lotin2sH 3indiH the te*t attrib2ted to ,orphyry: or certain basic tho2ghts 9possibly The1isti2s:' In the spirit of the second e*planation, the h21an so2l (as described as containing a sort of 1irror that reflects the contents of the transcendent intellect 9,lotin2s:, and tho2ght (as characteriEed as acJ2ired fro1 the transcendent intellect 9,lotin2s, 3indi:' Additional 1otifs enco2ntered here (hich (ere to be significant for the Arabic Aristotelians are these< The active intellect is related to the h21an potential intellect as for1 to 1atter 9Ale*ander, ,lotin2s, The1isti2s:H in bringing the h21an intellect to act2ality, the active intellect enters into 1an 9%e intellect2, The1isti2s:H tho2ghts that are all together or 2ndifferentiated in the transcendent intellect are 2nrolled and beco1e differentiated in the h21an so2l or intellect 9,lotin2s, The1isti2s:'
The Active Intellect as a Ca2se of E*istence One (ork of AlfarabiIs, Avicenna generally, and the early (orks of Averroes not only recogniEed a transcendent ca2se that leads h21an intellects to act2alityH they represented the transcendent ca2se of h21an tho2ght, the active intellect, as the ca2se of the e*istence of part or all of the s2bl2nar (orld' In Alfarabi and Averroes, the active intellect, besides leading the h21an intellect to act2ality, e1anates a range of s2bl2nar nat2ral for1sH in Avicenna, the active intellect, (hich not 1erely leads the h21an intellect to act2ality b2t directly e1anates all h21an intelligible tho2ghts 2pon properly prepared h21an intellects, e1anates both the 1atter of the s2bl2nar (orld and a range of nat2ral for1s appearing in s2bl2nar
;6
1atter' $either the active intellect of Alfarabi and Averroes, nor that of Avicenna, can be doc21ented prior to their appearance in those philosophers' There (ere, nevertheless, a n21ber of precedents for tracing both the act2aliEation8of the h21an intellect and the e*istence of part or all of the physical 2niverse to beings standing above the physical 2niverse on the scale of e*istence' In at least one of the instances, the t(o f2nctions, act2aliEation of the h21an intellect and responsibility for the e*istence of the physical (orld, had e*plicitly been co1bined in a single transcendent active intellectH the e1anation 1otif (as not yet present, ho(ever' In another of the instances, the t(o f2nctions (ere traced to the s2pernal region, and the e*istence of the s2bl2nar (orld (as, 1oreover, seen as the o2tco1e of an e1anative processH b2t the t(o f2nctions (ere not ascribed to the sa1e s2pernal s2bstance' In this second instance, distinct, tho2gh kindred, cos1ic entities perfor1ed f2nctions very 12ch like those that Avicenna (as to co1bine in a single active intellect' The (ork e*plicitly co1bining the t(o f2nctions in a transcendent active intellect is Ale*anderIs %e ani1a' As (as seen, Ale*ander there identifies AristotleIs active intellect, the ca2se of h21an tho2ght, (ith the "irst Ca2se of the 2niverse'--? &nlike Aristotle, (ho had envisaged a "irst Ca2se solely of the 2niverseIs 1otion,--A Ale*ander characteriEes the "irst Ca2se as Mca2se and principle of the e*istence of all other things,M--. (hich 12st 1ean that it is responsible for the very e*istence, and not 1erely the 1otion, of the 2niverse' His active intellect is therefore both the ca2se of act2al h21an tho2ght and the ca2se, or at least the 2lti1ate ca2se, of the e*istence of everything o2tside itself' A different co1bination of the t(o f2nctions in the active intellect appears at the end of the %e intellect2, also attrib2ted to Ale*ander' The section is proble1atic even in the original !reek and gets f2rther obsc2red in the Arabic translation' $evertheless, one can see fro1 the !reek that the %e intellect2 is e*a1ining (hat it kno(s to be a Stoic theory' The active intellect is described as a divine, b2t corporeal, s2bstance that per1eates the 1atter of the entire 2niverse (itho2t ceasing to perfor1 its o(n act of thinking' It governs the s2bl2nar (orld Meither by itself or in cooperation (ith the M1otion ''' of the heavens,M by co1bining and separating the particles of 1atter fro1 (hich nat2ral obGects are generated' It is thereby also the Mca2se Qof the e*istenceRM of the Mpotential intellect,M a potential h21an intellect being generated (henever a portion of 1atter is blended in s2ch a (ay that the 1atter can serve as an Minstr21entM for tho2ght' After bringing the potential h21an intellect into e*istence, the active intellect leads it
Above, p' -;' Cf' E' Feller, %ie ,hilosophic der !riechen /'/, @th ed' 9 eipEig -./-: ;?.8A-H H' %avidson, ,roofs for Eternity, Creation, and the E*istence of !od, in Medieval Isla1ic and Le(ish ,hilosophy 9$e( )ork -.A?: /A-8A/' --. Ale*ander, %e ani1a 9n' - above: A.' --A
--?
;-
to act2ality' Act2al h21an tho2ght is, in fact, si1ply the divine active intellectIs thinking thro2gh the h21an intellect'-/6 In the original !reek, the a2thor of the %e intellect2BCDor if the (ork is co1posite, the a2thor of the pertinent section in the %e intellect2BCDproceeds to ref2te the theory, and in the co2rse of doing so e*pressly connects it (ith Mthe Stoa'M The Arabic bl2rs the ref2tation beyond recognition, ho(ever, and does not translate MStoaM by the standard Arabic ter1 for that school' In the Arabic, the section 1ight therefore easily be 1isread as representing the %e intellects, and hence Ale*anderIs, o(n vie('-/- Even (hen 1isread, the theory differs fro1 the position of Ale*anderIs %e ani1a' In consonance (ith its Stoic inspiration, it has the divine active intellect penetrating the 1aterial (orldH Ale*anderIs %e ani1a, by contrast, sa( the active intellect as transcendent and (holly incorporeal' The theory, 1oreover, ackno(ledges only a divine factor (orking (ithin, and giving for1 to, the 1atter of the s2bl2nar (orld, b2t not a ca2se of the e*istence of all 1atter, or even s2bl2nar 1atterH Ale*anderIs %e ani1a spoke of a ca2se of the e*istence of the entire 2niverse, (hich pres21ably 1eans all 1atter and all for1' Still, the theory recorded in the %e intellect2 provided 1edieval Arabic readers (ith a f2rther instance of the active intellectIs serving as both ca2se of act2al h21an tho2ght andBCDby itself or in cooperation (ith the heavensBCDthe direct ca2se of all nat2ral obGects in the s2bl2nar (orld, incl2ding the potential h21an intellect' ,lotin2sI syste1 traces to the incorporeal real1, altho2gh not to a single s2bstance in that real1, both the act2aliEation of the h21an intellect and the bringing of the physical 2niverse into e*istenceH and several significant threads in ,lotin2s (o2ld be (oven together in a ne( pattern by the Arabic Aristotelians' Intellect, the second hypostasis in ,lotin2sI cos1ic hierarchy, has so1ething of the character of the Aristotelian active intellect and is the so2rce of h21an intellect2al activity'-// As refracted thro2gh the Arabic paraphrases, ,lotin2s f2rther states that Intellect is Mall things, and all things are in i t ' ' ' ' They are in it as QinR their agent, (hereas it is in the1 as ca2se'M-/; MIntellect is ''' ca2se of (hat is beneath it'M-/@ That is to say, Intellect is the ca2se of the e*istence of So2l, the
third hypostasis in the cos1ic hierarchyH it is the incorporeal 1odel of the physical 2niverse, incl2ding the s2bl2nar region-/>H and it is the agent 2lti1ately, altho2gh not directly, responsible for the e*istence of the physical 2niverse' Khat i11ediately Mengendered 1atterM is So2l'-/7 Inas12ch as 1atter is Monly a recipient,M the for1s of the fo2r ele1entsBCDMfire, ' ' ' (ater, ' ' ' air, ' ' ' earthMBCDand of physical beings above the level of the ele1ents 12st, like 1atter %e intellect2 9n' / above: --/8-;' See f2rther, belo(, p' /A/' -// Above, n' @/' -/;Risalafi al8cll1 al8Ildhl 9n' .@ above: -7A botto1, paralleling Enneads >'.'7' -/@Theology of Aristotle 9n' >@ above: -@@8->, paralleling Enneads 7'?';' -/> Cf' Ar1strong 9n' @/ above: ?>' -/7 Enneads -'A'-@H @';'.' Cf' Feller 9n' --> above:
76;Vt' -/- l/6
;/
itself, co1e Mfro1 another'M Their i11ediate so2rce is, again, So2l, (hich this entire (orld,''' and nothing corporeal''' is free of the po(er of So2lMH Meach body obtains of the po(er and goodness of So2l in accordance (ith its ability to receive that po(er and goodnessMH the MgoodnessM that So2l sends forth is Mfor1,M the 2nderlying recipient of the goodness sent forth being M1atter'M-/A A1ong the for1s besto(ed by So2l 2pon the physical (orld are h21an so2ls, and a h21an so2l 1akes its appearance (henever a body is properly prepared for receiving one'-/. ,lotin2sI Intellect, (hich (as seen to be a direct so2rce of so1e or all h21an intellect2al tho2ght, is th2s also the 2lti1ate ca2se of the e1anation of the entire physical 2niverse' His cos1ic So2l is the i11ediate e1anating so2rce of the 1atter of the 2niverse, incl2ding the 1atter of the s2bl2nar region, and of for1s 1anifested in 1atter' In the s2bl2nar (orld, those for1s range fro1 the fo2r ele1ents to the h21an so2l' As a tea1, Intellect and So2l are the so2rce of so1e or all of h21an tho2ght, they e1anate the 1atter of the 2niverse, and they e1anate nat2ral for1s, each portion of 1atter receiving the nat2ral for1 for (hich it is fit' The1isti2s (as already seen to constr2e the ca2se of act2al h21an tho2ght as a transcendent active intellect' His ,araphrase of AristotleIs %e ani1a, the (ork in (hich he delineates the active intellectIs role in h21an tho2ght, also 1akes the s2ggestive re1ark that Mthe So2l''' inserts Qnat2ralR for1s in 1atter'M-;6 His ,araphrase of AristotleIs Metaphysics, 0ook -/, has 1ore to ,latonic doctrine of "or1s on the gro2nds that M1an begets a 1an'M The1isti2s co11ents< The r2le that the progenitor al(ays belongs to the sa1e species as the offspring, that M1an is born only fro1 1an and the horse fro1 a horse,M leaves 2ne*plained the spontaneo2s generation of a Mkind of hornetM fro1 the Mbodies of dead horses,M of Mbees ' ' ' fro1 dead cattle,M and si1ilar pheno1ena' To l/?
trans1its (hat (as given it by Intellect'-/? MSo2l e1anates Qt2fidR its po(er over
say' The occasion is a passage in AristotleIs Metaphysics (hich reGects the
Risdlafl al8cll1 al8Ilahi -7A, paralleling Enneads >'.';' l/ATheology of Aristotle ?A, paralleling Enneads @'A'7' Cf' ,rocl2s, Ele1ents of Theology 9n' 7? above: ,ropositions -// and -@6, and %oddsI note to ,roposition -@6' iber de ca2sis, (hich is an Arabic paraphrase of parts of the Ele1ents of Theology, states< MThe "irst Ca2se''' e1anates goodness 2pon all things in a single e1anation UfaidR, b2t each thing receives of that e1anation in accordance (ith its e*istence and being'''' !oodness and virt2es differ Qin the 2niverseR only by reason of the recipient'M See iber de ca2sis, ed' O' 0ardenhe(er 9"reib2rg -AA/: .>8.7, paralleling Ele1ents of
Theology, ,roposition -//' l/. Enneads @'A'@87H @'.'/' The Henry8Sch(yEer edition 9n' @ above: has e(isI English translation of an 2np2blished Arabic paraphrase of these sections' In ,lotin2s, individ2al so2ls are not co1pletely separated fro1 the &niversal So2lH cf' Feller 9n' --> above: >.78.?H E' 0rehier, The ,hilosophy of ,lotin2s 9Chicago -.>A: 7787A' "or so1e of the proble1s that arise in ,lotin2sI philosophy regarding the for1s of individ2al obGects, see Feller >A-8A/H L' Rist, ,lotin2s< The Road to Reality 9Ca1bridge -.7?: -6@ff'H A' Ar1strong, M"or1, Individ2al and ,erson in ,lotin2s,M reprinted in his ,lotinian and Christian St2dies 9 ondon -.?.: chap' /6' -;6 The1isti2s, ,araphrase of %e ani1a 9n' > above: -->H Arabic translation /--'
;;
e*plain spontaneo2s generation, certain MrelationshipsM 12st be ass21ed to have Mbeen p2t in nat2reM and they are (hat bring forth not only ani1als that generate spontaneo2sly b2t also ani1als that ostensibly reprod2ce' Those relationships are Mdisposed and ready for the generation of any given ani1al species, (henever they Qthe relationshipsR enco2nter 1aterial appropriate for the generation of the given ani1al'M Khence it follo(s that the for1ation of the h21an offspring is the M(orkM of forces in nat2re and not of the fatherH and the forces in nat2re derive in t2rn fro1 Mthe (orld8So2l, (hich ,lato 2nderstands to be generated fro1 the secondary deities and (hich Aristotle 2nderstands to be generated fro1 the s2n and the inclined sphere Qof the s2nIs ann2al 1otionR'M-;- Th2s The1isti2s too traces both act2al h21an tho2ght and the e*istence of nat2ral for1s, partic2larly ani1al so2ls, to transcendent ca2ses, altho2gh not to the sa1e ca2se, since the (orld8So2l (o2ld rank, for hi1' belo( the active intellect in the hierarchy of e*istence' In the Arabic (orld prior to Alfarabi, 3indi discloses 12sings of the sort that have been cited here fro1 !reek (orks' In one co1position, he (as seen to na1e Mfirst intellectM as the ca2se of act2al h21an tho2ght' In another, he 1aintains that the heavens are the ca2se of generation and corr2ption in o2r lo(er (orld,-;/ the ca2se of all life in this (orld,-;; 1ore partic2larly, the Mca2se of Q1anIsR being generated,M and finally Mthe agent of Qh21anR reason,M-;@ (hich, the conte*t indicates, 1eans that the heavens bring the potential h21an intellect into e*istence' Khat is significant for 2s is that the heavens do notBCDas in AristotleBCDprod2ce life and the other pheno1ena in a 1erely 1echanical fashion'-;> They MgrantM 912fid: life, insofar as they the1selves possess life, and M1ake 2s rational, insofar as they are the1selves rational'M-;7 )et another of 3indiIs (orks is concerned (ith the so2rce solely of the h21an so2l' Instead of tracing the origin of the h21an so2l to the heavens, as in the passage G2st J2oted, it states that the h21an so2l is Mof the s2bstance of the creator,M and stands in the sa1e relationship to the creator as the Mlight of the s2n to the s2n'M-;? The creator, in other (ords, so1eho( radiates the h21an so2l fro1 The1isti2s, ,araphrase of Metaphysics -/ 9n' 7 above: ?8A' The Arabic translation fro1 the !reek, fro1 (hich the Hebre( translation (as in t2rn 1ade, has been lost, b2t the Arabic version of the present passage has been preserved by Averroes, ong Co11entary on Metaphysics 9n' -- above:, -@./8.@' Cf' ,lato, Ti1ae2s ;@H Aristotle, Metaphysics -/'> -6? la, ->8-7, together (ith RossI note on the eclipticH %e generations et corr2ptione /'-6' -;/ RasaIil al83indl 9n' // above: /@?' -;; Ibid' />/' -;@ Ibid' />>' -;> Cf' Aristotle, %e generatione et corr2ptione /'-6H Ale*ander, %e ani1a 9n' - above: /@H Ale*ander, P2aestiones, in Scripta 1inora 9n' - above:, P2aestio /';H Feller 9n' /7 above: A/?/AH Mora2*, Ale*andre dIAphrodise 9n' ; above: ;68;?' -;7 RasaIil al83indl />/, />>' The heavens, nevertheless, do not initiate their o(n actions, the f2nctions they perfor1 being assigned to the1 by the creatorH RasaIil al83indl />>' -;? Ibid' /?;' -;-
;@
hi1self, so that 3lndi is here giving a different version of the s2pernal so2rce of the h21an so2l' 3indi, then, attrib2tes the processes of generation and corr2ption in the physical (orld, life in the physical (orld, the e*istence of the h21an rational so2l, and the act2aliEation of the h21an intellect, to living, rational beings in the higher real1s, altho2gh not to the sa1e agent (ithin those real1s' His (orks are not even consistent in tracing the sa1e pheno1enon to the sa1e ca2se' "or in one te*t he attrib2tes the act2aliEation of the h21an intellect to Mfirst intellect,M and in another to the M2niversals of thingsM-;AH in yet a third te*t he attrib2tes the generation of the h21an so2l to the rational ani1ate heavens, and in still another to the Creator' The character of his (ritings sho2ld diss2ade 2s fro1 the te1ptation to har1oniEe the divergent positions that he e1braced on different occasions' The Arabic Aristotelians, in s21, had precedents for crediting s2pernal ca2ses (ith both the act2aliEation of the h21an intellect and the e*istence of the entire physical 2niverse 9Ale*anderIs %e ani1a, ,lotin2s:, or the for1al side of the s2bl2nar (orld 9%e intellect2, The1isti2s, 3indi:' They had a precedent for attrib2ting the t(o f2nctions specifically to a single transcendent active intellect 9Ale*anderIs %e ani1a:' There (ere so2rces for the notion that a 1aterial for1 appears as soon as a portion of 1atter is properly prepared 9%e intellect2, ,lotin2s: and for the 1ore specific notion that nat2ral for1s are e1anated fro1 above 2pon properly prepared 1atter 9,lotin2s:' One of AlfarabiIs co1positions, (e shall find, co1bines in the transcendent active intellect the e1anation of a range of nat2ral for1s 2pon properly prepared 1atter, and the act2aliEation of the h21an intellectH Avicenna co1bines in the active intellect the e1anation of the 1atter of the s2bl2nar region, the e1anation of nat2ral for1s 2pon properly prepared s2bl2nar 1atter, and the e1anation of all act2al h21an tho2ghtH and AverroesI early (orks take a position close to the position of that one (ork of AlfarabiIs' ConG2nction (ith the Active IntellectH I11ortality Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes ascribed additional f2nctions to the active intellect, f2nctions (ith a religio2s coloring' They e*plained that h21an prophecy res2lts fro1 an e1anation of the active intellect, they recogniEed a role for the active intellect in h21an i11ortality, and they envisioned a cro(ning h21an state (herein the h21an intellect enters into conG2nction (ith the active intellect' I co2ld find no precedent for their e*planations of prophetic pheno1ena' 02t the role of the active intellect in h21an i11ortality and the possibility of the h21an intellectIs entering a state of conG2nction (ith the active intellect again have their antecedents in !reek and earlier Arabic philosophy' -;A
Above, p' -7'
;>
0oth those doctrines (ere already presaged in Aristotle' M,res21ably,M Aristotle so2l (hose Mact2alityM 9or< entelechy is also the act2ality of a part of the body (ill Mplainly ''' be inseparable fro1 the body'M-@6 M$othing, ho(ever, (ill preventM parts of the so2l (hose Mact2alityM is not the act2ality of the body fro1 s2rviving the bodyIs de1ise'-@- ConseJ2ently, Mnothing (ill prevent' ' ' the intellect' ' ' fro1 s2rvivingM-@/H Mintellect' ' ' apparently does not perishM-@;H Mintellect set freeM fro1 the body Mis alone i11ortal and eternal,M altho2gh it does Mnot re1e1ber Qanything abo2t this lifeR, since it is i1passive, (hile the passive intellect is destr2ctible'M-@@ The e*act intent of the state1ents, ass21ing the1 to be consistent and to have a single intent, t2rns on several J2estions of interpretation, na1ely, (hether MintellectM in each instance 1eans the potential h21an intellect, the h21an intellect after it has passed to act2ality, or the active intellectH (hether or not Aristotle vie(ed the active intellect as a transcendent being-@>H and (hether Mpassive intellectM in the last J2otation is identical (ith potential intellect' Khatever the correct ans(ers 1ight be, the J2otations s2rely appear to r2le o2t the i11ortality of nonintellect2al parts of the h21an so2l, (hile strongly s2ggesting that so1e aspect of 1anIs intellect can enGoy i11ortality' If (hat s2rvives death is the h21an intellect in a state of act2ality, if the active intellect is distinct fro1 the h21an intellect, and if the active intellect is (hat renders the h21an intellect act2al, then the active intellect (ill be the ca2se leading 1an to (hatever i11ortality he enGoys' Aristotle f2rther tantaliEed his readers (ith the pro1ise< MKhether or not intellect can, (hen not itself separate fro1 QspatialR 1agnit2de Qthat is, (hen still linked to a h21an bodyR, think anything that is separate QincorporealR has to be considered later'M-@7 The passage see1s to pose the possibility of the h21an intellectIs having incorporeal beings as a direct obGect of tho2ght, that is to say, of the h21an intellectIs not 1erely thinking propositions abo2t incorporeal beings b2t taking hold of their very for1, as the intellect does (hen thinking the for1 of a rock or a tree' An incorporeal being consists in nothing b2t for1H and, in AristotleIs episte1ology, intellect is identical (ith (hatever tho2ght it thinks'-@? Therefore, sho2ld the h21an intellect be able to have an incorporeal being, and the active intellect in partic2lar, as the obGect of its tho2ght, sho2ld it be able to take hold of the Aristotle, Metaphysics -/';'-6?6a, /7' Aristotle, %e anitna /'-'@-;a, @87' -@- Ibid' 78 ?' -@/ Aristotle, Metaphysics -/';'-6?6a, /@8/7' -@; Aristotle, %e ani1a -'@'@6Ab, -A8-.' -@@ Ibid' ;'>'@;6a, //8/>' -@> AristotleIs r2le that (hatever Is generated 2ndergoes destr2ction (o2ld appear to li1it i11ortality to an already eternal intellect that enters 1an fro1 (itho2t' -@7 Aristotle, %e ani1a ;'?'@;-b, -?8-.' -@? Above, p' -.' -@6 -;.
(rote, Mit is i1possible for the entire Qso2lR ''' to s2rviveM-;.H Many partM of the
;7
incorporeal beingIs for1, it (o2ld, pres21ably, be able to beco1e identical (ith that for1BCD(ith the active intellect itself' If s2ch is in fact the iss2e that Aristotle pro1ised to consider Mlater,M nothing in his preserved (orks ever f2lfills the pro1ise' Ale*anderIs %e ani1a, despite its nat2ralistic treat1ent of the h21an 1aterial intellect, 1aintains 2neJ2ivocally that the h21an intellect can have incorporeal beings, and the active intellect in partic2lar, as an obGect of direct tho2ght' And h21an i11ortality, for Ale*ander, is nothing other than the condition in (hich the active intellect is the obGect of 1anIs tho2ght' Ale*anderIs reasoning r2ns< Things that are co1po2nd and consist of 1atter and for1BCDin other (ords, physical obGectsBCDare potentially intelligible 2ntil the intelligible co1ponent is separated off fro1 the 1aterial s2bstrat21 and act2ally tho2ght by an intellect' Only then do the for1s of physical obGects beco1e act2ally intelligible' MIf,M ho(ever, things sho2ld e*ist (hich are for1s M(itho2t 1atter or s2bstrat21,M nothing has to be separated off fro1 a s2bstrat21 and rendered act2ally intelligible' Things of the sort (o2ld be act2ally intelligible by their very nat2re and not 1ade so by any operation perfor1ed on the1' $o(, to be act2ally intelligible is to be act2ally tho2ght by a thinking s2bGect' And according to Aristotle, Mact2al intellect is identical (ith (hat is act2ally tho2ghtMH an intellect act2ally thinking an intelligible tho2ght is identical (ith (hatever tho2ght it thinks' If a for1 e*ists independently of 1atter, is hence act2ally intelligible by its o(n nat2re, and contains nothing apart fro1 (hat is act2ally intelligible, the s2bGect thinking it (o2ld be (holly identical (ith it' A p2re for1 (o2ld, in other (ords, be both an act2al obGect of tho2ght and also the s2bGect having it as the obGect of tho2ght' It (o2ld be an incorporeal being having itself as a per1anent act2al obGect of tho2ght, an intellect thinking itself'-@A The proposition that Mact2al intellect is identical (ith (hat is act2ally tho2ghtM has another i1plication as (ell' "or the r2le 12st also apply to (hatever other intellect 1ight have an act2ally intelligible for1, that is, an act2al incorporeal intellect, as the obGect of tho2ght' Hence sho2ld a h21an intellect think an act2ally intelligible for1, it too (o2ld beco1e identical (ith the for1' The h21an intellect (o2ld beco1e identical (ith the incorporeal being that thinks, and is itself identical (ith, its o(n for1' The J2estions re1ain (hether anything e*ists (hich is by its very nat2re act2ally intelligible and conseJ2ently an incorporeal intellect, and (hether a being of the sort, so1ething act2ally intelligible by its o(n nat2re, can ever beco1e a direct obGect of h21an tho2ght' Ale*anderIs %e ani1a ans(ered the first J2estion by establishing the e*istence of the active intellect, (hich for Ale*ander is the "irst Ca2se of the 2niverse'-@. His %e ani1a does not ans(er the second, b2t si1ply ass21es that incorporeal beings and the active intellect in partic2lar can be an obGect -@A -@.
Cf' %e intellect 9n' / above: -6A' Above, p' -;'
;?
of h21an tho2ght' A h21an intellect having the active intellect, the "irst Ca2se of the 2niverse, as the obGect of its tho2ght (o2ld 2ndergo so1ething prodigio2s' It (o2ld beco1e identical (ith the "irst Ca2se, (hich is the obGect of its tho2ght' It (o2ld Min a sense beco1eM the "irst Ca2se, in a sense beco1e !od'->6 On beco1ing identical (ith the "irst Ca2se or another incorporeal being, the h21an intellect (o2ld be rendered as i11ortal as they are' There is, ho(ever, less there than 1eets the eye' An incorporeal being Mre1ains indestr2ctible irrespective of being tho2ght Qby so1ething other than itselfR'M Any Mintellect,M 1ost pertinently a h21an intellect, having that (hich is intelligible by its very nat2reBCDa for1 e*isting independently of 1atterBCDas an obGect of tho2ght beco1es identical (ith, and shares the indestr2ctibility and i11ortality of, the obGect of its tho2ght' It beco1es eJ2ally Mindestr2ctible'M 02t here is the r2b< The s2rviving 1o1ent in a h21an intellect having an incorporeal being as the obGect of its tho2ght cannot be Mthe 2nderlying and 1aterial intellectMH fpr Ale*ander 2nderstands the 1aterial intellect to be a 1ere disposition in the h21an organis1 (hich Mperishes together (ith the so2l, (hose fac2lty it is'M $or can Mthe habit2s Qfor tho2ghtR and the po(er and perfectionM of the 1aterial intellect s2rvive, even (hen an incorporeal being is the obGect of tho2ght'->- The habit2s and perfection of the 1aterial intellect perish together (ith the 1aterial intellect, in (hich they reside'->/ The MintellectM that is indestr2ctible and s2rvives the body is not, for Ale*ander, the intellect2al fac2lty of the so2l at any level or in any g2ise b2t the detached h21an tho2ght of an act2al intelligible for1BCDa detached tho2ght identical (ith its incorporeal obGect' According to the !reek< MThis is the intellect fro1 (itho2t (hich co1es to be in 2s and is indestr2ctible,M the intellect Mthat Aristotle described Qin %e generatione ani1ali21 /';'?;7b, /AR as fro1 (itho2t'M->; The !reek te*t of Ale*anderIs %e ani1a th2s 1akes clear that only a detached h21an tho2ght of an incorporeal being, and no part of the h21an intellect2al Ale*ander, %e ani1a 9n' - above: A?8A.' Ale*ander, %e ani1a .6, e*plains (hy h21an Intellect (ith M2nlversalsM as the obGect of its tho2ght cannot s2rvive' He takes for granted, as any good Aristotelian sho2ld, that M2niversalsM do not enGoy independent e*istence' In the e*ternal (orld, they e*ist solely thro2gh the individ2als belonging to the class that the 2niversal denotesH in the 1ental real1, their e*istence as concepts and 2niversals depends on an intellectIs happening to think the1H and (henever the intellect or intellects thinking the1 cease to do so, 2niversals cease to e*ist as 2niversals' Mathe1atical concepts, Ale*ander f2rther e*plains, are Msi1ilar'M Their e*istence also depends on their being tho2ght, and (hen no intellect thinks the1, they cease to e*ist as act2al concepts' 9There see1s to be a circ2larity in the arg21ent': ->/ (ith this state1ent, another has to be har1oniEed' On p' AA, Ale*ander (rites that (hen the h21an Mintellect in habit2M thinks incorporeal Mfor1s, it beco1es ''' identical (ith the1'M ->; Ibid' .68.-' The (ords Mthat Aristotle described ''' (itho2tM are bracketed by the editor of the !reek te*t, b2t do appear in the ArabicH see i11ediately belo(' "or a critiJ2e of Ale*anderIs reading of the %e generatione ani1ali21, see Mora2*, Ale*andre dIAphrodise 9n' ; above: -6>87'
->- ->6
;A
fac2lty, attains i11ortality' Readers of the Arabic translation co2ld, ho(ever, have been 1isled into s2pposing that Ale*ander recogniEed the s2rvival of so1ething 1ore' Intellect fro1 (itho2t, as (e have seen, is an incorporeal for1 d2ring the ti1e it is an obGect of h21an tho2ght' It is so designated beca2se it already (as an act2al intellect (hen still o2tside, and before being tho2ght by, the h21an intellectH intelligible for1s abstracted fro1 1aterial obGects are, by contrast, rendered act2ally intelligible, and beco1e act2al intellect, only (hen in the h21an intellect' 02t the Arabic translation of Ale*ander departs fro1 the original by characteriEing the indestr2ctible aspect of 1an as Mthe intellect (e acJ2ire and (hich co1es to be in 2sM and, again, as (hat MAristotle calls the acJ2ired intellect, (hich co1es to be in 2s fro1 (itho2t'M->@ An Arabic reader 1ight therefore have concl2ded that the i11ortal 1o1ent in 1an is an advanced stage of intellect (hich co1es to be in 1an and is called acJ2ired intellect' A passage in Ale*anderIs %e ani1a (hich 1ay not have appeared in the Arabic translationBCDthe Arabic translation is lost, and the passage is 1issing in the 1edieval Hebre( translation fro1 the ArabicBCDadvises Mthose (ho are concerned (ith having so1ething divine in the1selves to provide the1selvesM (ith the ability to Mthink (hat is of that nat2re'M->> Khether the apotheosis of h21an tho2ght is a by8prod2ct of nor1al intellect2al develop1ent or only select intellects achieve it, (hether tho2ght (ith an incorporeal being as obGect re1ains (ith 1an once he attains it or, on the contrary, it is episodic and each fleeting episode is i11ortal, (hether the event has any cognitive content, 1ystical->7 or other, (hether 1an is ever conscio2s of the e*perience, is all left open' The %e intellect2, the other (ork on the h21an intellect attrib2ted to Ale*ander, like(ise affir1s the possibility of the h21an intellectIs having an incorporeal being as a direct obGect of tho2ght' The te*t f2rther takes 2p an ite1 that Ale*anderIs %e ani1a failed to addressH it considers the point in h21an develop1ent (here tho2ght (ith the active intellect as obGect occ2rs' One passage says, in the Arabic translation of the %e intellect2, that Mintellect by its o(n nat2re QandR acJ2ired fro1 (itho2tM 9the (ord acJ2ired is added by the Arabic: MentersM into the h21an intellect, beco1es Mitself an obGect of tho2ght,M and MhelpsM render (hat is potentially intelligible act2ally so, G2st as light is itself seen and renders colors visible'->? Apparently, the active intellect is an obGect of h21an tho2ght as soon as the h21an intellect begins to think' The passage in the %e intellect2 (hich co1pared three 1o1ents in intellect to three in sensation->A also i1plies that the active intellect beco1es an obGect of h21an tho2ght as a condition of 1anIs beginning to think' There the analog2e of the act2al obGect of sensation ->@ Medieval Hebre( translation of 1edieval Arabic translation 9n' ;- above: of Ale*ander, %e ani1a .6' ->> Ibid' .-' ->7 Mora2* Ale*andre dIAphrodise -6@H Merlan 9n' /> above: -78/6' ->? %e intellect2 ---' ->A Above, p' //'
;.
(as the active intellect, (hich is the act2al obGect of intellect2al tho2ghtH and since an act2al obGect of sensation, s2ch as light, is present as soon as sensation takes place, the act2al obGect of intellect2al tho2ght (o2ld by analogy be present as soon as 1an starts thinking' I11ediately after the co1parison of sensation to intellect, the %e intellect2 e*presses (hat appears to be a different vie(' It stateGs< MThe potential intellect, (hen perfected and gro(n, has as an obGect of tho2ghtM intellect that is Mintelligible by its very nat2re'M M"or as the a1b2latory fac2lty, (hich 1an possesses fro1 birth, beco1es act2al (ith the passage of ti1e,''' the Qh21anR intellect too, once it is perfected, has things intelligible by their nat2re as an obGect of tho2ght'M->. In other (ords, 1anIs intellect, like his a1b2latory fac2lty, gro(s spontaneo2sly, and 2pon reaching 1at2rity it gains a direct concept of incorporeal beings, (hich are intelligible by their nat2re' In contrast to the previo2s passages, (here the h21an intellect has the active intellect as an obGect of tho2ght at the beginning of the tho2ght process, here the h21an intellect has 2nspecified incorporeal beings as an obGect of tho2ght at so1e level of perfection' Either the %e intellect2 is si1ply inconsistent, or it 2nderstands the active intellect to be an obGect of h21an tho2ght fro1 the beginning of the tho2ght process and other incorporeal beings to be obGects of h21an tho2ght at the end' The %e intellect2 f2rther indicates that the sole i11ortal aspect in 1an is the Mintellect fro1 (itho2t QArabic< acJ2ired fro1 (itho2tRM (hen it beco1es an obGect of the h21an intellect'-76 Ale*anderIs %e ani1a recogniEes, then, the possibility of the h21an intellectIs having the active intellect as an obGect of tho2ght and thereby Min a senseM beco1ing identical (ith the active intellect' The %e intellect2 i1plies in certain passages that the active intellect beco1es an obGect of h21an tho2ght as a condition of h21an intellect2al activity, and states in another passage that the h21an intellect has Mthings intelligible by their nat2re as an obGect of tho2ghtM (hen the intellect is perfected' The sole i11ortal aspect in 1an is, for Ale*anderIs %e ani1a, detached h21an tho2ght having the active intellect as obGect, and, for the %e intellect2, the intellect fro1 (itho2t, b2t the Arabic translations of the t(o (orks co2ld have 1isled readers into s2pposing that Ale*ander accepted the i11ortality of so1ething 1ore, of an advanced stage of h21an intellect called acJ2ired intellect' The1isti2s, in his ,araphrase of the %e ani1a, separates the possibility of the h21an intellectIs conGoining (ith the active intellect fro1 the J2estion of the active intellectIs beco1ing an obGect of h21an tho2ght' On his reading of Aristotle, an lbid' --68--' The reason for the discrepancy 1ay be the co1posite character of the %e intellect2' -76 Cf' %e intellect2 -6A, ---' Reference sho2ld also be 1ade to a state1ent in the co11entary on AristotleIs Metaphysics attrib2ted to Ale*ander, Co11entaria in Aristotele1 graeca -, ed' M' Hayd2ck 90erlin -A.-: ?-@< At 1o1ents (hen Mthe h21an intellectM has Mkno(ledge of and 1akes McontactM (ith the Mdivine intellect,M the Mdivine intellectM is Mlike a for1 of the h21an intellect'M ->.
@6
offshoot of the transcendent active intellect Goins the potential h21an intellectBCD (hich The1isti2s constr2ed J2ite differently fro1 Ale*ander-7-BCDat the o2tset of the intellect2al process' The active intellect MentersM the potential intellect, beco1es Mintert(ined (ithM it-7/ and Mone (ith itM in the (ay M1atter and for1M co1bine to beco1e a single entity'-7; The h21an MIM is a co1po2nd of Mpotential and active QintellectRMBCDthe Messential 1eM co1ing fro1 the latter-7@BCDand only thanks to the e1ergence of the Mco1po2nd intellectM does 1an begin to possess concepts'-7> The active intellectIs Goining (ith the h21an intellect is, therefore, ro2tine and a prereJ2isite for h21an tho2ght' As for the J2estion posed by Aristotle and Mleft to be considered later,M na1ely, (hether Mintellect can, (hen not itself separate fro1 QspatialR 1agnit2de, think anything separate Qthat is, incorporealR,M The1isti2s treats it as a topic apart' Inas12ch as Aristotle did not p2rs2e the iss2e in his %e ani1a, The1isti2s does not p2rs2e it in any detail in his ,araphrase, b2t he indicates a sol2tion (hen he reasons as follo(s< Since the h21an intellect can Mthink for1s 1i*ed (ith 1atter Qthat is, the for1s of physical obGectsR, it plainly is 1ore likely to be s2ch as to think separate Qthat is, incorporealR things,M (hich are intelligible by their nat2re'-77 The1isti2s says nothing f2rther on the s2bGect' He does disc2ss h21an i11ortality' Regarding the nonrational parts of the h21an so2l, on the one hand, and the active intellect, on the other, he finds Aristotle to have been 2na1big2o2s' The nonrational parts of the so2l plainly perish (ith the body,-7? and the active intellect is an incorporeal, ever8act2al being, and hence 2nJ2estionably i11ortal'-7A H21an i11ortality is an iss2e only as regards the h21an potential intellect, (hich lies bet(een the t(o poles' Aristotle, as The1isti2s read hi1, Me*plicitlyM characteriEed the potential intellect as M2n1i*edM (ith the body and MseparableM fro1 it'-7. $evertheless, the i11ortal ele1ent in 1an is not, The1isti2s 2nderstands, the potential intellect alone b2t the co1po2nd of potential and active intellect' The active intellect is M1ore separableM fro1 the body Mand 1ore 2n1i*edM than the potential intellect, and the potential intellect is its Mprec2rsor'M Khen the t(o intellects Goin and beco1e oneBCDthat is, -7- -7/
Ibid' ..8-66' Ibid' -66' -7> Ibld' ..8-66, -6A' -77 Ibid' --> 9translating the Arabic te*t:' -7? Ibid' -6>87' The1isti2s also J2otes ,lato to the sa1e effect' The1isti2s, ibid' -6-, -6?, disting2ished the passive intellect of Aristotle, %e ani1a ;'>'@;6a, /@8 />, fro1 potential intellect, e*plaining that passive intellect is an aspect of the body and 1ortal, (hile potential intellect is 2n1i*ed (ith the body and capable of i11ortality' -7A Ibid' ..8-66' -7. The1isti2s read Aristotle, %e ani1a ;'@'@/.a, /@8 />, and @/.b, >, as referring to the potential intellect' -7@
te*t'
See above, p' .' The1isti2s, ,araphrase of the %e ani1a 9n' > above: .A8..' I have translated the Arabic
-7;
@-
(hen rays proceeding fro1 the transcendent active intellect enter 1an and Goin the potential intellectBCDthe potential intellect MsharesM the active intellectIs i11ortality'-?6 And since the active intellect Goins the h21an potential intellect at least by the ti1e a 1an grasps the first a*io1s of tho2ght,-?- the h21an intellect 12st already attain i11ortality at that ti1e' Khile The1isti2s, like Ale*ander, restricts h21an i11ortality to the intellect2al parts of the so2l and 1akes it contingent on the h21an intellectIs relationship (ith the active intellect, h21an i11ortality has 1ore content for hi1 than for Ale*ander' The i11ortal part of 1an is, for hi1, not 1erely a detached tho2ght of an incorporeal being' The i11ortal part is the individ2al h21an potential intellect itself (hen Goined to, and perfected by, the i11anent aspect of the active intellect' The (ay ,lotin2s vie(ed the i11ortality of the so2l is not relevant to the present st2dy b2t at least one passage in the Enneads bears on the conG2nction of the h21an intellect (ith the transcendent ca2se that leads the h21an intellect to act2ality' Khen an individ2al h21an so2l 1oves into the real1 of Intellect, ,lotin2s (rites, it Mbeco1es one (ith the obGect of its tho2ght,M (hich is Intellect, and Menters into 2nity (ith Intellect''' Qaltho2ghR (itho2t being destroyed'M The given so2l and Intellect are then Mone,M yet they re1ain Mt(o'M-?/ The Arabic paraphrase e*pands so1e(hat< MKhen the so2l leaves this (orld and enters the higher (orld,''' it 2nites (ithM Intellect M(itho2t the destr2ction of its o(n self' ''' It beco1es both intellect2al thinker WcaJilR and intelligible tho2ght Q1acJ2lR ''' beca2se of the intensity of its conG2nction QittisalR and 2nion (ith Intellect'M In s2ch a condition, so2l and Intellect are Mone thing, and t(o'M-?; Altho2gh other passages in ,lotin2s are co11only interpreted as espo2sing an ecstatic 1ysticis1,-?@ there is nothing 1ystical abo2t the present passage' $evertheless, the e*perience spoken of here is not a ro2tine intellect2al act' It is a cli1a*, or se1icli1a*,-?> in the life of the so2l, (herein the so2l leaves the physical (orld behind and is absorbed into a higher real1' 3indi recogniEes a si1ilar 2nion of the h21an so2l (ith the transcendent intellect' As seen earlier, he 1aintains that contact (ith first intellect is (hat renders the h21an so2l Mact2ally intellect2al'M-?7 After 1aking the state1ent, he contin2es< MIntellect2al for1 2nites (ith the so2l'' ' (hen it and the intellect are one'M-?? The italiciEed (ords are a little a1big2o2s, b2t to G2dge fro1 the conte*t, they 1ean that in the act of intellect2al tho2ght, so2l beco1es one (ith first The1isti2s, ,araphrase of the %e ani1a, -6>87' Above, p' /7' l?/ Enneads @'@'/' ll; Theology of Aristotle 9n' >@ above: /-' -?@ Cf' Fe&er 9n' --> above: 7778?-H Rist 9n' -/. above: //-8/?' Merlan 9n' /> above: ?.A/ finds an ecstatic ele1ent even in 2nion (ith &niversal Intellect' -?> &nion (ith ,lotin2sI One (o2ld be the cli1a*' -?7 Above, p' /?' -?? RasaIil al83indl 9n' // above: ;>7' -?- -?6
@/
intellect' 3indi there2pon adds an opaJ2e J2alification< So2l Mis both intellect2al thinker QcdJilH intelligensR and intelligible tho2ght Q1acJ2lUH conseJ2ently, intellect QcaJlU and intelligible tho2ght are one fro1 the vie(point of the so2l' The intellect that is eternally act2al and that leads the so2lM fro1 potentiality to act2ality Mis not, ho(ever, one (ith (hat thinks it intellect2ally QcdJil2h2R'M A 1arginal gloss or 1an2script variant tries to help by e*plaining< MTh2s fro1 the vie(point of first intellect, the intelligible tho2ght in the so2l is not identical (ith first intellect'M-?A 3indi is apparently saying that (henever the h21an rational so2l thinks, and not 1erely at the c2l1ination of the so2lIs develop1ent, it has Mintelligible for1M as the obGect of its tho2ght and the t(o beco1e oneH and since intelligible for1 is identical (ith, or part of, first intellect, the h21an so2l can legiti1ately be described as having beco1e one (ith first intellect' )et the 2nion of so2l and first intellect obtains only fro1 the vie(point of the so2l, (hereas fro1 the vie(point of first intellect, the so2l and first intellect re1ain distinct' The conception is not an easy one to digest, b2t it asserts in effect that so2l and intellect are one yet re1ain t(o' 3indiIs position accordingly e*hibits a rese1blance to the position ,lotin2s (as G2st seen to e*press, altho2gh 3indi does not li1it 2nion (ith the s2pernal intellect to the cli1a* of h21an develop1ent as ,lotin2s did' A stronger state1ent on 2nion (ith the s2pernal intellect is 1ade by the Arabic treatise On the So2l attrib2ted to ,orphyry' The treatise posits that the tr2e 1an is Mintellect,M and (hen the h21an Mpsychic intellectM-?. e*ists apart fro1 the body and is present in the Mhigher (orldMBCDthat is to say, both before it descends into the 1aterial (orld and after it reascends thereBCDit is co1pletely MoneM (ith first intellect'-A6 To bring o2t the co1plete 2nity bet(een the h21an intellect and first intellect, the te*t disting2ishes s2ch 2nity fro1 2nion in a lesser degree' One of the Arabic paraphrases of ,lotin2s had co1pared the so2l to the air and stated that as air is the place occ2pied by the radiance of the s2n, so the p2re so2l is a place occ2pied by the radiance of Intellect'-A- In an apparent reaction to the analogy, the ,orphyry te*t no( insists that the h21an intellect does not M2nite (ith its for1M in a 1anner si1ilar to the M2nion QittihadR of air (ith radiance'M Its 2nion is Mp2rer'M-A/ The h21an intellect in the 2pper (orld does not, in other (ords, inter1i* (ith first intellect as (ith so1ething distinct fro1 itself b2t is (holly identical (ith first intellect' To s211ariEe, Aristotle, follo(ed by Ale*ander and The1isti2s, restricted h21an i11ortality to one or another aspect of the h21an intellect' In Ale*anderIs %e ani1a and the %e intellect2, the i11ortal 1o1ent in 1an is a detached h21an Ibid' ;>78>?' Cf' above, p' /A' -A632tsch 9n' >> above: /7A, 4T@' -?. -?A
-A-Risalafi al8cll1 al8Ilahl 9n' .@ above: -?@, paralleling Enneads >';'.' -A/
32tsch, 4T@'
@;
tho2ght (ith the active intellect or other incorporeal beings as obGect, at (hatever ti1e those beings beco1e an obGect of h21an tho2ght' The Arabic translations of Ale*anderIs %e ani1a and the %e intellect2 co2ld, ho(ever, be read as saying that not 1erely a detached tho2ght, b2t a stage of the h21an intellect called acJ2ired intellect, is i11ortal' In The1isti2s, the potential intellect is i11ortal as soon as the active intellect intert(ines (ith it at the o2tset of h21an tho2ght' The te*ts cited in this section recogniEe a conG2nction of the h21an intellect (ith the active intellect occ2rring at the beginning of h21an intellect2al develop1ent and as a 1atter of co2rse 9%e intellect2, The1isti2s:, a conG2nction (ith 2nspecified incorporeal beings 2pon the perfection of the h21an intellect 9%e intellect2:, or a conG2nction (ith the $eoplatonic cos1ic Intellect at the very cli1a* of h21an intellect2al develop1ent 9,lotin2s:' The t(o participants in conG2nction can beco1e co1pletely identical (ith each other 9Ale*anderIs %e ani1a, the $eoplatonic Arabic te*t attrib2ted to ,orphyry: or re1ain distinct 9,lotin2s, 3indi:' The Arabic paraphrase of ,lotin2s e*plicitly e1ploys the ter1 conG2nction and brackets 2nion (ith it as a synony1, adding the J2alification that neither ter1 1eans co1plete identification'
A "ARA0I O$ EMA$ATIO$, THE ACTI#E I$TE I$TE ECT
ECT, A$% H&MA$
The present chapter deals pri1arily (ith fo2r (orks of Alfarabi (hich offer a 1ore or less f2ll treat1ent of the s2bGects I a1 considering< al8Madlna al8"ddila and alSiyasa al8Madaniyya, (hich (ill be treated as representing one positionH a (ork entitled The ,hilosophy of Aristotle, (hich s2ggests a second positionH and the Risdla fi al8cAJl 9kno(n in atin as %e intellect2, %e intellect2 et intellecto, or %e intelligentiis:, (hich represents yet another' AlfarabiIs lost co11entary on the $ico1achean Ethics (ill also be to2ched on briefly' Korks attrib2ted to Alfarabi b2t e*pressing vie(s very si1ilar to AvicennaIs sho2ld be o1itted fro1 any disc2ssion of Alfarabi, since they are al1ost certainly not his'- The order in (hich AlfarabiIs (orks are disc2ssed here is chosen for p2rposes of e*position' I have no hypothesis abo2t the seJ2ence in (hich he (rote the1'/
Al8Madlna al8"ddila and al8Siyasa al8Madaniyya The E1anation of the &niverseH The Active Intellect' The 2niverse envisioned by Alfarabi is fashioned of Aristotelian bricks and of 1ortar borro(ed fro1 $eoplatonic philosophy' Aristotle, (ho of co2rse had no notion of centripetal or centrif2gal force, had pict2red a 2niverse in (hich the heavenly bodies are contin2ally borne aro2nd a stationary earth by rotating spheres' And he had concl2ded that the 2nceasing 1ove1ents of the celestial spheres 12st depend on an ine*ha2stible so2rce of po(er, and hence 2pon an incorporeal 1over, that in fact each distinct circ2lar 1ove1ent disting2ishable or inferable in the heavens 12st be d2e to a distinct sphere (ith its o(n incorporeal 1over' As Alfarabi and Avicenna (ere to 2nderstand Aristotle, each celestial sphere also has a rational so2l, and the contin2al 1otion proper to each sphere is an e*pression of the desire that the - Cf' S' ,ines, MIbn Sina et -Ia2te2r de la Risalat al8"2s2s fiI-8Hik1a,M Rev2e des et2des isla1iJ2'es -. 9-.>-: -/-8/@H "' Rah1an, ,rophecy in Isla1 9 ondon -.>A: /-' Their re1arks apply to other (orks attrib2ted to Alfarabi (hich are printed in the Hyderabad editions' / An atte1pt to trace the chronology of AlfarabiIs (orks is 1ade by T' %r2art, MAl8"arabi and E1anationis1,M St2dies in Medieval ,hilosophy, ed' L' Kippcl 9Kashington -.A?: /;8@;'
@@
Alfarabi on E1anation, the Active Intellect, and H21an Intellect
@>
sphereIs so2l has to e12late the perfection of the incorporeal 1over' The incorporeal 1over (as th2s dee1ed the 1over of the sphere in the sense that it 1aintains the sphere in 1otion as an obGect of desire' Since the 1ove1ents of all the heavenly bodies indicated a total of fifty8five pri1ary and s2bordinate spheres, Aristotle (rote that the total n21ber of incorporeal 1overs is Min all probability also fifty8five'M; The version of the sche1e pres2pposed by Alfarabi gave its attention to the pri1ary celestial spheres and ignored the s2bordinate spheresBCDin late !reek and 1edieval astrono1y, altho2gh not yet in Aristotle, these (ere epicyclical or eccentric spheres@BCDthat had to be posited in order to e*plain the f2ll co1ple*ity of celestial 1otion' Alfarabi ass21ed nine pri1ary spheres and nine incorporeal 1overs, or intelligences, as they are called in the Middle Ages, (hich govern the1' A slightly different red2ction is kno(n fro1 Ale*ander'> The nine 1ain spheres are< an o2ter, di2rnal sphere, (hich rotates aro2nd the earth once every t(entyfo2r ho2rs and i1parts its daily 1otion to the spheres nested inside itBCDan inversion of (hat 1odern astrono1y sees as the rotation of the earth on its a*isH the sphere of the fi*ed stars, (hich is carried aro2nd the earth once every t(enty8fo2r ho2rs by the di2rnal sphere and in addition perfor1s its o(n infinitesi1al rotation, a rotation giving rise to the pheno1enon that astrono1ers call the precession of the eJ2ino*esH and the seven spheres carrying the five planets kno(n at the ti1e as (ell as the s2n and the 1oon' Each of the seven inner spheres participates in the daily 1otion i1parted by the di2rnal sphere and in addition perfor1s a rotation pec2liar to itself, thereby giving rise to the apparent periodic 1ove1ents of the s2n, 1oon, and planets aro2nd the earth'7 Kithin the transl2nar region, Aristotle recogniEed no ca2sal relationship in (hat (e 1ay call the vertical planeH he did not recogniEe a ca2sality that r2ns do(n thro2gh the series of incorporeal 1overs' And in the horiEontal plane, that is, fro1 each intelligence to the corresponding sphere, he recogniEed ca2sality only in respect to 1otion, not in respect to e*istence'? As the Aristotelian sche1e of the 2niverse reappears in Alfarabi, the ca2sal connections not ackno(ledged by Aristotle are added thro2gh a s2ccession of $eoplatonic e1anations' An incorporeal "irst Ca2se, the deity, stands at the head of the 2niverse and above the 1overs of the spheres' "ro1 the "irst Ca2se, a first incorporeal intelligence Me1anatesM ;
Aristotle, ,hysics A'-6H Metaphysics -/'?8A' "or the ingen2ity that scholars have e*pended
on AristotleIs state1ents abo2t the 1overs of the spheres, see L' O(ens, MThe Reality of the Aristotelian Separate Movers,M Revie( of Metaphysics ; 9-.>6: ;-.8//'
L' %reyer, A History of Astrono1y fro1 Thales to 3epler 9$e( )ork -.>;: -@;' E' Feller'%fIe ,hilosophie der !riechen ;'-, >th ed' 9 eipEig -./;: A/?, n' >' 7 Al8 Madlna al8"adila, ed' and English trans' R' KalEer, as Al8"arabi on the ,erfect State 9O*ford -.A>: -668-6>' The 1argin of KalEcrIs le*t gives the page n21bers of the edition >
p2blished by "' %ieterici 9 eiden -A.>:' !er1an translation< %er M2sterstaat 9 eiden -.66:,
trans' "' %ieterici, (ith the pagination of his edition of the Arabic te*t indicated' ? E' Feller, %ie ,hilosophie der !riechen /'/, @th cd' 9 eipEig -./-: ;?;8A-'
@7
9yafid: eternally' The first intelligence has t(o tho2ghts, a tho2ght of the "irst Ca2se and a tho2ght of its o(n essence' 0y virt2e of the for1er tho2ght, the e*istence of a second intelligence Mproceeds necessarilyM 9yalEa1:, and by virt2e of the latter, the e*istence of the first sphere Mproceeds necessarily'M The second intelligence si1ilarly has a tho2ght of the "irst Ca2se of the 2niverse and of its o(n essence' It thereby eternally brings forth the e*istence of the third intelligence and of the second sphere, and the process contin2es do(n to the ninth intelligence, fro1 (hich e1anates the ninth sphere, the sphere of the 1oon'A The $eoplatonic inspiration goes beyond ca2sality thro2gh e1anation' ,lotin2sI single, grand e1anation sche1e of 9a: the One, 9b: Intellect 9c: So2l, 9d: 1aterial 2niverse is replicated on a s1aller scale at every stage of the process' "or 9a: the deity, called by Alfarabi Mthe "irst,M eternally e1anates 9b-: the first intelligence 9caJlX and the latter in t2rn eternally e1anates 9c-: (hat Alfarabi calls both the Mso2l,M and the Mintellect,M of the first sphere,. and also 9d-: the body of the first sphere'-6 The first intelligence initiates a si1ilar s2bseries by eternally e1anating 9b/: the second intelligence, (hich e1anates 9c/: the so2l and 9d/: the body of the second sphere' And so forth' An incorporeal being parallel to the s2bl2nar (orld (as not called for in AristotleIs syste1, since Aristotle posited his incorporeal ca2ses only to e*plain the spheresI 1otions, and in his 2niverse the s2bl2nar (orld does not 1ove as a (hole' In the sche1e set forth by Alfarabi, each intelligence is the ca2se of the e*istence of a f2rther intelligence like itself, and therefore the ninth intelligence, the 1over of the sphere of the 1oon, 1ight be e*pected to e1anate a tenth (ith characteristics si1ilar to the intelligences above it' Alfarabi does incl2de the additional e1anation' He (rites that the ninth intelligence, (hich governs the sphere of the 1oon, e1anates a tenth intelligenceH and the MtenthM is precisely the Mactive intellectM of AristotleIs %e ani1a '-- The active intellect, the intellect that in AristotleIs (ords is (hat it is by virt2e of 1aking all things, is th2s constr2ed as a transcendent entity (ith a definite spot in the overall str2ct2re of the 2niverse' It is the final link in the chain of celestial intelligences' Alfarabi gives no reason for identifying the last of the e1anated incorporeal intelligences as the active intellect' The G2stification probably (as that AristotleIs lang2age -/ and philosophic de1onstration-; sho( the ca2se effecting act2al tho2ght to itself consist in p2re Al8Madina al8"adila -668-6>' Cf' Alfarabi, al8Siyasa al8Madaniyya, cd' "' $aGGar 90eir2t -.7@: ;;8;@, >;' $aGGarIs edition gives the page n21bers of the edition p2blished in Hyderabad -./?' -6 Avicenna (ill disting2ish three separate aspects in the tho2ght of each intelligence, in order to e*plain the intelligenceIs e1anation of three thingsBCDthe so2l and body of the corresponding sphere and the ne*t intelligence in the series' Alfarabi does not yet have that point' .A
--
Aristotle, %e ani1a ;'>'@;6a, -?8-A' The 12ch8repeated arg21ent that (hatever prod2ces a characteristic in so1ething else 12st already act2ally have the act2al characteristic in itself' -;
-/
Al8MadSna al8"adila -6@8>, /6/8;H Siyasa ;/'
Alfarabi on E1anation, the Active Intellect, and H21an Intellect @? act2al tho2ght and conseJ2ently to be an incorporeal being' Since it is incorporeal, and yetBCDin contrast to the other incorporeal beingsBCDhas its activity directed not to(ard a celestial sphere b2t to(ard 1an, an inhabitant of the lo(er (orld, it can pla2sibly be identified as the last incorporeal intelligence' $one of the preserved !reek co11entators had proposed s2ch an identification of the active intellect, altho2gh several did offer transcendent interpretations' $earest to Alfarabi is the anony1o2s vie( recorded in the atin co11entary on the %e ani1a attrib2ted to ,hilopon2s, according to (hich the active intellect is an Mintellect, inferior to Hi1 Qto the %eityR, positioned close to o2r QintellectR'M-@ The follo(ing feat2res characteriEe AlfarabiIs transl2nar 2niverse< The n21ber of pri1ary celestial spheres and of the intelligences governing the1 is canoniEed at nine' The first incorporeal ca2se of the 2niverse does not itself 1ove a celestial sphere b2t resides beyond the 1over of the first sphere' The first ca2se eternally e1anates the first intelligence, and each intelligence eternally brings forth, thro2gh a process of e1anation, the ne*t intelligence in the series and its o(n sphere' The series of incorporeal intelligences governing celestial spheres has, as a final link, a tenth intelligence (hose activity is not directed to a celestial sphere' And the tenth intelligence is the active intellect positedBCDor that the co11entators fo2nd positedBCD in 0ook ; of AristotleIs %e ani1a as the ca2se of the act2aliEation of the h21an intellect' Each celestial intelligence, as has been seen, e1anates the body and so2l of a celestial sphere and the ne*t intelligence in the series' The sy11etry leading to the ass21ption of a tenth intelligence 1ight (ell s2ggest that the tenth intelligence has f2nctions analogo2s to those perfor1ed by the intelligences above it' If Alfarabi p2rs2ed the s2ggestion, he (o2ld have vie(ed the tenth intelligence, or active intellect, as the e1anating ca2se of a body, a so2l, and a f2rther intelligence, (hich co2ld appropriately be the body of the s2bl2nar (orld, the totality of so2ls e*isting in the s2bl2nar (orld, and all intellect (ithin the s2bl2nar (orld' "or reasons abo2t (hich one can only spec2late, AlfarabiIs al8Madina al8"ddila and al8Siydsa al8 Madaniyya assign the active intellect f2nctions related solely to the act2aliEation of the h21an intellect, (hereas his Risala fl al8cAJl does add that the active intellect e1anates a range of s2bl2nar nat2ral for1s, altho2gh not the body of the s2bl2nar (orld' In Avicenna the sche1e (ill blosso1 into a co1plete sy11etry, in (hich the active intellect e1anates the 1atter of the s2bl2nar (orld, nat2ral for1sBCDincl2ding nonrational so2ls and the h21an so2l (ith its potential intellect8BCD and act2al h21an tho2ght' Al8Madina al8"ddila and al8Siydsa al8Madaniyya attrib2te to the heavens, and not to the active intellect, the prod2ction of both characteristics of the s2bl2nar (orld that are invariable and those that vary' Co11on to the entire s2bl2nar (orld is an 2nderlying, identical Mpri1e 1atter'M S2bl2nar 1atter, according to Alfarabi, is a necessary and eternal prod2ct 9yalEa1: of the Mpo(erM or Mnat2reM -@
Above, pp' -@8->'
@A
co112nicated by the o2ter1ost sphere to the spheres beneath it, a po(er that ca2ses the heavens to perfor1 their co11on daily 1otion fro1 east to (est' The 2nifor1 nat2re or po(er co112nicated by the o2ter celestial sphere e*presses itselfBCDthro2gh an 2ne*plained processBCDat the lo(est level of the 2niverse by prod2cing the 1atter of the s2bl2nar (orld' !iven their co11on 1atter, individ2al physical obGects in the s2bl2nar (orld differ fro1 one another in respect to their s2bstance, and the difference in respect to s2bstance (ithin the s2bl2nar (orld Mproceeds necessarilyM fro1 the difference bet(een Ms2bstancesM (ithin the heavens' 0odies in the s2bl2nar region, 1oreover, change, and their changes are d2e to changes in the positions of the heavenly bodies relative to one another, and to changes of their positions relative to the s2bl2nar region' As s2bstances e1erge in the s2bl2nar (orld, they too have po(ers of their o(n, and those s2bl2nar po(ers also interact (ith one another and (ith the forces descending fro1 the heavenly region' The heavens are th2s the eternal so2rce of the 2nderlying 1atter of the s2bl2nar (orld' They eternally prod2ce the fo2r ele1ents' And the interplay of celestial forces and of physical forces (ithin the s2bl2nar (orld eternally gives rise to f2rther levels of s2bl2nar e*istence< to M1inerals,M Mplants,M Mnonrational ani1als,M and M1an,M the Mrational ani1al'M-> It is good Aristotelianis1 to regard the heavens as the ca2se of generation and corr2ption in the lo(er (orld, and Aristotle even disting2ished the effect of the 2nifor1 1otion of the heavens fro1 the effect of variable celestial 1otion'-7 AlfarabiIs conception also recalls a passage in 3indi'-? $o prior kno(n so2rce, ho(ever, represented the heavens as the ca2se of the very 1atter of the s2bl2nar (orld'-A Alfarabi not only espo2ses that proposition in al8Madlna al8"adila and al8 Siyasa al8Madaniyya b2t in other (orks ass21es it to be the vie( of AristotleIs %e caelo-. and%e generatione et corr2ptione'/6 H21an Intellect' "orces descending fro1 the heavens interact (ith forces arising (ithin the s2bl2nar region to prod2ce beings at each level of s2bl2nar e*istence, 2p to and incl2ding the h21an organis1, and there stop' They are Al8Mad1a al8"adila -;/8@-H Siyasa >>8>7, 7/' Aristotle, %e generatione et corr2ptione /'-6' -? Above, p' ;;' -A It is perhaps i1plied in the 1aterial cited by A' Alt1ann and S' Stern, Isaac Israeli 9O*ford -.>A: -7?87.' -. Alfarabi, ,hilosophy of Aristotle, ed' M' Mahdi 90eir2t -.7-: ..H English translation in AlfarabiIs ,hilosophy of ,lato and Aristotle, trans' Mahdi 9$e( )ork -.7/: ?-ff', (ith pagination of the Arabic te*t indicated' /6 Risala ft al84OAJl, ed' M' 0o2yges 90eir2t -.;A: ;@' Medieval atin translation, in E' !ilson, M es so2rces greco8arabes de -Ia2g2stinis1e avicennisant,M Archives dIhistoire doctrinale et litteraire d2 1oyen age @'-6A8-/7' ,artial English translation 9paralleling pp' -/8;7 of the Arabic te*t:, in ,hilosophy in the Middle Ages, ed' A' Hy1an and L' Kalsh 9$e( )ork -.?;: /->' Italian translation, (ith pagination of the Arabic indicated< "arabi, Epistola s2llI intelletto, trans' "' 2cchetta 9,ad2a -.?@:' -7 l>
@.
2nable to lead 1an to his perfection, (hich is also the highest perfection achievable in the s2bl2nar (orld' H21an perfection consists in the act2aliEation of the h21an intellect, and to e*plain the passage of the h21an intellect fro1 potentiality to act2ality, the active intellect 12st be introd2ced'/- In a brief state1ent of the standard arg21ent for the e*istence of the active intellect, 1ore f2lly stated by Alfarabi else(here,// al8Madlna al8"ddila contends that the h21an potentiality for tho2ght cannot Mby itself, beco1e act2al intellect,M it needs Mso1ething else to ca2se it to pass fro1 potentiality to act2ality,M and (hat leads it to act2ality is perforce Man incorporeal act2al intellect'M/; The active intellect Ms2rveysM the handi(ork of the heavens, and (henever an obGect in the s2bl2nar (orld has Mto a certain degree attained freedo1 and separation fro1 1atter, the active intellect tries to p2rify it fro1 1atter ''' so that it arrives at a degree close to the active intellect'M/@ ,2t 1ore straightfor(ardly, once the forces of nat2re prod2ce a 1e1ber of the h21an species (ith a potential intellect, the ever8present action of the active intellect a2to1atically begins leading the 1anIs intellect to act2ality' In perfecting the h21an intellect, the active intellect e*ercises MprovidenceM over 1an'/> Alfarabi recogniEes three stages of h21an intellect' 9-: The initial stage is the Mnat2ral dispositionM for tho2ght, also called Mrational fac2lty,M M1aterial intellect,M and Mpassive intellect,M/7 (ith (hich all nor1al 1en are born' The 2se of the ter1 disposition sho2ld be noted, for it s2ggests adherence to Ale*anderIs conception of the 1aterial, or potential, h21an intellect as a disposition in the h21an organis1 and not a s2bstance'/? 9/: Khen the disposition for tho2ght passes to act2ality (ith the aid of the active intellect, the h21an intellect beco1es Mact2al intellect,M also called Mact2al passive intellect'M 9;: At the c2l1ination, the h21an s2bGect Mperfects his passive intellect (ith all intelligible tho2ghtsM and beco1es MacJ2ired intellect'M/A To gain all possible tho2ghts/. is no s1all enterprise for a 1an of flesh and blood, b2t the 1edieval intellect2al 2niverse, like the 1edieval physical 2niverse, (as finite, and Alfarabi here ass21es that (holly co1prehensive kno(ledge does lie (ithin 1anIs po(er' As far as I co2ld see, Alfarabi does not 2se the ter1 intellect in habit2, /-
/@
Siyasa ?-' ,hilosophy of Aristotle -/?' /; Al8Madlna al8"adila -.A8/6-' Cf' above, p' -A' //
Ibid' ;/' "or the ter1 passive intellect as eJ2ivalent to potential intellect, see Aristotle, %e ani1a ;'>'@;6a, /@8/>H Si1plici2s, Co11entary on the %e ani1a, in Co11entaria in Arislotele1 !raeca --, ed' M' Hayd2ck 90erlin -AA/: /-.' The1isti2s, ,araphrase of %e ani1a, in Co11entaria in Aristotele1 !raeca >';, ed' R' HeinEe 90erlin -A..: -6-, -6?, disting2ishes passive fro1 potential intellect' /? Above, p' .' /A Al8Madlna al8"adila /@/8@>' /. In ihe3isdlafi al8cAJl, Alfarabi (ill 1ake the s1all J2alification that acJ2ired intellect is attained (hen 1an 1asters MallM or M1ostM intelligible tho2ghtsH belo(, p' 7.' /7
/>
Siyasa >>'
>6
The ter1 acJ2ired intellect in Alfarabi is proble1atic, beca2se it is not appropriate to the stage of h21an intellect to (hich he applies it' As (as seen earlier, the ter1 1ost probably originated in the Arabic translation of Ale*ander, and there, as (ell as in ,lotin2s, (ho also e1ployed the ter1, acJ2ired intellect designates so1ething co1ing to 1an, and hence acJ2ired, fro1 above and o2tside the h21an real1';6 The s2pre1e stage of h21an tho2ght, (hich Alfarabi calls acJ2ired intellect, is not ho(ever acJ2ired fro1 o2tside' It consists, as (ill appear, in a body of kno(ledge constr2cted by 1an hi1self on the fo2ndation f2rnished by the active intellect' There happens to be a phase of h21an intelligible tho2ght (hich Alfarabi 1ight (ell have characteriEed as acJ2ired fro1 (itho2t' He dra(s an analogy bet(een the light of the s2n, (hich renders the fac2lty of vision act2al, and an e1ission fro1 the active intellect (hich f2rnishes the h21an intellect (ith the basic principles of tho2ghtH and in (orking o2t the analogy, he describes the fac2lty of vision as MacJ2iringM light fro1 the s2n';- Inas12ch as the e1ission fro1 the active intellect (hich ill21ines the h21an 1aterial intellect parallels the s2nIs light, that e1ission too 1ight aptly be described as acJ2ired fro1 the active intellect' 02t (hile s2ch a consideration 1ight G2stify applying the ter1 acJ2ired intellect to the initial phase in (hich the h21an intellect receives kno(ledge thro2gh the active intellect, it cannot e*plain AlfarabiIs 2sage, (here acJ2ired intellect designates the 2lti1ate stage in (hich the h21an intellect possesses a co1plete body of kno(ledgeH for 1ost h21an kno(ledge does not, in AlfarabiIs syste1, co1e fro1 the active intellect' His choice of the ter1 acJ2ired intellect for the highest stage of h21an intellect therefore re1ains a p2EEle' As G2st 1entioned, Alfarabi add2ces the fa1iliar analogy of light to e*plain the 1anner in (hich the active intellect operates on the h21an intellect' Altho2gh echoes of the %e intellect2 attrib2ted to Ale*ander and of The1isti2s are detectable in (hat he says, he, borro(ing perhaps fro1 an 2nkno(n predecessor, p2rs2es the i1plications of the analogy in 1ore detail than (e have seen th2s far' He does so (ith the help of AristotleIs theory of vision' #ision, in AristodeIs optics, reJ2ires that light enter the transparent s2bstance of the eye';/ AlfarabiIs version of the light analogy co1pares the active intellect not to light itself b2t to its nat2ral so2rce, the s2n, ;; and his al8Madlna al8"ddila accordingly sets the stage for the analogy by noting that MlightM 9da(I: radiated by the s2n does fo2r things< It enters the eye, and t2rns potential vision into act2al visionH it co1es into contact (ith potentially visible colors and renders the1 act2ally visibleH it itself beco1es visible to the eyeH and it also renders the s2n, its so2rce, ;6 ;/
Al8Madlna al8"ddila /668/6-H Siyasa ;>' Aristotle, %e sens2 /, @;Ab, ?H L' 0care, !reek Theories of Ele1entary Cognition 9O*ford -.67: A>8A7' ;; Cf' ,lato, Rep2blic
>6A%8E, and KalEcrIs note in his edition of al8Madlna al8"adila, @6;'
;-
Above, pp' --8-/'
>-
visible to the eye' The active intellect si1ilarly Mis the ca2se of the i1printing o f ' ' ' so1ethingM analogo2s to light MinM the 1aterial h21an intellect' This analog2e of light t2rns the 1aterial intellect into act2al intellect, transfor1s potentially intelligible tho2ghtsBCDMsense perceptions Q1ahs2satR stored in the i1aginative fac2ltyMBCDinto act2ally intelligible tho2ghts, itself beco1es an obGect of intelligible tho2ght 9c8J8l: to the h21an intellect, and renders the active intellect an obGect of intelligible tho2ght to the h21an intellect';@ AlfarabiIs distinction bet(een the active intellect and (hat it i1prints in the 1aterial intellect recalls The1isti2sI distinction bet(een the transcendent side of the active intellect and the side that breaks 2p and enters individ2al h21an intellects';> The1isti2s had, 1oreover, inferred fro1 the analogy of light that the active intellect leads both the potential h21an intellect and potentially intelligible tho2ghts to act2ality';7 $ot The1isti2s, ho(ever, b2t the %e intellect2 attrib2ted to Ale*ander 2sed the light analogy to 1ake the point that the active intellect itself is an obGect of h21an tho2ght';? Khen the e1ission fro1 the active intellect (hich is analogo2s to light acts 2pon the h21an 1aterial intellect, or rational fac2lty, and 2pon the sense perceptions stored in the i1aginative fac2lty, those sense perceptions 2ndergo a change and beco1e Mintelligible tho2ghts in the rational fac2lty'M The prod2ct is Mthe first intelligible tho2ghts co11on to all 1en, s2ch as Qthe principlesR that the (hole is greater than the part, and that 1agnit2des eJ2al to a single thing are eJ2al to one another'M;A "or The1isti2s too, it (ill be recalled, the first a*io1s of tho2ght are the handi(ork of the active intellect,;. and ,lotin2s stated a si1ilar notion'@6 As al8Madlna al8"adila goes on, it places a broad constr2ction on the Mco11on first intelligible tho2ghtsM that the active intellect provides' They co1prise Mthree classesM of propositions< Mthe principles of scientific geo1etryMH Mthe principles (hereby one can 2nderstand the noble and base in areas (here 1an is to actMH and Mthe principles 2sed for learning abo2t e*istent things that do not fall (ithin the do1ain of h21an action, their ca2ses, and their degreesBCDfor e*a1ple, abo2t the heavens, the "irst Ca2se, the other pri1ary beings, and ( h a t ' ' ' is generated fro1 those pri1ary beings'M@- In other (ords, the e1ission fro1 the active intellect transfor1s perceptions stored in the i1aginative fac2lty into the principles ;@ Al8Madina al8"adila /668/6;' Cf' 0' East(ood, MAl8"arabi on E*lra1ission, Intro1ission, and the &se of ,latonic #is2al Theory,M Isis ?6 9-.?.: @/;8/>' Siyasa ;>8;7, has the sa1e analogy, b2t o1its, on the one side, the point that the eye sees the light e1itted by the s2n as (ell as the s2n, and, on the other, the point that the h21an intellect has as an obGect of tho2ght the MthingM e1itted by the active intellect as (ell as the active intellect' ;> Above, p' -@' ;7 Above, p' /7' ;? Above, p' /;' ;A Al8 Madlna al8"adila /6/8;H cf' Siyasa ?-8?/' ;. Above, p' /7' @6 Above, p' /@' @- Al8 Madlna al8"adila /6/8>H see apparat2s'
>/
of 1athe1atical science, the principles of ethics or practical reason, and the principles of physics and 1etaphysics' In listing the three classes of first intelligibles, Alfarabi see1s to have forgotten the r2les of logical reasoningH he 12st si1ply have taken the1 for granted' Al8Madlna al8"adila dra(s a division of labor bet(een the active intellect and h21an initiative' The active intellect provides the Mfirst intelligibles,M and 1an M2sesM the1 to constr2ct a body of kno(ledge by his o(n efforts' The division is dra(n 1ore f2lly by the parallel acco2nt in al8Siydsa al8Madaniyya' The Siydsa describes the active intellect as perfor1ing its task in a (ay rese1bling that in (hich the heavens perfor1 theirs' The heavens do not perfect all parts of the s2bl2nar (orld directly and by the1selves' ObGects (ithin the s2bl2nar (orld are set in 1otion by forces descending fro1 above, b2t they also act on one anotherH and thro2gh the interplay of forces contin2ally descending fro1 the heavens and forces indigeno2s to the s2bl2nar regionBCD(hich are the1selves 2lti1ately traceable to celestial forcesBCDs2ccessively higher levels of e*istence e1erge in the s2bl2nar region'@/ Si1ilarly, the active intellect does not co1plete the perfection of the h21an intellect by itself' It rather initiates the develop1ent of the h21an intellect and at s2bseJ2ent stages contrib2tes f2rther necessary kno(ledge' It Mfirst gives 1an a po(er or principle (hereby he strives or can strive, by hi1self, to(ard (hatever perfections re1ain for hi1H this principle consists in the first notions Qc2l21H a line later< 1a c drifR and first intelligible tho2ghts that arrive in the rational part of the so2l'M Men differ in their inborn ability Mto receiveM the co11on first intelligible tho2ghts, ranging fro1 those (ho are 2nable to receive any to those of so2nd innate ability (ho can receive all' Thro2gh the co11on intelligible tho2ghts that so2nd 1en do receive, they Mstrive to(ard 1atters Q212rR and acts co11on toM 1ankindBCDpres21ably to(ard 2niversal theoretical and ethical, or practical, kno(ledge' $ot only does the active intellect provide the initial Mco11onM intelligible tho2ghts' It s2bseJ2ently provides specialiEed tho2ghts as (ell' Certain 1en have MspecialM 9khdss: innate abilities to receive MspecialM intelligible tho2ghts, M(hereby they striveM to(ard one or another Mgen2sM of kno(ledge, and those special intelligible tho2ghts, (hich are the principles of the several sciences, like(ise co1e fro1 the active intellect' Alfarabi elaborates (ith distinctions regarding the n21ber of tho2ghts different 1en are able to receive in each Mgen2s,M the differing innate abilities 1en have for applying the principles of science, variations in the rapidity (ith (hich 1en dra( inferences fro1 the principles provided the1, and variations in their ability to teach others' It is clear thro2gho2t al8Siydsa al8Madaniyya that the active intellect first MgivesM 1an the co11on principles of tho2ght, s2bseJ2ently gives certain 1en the principles of the individ2al sciences, and in each instance the individ2al 1an Mby hi1self 2ses the principles he receives fro1 the active intellect in order to @/
Siyasa 7687/'
>;
Mdiscover (hatever can be kno(n by discovery Qor perhaps< by ded2ction, istinbafR in a given gen2s Qof scienceR'M@; In al8Madlna al8"adila and al8Siydsa al8Madaniyya, (e find then that an analog2e of light e1anated by the active intellect enters the h21an rational fac2lty or 1aterial intellect, t2rning it into an act2al intellect and transfor1ing perceptions stored in the i1aginative fac2lty into act2ally intelligible tho2ghts' Al8 Madlna al"ddila appears to say that all tho2ghts co1ing fro1 the active intellect are besto(ed at the o2tsetH al8Siyasa al8Madaniyya states that the active intellect provides general principles at the start, and then at s2bseJ2ent G2nct2res provides the principles of the individ2al sciences to 1en capable of receiving the1' The discrepancy 1ay ho(ever be only in the presentation, (ith al8Siydsa alMadaniyya offering the 1ore precise acco2nt' At all events, 1an, thro2gh his o(n effort, constr2cts a body of science on the fo2ndation f2rnished by the active intellect' In a different (ork, Alfarabi depicts Aristotelian physical science as a set of ded2ctions fro1 first principles'@@ If he has the sa1e pict2re of science in the present (orks, the active intellect and h21an intellect divide their tasks inas12ch as the h21an intellect ded2ces a corp2s of scientific kno(ledge fro1 the basic propositions of science f2rnished by the active intellect' Alfarabi plainly is not 1aintaining that the active intellect casts a kind of light that enables the h21an intellect to perceive, as it (ere, the abstract concept of a dog or a cat, b2t that the light fro1 the active intellect enables the h21an intellect to grasp basic scientific propositions' The notion that the active intellect provides 1an (ith the principles of tho2ght and science can, perhaps, trace its genealogy to the concl2sion of the ,osterior Analytics, (here Aristotle fo2nd the so2rce of the @> MprinciplesM of tho2ght to be MintellectM "or (hile 1odern English translations of the ,osterior Analytics take in the passage as Mint2itionM or Mint2itive reason,M the tradition that percolated do(n to Alfarabi (hen he (as (riting al8Madlna al8"adila and al8Siydsa al8Madaniyya 1ay (ell have taken in the sense of active intellect' AlfarabiIs Risala fi al8cAJl, as (ill appear, vie(s the so2rce of the first principles of tho2ght differently, it gives a different acco2nt of (hat the active intellect prod2ces in the h21an 1aterial intellect, and it offers a different interpretation of the end of the ,osterior Analytics fro1 the one that, I a1 spec2lating, 1ay have lain behind al8Madlna al8"adila and al8Siydsa al8Madaniyya' ConG2nction (ith the Active IntellectH I11ortality, The three stages of h21an intellect are, to repeat, 1aterial intellect, act2al intellect, and acJ2ired and (hen the s2cceeding stage is reached, the t(o beco1e Mas one thing in the (ay @; @@
intellect' Each stage serves as the M1atter and s2bstrat21M of the s2cceeding stage,
Ibid, ?-8?/, ?@8?>'
,hilosophy of Aristotle 9n' -. above: -6>' @> Aristotle, ,osterior Analytics /'-.'lOOb, -/'
>@
that a co1po2nd of 1atter and for1 is one thing'M At the highest stage, (hen the acJ2ired intellect beco1es the for1 of the act2al intellect, acJ2ired intellect in t2rn serves as M1atter for the active intellect,M (hichBCDapparently i11ediatelyBCDGoins the acJ2ired intellect as its for1'@7 The characteriEation of a given level of intellect as the for1 of a prior level (as 1et in Ale*ander@?H and The1isti2s o2tlined a f2ll hierarchy in (hich each s2ccessive level of so2l is the for1 of the prior level, (ith the active intellect s2pervening as the cro(ning for1'@A $one of those philosophers, ho(ever, had the active intellect Goin the h21an so2l or intellect as its for1 after the highest stage of h21an intellect is reached' Alfarabi e1ploys a variety of for12las to describe the relationship of the active intellect to the acJ2ired intellect' Khen a 1an reaches the stage of acJ2ired intellect, and the active intellect Goins the acJ2ired intellect as its for1, the active intellect Menters intoM 9hallafi: the M1an'M The active intellect sends forth a ne( Me1anationM on the h21an s2bGect, rendering hi1 a Mphilosopher and 1an of practical (isdo1'M The h21an so2l beco1es M2nited Q12ttahidR as it (ereM and MconGoinedM 9ittasald: (ith the active intellect, MconG2nction (ith the active intellectM having been Mreferred to in the %e anitna'M@. In the state of h21an perfection, 1an Mreaches the degreeM of the active intellect, or 1ore precisely arrives Mclose to the degree of,M and at the Mclosest degree to,M the active intellect>6H the latter phrases are 1ore precise, beca2se even (hen the h21an intellect reaches its highest level, Mits degree is belo( that of the active intellect'M>- $othing Alfarabi says abo2t the 2nion or conG2nction of the acJ2ired h21an intellect (ith the active intellect contains even a hint of an ecstatic or tr2ly 1ystical e*perience' In spelling o2t his version of the analogy of light, Alfarabi (rote that the e1ission fro1 the active intellect renders the active intellect an obGect of intelligible tho2ght for the h21an intellect' He s2b1its 1oreover that not only can corporeal beings like Mrocks and plants,M (hich are potentially intelligible, beco1e obGects of tho2ght for the h21an rational fac2ltyH Mincorporeal beings,M (hich by their nat2re are Mact2al intellects and act2ally intelligible,M>/ can as (ell'>; One 1ight e*pect AlfarabiIs intent to be that the acJ2ired intellect has the active intellect, and perhaps other incorporeal beings, as an obGect of tho2ght 2pon conGoining (ith the active intellect and receiving it as a for1' He takes a position along those lines Al8Madlna al8"adila /@/8@>H Siyasa ?.' Above, p' /6' @A Above, p' /?' @. Al8Madina al8"adila /@@8@>H Siyasa ?.' My translation of 12tacaJJil as M1an of practical (isdo1M is based on Alfarabi, Risalafi al84OAJl 9n' /6 above: -6, and Alfarabi, "2s2l alMadanl, ed' and trans' %' %2nlop 9Ca1bridge -.7-: 4T;7' Regarding the 1an of practical (isdo1 see Aristotle, $ico1achean Ethics 7'>' >6 Siyasa ;/, ;>8;7, >>' >l Al8Madlna al8"adila /678?' >/ See above, pp' ;>8;7' >; Al8Madtna al8"adila -.78..' @? @7
>>
else(here'>@ 02t his elaboration of the analogy of light s2ggests, on the contrary, that the e1ission fro1 the active intellect renders the active intellect an obGect of h21an tho2ght at the o2tset and not at the end'>> The %e intellect2 attrib2ted to Ale*ander had indicated that the active intellect beco1es an obGect of h21an tho2ght at the beginning of the tho2ght process and had also stated that incorporeal beingsBCD(hich co2ld still 1ean the active intellectBCDbeco1e an obGect of tho2ght of the h21an intellect at the intellectIs 1at2rity'>7 ,erhaps Alfarabi 2nderstood the active intellect to be an 2nconscio2s obGect of h21an tho2ght fro1 the start and a conscio2s obGect of tho2ght at the stage of acJ2ired intellect' Al8Madlna al"adila, altho2gh not al8Siydsa al8Madaniyya, f2rther represents the e1ission fro1 the active intellect, (hich ill21ines the h21an intellect, as itself an obGect of h21an tho2ght' Alfarabi gives no inkling of (hat that 1ight 1ean' The observation that MconG2nction (ith the active intellect''' (as referred to in the %e ani1aM is an additional p2EEle' $either AristotleIs %e ani1a nor Ale*anderIs (ork of the sa1e na1e 2sed the ter1 conG2nction' The ter1s 2nion and conG2nction, together (ith the denial that they involve co1plete identification (ith the transcendent Intellect, (ere 1et in the Arabic paraphrase of ,lotin2s kno(n as the Theology of Aristotle'>? 02t altho2gh Alfarabi regarded the Theology as a gen2ine (ork of Aristotle,>A he co2ld hardly have 1istaken it for AristotleIs %e ani1a' ,erhaps Alfarabi, or an 2nkno(n philosopher 2pon (ho1 he is dependent, had in 1ind the passage in AristotleIs %e ani1a (hich pro1ises to consider MlaterM (hether intellect can, (hen still connected (ith a h21an body, have that (hich is incorporeal as a direct obGect of tho2ght'>. Intellect, in AristotleIs episte1ology, beco1es identical (ith (hatever tho2ght it thinks, and if the tone of AristotleIs pro1ise sho2ld be taken to i1ply an affir1ative ans(er, to i1ply that the h21an intellect can indeed have the active intellect as an obGect of tho2ght, the tone of the pro1ise (o2ld pres21ably i1ply as (ell that the h21an intellect is capable of beco1ing one (ith the active intellect' If that pro1ise is the passage in the %e ani1a (hich Alfarabi believes refers to conG2nction, he does not accept all the i1plicationsH for (hile he recogniEes the possibility of conG2nction (ith the active intellect, he reGects, as (e have seen, the possibility of the h21an intellectIs beco1ing co1pletely one (ith the active intellect'
0elo(, p' 7.' Above, p' >6' >7 Above, pp' ;A8;.' >? Above, p' @-' The denial of an act2al identification of the h21an so2l (ith the transcendent first intellect (as also 1et in 3indi, above, pp' @-8@/' >A Alfarabi, al8La1c bain al8Hakl1ain, cd' A' $ader 90eir2t -.76: -6>87H also in AlfarabiIs philosophische Abhandl2ngen, ed' "' %ietcrici 9 eiden -A.6: /AH !er1an translation< AlfarabiIs philosophische Abhandl2ngen a2s de1 Arabischen iibersetEt, trans' "' %ieterici 9 eiden -A./: @@8@>' >. %e ani1a ;'?'@;-b, -?8-.' Above, p' ;>' >>
>@
>7
At the stage of acJ2ired intellect, the Mrational part of the s o 2 l ' ' ' is very si1ilar to the incorporeal beings,M and the Mso2lM Goins the co1pany Mof incorporeal beings'M "or the so2l has beco1e Mfree of 1atter,M can Mdispense (ith 1atter,M and no longer MreJ2ires 1atter for its e*istence'M Since i11ortality 1eans si1ply the ability to e*ist independently of a body, i11ortality is th2s a conco1itant of the stage of acJ2ired intellect' The Mso2lM liberates itself fro1 1atter even before the body dies and Mre1ains in that state perpet2ally,M its Me2dae1onia QsacadaR QbeingR co1plete'M76 Khether freedo1 fro1 1atter and h21an i11ortality are properties of the stage of acJ2ired intellect as s2ch, or res2lt fro1 the acJ2ired intellectIs conG2nction (ith the active intellect, is 2nclear, and probably insignificant, seeing that conG2nction (ith the active intellect see1s to ens2e i11ediately 2pon 1anIs reaching the stage of acJ2ired intellect' H21an i11ortality is, then, a prod2ct of 1anIs intellect2al develop1ent and a conco1itant of the stage of acJ2ired intellect' Alfarabi accordingly (rites that the so2ls of the ignorant perish'7- He nevertheless is caref2l to describe not 1erely the intellects, b2t also the so2ls, of those (ho have attained intellect2al perfection as i11ortal' Indeed he goes as far as to assert that dise1bodied so2ls retain their individ2ality' So2ls re1ain differentiated fro1 one another inas12ch as the MdispositionsM in 1atter Mfor QreceivingR so2ls follo( the blends Q1iEaGdtR of bodiesM7/H and since h21an bodies are different fro1 one another, the so2ls follo(ing fro1 the1 are also distinct' As additional so2ls enter the incorporeal state, Meach beco1es conGoined (ith those si1ilar in species, J2antity, and J2ality'M As 1ore incorporeal so2ls Goin a given class, the pleas2re of each so2l in the class Mincreases,M for each Mhas intellect2al tho2ght of itself and of the Qso2ls that areR si1ilar to itself, 1any ti1es over'M7; Alfarabi also speaks of tor1ents e*perienced by the dise1bodied so2ls of citiEens of the M(icked political state'M These are so2ls belonging to 1en (ho have f2lly developed their intellect b2t are 1orally vicio2s'7@ The Mvicio2s characteristics in QtheirR so2lsM oppose their intellect2al inclinations and tear their so2ls in t(o directions, (ith the res2lt that the Mrational part of the so2lM is s2bGect to Mgreat pain'M As long as 1en of the sort are alive, their rational fac2lty is occ2pied by the flo( of 1essages Mthat the sense fac2lties deliver to it,M and the pain re1ains s2bli1inal' Since s2ch 1en have developed their intellects, and since their intellect2al perfection Mreleases their so2ls fro1 1atter,M their so2ls are i11ortal' At death, the Mrational partM of their so2ls Mseparates itself co1pletely fro1 the senses,M beco1es conscio2s of its distress, and Mre1ains in great pain for all Al8Madina al8"adila /6@8? 87/87;H Siyasa ;/, ;>, @/' Al8Madina al8"adila /?68?-, /?@8?>' 7/ Cf' the passage fro1 the %e intellect2 J2oted above, p' ;6' 7; Al8Madina al8"adila /7/87>H cf' Siyasa A/' The (ords these dispositions differ in the English translation of al8Madlna al8"adila are a slip' Alfarabi is saying that so2ls are differentiated' 7@ Al8Madina al8"adila />78>.' 7l 76
>?
eternity'M "2rther, as additional individ2als Goin the class of s2ffering so2ls, they share one anotherIs pain, and the pain of each Mincreases'M7> Ke have here an allegoriEation of hellfire as the tort2re that h21an so2ls s2ffer in their dise1bodied state beca2se of resid2al physical desires, and si1ilar allegoriEations are to be fo2nd a1ong Arabic (riters of a $eoplatonic pers2asion'77 Altho2gh the descriptions of happy and 1iserable so2ls in the i11ortal state appear to be straightfor(ard, Alfarabi is probably dissi12lating' In a conte*t not pri1arily concerned (ith i11ortality, he asserts (itho2t J2alification that 2pon attaining perfection Mthe rational part of the so2l' ' ' separates co1pletely fro1 all the other parts of the so2l'M>? Seeing that the rational part leaves the other parts behind (hen it reaches the stage of acJ2ired intellect, i11ortality 12st be an affair e*cl2sively of intellect, and the previo2s physical desires of (icked so2ls 12st vanish' Moreover, even in the passage stating that dise1bodied so2ls re1ain differentiated beca2se of their prior attach1ent to bodies, Alfarabi insists that s2ch so2ls are free of Maccidents affecting bodies insofar as they are bodies'M MAnythingM by (hich Mbody can be described insofar as it is body 12st be negated of Qh21anR so2ls that have beco1e incorporeal,M and only Mter1s appropriate to the incorporeal sho2ld be predicated of the1'M7A If h21an so2ls at the stage of acJ2ired intellect are (holly incorporeal and possess no characteristics of bodies, if, as Alfarabi (rote, the h21an acJ2ired intellect possesses all intelligible tho2ghts and hence every acJ2ired intellect has e*actly the sa1e tho2ght content, and if an intellect is identical (ith its tho2ghtBCD then all acJ2ired intellects sho2ld be identical' The concl2sion sho2ld 1oreover apply to the acJ2ired intellects of (icked as (ell as of good so2ls' On the 1ore pla2sible reading, then, Alfarabi accepted i11ortality only of the h21an 1aterial intellect or rational fac2lty after it has beco1e an acJ2ired intellect, (ith no differentiation bet(een individ2al i11ortal acJ2ired intellects' His state1ents on the i11ortality of differentiated h21an so2ls, (hether virt2o2s or vicio2s, (o2ld on that reading be a stratage1 designed to veil his precise vie(s fro1 conservative religio2s readers'7. Aristotle, Ale*ander, and The1isti2s restricted h21an i11ortality to the intellect, and if 1y 2nderstanding of Alfarabi is correct, he stands in the sa1e tradition' The Arabic translation of Ale*ander regarded the h21an acJ2ired intellect Ibid' /?/8?>' Al8Shaykh al8)2nanl, ed' "' Rosenthal, Orientalia /@ 9-.>>: >68>-H Her1etis tris1egisti''' de castigatione ani1ae libell21, ed' and atin trans' O' 0ardenhe(er 90onn -A?;: --6H 3indi, RasaIil, ed' M' Ab2 Rida 9Cairo -.>6: -'/?AH Isaac Israeli, in Alt1ann and Stern 9n' -A above: /78/?, --;, --?,-.;H Ikh(an al8 SafaI, RasaIil, pt' /, 4T-7 90eir2t -.>?: vol' ;, p' ?.H !er1an translation< "' %ieterici, %ie A1hropologie der Araber 9 eipEig -A?-: ->>H pse2do80ahya, 3itab Macani al8 $afs, ed' I' OoldEiher 90erlin -.6?: 7>877' 7? Siyasa @/' 7A Al8Madlna al8"adila /7/8 7;' 7. Cf' S' M2nk, Melanges de philosophic G2ive et arabe 9,aris -A>.: ;@?' 77 7>
>A
and nothing else in 1an as i11ortalH Alfarabi too ties i11ortality to the stage of acJ2ired intellect' Ale*ander and The1isti2s ascribed a f2nction to the active intellect in h21an i11ortality, and Alfarabi does so as (ell' )et altho2gh the for12las have a si1ilar ring, the conceptions are different' Ale*ander recogniEed the i11ortality only of a detached tho2ght of the active intellect, and The1isti2s affir1ed the i11ortality of the h21an potential intellect fro1 the 1o1ent the active intellect Goins it, that is, fro1 the very beginning of h21an tho2ght' AlfarabiIs position is that i11ortality acco1panies the 2lti1ate stage of h21an intellect, (hen 1an has 1astered all science' ,rophecy' Th2s far, the active intellect has been seen to operate only on the h21an intellect' The e1anation fro1 the active intellect can, according to alMadina al8"ddila, also pass beyond the intellect to the h21an i1aginative fac2lty and there prod2ce the nat2ral pheno1ena that are kno(n in religio2s no1enclat2re as prophecy and revelation' The Mi1aginationM 912takhayyila:, Alfarabi e*plains, is a fac2lty of the so2l located in the heart and standing i11ediately belo(, and serving, the rational fac2lty'?6 It stores Msense perceptionsM 91ahs2saf:, or the Mi1pressions of sense perceptions,M (hen the obGects of perception are no longer present' It 1anip2lates sense perceptions, disasse1bling the1 or co1bining the1 into config2rations that 1ay or 1ay not agree (ith (hat e*ists in the e*ternal (orld' And it can do a MthirdM thing' It can create Mfig2rative i1agesM 912hakaf:, that is to say, i1ages that sy1boliEe, rather than strictly represent, a given obGect' Khen the body is asleep and the i1aginative fac2lty is not occ2pied in receiving perceptions fro1 the senses or s2pplying i1ages for the 2se of the intellect, that fac2lty is especially free to create, and the fig2rative i1ages it fra1es are called drea1s' The condition of the body at the ti1e 1ay give the i1agination direction' If, for e*a1ple, (etness happens to be preponderant in the body, the i1agination 1ay be led to fra1e a drea1 concerning (ater or s(i11ing'?Cf' Aristotle, %e ani1a ;';'@/Aa, >8-/H Feller 9n' ? above: >@>8@.' It (ill appear that Avicenna disting2ishes t(o i1aginative fac2lties, a retentive i1agination and a co1positive i1agination, and the f2nctions that Alfarabi here assigns to the i1aginative fac2lty (itho2t f2rther J2alification are distrib2ted by Avicenna bet(een the t(o' See belo(, p' A., n' 77' Kolfson, (ho coined the ter1s retentive and co1positive i1agination, J2otes, in addition to a passage in (hich Alfarabi does not disting2ish bet(een the t(o i1aginative fac2lties, passages fro1 t(o (orks attrib2ted to Alfarabi (hich do have the distinctionH sec H' Kolfson, MThe Internal Senses,M reprinted in his St2dies in the History of ,hilosophy and Religion 9Ca1bridge, Mass' -.?;: /?@8?7' The second of the t(o (orks, c&y2n al8MasaIil, is, ho(ever, definitely not a gen2ine co1position of AlfarabiIs, and the first probably is also not his' It is therefore fairly safe to credit Avicenna (ith having originated the distinction' ?- Al8 Madlna al8"ddila -7A87.H /-68-;' That the h21an i1agination plays a role in drea1s (as recogniEed by Aristotle, %e inso1niis -, b2t the details stated here by Alfarabi do not appear there' ?6
>.
Alfarabi recogniEes t(o levels of prophetic pheno1ena, both constit2ted by an e1anation fro1 the active intellect 2pon the i1aginative fac2lty'?/ The lo(er of the t(o levels, labeled specifically as MprophecyM 9n2b2((a:, is enGoyed by 1en (ho have not perfected their intellect, (hereas the higher, (hich Alfarabi so1eti1es specifically na1es MrevelationM 9(8h8y:, co1es e*cl2sively to those (ho stand at the stage of acJ2ired intellect'?; He describes prophecy at the lo(er level as follo(s< The analog2e of MlightM (hich constantly e1anates fro1 the active intellect and (hich every h21an rational fac2lty receives, 1ay Me1anate fro1M the rational fac2lty of the 1an of i1perfect intellect, to the MadGoiningM i1aginative fac2lty' Since the rational fac2lty is t(ofold, being of Mboth a theoretical and a practicalM character, and since the i1aginative fac2lty adGoins both, kno(ledge i1parted by the active intellect to an inspired i1aginative fac2lty thro2gh the rational fac2lty is t(ofold as (ell' It has either practical or theoretical content' 3no(ledge of a practical character i1parted to the i1aginative fac2lty consists in Msense perceptionsM of a certain kind' They are Mpartic2larsM that relate to events in the MpresentM or Mf2t2re,M and that belong to the do1ain of things (hich the practical side of the rational fac2lty Mperfor1s by deliberation Qra(iyyaR'M In other (ords, the i1agination vis2aliEes present events occ2rring at a distance and foresees f2t2re eventsH both those sorts of event appear to the i1aginative fac2lty as if they (ere being perceived by the senses, altho2gh in fact they lie beyond the grasp of the sense organsH both sorts are ordinarily accessible to 1an thro2gh deliberation on the part of his practical rational fac2ltyH b2t in prophecy the i1agination also dispenses (ith the nor1al processes of deliberation' &nder the infl2ence of the active intellect, present and f2t2re events so1eti1es sho( the1selves to the i1aginative fac2lty Mas they areMH the i1agination perceives an event at a distance or a f2t2re event in the e*act shape it has or (ill have (hen it occ2rs' Alternatively, events 1ay be recast by the i1agination in fig2rative i1ages' 3no(ledge of a theoretical character, the other type of kno(ledge i1parted to the inspired i1aginative fac2lty, consists in Mclairvoyance QkahanatR in divine 1atters'M The i1aginative fac2lty gains kno(ledge of 1etaphysical tr2ths' Here, (hen receiving theoretical kno(ledge, the i1aginative fac2lty 12st, (itho2t e*ception, recast (hat it receives in fig2rative i1ages' "or the i1agination is a physical fac2lty, capable of handling only physical i1pressions, and hence incapable of receiving theoretical tr2ths in their proper, abstract for1' The 8Al8Madlna al8"dctila indicates, b2t docs not 1ake (holly e*plicit, that it envisages t(o distinct levels of prophecy' The t(o levels are e*plicitly disting2ished in Alfarabi, "2f2l alMadanl 9n' @. above: 4TA.' ?; In Siyasa ?.8A6, Alfarabi also 2ses the ter1 revelation for the e1anation that the h21an intellect itself receives fro1 the active intellect (hen 1an attains the state of acJ2ired intellect' In "2s2l al8Madani 4TA., the prophecy of the 1an of i1perfect intellect is called revelation, and the ter1 revelation is applied as (ell to a kind of kno(ledge possessed only by the 1an of perfected intellect, altho2gh (hat that kno(ledge is, re1ains 2nclear' ?/
76
i1aginative fac2lty Msees, '' ' fig2rative i1ages of incorporeal intelligible QbeingsR and other s2pernal beings'M?@ Alfarabi does not e*plain the process (hereby the active intellect f2rnishes theoretical kno(ledge or kno(ledge of distant present events and f2t2re events' As regards theoretical kno(ledge, (e 1ay s2r1ise that the active intellect co112nicates the principles of science to the i1aginative fac2lty, since Alfarabi has already (ritten that it co112nicates the1 to the h21an intellect, (hence they 1ight proceed a step f2rther to the i1aginative fac2lty' 02t he also states that the active intellect MgivesM the i1aginative fac2lty, and the i1aginative fac2lty MreceivesM and Msees,M fig2rative i1ages of the incorporeal intelligible beings and other s2pernal s2bstances'?> ,erhaps he 1eans that the active intellect i1parts theoretical kno(ledge of the s2pernal region to the i1aginative fac2lty by conveying the principles of science, incl2ding Mthe principles 2sed for learning a b o 2 t ' ' ' the heavens, the "irst Ca2se, QandR the other pri1ary beingsM?7H (here2pon the i1aginative fac2lty so1eho( sees the i1plications, recast in fig2rative i1ages, of the scientific principles co112nicated to it' As for distant present events and f2t2re events, Alfarabi has stated that they belong to the do1ain (here the practical reason e*ercises Mdeliberation'M %eliberation in Aristotle is a proced2re for setting goals and planning the steps to attain the1' Since every event is bro2ght abo2t by a concatenation of preceding events, the practical intellect starts (ith a desired f2t2re res2lt, deliberates back fro1 it, discovers the series of ca2sal steps needed to bring it abo2t, and deter1ines the first action to take'?? In a si1ilar b2t inverse fashion, Alfarabi inti1ates, deliberation can proceed for(ard fro1 i11ediate circ21stances thro2gh a series of ca2sal steps to ded2ce (hat is occ2rring at a distance or to predict (hat (ill occ2r in the f2t2re' In prophecy, the i1agination 1akes the predictions M(itho2t the 1ediacy of deliberation,M that is to say, (itho2t laborio2s step8by8step reasoning' The i1agination can dispense (ith deliberation beca2se of the MactionM of the active intellectH the active intellect MgivesM kno(ledge of the events to the i1aginative fac2lty, and the i1agination MreceivesM the kno(ledge fro1 the active intellect'?A AlfarabiIs intent cannot be that the active intellect itself has direct kno(ledge of partic2lar obGects or events in the physical (orld, for he accepted the Aristotelian episte1ology, (hich r2les o2t kno(ledge of the partic2lar by intellect'?. He pres21ably 2nderstands that the e1ission fro1 the active intellect conveys the Al8Madlna al8"adila /-A8/-, //@8/>' My translation differs considerably fro1 the English translation at the top of p' //-' Rah1an 9n' - above: ?-, J2otes fro1 ,rocl2s the theory that the i1agination recasts theoretical tr2ths into fig2rative i1ages' ?> Ibid' //68/-, //@8/>' ?7 Above, p' >-' ?? Aristotle, $ico1achean Ethics 7'>H Alfarabi, "2fiil al8Madani 9n' @. above: 4T4T7 9end:, ;>, ;7H Feller 9n' ? above: 7>-, n' BYZAl8Madlna al8"adila //68/-' ?. Feller 9n' ? above: /-6, >7A' ?@
7-
principles of practical reason to the i1aginative fac2lty,A6 the i1aginative fac2lty 2nconscio2sly applies those principles to circ21stances (ith (hich it is fa1iliar, and it vis2aliEes the i1plications' ,ractical and theoretical kno(ledge received by the i1aginative fac2lty occ2rs either in drea1sA- or, 1ore rarely, in the (aking state' Khen kno(ledge is prod2ced in the i1aginative fac2lty d2ring the (aking state, the i1aginative fac2lty 1ay proGect i1ages o2t thro2gh the sense fac2lties into the e*ternal (orld, (here2pon the i1ages that the so2l itself proGected into the (orld can be perceived by the h21an s2bGectIs sense organ and beco1e MvisibleM to hi1' To enGoy both MprophecyM of present and f2t2re events and also Mprophecy in divine 1atters,M that is to say, a fig2rative depiction of 1etaphysical tr2ths, in a (aking state, is Mthe 1ost perfect degree that the i1aginative fac2lty can reach'M esser degrees are possible and 1ore co11on'A/ The characteriEation of a certain kind of prophecy thro2gh the i1aginative fac2lty as that fac2ltyIs M1ost perfect degreeM sho2ld not be taken to 1ean that s2ch prophecy has gen2ine val2e for 1an' Alfarabi has already stated that h21an perfection appertains to the intellect, and he thereby relegates the acco1plish1ents of the nonintellect2al fac2lties of the so2l to a lesser stat2s' The higher of the t(o levels of prophecy is, according to Alfarabi, inco1parably s2perior to the lo(er level'A; In contrast to the lo(er level, (hich lies (ithin the po(er of anyone possessing a receptive i1aginative fac2lty, the higher level is the e*cl2sive province of the fort2nate 1an (ho has f2lly developed his intellect and arrived at the stage of acJ2ired intellect' Sho2ld a 1an at the stage of acJ2ired intellect have a receptive i1aginative fac2lty, his i1aginative fac2lty, like the i1agination of the prophet at the lo(er level, is vo2chsafed an e1anation fro1 the active intellect' Alfarabi adds parenthetically that Msince the active intellect itself e1anates fro1 the e*istence of the "irst Ca2se, the "irst Ca2seM or M!odM can be na1ed Mas the so2rce of revelation for 1an, thro2gh the active intellect'M MThe active intellect e1anatesM its light 2pon the 1anIs MacJ2ired intellect,M (hence the e1anation descends to the 1anIs Mpassive QpotentialR intellectM and fro1 there to his Mi1aginative fac2lty'M The philosopher (ith a receptive i1aginative fac2lty gains kno(ledge of events, beco1ing a Mprophet,M a M(arner of f2t2re events,M and one (ho can Mtell (hat is happening no( Qat a distanceR'M Khether he also receives an i1aginative depiction of theoretical kno(ledge is not 1ade clear' 0eing a See above, p' >-' The notion that drea1s foretell the f2t2re is, of co2rse, an intcrc2lt2ral co11onplace' Aristotle disc2ssed the s2bGect in %e divinations, (hich is part of the ,arva nat2ralia' A 1edieval te*t, entitled al8Risdla al8Mand1iyya, MEpistle concerning %rea1s,M s211ariEed by S' ,ines in MThe Arabic Recension of ,arva nat2ralia,M Israel Oriental St2dies @ 9-.?@: -/6, 1akes the inacc2rate state1ent that in the M,arva nat2ralia ''' Aristotle called the QdivineR forceM responsible for tr2e drea1s Mthe active intellect'M A/ Al8Madlna al8"adila ///8/>' A; Alfarabi, "2s2l al8Mada1 9n' @. above: 4TA. 9end:' A- A6
7/
philosopher, he 12st have already 1astered science in the proper (ay, and hence does not need an inspired i1aginative fac2lty to teach hi1 scientific tr2ths in fig2rative i1ages' $evertheless, fig2rative depictions of theoretical tr2th serve a pedagogical end and 1ight be p2t to 2se by the philosopher8prophet' "or (hen the tr2ths of 1etaphysics are recast fig2ratively, 1ost notably in the anthropo1orphic portrayals of the spirit2al real1 fo2nd in Script2re, they g2ide 1e1bers of society (ho are incapable of abstract philosophical disco2rse' A philosopher (ith an inspired i1aginative fac2lty (ho in addition possesses certain specified gifts of leadership is not only a philosopher8prophet b2t also a philosopher8king, the only person f2lly J2alified to govern the virt2o2s state'A@ Res21e' AlfarabiIs al8Madlna al8"ddila and al8Siyasa al8Madaniyya trace a series of e1anations fro1 the "irst Ca2se thro2gh the incorporeal intelligences and celestial spheresH and they identify the active intellect i1plied in AristotleIs %e ani1a as the last 1e1ber in the series of ten incorporeal intelligences' The active intellect has responsibilities in regard to the s2bl2nar (orld, altho2gh those responsibilities fall short of the ga12t of f2nctions that a f2lly sy11etrical syste1 (o2ld dictateH (hereas each intelligence e1anates the body and so2l of its sphere, the active intellect e1anates neither the 1atter nor the for1al side of the s2bl2nar (orld' It is the heavens that prod2ce the 1atter of the s2bl2nar (orld and send forth the forces reJ2ired for the generation of all nat2ral s2bl2nar beings, incl2ding 1an' The active intellect acts only on the h21an intellect and, (hen its e1anation travels beyond the h21an intellect, on the i1aginative fac2lty' The h21an intellect passes thro2gh three stages< 1aterial, or passive, intellect, (hich is characteriEed as a disposition in 1anH act2al intellectH and acJ2ired intellect' The e1anation fro1 the active intellect (hich is analogo2s to the light of the s2n enables the h21an 1aterial intellect to grasp the first principles of h21an tho2ght and the principles of the several h21an sciences' H21an effort then has the task of constr2cting a corp2s of intellect2al kno(ledge' In addition to its role of f2rnishing the first principles of tho2ght and the principles of the sciences, the active intellect plays another role (hen 1an reaches the stage of acJ2ired intellect, for at that point the h21an intellect separates itself fro1 the body and lo(er parts of the so2l, and the active intellect beco1es its for1' The h21an acJ2ired intellect enters conG2nction (ith the active intellect, altho2gh (itho2t beco1ing co1pletely identical (ith it, and the h21an intellect enGoys e2dae1onia and i11ortality' "inally, the e1anation fro1 the active intellect can travel beyond the h21an intellect, affect the h21an i1aginative fac2lty, and inspire t(o levels of prophet' At A@ BCZAl8Madlna al8"adila /@@8@?, /?A8A-H cf' Siyasa ?.8A6, A>' Cf' also Tahsll al8 Sacada, ed' L' Al8)asin 90eir2t -.A-: AA, .@H earlier edition< Tahsll al8Sacada 9Hyderabad -./?: ;A, @@' English translation of Tahsll al8Sacada, as The Attain1ent of Happiness, (ith pagination of the Hyderabad edition indicated, in Mahdi, AlfarabiIs ,hilosophy of ,lato and Aristotle 9n' -. above:'
7;
the lo(er level, (hich pres2pposes no specific level of intellect2al attain1ent, the e1anation fro1 the active intellect flo(s thro2gh the 1anIs intellect to his i1aginative fac2lty and gives the i1agination kno(ledge of present and f2t2re events and a fig2rative depiction of theoretical tr2ths' The higher level is reserved for 1en (ho have reached the stage of acJ2ired intellect, and (hose intellect is in a state of conG2nction (ith the active intellect' If a 1an at the stage of acJ2ired intellect has a receptive i1aginative fac2lty, the e1anation fro1 the active intellect flo(s again thro2gh his intellect, (hich is no( a perfected intellect, to his i1aginative fac2lty, and again prod2ces kno(ledge of partic2lar f2t2re events' Khen a philosopher8prophet possesses certain gifts of leadership, he beco1es a philosopher8king as (ell' $othing said abo2t the active intellectIs e*ercising providence and perfor1ing one action or another sho2ld be taken to 1ean that the active intellect chooses (hen to act and on (ho1 to besto( its bo2nty' The active intellect radiates its e1anation eternally, constantly, and i1personally, G2st as the intelligences above it eternally, constantly, and i1personally, send forth theirs' The e1anation of the active intellect is a2to1atically received by properly prepared intellects and i1aginative fac2lties, and the active intellect a2to1atically conGoins (ith acJ2ired intellects'
AlfarabiIs ,hilosophy of Aristotle AlfarabiIs ,hilosophy of Aristotle is an ostensible sketch of the (hole of AristotleIs philosophy (ith the e*ception of the Metaphysics'A> Khen treating the s2bGect of physical ca2sation, the ,hilosophy of Aristotle states that the heavens prod2ce the fo2r ele1ents, and Alfarabi even re1arks that s2ch had been proved in AristotleIs %e caeloA7H his al8Madina al8"ddila and al8Siydsa al8Madaniyya had si1ilarly identified the heavens as the ca2se of the 1atter of the s2bl2nar (orld and of differences in s2bstance (ithin the (orld, and hence as the ca2se of the ele1ents' The ,hilosophy of Aristotle f2rther re1arks that the so2ls of individ2al ani1als and the for1s of individ2al plants do not co1e fro1 the transl2nar real1, b2t that the for1er are engendered by parents and the latter by prior individ2al plants'A? That state1ent also is not very far fro1 (hat the other t(o (orks said' They represented living beings as co1ing into e*istence not thanks to for1s besto(ed fro1 above b2t thro2gh the interplay of physical forces operating on the s2bl2nar planeBCDforces descending fro1 the heavenly bodies and forces indigeno2s A> Alfarabi (rites, in ,hilosophy of Aristotle 9n' -. above: -;;< MKe do not have the science of 1etaphysics'M I take his 1eaning to be that the corp2s of AristotleIs (orksBCDor, 12ch 1ore likely, the corp2s of s211aries of AristotleIs (orksBCDfro1 (hich he (as (orking did not contain the section on 1etaphysics' A7 Ibid' ..' Alfarabi does not here 1ention the e*istence of pri1e 1atter' A? Ibid' -/.'
7@
to the s2bl2nar (orld'AA The actions of parents and seed8bearing plants, (hich the ,hilosophy of Aristotle gives as the ca2se of the e*istence of ani1al so2ls and plant for1s, are instances of forces indigeno2s to the s2bl2nar region' At this point, the ,hilosophy of Aristotle introd2ces a c2rio2s notion, (ith an 2n1istakable ,latonic flavor' It asserts that (hereas the so2rce of individ2al so2ls is easily ascertained, Mthat (hich in the first instance gave ''' the for1 of each species,M for e*a1ple M1anhood as a (holeM or Mdonkey8hood as a (hole,M is 1ore diffic2lt' The book s2ggests fo2r possible alternatives< The so2rce of the species as a (hole 1ay be the celestial spheres, the so2ls of the spheres, the incorporeal 1overs of the spheres, or the active intellect' Altho2gh Alfarabi does not adG2dicate a1ong the alternatives, he does state that the sol2tion lies beyond the scope of physical science' Since the celestial spheres are the s2bGect 1atter of one of the physical sciences, he thereby apparently e*cl2des the possibility of the spheresI being the ca2se he is seeking'A. E*actly (hat Alfarabi 1eans by the so2rce of a species as a (hole, and ho( the so2ls of the spheres, the incorporeal 1overs of the spheres, or the active intellect 1ight be the speciesI so2rce, is 2ncertain' )et (hatever his 1eaning 1ight be, the line he takes here in the ,hilosophy of Aristotle differs fro1 that of al8Madina al8"adila and al8Siyasa al8 Madaniyya' Those t(o (orks dre( no distinction bet(een the ca2se of individ2al beings and the ca2se of a species as a (hole, recogniEed no role in the s2bl2nar (orld for either the incorporeal intelligences or the so2ls of the spheres, and restricted the f2nction of the active intellect to perfecting the h21an intellect' The ,hilosophy of Aristotle, by contrast, proposes that each species as a (hole has a so2rce beyond the physical real1, (hether it be the so2ls of the spheres, the celestial intelligences, or the active intellect' Khen it takes 2p the active intellectIs role in h21an tho2ght, AlfarabiIs ,hilosophy of Aristotle agrees (ith the position of al8Madina al8"adila and alSiyasa al8Madaniyya, altho2gh it goes into less detail' Alfarabi arg2es for the e*istence of an eternal, incorporeal Mactive intellectM as the being that provides the h21an intellect (ith the Mfirst intelligible tho2ghts,M (hich are again the MprinciplesM of both Mtheoretical intellectM and Mthe practical intellect2al fac2lty'M The active intellect Mengenders the first intelligible tho2ghts in the potential intellect and gives it a nat2ral disposition for QreceivingR the re1aining intelligible tho2ghts'M At the start, then, the active intellect is the MagentM initiating h21an tho2ght' It is also the MendM to(ard (hich 1en strive, for h21an perfection is achieved (hen the h21an intellect arrives Mas close as possible toM the active intellect' &pon a 1anIs reaching perfection, he Mbeco1es s2bstantialiEed,M he MenGoys a certain conG2nction QittisdlR (ith the active intellect by having it as an obGect of tho2ght,M and the active intellect beco1es his Mincorporeal for1'M.6 The ter1 acJ2ired intellect, (hich in Above, pp' @?8@A' ,hilosophy of Aristotle -/.8;6' .6 Ibid' -/?8/A' A. AA
7>
any event (as seen to be proble1atic, is not e1ployed' The ,hilosophy of Aristotle does 1ake a passing all2sion to the theory that the active intellect is the ca2se of drea1s foretelling the f2t2re'.- The Risala fl al8cAJl AlfarabiIs Risala fl al8 cAJlBCDkno(n in atin as %e intelligentiis,%e intellect2 et intellecto, or%e intellect2BCDtakes as its for1al s2bGect the senses that the ter1 intellect 9caJlX has a1ong Arabic speakers and in AristotleIs vario2s (orks' The largest section of the book, and the one of pri1ary interest, begins< The ter1 intellect as e1ployed by Aristotle in the %e ani1a has fo2r senses< potential intellect, act2al intellect, acJ2ired intellect, and active intellect'./ This section of the Risala, (hich deals (ith the ter1 intellect in AristotleIs %e ani1a, incl2des a brief o2tline of the e1anation of the s2pernal 2niverse, and the sche1e it presents rese1bles that set forth in al8Madina al8 "ddila and al8Siydsa al8Madaniyya' The Mfirst principle of all e*isting thingsM brings into e*istence a single incorporeal being, the 1over of the o2ter1ost sphere' Khereas the "irst Ca2se is M2nitary in all respects,M the incorporeal 1over of the o2ter1ost sphere contains Mt(o nat2res,M na1ely its having Mitself as an obGect of tho2ght and its having the MessenceM of its ca2se as an obGect of tho2ght' The for1er nat2re or tho2ght Mgives,M and Mis the ca2se of the e*istenceM of, the corresponding celestial sphere, (hereas the latter MgivesM the ne*t intelligence in the series'.; Ke are to 2nderstand that each s2cceeding intelligence si1ilarly has t(o nat2res or tho2ghts, by reason of (hich it brings forth a sphere and an intelligence' Altho2gh the Risala does not, either here or else(here, 2se the technical ter1inology of e1anationis1,.@ Alfarabi is plainly describing the e1anation by each incorporeal intelligence of its o(n celestial sphere and of a f2rther intelligence' At the end of the incorporeal hierarchy stands the active intellect of AristotleIs %e ani1a.> Alfarabi incl2des an arg21ent sho(ing that the active intellect cannot be the "irst Ca2se of the 2niverse, thereby in effect ref2ting the position of Ale*ander of Aphrodisias,.7 (ho1 he does not, ho(ever, 1ention by na1e' The arg21ent is that the active intellect needs the 1atter of the s2bl2nar (orld in order to perfor1 its ../
Risala fl al8cAJl 9n' /6 above: -/' The Risala also analyEes the sense of the ter1 intellect in the follo(ing (orks of Aristotle< The ,osterior Analytics, (hich I disc2ss belo(H M0ook Si* of the Q$ico1acheanR Ethics,M (here intellect 1eans practical intellectH and M a1bda Q0ook -/R of the Metaphysics,M (here the "irst Ca2se of the 2niverse is called intellect' See Risala A, ., ;7' .; Risala ;@8;>H English translation //-' .@ %r2art 9n' / above: />, ;@, b2ilds on the absence of e1anation ter1inology in the Risala' .> Risala /@H English translation /-A' .7 Above, p' -;'
Ibid' -/-'
77
f2nction and hence is not self8s2fficient, (hereas the 2lti1ate ca2se of the 2niverse 12st perforce be self8s2fficient'.? The Risala assigns a significantly (ider role to the active intellect in nat2ral ca2sation than did the (orks previo2sly e*a1ined' MQAristotleIsR %e generatione et corr2ptioneM Alfarabi (rites, de1onstrated that the s2bl2nar (orld, insofar as it consists of MbodiesM and Mforces in bodies,M is a prod2ct of the Mheavens'M.A Th2s far, (e re1ain (ithin the fra1e(ork of al8Madlna al8"adila, al8Siyasa alMadaniyya, and the ,hilosophy of Aristotle'.. 02t the Risala contin2es< The MbodiesM and MforcesM s2pplied by the heavens serve only as M1atters and s2bstrataM 2pon (hich the active intellect Macts'M Contained (ithin the active intellect are the for1s capable of 1anifesting the1selves in the 1aterial (orld belo( itBCDas (ell as the for1s of the incorporeal beings above itH and the for1s capable of appearing in 1atter e*ist in the active intellect in an eternal, incorporeal, and M2ndifferentiatedM 1ode' To e*press itself, the active intellect 12st 1ake those for1s 1anifest, and s2bl2nar 1atter e*ists for no other p2rpose than to per1it their 1anifestation' The active intellect Mgives 1atter the likes of (hat it contains in its o(n s2bstanceMH that is to sayBCDaltho2gh technical e1anationist ter1inology is still absentBCDit e1anates nat2ral for1s on s2bl2nar 1atter' Khenever M1atter and a s2bstrat21M is MreadyM for a given nat2ral for1, 1atter receives the for1 fro1 the active intellect in a Mdifferentiated 1ode'M-66 Another (ork of AlfarabiIs (as seen to credit the M%e ani1aM (ith the 2nAristotelian concept of conG2nction (ith the active intellect,-6- and no( the Risala goes on to add the still 1ore s2rprising observation that the besto(ing of nat2ral for1s by the active intellect (as Mso1ething Aristotle proved in his %e ani1a'M-6/ The only passage in AristotleIs %e ani1a that 1ight conceivably have s2ggested an e1anation of for1s fro1 the active intellect is the sentence characteriEing the active intellect as M1aking all things'M-6; 02t M1aking everythingM there plainly 1eant 1aking all tho2ghts' The e1anation of for1s fro1 the incorporeal real1 is 12ch 1ore re1iniscent of ,lotin2s, for (ho1, ho(ever, the cos1ic So2l, rather than the active intellect, is the i11ediate e1anating so2rce of nat2ral for1sH and the doctrine reappears in the Arabic paraphrases of ,lotin2s, incl2ding the Theology of Risala ;;H English translation //6' I take AlfarabiIs point to be that the active intellect needs 1atter to perfor1 its f2nction as a ca2se of e*istence, b2t AlfarabiIs arg21ent 1ight also be read as 1aking the point that the active intellect needs 1atter to perfor1 its f2nction of leading a h21an intellect to act2ality' On the self8s2fficiency of the "irst Ca2se, see H' %avidson, ,roofs for Eternity, Creation, and the E*istence of !od, in Medieval Isla1ic and Le(ish ,hilosophy 9$e( )ork -.A?: /.@8.>' .A Risala ;;8;@H English translation //-' .. Above, pp' @?8@A, 7;' -66 Risala /.8;6, ;;8 ;@H English translation /-.8/-' -6- Above, p' >@' l6/ Risala ;6H English translation /-.' -6; Above, p' .' .?
7?
Aristotle'-6@ The cooperation of the heavens and the active intellect in the prod2ction of the s2bl2nar (orld is re1iniscent of another te*t too, na1ely, the passage in the spirit of Stoic philosophy at the end of the %e intellect2 attrib2ted to Ale*ander'-6> Alfarabi has said that the active intellect instills a for1 (henever it finds 1atter and a s2bstrat21 readyH in other (ords, the active intellect end2es the s2bl2nar (orld (ith a range of for1s constit2ting a range of individ2al nat2ral beings' 02t (hat the range is can only be conGect2red' As G2st seen, the heavens are responsible for the e1ergence in the s2bl2nar (orld of MbodiesM and Mforces,M (hich serve as the M1atters and s2bstrataM for the operations of the active intellect' In representing the heavens as responsible for the e*istence of bodies, Alfarabi is saying that the heavens are the ca2se of so1ething 1ore than the 2nderlying pri1e 1atter of the s2bl2nar (orldH for pri1e 1atter is not yet a body, body being a co1po2nd of 1atter and for1' He can pla2sibly be taken as affir1ing that the heavens are responsible for the e*istence of the fo2r ele1ents,-67 (hich are bodies and (hich serve as the 1aterial s2bstrat21 for everything else generated in the s2bl2nar (orld' In representing the heavens as responsible as (ell for the MforcesM in bodies, he perhaps 1eans that the heavens in so1e 1anner, 1ost likely thro2gh their 1otion, prod2ce the constit2ent J2alities of the fo2r ele1ents' If the role of the heavens in the s2bl2nar (orld goes no f2rther than prod2cing the fo2r ele1ents and their J2alities, AlfarabiIs position (o2ld be that the active intellect prod2ces all additional nat2ral beings by e1anating a f2ll range of nat2ral for1s above the level of the ele1ents' Regarding the active intellectIs role as a ca2se of h21an tho2ght, the Risala differs again fro1 al8Madlna al8"ddila and al8 Siydsa al8Madaniyya' ike those (orks, the Risala recogniEes three stages of h21an intellect< an initial stage, no( called potential intellectH act2al intellectH and acJ2ired intellect' ,otential intellect is Ma certain so2l, or part of a so2l, or one of the fac2lties of the so2l, or so1ething (hose s2bstance QdhatR is disposed ''' to abstract' ' ' J2iddities ' ' ' and for1s'M-6? The list of alternatives leaves the correct (ay of constr2ing the potential intellect 2ndecided, b2t as the Risala proceeds, it consistently calls the potential intellect a Ms2bstanceM 9dhat:' Al8Madlna al8"ddila and al8Siydsa al8 Madaniyya characteriEed the initial stage of h21an intellect as a MdispositionM and in doing so s2ggested an endorse1ent of Ale*anderIs conception, (here the initial stage of the h21an intellect is a disposition in the h21an organis1' The Risala no( apparently endorses the contrary constr2ction, (hich Averroes (as to call The1isti2sI -6@ Above, p' ;-' It is note(orthy that t(o 2n8Aristotelian conceptions that Alfarabi cites in the na1e of Mthe %e ani1a,M conG2nction (ith the active intellect and the e1anation of nat2ral for1s fro1 the active intellect, (ere both 1ost accessible to hi1 in the Theology of Aristotle' -6> Cf' above, p' ;6' -67 Cf' above, pp' @A, 7;' (l Risala -/H English translation /->'
7A
position, according to (hich the initial stage of h21an intellect is indeed a s2bstance' The Mactive intellect''' renders the s2bstance that (as a potential intellect an act2al intellect, and it renders potential''' intelligible tho2ghts act2al intelligible tho2ghts'M To e*plain the active intellectIs operation on the h21an intellect, Alfarabi again add2ces the analogy of the s2nIs light' The Meye,M Alfarabi (rites in the Risdla, is Mpotential vision as long as it re1ains in darkness'M Khen the MlightM of the s2n, or Mact2al transparenceMBCDAristotle having had defined light as the Mact2ality o f ' ' ' the transparent Q1edi21RM-6ABCD Marrives in QpotentialR vision and in the air,M it 1akes potential vision, that is, the eye, Mact2ally transparent,M and it 1akes the Mair in contact (ithM the eye Mact2ally transparentM as (ell' The presence of act2al transparence in both the eye and the contig2o2s 1edi21 is a precondition for sight'-6. MColors,M (hich (ere Mpotentially visible,M then Mbeco1e act2ally visible,M and the eye, (hich (as vision in potentiality, beco1es Mact2al vision'M S2ch is the effect of lightH and the active intellect acts in a parallel fashion, altho2gh Alfarabi does not develop all the i1plications that the analogy 1ight per1it' MThe active intellect givesM the Ms2bstance that is potential intellect so1ething standing to it Qto the potential intellectR as act2al transl2cence Qor lightR stands to QpotentialR vision'M The Mso1ethingM given, or e1anated, by the active intellect serves as a Mprinciple thro2gh (hich hitherto potentially intelligible tho2ghts beco1e act2ally intelligible toM the potential intellect, and the Mpotential intellectM beco1es Mact2al intellect'M--6 In al8Madlna al8"adila and al8Siyasa al8Madaniyya, the analog2e of light e1anated by the active intellect f2rnishes the h21an intellect (ith certain principles of theoretical reason and (ith the principles of ethics or practical reason' The ,hilosophy of Aristotle offered an abbreviated version of the sa1e theory, b2t AlfarabiIs Risdla ft al8cAJl takes a different position' One of the shorter sections in the book e*a1ines the sense that the ter1 intellect has in AristotleIs ,osterior Analytics, and Alfarabi there (rites< MIn the ,osterior Analytics ' '' Aristotle' '' 1eant byM intellect Ma fac2lty of the so2l thro2gh (hich 1an obtains certainty in regard to the tr2e, necessary, 2niversal propositionsM that are Mthe principles of the theoretical sciences'M Alfarabi, or perhaps a predecessor fro1 (ho1 he is borro(ing, has in 1ind the concl2ding sentences of the ,osterior Analytics, (here Aristotle deter1ined that the so2rce of --- Khile AlfarabiIs other (orks the MprinciplesM of science is MintellectM see1 to have 2nderstood the ,osterior Analytics as saying that the so2rce of h21an kno(ledge of scientific principles is the active intellect, the Risdla here Aristotle, %e ani1a /'?'@-Ab, .8-6' See Aristotle, %e ani1a /'?' ll6 Risdla />8/?H English translation /-A8-.' Alfarabi does not e*plain (hat in h21an tho2ght parallels the act2ally transparent contig2o2s 1edi21 in visionH b2t Averroes (ill' See belo(, p' ;-A' --- Aristotle, ,osterior Analytics /'-.'-66b, -/' -6. -6A
7.
goes on to assert that those principles belong to 1an Mby innate character and nat2re, or else QappearR at yo2th, or QappearR in s2ch a (ay that there is no inkling of (hence and ho( they ca1e'M--/ If kno(ledge of the principles of science is inborn, it does not co1e fro1 the transcendent active intellect' $or does the active intellect s2pply the principles of practical reason' Another of the s1aller sections of the Risala treats the ter1 intellect in AristotleIs $ico1achean Ethics, and there Alfarabi (rites that Mcertainty in regard to ''' the principlesM of practical reason derives fro1 Mlengthy e*perience'M--; The active intellect th2s renders potentially intelligible tho2ghts act2ally intelligible to the h21an intellect, b2t those tho2ghts are not the first principles of theoretical or practical reason' Khen disc2ssing the Mintelligible tho2ghtsM rendered act2al to the h21an intellect, the Risala calls the1 MJ2idditiesM and Mfor1sM that the h21an intellect MabstractsM fro1 1atter'--@ P2iddities and for1s are concepts' Concepts are therefore (hat the active intellect enables the h21an intellect to think' Many of the concepts that the h21an intellect abstracts o2t of 1atter are the sa1e nat2ral for1s that the active intellect contains and e1anates into 1atter' The active intellect, in its role as a ca2se of h21an tho2ght, hence enables the h21an intellect to abstract precisely the for1s that it e1anated into 1atter in its role as a ca2se of e*istence' Khether, and ho(, the active intellect 1ight enable the h21an intellect to abstract other, nonnat2ral and artificial for1s, (hich pres21ably are not e1anated into 1atter by the active intellect, re1ains 2nclear' In al8Madlna al8"ddila, Alfarabi (rote that the stage of acJ2ired intellect is reached (hen 1an thinks MallM possible tho2ghts' In the Risala he 1akes a s1all J2alification and (rites that the h21an intellect reaches the stage of acJ2ired intellect (hen it possesses MallM or M1ostM of the intelligible tho2ghts that can be kno(n thro2gh abstraction' The stage of acJ2ired intellect brings (ith it tho2ght of incorporeal beings, and since s2ch beings are act2al obGects of tho2ght by their very nat2re, (itho2t the abstraction of any for1 fro1 a 1aterial s2bstrat21, the acJ2ired intellect has incorporeal beings as an obGect of tho2ght si1ply by Menco2nteringM 9sddafa: the1' The Risala does not e*pressly 1ention 2nion or conG2nction (ith the active intellectH b2t it does 1ake the related state1ent that each stage of h21an intellect is Mlike a for1M for the previo2s stage, and incorporeal beings in general, not G2st the active intellect, are, Mas it (ere, for1sM of the stage of acJ2ired intellect'--> The Risala f2rther agrees (ith the (orks e*a1ined earlier in describing the stage of acJ2ired intellect as Mthe closest possible thing to the active intellect,M--7 the i1plication being that the h21an intellect falls short of total identity (ith the active intellect' Th2s here too, Alfarabi does not accept the f2ll force of the Risala A8.' Ibid' .' --@ Ibid' -/H English translation /->' --> Ibid' /68//H English translation /-?' --7 Ibid' ;-H English translation //6' --;
--/
?6
reasoning that since intellect is identical (ith (hatever tho2ght it thinks, if the h21an intellect sho2ld have the active intellect as the obGect of its tho2ght, it (o2ld beco1e co1pletely identical (ith the active intellect' AcJ2ired intellect does not Mneed the body to serve as its 1atter in order to e*ist'M $or does it any longer Mhave to resort to an act of a fac2lty of the so2l for any of its o(n actionsMH for it contains in itself allBCDor, at least, 1ostBCDpossible tho2ghts and can dispense (ith abstraction' $ot being dependent on a body, it attains, even before the body dies, Ms2pre1e e2dae1onia and the life to co1e'M--? I11ortality is therefore again a conco1itant of the stage of acJ2ired intellect and is achieved even before the death of the body' The Risdla fi al8cAJl does not speak of the i11ortality of the so2l, as distinct fro1 the intellect, and it does not 1ention prophecy' Res21e' The Risdlafl al8cAJl portrays the e1anation of the transl2nar 2niverse as al8Madlna al8"adila and al8Siyasa al8 Madaniyya did' It differs fro1 those t(o (orks in ascribing to the active intellect the e1anation of a range of nat2ral for1s above the level of the fo2r ele1ents' AlfarabiIs ,hilosophy of Aristotle, (hich 1aintained that a s2pernal incorporeal so2rce 12st be ass21ed for species as a (hole altho2gh not for individ2als, occ2pies an inter1ediate position on the iss2e, standing bet(een al8Madlna al8"adila and al8Siyasa al8 Madaniyya, (hich kno( nothing abo2t a so2rce of nat2ral for1s in the incorporeal real1, and the Risdla, (hich has the active intellect e1anate the nat2ral for1s of individ2al s2bl2nar obGects' In the Risdla, the active intellect is still the ca2se of act2al h21an tho2ght' Alfarabi no( e*plains, ho(ever, that the analog2e of light e1itted by the active intellect renders potential concepts act2al and hence enables the h21an intellect to grasp concepts' In al8Madlna al8"adila, al8Siyasa al8Madaniyya, and the ,hilosophy of Aristotle, the analog2e of light e1itted by the active intellect enables the h21an intellect to grasp not concepts b2t the propositions e1bodying the first principles of tho2ght and science' AlfarabiIs Co11entary on the $ico1achean Ethics Each of AlfarabiIs (orks e*a1ined so far 2nderstands i11ortality to be a conco1itant of the c2l1inating stage of h21an intellect' Each also affir1s either that the h21an intellect conGoins (ith the active intellect at the c2l1inating stage or the related proposition that the active intellectBCDas (ell as other incorporeal beingsBCDbeco1es Mas it (ere,M the for1 of the h21an intellect at the c2l1inating stage' Alfarabi is reported to have rep2diated those propositions in his lost --?
Ibid'
?-
co11entary on AristotleIs $ico1achean Ethics' The reports are s2pplied by Ibn 0aGGa 9Ave1pace:, Ibn T2fail, and Averroes' Ibn 0aGGa 1entions 2nna1ed interpreters (ho read AlfarabiIs Co11entary on the $ico1achean Ethics as denying an afterlife' "or his part, Ibn 0aGGa reGects the interpretation, altho2gh it is 2ncertain (hether he takes iss2e (ith the interpretation as s2ch or (ith the s2pposition that the Co11entary on the $ico1achean Ethics represented AlfarabiIs final stand on the s2bGect'--A Ibn T2fail 1akes G2st a brief re1ark, (hich agrees (ith the interpretation referred to by Ibn 0aGGa' In Ibn T2failIs (ords< AlfarabiIs MCo11entary on the EthicsM differed fro1 Mal8Siydsa al8MadaniyyaM--. by ref2sing to ad1it Mh21an e2dae1oniaM beyond this (orld and by branding talk of a hereafter as Mraving and old (ivesI tales'M-/6 Averroes takes 2p the 1atter several ti1es and adds f2rther details' He (rites that even in the Co11entary on the $ico1achean Ethics, Alfarabi recogniEed a transcendent active intellect as the factor leading the h21an intellect to act2ality' -/02t then, according to one of AverroesI (orks, AlfarabiIs Co11entary on the $ico1achean Ethics (ent on to Massert that 1an has no perfection other than perfection thro2gh the theoretical sciencesM and hence Mthe thesis abo2t 1anIs beco1ing an incorporeal s2bstance is an old (ivesI tale'M-// In a second co1position Averroes gives the follo(ing, slightly different acco2nt< Khat AlfarabiIs Co11entary on the $ico1achean Ethics called Man old (ives taleM (as Mthe thesis that (e ''' conGoin (ith the incorporeal intelligence Qthat is, (ith the active intellectR'M-/; In yet a third co1position, Averroes reports< In the book on the $ico1achean QEthicsR Alfarabi appears to have denied that conG2nction (ith the incorporeal intelligences can take place' He stated that s2ch (as also the opinion of Ale*ander' And Qhe heldR that the end for 1an sho2ld not be Ibn 0aGGa, Risala al8(adac, ed' and Spanish irans' M' Asin ,alacios as M a Ca1 de Adios,M Al8Andal2s A 9-.@;: 4T/H S' ,ines, MThe i1itations of H21an 3no(ledge,M St2dies in Medieval Le(ish History and iterat2re, ed' I' T(ersky 9Ca1bridge, Mass' -.?.: A/, J2oting fro1 a te*t s2bseJ2ently p2blished by L' Alao2i, in RasdIil "alsafiyya li8Abl 0akr ibn 0aGGa 9Casablanca -.A;: -.?' --. And also fro1 AlfarabiIs al8Milla al8"adila' -/6 Ibn T2fail, Hayy ben )aJdhan 9)aJEdn:, ed' and "rench trans' ' !a2thier 90eir2t -.;7:, Arabic section -;8-@H "rench translation -/H English translation, (ith pagination of !a2thierIs te*t indicated< Hayy Ibn )aJEan, trans' ' !ood1an 9$e( )ork -.?/: H M2nk 9n' 7. above: ;@A' -/- Averroes, %rei Abhandl2ngen ilber die ConG2nction, ed' and !er1an trans' L' HercE 90erlin -A7.:, Hebre( section --H !er1an translation >-H Averroes, Co11entari21 1agn21 in Aristotelis %e ani1a libros 9Ca1bridge -.>;R 9henceforth cited as< ong Co11entary on the %e a11o: @A>' -// Averroes, Iggeret Efshar2t ha8%ebeJ2t 9Arabic original lost:, ed' and English trans' 3' 0land, as Epistle on the ,ossibility of ConG2nction 9$e( )ork -.A/: 4T-@, Hebre( te*t -6AH English translation A>' -/; G%re= Abhandl2ngen, Hebre( section -;H !er1an translation >@' Si1ilarly, ibid', Hebre( section -6H !er1an translation @7' --A
?/
Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes, on Intellect regarded as anything other than theoretical perfection' Ibn 0aGlGa, ho(ever, e*plained AlfarabiIs state1ents Qin a 1anner that re1oves the denial of the possibility of conG2nctionR and he (rote that AlfarabiIs opinion (as in fact the sa1e as that of all the ,eripatetics' In other (ords, Qon Ibn 0aGGaIs reading, Alfarabi heldR that conG2nction Q(ith the active intellectR is possible and does constit2te the end Qfor 1anR'-/@
Khen taken together, the passages J2oted th2s far fro1 three co1positions of AverroesI infor1 2s that the lost Co11entary on the $ico1achean Ethics agreed (ith AlfarabiIs preserved (orks in recogniEing the transcendent active intellect as the agent leading the h21an intellect to act2ality and in vie(ing the c2ltivation of theoretical science as the end of h21an life' Khile Ibn 0aGGa and Ibn T2fail report only that Alfarabi reGectedBCDor 1ay have reGectedBCDh21an i11ortality, Averroes tells 2s that Alfarabi reGected both i11ortality and the possibility of the h21an intellectIs beco1ing conGoined to the active intellect or other incorporeal beings' Averroes has additional infor1ation, for he records t(o separate lines of arg21entation that s2pposedly led AlfarabiIs Co11entary on the $ico1achean Ethics to its skeptical concl2sions' On three separate occasions, Averroes reports AlfarabiIs gro2nds to have been that Mthe generated8destr2ctible cannot beco1 eternal'M-/> An Aristotelian r2le laid do(n that anything generated 12st 2ndergo destr2ction and cannot contin2e to e*ist forever,-/7 and AlfarabiBCDas Averroes trans1its or reconstr2cts his reasoningBCDconcl2ded that inas12ch as the h21an intellect co1es into e*istence, it inevitably 2ndergoes destr2ction' On a fo2rth occasion, Averroes attrib2tes another line of arg21ent to Alfarabi, na1ely, that a Msingle disposition cannot' ' ' receive t(o different things, nay dia1etrically opposite things'M 0y its nat2re, the h21an intellect receives Mintelligible tho2ghts derived fro1 1aterial obGects'M Sho2ld it also have the Mincorporeal intelligencesM as an obGect of tho2ght, it (o2ld be a disposition nat2rally receptive of things dia1etrically opposite in their character' 02t no s2ch disposition is conceivable, (hence it follo(s that the h21an intellect cannot possibly have the active intellect as an obGect of tho2ght and thereby conGoin (ith the active intellect' The co1position attrib2ting this second line of arg21entation to AlfarabiIs Co11entary on the $ico1achean Ethics characteriEes the reasoning as Mthe strongest do2bt that can be raisedM against the possibility of conG2nction (ith the active intellect'-/? In s21, Ibn 0aGGa reports that so1e scholars had interpreted AlfarabiIs Co11entary on the $ico1achean Ethics as denying an afterlife, b2t he, Ibn 0aGGa, J2estions the interpretation' Ibn T2fail repeats the interpretation of the 2nna1ed ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a @;;' %rei Abhandl2ngen, Hebre( section ?8A, -;H !er1an translation /?, ;78;?, >@H ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a @A-' -/7 Aristotle, %e caelo -'-/' -/? Epistle on the ,ossibility of ConG2nction (ith the Active Intellect 4T-@H Hebre( te*t -6A' l/> -/@
?;
co11entators referred to by Ibn 0aGGa' Averroes in different (orks reports that AlfarabiIs Co11entary denied h21an i11ortality and the possibility of conG2nction (ith incorporeal beings' Since Averroes s2b1its differing versions of AlfarabiIs reasoning, and in one spot records, (itho2t obGection, Ibn 0aGGaIs assess1ent of the Co11entary on the $ico1achean Ethics, (hich (o2ld overt2rn his o(n, (e 1ay s2spect that he did not have direct access to the Co11entary on the $ico1achean Ethics hi1self' He 1ay have relied instead on bits of secondary infor1ation fro1 (hich he reconstr2cted AlfarabiIs thinkingH the so2rces co2ld have been Ibn 0aGGa and Ibn T2fail, and perhaps so1eone else (ho provided the state1ent abo2t AlfarabiIs having cited Ale*ander to s2pport his position on conG2nction' If s2ch is the case, it co2ld be Averroes (ho inferred AlfarabiIs reGection of the possibility of the h21an intellectIs conGoining (ith the active intellect fro1 AlfarabiIs reGection of h21an i11ortality' At all events, the evidence is too thin to 1ake a confident G2dg1ent abo2t (hat Alfarabi in fact said in the Co11entary on the $ico1achean Ethics' Khat Averroes believed Alfarabi to have said (ill play a significant role in his o(n tho2ght'-/A Concl2ding $ote #ario2s te*ts of Alfarabi, as has been seen, take divergent positions on the f2nctions of the active intellect, the nat2re of the h21an intellect, and the 2lti1ate fate of the h21an intellect' The reasons for the discrepancies can only be conGect2red,-/. b2t the tone of AlfarabiIs (ritings is s2ggestive' Al8Madina al"ddila, al8Siydsa al8Madaniyya, and the ,hilosophy of Aristotle are not treatises that arg2e iss2es thro2gh to a concl2sion' They read instead like 1atter8of8fact s211aries of fa1iliar positions' The Risdla ft al8cAJl, altho2gh it does arg2e a n21ber of its positions, has the overall str2ct2re of a le*icon' I (o2ld accordingly conGect2re that Alfarabi (orked fro1 different oral or (ritten philosophic so2rces and s211aries at different ti1es, and that the position he took at any one ti1e reflects the te*ts then before hi1'
See belo(, pp' ;/;, ;/A8;-' %r2art 9n' / above:, (ho deals (ith other discrepancies in AlfarabiIs (ritings, s2ggests that his (orks for1 an intentional seJ2ence' -/.
-/A
A#ICE$$A O$ EMA$ATIO$, THE ACTI#E I$TE I$TE ECT
ECT, A$% H&MA$
In the present chapter I ass21e that AvicennaIs gen2ine (orks all reflect a single consistent o2tlook concerning the iss2es disc2ssed, altho2gh Avicenna so1eti1es does slip into inconsistency in details'- The E1anation of the &niverseH the Active Intellect as a Ca2se of the E*istence of the S2bl2nar Korld ike Alfarabi, Avicenna envisions a transl2nar region co1prising nine pri1ary spheres< an o2ter1ost, di2rnal sphere, the sphere of the fi*ed stars, and the seven spheres that contain the planets, the s2n, and the 1oon'/ Each sphere is again acco1panied by an incorporeal intelligence, (hich is its 1over, and Avicenna again knits intelligences and spheres together thro2gh a series of e1anations' He,
A list of AvicennaIs (orks (as co1piled by L2EGanl, a st2dent and long8ti1e co1panion of Avicenna, and it (as s2bseJ2ently s2pple1ented by longer 1edieval lists' See The ife oflbn Sina 9L2EGa1Is biography of Avicenna:, ed' and trans' K' !ohl1an 9Albany -.?@: -;8->, @78@., .68--;' Still longer lists have been co1piled by t(o 1odern scholars, Ana(ati and MahdaviH and the vario2s lists are disc2ssed by !ohl1an -;, and L' Michot, a destines de #ho11e selon Avicenne 9 o2vain -.A7: *iii' Al1ost all of 1y citations are fro1 (orks in L2EGanlIs list, (hich I consider the safest' Avicenna refers at ti1es to an MOriental,M or MEastern,M philosophy developed by hi1 (hich so1eho( differed fro1 his standard sche1e, b2t nothing of it has been preserved' Scholars have ind2lged in (ide8ranging spec2lation, verging on the fantastic, regarding that philosophy' "or a sensible disc2ssion of the s2bGect, see %' !2tas, Avicenna and the Aristotelian Tradition 9 eiden -.AA: -->8-;6' / Avicenna, ShifaI< Ildhiyydt, ed' !' Ana(ati et al' 9Cairo -.76: @6-H "rench translation, (ith pagination of the Arabic indicated< a MetaphysiJ2e d2 Shifa < li(es #I a +, trans' !' Ana(ati 9,aris -.A>:H Avicenna, $aGdt 9Cairo -.;A: /?;' In the present instance, as in 1ost of the citations to be given fro1 the $aGat, that (ork consists of e*cerpts fro1 the ShifaI' Avicenna recogniEes secondary spheres and does not reGect o2t of hand the possibility that each secondary sphere has its o(n intelligence' On s2ch a hypothesis, Mthe first teacherIs QAristotleIsR positionM that there are Mappro*i1ately fiftyM intelligences 1ay be correct' 02t, Avicenna adds, the active intellect (ill in any event be Mthe lastM in the series' ?@
Avicenna on E1anation, the Active Intellect, and H21an Intellect
?>
ho(ever, offers his version of the e1anation sche1e as an e*plicit sol2tion to a philosophic proble1, and his version incl2des a n2ance not fo2nd in Alfarabi' The philosophic proble1 is encaps2lated in the terse for12la that Mfro1 the one, insofar as it is one, only one can co1e into e*istence QyiiGadR'M; In Avicenna, the sche1e of s2ccessive e1anations is e*pressly designed to e*plain ho(, given that principle, a pl2ral 2niverse can derive fro1 the (holly 2nitary "irst Ca2se< ,l2rality enters beca2se the incorporeal beings s2bseJ2ent to the "irst Ca2se have pl2ral tho2ghts' Avicenna still locates the 2lti1ate, "irst Ca2se of the 2niverse beyond the intelligences that 1ove the celestial spheres' And the "irst Ca2se, thro2gh its eternal tho2ght of itself, still eternally and contin2ally e1anates the first intelligence, (hich is the 1over of the o2ter1ost sphere' Alfarabi had differentiated bet(een t(o aspects in the tho2ght of each incorporeal intelligence, and each intelligence, in his sche1e, eternally e1anates the ne*t intelligence in the series by virt2e of one of the t(o aspects, (hile by virt2e of the other it e1anates a celestial sphere'@ Avicenna brings to bear a proposition fro1 his 1etaphysics to the effect that the incorporeal intelligences are possibly e*istent by reason of the1selves, necessarily e*istent by reason of their ca2se'> The distinction allo(s hi1 to differentiate bet(een three, and not G2st t(o, aspects in the tho2ght of each intelligenceH and the addition of the third aspect enables hi1 to acco2nt for the presence of both a so2l and a body in the celestial sphere e1anated by the intelligence' The first intelligence, in AvicennaIs sche1e, has the "irst Ca2se as the obGect of its tho2ght, and a second intelligence thereby Mnecessarily proceeds QyalEa1R fro1 it'M It has itself, insofar as it is a being e*isting necessarily by reason of the "irst Ca2se, as a second obGect of tho2ght, and it thereby e1anates the so2l of the o2ter1ost sphere' And it has itself insofar as it is possibly e*istent by reason of itself as a third obGect of tho2ght, and it thereby e1anates the body of the o2ter1ost sphere' Or, in a 1ore caref2l for12lation, it has a tho2ght of itself (hich incl2des both its being necessarily e*istent by reason of the "irst Ca2se and its being possibly e*istent by reason of itself, and it thereby e1anates the o2ter1ost sphere, (hich is co1posed of both a so2l and a body' The second intelligence si1ilarly ShifaI< llahiyydt @6>' The proble1 of e*plaining ho( a pl2ral 2niverse can derive fro1 a (holly 2nitary first ca2se (as posed by ,lotin2s and reappears in one of the Arabic paraphrases of ,lotin2s' 02t I have not been able to find the for12la that Mfro1 one only one proceedsM before Avicenna' See ,lotin2s, Enneads >'-'7, >'/'-, >';'->, and Risdla fl al8cll1 al8Ilahl, ed' A' 0ada(i, in ,lotin2s ap2dArabes 9Cairo -.>>: -?78??, (hich is a paraphrase of Enneads >';'->' !' e(isI English translation of the Arabic paraphrases of ,lotin2s are given in ,lotin2s, Enneades, ed' ,' Henry and H'8R' Sch(yEer / 9,aris -.>.:, facing the !reek original' @ Above, p' @7' In al8 Siydsa al8Madaniyya, ed' "' $aGGar 90eir2t -.7@: @-, Alfarabi does (rite that the so2l of each of the spheres has three obGects of tho2ght< itself, the incorporeal intelligence that is its ca2se, and the "irst Ca2se' > H' %avidson, ,roofs for Eternity, Creation, and the E*istence of !od, in Medieval Isla1ic and Le(ish ,hilosophy 9$e( )ork -.A?:
/.68.-' ;
?7
has as obGects of its tho2ght< the "irst Ca2se, itself as a being necessarily e*istent by reason of its ca2se, and itself as a possible being' Thro2gh those three tho2ghts, or aspects of its tho2ght, it e1anates the third intelligence, the body of the second sphere, (hich is the sphere of the fi*ed stars, and the so2l of the second sphere' And so on'7 The final link in the chain of incorporeal intelligences is the Mactive intellect governing o2r so2ls,M that is to say, the active intellect i1plied in AristotleIs %e ani1a'- Avicenna feels called on to e*plain (hy the process stops at the active intellect and does Mnot contin2e '' ' ad infinit21'M He (rites< Khile it is tr2e that the Mnecessary proceeding ''' of a 12ltiplicity Qof beingsR fro1 an QincorporealR intelligenceM i1plies a 12ltiplicity of aspects in the e1anating intelligence, the proposition is Mnot convertibleM and not all intelligences containing the sa1e kind of aspects (ill bring forth the sa1e kind of effects'A Khat an intelligence e1anates depends on its nat2re and po(er' As intelligences s2cceed one another, their po(er di1inishes, and beca2se the active intellect stands lo( in the hierarchy its po(er is no longer s2fficient to e1anate eternal beings like those e1anated by the intelligences above it' Avicenna nevertheless ascribes to the active intellect a set of f2nctions that lend his sche1e a sy11etry 1issing in Alfarabi' Khile the active intellect cannot f2lly i1itate the intelligences above it and eternally e1anate the body of a celestial sphere, the so2l of a celestial sphere, and an additional incorporeal intelligence, it does e1anate lesser analog2es' The active intellect is 9-: the e1anating ca2se of the 1atter of the s2bl2nar (orld, 9/: the e1anating ca2se of nat2ral for1s appearing in 1atter, incl2ding the so2ls of plants, ani1als, and 1an, and 9;: the ca2se of the act2aliEation of the h21an intellect' Even these lesser analog2es are not the (ork of the active intellect alone, for in each instance an a2*iliary factor participates' Alfarabi identified the celestial spheres as the ca2se of the e*istence of the 2nderlying 1atter of the s2bl2nar (orld'. Avicenna arg2es against taking the celestial spheres as the ca2se, or at least as the sole ca2se, of s2bl2nar 1atterH and altho2gh he does not 1ention Alfarabi by na1e, his arg21ent so2nds as if it has 7 ShifdI< Ilahiyyat @67, @6.H $aGdt ---, /A6H 3' al8Isharat (al8Tanblhat, ed' L' "orget 9 eiden -A./: -?@H "rench translation oflshdrdt, (ith pages of "orgetIs edition indicated< ivre des directives et re1arJ2es, trans' A' !oichon 90eir2t -.>-:' The Isharat disting2ishes t(o aspects in the tho2ght of the intelligence, its tho2ght of the "irst Ca2se and its tho2ght of itself, and then adds that the second tho2ght is divided in t(o' !haEali, MaJasid al8"alasifa 9Cairo n'd': /-., disting2ishes only t(o aspects in each intelligence' tShifaI< Ilahiyyat @6?H $aGdt /?AH Isharat -?@H 3' al8H2d2d, ed' and "rench trans' A' !oichon 9Cairo -.7;:, 4T/7' A' !oichon, a distinction de IIessence et de IIe*istence dIapres Ibn Sina 9,aris -.;?: /;?, cites a 1inor (ork attrib2ted to Avicenna, (hich, she reports, identifies the active intellect (ith the intelligence of the sphere of the 1oon' If her reading is correct, the discrepancy is s2fficient to i1p2gn the attrib2tion to Avicenna' See belo(, n, ?@, for an atte1pt to read Avicenna as locating the active intellect (ithin the h21an so2l' A ShifaI< Ilahiyyat @6?H $aGdt, /?A' . Above, pp' @A, 77'
??
precisely Alfarabi in 1ind' He starts (ith the ass21ption that a single co11on 1aterial s2bstrat21 2nderlies the fo2r ele1ents and every other physical obGect in the s2bl2nar (orld'-6 Then he reasons< It 1ay be granted that the characteristic co11on to all the celestial spheres, that is to say, their circ2lar 1otion, is an a2*iliary factor in prod2cing the single co11on s2bstrat21 of the fo2r ele1ents' $evertheless, the 2nifor1 1otion of the spheres cannot s2ffice' "or Ma 12ltiplicity of things, Qeven (henR agreeing in species and gen2s, cannot by the1selves and (itho2t the participation of a 2nitary ''' factor be the ca2se of a s2bstance that is the sa1e and 2nitary in itself'M The spheres are individ2ally distinct, and conseJ2ently no co11on characteristic they have can prod2ce the (holly 2nifor1 pri1e 1atter of the s2bl2nar (orld' MHenceM another, M2nitaryM being 12st participate in the prod2ction of pri1e 1atter, and s2ch a being can be so2ght only a1ong Mthe incorporeal intelligences'M The incorporeal intelligences are not the ca2se collectively, since, as G2st seen, the ca2se cannot be a n21ber of individ2ally distinct beings' MRather, fro1 the last of the intelligences, the one adGacent to 2s, there e1anates UyafldR, (ith the participation of the 1ove1ents of the heavens, so1ething containing the i1print of the for1s of the lo(er (orld'M That is to say, pri1e 1atter, (ith its potentiality for e*hibiting the for1s of all nat2ral obGects in the s2bl2nar (orld, is eternally e1anated by the active intellect (ith the aid of the 1ove1ent of the heavens' The factor (ithin the heavens that Maids in the e*istence of Qs2bl2narR 1atterM is their co11on Mcirc2lar 1otionMBCDthat is, their co11on Mnat2re,M (hich e*presses itself in circ2lar 1otion' 02t ho( the co11on circ2lar 1ove1ent of the heavens contrib2tes is left 2nclear'-Khatever one 1akes of AvicennaIs reasoning, it certainly reflects a consistency on his part' To the classic Aristotelian proof of the e*istence of a "irst Ca2se fro1 1otion in the 2niverse, Avicenna added a proof fro1 the e*istence of the 2niverse'-/ To AristotleIs inference of the e*istence of the celestial intelligences fro1 the 1otion of the celestial spheres, Avicenna added a proof of their e*istence fro1 the e*istence of the spheres'-; And no(, to the inferenceBCDdra(n by Aristotle or his co11entatorsBCDof the e*istence of the active intellect fro1 the passage, or 1ove1ent, of the h21an intellect fro1 potentiality to act2ality, Avicenna adds an inference of the e*istence of the active intellect fro1 the e*istence of s2bl2nar 1atter' Avicenna (ill also infer the e*istence of an active intellect fro1 the e*istence of nat2ral for1s in the (orld and 1ost especially fro1
Cf' E' Feller, %ie ,hilosophic der !riechen -'-, @th ed' 9 eipEig -./-: ;->ff'H H' Kolfson, CrescasI CritiJ2e of Aristotle 9Ca1bridge, Mass' -./.: >?-8?;' ll ShifaI< Ilahiyyat @-6H $aGdt /A-H Isharat -?>' !haEali //-, establishes the e1anation of pri1e 1atter fro1 the active intellect thro2gh the principle that one body cannot prod2ce another bodyH and !oichonIs "rench translation of Isharat 9n' 7 above: @;-, n' >, J2otes T2siIs co11entary on that (ork to the sa1e effect' -/ %avidson 9n' > above: /.A8;6@' -; ShifaI< Ilahiyyat @6?H $aGdt /?A'
-6
?A
the e*istence of the h21an so2l' He th2s consistently s2pple1ents Aristotelian proofs fro1 1otion (ith proofs fro1 e*istence' All nat2ral for1s are contained in the active intellect in a 2nified, 2ndifferentiated 1ode,-@ and the active intellect eternally e1anates the1 not thro2gh choice b2t as an eternal, constant, and necessary e*pression of its being'-> Avicenna therefore calls the active intellect the Mgiver of for1s'M-7 And yet the active intellect is an incorporeal, M2nitaryM being, and Ma 2nitary Qca2seR prod2ces only a 2nitary QeffectR in a 2nitary Qs2bGectR'M If the active intellect acted 2pon 2ndifferentiated 1atter, no differentiation of effect (o2ld be possible, and 1atter (o2ld not e*hibit a pl2rality of for1s' A Mpartic2lariEing factorM 912khassis: 12st conseJ2ently Mtip the scalesM 9y2raGGih: and MprepareM 1atter for receiving a given nat2ral for1 to the e*cl2sion of another' One set of factors Mpartic2lariEingM 1atter and preparing it to receive a nat2ral for1 is the Minfl2encesM e1itted by the celestial spheresH for altho2gh the1selves free of J2alities, the spheres instill the fo2r basic J2alitiesBCDheat, cold, dryness, (etnessBCDin 1atter' Another set is the 1otions proper to the several spheres, as distinct fro1 the daily 1otion co11on to all' The MdifferenceM in the 1ove1ents of the several spheres Mprepares 1atter for QreceivingR divers for1s'M Still other factors preparing 1atter for nat2ral for1s are forces indigeno2s to the s2bl2nar (orld'-? At the lo(est level, the e1anation of the active intellect s2pplies the for1s of the fo2r ele1ents< fire, air, (ater, and earth' Avicenna e*plicitly reGects a 1echanical hypothesis, espo2sed by so1e M(ho lay clai1 to this science Qof philosophy, or perhaps< of 1etaphysicsR,M according to (hich friction transfor1s the s2bl2nar 1atter nearest the celestial spheres into fire, (hile the for1s of the other three ele1ents res2lt directly fro1 their distance fro1 the ele1ent fire'-A The hypothesis (o2ld, he s2b1its, entail that each portion of pri1e 1atter first e*ists (itho2t the for1 of any of the fo2r ele1ents and that it then receives a for1 by virt2e of the place it occ2pies (ithin the s2bl2nar region and the res2lting rapidity (ith (hich it 1oves' 02t, Avicenna contends by (ay of ref2tation, 1atter can never act2ally e*ist (itho2t the for1 of an ele1ent-.H f2rther, portions of 1atter occ2py specific spots in the s2bl2nar (orld and 2ndergo 1otion only by virt2e of possessing their ele1ental for1s, not vice versa' The 1ost pla2sible theory is therefore that fro1 all eternity, every portion of 1atter is end2ed (ith one or another of the ele1ental -@ l> ll
-7
0elo(, p' .-' See above, p' 77' ShifdI< Ilahiyyat @-@8->H $aGat /A@'
M' 3asse1 9Cairo -.7.: -.68.-H Ishardt -?>' -A An e*planation of precisely this sort
(as s2ggested by Alfarabi, ,hilosophy of Aristotle, ed' M' Mahdi 90eir2t -.7-: -6@8 >H English translation< in AlfarabiIs ,hilosophy of ,lato and Aristotle, trans' Mahdi 9$e( )ork -.7/: ?-ff', (ith pagination of the original Arabic indicated' -. That is to say, pri1e 1atter cannot e*ist solely (ith Mcorporeal for1'M On corporeal for1, see Kolfson 9n' -6 above: >?.8.6'
ShifdI< Ilahiyyat @-;H $aGat /A;' ShifaI< Ilahiyyat @-68--, @;7H $aGat ->6, /A68A/, /..H ShifaI< ,hysical Sciences /8@, ed'
?.
for1s thanks to the e1anation of the active intellect' A portion of 1atter (ith the character predisposing it to receive the for1 of one of the fo2r ele1ents a2to1atically receives the appropriate for1 fro1 the ever8present e1anation broadcast by the active intellect, and (hen 1atter invested (ith a given for1 beco1es disposed for another for1, it receives the ne( for1' Avicenna offers the follo(ing ill2stration of the transfor1ation of ele1ents into one another< Kater, like the other ele1ents, can acco11odate a certain latit2de of J2alities' It can be heated to a certain e*tent (itho2t ceasing to be (ater' Event2ally, tho2gh, a point is reached (here heat Me*ceeds the bo2ndsM that (ater can acco11odate' At that point the MrelationM of the given portion of 1atter to the for1 of fire beco1es stronger than its relation to its original for1, and the for1 of (ater is replaced by the for1 of[fire' The ne( for1 co1es fro1 (itho2t, Me1anatedM fro1 the active intellect'/6 "or1s above the level of the fo2r ele1ents are si1ilarly e1anated by the active intellect and received by properly disposed portions of 1atter, b2t Avicenna does not 1ake perfectly clear (hich for1s are, and (hich are not, e1anated' He attrib2tes to the e1anation of the Mgiver of for1s and po(ers,M that is, the active intellect, the e1ergence of all Mpo(ersM and McharacteristicsM that cannot be e*plained by the constit2ent ele1ents of a 1i*t2re of 1atter, apparently incl2ding even tastes and odors'/- He f2rther 1aintains that the for1s of plants, ani1als, and 1an e1anate fro1 the active intellect' Khen, ho(ever, he considers the generation of 1ist and dry haEe, physical co1po2nds ranked i11ediately above the level of the fo2r ele1ents, he offers a 1echanical e*planation, (ith no 1ention of a role for the active intellect'// A 1ost co1prehensive state1ent of the range of for1s co1ing fro1 the active intellect is delineated in !haEaliIs s211ary of AvicennaIs philosophy' !haEaliIs s211ary describes the fo2r ele1ents, 1ist and haEe, 1etals, plants, ani1als, and 1an, as all receiving for1s e1anated by the active intellect'/; The for1 that a given portion of 1atter does receive depends 2pon the 1i*t2re of the 1atterH the finer the blend, the 1ore perfect the for1' At the lo(er level of the s2bl2nar hierarchy, the contrariety of J2alities in the fo2r ele1ents Mprevents the1 fro1 receiving life'M The notion that 1atter, (hen not 1i*ed ho1ogeneo2sly, is prevented fro1 receiving a higher level of for1 so2nds odd yet is in har1ony (ith AvicennaIs vie(point' Matter, he 2nderstands, has the potentiality of receiving all physical for1s< It Mcontains the i1print of the for1s of the lo(er (orld by (ay of being acted 2pon, as the QactiveR intellect' ' ' contains the i1print of for1s by / 6 ShifaI< Ilahiyyat @-;8-@H $aGat /A/8A@' One 1ight have e*pected Avicenna to (rite that fire first t2rns (ater into air' /l
Ibid' /6@H $aGat ->;' $aGat ->? 1entions the generation of 1etals, b2t in too brief a (ay to infer (hether or not Avicenna (o2ld assign a role to the active intellect in their generation' VMaJasid 9n' 7 above: ///8/@'
//
ShifaI< ,hysical Sciences />78>?'
A6
(ay of acting'M/@ Khen a ne( for1 is 1anifested in 1atter, 1atter has si1ply received and e*hibited act2ally (hat al(ays belonged to it potentially' The physical processes enabling 1atter to receive progressively higher for1s can therefore be regarded not 1erely as the preparation of 1atter for those for1s b2t eJ2ally as the re1oval of obstacles that prevented 1atter fro1 receiving (hat (as rightf2lly its o(n'/> The obstacles are progressively re1oved, and a given portion of 1atter is progressively prepared for higher for1s, as the 1ove1ents and infl2ences of the heavens act together (ith forces (ithin the s2bl2nar (orld to MdestroyM the contrary J2alities in a given portion of 1atter' The constit2ent ele1ents thereby start to lose their separate identity and to blend into a ho1ogeneo2s 1i*t2re' To the degree that the 1i*t2re approaches Mthe 1ean that has no contrary,M and co1es to Mrese1ble the celestial bodies,M (hich contain no contrary J2alities, G2st Mto s2ch a degree, does it 1erit receiving an ani1ating fac2lty fro1 the incorporeal governing s2bstance'M That is to say, s2ccessive degrees of ho1ogeneity in a portion of 1atter dispose the 1atter to receive s2ccessively higher levels of plant or ani1al for1 fro1 the e1anation of the active intellect' At the 2pper li1it, the 1i*t2re of a portion of 1atter 1ay go Mas far as possible in approaching the 1eanM and reach the point (here Mno f2rther destr2ction of the contrary e*tre1es is possible'M It there2pon Mreceives a s2bstance closely si1ilar, in a certain (ay, to the incorporeal s2bstance'M In other (ords, (hen 1atter is blended to the highest possible degree, it receives a h21an rational so2l, (hich is an incorporeal s2bstance, in contradistinction to ani1al and vegetable so2ls, (hich consist only in an Mani1ating fac2lty'M/7 The relationship bet(een the body of a celestial sphere, the so2l of the sphere, and the corresponding incorporeal intelligence is replicated in 1an' "or the h21an body stands to the h21an so2l as Mthe celestial s2bstancesM do to the so2ls that Mthey receive and are conGoined to,M and the h21an so2l stands to the active intellect as the so2l of each sphere does to the intelligence that is the ca2se of the e*istence of both the sphereIs so2l and body'/? "ro1 passages in vario2s (orks of Avicenna, a set of reasons can be c2lled sho(ing that the active intellect and no other agent 12st be the ca2se of the e*istence of the h21an so2l' Avicenna contends that the h21an body cannot, insofar as it is a body, prod2ce its o(n so2lH for a body does not act Minsofar as it is a body ' ' ' b2t only thro2gh its po(ers'M/A $or can the po(ers (ithin the
ShifaI< Ilahiyyat @-6H $aGdt /A-' Cf' ShifaI< ,hysical Sciences />.876' /9\ ShifaI< %e ani1a, ed' "' Rah1an as AvicennaIs %e Ani1a 9 ondon, -.>.: /7-H $aGat -.-' English translation of $aGat ->?8.;< AvicennaIs ,sychology, trans' "' Rah1an 9 ondon -.>/:' The passage cited here appears on p' 7? of the translation, /- ShifaI< Ilahiyyat @6-H $aGdt -.-, /?;' / VA contention to the effect that a body, insofar as it is a body, cannot Mprod2ceM anything is fo2nd in ,rocl2s, Co11entary on ,latoIs Ti1ae2s, ed' E' %iehl, - 9 eipEig -.6;: /.;H "rench />
/@
Avicenna on E1anation, the Active Intellect, and H21an Intellect A-
h21an body prod2ce the h21an so2l' They are corporeal, (hereas the h21an so2l, as Avicenna (ill prove,/. is incorporealH and the corporeal can never be the ca2se of the incorporeal,;6 beca2se (hat stands at a lo(er level of e*istence cannot be the ca2se of (hat stands at a higher level';- In a separate (ork Avicenna considers and reGects the s2ggestion that the dise1bodied so2ls of past generations prod2ce ne( h21an so2ls' He gives t(o reasons for reGecting the s2ggestionBCD8the first of (hich I co2ld not 2nderstand' The second is that dise1bodied so2ls as a class cannot prod2ce a h21an so2l, since a class of individ2als is divisible, (hereas the ca2se of an indivisible effect cannot be divisibleH nor can a single rando1 dise1bodied so2l prod2ce a h21an so2l, since (hat is rando1 does not act as a ca2se';/ In still another conte*t Avicenna contends that the so2ls of the celestial spheres cannot be the ca2se of the e*istence of other so2ls, inas12ch as the so2ls of the spheres operate only thro2gh their bodies and a Mbody cannot serve as an inter1ediary bet(een one so2l and another'M;; And one f2rther passage arg2es that none of the incorporeal beings above the active intellect can be the ca2se of the e*istence of h21an so2ls and intellects' The "irst Ca2se of the 2niverse cannot be the ca2se, for it is a si1ple being and hence prod2ces only a single effect, (hereas 1any h21an so2ls and intellects e*ist' $or can the incorporeal intelligences associated (ith the celestial spheres be the ca2se prod2cing h21an so2ls and intellects' "or altho2gh the intelligences do prod2ce a 12ltiplicity of effects, they do not prod2ce 12ltiplicity (ithin a single species, the nat2re of the intelligences being to operate on the bodies of the celestial spheres, (hich are not s2bGect to division' M2ltiplicity in a single species res2lts, ho(ever, only (hen an agent acts on divisible 1atter' Of all the incorporeal beings, only the active intellect operates on the divisible 1atter of the s2bl2nar (orld, and conseJ2ently it alone can prod2ce a 12ltiplicity of things (ithin a single species';@
translation, (ith pagination of the original indicated< ,rocl2s, Co11entaire s2r le Ti1ee, trans' A' "est2giere, / 9,aris -.7?:' /. 0elo(, p' A;' ;6 ShifaI< %e ani1a //AH $aGat -A>H English translation >.H S' anda2er, M%ie ,sychologic des Ibn Sina,M Feitschrift der de2ischen 1orgenlandischen !esellschaft /. 9-A?7: ;;>8@-A, chap' ;' anda2er edits and translates a te*t that cannot be identified (ith any ite1 in L2EGa1Is list of AvicennaIs (orks 9see above, n' -:, b2t 1ay be identical (ith an ite1 in a s2bseJ2ent 1edieval listH see !ohl1an 9n' - above: -6A8., ite1 A/' It is eJ2ally possible, ho(ever, that the te*t co1es fro1 one of AvicennaIs follo(ers, and not fro1 Avicenna hi1self' ;- ShifaI< Ilahiyyat @6.H $aGat, /A6' ;/ M2bahathat, inArist2 cinda al8cArab, ed' A' 0ada(i 9Cairo -.@?: -//, -.@' VShifaI< Ilahiyyat @6?8AH $aGat /?A8 ?.H Isharat 9n' 7 above: -?/' The arg21ent, to be precise, is offered as a proof that the so2l of one sphere cannot be the ca2se of the ne*t sphereIs so2l' ;@ ShifaI< Ilahiyyat @6A8.H $aGat /?.8A6'
A/
Res21e' AvicennaIs 2niverse has a str2ct2re virt2ally identical (ith the str2ct2re of AlfarabiIs' The "irst Ca2se of the 2niverse again transcends the intelligences that 1ove the spheresH it e1anates the intelligence that 1oves the o2ter1ost sphereH that intelligence e1anates the ne*t intelligence in the hierarchy as (ell as the body and so2l of its o(n sphereH and each s2cceeding intelligence e1anates a si1ilar set of effects' Avicenna, ho(ever, offers his version of the sche1e specifically in ans(er to a philosophic proble1, the J2estion ho( 12ltiplicity can have e1erged given a single 2nitary "irst Ca2se' 0y disting2ishing three 1o1ents in the tho2ght of each intelligence, he is also able to e*plain a point that (as ignored in Alfarabi' He can identify the so2rce of all three of the intelligenceIs effectsBCDthe body and so2l of the corresponding sphere as (ell as the ne*t intelligence' The active intellect is for Avicenna, as it (as for Alfarabi, the last in the series of incorporeal intelligences' As Alfarabi did in al8Madlna al8"ddila and al8Siyasa al8Madaniyya, Avicenna connects the 2nifor1ity and diversity (ithin the lo(er (orld to 2nifor1ity and diversity (ithin the heavens' 02t for Avicenna, the heavens are only an a2*iliary ca2se of (hat e*ists in the lo(er (orldH the active intellect is the pri1ary ca2se' In an 2ne*plained (ay the 2nifor1ity of celestial 1otion helps the active intellect to e1anate the eternal 1atter of the s2bl2nar (orld' %ifferences in the 1otions of the spheres and infl2ences e1itted by the spheres then prepare s2bl2nar 1atter for each of the nat2ral for1s e1anated by the active intellect' Khile AlfarabiIs Risdlafi alc AJl had represented the active intellect as the agent that e1anates nat2ral for1s above the level of the fo2r ele1ents,;> Avicenna goes beyond the Risdla too, for he 2nderstands the active intellect to be the ca2se of the 1atter as (ell as the for1s of the s2bl2nar (orld, and to be the ca2se of the fo2r ele1ents as (ell as the for1s of 1ore co1ple* beings' Avicenna co2ld have arrived at his acco2nt of the active intellectIs f2nctions by co1bining in the active intellect f2nctions that ,lotin2s distrib2ted bet(een the $eoplatonic cos1ic Intellect and cos1ic So2l';7 Or he co2ld have started (ith AlfarabiIs Risdla and e*panded the pict2re of the active intellect he fo2nd there into one in (hich the f2nctions perfor1ed by the active intellect f2lly parallel those perfor1ed by the intelligences above it' As far as I co2ld see, Avicenna never e*plicitly traces the different prod2cts e1anated by the active intellectBCDs2bl2nar 1atter, s2bl2nar for1s, intelligible tho2ghtBCDto different aspects in the active intellectIs tho2ght, nor does he indicate (hether the active intellect prod2ces (hat it does thro2gh a single e1anation or thro2gh separate e1anations';? Above, p' 77' Above, pp' ;-8;/' ;? Every intelligence above the active intellect has a tho2ght of the "irst Ca2se and a t(ofold tho2ght of itself, hence, three tho2ghts in all' 0y virt2e of the for1er tho2ght, it e1anates a f2rther intelligence, and by virt2e of the other t(o, it e1anates the body and so2l of its sphere' The active intellect sho2ld, by analogy, also have three tho2ghts and three e1anations' ;7 ;>
A;
AvicennaIs 1anner of advancing his positions differs fro1 AlfarabiIs, for (hereas Alfarabi generally stated positions (itho2t G2stifying the1, Avicenna arg2es his thro2gh, (ith care and at length' Altho2gh AvicennaIs 2niverse 1ay strike a 1odern reader as even 1ore bi=arre than AristotleIs, it is, like AristotleIs, a caref2lly arg2ed scientific hypothesis for e*plaining observed pheno1ena' Stages of H21an IntellectH the Active Intellect as the Ca2se of H21an Tho2ght Ke have seen that as soon as a portion of 1atter is ready to receive a h21an so2l, it does so fro1 the ever8present e1anation of the active intellect' Avicenna advances a set of arg21ents to establish that the h21an so2l, 2nlike the other nat2ral for1s e1anated by the active intellect, is an incorporeal s2bstance, M(hich does not in any sense e*ist in a body as a po(er Qor< fac2ltyR or as a for1 of the body'M The b2rden of the arg21ents is that intelligible tho2ghts, by (hich Avicenna appears here specifically to 1ean concepts as distinct fro1 propositions, are indivisible and can be present only in an indivisible and hence incorporeal s2bGect' Since the h21an so2l is Mthe s2bGectM that MreceivesM intelligible tho2ghts, the so2l 12st, he concl2des, be an incorporeal s2bstance';A At birth, the incorporeal h21an so2l contains no tho2ght (hatsoever and has 1erely an e1pty potentiality for thinking' As the child gro(s, the potentiality S2hra(ardI, belo(, pp' -7;, -7>, does disting2ish different tho2ghts in the active intellect, and assigns an e1anation to each tho2ght' ;S ShifaI< %e ani1a /6.ff'H $aGat -?@ff'H English translation 9n' /7, above: @78>6H Marat 9n' 7 above: -;6H anda2er M,sychologic des Ibn SinaM 9n' ;6 above: chap' .' On the h21an so2l as the Ms2bGectM that MreceivesM intelligible tho2ghts, see ShifdI< %e ani1a /;.8@6' The proposition that the so2l is indivisible since it receives indivisible concepts does not convert, for Avicenna, into the proposition that since the so2l is indivisible it can receive only indivisible concepts' "or as long as the so2l operates thro2gh the body, it is also conscio2s of co1posite propositions and of co1posite percepts originating in sense perception' There are proble1s (ith a Cartesian flavor in AvicennaIs position< If the so2l is an indivisible incorporeal s2bstance, ho( can it receive sense perceptionsN If it is an incorporeal s2bstance that does not Min any sense e*ist in a body,M ho( can it be in a state of potentialityN The attention of scholars has been attracted to an arg21ent of AvicennaIs, (hich has at least a s2rface si1ilarity to %escartesI Mcogito, ergo s21'M Avicenna poses a 1ental e*peri1ent in (hich a 1an i1agines hi1self floating in the air 2nder circ21stances s2ch that no part of his body to2ches any other part and he has no sensory e*perience' The 1an, Avicenna reasons, (ill nonetheless be conscio2s of his e*istence, (hence the concl2sion can be dra(n that the h21an so2l is the tr2e 1an and the so2l is distinct fro1 the body' See ShifaI< %e ani1a -7, />>H S' ,ines, M a conception de la conscience de soi cheE Avicenne et cheE Ab2Il80arakat al8 0aghdadi,M reprinted in his St2dies in Ab2Il80arakat 9Ler2sale1 -.?.: -A>8/-7H M' Mar12ra, MAvicennaIs I"lying ManI in Conte*t,M The Monist 7. 9-.A7: ;A;8.>H T' %r2art, MThe So2l and 0ody ,roble1< Avicenna and %escartes,M in Arabic ,hilosophy and the Kest, ed' T' %r2art 9Kashington -.AA: /?8@.H and the literat2re cited by %r2art ?8-/'
A@
develops' Avicenna disting2ishes a series of stages of h21an intellect, starting fro1 the e1pty potentiality (ith (hich 1an is born, and he attaches to the1 na1es that have been 1et before' 02t (hile the na1es are fa1iliar, the sche1e is pec2liar to Avicenna and reflects his 2nderstanding of the 1anner in (hich h21an beings think' Aristotle had called attention to the sit2ation (herein the h21an intellect has already asse1bled a repertoire of tho2ghts yet is not act2ally thinking the1, and Ale*ander applied the ter1 Mintellect in habit2M to h21an intellect in that condition';. Avicenna goes f2rther and by the side of the e1pty potentiality for tho2ght in the ne(born disting2ishes not one b2t t(o stages in (hich intellect possesses a repertoire of tho2ghts (itho2t act2ally thinking the1' He th2s differentiates three stages of h21an potentiality for tho2ght' To ill2strate, he co1pares the stages of the h21an potentiality for tho2ght to three senses in (hich a person 1ay have a potentiality for M(riting'M The ne(born infant has the potentiality for (riting only in the sense that it 1ay event2ally learn to (rite' The infant is accordingly said to have an M2nJ2alified dispositionM or M2nJ2alified ' ' ' potentialityM for (riting' ater, the Mboy 1at2resM and co1es to Mkno( the ink(ell, the pen, and the letters'M Inas12ch as he controls the r2di1ents and can go on to 1aster the art (ith Mno inter1ediateM step, he is said to have a Mpossible potentialityM for (riting' At a still higher level stands the Mscribe,M (ho is adept (ith the MQ(ritingR i1ple1ent,M is Macco1plished in his art,M and can apply the art Mat (ill'M Khen he is not e*ercising his skill, the scribe has a MperfectM potentiality for (riting' ,aralleling the three senses of potentiality in (riting are three stages of potential theoretical@6 intellect< 9-: MMaterialM intellect is the (holly M2nJ2alified potentialityM for tho2ght (hich belongs to Mevery 1e1ber of the species'M It is a MdispositionM 9isticddd: inhering in the incorporeal h21an so2l fro1 birth' 9/: MIntellect in habit2M 9bil81alaka: is the Mpossible potentialityM in (hich the h21an s2bGect possesses the Mfirst intelligible tho2ghts'M These are theoretical propositions of the sort 1an affir1s (itho2t being able to Ms2ppose that they 1ight ever not be affir1edMH e*a1ples are the propositions that Mthe (hole is greater than the partM and Mthings eJ2al to the sa1e thing are eJ2al to each other'M The e*a1ples, as (ill be noted, are the sa1e that AlfarabiIs al8Madina al8"ddila gave for the principles of tho2ght (hich the active intellect instills in the h21an 1aterial intellect at the o2tset'@- 9;: MAct2al intellect,M despite the na1e, is a f2rther stage of potentialityBCD the stage of f2lly act2aliEed potentiality' It is the Mco1plete Qka1dliyyaR potentialityM that is attained (hen both Msecond intelligiblesM and Mintelligible for1sMBCDthat is to say, derivative propositions and conceptsBCDhave been added to the Mfirst intelligibles,M (ith the proviso that the h21an s2bGect is not thinking the Above, p' -6' On the practical intellect, see belo(, p' AA' @- Cf' above, p' >-' @6 ;.
A>
propositions and concepts' At the stage of act2al intellect, the h21an s2bGect does not Mact2ally ''' attend toM his kno(ledge, yet can do so M(henever he (ishes'M Avicenna has 1arked off t(o stages in (hich the h21an intellect has acJ2ired intelligible tho2ghts, b2t is not attending to the1 at the 1o1ent< the stage of intellect2al potentiality paralleling the child (ho has learned only the letters, and the stage of intellect2al potentiality paralleling the acco1plished scribe' It (o2ld see1 that had he chosen to, he co2ld have 1arked off any n21ber of f2rther gradations' In addition to the three stages of potentiality for tho2ght, Avicenna disting2ishes a level of a different character< 9@: MacJ2ired Q12stafddR intellect,M (hich alone is an M2nJ2alified act2ality'M At the level of acJ2ired intellect, Mintelligible for1sM are act2ally MpresentM to the 1an, and he Mact2ally attendsM to the1' In Alfarabi, the ter1 acJ2ired intellect designated the highest stage of h21an intellect2al develop1ent, and AlfarabiIs choice of the ter1 (as proble1atic, beca2se the highest stage in his sche1e of intellect is not in fact acJ2ired fro1 an e*ternal so2rce b2t rather fashioned fro1 belo( and (ithin, by h21an effort' AvicennaIs acJ2ired intellect is, literally, acJ2ired fro1 the active intellect' The 2nJ2alified act2ality of tho2ght is Mcalled' ' ' acJ2ired, beca2se it (ill be sho(n ' ' ' that potential intellect passes to act2alityM by establishing contact (ith the active intellect and having Mfor1s acJ2ired fro1 (itho2t i1printedM in 1anIs intellect'@/ The e*pression MacJ2ired intellectM and even 1ore especially the phrase MacJ2ired fro1 (itho2tM recall the Arabic translations of Ale*anderIs %e ani1a and of the %e intellect2 attrib2ted to Ale*ander' Those t(o (orks recogniEed the possibility of the h21an intellectIs having the active intellect or other incorporeal s2bstances as the direct obGect of its tho2ght, and the Arabic translations of both called detached h21an tho2ght of an incorporeal s2bstance, and specifically of the active intellect, acJ2ired intellect or intellect acJ2ired fro1 (itho2t'[; Avicenna reGects the denotation the ter1s had in the Arabic translations of the t(o !reek (orks' He ref2tes 2nna1ed co11entators (ho M1aintained that the ''' active intellect leads o2r so2ls fro1 potentiality to act2ality ''' by 2niting ' ' ' (ith o2r so2ls, beco1ing their for1, and beco1ing an acJ2ired intellect for 2s' Then (hen o2r bodies pass a(ay, it Qthe active intellectR re1ains as it (as at the start'M The sense the 2nna1ed co11entators are here reported to have assigned to the ter1 acJ2ired intellect is the one that (as assigned by Ale*anderIs %e ani1a and the %e intellect2, in their Arabic versionsH and the description of the 1anner in (hich the active intellect prod2ces h21an tho2ght according to the 2nna1ed co11entators appro*i1ates that of the %e intellect2'V Avicenna adds that for the co11entators in J2estion, the factor in 1an Mdisposed for receiving the s2bstance Qof the active intellectRM is Ma corporeal fac2lty and disposition in the heart or brainMH and so1e of
@/
ShifdI< %e ani1a @A8>6, /@-H $aGdt -7>877H English translation ;;8;>H Isharat -/7' Above, p' --' @@ Above, pp' //8/;' @;
A7
the sa1e co11entators had the f2rther Ma2dacityM to identify the active intellect (ith Mthe first !od'M 0oth those theses (ere p2t for(ard in Ale*anderIs %e ani1a'@> Avicenna directs t(o obGections against the proposition that the active intellect 2nites (ith 1an and thereby beco1es his acJ2ired intellect< If an incorporeal being sho2ld 2nite (ith 1an, it (o2ld 2ndergo MaccidentalM 1otion (hen the body 1oved and it (o2ld be Mcirc21scribed in the heart or brain'M 02t an incorporeal being cannot 2ndergo 1otion of any kind, nor can it be physically circ21scribed'@7 "2rther, if the active intellect bro2ght the h21an so2l to act2ality by M2nitingM (ith it, the h21an so2l, having beco1e one (ith the active intellect, (o2ld at once kno( Mall intelligible tho2ghts and be ignorant of nothing'M 02t nothing of the sort happens'@? The ter1 acJ2ired intellect in Avicenna is 1ost re1iniscent of ,lotin2s, (ho designated as MacJ2ired intellectM the intellect2al kno(ledge that the so2l acJ2ires directly fro1 the cos1ic Intellect'@A Khile the ter1 acJ2ired intellect e*actly fits the aspect of h21an intellect to (hich Avicenna applies it, an a1big2ity does infiltrate his 2sage' 0esides (riting that all act2al intelligible h21an tho2ght, no 1atter ho( far or ho( little the h21an intellect has progressed along the path to perfection, is MacJ2iredM fro1 the active intellect, and that all act2al h21an tho2ght is conseJ2ently acJ2ired intellect, he also 1akes the follo(ing state1ents< MAt Qthe level ofR acJ2ired intellect, the ani1al gen2s and h21an species are perfected Qta11aR, and the h21an Qintellect2alR fac2lty rese1bles the first principles of all being Qthat is, the incorporeal s2bstancesRM@.H the state of acJ2ired intellect is 1anIs MperfectionM 9ka1dl:>6H MacJ2ired intellect, or rather holy intellect, is the head Qfac2lty of the so2lR, (hich all the other Qfac2ltiesR serve, and it is the 2lti1ate end'M>- ,hrases of the sort depict acJ2ired intellect as a c2l1ination of h21an intellect2al develop1ent, (hich is (hat it (as in Alfarabi' In a (ord, Avicenna applies the ter1 acJ2ired intellect to t(o different things, to act2al h21an tho2ght, irrespective of the intellect2al progress a 1an has 1ade, and to act2al h21an tho2ght (hen h21an intellect2al develop1ent is co1plete' The ca2se effecting each of the fo2r degrees of h21an intellect is the active intellect' To start, the active intellect e1anates a h21an so2l endo(ed (ith the potentiality for tho2ght 2pon any receptive portion of s2bl2nar 1atter' It is thereby the ca2se of the e*istence of the h21an 1aterial intellect' Then the active intellect is
Above, pp' ., -;8-@' The obGection (o2ld, ho(ever, also see1 to affect AvicennaIs hypothesis that the h21an so2l is an incorporeal s2bstance' @? !losses on %e ani1a, in Arist2 cinda al8cArab 9n' ;/ above: ./8.;' @A Above, p, -/' @. ShifdI< %e ani1a >6' >6 Ibid' /@AH Ishardt 9n' 7 above: -/7' >- $aGdt -7AH English translation 9n' /7 above: ;?' @7
@>
A?
the factor bringing the 1aterial intellect to the stage of intellect in habit2,>/ the factor bringing intellect in habit2 to the stage of act2al intellect,>; and the so2rce of the act2al tho2ght constit2ting acJ2ired intellect, both (hen acJ2ired intellect 1eans an i1perfectly developed intellectIs act2al tho2ght and (hen it 1eans act2al tho2ght at the co1pletion of h21an intellect2al develop1ent'>@ In leading 1an fro1 one level to the ne*t, the active intellect provides hi1 (ith the first principles of tho2ght, (hich are propositionsH (ith abstract h21an conceptsH and (ith certain other propositions' Ke have already seen AvicennaIs proof that the active intellect brings the h21an so2l, (ith its 1aterial intellect, into e*istence' He also proves that the active intellect brings abo2t each of the s2bseJ2ent levels of h21an intellect' 0oth intellect in habit2 and act2al intellect, in AvicennaIs sense, are attained (hen the intellectIs previo2s stage of potentiality thinks ne( act2al tho2ghts and adds the1 to its repertoireH and the condition of acJ2ired intellect occ2rs (henever the h21an potentiality for tho2ght beco1es act2al' Each level is therefore the res2lt of a passage fro1 potentiality to act2ality' Avicenna post2lates, follo(ing Aristotle,>> that M(hatever passes fro1 potentiality to act2alityM does so Monly thro2gh a ca2se that is act2ally Q(hat the other is potentiallyR'M MThere 12st conseJ2ently be a Q(holly act2alR ca2se that 1akes o2r so2ls pass fro1 potentiality to act2ality in respect to intelligible tho2ghts,M>7 and the ca2se is the Mactive intellect'M>? The for12la G2st J2otedBCD(hatever passes fro1 potentiality to act2ality does so only thro2gh a ca2se that is act2ally (hat the other is potentiallyBCD(as already co11onplace,>A b2t Avicenna dra(s an inference fro1 it that had not been dra(n before' He ass21es that one thing renders another act2al by Mproviding the act2ality of the second'M Inas12ch as the act2ality of the h21an intellect is act2al intelligible tho2ght, act2al intelligible tho2ghts 12st be (hat the active intellect provides the h21an intellect' And if the active intellect provides the h21an intellect (ith intelligible tho2ghts, it 12st consist in the1 itself'>. It 12st Mprovide and i1print 2pon the so2l the for1s of intelligible tho2ght fro1 its o(n s2bstance'M76 The standard arg21ent for the e*istence of the active intellect th2s establishes not Isharat -/78/?' anda2er, M,sychologie des Ibn SInaM 9n' ;6 above: ;?68?-' Isharat -/78/?' >@ See belo(, passi1' >> Above, p' -A' >7 ShifaI< %e ani1a /;@' Cf' Avicenna, "l Ithbat al8$2b2((at, ed' M' Mar12ra 90eir2t -.7A: @@H English translation< MOn the ,roof of ,rophecies,M in Medieval ,olitical ,hilosophy, ed' R' erner and M' Mahdi 9$e( )ork -.7;: --@' I a1 not convinced that the attrib2tion of "l Ithbat al8$2b2((at to Avicenna is correct' >- $aGat -./8.;H English translation 7A87.' >A Cf' above, pp' /@, />, /?, @.' >. This does not har1oniEe (ith AvicennaIs state1ent abo2t the spheresI instilling the J2alities of heat, cold, dryness, and (etness, despite being free of those J2alities' See above, p'?A' 76 $aGat -./, (ith Rah1anIs te*t2al correction in the appendi* to his English translation 9n' /7 above: -/>H English translation 7A' >; >/
AA
1erely a ca2se of h21an tho2ght' It establishes a ca2se of h21an tho2ght that f2nctions as s2ch by co112nicating tho2ghts directly fro1 itself to the h21an intellect' The general thesisBCDaltho2gh not either the 1anner in (hich Avicenna vie(s the active intellectIs operation or his arg21entationBCDco2ld have been kno(n to hi1 1ost especially fro1 ,lotin2s b2t also fro1 3indi and fro1 the Arabic treatise on the so2l attrib2ted to ,orphyry'7- Everything said so far relates e*cl2sively to theoretical tho2ght' The principles of 1anIs practical intellect do not, according to Avicenna, have their so2rce in the active intellectH they are Mco11only accepted vie(s, traditions, opinions, and fli1sy e*periences'M7/ AlfarabiIs Risalafi al8cAJl had also 1aintained that the principles of the practical intellect co1e fro1 e*perience and not fro1 the active intellect'7; The (orks attrib2ted to Avicenna offer t(o additional arg21ents to establish that the active intellect is the direct so2rce of h21an tho2ght' The first appears in a treatise on the so2l, (hich is believed to be an early (ork of his' There Avicenna, if he is indeed the a2thor, contends that Me*perienceM cannot be the so2rce of either the first principles of tho2ghtBCDs2ch as the proposition that Mthe (hole is greater than the part,M Mthe i1possibility of t(o contrariesI being Goined in a single thing,M and Mthe fact that things eJ2al to the sa1e thing are eJ2al to each otherMBCDor the concl2sions of logical Mde1onstrationfsR'M ,ropositions of both sorts are 2niversally tr2e, (hereas G2dg1ents based on e*perience carry certainty only for the individ2al instances (itnessed or for e*actly si1ilar instances'7@ To take an e*a1ple, altho2gh perhaps Mall ani1als (e have observed 1ove their lo(er Ga( (hen che(ing,M the G2dg1ent sho2ld not be generaliEed and applied to species beyond those observed' Here, as it happens, at least one species of ani1al e*ists, na1ely, Mthe crocodile,M (hich 1oves not its lo(er Ga( b2t Mits 2pper Ga( (hen che(ing'M Since 2niversal G2dg1ents carrying the sta1p of certainty cannot be gro2nded in e1pirical evidence, they 12st be MacJ2iredM fro1 o2tside the physical real1, Mfro1 a divine e1anation that conGoins (ith the rational so2l and (ith (hich the rational so2l is conGoined'M The MQso2rce of theR e1anationM 12st Mhave in its s2bstanceM the M2niversal intellect2al for1sM that it Mi1prints on the rational so2lMH and (hat is of that character is perforce a Mself8s2bsistent, incorporeal, intellect2al s2bstance'M &niversal G2dg1ents carrying the sta1p of certainty 12st co1e to the h21an intellect directly fro1 an incorporeal being'7> The second additional arg21ent sho(ing that the active intellect is the direct so2rce of h21an tho2ght t2rns on an analysis of h21an 1e1ory and recollection' Above, pp' /@8/>, /?, /A' ShifaI< %e anE1a /6?' 7; See above, p' 7.' 7@ "or other Arabic thinkers (ho point o2t the li1itations of e1pirical kno(ledge, see %avidson 9n' > above: ;6' 7> anda2er, M%ie ,sychologie des Ibn SinaM 9n' ;6 above: ;?68?-H !er1an translation @-7-?' 7/ 7-
A.
AvicennaIs 1at2re philosophic (orks disting2ish five Minternal sensesM belonging to ani1al and h21an so2ls, All five are physical, operating thro2gh different parts of the brain, and t(o of the five have the f2nction of preserving the perceptions of other senses' The retentive i1agination 9khayalH 12sa((ira: preserves sensations processed by the sens2s co112nis, (hich is the internal coordinating fac2lty for the five e*ternal sensesH and 1e1ory 9hdfiEaH dhakira: preserves the perceptions of the esti1ative fac2lty 9(ah1iyya:, (hich is the int2itive fac2lty (hereby sheep, for e*a1ple, recogniEe the (olf as dangero2s and to be avoided'77 $o(, Avicenna reasons, (hen a perception is forgotten, it does not disappear fro1 the ani1al or h21an organis1 b2t re1ains MstoredM in the part of the brain serving either the retentive i1agination or the 1e1ory' "orgetting is an instance of the so2lIs ceasing to attend to a percept that is stored in the brain, (hile recollection is the so2lIs attending to it once again' 02t, he contin2es, (hereas the 1e1ory and the recollection of sense perceptions are th2s a1enable to physiological e*planation, a different kind of e*planation is needed for 1e1ory of Mintelligible tho2ghts'M Intelligible tho2ghtsBCD(hich I 2nderstand here to 1ean conceptsBCDare, as he has proved, indivisible' 0eing indivisible, they cannot s2bsist in a divisible s2bstrat21 and hence cannot be present in a physical organ or kno(n thro2gh a physical fac2lty'7? They are therefore not stored any(here in the h21an organis1 after they have been learned' $or can they be Mact2ally presentM in the so2l (hen not attended to, since the so2l is perforce conscio2s of (hatever tho2ght is act2ally in it' Khen not attended to, intelligible for1s 12st e*ist o2tside the h21an so2l and o2tside the physical real1' Avicenna dis1isses the ,latonic theory of separately e*isting incorporeal "or1s, and having eli1inated all the 2nacceptable alternatives, is left (ith the concl2sion that intelligible tho2ghts e*ist in an incorporeal being fro1 (hich they are Me1anatedM 2pon the h21an so2l' Act2ally to kno( the1 is to enter into MconG2nctionM 9ittisdl: (ith the incorporeal Mprinciple that gives intellect,M in other (ords, (ith the Mactive intellectMH and act2al h21an kno(ledge of a tho2ght is MacJ2ired intellect'M earning a tho2ght is the process of replacing the so2lIs original MdefectiveM disposition for the tho2ght (ith a Mperfect Qtd11R dispositionM that enables the so2l to establish conG2nction (ith the active intellect at (ill' Me1ory of the tho2ght is the possession of the perfect disposition for it' To recall a tho2ght is to reestablish conG2nction (ith the active intellect vis a vis the given tho2ght'7A 77 ShifaI< %e ani1a @@8@>H $aGdt -7;H English translation ;68;-, and endnoteH H' Kolfson, MThe Internal Senses,M reprinted in his St2dies in the History of ,hilosophy and Religion 9Ca1bridge, Mass' -.?;: /??' The passage cited fro1 the ShifaI lists five internal senses< sens2s co112nisH retentive i1aginationH co1positive i1agination, the f2nction of (hich is to (ork (ith i1ages in the retentive i1agination 9see belo(, p'.>:H esti1ative fac2ltyH and 1e1ory' The felicito2s ter1s retentive i1agination and co1positive i1agination (ere coined by Kolfson' 7- IShifaI< %e ani1a /6.ff'H $aGat -?@8?AH English translation @78>6H Isharat 9n' 7 above: -;6' 7A ShifaI< %e ani1a /@>8@AH Isharat -/.H !losses on %e ani1a, in Arist2'cinda al8cArab
9n' ;/ above: -668-6-H M2bahathdt, in the sa1e vol21e /;68;-H Co11entary on the Theology of
.6
The foregoing acco2nt of intellect2al 1e1ory and recollection sho2ld be co1bined (ith AvicennaIs earlier state1ents abo2t stages of potentiality for thinking' Co1bining the1 (ill give the follo(ing res2lt< At birth, the h21an 1aterial intellect is an e1pty disposition for tho2ght' Man progresses to the stage of intellect in habit2 and then to the stage of act2al intellect by entering into conG2nction (ith the active intellect and receiving the active intellectIs e1anation' Intellect in habit2 is a perfect disposition for tho2ght vis a vis a 1ini121 corp2s of principles of tho2ght, (hich are propositionsH and act2al intellect is a perfect disposition vis a vis additional propositions and a f2ll corp2s of concepts' The repertoire of tho2ghts belonging to 1an at those t(o stages of potentiality does not e*ist in either the h21an organis1 or the h21an so2l' Tho2ghts e*ist in the active intellect' Me1ory of a tho2ght is the possession of a perfect disposition for thinking a tho2ght, that is to say, the ability, at (ill, to reestablish conG2nction (ith the active intellect vis a vis the given tho2ght' ConG2nction, Avicenna insists, is not 2nion, and he ref2tes the thesis that the so2l acJ2ires intelligible tho2ght by 2niting (ith the active intellect or (ith part of it' If the so2l beca1e 2nited (ith the entire active intellect as soon as it kno(s a single tho2ght, it (o2ldBCDAvicenna has already been seen to arg2eBCDi11ediately contain everything the active intellect contains and kno( everything the active intellect kno(s' 0y virt2e of kno(ing a single tho2ght, it (o2ld at once kno( Mall intelligible tho2ghts and be ignorant of nothing,M7. and obvio2sly, nothing of the sort happens'?6 $or can the so2l M2nite (ith a part of the active intellect, since incorporeal beings do not have parts' The so2l acJ2ires tho2ght fro1 the active intellect8BCDand this 12st be the 1eaning of conG2nction (ith the active intellect and receiving the active intellectIs e1anationBCDnot thro2gh 2nion b2t by having Man The pict2re is f2rther fleshed o2t, and also rendered 1ore co1ple*, by an analysis of a 1ore n2anced pheno1enon, the pheno1enon of a personIs being confident that he can ans(er a J2estion even before for12lating the ans(er and even if he never ans(ered the J2estion before' The certainty that one can ans(er a J2estion is not a Mpotentiality'M Inas12ch as the person is certain that he can prod2ce the reJ2ired ans(er, he 12st have so1e sort of act2al kno(ledge' $or is the pheno1enon a variety of 1e1ory, in (hich the person has a perfect disposition for establishing conG2nction (ith the active intellect, (itho2t at the 1o1ent being in conG2nction (ith it' "or a person 1ay be s2re that he can ans(er a J2estion (hen he is Mnear kno(ingM the ans(er, altho2gh he never gave the ans(er before' Aristotle, in the sa1e vol21e, ?;H "rench translation< M$otes dIAvicenne s2r la MTheologie dIAristote,IM trans' !' #aGda, in Rev2e Tho1iste >- 9-.>-: @67H Rah1an, AvicennaIs ,sychology 9n' /7 above: --?8/6' A contention c2rio2sly si1ilar to AvicennaIs is p2t for(ard by !' Sto2t, !od and $at2re 9Ca1bridge -.>/: /;A8;.' 7. !losses on %e ani1a, in Arisf2 cinda al8cArab ./8.;H above, p' A7' -6 Shifa< %e ani1a /@-, /@?' ?- !losses on %e ani1a, in Arist2 cinda al8cArab .;' effect Qor< i1pression 9athaf:R of the active intellect displayed in it'M?-
Avicenna on E1anation, the Active Intellect, and H21an Intellect .-
To acco2nt for the sit2ation he has posed, Avicenna dra(s a distinction si1ilar to one that (e 1et in ,lotin2s' ,lotin2s had stated that the 1an has intellect2al tho2ghts in t(o (ays, at a higher level (here tho2ghts are Mall together,M and at a lo(er level (here they are M2nrolled and discrete, as it (ere'M?/ Avicenna, for his part, e*plains that the person in the sit2ation of kno(ing that he can ans(er a J2estion before artic2lating the ans(er already possesses kno(ledge in Ma si1ple 1odeM before beginning to 1ake his ans(er, and as he proceeds to the artic2lation he recasts his kno(ledge in Manother 1ode'M The si1ple 1ode of kno(ledge belongs to (hat Avicenna here calls the Mabsol2te intellect2al fac2lty of the so2l,M or Mthe si1ple '' ' intellect,M or the Mfac2lty of abstract intellect'M That fac2lty Mis e1anatedM fro1 the active intellect (hen 1an establishes MconG2nctionM (ith the active intellect and is pres21ably identical (ith (hat Avicenna else(here calls Mthe light of the active intellect in 2s'M?; Khen 1an is in the first 1ode, he is th2s in conG2nction (ith the active intellect and receives its e1anation' Tho2ghts (ithin the absol2te, or si1ple, or abstract, intellect2al fac2lty are not differentiated' They are M2nitary,M (ith Mno seJ2ence of one for1 after another'M Tho2ght in the absol2te intellect2al fac2lty hence rese1bles tho2ght belonging to the Mactive QcelestialR intelligences'M?@ Above, p' />' 0elo(, p' .;' ?@ "' Rah1an, ,rophecy in Isla1 9 ondon -.>A: ;/8;;, J2otes Avicenna, ShifdI< %e ani1a /@;, as stating< MThis creative kno(ledge 9i'e' the active intellect: belongs to the absol2tely noetic fac2lty of the so2l rese1bling the 9e*ternal: Active Intelligences''''M The parentheses and italics are Rah1anIs' Rah1an concl2des fro1 his reading of the passage that Avicenna located the active intellect (ithin the h21an so2l and he even s2b1its that AvicennaIs theory of Mint2itive religio2s cognition de1ands that the creative principle of kno(ledge be in the 1ind as a part of it'M The sentence that Rah1an J2otes fro1 Avicenna sho2ld, ho(ever, be translated as follo(s< 3no(ledge in the Msi1pleM 1ode Mis kno(ledge that prod2ces the thing (e call cogitative kno(ledge' ''' It belongs to the absol2te intellect2al fac2lty of the so2l, Qthe fac2ltyR rese1bling the active intelligences'M In other (ords, the absol2te intellect2al fac2lty of the h21an so2l, (hich e1anates fro1 the active intellect, brings kno(ledge in the first or si1ple 1ode, that is to say, 2ndifferentiated kno(ledgeH and fro1 2ndifferentiated kno(ledge there derives kno(ledge in the second 1ode, that is to say, differentiated, or cogitative, kno(ledge' Altho2gh the absol2te intellect2al fac2lty that e1anates fro1 the active intellect and the 2ndifferentiated kno(ledge it carries are located by Avicenna (ithin the h21an so2l, Avicenna in no (ay (rites or inti1ates that the active intellect itself is present in the so2l' $or is there anything in the Arabic te*t of Avicenna to G2stify the e*pression Mcreative kno(ledgeM in Rah1anIs translation' Rah1an proceeds to J2ote "i Ithbat al8 $2b2((dt, a (ork attrib2ted to Avicenna, (hich in an old printed edition ter1s the highest h21an intellect2al Mfac2ltyM< Mactive intellect'M And Rah1an again concl2des that Avicenna located the active intellect in the h21an so2l' The editor of the recent critical edition of "i Ithbat al8$2b2((at has, ho(ever, chosen a better 1an2script reading, according to (hich Avicenna, or (hoever the a2thor (as, ter1s the highest h21an fac2lty MacJ2ired intellectM and not Mactive intellect'M See "t Ithbat al8 $2b2((at, 9n' >7 above: @;H English translation --@' "l Ithbat al8$2b2((at @@, English translation --@, calls the transcendent being that leads the h21an intellect to act2ality Mthe 2niversal intellect, the 2niversal
?; ?/
./
The absol2te intellect2al fac2lty appears in the so2l thro2gh an e1anation fro1 the active intellectH and a second Me1anationM there2pon flo(s fro1 the absol2te fac2lty, an e1anation beginning and ter1inating (ithin the so2l' M"or1sM no( Me1anateM in a MdifferentiatedM 1ode, and the MseJ2ential arrange1entM pec2liar to h21an disco2rse is born' In acJ2iring tho2ght, then, 1an first establishes conG2nction (ith the active intellect, (hich e1anates the absol2te fac2ltyH differentiated for1s there2pon e1anate M2pon the so2lM fro1 the absol2te fac2lty already in the so2l' The person (ho is confident that he can ans(er a J2estion before having artic2lated the ans(er has entered the first phase' In artic2lating his ans(er, he passes to the second'?> The innovation that h21an tho2ght is e1anated in t(o phases is not integrated (ith (hat Avicenna (rites else(here on the s2bGect of h21an tho2ght' Avicenna does not e*plain (hether at the stage of intellect in habit2, (hich consists in a perfect disposition for thinking the first principles of tho2ght, and at the stage of act2al intellect, (hich consists in a perfect disposition for a f2ll corp2s of tho2ghts, even the first e1anation, the one containing 2ndifferentiated tho2ght, disappears fro1 the so2l (hen 1an is not act2ally thinking or on the verge of thinking' The 1ore pla2sible reading of Avicenna (o2ld be that both phases disappear fro1 the so2l (hen 1an is not act2ally thinking, so that a 1an 12st reestablish conG2nction (ith the active intellect and receive the first as (ell as the second phase of e1anation every ti1e he recalls a tho2ght previo2sly learned' Avicenna also does not correlate his theory of the t(o phases (ith his conception of acJ2ired intellectH pres21ably, since acJ2ired intellect is act2al tho2ght, it is the end res2lt of both phases' As (e shall see presently, the cogitative fac2lty of the so2l plays a central role in h21an tho2ght, and it (ill be possible to infer, altho2gh Avicenna does not say so e*plicitly, that the cogitative fac2lty perfor1s a role in both phases' Avicenna hi1self recogniEes that the notion of t(o phases in the e1anation of tho2ght is proble1atic' He co11ents regarding the first phase< MHo( it is possible for the rational so2l to possess a principle that is not the so2l and that has kno(ledge distinct fro1 the so2lIs kno(ledge, is a s2bGect for spec2lation,M (hich everyone M12st 2nderstand fro1 QhisR o(n so2l Qor< fro1 9hi1:selfR'M "2rther< MIt is a (onder that (hen so1eone ' ' ' begins differentiating to another (hat occ2rred to hi1 instantaneo2sly, the person, in the very co2rse of instr2cting Qthe otherR, learns the kno(ledge in the second QdifferentiatedR 1ode'M?7 To ill2strate the (ay in (hich the h21an intellect attains tho2ght, Avicenna deploys several analogies, and the analogy he ret2rns to 1ost freJ2ently is that of light' ike the s2n, (hich is Messentially visible,M the active intellect, he (rites, is Messentially intelligible'M In vision, a ray of light fro1 the s2n MconGoinsM (ith so2l, and the (orld8so2l'M Khether or not one accepts the attrib2tion to Avicenna, the co1position has to be read as a (atered8do(n version of AvicennaIs philosophic theories' ?> Shifa< %e ani1a /@/8@?' ?7 Ibid' /@;'
Avicenna on E1anation, the Active Intellect, and H21an Intellect .;
Mcolors that are potentially visibleM and (ith the h21an po(er of sight, (hich is also potential' The for1er there2pon Mbeco1e act2ally visible,M and the latter Mact2ally sees'M MAnalogo2sly, a po(er e1anates fro1 the active intellect and travels to the potentially intelligible things in the i1aginative fac2lty QashydI 12takhayyalaH properly< in the co1positive i1aginative fac2ltyR in order to render the1 act2ally intelligible and to render the potential intellect act2al intellect'M?? Abstract concepts res2lt< MKhen the intellect2al fac2lty gaEes on partic2lars in the i1agination QkhayalH properly< in the retentive i1aginationR and the light of the active intellect in 2s shines on the1,''' they beco1e abstracted fro1 1atter and its conco1itants and are i1printed in the rational so2l'M?A The co1parison of the active intellect to the s2n recalls the for12lations of the light analogy in AlfarabiIs (orksH and in the version of AlfarabiIs Risdla fi al8cAJl, concepts are (hat the lightlike e1anation fro1 the active intellect enables the h21an intellect to abstract fro1 1atter'?. Avicenna e1ploys the analogy beca2se it had beco1e co11on, b2t in his fra1e(ork, it is no longer apt' His position is not in fact that the e1anation fro1 the active intellect enables the h21an intellect to abstract concepts fro1 i1ages presented by the i1aginative fac2lty, G2st as the eye sees colors that are ill21ined by the rays of the s2n' Intelligible tho2ghts, he has 1aintained, flo( directly fro1 the active intellect and are not abstracted at all' He therefore has to J2alify the analogy< I1ages are transfor1ed into 2niversal concepts Mnot in the sense that they are the1selves transported fro1 the i1agination Qtakhayy2lH properly< the co1positive i1aginationR to the h21an intellect,' ' ' b2t in the sense that e*a1ining the1 prepares the so2l for the abstract QconceptR to e1anate 2pon it fro1 the active intellect'M MThe light of the active intellect enters into a kind of conG2nction (ithM the rational so2l 9alternative translation< it enters into a kind of conG2nction (ith for1s in the i1aginative fac2lty:H and the rational fac2lty thereby Mbeco1es disposed for abstractions of for1s Qthat are fo2nd in the i1agination 9khayaliyyaH properly< the retentive i1agination:R to be generated in it Qthat is, in the rational fac2ltyR fro1 the light of the active intellect'MA6 Activity leading 2p to the ostensible act of abstraction th2s does not co1e to fr2ition in a tr2e act of abstraction' It rather prepares the (ay for the reception of abstract concepts fro1 the e1anation of the active intellect' Avicenna has t(o additional analogies, and they fit his theory of h21an tho2ght better' One is a 1edical variation of the analogy of light and vision, and the other is the analogy of the 1irror kno(n fro1 ,lotin2s'A- Avicenna co1pares the preparation of the h21an intellect for receiving intellect2al tho2ght to Mtreat1entM of $aGdt -.;H English translation 7.' ShifaI< %e ani1a /;>' The discrepancy in assigning the sa1e role to the co1positive i1agination in one passage and to the retentive i1agination in another (ill be taken 2p belo(' ?. Above, pp' >-, 7A, 7.' A6 ShifaI< %e ani1a /;>8;7' Cf' Isharat 9n' 7 above: -/.H M2bahathat 9n' ;/ above: /;.' A- Above, p' />' ?A -?
.@
the eye' Once treat1ent has 1ade the eye Mhealthy,M the eye does not of co2rse al(ays see, yet it has the ability to see at (ill' Si1ilarly, to train the intellect is to bring it to one of the stages of advanced potentiality, in (hich it can reestablish MconG2nctionM (ith the active intellect at (ill'A/ In the other analogy, the h21an intellect, once it has the ability to think, is like a 1irror' Khen the intellect faces the active intellect, a tho2ght is reflected in it, (hile if it t2rns a(ay to other affairs it loses the reflection'A; Res21e' The h21an so2l, Avicenna proves, is an incorporeal s2bstance, received by a properly prepared portion of 1atter fro1 the ever8present e1anation of the active intellect' The active intellect is also the so2rce of abstract concepts, theoretical propositions e1bodying the first principles of tho2ght, and other propositions that Avicenna does not spell o2t precisely' H21an kno(ledge pertaining to the practical do1ain does not co1e fro1 the active intellect' At the o2tset, the so2l possesses a blank 1aterial intellect, (hich is an 2nJ2alified potentiality and e1pty disposition for intelligible tho2ght' In order to gain act2al intelligible tho2ghts, 1an, or the h21an so2l, or the h21an potential intellect, 12st conGoin (ith the active intellect and receive the active intellectIs e1anation' Khen a 1an progresses to the level (here he has learned the first principles of tho2ght b2t is not act2ally thinking the1 at the 1o1ent, he has attained the stage of intellect in habit2' Khen he goes on to the level (here he has a f2ll repertoire of concepts and derivative scientific propositions, again (itho2t thinking the1 at the 1o1ent, he has attained act2al intellectH act2al intellect, despite the na1e, is an advanced stage of potentiality' Since both intellect in habit2 and act2al intellect res2lt fro1 thinking act2al tho2ghts and placing the1 in oneIs repertoire, both res2lt fro1 the active intellectIs e1anation' All act2al intelligible tho2ght, that is, all acJ2ired intellect, is also of co2rse received fro1 the active intellectIs e1anation' The active intellect is th2s the so2rce of the tho2ght constit2ting all the stages and states of h21an intellect' The repertoires of tho2ght at the stages of intellect in habit2 and act2al intellect are not stored in the h21an so2l or any(here in the h21an organis1' Saying that a 1an has a repertoire of tho2ghts conseJ2ently does not 1ean that the tho2ghts are in any (ay in hi1 b2t rather that he can reestablish conG2nction (ith the active intellect vis a vis the given tho2ghts at (illH a perfect disposition for obtaining the tho2ghts fro1 the active intellect has s2perseded the e1pty disposition' ang2age to the effect that 1an abstracts tho2ght or that the light of the active intellect transfor1s potential tho2ghts into act2al tho2ghts is also not to be taken literally, for the act2al tho2ghts in fact co1e fro1 the e1anation of the active intellect'
A/ A;
ShifaI<%e ani1a/@-' Ishdrdt -/.'
.>
I1agination, Cogitation, Insight Aristotle had (ritten that the h21an intellect Mthinks the for1s in the i1agesM contained (ithin the h21an i1aginative fac2lty'A@ His intent, (e 1ay ass21e, (as that the i1aginative fac2lty of the so2l presents i1ages to the h21an intellect, and the h21an intellect takes hold of for1s it discovers in those i1ages' 0y AvicennaIs ti1e, the n21ber of internal senses of the h21an so2l had gro(n, and Avicenna en21erates at least five internal senses, incl2ding both a retentive i1aginative fac2lty and a co1positive i1aginative fac2lty' The retentive i1aginative fac2lty receives and preserves i1ages fro1 the sens2s co112nis, the fac2lty coordinating percepts reported by the five e*ternal senses' The co1positive i1aginative fac2lty Mco1bines i1ages in the retentive i1agination (ith one another and disasse1bles the1, at (ill'MA> Avicenna has been seen to state both that 1an receives intelligible tho2ghts directly fro1 the active intellect (hen his intellect2al fac2lty is prepared by the the conte*t (here the second state1ent (as 1ade, he f2rther (rites both that e*a1ining i1ages in the Mco1positive i1aginationM prepares the intellect to receive tho2ghts fro1 the active intellect, and again that the rational fac2lty receives the Mabstractions o f ' ' ' for1s Qof i1agesRM that are fo2nd in the Mretentive i1agination'MA? If I have translated the ter1s correctly, he th2s so1eti1es describes h21an tho2ght as e1anating fro1 the active intellect (hen the retentive i1agination presents i1ages to the h21an intellect, and at other ti1es, (hen the co1positive i1agination does so' Avicenna (as, ho(ever, freJ2ently inconsistent been careless (ith ter1inology, and in the present instance, the ter1s retentive i1agination and co1positive i1agination 1ay refer to only a single fac2lty'A. As (e shall see, the fac2lty (o2ld be the co1positive i1agination' At all events, AvicennaIs position is that the intellect does not e*tract for1s fro1 i1ages, b2t that the i1aginative fac2ltyBCDor fac2ltiesBCDpresents i1ages to the h21an intellect and thereby MpreparesM the h21an intellect for receiving tho2ghts fro1 the e1anation of the active intellect'.6 Khen Avicenna goes 1ore f2lly into the technicalities of the internal sensesI part in h21an intelligible tho2ght, he e1ploys yet another ter1 and na1es the Above, p' -.' Kolfson 9n' 77 above: /?@8??H ShifaI< %e ani1a @@8@>' A7 Above, p' .;' A? IShifa < %e ani1a /;>' AA Kolfson 9n' 77 above: /??8A-' A. A' !oichon, e*iJ2e de la lang2e philosophiJ2e dIIbn Slnd 9,aris -.;A: --A8-., also ass21es that Avicenna is not caref2l in 2sing the ter1s' .P M2bahathat 9n' ;/ above: /;/' See above, p' /A' A> A@
Mco1positive i1aginative fac2ltyM 9ashyaI 12takhayyala: and that it receives tho2ghts (hen it MgaEes on partic2lars in the retentive i1agination QkhaydlR'MS7 In
in handling the internal fac2lties of the so2l'AA He 1ay, therefore, 1erely have
.7
In doing so, he introd2ces precision, not additional inconsistency' As he e*plains in his treat1ent of the internal senses, the sa1e internal sense is Mcalled co1positive i1aginative fac2lty Q12takhayyilaR in reference to the ani1al so2l, and cogitative
cogitative fac2lty 912fakkira,fikrd: as the internal sense perfor1ing the key role'
fac2lty in reference to the h21an so2l'M.- Cogitative fac2lty is si1ply the e*act ter1 for the co1positive i1agination in 1an' Khether in ani1al or 1an, the fac2lty in J2estion (orks on i1ages in the retentive i1agination, disasse1bling and co1bining the1 to fashion ne( config2rations' It operates thro2gh a MventricleM of the brain./ and 2ndergoes M1ove1ent'M.; It is therefore a physical fac2lty, not an Mintellect2al fac2lty,M.@ and its activity ceases (ith the death of the body'.> The section (here Avicenna disting2ished t(o phases of h21an tho2ght e*plained that in the first phase, the active intellect e1anates an Mabsol2teM or MabstractM intellect, in (hich tho2ght is not differentiated' Tho2ght beco1es differentiated in the second phase, (hich is an e1anation beginning and ending (ithin the so2l' Avicenna states clearly that the second phase co1es abo2t Mthro2gh the 1ediacy of cogitation'M "ro1 the absol2te intellect, (hich had been e1anated in the first phase, the cogitative fac2lty ind2ces the f2rther e1anation of Mdifferentiated for1s,M it p2ts those for1s into Mter1sM 9alfdE:, and it MarrangeQsRM the ter1s in seJ2ences' Since differentiated kno(ledge e1erges thro2gh the 1ediation of the cogitative fac2lty, Avicenna ter1s s2ch kno(ledge Mcogitative,M as distinct fro1 the 2ndifferentiated Msi1ple kno(ledgeM of the first of the t(o phases' Since the so2l possesses differentiated kno(ledge Minsofar as it is so2lMBCD(hereas it receives the first phase not insofar as it is a so2l b2t by virt2e of its intellectBCDhe also calls s2ch kno(ledge Mso2l8kno(ledgeM 9nafsanl:N7 Avicenna also describes cogitation as MseekingM to establish a Mperfect disposition for conG2nction (ith the QactiveR intellect'M.? The conte*t does not take acco2nt of the distinction bet(een t(o phases of h21an tho2ght' 02t if the distinction sho2ld nevertheless be applied, the passage (o2ld have to be taken as referring to the first phase, since that is (here conG2nction (ith the active intellect is established' AvicennaIs position (o2ld accordingly be that the cogitative fac2lty plays a role in both phases' In the first phase, it co1bines and separates i1ages stored (ithin the retentive i1agination and presents its handi(ork to the h21an intellectH it thereby .- ./ .@
Sfa=aI< %e ani1a @>H Ishardt 9n' 7 above: -/>' Ibid' .; Ishardt -/?H M2baliathat /;.' intellect, it is related to the Mintellect in habit2'M
.> .7
M2bahathat /;/' Avicenna also (rites here that (hen the cogitative fac2lty serves the
M2bdhathdt /;- and passi1'
ShifdI< %e ani1a /@-, /@;, /@?' On p' /@-, Avicenna notes that the order in (hich the ter1s of a proposition are arranged can be changed (itho2t affecting the 1eaning' MEvery 1an is an ani1alM see1s different to the Mretentive i1aginationM fro1 Mani1al is predicated of every 1an'M $evertheless, the Mp2re intelligible tho2ght of bothM for12lations is Mthe sa1e'M .? M2bahathal -..H Shifa < %e ani1a /@?'
.?
prepares the so2l for conGoining (ith the active intellect and receiving the active intellectIs e1anation' In the second phase, it ind2ces an additional e1anation (ithin the so2l, an e1anation in (hich tho2ghts are differentiated, artic2lated, and arranged seJ2entially' Avicenna f2rther (rites that once the cogitative fac2lty has enabled the so2l to conGoin (ith the active intellect vis a vis a given tho2ght, the so2l can ret2rn and MconGoin (henever it (ishes'MVA The so2l does not have to resort to i1ages and the 2se of the cogitative fac2lty in order to reestablish conG2nction and rethink the given tho2ght'M Ke can only conGect2re (hether those state1ents sho2ld apply to both phases of e1anation or only the first' Cogitation helps 1an progress beyond the stage of 1aterial intellect to the s2bseJ2ent stages' I did not find Avicenna e*pressly assigning the cogitative fac2lty a part in for1ing the stage of potentiality called intellect in habit2, b2t its role is i1plied, since the cogitative fac2lty enables 1an to crystalliEe tho2ghts o2t of the e1anation of the active intellect, and intellect in habit2 is a basic repertoire of h21an tho2ghts' The repertoire of tho2ghts constit2ting intellect in habit2 co1prises Mfirst intelligibles,M that is, propositions e1bodying the first principles of tho2ght' MThro2gh the cogitative fac2ltyM 1an there2pon b2ilds on the first intelligibles and Mattains the second QintelligiblesR,M (hich are derivative scientific propositionsH and, (e have seen, the cogitative fac2lty also differentiates concepts o2t of the e1anation of the active intellect' Since the advanced stage of potentiality called Mact2al intellectM consists in a repertoire of derivative propositions and of concepts, the cogitative fac2lty hence helps bring 1an to that stage' Khen Avicenna (rote that Mcogitation seeksM to establish a Mperfect disposition for conG2nction (ith the QactiveR intellect,M he co2ld have had in vie( its role in for1ing either act2al intellect or intellect in habit2, each of (hich is a perfect disposition for a certain corp2s of tho2ght' "inally, by helping 1an receive both propositions and concepts fro1 the active intellect, the cogitative fac2lty leads 1an to the condition of MacJ2ired intellectM as (ellH for acJ2ired intellect consists in the act2al tho2ght of propositions and concepts'-66 The cogitative fac2lty, then, assists 1an to attain the stage of intellect in habit2, the stage of act2al intellect, and the condition of acJ2ired intellect' A co1position considered to be an early (ork of AvicennaIs contended that the concl2sions of de1onstrations are received by the h21an intellect directly fro1 the active intellect'-6- 02t Avicenna 1ore freJ2ently credits the cogitative fac2lty (ith the for12lation of the concl2sions of syllogis1s, at least in the ordinary co2rse of things' The so2l, he (rites, arrives at the concl2sion of a syllogis1 (hen the cogitative fac2lty differentiates the M1iddle ter1M o2t of the e1anation of the active .Albid' ..Ans(er to a J2estion addressed to Avicenna by 0ir2ni, RasaIit Ibn Slnd /, ed' H' &lken 9Istanb2l -.>;: ;H identical (ith M2bahathat //?8/A' Cf' ShifdI< %e ani1a //;H $aGdt -A;H English translation >7H Ishdrat -?7' l66 Isharat -/78/?' -6Above, p' AA'
.A
intellect-6/ and Mco1binesM the syllogis1Is co1ponents'-6; He apparently 1eans that the h21an so2l starts, for e*a1ple, (ith the concepts 1an and 1ortalBCDor 1ortalityH those are concepts that (ere earlier crystalliEed o2t of the e1anation of the active intellect thro2gh the 1ediacy of the cogitative fac2lty' Khen the so2l (ants to fra1e a syllogis1, the cogitative fac2lty presents a ne( i1age, thereby preparing the so2l to again receive the e1anation of the active intellect, altho2gh ho( the cogitative fac2lty kno(s (hich i1age to present is not clear' The cogitative fac2lty differentiates the concept ani1al, (hich can serve as a 1iddle ter1, o2t of the active intellectIs e1anation' And the sa1e fac2lty for12lates the syllogis1< all 1en are ani1als, and so forth' Avicenna (rites that he (as Masked ''' ho( error can occ2rM in reasoning if cogitation does nothing 1ore than prepare the so2l for conGoining (ith the active intellect' The foregoing acco2nt of the role of the cogitative fac2lty provides the ans(er' MConG2nctionM (ith the active intellect is indeed the so2rce of Mthe ter1s and concepts,M incl2ding Mthe 1iddle Qter1R'M Error therefore does not occ2r in the concepts' 02t Mco1biningM the co1ponents into a syllogis1 is the task of the cogitative fac2lty, (hich Mso1eti1es does (ell, so1eti1es ill'M-6@ Since the cogitative fac2lty, a physical fac2lty of the so2l, co1bines the ter1s into propositions and the propositions into a syllogis1, it and not the active intellect is responsible for the concl2sion, and it can 1ake 1istakes'-6> The cogitative fac2lty, in s21, resides in the brain, and is a physical, not a p2rely intellect2al, fac2lty' Khen the so2l (ants to think a certain tho2ght, the cogitative fac2lty 12st present an appropriate i1age, an i1age that (ill prepare the so2l for conG2nction (ith the active intellect' The so2l is thereby able to receive the active intellectIs e1anation and think the given tho2ght' Khere Avicenna disting2ishes t(o phases of h21an tho2ght, the cogitative fac2lty effects the second phase by differentiating concepts o2t of the first phase and by arranging the1 in seJ2encesH and his state1ents abo2t the cogitative fac2ltyIs role in establishing conG2nction (ith the active intellect indicate that cogitation is the 1edi21 in the first phase too' A1ong the tho2ghts the cogitative fac2lty differentiates o2t of the active intellectIs e1anation are the 1iddle ter1s of syllogis1s' After discovering the 1iddle ter1, the cogitative fac2lty co1bines concepts into propositions and propositions into syllogis1s' 0eing a physical fac2lty, it can err' 0y assisting 1an to establish contact (ith the active intellect, differentiating o2t concepts, and p2tting together syllogis1s thro2gh (hich f2rther propositions can be inferred, it 1akes possible the progress fro1 one stage of intellect to the ne*t' 02t once the h21an intellect has entered conG2nction (ith the active intellect and learned a tho2ght, the
K/
rsharat -/?H M2bahathat -..' M2bahathdt -..' -6@ Ibid' The t(o phases in tho2ght
disc2ssed above 1ay be i1plied here' -6> Cf' Aristotle, %e ani1a ;'7'@;6b, /78;6' K;
..
intellect no longer needs the cogitative fac2lty to reestablish conG2nction (ith the active intellect in order to rethink the tho2ght' $ot(ithstanding its centrality in h21an tho2ght, cogitation can be partly or (holly dispensed (ith' The Arabic translation of AristotleIs ,osterior Analytics -';@'A.b, -6, reads< MP2ick8(it QdhakaIH is a certain fineness of insight Qh2sn hads, for seeking o2t 1iddle Qter1sR in no ti1e'M-67 Avicenna si1ilarly co11ents that MJ2ick8(itM 9dhakaI: is Mstrength of insight QhadsR'M-6- Of the t(o concepts, J2ick (it and insight, the latter attracted AvicennaIs attention, and he depicts it as a nat2ral aptit2de (hich in so1e 1en replaces cogitation' 0eca2se of AristotleIs definition in the ,osterior Analytics, Avicenna connects insight partic2larly (ith the 1iddle ter1s of syllogis1s, and his state1ents do not har1oniEe co1pletely' Several passages contrast the ability of insight to help 1an obtain 1iddle ter1s (ith the ability of cogitation to do so' The passage 1aking the contrast 1ost f2lly begins< MSecondM intelligible tho2ghts belonging to the stage of Mact2al intellectM are inferred fro1 Mthe first intelligible tho2ghtsM belonging to the stage of Mintellect in habit2M in one of t(o (ays, either by Mcogitation,M (hich is M(eaker,M or by Minsight,M (hich is Mstronger'M Avicenna elaborates< MCogitation is a certain 1ove1ent of the so2l a1ong notions Q1acdniR,M and especially a1ong those fo2nd M(ithin the i1aginative fac2lty Qtakhayy2l, (hich properly 1eans co1positive i1aginationR'M MIt Qeither the so2l or cogitationR seeksM there the M1iddle ter1,M or M(hat is analogo2s toM the 1iddle ter1' The phrase (hat is analogo2s to the 1iddle ter1 is s2rely added by Avicenna beca2se the 1iddle ter1 of a syllogis1 is, in fact, an abstract concept e1anated fro1 the active intellect, rather than an i1age to be discovered in one of the i1aginative fac2lties' The cogitative fac2lty therefore does not strictly find the 1iddle ter1 b2t instead seeks an i1age that (ill prepare the so2l for the e1anation of the 1iddle ter1 fro1 the active intellect' Thro2gh the 1iddle ter1, the passage contin2es, Mkno(ledge of (hat is 2nkno(nM can be gained' That is to say, once the 1iddle ter1 is differentiated o2t of the e1anation of the active intellect, the so2l can fra1e a syllogis1 and dra( a ne( scientific concl2sion' MSo1eti1es itMBCDthe so2l or cogitationBCDMs2cceedsM in its search for the 1iddle ter1H Mso1eti1es it falls short'M MInsight,M in contrast to cogitation, is the ability to bring forth both Mthe 1iddle ter1M and the concl2sion of the syllogis1 Minstantaneo2sly, either thro2gh seeking and desire, b2t (itho2t 1ove1ent,M or else M(itho2t either desire or 1ove1ent'M-6A The 1an of insight does not, in other (ords, need i1ages in order to prod2ce the 1iddle ter1 of a syllogis1 and the -67 Medieval Arabic translation of the Organon, ed' A' 0ada(i 9Cairo -.@A8-.>/: /'@67' AristotleIs definition is paraphrased in Alfarabi, "2siil al8Mada1, ed' %' %2nlop 9Ca1bridge -.7-: 4T@7' -6? ShifdI< %e ani1a /@.H $aGdt -7?H English translation ;7' A si1ilar definition is given in $aGat A?' -6A Isharat -/78/?' A translation of this and other passages on the s2bGect of insight is given by !2tas 9n' above: -7-877'
-66
syllogis1 itself'-6. A person (ith the highest degree of insight is said to have the Mholy fac2lty Qor< holy po(erR'M--6 In a different (ork, Avicenna si1ilarly (rites that 1an MlearnsM Mthe 1iddle ter1M of a syllogis1 in Mt(o (ays'M One (ay, that of cogitation, consists in MseekingM and Mr211agingM thro2gh i1agesH the second, the (ay of Minsight,M is Mhaving the 1iddle ter1 occ2r to 1ind (itho2t seekingM it'--Still another passage 1akes no 1ention of cogitation, altho2gh its role in h21an tho2ght had been disc2ssed a fe( pages earlier in the sa1e book' Here Avicenna (rites< MThe 1iddle ter1 Qof a syllogis1R arrives in t(o (ays'M One (ay, that of Minsight,M occ2rs (hen the M1ind Qdhihn] e*tracts the 1iddle ter1 fro1 itself'M The second is the conveying of the 1iddle ter1 by a teacher thro2gh Minstr2ction'M In both instances, Avicenna contends, incl2ding the instance (here the 1iddle ter1 is trans1itted fro1 teacher to st2dent, either the teacher giving instr2ction or so1eone standing earlier in the chain of teachers 12st have discovered the 1iddle ter1 by Minsight'M Insight is therefore the 2lti1ate so2rce of the 1iddle ter1s of all syllogis1s'--/ In still one 1ore conte*t, (here the topic is logical ter1inology rather than h21an intellect, Avicenna states< MInsight is a 1ove1ent to(ard attaining the 1iddle ter1, (hen the s2bGect of inJ2iry has been laid do(n, or to(ard attaining the 1aGor ter1 Qand concl2sion of the syllogis1R, (hen the 1iddle ter1 has been obtained' In general, it is rapidity in proceeding fro1 so1ething kno(n to so1ething 2nkno(n'M--; In the passages J2oted so far, insight enters the scene and 1akes its contrib2tion after 1an possesses the first principles of tho2ght constit2ting intellect in habit2< Thro2gh insight, 1an goes beyond the first principles and derives fro1 the1 a body of syllogistic kno(ledge' In other passages, Avicenna offers a different characteriEation of insight, one that recogniEes for insight a f2nction in all h21an intellect2al activity, incl2ding the so2lIs initial 1ove1ent fro1 the stage of 1aterial intellect to the stage of intellect in habit2' He portrays insight as an e*ceptional facility for establishing conG2nction (ith the active intellect and receiving intelligible tho2ght' The h21an 1aterial intellect, as (as seen, is an 2nJ2alified potentiality and e1pty disposition for tho2ght, and 1an progresses beyond the initial e1pty disposition by establishing conG2nction (ith the active intellect' As 1an progresses, his ability to reestablish conG2nction (ith the active intellect at (ill gro(s, and the s2bseJ2ent stages of intellect, called RasdIil ibn Slna / 9n' .. above: ;' lsharat -/?' lll M2bahathat /;-' --/ ShifdI< %e ani1a /@.H $aGdt -7?H English translation ;7' In $aGdt A?, Avicenna defines dhihn as Ma po(er Qor< fac2ltyR belonging to the so2l and disposed for attaining kno(ledge'M See also !oichon 9n' A. above: -;/8;;, The Arabic translation of ,osterior Analytics -';;'A.b, ?, 2ses the ter1 dhihn to render see the Arabic translation of the Organon 9n' -67 above: /'@67' --; $aGat A?' Sec also M2bdhathdt /;/' i( -6.
Avicenna on E1anation, the Active Intellect, and H21an Intellect -6- intellect in habit2 and act2al intellect, are therefore MperfectM dispositions for s1aller or larger repertoires of tho2ght' Ordinarily, the cogitative fac2lty 12st labor to effect the first episode of conG2nction vis a vis any given tho2ght, (here2pon reestablishing conG2nction beco1es easy' 02t insight, Avicenna no( (rites, is Ma po(erf2l dispositionM for establishing conG2nction (ith the active intellect (itho2t having done so previo2sly' The 1an of insight, (hen still at the initial stage of M1aterial intellect,M and before ever having established conG2nction (ith the active intellect, already possesses Mas it (ere ''' the second disposition,M the perfect disposition or Mintellect in habit2,M (hich ordinarily only follo(s conG2nction (ith the active intellect and the creation of a basic repertoire of tho2ght' A high degree of insight is ter1ed Mholy intellect'M--@ In the sa1e vein, altho2gh (ith less precision, still one 1ore passage describes insight as Ma divine e1anation and intellect2al conG2nction,M (hich is reached M(itho2t effort QkasbR'M In this last conte*t Avicenna na1es a high degree of insight Mthe po(er Qor< fac2ltyR of QaR holy so2l'M--> If (e co1bine AvicennaIs state1ents on insightBCDand set aside the passage saying that all 1iddle ter1s kno(n by 1an are 2lti1ately traceable to insight as (ell as the passage that calls insight a M1ove1entMBCD(e find< At the o2tset, insight per1its the so2l to establish conG2nction (ith the active intellect (itho2t the effort reJ2ired (hen conG2nction is established thro2gh cogitation' Cogitation 12st labor to effect the first conG2nction (ith the active intellect vis a vis a given tho2ght, and then, after conG2nction has been established once, the so2l can reestablish conG2nction vis a vis the tho2ght (itho2t resorting to cogitation again' 02t the first episode of conG2nction (ith the active intellect, (hich cogitation has to (ork for and (hich gives 1an the perfect disposition for reestablishing conG2nction in the f2t2re, is as effortless for the 1an of insight as reestablishing conG2nction is for the 1an lacking the gift' Khile still no1inally at the stage of 1aterial intellect, (hich is ordinarily an e1pty potentiality, the 1an of insight th2s already has a perfect disposition for tho2ght eJ2ivalent to the standard stage of intellect in habit2' Once the 1an of insight does control the principles of tho2ght belonging to the stage of intellect in habit2, his gift enables hi1 to fra1e syllogis1s and infer f2rther propositions (itho2t the effort needed (hen syllogis1s are fra1ed thro2gh cogitation' The cogitative fac2lty has to r211age abo2t for an appropriate i1age, present the i1age to the intellect2al fac2lty, prepare the so2l for conG2nction (ith the active intellect and reception of the active intellectIs e1anation, and differentiate the 1iddle ter1 of a syllogis1 o2t of the e1anation' Insight prod2ces the 1iddle ter1s of syllogis1s instantaneo2sly and (itho2t reco2rse to i1ages, probably beca2se of the perfect disposition for conG2nction (hich it brings the so2l' Cogitation, 1oreover, itself dra(s the concl2sion of the syllogis1, and being a physical fac2lty, is s2bGect to error' Insight, by contrast, receives the concl2sion --@ShifdI< %e ani1a /@AH $aGat -7787?H English translation ;>8;7 9loose:' M2bahathat /;-'
n>
-6/
together (ith the 1iddle ter1, allBCD2ndo2btedlyBCDfro1 the active intellect' Avicenna inti1ates that insight therefore does not err' Sec2ring not 1erely the concl2sion of a syllogis1 b2t the 1iddle ter1 as (ell is essential, for if insight f2rnished the concl2sion (itho2t the rest of the syllogis1, it (o2ld not provide gen2ine scientific kno(ledge'--7 "inally, 1en vary in their degree of insight, and those (ho have it to the highest degree are said to possess a Mholy fac2ltyM or Mholy intellect'M Ke shall see that insight in the s2perlative degree is, for Avicenna, the Mhighest of the po(ers of prophecy'M Res21'7, Cogitation prepares the h21an intellect for receiving the e1anation of the active intellectH it presents an i1age corresponding to the desired abstract tho2ght, and the h21an so2l or h21an intellect is thereby readied to conGoin (ith the active intellect and receive the ever8present e1anation' The process parallels the appearance of nat2ral for1s in the s2bl2nar (orld' L2st as nat2ral forces prepare a portion of 1atter to receive a given for1 fro1 the active intellect, (here2pon the for1 appears a2to1atically, so the cogitative fac2lty prepares the so2l for a given theoretical tho2ght, and the tho2ght is a2to1atically received fro1 the active intellectIs e1anation' After 1an has reached the stage of intellect in habit2, the cogitative fac2lty has the task of preparing the so2l for receiving the 1iddle ter1s of syllogis1s fro1 the active intellectIs e1anation, in order to lead 1an to the ne*t stage' AvicennaIs 2s2al position is that the cogitative fac2lty itself co1bines the ter1s into propositions and the propositions into syllogis1s, and it dra(s the concl2sions' That position is at odds (ith (hat is ass21ed to be an early (ork of AvicennaIs, for there the concl2sions of all de1onstrations are taken to be e1anated fro1 the active intellect' $or does treating certain propositions, incl2ding the concl2sions of syllogis1s, as the handi(ork of the cogitative fac2lty 1esh (ell (ith AvicennaIs insistence that h21an intelligible tho2ght co1es directly fro1 the active intellect' Crediting the cogitative fac2lty (ith the concl2sions of syllogis1s does, ho(ever, e*plain ho( 1istakes can occ2r' Since the concl2sions are for12lated by a physical fac2lty of the so2l and do not co1e fro1 the active intellect, they 1ay go a(ry' Cogitation can be replaced by insight, the gift for establishing conG2nction (ith the active intellect effortlessly and instantaneo2sly' Khen the 1an of insight is still at the stage of 1aterial intellect, he already has Mas it (ereM the intellect in habit2 of ordinary 1en' Once insight has s2pplied the basic principles of tho2ght, it prod2ces both the 1iddle ter1s of syllogis1s and the concl2sions, 2ndo2btedly by enabling the so2l to conGoin effortlessly (ith the active intellect' Avicenna inti1ates that 1en 2sing insight are e*e1pt fro1 the error affecting cogitative reasoning'
n7
Shifa< %e ani1a />6H $aGat -7?87AH English translation ;?'
Avicenna on E1anation, the Active Intellect, and H21an Intellect ConG2nction and I11ortality
-6;
ConG2nction' In Alfarabi, acJ2ired intellect (as the c2l1inating stage of h21an intellect2al develop1ent, and conG2nction (ith the active intellect, the h21an intellectIs cro(ning condition' In Avicenna, by contrast, conG2nction and acJ2ired intellect are J2otidian events< The so2l is in conG2nction (ith the active intellect and possesses acJ2ired intellect (henever a 1an thinks an act2al tho2ght, regardless of (here the 1an stands on the road to intellect2al perfection' The t(o philosophers differ as (ell in that, for Alfarabi, the stage of acJ2ired intellect leads to conG2nction (ith the active intellect, (hereas Avicenna reverses the seJ2ence' He 2nderstands conG2nction (ith the active intellect to be the ca2se, not the res2lt of attaining acJ2ired intellect< Entering into conG2nction (ith the active intellect and receiving the active intellectIs e1anation gives 1an an act2al intelligible tho2ght, and act2al intelligible tho2ght is acJ2ired intellect' As already seen, Avicenna de1onstrates that the J2otidian conG2nction of the h21an intellect (ith the active intellect falls short of tr2e 2nion'--? 0esides applying the ter1 acJ2ired intellect to act2al h21an tho2ght at any level, Avicenna also e1ploys the ter1 in a narro(er sense, (hich approaches AlfarabiIs 2sage' Act2al intellect (as defined by Avicenna as the stage of Mco1plete potentialityM in (hich the so2l has a f2ll repertoire of tho2ghts, is not act2ally thinking the1, b2t can do so at (ill,--A and acJ2ired intellect, in the narro(er acceptation, is act2al h21an tho2ght (hen 1an has that co1plete potentiality' Avicenna 2ndo2btedly had the narro(er acceptation in vie( (hen he (rote< MAt Qthe level ofR acJ2ired intellect, the ani1al gen2s and h21an species are perfected, and the h21an Qintellect2alR fac2lty rese1bles the first principles of all being Qthat is, the incorporeal s2bstancesRMH acJ2ired intellect is the intellectIs MperfectionMH MacJ2ired intellect, or rather holy intellect, is the chief Qfac2lty of the so2lR, (hich all the other fac2lties serve, and it is the 2lti1ate end'M--. In AlfarabiIs acco2nt, again, the so2l at the cro(ning stage of acJ2ired intellect beco1es Mfree of 1atterM and can Mdispense (ith 1atter'M-/6 Avicenna, as G2st seen, 1akes the si1ilar state1ent that (hen the so2l possesses acJ2ired intellect in the narro(er sense, the h21an intellect rese1bles the 1e1bers of the incorporeal real1' In the sa1e vein, he (rites that the h21an so2l can and sho2ld discard its physical fac2lties once its intellect2al fac2lty is perfected' 0efore attaining control of the entire corp2s of possible intelligible tho2ghts, a 1an depends on the e*ternal and internal senses for refining i1ages and presenting the1 to his intellectBCDe*cept of co2rse (here a high degree of insight enables hi1 to do (itho2t i1ages' I1ages, presented by the cogitative fac2lty, prepare the so2l --?
Above, pp' >@,A7' Above, p' A@' --. Above,p' A7' -/6 Above, p' >7' --A
-6@
and the intellect2al fac2lty for conG2nction (ith the active intellect and for receiving the active intellectIs e1anation' 02t after a tho2ght has been learned and added to the so2lIs repertoire, the so2l ordinarily reJ2ires no additional i1ages to reestablish conG2nction (ith the active intellect and rethink the tho2ght, altho2gh Avicenna does append the J2alification that a so2l so1eti1es Mret2rns to the i1aginative fac2ltiesM for help in MstrengtheningM its hold on a tho2ght' As the h21an repertoire of tho2ght gro(s, the so2lIs dependence on the i1aginative fac2lties, the senses, and the body di1inishes' "inally, M(hen the so2l is perfected and po(erf2l, it isolates itself co1pletely in its o(n activityH and the fac2lties of sense perception and i1agination, as (ell as the other bodily fac2lties, Q1erelyR divert it fro1 its QproperR act'M The h21an so2l rese1bles a 1an of affairs (ho needs Ma 1o2nt and gear in order to reach a certain place' Sho2ld he be prevented fro1 disposing of the1 after he arrives, the very 1eans of his arrival (ill hinderM hi1 fro1 cond2cting his b2siness' Analogo2sly, once the h21an so2l arrives at its goal and possesses a f2lly perfected intellect, the physical fac2lties only distract the so2l and intellect fro1 their proper b2siness' They sho2ld be discarded'-/- The h21an so2l possessing acJ2ired intellect in the narro(er acceptation th2s has established conG2nction (ith the active intellect vis a vis every tho2ght and has no f2rther need of its sense fac2lties or indeed of the entire h21an body' Avicenna ass21es that the h21an intellect can ordinarily think no 1ore than one tho2ght at a ti1e'-// The J2estion arises (hether the so2l still thinks no 1ore than one tho2ght at a ti1e, (hen its intellect2al develop1ent is co1plete, or (hether perhaps it can then receive the entire corp2s of possible intelligible tho2ghts, as a single (hole' As far as I co2ld discover, Avicenna does not address the J2estion' He does speak of a sit2ation in (hich the h21an so2l Mis released fro1 the body,M enGoys Mper1anent conG2nctionM (ith the active intellect, beco1es M2nited (ithM the incorporeal region, Menters into the co1panyM of the incorporeal beings, Mbeco1es of the sa1e s2bstanceM as they, and has Mthe intelligible order of all e*istenceM inscribed in it' The last phrase indicates that the entire corp2s of tho2ght available thro2gh the active intellect is no( present to the so2l at onceH and the so2l, (e 1ay s2ppose, thinks the entire corp2s of tho2ght in an 2ndifferentiated 1ode' This per1anent conG2nction (ith the active intellect parallels the conG2nction that Alfarabi spoke of' Avicenna clearly 2nderstands that per1anent conG2nction (ith the active intellect can be achieved after the body dies' He leaves 2nclear, ho(ever, (hether per1anent conG2nction and the ability to think 1ore than a single tho2ght at a ti1e 1ight also be achieved d2ring the life of the body, as Alfarabi held'-/;
Shifa I < %e ani1a //;H $aGat -A; 9te*t2ally inferior to the ShifdI:H English translation >7' The i1age of the rider also appears in M2bahathat /;/' l// Shifa< %e ani1a /@-, /@?' -/; ShifaI< Ilahiyyat 9n' / above: @/>8/7H $aGdt /.;H anda2er, M%ie ,sychologie des Ibn Sina,M 9n' ;6 above: ;?-H !er1an translation @-?'
-/-
-6>
A f2rther e*traordinary intellect2al e*perience a(aits the so2l' Avicenna (rites in one passage that 1an can have Mincorporeal beingsM as an obGect of tho2ght, and in another passage, (hich 1ay si1ply be a 1ore precise for12lation of the first, that 1an can have Mthe active intellectM as an obGect of tho2ght' In the t(o instances, if they are t(o, (hat enters MinM the h21an so2l is not the incorporeal being or the active intellect itself, that is to say, not the Mindivid2al''' essence QhaJiJaRM of the active intellect or of another incorporeal being b2t its Mspecific ' ' ' essenceM and Mnat2re'M-/@ If the h21an intellect had the active intellect in its f2ll individ2ality as an obGect of tho2ght, the h21an intellect (o2ld beco1e co1pletely identical (ith the active intellect, intellect being identical (ith (hatever tho2ght it thinksH and that is an o2tco1e 2nacceptable to Avicenna' Khat the h21an intellect has as obGect of its tho2ght is a si12lacr21, the specific essence, of the active intellect' L2st ho( the specific essence of an incorporeal being can be split off fro1 its individ2al essence is not, ho(ever, e*plained' Avicenna says nothing to s2ggest that having the active intellect and other incorporeal beings as a direct obGect of tho2ght is restricted to the afterlife, yet he also does not e*plain ho( the active intellect or other incorporeal beings 1ight beco1e an obGect of h21an tho2ght in the present life' They co2ld hardly be accessible to h21an tho2ght thro2gh the process (hereby the so2l receives the e1anation of the active intellect (ith the assistance of the cogitative fac2lty' "or certainly no sense i1age presented by the cogitative fac2lty co2ld prepare the h21an intellect for differentiating the essence of the active intellect, or the essence of another incorporeal being, o2t of the active intellectIs e1anation' Ke can only conGect2re ho( and (hen they do beco1e direct obGects of h21an tho2ght, (hether perhaps thro2gh insight alone and (hether only in the afterlife' (ith the active intellect, and tho2ght having the active intellect itself or other incorporeal beings as an obGect, AvicennaBCDlike Alfarabi in his acco2nt of conG2nctionBCDenvisages no gen2inely 1ystical or ecstatic e*perience'-/> M2bahathat -;@, -;>' In an e1bodied being, the specific essence is the for1, and for1 together (ith 1atter constit2te the individ2al' 02t Avicenna does not e*plain ho( the specific essence can differ fro1 the individ2al essence of an incorporeal being' I/> lshardt 9n' 7 above: -.A8/6?, is a high8flo(n description of the 1an (ho is an carif' !oichon 9n' 7 above: @A>8A7, translates the ter1 can=as Mcel2i J2i connait -Ie*tase,M and on pp' @A> and @.?, she translates cirfan, an abstract no2n fro1 the sa1e root, as Mla science secreteM and Mla science 1ystiJ2e'M ' !ardet, a pensee religie2se dIAvicenne 9,aris -.>-: -@?, translates c arif as M-Iinitie o2 gnostiJ2e'M H' Corbin, Avicenna and the #isionary Recital 9$e( )ork -.76: 9translation of Avicenne et le recit visionnaire: /6>, like(ise renders the ter1 as initiate and gnostic' All three discover a f2ll 1ystical doctrine in the chapter of the Isharat' In fact, altho2gh the ter1 carif 1ay carry distinctive overtones in S2fi conte*ts, it si1ply 1eans kno(er, 1an of kno(ledge, and the cognate abstract no2n si1ply 1eans kno(ledge' The Isharat represents the 1an of kno(ledge as 2ndergoing a co2rse of Mtraining,M as devoting hi1self co1pletely to Mthe first tr2thM and t2rning a(ay fro1
the M(orld of falsehood,M as having ever 1ore freJ2ent M1o1entsM of Mintense e*perienceM in (hich the Mlight of the tr2thM shines on hi1, l/@
In treating J2otidian conG2nction (ith the active intellect, per1anent conG2nction
-67
I11ortality' As a r2le, philosophers in the Aristotelian tradition li1ited h21an i11ortality to one or another aspect of the h21an intellect' AlfarabiIs al8Madlna al8 "ddila did ostensibly affir1 the i11ortality of the entire h21an so2l (hose intellect is perfected, b2t there too the tenor of the reasoning is consistent (ith the i11ortality of an aspect of intellect and nothing 1ore' Alfarabi (as th2s probably dissi12lating in al8Madina al8"ddila and, in accord (ith the Aristotelian consens2s, recogniEed the i11ortality of only an aspect of h21an intellect, the aspect he called acJ2ired intellect'-/7 Avicenna takes another tack' He repeatedly and consistently 1aintains that the h21an so2l is an incorporeal s2bstance, that the entity receiving tho2ght fro1 the active intellect is the so2l as a (hole, and that each individ2al h21an so2l is i11ortal by its very nat2re' Avicenna for12lates his arg21ents for i11ortality differently in different (orks' His 1ost co1prehensive for12lation b2ilds on the proposition that the h21an so2l is an incorporeal s2bstance' Kith that proposition as the key pre1ise, he 2ndertakes to establish, first, the specific thesis that the destr2ction of the h21an body does not entail the destr2ction of the h21an so2l, and, secondly, the general thesis that the h21an so2l does not contain Mthe potentiality of being destroyedM and therefore is intrinsically i11ortal' AvicennaIs proof of the key pre1ise in the arg21ent t2rned on the prior pres2pposition that intellect2al tho2ghts, by (hich he 12st have 1eant concepts, are indivisible' His reasoning (as that since intellect2al tho2ghts are indivisible, they can be present only in an indivisible, and hence incorporeal, s2bGectH and since intellect2al tho2ghts 1ake the1selves present in the h21an so2l, the so2l 12st be an incorporeal s2bstance'-/? To establish the first thesis of the arg21ent proper, the thesis that the destr2ction of the body does not entail the destr2ction of the so2l, he disting2ishes the three as finally achieving MarrivalM 9(2s2l, fro1 the sa1e root as ittifal, the ter1 for conG2nction:' Other parts of the Isharat, Incl2ding the disc2ssion of prophecy, (hich is offered side by side (ith the disc2ssion of the carif, restate the positions of AvicennaIs technical philosophic (orks in all2sive lang2age, (itho2t in any (ay altering the s2bstance' There is accordingly no reason to read the chapter on the M1an of kno(ledge,M despite its high8flo(n and 1ystifying diction, as anything other than a description of the philosopher (ho develops his intellect, dispenses (ith his sense fac2lties, and labors to(ard co1plete conG2nction (ith the active intellect' Avicenna 1ay even have been ind2lging in so1e playf2lness' In Isharat -.., i11ediately before the disc2ssion of the 1an of kno(ledge, he 1entions an allegorical tale Mabo2t Sala1an and AbsalMBCDregarding (hich, see Corbin, Avicenna and the #isionary Recital /6@8>BCDand he re1arks that the fig2re of Sala1an represents Myo2rself,M (hile the fig2re of Absal represents Myo2r degree in kno(ledge'''' Then, solve the allegory if yo2 can'M Khere2pon Avicenna la2nches into his acco2nt of the 1an of kno(ledge' He can be read pla2sibly as inviting perspicacio2s readers to MsolveM not only the allegory of Sala1an and Absal, b2t also his o(n all2sive acco2nt of the 1an of kno(ledge, (hich follo(s' -/7 Above, p' >?' l/- ShifdI< %e ani1a /6.8-7'H $aGat -?@8?AH English translation 9n' /7 above: @78>6H Isharat -?7ff'H anda2er M%ie
,sychologic des Ibn SinaM 9n' ;6 above: chap' .'
-6?
conceivable (ays in (hich the relation of the h21an so2l to its body 1ight render the so2l dependent on the body in respect to Me*istence,M and he sho(s that the so2l is not related to the body in any of the three (ays' 9-: So2l and body are not related in s2ch a 1anner that the body is the Mca2seM of the so2lIs e*istence' To be 1ore precise, the h21an body is the ca2se of the e*istence of the so2l in none of the fo2r Aristotelian senses of ca2se' The h21an body is not 9-8a: Mthe efficient ca2seM bringing the h21an so2l into e*istence' "or a Mbody effects nothing insofar as it is a bodyM (itho2t J2alification b2t acts solely thro2gh Maccidents and 1aterial for1sM inhering in it' Accidents and 1aterial for1s are, ho(ever, incapable of bringing abo2t the e*istence of a Mself8s2bsistent s2bstance'M Inas12ch as the h21an so2l is an incorporeal, and hence selfs2bsistent, s2bstance, accidents or 1aterial for1s in a body cannot bring it into e*istence' The body also is not 9-8b: a Mreceptive,M or 1aterial, ca2se of the so2lH for, as Avicenna re1inds 2s, he had earlier Mde1onstratedM that the so2l is not Mi1printedM in the body'-/A To s2ppose that so1ething corporeal, the h21an body, is 9-8c: the Mfor1al ca2se,M or 9-8d: the MfinalM ca2se of the incorporeal so2l (o2ld be prepostero2s' The body th2s is not the ca2se of the e*istence of the so2l in any of the fo2r senses of the ter1' 9/: So2l and body are, 1oreover, not Messentially ' ' ' interdependent for their e*istence'M If they (ere 12t2ally interdependent, Mneither the body nor the so2l (o2ld Qin itselfR be a s2bstance'M M)et they are s2bstances'M Hence they are not interdependent' 9;: "inally, so2l and body are not so related that the e*istence of the so2l is logically, as distinct fro1 ca2sally, dependent on the body' The relationship is not, in other (ords, one in (hich the so2l is the ca2se of the e*istence of the body, (ith the f2rther J2alification that (henever the so2l e*ists, the body perforce e*ists, neither so2l nor body e*isting (itho2t the e*istence of its co2nterpart' Kere so2l and body related in that fashion, the e*istence of the so2l (o2ld logicallyBCDby the r2le of 1od2s tollens-/.BCD be dependent on the e*istence of the body, since (henever the body ceases to e*ist, the so2l (o2ld also perforce cease to e*ist' That body and so2l are not related in s2ch a fashion 1ay be seen fro1 the fact that the body deteriorates and dies thro2gh a MchangeM in its o(n Mco1positionM and not as a res2lt of anything occ2rring in the so2l' The e*istence of the h21an so2l is, in fine, not 9-: ca2sally dependent on the h21an body, 9/: interdependent (ith the e*istence of the body, or 9;: logically dependent on the e*istence of the body' Since the so2l is in no (ay MessentiallyM dependent on the body, it Mdoes not die by Qreason ofR the death of the body'M The h21an body does, of co2rse, play a role in the e1ergence of a h21an so2l, b2t its role lies in deter1ining the Mti1eM (hen a so2l is crystalliEed o2t of the e1anation of the active intellect' The MblendM 91iEaG: of the 1atter constit2ting the h21an body is accordingly an Maccidental ca2se of the so2lMH and (hen an -/A -/.
Cf' above, p' A;' If A, then 0H not 0H therefore not A'
-6A
accidental ca2se ceases to e*ist, (hat has been prod2ced (ith its help does not necessarily cease to e*ist' The circ21stance that Mone thing has to co1e into e*istence together (ith another thingIs co1ing into e*istence does not entail that the for1er cease to e*ist together (ith the latterIs ceasing to e*ist'M-;6 That is AvicennaIs arg21ent for his first thesis, the thesis that the death of the body does not entail the death of the so2l' His second and concl2sive thesis is Mthat no other ca2se (hatsoever can bring abo2t the none*istence of the so2l'M Stated briefly, AvicennaIs contention here is that an obGect no( e*istent (hich is s2bGect to destr2ction in the f2t2re, 12st McontainM t(o characteristics, the Mact2ality of contin2ed e*istenceM and Mthe possibility of being destroyed'M The t(o characteristics are 12t2ally Mopposed,M and Mt(o distinct factorsM in the obGect 12st be responsible for the1' ObGects that e*ist, and yet are s2bGect to destr2ction, are therefore co1posite' Conversely, Msi1ple, incorporeal beings,M (hich are not co1posite, (ill be i112ne to destr2ction' Since the h21an so2l has been sho(n to be a si1ple, incorporeal s2bstance, it is therefore Mnot s2bGect to destr2ction'M-;- Avicenna goes on< The Aristotelian Mde1onstrationM of the r2le that M(hatever is generated (ill 2ndergo destr2ctionM-;/ has no bearing on the concl2sion G2st reached' Aristotle derived the r2le fro1 the consideration that generated obGects have a Mfiniteness of potentiality for contin2ed e*istence'M 02t only obGects Mgenerated o2t of 1atter and for1M have the finite potentiality, and conseJ2ently only they are de1onstrably s2bGect to destr2ction' The Aristotelian r2le cannot apply to the h21an so2l, since the so2l, altho2gh generated, is not a co1po2nd of 1atter and for1'-;; Avicenna ref2ses even to concede that his concl2sion r2ns co2nter to AristotleIs state1ents abo2t h21an i11ortality in the %e ani1a' In %e ani1a /'-, Aristotle had (ritten that Many partM of the so2l (hose Mact2alityM 9or< entelechy is also the act2ality of a part of the body (ill Mplainly ''' be inseparable fro1 the bodyMH b2t Mnothing (ill preventM a part of the so2l (hose Mact2alityM is not the act2ality of a part of the body fro1 separating fro1 the body and s2rviving its death'-;@ Altho2gh the passage certainly appears to e*cl2de the i11ortality of the so2l taken as a (hole, Avicenna reads it as, in fact, endorsing the so2lIs i11ortality' He reasons as follo(s< Khen Aristotle spoke of a part of the so2l that can s2rvive beca2se its act2ality is not the act2ality of the body, he co2ld not have been referring to the active intellect' The active intellect is an eternal incorporeal being and can hardly be described as MpartM ShifaI< %e ani1a //?8;-H $aGat -A>8A?H English translation >A87-' ShifaI< %e ani1a /;-H $aGat -A?H English translation 7-' Avicenna contin2es (ith a very proble1atic arg21ent, the gist of (hich is that even if the h21an so2l (ere ass21ed to be co1po2nd, an 2nderlying s2bstrat21 of the so2l co2ld be isolated (hich is si1ple and hence indestr2ctible' See ShifdI< %e ani1a /;-8;/H $aGat -A?8AAH English translation 7-87;' -;/ See Aristotle, %e caelo -'-/' 1 Shifa< %e ani1a /;;H $aGat -AA8A.H English translation 7;' -;@ %e ani1a /'-'@-;a, @8?' See above, pp' ;@8;>' -- ; l;6
-6.
of the so2l' $or co2ld Aristotle have been referring to the h21an intellect2al fac2lty after it is act2aliEed' "or (hatever is not Mself8s2bsistentM fro1 the start (ill never beco1e so by the addition of an attrib2teH and if the so2l and its intellect2al fac2lty (ere dependent on the body for their e*istence before they possess act2al tho2ght, they (o2ld not be Mtransfor1ed into another s2bstanceM and rendered capable of e*isting independently of the body by virt2e of acJ2iring act2al tho2ght' MThe 1anIs QAristotleIsR positionM 12st therefore be that the h21an Mso2lM itself, the MprincipleM 2nderlying Mall the other fac2lties of the so2l, is (hat s2rvives and separates Qfro1 the bodyR'M The parts of the so2l characteriEed by Aristotle as inseparable fro1 the body (o2ld, accordingly, not strictly be parts, Aristotle hi1self having Mvie(ed the so2l as oneM and free of parts, b2t rather fac2lties that beco1e inoperative (hen their physical organs disappear'-;> H21an so2ls are, then, i11ortal' Avicenna f2rther 1aintains that so2ls retain their individ2ality in the state of i11ortality, and he ref2tes the doctrine of trans1igration' He contends that so2ls are differentiated fro1 one another beca2se an individ2al body 12st al(ays e*ist as the occasion for the e1anation of a so2l fro1 the active intellectH and the original differentiation (ill carry over into the state of i11ortality'-;7 A si1ilar proposition (as p2t for(ard in AlfarabiIs al8 Madina al8"ddila b2t lost its force inas12ch as other theses endorsed in al8Madlna al"adila can acco11odate i11ortality solely of the h21an intellect, not, ho(ever, the i11ortality of the so2l as a (hole, let alone the i11ortality of individ2al so2ls'-;? Avicenna disproves trans1igration by reasoning< Trans1igrating so2ls (o2ld have to attach the1selves to bodies disposed to receive the1' )et (henever a portion of 1atter is capable of receiving a so2l, it receives one spontaneo2sly and necessarily fro1 the active intellectIs e1anation' The doctrine of trans1igration th2s carries the abs2rd i1plication that a single body (o2ld have t(oBCDor 1oreBCD so2ls, the so2l e1anated by the active intellect and the trans1igrating so2l or so2ls'-;A Khereas Alfarabi sa( i11ortality as a conco1itant of the stage of acJ2ired intellect, Avicenna has 1aintained that the h21an so2l is i11ortal by its very nat2re, apart fro1 a 1anIs intellect2al develop1ent' $evertheless, altho2gh intellect2al develop1ent does not lead to i11ortality, it plays a decisive role in i11ortality for Avicenna as (ell' It deter1ines (hich of several grades of i11ortality each so2l attains' perfect disposition for intellect2al tho2ght in the present life' A so2l of that rank, as !losses on AristotleIs %e ani1a, inArist2 cinda al8cArab 9n' ;/ above: .;8.@' See also M2bahathat 9n' ;/ above: -/6' l;7 ShifaI< %e ani1a //>H $aGat -A@H English translation >AH cf' M2bahathat //;' -;? Cf' above, pp' >78>?' -;A Shifa < %e ani1a /;;8;@H $aGat -A.H English translation 7@H Ishdrdt -.78-.?H al8Risdla al8Adha(iyya, ed' and Italian trans' "' 2cchctta as Epistola s2lla vitaf2t2ra 9,ad2a -.7.: -;/;;' -;>
The so2l enGoying s2pre1e e2dae1onia 9sacddd: is the one that achieves a
--6
already seen, can dispense (ith the sense fac2lties (hile its body is still alive, and it retains its disposition for intellect2al tho2ght (hen the body dies and the sense fac2lties cease to operate'-;. MKhen it Qthe so2lR is released fro1 the body and the bodyIs accidents, it can conGoin (ith the active intellect in a perfect conG2nction' It then e*periences intellect2al splendor and eternal pleas2re'M-@6 It is M2nited (ithM the incorporeal region, Menters into the co1panyM of the incorporeal beings, Mbeco1es of the sa1e s2bstanceM as they, and has Mthe intelligible order of all e*istenceM inscribed in it'-@- A s1aller 1eas2re of e2dae1onia a(aits the so2l that attains a degree of intellect2al develop1ent in the present life b2t falls short of a perfect disposition for conG2nction vis a vis all possible tho2ghts' Avicenna vent2res M1erely to state (ith appro*i1ationM (hat a1o2nt of kno(ledge ens2res e2dae1onia in the ne*t lifeH and the a1o2nt he proposes t2rns o2t to be a considerable seg1ent of physical and 1etaphysical science' He MthinksM that a Mh21an so2lM (ill enGoy e2dae1onia after the death of the body only if it acco1plishes the follo(ing d2ring its bodily soGo2rn< It 12st Mhave a tr2e conception of the incorporeal principles Qof e*istenceRMH be convinced Mthro2gh de1onstrationM of the Me*istenceM of the incorporeal beingsH kno( Mthe final ca2ses of those things Qthat is, of the celestial spheresR (hich 2ndergo 2niversal 1otionsMH 2nderstand Mthe 1ake2p of the 2niverse, the relationships of the parts of the 2niverse to one another, and the order that begins (ith the first principle Qof e*istence and e*tendsR to the last e*istent beingMH co1prehend MQnat2ralR providence and the 1odeM of its operationH be certain of the Me*istence and 2nity pec2liar toM the "irst Ca2seH and grasp the character of the "irst Ca2seIs Mkno(ledge,M (hich e1braces the entire 2niverse (itho2t entailing any Mpl2rality and change (hatsoeverM in the "irst Ca2se' That is the 1ini121' MThen, the 1ore a 1an gro(s in perspicacity, the 1ore he (ill gro( in his disposition for e2dae1onia'M-@/ So2ls that re1ain belo( the 1ini121 degree of kno(ledge needed for 1ini1al e2dae1onia in the life to co1e b2t that have arrived at an appreciation of intellect2al activity s2ffer e*cr2ciating M1iseryM and MpainM after the death of their bodies' These so2ls have, (hile associated M(ith the body,M learned thro2gh Mde1onstrationM that they are capable of Mkno(ing the essential nat2re of all Qe*istenceR'M They have Mbeco1e a(are of the perfection that is the so2lIs Qnat2ralR obGect of desireM and to(ard (hich the so2l is Mnat2rally dra(n'M That is, they are, at a s2bli1inal level, a(are of the so2lIs nat2ral desire for intellect2al perfection' As long as they b2sy the1selves (ith bodily affairs, Mtheir occ2pation (ith the body' ' ' ca2ses the1 to forget their o(n essence and their Qnat2ralR obGect of desire'M On the death of the body they beco1e conscio2s of both, and, 2nhappily, M2bdhatl1t /;-' ShifaI< %e ani1a/@A' -@- Above, p' -6@' -@/ Shifa< Ilahiyyat @/.H $aGat /.7' -@6 -;.
Avicenna on E1anation, the Active Intellect, and H21an Intellect ---
the principles of science are no( o2t of reach' The principles of science Mare acJ2ired solely by 1eans of the body,M that is, (ith the aid of sense perception and cogitationH and the body Mhas perished'M So2ls torn by a desire for intellect2al f2lfill1ent (hich can no longer be realiEed are racked (ith pain' Indeed, the MpainM they e*perience Mis as intense as the pleas2reM e*perienced by the fort2nate so2l that enGoys eternal conG2nction (ith the active intellect'-@; Avicenna does not say (hether a so2l s2ffering the pain of fr2strated intellect2al desire in the ne*t life has its pain te1pered by (hatever disposition for conG2nction (ith the active intellect it 1ay have eJ2ipped itself (ith in this life' "inally, there are Msi1pleM so2ls that have no notion of gen2ine, intellect2al pleas2re' On the one hand, they lack the attain1ents that (o2ld per1it conG2nction (ith the active intellect in the hereafter and they therefore forfeit intellect2al e2dae1onia' On the other hand, having no inkling of (hat intellect2al desire is, they are i112ne to the pain that 2nf2lfilled intellect2al desire occasions' Theirs is an afterlife void of both intellect2al pleas2re and the pain of realiEing that intellect2al pleas2re is beyond the1' They rese1ble a for1less M1aterial s2bstrat21M and reside in Ma kind of peaceM for all eternity'-@@ Th2s far, (e have seen the intellect2al factors deter1ining the so2lIs fate after the death of the body' Avicenna also recogniEes ethical factors that bear on the fate of the so2l, and in e*po2nding the ethical factors, he offers an allegoriEation of hellfire not dissi1ilar to AlfarabiIs'-@> He (rites< So1e so2ls fail to e*ercise MsovereigntyM over their bodies and instead allo( their bodies to r2le the1BCDthese being precisely the so2ls that fail to c2ltivate the inter1ediate psychological characteristics constit2ting Aristotelian ethical virt2e'-@7 Khen they MseparateM fro1 the body at death, s2ch so2ls are Mscreened off by their attraction to the body Mfro1 p2re conG2nction (ith the loc2s of e2dae1onia,M that is, fro1 conG2nction (ith the active intellect' They no( beco1e Ma(areM of Mthe enor1o2s oppositionM bet(een their o(n Ms2bstance,M (hich can only find satisfaction in intellect2al activity, and the Mbodily characteristic QsRM that they allo(ed to be ingrained in the1 and that prevent the1 fro1 conGoining (ith the active intellect' The so2lIs o(n nat2re, of (hich it beco1es f2lly conscio2s at death, p2lls it a(ay fro1 the body, (hile its i11oderate acJ2ired characteristics have enslaved it to the deceased body and the bodyIs concerns' The so2l is dragged in t(o directions and 2ndergoes Mconf2sed 1otions,M (hich Mca2se it great pain'M So2ls of a previo2sly 1entioned category, those that recogniEed the delight of intellect2al perfection b2t had ins2fficient intellect2al acco1plish1ents to satisfy their desire (hen the body dies, (ere also fo2nd to s2ffer pain (hen left (itho2t a ShifaI< Ilahiyyat @/?8/.H $aGat /.@8.>' Cf' Marat -.>' ShifaI< Ilahiyyat @/A, @;-H $aGat /.>, /.?' -@> Above, pp' >78>?' -@7 Cf' Aristotle, $ico1achean Ethics /'7H Alfarabi, "2s2l al8Madani 9n' -67 above: 4T-7' Avicenna is (eaving together 1otifs fro1 both Aristotelian and $eoplatonic ethics' l@@ -@;
--/
body' Avicenna ass2res his readersBCDand, very likely, hi1self as (ell, since he lived a dissol2te life and in the end died of dissipation-@?BCDthat the t(o kinds of pain differ' The pain of 2nf2lfilled intellect2al desire end2res forever, (hereas the pain e*perienced by a so2l s2bservient to the body and the bodyIs concerns grad2ally s2bsides' He e*plains< The pain of 2nf2lfilled intellect2al desire never ceases, beca2se intellect2al desire pertains to the essence of the h21an rational so2l and therefore contin2es as long as the so2l e*ists' And as long as the desire contin2es, the pain of being 2nable to f2lfill it also does' 0y contrast, the pain occasioned by acJ2ired characteristics that enslave a rational so2l to its body is d2e not Mto anything necessary, b2t to so1ething incidental and foreignM to the so2l' ,sychological characteristics are fi*ed in the so2l by the MrepetitionM of Mphysical acts,M and acts corresponding to a given psychological characteristic 12st be repeated constantly if the characteristic is to be preserved' Kith the death of the body and the Mcessation of the QpertinentR acts,M the no*io2s psychological characteristics begin to fadeH and the Mp2nish1entM consisting in the so2lIs being dra(n to the service of a no( deceased body like(ise Mceases and fades, little by little'M Event2ally, Mthe so2l (ill be cleansed,M and it (ill there2pon gain Mthe e2dae1onia appropriate to it'M-@A The last state1ent, (e 1ay 2nderstand, 1eans that once a so2l is cleansed, it enters their attraction to the body (hich possess s2fficient intellect2al attain1ents for entering per1anent conG2nction (ith the active intellect (ill thenceforth enGoy e2dae1onia' So2ls cleansed of their attraction to the body (hich are conscio2s of intellect2al desire yet are 2neJ2ipped to satisfy it (ill, in the afterlife, be liberated fro1 the te1porary pain of attraction to their no longer e*istent body, b2t they (ill s2ffer the 2nending pain of 2nf2lfilled intellect2al desire' So2ls cleansed of their attraction to the body (hich had no inkling of intellect2al desire (ill s2bsist in an eternal state of rest, void of intellect2al content'-@. Avicenna, finally, records a rationaliEation of pop2lar religio2s beliefs regarding the afterlife' He cites the rationaliEation in the na1e of Mso1e scholars Qc2la1dIRM and co11ents that the theory Msee1s to be ''' tr2e'M The theory goes< MSi1ple1inded so2ls,M as already seen, have no notion of (hat is Mhigher'M They have no conscio2sness of the intellect2al MperfectionM bringing Me2dae1oniaM to certain 1en, and hence are i112ne as (ell to the fr2strated Mdesire for perfectionM 2pon the fate (arranted by its intellect2al stat2s' That is to say, so2ls cleansed of
bringing M1iseryM to others' MAll their psychological characteristics are directed !ohl1an 9n' - above: A68A.' Shifa< Ilahiyyat @;68;-H $aGat /.78.?' Cf' Risala Adha(iyya 9n' -;A above: /6A8.' -@. Khen describing the pain of sens2al si1ple so2ls, in ShifaI< Ilahiyyat @;- and $aGat /.?, Avicenna does not e*pressly (rite that it (ill co1e to an end, b2t that see1s to be i1plied' The pain of a sens2al si1ple so2l sho2ld also be less than that of a partly enlightened so2l' "or altho2gh the si1ple
sens2al so2l s2ffers by reason of the fr2stration of its physical desires, s2ch a so2l, kno(ing nothing of intellect2al desire, (ill not be dragged in t(o directions as partly enlightened so2ls are' -@A -@?
--;
do(n(ard and dra(n to the body'M->6 Khen si1ple1inded so2ls have been indoctrinated in a Mbelief regarding the hereafterM of the sort Min (hich the co11on folk are instr2cted,M they carry the belief (ith the1 into the afterlife' ThereBCDso the scholars advancing the theory MstateMBCDthey e*perience in their Mco1positive i1aginativeM fac2lty (hatever they e*pect to occ2r in the life to co1e' In their dise1bodied state, Mthey i1agine everything they have co1e to believe abo2t the conditions in the ne*t (orld'M Altho2gh the body has died and the so2lIs ties to the body have been severed, the so2l 2ndergoes e*periences thro2gh its co1positive i1aginative fac2lty (hich appear e*actly like e*periences rooted in sense fac2lties and ca2sed by events in the real (orld' The circ21stance that all is internal to the i1aginative fac2lty and corresponds to nothing in the real (orld o2tside does not di1inish the effect' Indeed, e*periences generated by the i1aginative fac2lty can be Mof greater potency and distinctnessM than those tied to sense perception, G2st as M(hat is drea1ed is 1ore vivid ''' than (hat is sensed'M An obvio2s obGection to the s2pposition that a dise1bodied so2l 2ndergoes J2asi8bodily e*periences thro2gh its co1positive i1agination (o2ld be that the co1positive i1agination operates thro2gh a physical organ, a ventricle of the brain, and the brain is no( dead'->- 02t the theory incl2des an ans(er to the obGection' The dise1bodied so2l is ass21ed to attach itself to one of the celestial spheres, and Mso1ething in the celestial spheres''' is the organ thro2gh (hichM the so2l e*ercises its co1positive i1aginative f2nction' A celestial sphere or an aspect of one of the spheres serves as a s2rrogate brain for the dise1bodied co1positive i1agination'->/ The si1ple1inded so2l e*periencing the pro1ises of pop2lar religion thro2gh its i1aginative fac2lty (ill Mat the 1o1ent of death, e*perience death'M MAfter death, it i1agines itself as the 1an (ho G2st died,M as if in a Mdrea1'M MIt i1agines itself b2ried'M It e*periences Mthe res2rrection'M If it (as a Mp2re,M Mfort2nateM so2l, it (ill e*perience the Mdelights of the hereafter,M Mthe garden and the dark8eyed 1aidens,M->; and anything else it believes to be its d2e in the life to co1e' If it (as a M(ickedM so2l, it (ill s2ffer Mthe p2nish1entsM and MpainM that it believes to be it G2st deserts'->@ Avicenna pres21ably 2nderstands that altho2gh the characteristics of si1ple so2ls are directed do(n(ard to the body, the p2re si1ple so2l, as distinct fro1 the sens2al si1ple so2l, does not allo( itself to be enslaved by the body' ->- ->/ ->6
See 3oran >7<-/8//' 3isala Adha(iyya ///8/>H ShifaI< Ilahiyyat @;-8;/H $aGat /.?8 .A' Risala Adha(iyya na1es the fac2lty thro2gh (hich the so2l Mi1aginesM events in the hereafter as Mthe esti1ative fac2lty'M Kolfson 9n' 77 above: /A6, observes that AvicennaIs Canon of Medicine treats the co1positive i1aginative fac2lty and esti1ative fac2lty as one' The rationaliEation Avicenna has set forth docs not acco2nt for the (icked 1an (ho has convinced hi1self that he is good or the righteo2s 1an
(ho G2dges hi1self to be evil' Ko2ld the ->@
->;
ee above, p' .7' Shifa< Ilahiyydt @;-8;/H $aGat /.?8.A' Cf' Ishardt -.7'
--@
Avicenna does not e*pressly accept or reGect the foregoing rationaliEation of pop2lar religio2s pro1ises regarding the hereafter' He cites the rationaliEation once (ith the re1ark that he can neither Maffir1 nor reGectM it'->> Several ti1es he cites it in the na1e of 2nna1ed Mscholars,M->7 and since he dee1ed hi1self an independent philosophic a2thority and did not ordinarily cite in the na1e of others positions that he espo2sed hi1self, his attrib2tion of a theory to others s2ggests nonacceptance'->? On the opposite side stands his co11ent that the rationaliEation of pro1ises regarding the hereafter Msee1s to be ''' tr2e,M as (ell as t(o or three instances (here he refers to it (itho2t attrib2ting it to anyone else'->A The rationaliEation ass21es that after the death of the body, so2ls can attach the1selves to a celestial sphere and e1ploy an aspect of the sphere, never identified 1ore precisely, as a s2rrogate brain' 02t (hen Avicenna ref2ted the doctrine of trans1igration, he contended that a h21an so2l can be linked only to a portion of s2bl2nar 1atter the co1position of (hich disposes it to receive the given so2lH and he f2rther dis1issed the possibility of t(o so2lsI attaching the1selves to a single portion of 1atter as o2tlandish'->. The co1position of 1atter in a celestial sphere plainly is not, in AvicennaIs vie(, s2ch as to dispose the sphere for receiving a h21an so2l, and, 1oreover, every celestial sphere in his cos1ic sche1e already has its o(n so2l and (o2ld hardly be able to receive additional so2ls' Since the co1positive i1aginative fac2lty co2ld not operate (itho2t a brain, and since AvicennaIs earlier reasoning (o2ld e*cl2de the celestial spheresI serving as a s2rrogate brain, dise1bodied h21an so2ls sho2ld not, in his syste1, be able to e*perience the hereafter thro2gh their i1aginative fac2lties'-76 Avicenna 1ay have for1er e*perience the pleas2re that he, in his self8del2sion, believed to be his d2e, and the latter s2ffer the pain that he, In his h21ility, believed to be hisN l>> M2bahathat -.A 9top:' l>7
ShifaI< Ilahiyyat @;-H $aGat /.?H Risala Adha(iyya ///8/;H an 2np2blished te*t
translated by L' Michot 9n' - above: -A, n' ?6' MichotIs book is an e*ploration of (hat he takes to be all the i1plications of a dise1bodied so2lIs having e*periences thro2gh its i1aginative fac2lty' ->? Michot -., n' ?6, records t(o additional instances (here Avicenna cites the theories of MscholarsM on J2estions regarding the so2l' In both instances, Avicenna plainly does not accept the theories' ->A Michot /78/?, cites three s2ch instances' In one of the three, hharat -.7, Avicenna in fact (rites only that after death, so2ls MperhapsM 9lacalla: have the help of a celestial body in i1agining the e*periences they have been led to e*pect in the hereafter' Michot, strangely, renders the ter1 1eaning MperhapsM as Msans do2te'M The strongest evidence I fo2nd to s2pport a reading of Avicenna as having believed that celestial bodies do serve as
s2rrogate organs for h21an so2ls is his Co11entary on the Theology of Aristotle 9n' 7A above: ?/H "rench translation 9n' 7A above: @6@' ->. Above, p' -6.' -76 The notion that the so2l enGoys physical pleas2re in the afterlife thro2gh its i1agination also conflicts (ith (hat Avicenna has said abo2t the pain that res2lts fro1 carrying physical desires into the ne*t (orld'
Avicenna on E1anation, the Active Intellect, and H21an Intellect -->
recorded the rationaliEation of pro1ised physical pleas2res in the hereafter in order to protect hi1self against any charge that he (as (holly reGecting Isla1ic acco2nts of the life to co1e' A last re1ark of AvicennaIs deserves attention' At one point, he (rites 2ne*pectedly that Ma certain sort of ignorance destroysM so1e so2ls Mforever'M-7- He does not e*plain ho( the re1ark 1ight be har1oniEed (ith his proofs of the intrinsic i11ortality of the h21an so2l, nor does he identify the so2ls s2bGect to destr2ction' The so2ls referred to (o2ld 1ost pla2sibly be those lacking all intellect2al acco1plish1ents' If they are in fact the so2ls that perish, then the Mkind of peaceM enGoyed by si1ple1inded so2ls after their bodies die-7/ (o2ld t2rn o2t to be nothing b2t a e2phe1is1 for none*istence' Ho(ever it be taken, the state1ent that ignorance destroys so2ls r2ns co2nter to AvicennaIs painstaking philosophic proofs of i11ortality' If the state1ent does tr2ly represent his considered position, his position begins to approach AlfarabiIs'-7; Res21e' ConG2nction (ith the active intellect and the res2ltant state of acJ2ired intellect are integral to all act2al h21an tho2ght' 02t acJ2ired intellect, besides designating act2al h21an tho2ght at any level of intellect2al develop1ent, is also the ter1 for h21an tho2ght at the stage (here the so2l has a f2ll repertoire of tho2ghts and can dispense (ith its body' After the death of the body, a so2l possessing acJ2ired intellect in the narro(er sense enters per1anent conG2nction (ith the active intellect and has Mthe intelligible order of all e*istenceM inscribed in it, pres21ably in the 2ndifferentiated 1ode' Khether the so2l (ith a f2lly perfected intellect can enter into per1anent conG2nction (ith the active intellect d2ring the life of the body or only after the bodyIs de1ise is not stated by Avicenna' The i11ortality of the h21an so2l follo(s, for Avicenna, fro1 its being an incorporeal s2bstance e1anated by the active intellect' !iven the intrinsic i11ortality of the so2l, each so2lIs fate in the (orld to co1e is deter1ined by its intellect2al attain1ents in the present life' 9-: A so2l that in this life gains a perfect disposition for conG2nction (ith the active intellect vis a vis all possible tho2ghts (ill enGoy s2pre1e e2dae1onia in the ne*t life' 9/: A so2l that in this life gains a lesser disposition for conG2nction yet 1asters a considerable seg1ent of physical and 1etaphysical science (ill also enGoy a degree of e2dae1onia' 9;: A so2l falling belo( the 1ini121 a1o2nt of kno(ledge needed for conG2nction (ith the active intellect in the ne*t life b2t a(are of the delights of intellect2al activity (ill s2ffer the eternal pain of 2nf2lfilled intellect2al desire' 9@: The si1ple1inded so2l, (hich As (ill appear presently, Avicenna, in his disc2ssion of prophecy, recogniEes the possibility that the so2ls of the spheres 1ight co112nicate (ith the h21an i1aginative fac2lty, 12ch as the active intellect co112nicates (ith the h21an intellect2al fac2lty' 02t there he does not conte1plate the celestial spheresI serving as s2rrogate brains' I7l hharat -AA' -7/ Above, p' ---' -7; Above, p' >?'
--7
both lacks intellect2al acco1plish1ents and is 2na(are of the pleas2re they bring, (ill s2bsist in an eternal state of rest, void of all intellect2al content' One co11ent of AvicennaIs s2ggests that the eternal state of rest, void of intellect2al content, 1ay a1o2nt to none*istence' So2ls in each of the categories 1ay, d2ring their stay in the te1poral (orld, have co11itted the ethical 1istake of allo(ing the1selves to beco1e enslaved to the concerns of the body' If they did, they (ill in the ne*t life s2ffer the pain of being dra(n in one direction by their o(n nat2re and in another by the concerns of a body that no longer e*ists' The pain (ill pass, ho(ever, as the psychological characteristics responsible for the pain grad2ally fade' Each so2l (ill then enter 2pon the eternal fate a(aiting so2ls in the category to (hich its intellect2al attain1ents assign it' Avicenna f2rther records a rationaliEation of religio2s beliefs regarding the hereafter, according to (hich the post1ortal events pro1ised by religion are e*perienced in the so2lIs co1positive i1aginative fac2lty' I have indicated (hy he co2ld not, (ith consistency, have hi1self accepted that rationaliEation' ,rophecy Alfarabi, it (ill be recalled, fo2nd a place for prophetic pheno1ena in his sche1e of intellect< They are the nat2ral effect that the lightlike e1anation of the active intellect has on the receptive i1aginative fac2lty of t(o types of 1en' In prophecy at the lo(er level, the active intellectIs e1anation passes thro2gh the rational fac2lty, and enters the i1aginative fac2lty, of a 1an (ho has not f2lly developed his intellect' It can there prod2ce kno(ledge of individ2al events lying beyond the range of the senses, (hether present events occ2rring at a distance or f2t2re events, and can also f2rnish a fig2rative depiction of theoretical tr2th' In prophecy at the higher level, (hich Alfarabi specifically na1ed Mrevelation,M the e1anation fro1 the active intellect passes thro2gh a h21an intellect that is f2lly developed and as a conseJ2ence has conGoined (ith the active intellect' The e1anation enters the 1anIs i1aginative fac2lty, and the 1an again receives kno(ledge of distant present events or f2t2re eventsH (hether he also receives a fig2rative depiction of theoretical tr2ths is not 1ade clear' Altho2gh in both instances, the e1anation fro1 the active intellect passes thro2gh the intellect2al fac2lty on its (ay to the i1aginative fac2lty, the h21an intellect does not at either level participate in the prophetic e*perience' ,rophecy therefore cannot at either level prod2ce gen2ine theoretical kno(ledge'-7@ Avicenna like(ise recogniEes, and attaches the na1e prophecy to, kno(ledge that res2lts (hen the e1anation fro1 the active intellectBCDor another s2pernal beingBCDacts on the h21an i1aginative fac2lty' 02t as an e*tension of his vie( that 1an receives intelligible tho2ght directly fro1 an e1anation of the active intellect, -7@
Above, pp' >A87/'
Avicenna on E1anation, the Active Intellect, and H21an Intellect ---
he, 2nlike Alfarabi, recogniEes, and na1es as prophecy, gen2ine theoretical kno(ledge i1parted by the active intellect to the h21an intellect (itho2t the h21an intellectIs having to e1ploy standard scientific proced2res' That prophets receive theoretical kno(ledge effortlessly is hardly an original notion-7>H AvicennaIs innovation is his e*planation of the process' It sho2ld go (itho2t saying that both intellect2al prophecy and i1aginative prophecy are, for Avicenna, nat2ral in the sense that any properly prepared h21an so2l attains the1' Intellect2al prophecy is d2e to insight' The cogitative fac2lty, Avicenna (rote, has the f2nction of presenting i1ages to the h21an intellect and thereby preparing the so2l and intellect for conG2nction (ith the active intellect' Khen conG2nction (ith the active intellect is established, an e1anation enters the h21an intellect, (here2pon the cogitative fac2lty steps in again and differentiates act2al intelligible tho2ght o2t of the e1anation' So1e 1en, ho(ever, possess insight, (hich is not a fac2lty of the so2l b2t an aptit2de for establishing conG2nction (ith the active intellect and for differentiating o2t tho2ghts, effortlessly and (itho2t reco2rse to cogitation'-77 Insight, Avicenna no( e*plains, varies in MJ2antity,M that is to say, in the n21bers of M1iddle ter1sM of syllogis1s (hich different 1en of insight can discover (itho2t 2sing their cogitative fac2lty, and in MJ2ality,M that is to say, in the MspeedM (ith (hich different 1en e*ercise their gift' "ro1 the circ21stance that the MvariationQsRM are MinfiniteM and that individ2als at the lo(er MendM of the spectr21 Mhave no insight at all,M Avicenna e*trapolates and infers that 1en M12stM be fo2nd at the 2pper MendM (ho possess the gift to a s2perlative degree, that is, 1en (ho Mpossess insight in regard to all s2bGects of inJ2iry, or 1ost,M and (ho can e*ercise their gift in the Mbriefest ti1e'M Avicenna f2rther characteriEes the 1an at the top of the spectr21 as Mb2rning (ith insight, that is, (ith the reception of inspiration fro1 the active intellect'M M"or1s in the active intellect' ' ' regarding every s2bGect' ' ' are i1printed in the 1an instantaneo2sly or al1ost so'M If the gift of insight f2rnished the concl2sion of a syllogis1 (itho2t the syllogis1 itself, the recipient (o2ld obtain only a MreportM of the tr2th and not Mcertain, intellect2alM kno(ledge'->? Avicenna s2b1its that the contrary occ2rs, that insight enables 1an to receive, fro1 the active intellect, the M1iddle ter1sM and indeed a co1plete MorderedM syllogis1' The 1an entering conG2nction (ith the active intellect thro2gh insight th2s gains instantaneo2s de1onstrated scientific kno(ledge, (itho2t having to e*pend any effort in learning the de1onstration' Avicenna (as already seen to inf2se a religio2s tone into the disc2ssion by calling insight in a s2perlative degree< Mholy intellectM or Mholy po(er'M-7A He f2rther (rites that the reception of broad See 3indi, RasaIil al83indi, cd' M' Ab2 Rida 9Cairo -.>6: -' ;?/8?;H trans' R' KalEer in M$e( St2dies on Al83indi,M reprinted in his !reek into Arabic 9O*ford -.7;: -??8 ?A' -77 Cf' above, p' -6-' -7? Cf' Fellcr 9n' -6 above: /;/' -7A Abovc, pp' -668-6/' -7>
--A
instantaneo2s kno(ledge fro1 the active intellect thro2gh a s2perlative degree of insight is the Mhighest of the po(ers of prophecy,M and Mthe highest level of the h21an fac2lties Qor< h21an po(ersR'M->. A lesser category of MprophecyM has its foc2s in the h21an i1agination' The f2nctions of AlfarabiIs single i1aginative fac2lty 912takhayyila: -?6 (ere distrib2ted by Avicenna bet(een a retentive i1aginative fac2lty and a co1positive i1aginative fac2lty 912takhayyila:, the latter of (hich is, in the case of 1an, the sa1e as the cogitative fac2lty' The retentive i1agination, in AvicennaIs sche1e, preserves sense perceptions after they are processed and reported by the sens2s co112nisH and the co1positive i1agination disasse1bles and co1bines i1ages in the retentive i1agination to fashion ne( config2rations'-?- The presentation of i1ages by the co1positive i1agination, or cogitative fac2lty, plays a clearly delineated role in the overall enterprise of acJ2iring kno(ledge, and the co1positive i1agination is 2s2ally kept b2sy (ith the tasks assigned it' &nder certain circ21stances, ho(ever, as (hen the body is asleep, ill, affected by an i1balance of bile, or fearf2l, the co1positive i1agination ceases to be occ2pied in its ordinary tasks' It 1ay also slip free of internal intellect2al Mdiscri1ination'M It then has free rein and can fashion i1ages at rando1, 2nchecked' And it can proGect its i1ages into the retentive i1agination and fro1 there into the sens2s co112nis, altho2gh I did not find Avicenna e*plicitly asserting, as Alfarabi did, that i1ages generated (ithin can be proGected o2t thro2gh the sense fac2lties into the air' The so2l Mhears and sees colors and so2nds that have no e*istence or ca2ses in the e*ternal Q(orldR,M yet appear as real as the sights and so2nds of events act2ally taking place o2tside the so2l' "or (hether the so2l perceives in the sens2s co112nis an Mi1pression ' ' ' co1ing fro1 (itho2tM or one Mco1ing fro1 (ithin,M the percepts are alike' In both instances, the so2l perceives an i1age or Mfor1''' represented inM the sens2s co112nis'-?/ The i1ages that the co1positive i1agination fashions (hen given free rein are 2s2ally of no significance' They are ind2ced by the condition of the h21an body at the ti1e, by earlier concerns of the so2l, and even by i1pressions received fro1 the Mcelestial bodies'M I1ages of the sort (hich are ind2ced (hen the body is asleep are kno(n as Mconf2sed drea1s'M-?;
ShifaI< %e ani1a /@.8/>6 9see apparat2s:H $aGat -7?87AH English translation ;78;?H anda2er, M%ie ,sychologic des Ibn SinaM 9n' ;6 above:, chap' A 9end:' Cf' hharat -/?' -?6 Above, p' >A' Kolfson 9n' 77 above: /?>8?7, and n' /?, J2otes, in addition to a passage in (hich Alfarabi does not disting2ish bet(een retentive and co1positive i1agination, passages fro1 t(o (orks attrib2ted to Alfarabi (hich do dra( the distinction' The second of the t(o (orks, c&y2n al8MasaIil, is, ho(ever, clearly not a gen2ine (ork of AlfarabiIs, and the first is also perhaps not his' -?- Above, pp' .>8.7' -?/ ShifaI< %e ani1a -?6, -?/8?;H hharat /-/8-@' --; Shifa< %e ani1a -?.8A6'
-7.
--.
02t for fleeting 1o1ents in the case of all 1en and for e*tended periods in the case of a fe(, both (hen the body is asleep and (hen it is a(ake, the co1positive i1aginative fac2lty enters MconG2nctionM (ith the Ms2pernal regionM 91alak2f:'-?@ The ter1 s2pernal region designates for Avicenna< the so2lsBCDnot the bodiesBCDof the celestial spheresH the incorporeal intelligences, incl2ding, 1ost notably, the active intellectH and perhaps also the "irst Ca2se' L2st as conG2nction of the h21an intellect (ith the active intellect res2lts in the so2lIs receiving an e1anation fro1 the active intellect, so the conG2nction of the co1positive i1aginative fac2lty (ith the s2pernal region also brings the so2l an Me1anation'M If the episode is 1ore than 1o1entary, the so2l attains a Mperception of hidden things, either e*actly as they are or recast in fig2rative i1ages'M Those hidden things 1ay be either Mintelligible tho2ghtsM or Mforekno(ledgeM of the f2t2re' Avicenna is especially interested in instances of the co1positive i1aginationIs entering conG2nction (ith the s2pernal region d2ring the (aking state' Ordinarily, he (rites, the co1positive i1aginative fac2lty has free rein in the (aking state only beca2se a 1orbid conditionBCDillness, fear, an i1balance of bileBCDrenders the 1anIs Mdiscri1inationM inoperative or ca2ses Mhis so2l QtoR disregard the QintellectIsR discri1ination'M In so1e 1en, ho(ever, the Mstrength of the co1positive i1aginative fac2lty and 1e1oryM reaches a point (here, even tho2gh no 1orbid condition is present, those fac2lties do not let the MQe*ternalR sensesM distract the1 fro1 their Mproper activitiesM of fra1ing ne( i1ages and preserving a record thereofH a Mnobility of so2lM in the sa1e 1en allo(s the so2l to contin2e Mto heed the intellectM as the co1positive i1agination goes abo2t its b2siness of fra1ing i1ages' The co1positive i1aginations of these 1en are highly s2ited to enter conG2nction (ith the s2pernal region' Khen they do, the 1en are said to enGoy Mthe prophecy that is pec2liar to the co1positive i1aginative fac2lty'M-?> ,rophecy distinctive to the co1positive i1agination can acco1pany the s2perior category of prophecy, prophecy located in the intellect' If a 1an blessed (ith a high degree of insight also possesses a po(erf2l co1positive i1agination, it is Mnot farfetched that so1e of the effects of the holy spirit Qthat is, conG2nction of the h21an intellect (ith the active intellect and reception of theoretical kno(ledge fro1 the active intellectIs e1anation (itho2t reco2rse to cogitationR sho2ld ''' e1anate onto the 1anIs co1positive i1agination'M Avicenna has stated that the co1positive i1agination, 2pon obtaining infor1ation fro1 the s2pernal regionBCDtheoretical tr2ths or kno(ledge of the f2t2reBCD1ay see things as they are or recast (hat is co112nicated to it in fig2rative i1ages' Khen infor1ation arriving in the co1positive i1agination is the handi(ork of s2perior insight and hence of a Malak2t is a 3oranic ter1 that (as picked 2p by theological (riters' See 3oran 7<?>H ?<-A>H /;<AAH ;7<A;H A' Kensinck, MOn the Relation bet(een !haEaliIs Cos1ology and His Mysticis1, Mededeelingen der 3oninkliGke Akade1ie van Ketenschappen ?>'a'7 9-.;;: -A;A@, -.-' I?> lbid' -?;8?>, -??H Isharal /-@8->, -?@
-/6
theoretical character, it is perforce recast' The passage G2st J2oted contin2es< Khen the co1positive i1agination of the do2bly J2alified prophet receives the effects of holy spirit, it Mdepicts the1 in sense8perceptible and a2dible i1ages'M-?7 In other (ords, the person endo(ed (ith both s2perlative insight and a po(erf2l co1positive i1aginative fac2lty fashions, thro2gh his co1positive i1agination, a fig2rative depiction of the scientific and philosophical tr2ths obtained thanks to insightH the gift of i1aginative prophecy recasts in fig2rative i1ages (hat the so2l learned by the gift of intellect2al prophecy' Avicenna 2ndo2btedly has the Goining of the t(o categories of prophecy in 1ind (hen he (rites else(here that the highest class of 1ankind co1prises 1en (hose Mso2l is perfected as an act2al intellect,M (hile the highest s2bdivision (ithin that highest class co1prises those (ho are Mdisposed for the level of prophecyM and enGoy MrevelationM 9(8h8y:' These 1en MseeM a Mfor1M or MapparitionM of M!odIs angelsM and Mhear''' a voice fro1 !od and the angels,M altho2gh no obGective so2nd is present'-?? A pec2liar t(ist 1ay be noted in the co1bination of intellect2al prophecy (ith i1aginative prophecy' Intellect2al prophecy consists in receiving the e1anation of the active intellect (itho2t reco2rse to the cogitative fac2lty, the fac2lty identical (ith the co1positive i1agination, (hereas the do2bly J2alified prophet depicts the fr2its of his intellect2al prophecy in fig2rative i1ages precisely beca2se he does receive the e1anation of the active intellect thro2gh his co1positive i1agination'-?A At all events, the 1an endo(ed (ith both categories of prophecy 2tiliEes his fig2rative recasting of theoretical tr2ths to instr2ct the 1asses' The 1aGority of 1ankind is incapable of grasping f2nda1ental 1etaphysical tr2ths as, for e*a1ple, the incorporeality of !odH and the prophet (ho accepts political and ed2cational responsibilities teaches his people abo2t !od in pictorial i1ages'-?. Avicenna has offered definitions of intellect2al prophecy and i1aginative prophecy, and a state1ent abo2t the fig2rative depiction of theoretical tho2ghts ll7 lll
ShifdI< %e ani1a /@A8@.H $aGat -7?H English translation ;7'
M2bahathat /;;, 4T@?7, reads< MKhen (e see so1ething in a drea1, (e first have intelligible tho2ght of it and then have an i1aginative perception of it' The reason is that the active intellect e1anates the intelligible tho2ght on o2r intellects, then it Qthe tho2ghtR e1anates fro1 it Qthe h21an intellectR to o2r co1positive i1agination' Khen, by contrast, (e learn so1ething, (e i1agine it first and then think it intelligibly, so that the order is reversed'M Avicenna is apparently ans(ering the follo(ing J2estion< All h21an intelligible tho2ght is 1ediated thro2gh the co1positive i1agination, (hich is identical (ith the cogitative fac2lty' Khat then is the difference bet(een a theoretical proposition that res2lts (hen the cogitative fac2lty crystalliEes ter1s o2t of the e1anation of the active intellect, arranges the
ter1s in propositions, fra1es a syllogis1, and dra(s a concl2sion 9see above, pp' .78 .A:H and an i1aginative depiction of a theoretical proposition that res2lts (hen the e1anation of the active intellect passes thro2gh the h21an intellect to the sa1e cogitative fac2lty, also kno(n as the co1positive i1aginationN The difference, Avicenna is saying, depends on (here the process begins and (here it ends' -?. ShifdI< Ilahiyyat @@;' See above, p' 7/'
-?A
Shifa < Ilahiyyat 9n' / above: @;>8;7H $aGat /..'
-/-
(hen the t(o co1bine' He also see1s to recogniEe the possibility of a depiction of theoretical tr2ths thro2gh i1aginative prophecy that is independent of intellect2al prophecy' In a conte*t (here he does not 1ention the h21an intellect, he 1akes the state1ent, already J2oted, that prophecy thro2gh the co1positive i1agination contains intelligible tho2ghts and forekno(ledge of events' In the sa1e section, he f2rther (rites that (hen a 1an of strong i1agination directs his MattentionM to Mintelligible tho2ghts, they appear to hi1'M-A6 Since the h21an intellect is not 1entioned, Avicenna apparently has in vie( the reception of intelligible tho2ghts fro1 a s2pernal so2rce, (itho2t the participation of the h21an intellect, and the specific so2rce (ithin the s2pernal region 12st be the active intellect, seeing that it is (hat i1parts intelligible tho2ght to 1an' Altho2gh he does not e*press hi1self very (ell, Avicenna th2s (o2ldBCDlike Alfarabi-A-BCDrecogniEe that the ever8present e1anation of the active intellect can co112nicate theoretical tr2ths to a po(erf2l co1positive i1agination, irrespective of the h21an s2bGectIs intellect2al attain1ents' S2ch theoretical tho2ghts received by the co1positive i1aginative fac2lty directly fro1 the active intellect (o2ld again invariably be recast in fig2rative i1ages' Avicenna goes into so1e(hat 1ore detail regarding the co1positive i1aginationIs kno(ledge of f2t2re events' Events in the s2bl2nar (orld, incl2ding events ostensibly ca2sed by acts of M(ill,M are, in AvicennaIs sche1e of things, 2lti1ately traceable to the 1ove1ents of the celestial bodies' Every s2bl2nar event, M(hether past, present, or yet to occ2r,M is therefore kno(n in a M2niversal 1odeM by Mthe Creator and the intellect2al angels,M that is, the incorporeal intelligences, (hich govern the celestial spheresH and every event is kno(n in a Mpartic2lar 1odeM by the Mcelestial angels,M that is, by the Mso2lsM of the spheres' MH21an so2lsM are M1ore closely related to the angelic s2bstances than they are to their o(n physical bodies,M and they (o2ld re1ain in per1anent contact (ith those s2bstances, (ere they not dragged do(n by their bodies' Khen the body is asleep and the so2l is partly released fro1 the bodily activities Mdragging it do(n,M it 1ay Mbehold (hat is there'M The 1anIs co1positive i1agination can then generate a tr2e drea1, (hich (ill M1ost likelyM represent f2t2re events affecting Mthe 1an, his fa1ily, his land, and his region'M 0y i1plication, sho2ld a 1anIs co1positive i1agination be s2fficiently strong, it (ill generate visions representing events of interest to the 1an, even (hen the body is a(ake' %rea1s or visions 1ay reveal things either e*actly as they are or recast the1 into i1ages that (ill have to be MinterpretedM and M2ndergo e*egesisM 9taIa((ala:'-A/ The indisp2tably gen2ine (orks of Avicenna do not, so far as I co2ld find, identify the s2bclass of s2pernal beings (hich inspires tr2e drea1s of the f2t2re' $evertheless, Avicenna certainly inti1ates that the so2ls of the spheres are the ShifaI< %e ani1a -?.' Abovc, pp' >.876' -A/ Ibid' -?A8A6, taken together (ith Shifa < Ilahiyydt @;78;?H $aGat /..8;66' -A- -A6
-//
ca2se'-A; The so2ls of the spheres, as (as seen, have kno(ledge of the s2bl2nar (orld in the Mpartic2lar 1ode'M They rese1ble an observer (ho is Min direct contactM (ith the obGect perceived, or Mvirt2ally in direct contact,M and (ho Me*periences Q(hat he kno(sR thro2gh sense perception'M-A@ 0y contrast, the incorporeal 1overs of the spheres and the active intellect have only a general kno(ledge of the (orld' Hence (hen Avicenna (rites that the co1positive i1agination learns abo2t f2t2re events by vie(ing M(hat is there,M his likely 1eaning is that the co1positive i1agination enters into conG2nction not (ith an incorporeal intelligence b2t (ith one or another of the so2ls of the spheres, and that the h21an co1positive i1agination thereby receives an e1anation fro1 one of the so2ls of the spheres, and vis2aliEe the f2t2re' S2ch an interpretation of Avicenna does raise a proble1' In his syste1, beings consisting in p2re intellect prod2ce eternal e1anations, and it is therefore consistent for the active intellect to do so as (ell' His syste1 has not, ho(ever, been seen to acco11odate an e1anation that proceeds fro1 the so2ls of the spheres' If the interpretation sho2ld be correct and Avicenna does take the so2ls of the spheres as the so2rce of h21an kno(ledge of f2t2re events, he has sidestepped an ano1aly in Alfarabi' Alfarabi stated that the active intellect i1parts to the h21an i1agination kno(ledge of f2t2re events and of present events at a distance, b2t he failed to e*plain ho( the active intellect, (hich has only intellect2al, and not partic2lar, kno(ledge, 1ight co112nicate (hat it does not itself kno('-A> Identifying the so2rce of the forekno(ledge of events as the so2ls of the spheres, (hich do have partic2lar kno(ledge, rather than the active intellect, (hich does not, (o2ld re1ove the ano1aly' Avicenna recogniEes still another category of prophecy, a category that provides hi1 (ith a rationaliEation of 1iracles, (hile leading hi1 perilo2sly close to the bo2rne of the occ2lt' The categories of prophecy e*a1ined th2s far are located in the MperceptiveM fac2lties of the so2l' An additional Mpo(erM of Mprophecy,M Avicenna asserts, is located in the so2lIs M1otive' '' fac2lties'M Inas12ch as the h21an so2l is not Mi1printed in the 1atterM of the h21an body yet is able to Malter Qhis o(nR bodily 1aterial,M it sho2ld Mnot be s2rprising that a noble, po(erf2l so2lM can, by sheer M(ill,M 1anip2late other bodies' Certain select so2ls can, as a conseJ2ence, Mheal the sick and bring illness to the (icked,'' ' t2rn (hat is not fire into fire and (hat is not earth into earth,M ca2se MrainM to fall, and the like'
Cf' Isharat /-68--' Avicenna 9N:, Ah(al al8$afs, ed' A' Ah(ani 9Cairo -.>/: --?, states that the h21an Mpractical intellectM e1ploys the Mco1positive i1aginationM to MconGoinM (ith the Ms2pernal so2l8s2bstances,M that is to say, (ith the so2ls of the spheres, and thereby gain kno(ledge of the f2t2re' The book does not, ho(ever, appear in the earliest lists of AvicennaIs (orks and is very possibly not gen2ine, altho2gh it is plainly based on AvicennaIs tho2ght and (ritings' A poorer version of the sa1e book, 2nder another title that also does not appear in the early lists, is p2blished in RasaIil Ibn Sina / 9n' .. above: -6.8>@' -A@ S h i f a I < Ilahiyyat @;?' C Isharat /-68--' -A> Cf' above, p' 76'
-A;
-/;
MThis is a characteristic linked to the 1otive fac2lties ''' of the so2l of a prophet (ho is great in prophecy'M-A7 Res21e' Avicenna attaches the na1e prophecy to a broader range of pheno1ena than Alfarabi did' He recogniEes the possibility of 1anIs attaining instantaneo2s scientific kno(ledge (itho2t follo(ing scientific proced2res, so1ething reGected by Alfarabi and to be reGected by Averroes' Thro2gh insight, the h21an so2l establishes conG2nction (ith the active intellect effortlessly, and fro1 the active intellectIs e1anation the so2l i11ediately receives the 1iddle ter1s of syllogis1s, the syllogis1s the1selves, and their concl2sions' The ability to attain broad instantaneo2s scientific kno(ledge thro2gh insight is the Mhighest of the po(ers of prophecy'M In prophecy at a lesser level, a po(erf2l co1positive i1aginative fac2lty attains kno(ledge of Mintelligible tho2ghtsM or forekno(ledge of the f2t2re' Khen a po(erf2l co1positive i1aginative fac2lty is Goined to a high degree of insight, that is, (hen the t(o kinds of prophecy are co1bined, the h21an s2bGect can recast in fig2rative i1ages the scientific kno(ledge he learned thro2gh intellect2al prophecy' The do2bly J2alified prophet 2tiliEes his fig2rative depiction of scientific tr2ths to ed2cate the 1asses, (ho are incapable of co1prehending the tr2th in a p2re for1' Khen a po(erf2l co1positive i1agination is fo2nd in a 1an of 2ndeveloped intellect, itBCDapparentlyBCD1ay enter conG2nction (ith the active intellect and receive the e1anation of the active intellect directly' It (ill then receive a fig2rative depiction of theoretical tho2ghts that are no longer scientific in character' "inally, the co1positive i1agination 1ay enter into conG2nction (ith the s2pernal (orld, by (hich Avicenna 1ost likely 1eans the so2ls of the spheres, and thereby envisage f2t2re events of concern for the 1an either as they are or in a fig2rative for1' All these pheno1ena 1ake 2p the Mprophecy that is pec2liar to the co1positive i1agination fac2lty'M In addition to intellect2al prophecy and i1aginative prophecy, both of (hich are cognitive pheno1ena, Avicenna recogniEes the possibility of a 1anIs effecting changes in the physical (orld thro2gh an act of sheer (ill, and he calls that pheno1enon prophecy as (ell' %etails of the several categories and s2bcategories of prophecy are left vag2e' Avicenna 1ay si1ply have been careless, b2t he also 1ay have deliberately tried to veil his precise intent fro1 cas2al readers' He 1ay not have (anted the1 to realiEe that as he defined each of the categories of prophecy, all intervention by the deity is e*cl2ded'
-A7
S h i f a < %e ani1a /668/6-' Cf' Isharat /-.8/6'
-/@ S211ary
In AvicennaIs 2niverse is, as in AlfarabiIs, e*istence and tho2ght flo( fro1 above to belo(' The "irst Ca2se eternally and 2nchangingly e1anates the incorporeal intelligence that governs the o2ter1ost celestial sphere, the incorporeal intelligence governing the o2ter1ost sphere e1anates another intelligence, and the eternal process contin2es 2ntil the active intellect, the last in the series, is reached' In addition to e1anating the ne*t intelligence in the series, each intelligence also e1anates the body and so2l of the celestial sphere that it governs' The active intellect, altho2gh not po(erf2l eno2gh to e1anate an 2nchanging body, a so2l to acco1pany an 2nchanging body, and a f2rther eternal incorporeal intelligence, does e1anate analog2es of the three' It e1anates the 1atter of the s2bl2nar (orld, nat2ral for1s in the s2bl2nar (orld, and h21an intelligible tho2ght' The active intellect eternally e1anates the 2nderlying 1atter of the s2bl2nar (orld (ith the 2ne*plained participation of the 1ove1ent of the heavens' $at2ral s2bl2nar for1s s2bsist in the active intellect in an 2ndifferentiated 1ode, and (henever infl2ences fro1 the heavens together (ith forces (ithin the s2bl2nar (orld blend a portion of 1atter so as to dispose it for a given nat2ral for1, the 1atter receives the appropriate for1 fro1 the eternal, ever8 present e1anation of the active intellect' The active intellect is, as it (ere, an eternal cos1ic trans1itter, broadcasting an 2ndifferentiated range of for1s, as (ell as the s2bstrat21 that can receive the1, and properly att2ned portions of 1atter a2to1atically receive the nat2ral for1s appropriate to the1' The active intellect is accordingly called the Mgiver of for1s'M Matter blended to the highest possible degree of ho1ogeneity receives an incorporeal h21an so2l fro1 the active intellectIs e1anation' The foregoing is p2t for(ard by Avicenna as a de1onstrable and de1onstrated scientific cos1ology' The h21an so2l, at birth, possesses an e1pty potentiality for tho2ght, called M1aterial intellect'M Khen a 1an sec2res a repertoire of the propositions e1bodying the first principles of tho2ght b2t is not thinking the1 at the 1o1ent, he has Mintellect in habit2'M Khen he sec2res a f2ll repertoire of abstract concepts and scientific propositions, again (itho2t thinking the1 at the 1o1ent, he has Mact2al intellect'M Act2al intelligible tho2ght at any level is called MacJ2ired intellectM for the reason that all s2ch tho2ght is acJ2ired fro1 the e1anation of the active intellect' The ter1 acJ2ired intellect has an additional sense' It designates the M2lti1ate endM and MperfectionM of h21an intellect2al develop1ent' The active intellect is the ca2se of the e*istence of the h21an so2l (ith its 1aterial intellectH the passage of the 1aterial intellect to the stage of potentiality called intellect in habit2H the passage of the intellect to the s2bseJ2ent stage of potentiality, (hich is parado*ically called act2al intellectH the condition of act2al h21an tho2ght called acJ2ired intellectH and acJ2ired intellect in the special sense of the c2l1ination of h21an intellect2al develop1ent'
Avicenna on E1anation, the Active Intellect, and H21an Intellect -/>
Act2al tho2ght occ2rs (hen the h21an so2l enters into MconG2nctionM (ith the active intellect, receives the active intellectIs e1anation, and differentiates a tho2ght o2t of the e1anation' One passage disting2ishes t(o phases in the process< In the first phase, the so2l receives the e1anation of the active intellect in an 2ndifferentiated 1ode, and in the second, it ind2ces a f2rther e1anation of differentiated tho2ghts fro1 the 2ndifferentiated e1anation already present in the so2l' The cognitive operations leading 2p to the appearance of an intelligible tho2ght serve to prepare the so2l and intellect for entering into conG2nction (ith the active intellect, 12ch as the nat2ral processes leading 2p to the appearance of a for1 in a portion of 1atter prepare the 1atter for receiving the for1 fro1 the e1anation of the sa1e active intellect' The nonintellect2al fac2lty playing the key role in preparing the so2l for conG2nction is the cogitative fac2lty, (hich is the sa1e as the h21an co1positive i1aginative fac2lty' The cogitative fac2lty prepares the so2l or intellect for conG2nction by presenting i1ages, it then differentiates tho2ghts o2t of the e1anation of the active intellect, and it arranges tho2ghts in seJ2ences to fra1e propositions and syllogis1s' "ort2nate so2ls have insight, an aptit2de that enables the1 to establish conG2nction (ith the active intellect, crystalliEe o2t tho2ghts, and fra1e syllogis1s, (itho2t reco2rse to cogitation' Khen the so2l possesses acJ2ired intellect in the narro(er acceptation, it has established conG2nction (ith the active intellect vis a vis all scientific tho2ghts, has no f2rther 2se for the body or the senses, and sho2ld no( Gettison body and senses' Avicenna speaks of a Mper1anent conG2nctionM (ith the active intellect, a condition (herein the so2l not 1erely thinks all tho2ghts at (ill b2t thinks the1 all at once' He leaves 2nclear, ho(ever, (hether per1anent conG2nction is reserved for the afterlife or 1ay be enGoyed in the present life as (ell' Since the h21an so2l is, for Avicenna, an incorporeal s2bstance, it is i11ortal by its very nat2re' Each so2lIs fate in the (orld to co1e is nevertheless deter1ined by its intellect2al attain1ents in the present life' So2ls that in this life attain a disposition for conG2nction (ith the active intellect vis a vis all possible tho2ghts (ill, in the ne*t life, enGoy a co1plete per1anent conG2nction (ith the active intellect' Those achieving less than a co1plete disposition for conG2nction in this life, yet controlling a considerable seg1ent of physical and 1etaphysical science, (ill enGoy a lesser degree of conG2nction (ith the active intellect in the ne*t life' Those falling belo( the 1ini121 a1o2nt of kno(ledge needed for conG2nction (ith the active intellect in the ne*t life b2t a(are of the delights of intellect2al activity s2ffer the eternal pain of 2nf2lfilled intellect2al desire' And si1ple1inded so2ls, (hich both lack intellect2al acco1plish1ents and are 2na(are of the pleas2re that intellect2al activity brings, reside in an eternal state of rest, void of all intellect2al content' A co11ent 1ade at one point s2ggests that the eternal state of rest void of intellect2al content 1ay in fact a1o2nt to none*istence' If d2ring its soGo2rn (ithin the te1poral (orld, a so2l sho2ld have co11itted the 1oral fa2lt of enslaving itself to the concerns of the body, it (ill in the ne*t life s2ffer the pain of
-/7
being dra(n in one direction by its o(n nat2re, and in another by the concerns of its body, (hich no longer e*ists' The pain (ill event2ally disappear, ho(ever, and each dise1bodied so2l (ill then enter 2pon the eternal fate to (hich its intellect2al attain1ents assign it' "inally, in a rationaliEation of traditional religio2s acco2nts of the hereafter, Avicenna s2ggests a theory according to (hich si1ple1inded so2ls 1ay in the afterlife e*perience thro2gh their i1aginative fac2lties the physical pleas2res and pains pro1ised by pop2lar religion' Avicenna attaches the na1e prophecy to three kinds of pheno1ena' Intellect2al prophecy, the Mhighest of the po(ers of prophecy,M occ2rs (hen insight enables a h21an intellect to establish conG2nction (ith the active intellect effortlessly, vis a vis a (ide range of tho2ghts' The active intellectIs e1anation i11ediately i1parts to s2ch an intellect the 1iddle ter1s of syllogis1s, the syllogis1s the1selves, and their concl2sions' M,rophecy that is pec2liar to the co1positive i1aginative fac2ltyMBCD(hich 1ay or 1ay not be co1bined (ith intellect2al prophecyBCDocc2rs (hen a s2pernal e1anation gives a po(erf2l co1positive i1aginative fac2lty either a fig2rative version of theoretical kno(ledge or kno(ledge of the f2t2re, the e1anation responsible for the fig2rative version of theoretical kno(ledge co1ing fro1 the active intellect, and that responsible for kno(ledge of the f2t2re, apparently co1ing fro1 the so2ls of the spheres' The na1e prophecy is also attached to a noncognitive pheno1enon, to the effecting of changes in the physical (orld thro2gh acts of sheer (ill'
>
RE#ER0ERATIO$S O" THE THEORIES O" A "ARA0I A$% A#ICE$$A
AvicennaIs Isla1ic S2ccessors
channels< AvicennaIs straightfor(ard philosophic (orks, notably the ShifdI and $aGdtH his Ishdrat, (hich rephrases his philosophic syste1 in high8flo(n
AvicennaIs philosophy (as accessible to Mosle1 readers thro2gh the follo(ing
lang2ageH his %anesh $d1ah, a s211ary of his philosophic syste1 in ,ersianH allegorical tales he (rote in (hich h21an characters and also a bird personify the active intellect and the h21an intellect or so2l-H a lengthy restate1ent of his philosophy by 0ah1anyar 9d' -67>:, one of his st2dents/H the better kno(n s211ary by !haEali 9-6>A8----:, entitled MaJdsid al8"alasifaNH still another, -
H' Corbin, Avicenna and the #isionary Recital 9$e( )ork -.76: 9translation of Avicenne et le recit visionnaire:' AvicennaIs allegories, like 1ost speci1ens of the genre, are flat and 2ninspiredH his o(n i1aginative fac2lty apparently enGoyed only a 1ini1al 1eas2re of e1anation fro1 the s2pernal regions' 02t de g2stib2s non disp2tand21, and Corbin -;>, 1ay be cons2lted for a different opinion' / 0ah1anyar, al8Tafall 9Tehran -.?/:' See also 0eh1enGar 90ah1anyar:, R'fiMaratib alMa(G2dat, in F(ei 1etaphysische Abhandl2ngen, ed' and trans' S' ,oper 9 eipEig -A>-: 9arg21ents for the e*istence of incorporeal intelligences, so2ls of the spheres, and the active intellect, and arg21ents for the incorporeality of the h21an so2l:' ; !haEali, MaJasid al8"alasifa, 9Cairo n'd': /-A8/6 9the e1anation sche1e as an e*planation of a single 2nitary ca2seIs prod2cing 12ltiple effects, (itho2t, ho(ever, the n2ance of a third aspect in the tho2ght of the intelligences:H //- 9e1anation of s2bl2nar 1atter by the active intellect:H /// 9preparation of s2bl2nar 1atter for for1s, by the action of the heavens:H ///8/> 9e1anation by the active intellect, the Mgiver of for1s,M of for1s of ele1ents, 1ist and haEe, 1inerals, plants, ani1als, 1an:H /.-8./ 9the h21an so2l as a Mself8s2bsistent s2bstance,M degrees of h21an intellect, h21an tho2ght as MacJ2iredM fro1 the active intellect:H /.. 9intrinsic i11ortality of the h21an so2l:H ;6/8; 9act2aliEation of the h21an intellect by the active intellect:H ;6@8> 9tr2e e2dae1onia in the afterlife as eternal conG2nction of a perfect h21an intellect (ith the active intellect:H ;6> 9i1agined e*perience in the afterlife of pro1ises of pop2lar religion, (ith Mso1e of the celestial bodiesM serving as a Ms2bstrat21 for the
co1positive i1aginationM:H ;678? 91isery in the afterlife as fr2strated desire for the pleas2res of the body and as the so2lIs being lorn in t(o directions:H ;6.8-/ 9tr2e drea1s and visions thro2gh the co1positive i1aginative fac2lty, res2lting fro1 conG2nction of the h21an so2l (ith s2pernal beings:H ;-@, ;-?8-A, ;-. 9three types of MprophetM< 1en 2pon (ho1 all Mintelligible tho2ghtsM are Me1anatedM -/?
-/A
briefer s211ary by Shahrastani 9-6A78-->;:@H and the co11entary of T2sl 9d'
-/?@: on the Ishdrdt'> The pict2re of the 2niverse that Alfarabi and Avicenna propagated and perhaps createdBCD(herein a distinctive e1anation sche1e is s2peri1posed on the Aristotelian 2niverse, and (herein the last of the incorporeal intelligences, the transcendent active intellect, perfor1s f2nctions in respect to both the s2bl2nar physical (orld and the h21an intellectBCDis e1braced by a fair n21ber of Mosle1 thinkers' The list of those (ho ass21e the pict2re of the 2niverse co11on to Alfarabi and Avicenna, or (ho, 1ore partic2larly, adopt ele1ents in the sche1e pec2liar to Avicenna incl2des< the anony1o2s a2thors of a half doEen 1inor co1positions that carry AlfarabiIs na1e yet can be seen by their contents to have been e*cerpted and paraphrased fro1 Avicenna by persons of 1odest talentsH Ibn 0aGGa 9Ave1pace: 9d' --;A:H Ibn T2fail 9early t(elfth cent2ry:, (ho, ho(ever, overlaid AvicennaIs theory of intellect (ith a patina of 1ystical kno(ledgeH Averroes, (ho re1ained close to Alfarabi and Avicenna in his early (orks b2t str2ggled to break free of the1 as his thinking 1at2redH and certain (orks of S2hra(ardi' To that list, I shall add !haEali, a protean fig2re (ho is ordinarily regarded as an i1placable adversary, rather than an adherent, of Alfarabi and Avicenna' Ke shall also find that Ab2 al8 0arakatIs philosophic treatise and S2hra(ardiIs 1ost i1portant (ork, both of (hich criticiEe AvicennaIs syste1 sharply, are each in fact a re(orking of it' Of the 1inor anony1o2s co1positions incorrectly attrib2ted to Alfarabi, the one containing the largest a1o2nt of 1aterial fro1 Avicenna is a (ork 2s2ally kno(n as c&y2n al8 MasaIil' It affir1s that fro1 the "irst Ca2se of the 2niverse, (hich is (holly 2nitary, a series of incorporeal intelligences MproceedsM 9h8s8l:' Each intelligence, the co1position in J2estion e*plains, has t(o aspectsBCDrather than the three disting2ished by Avicenna' And in red2cing the aspects to t(o, the co1position also conflates t(o alternative versions of (hat each of the aspects is< One aspect is the intelligenceIs Mbeing necessarily e*istent Qby virt2e of its ca2seR and having the "irst QCa2seR as an obGect of kno(ledge,M and the other is its Mbeing possibly e*istent Qby virt2e of itselfR and having itself as an obGect of kno(ledge'M7 fro1 the Mactive intellectM rapidly and (itho2t a teacher thanks to po(erf2l MinsightMH 1en (ho are in conG2nction (ith Mnoble Qs2pernalR s2bstances,M and (hose co1positive i1agination thereby beco1es able to depict 1etaphysical tr2ths in fig2rative i1agesH 1en (ho can change nat2re:' @ ShahrastanI, 3' al8Milal (al8$ihal, ed' K' C2reton 9 ondon -A@/8-A@7: ;A68A@, @-?8/.H !er1an translation, (ith the pagination of the Arabic indicated< Religionspartheien 2nd ,hilosophensch2len, trans' T' Haarbr2cker 9Halle -A>68-A>-:' > ,rinted in Avicenna, Isharat, ed' S' %2nya 9Cairo -.>?:' VAlfarabiIs t(o aspects (ere the intelligenceIs having the "irst Ca2se as an obGect of tho2ght and its having itself as an obGect of tho2ghtH see above, p' @7' AvicennaIs three aspects (ere< the intelligenceIs having the "irst Ca2se as an obGect of tho2ghtH its having itself, insofar as it is necessarily e*istent by reason of the "irst
Ca2se, as an obGect of tho2ghtH and its having itself, insofar as it is possibly e*istent by reason of itself, as an obGect of tho2ght' See above, p' ?>'
Reverberations of the Theories of Alfarabi and Avicenna
-/.
0y reason of the for1er aspect, the ne*t MintelligenceM in the series Mproceeds,M (hile by reason of the latter aspect there MproceedsM a celestial Msphere,M co1posed of M1atter and for1'M? The final link in the chain of intelligences is Mthe incorporeal active intellectMH it is the ca2se of the Me*istence of s2bl2nar so2lsM and, Mthro2gh the inter1ediacy of the QcelestialR spheres,M of the Mfo2r ele1ents'MA Khenever a MbodyM is fit for receiving a h21an so2l, Mthe giver of for1sM prod2ces the so2l'. Since intelligible tho2ghts cannot be present in a 1aterial s2bstrat21, the h21an so2l, in (hich intelligible tho2ghts are present, 12st be a Msi1ple incorporeal s2bstance,M and, being an incorporeal s2bstance, the so2l is capable of Ms2rvivingM the Mdeath of the body'M The h21an so2l passes fro1 the stage of M1aterial intellectM to that of Mintellect in habit2M and then to that of MacJ2ired intellectMH and (hat leads it fro1 Mfro1 potentiality to act2alityM 12st be Man incorporeal intellect, na1ely, the active intellect'M-6 ME2dae1oniaM and M1iseryM in the afterlife are M1erited,M and h21an so2ls enGoy the for1er or s2ffer the latter thro2gh Mnecessity and G2stice'M-- !haEali is of greater interest' As already 1entioned, he (rote a s211ary of AvicennaIs philosophy, and, as (ill appear, he co1ple1ented the s211ary (ith a trenchant critiJ2e' At another G2nct2re in his life, he co1posed a co1prehensive 3ala1 (ork'-/ And his a2tobiography infor1s 2s that his intellect2al odyssey
!haEaliIs s211ary of AvicennaIs philosophy 9n' ; above: /-.8/6, disting2ishes t(o aspects in each intelligence< its Mnecessity Qthat is, its necessary e*istenceR by reason of anotherM and its Mpossibility Qthat is, its possible e*istenceR by reason of itself'M The te*t (e are considering has conflated AlfarabiIs t(o aspects (ith the t(o aspects in !haEaliIs s211ary of AvicennaIs philosophy' Since being necessarily e*istent by virt2e of its ca2se is not eJ2ivalent to having the "irst Ca2se as an obGect of tho2ght, and since being possibly e*istent by virt2e of itself is eJ2ivalent to only part of having itself as an obGect of kno(ledgeBCDthe intelligence, as the te*t itself recogniEes, being both possible and necessaryBCDthe t(o versions of each aspect are not consistent (ith one another' 0elo(, pp' ->68>-, !haEaliIs critiJ2e of AvicennaIs philosophy co1bines different, b2t not inconsistent, versions of the aspects in the tho2ght of each intelligence' ?c &y2n al8MasaIil, in AlfarabiIs philosophische Abhandl2ngen, ed' "' %ieterici 9 eiden -A.6: >787>, 4T4T?8.H !er1an translation, (ith sa1e section n21bers< AlfarabiIs philosophische Abhandl2ngen a2s de1 Arabischen ilbersetEt, trans' "' %ieterici 9 eiden -A./:' A Ibid' 4T4T., --' . Ibid' 4T4T/-8//' -6 Ibid' 4T/-' The stages of intellect are a co1bination of the sche1es of Alfarabi and Avicenna' See above, pp' @., A@8A>' - Ibid' 4T//' Other co1positions of a si1ilar character (hich contain 1aterial fro1 AvicennaIs theory of intellect are< "2fiis al8Hika1, in %ieterici 9n' ? above:, 778A;H !er1an translation in %ieterici 9n' ? above:, -6A8;AH and the follo(ing, all of (hich are p2blished in RasaIil al8"drabl 9Hyderabad -.;-:< %aca(a al8Palbiyya 9a different recension of c&yiin al8Masail:H "l Ithbat al8 M2faraJdt, R' Fayn2n 9MFenoIs QSR op2sc2leM:, and TacllJat' l/ Al8IJtifddfi al8IctiJdd 9Ankara -.7/:'
-;6
event2ally led hi1 into yet one 1ore province, to MS2fis1,M-; a ter1 that 1ay 1ean either a regi1en of !od8fearing asceticis1 or a brand of 1ystical e*perience' Averroes belittled !haEali as one (ho (as Man Asharite (ith the Asharites, a S2fi (ith the S2fis, and a philosopher (ith the philosophers'M-@ &n1asking an essential !haEali ensconced behind the s2ccessive g2ises is not easy' The (ork (here !haEali gives the 1ost convincing i1pression of div2lging his final vie( of things takes its depart2re fro1 3oran /@<;>, a verse playing on the i1agery of an oil la1p' Avicenna had interpreted the i1agery in the verse as an allegorical representation of the h21an intellect2al process'-> !haEali, in the (ork (e are considering, interprets the i1ages in a si1ilar, tho2gh not co1pletely identical, 1annerH b2t he goes beyond the la1p i1agery and the h21an intellect2al process, add2cing additional verses, bringing the allegorical proced2re to bear on the1 as (ell, and (eaving an all2sive, circ2ito2s acco2nt of the str2ct2re of the 2niverse' His book is entitled Mishkat al8An(ar, the $iche of ights, a niche in (hich the oil la1p stands being one of the 1otifs in the 3oranic verse serving as !haEaliIs point of depart2re' The Mishkat e1ploys lang2age fro1 the S2fi 1ystical vocab2lary and ostensibly endorses 1ystical doctrines' )et Averroes (as to locate the book (ithin the tradition of Isla1ic Aristotelianis1 and he berated !haEali for hypocritically reGecting, or pretending to reGect, on certain occasions (hat the Mishkat and other (orks of !haEali espo2sed'-7 AverroesI reading of the Mishkat has not been taken serio2sly by recent scholars'-? It is, nonetheless, correct' The Mishkat recogniEes t(o classes of 1en (ho ascend to the Mtr2e heavensM and attain a gen2ine 2nderstanding of !od< those (ho kno( (hat they do thro2gh 1eans of Mscientific kno(ledgeM 9cirfan cil1i:, and those (ho are in a Mstate of direct e*perienceM 9hal dha(JiH dha(J literally 1eans MtasteM:'-A Me1bers of the Al8M2nJidh 1in al8%aldl 9Cairo -.7/: -?/8?;H English translation< The "aith and ,ractice ofal8!haEali, trans' K' Katt 9 ondon -.>;: >@8>>' -@ "asl al8MaJal, ed' !' Ho2rani 9 eiden -.>.: /AH English translation< Averroes on the Har1ony of Religion and ,hilosophy, trans' !' Ho2rani 9 ondon -.7-: 7-' -> Avicenna, 3' al8hharat (al8 Tanbihat, ed' L' "orget 9 eiden -A./: -/7H "rench translation of Isharat, (ith pages of "orgetIs edition indicated< ivre des directives et re1arJ2es, trans' A' !oichon 90eir2t -.>-:' -7 Averroes, 3' al83ashf, ed' M' Miiller as ,hilosophic 2nd Theologie von Averroes 9M2nich -A>.: ?-H !er1an translation, (ith pagination of the Arabic indicated< ,hilosophic 2nd Theologie von Averroes, trans' M' Miiller 9M2nich -A?>:H Tahaf2t al8Tahaf2t, ed' M' 0o2yges 90eir2t -.;6: --?H English translation, (ith pagination of the Arabic indicated< AverroesI Tahaf2t al8Tahaf2t, trans' S' van den 0ergh 9 ondon -.>@:' In MiEan al8cA1al, !haEali states the r2le that a (ise 1an does not disclose his gen2ine beliefs to anyone e*cept those (ho are on the sa1e level as he' The Arabic te*t (as not available to 1e' "rench translation< Critere de #action, trans' H' Hache1 9,aris -.@>: -@A' -? An e*ception is %' 0aneth, MR' )eh2da ha8 evi and !haEali,M 9in Hebre(: 3eneset - 9-.@/: ;/;, n' 7' -A !haEali, Mishkat al8An(ar, ed' A' Afifi 9Cairo -.7@: >?' English translation 9inadeJ2ate:<
Mishkat al8An(ar 9The $iche for ightsI:, trans' K' !airdner, /d ed' 9 ahore -.>/: -67' "rench l;
-;-
second class, altho2gh in danger of falling into the pantheistic error of i1agining the1selves identical (ith !od, are s2perior to 1e1bers of the first class, and !haEali e*plicitly enco2rages readers to Mbeco1e 1en of direct e*perience'M Any (ho cannot are advised to Mbeco1e 1en of science'M-. !haEali, 1oreover, ass2res readers that (hen Mintellect is set free of the veil o f ' ' ' i1agination, it cannot conceivably errH''' its being set free '' ' (ill be co1pleted after the death Qof the bodyR'M/6 He th2s ranks the e*ercise of intellect belo( direct e*perience, (hile at the sa1e ti1e a(arding intellect an 2na1big2o2s cachet of legiti1acy' The 3oranic verse aro2nd (hich !haEali constr2cts the Mishkat opens (ith the (ords M!od is the light of the heavens and the earth,M and a little later in the verse, !od is called a Mlight above light'M As is hardly s2rprising, Mishkat al8An(dr, the $iche of ights, 1akes e*tensive 2se of light i1agery in representing the nat2re of the deity and beings s2bordinate to Hi1' E1ploying light i1agery for that p2rpose (as hardly original' The Old and $e( Testa1ents e1ploy light i1agery for describing !od,/- and in philosophy, the application of s2ch i1agery to incorporeal beings e*tends fro1 ,lato,// thro2gh ,hilo/; and ,lotin2s,/@ into the Middle Ages'/> Especially pertinent here are certain phrases in the Arabic paraphrase of ,lotin2s kno(n as the Theology of Aristotle'
translation< e tabernacle des l21ieres, trans' R' %eladriere 9,aris -.A-: >;' On the ter1 dha(J, (hich literally 1eans taste, see Ibn T2fail, Hayy ben )aJdhdn 9)aJEdri:, ed' and "rench trans' ' !a2thier 90eir2t -.;7:, "rench section @, n'l' -. Ibid' ?AH English translation -@AH "rench translation ?A' /6 Ibid' @?H English translation .6H "rench translation @@' K' Katt, MThe A2thenticity of Korks Attrib2ted to al8!haEali,M Lo2rnal of the Royal Asiatic Society 9-.>/: ;A, @@, contends that (orks betraying Mno hint of any contradiction bet(een prophetic kno(ledge and rational kno(ledgeM cannot belong to the final stage of !haEaliIs tho2ght, a stage represented in partic2lar by the MishkatH for in !haEaliIs final stage, direct e*perience 9dha(J: is of a (holly different character fro1 reason' Khat !haEali says abo2t prophecy in the passages J2oted here and belo( 2nderc2ts KattIs contention' /- Cf' ,sal1s /?<-H $'T' - Lohn -<>H - La1es -<-?' // ,lato, Rep2blic >6.' /; See "' 3lein, %ie ichtter1inologie bei ,hilon von Ale*andrien 2nd in den her1etischen Schriften 9 eiden -.7/:' 9Reference f2rnished by %avid Kinston': /@ ,lotin2s, Enneads @';'-?H >';'-/H >'7'@H 7'A'-AH and passi1H A' Ar1strong, The Architect2re of the Intelligible &niverse in the ,hilosophy of ,lotin2s 9Ca1bridge -.@6: >@>?' The t(o passages fro1 Enneads >, appear in the preserved Arabic paraphrases of ,lotin2s' See Risalafi al8cll1 al8Ildhl, in ,lotin2s ap2d Arabes, ed' A' 0ada(i 9Cairo -.>>: -?>H English translation by !' e(is, facing the !reek te*t, in ,lotin2s, Enneades, ed' ,' Henry and H'8R' Sch(yEer / 9,aris -.>.: ;/-H Al8Shaykh al8)2ndni, ed' "' Rosenthal, Orientalia /- 9-.>/: @A6A-' /> C' 0ae21ker, Kitelo 9Miinster -.6A: 90eitrage E2r !eschichte der ,hilosophie des Mittelalters ;'/: ;>?8@->, @/78;@, traces the history of (hat he calls the 1etaphysics of light, that is, doctrines in (hich !od is represented as the tr2e, p2re light, and hence the so2rce of all other lightlike beings in the
2niverse'
-;/
The Theology of Aristotle had called the "irst Ca2se, or the One< Mthe first lightM/7 and Mthe light of lights'M/? Taking his c2e fro1 the 3oranic verse aro2nd (hich he b2ilds the Mishkat, and apparently also fro1 those ter1s in the Theology of Aristotle, !haEali characteriEes !od as Mthe highest, 2lti1ate light,M the Mtr2e, essential light,M/A and Mthe light of lights'M/. In addition, he (rites in the Mishkat that the ter1 light is a synony1 for both MintellectM 9caJl:;6 and Me*istence'M;- Khen he calls !od the highest 2lti1ate light and the tr2e essential light, he therefore 1eans either that !od is the highest intellect and intellect in the strictest sense, or alternatively that !od is the highest e*istent being and e*istent in the strictest sense' !haEaliIs third phrase, Mlight of lights,M 1ay, in the conte*t of the Mishkat, 1ean either, again, that !od is the highest intellect or highest e*istent being, or else that !od is the so2rce of all other intellects and of all other e*istent beings' Since !od alone is lightBCDthat is, e*istent or intellectBCDin the 1ost pri1ary sense, to predicate the ter1 light of anything else, of beings and intellects standing belo( the deity as (ell as of the pheno1enon in the physical (orld co11only called light, is, (rites !haEali, to ind2lge in Mp2re 1etaphor'M;/ Khat is 1etaphorical is not the 2se of the ter1 light to describe !od b2t, parado*ically, the 2se of the ter1 in the ordinary sense' In addition to 2sing the ter1s Mfirst lightM and Mlight of lights,M the Theology of Aristotle had described the "irst Ca2se as Mlight' ' ' e*isting by virt2e of itself'M;; Khen AvicennaIs co11entary on the Theology of Aristotle e*po2nded the passage (here the description appears, it spoke of the Mnecessarily e*istent Qby virt2e of itselfR,M (hich is Mthe essence of tr2e lightM and (hich is Mlight by virt2e of itself and light e*isting by virt2e of itself, not by virt2e of another'M;@ Avicenna sa( in the TheologyIs lang2age an all2sion to a proposition lying at the heart of his o(n philosophy, the proposition that a being 12st e*ist (hich is necessarily e*istent by virt2e of itself and 2pon (hich everything e*istent by virt2e of another depends';> In the conte*t (here !haEali constr2es light as a synony1 for /7
>'A'; and >'A'-/' English translation, facing the !reek, in ,lotin2s, Enneades 9n' /@ above:' The !reek does not, ho(ever, have the ter1 first light' /?
Theology of Aristotle, ed' "' %ieterici 9 eipEig -AA/: >- and --A, paralleling Enneads
Theology of Aristotle @@ and --A, paralleling Enneads >'A'-H >'A'-/' The !reek does not
have the (ords light of lights' In the $icene Creed, !od is called the Mlight of light'M /A Mishkat @-H English translation ?.H "rench translation ;?' /. Ibid' 76H English translation ---H "rench translation >7' ;6 Ibid' @;8-@H English translation A;H "rench translation @6' ;- Ibid' >>H English translation -6;H "rench translation >/' ;/ Ibid' @-, >@H English translation ?., -6-H "rench translation ;?, >6' ;;Theology of Aristotle 9n' /7 above: >-' ;@ Avicenna, Co11entary on the Theology of Aristotle, in Arisf2 cinda al8 cArab, ed' A' 0ada(i 9Cairo -.@?: >78>?H "rench translation< M es notes dIAvicenne s2r la ITheologie dIAristote,IM trans' !' #aGda, Rev2e tho1iste >- 9-.>-: ;A6' ;> H' %avidson, ,roofs for Eternity, Creation, and the E*istence of !od, in Medieval Isla1ic and Le(ish ,hilosophy 9$e( )ork -.A?: /A.8.;, /.A8;6@'
-;;
e*istence, he for his part (rites that everything e*isting in the 2niverse e*ists either Mby virt2e of itself or Mby virt2e of another,M that the Mfirst fo2ntM of light is Mlight by virt2e of itself,M and that Mthe tr2e e*istent being is !od, G2st as the tr2e light is !od'M;7 !haEaliIs (ording echoes both the Theology of Aristotle and the proposition of AvicennaIs philosophy (hich Avicenna had hi1self discovered in the Theology' In a slightly all2sive, b2t easily decipherable, fashion, !haEali like Avicenna is saying that (hatever e*ists 12st be either necessarily e*istent by virt2e of itself or necessarily e*istent by virt2e of another, that so1ething necessarily e*istent by virt2e of itself 12st e*ist, and that it is the ca2se of the e*istence of everything else in the 2niverse' In the conte*t (here the last passage J2oted appears, !haEali (rites as (ell< A 3oranic verse according to (hich Meverything perishes save his Q!odIsR co2ntenanceM does not 1ean that everything Mperishes at a partic2lar 1o1ent, b2t rather that it perishes eternally and everlastingly QaEalan, abadanR'M;? In other (ords, the (orld o2tside !od does not act2ally perish, and in characteriEing the (orld as perishable, Script2re 1eans 1erely that the (orld e*ists eternally by reason of another and not by reason of itself' The state1ent is astonishing' In his critiJ2e of AvicennaIs philosophy, !haEali insists that belief in the past eternity of the (orld is inco1patible (ith a belief in a "irst Ca2se, in the e*istence of !od,;A and he there brands the belief in Mthe past eternity QJida1R of the (orldM as heresy';. )et no( he says that the (orld is eternal and everlasting' ,erhaps his intent is that the (orld (ill e*ist eternally into the f2t2re, not that it has e*isted fro1 all eternity in the past'@6 Avicenna had e1ployed the 3oranic ter1 1alak2t, (hich I translated as s2pernal region, to designate the seg1ent of the 2niverse (hich incl2des the so2ls of the celestial spheres, altho2gh not the spheres the1selves, the incorporeal intelligences, and perhaps the "irst Ca2se'@- !haEaliIs Mishkdt asserts that the M(orld of 1alak2t,M also Mcalled the s2pernal (orld, the spirit2al (orld, or the light8(orld,M transcends the Mheavens'M@/ It is the Mintellect2al QcaJliR '' ' (orld'M@; As for its contents, Mthe totality of the (orld of 1alak2tM is Mthe angels,M@@ Mthe 2pper (orld Mishkat >@8>>H English translation -6-8;H "rench translation >68>/' Ibid' >>H English translation -6@H "rench translation >/' The verse is 3oran /A<AA' ;A !haEali, Tahaf2t al8"alasifa, ed' M' 0o2yges 90eir2t -./?: ;, 4T4T-?, /AH -6, 4T-' English translation in #an den 0ergh 9n'-7 above: .7,-6/, />6' %avidson 9n' ;> above: ;8@' ;. !haEali, Tahaf2t al8"alasifa ;?7' @6 A brief (ork attrib2ted to !haEali and preserved only in a 1edieval Hebre( translation offers a standard arg21ent for the past eternity of the (orld' See !haEali, Ant(orten a2f"ragen die an ihn gerichtet (arden, ed' H' Malter 90erlin -A.@: @-8@;' That (ork copies long passages fro1 !haEaliIs s211ary of AvicennaIs philosophy and therefore, even if a2thentic, 1ay be only an e*ercise and not an e*pression of !haEaliIs personal beliefs' @- Above, p' --.' @/ Mishkat >6H English translation .@8.>H "rench translation @78@?' @; Ibid' 7>H English translation -//H "rench translation 7@' VIbid' >6H English translation .>H "rench translation @?' ;? ;7
-;@
is filled (ith' '' the intellect2al, nonphysical Q1acna(iyyaR lights, (hich are the angelic s2bstances,M@> the M(orld of 1alak2t contains lightlike s2bstances ''' kno(n as angels Uy2cabbar canhd bil81aldIikaRM@7 The Mcelestial lightsM for1 Ma hierarchy,M in (hich the Mclosest to the pri1ary so2rce 1ost deserves the na1e IlightI since it is highest in rank'M@? T(o cl2es slice thro2gh the clo2d of verbiage' The first is that light is a synony1 for intellect' And the second co1es (hen !haEali discloses the f2nctions perfor1ed by the beings 1aking 2p the s2pernal (orld' Each of the Mheavens,M that is to say, each of the celestial Mspheres,M is 1oved by an MangelM that acts Mthro2gh contact Q12bdshardRM and by a Mdivine lightM that acts Mnot by (ay of contactM b2t thro2gh Mco11andM 9a1r:'@A The s2pernal intellect2al lights, divine lights, angels, and angelic s2bstances, (hich 1ake 2p the s2pernal region, are th2s nothing other than the fa1iliar incorporeal intelligences and the rational so2ls of the spheres, each incorporeal intelligence 1oving its sphere indirectlyBCDby serving as an obGect of desireBCDand each celestial so2l 1oving its sphere directlyBCDthro2gh its desire to e12late the perfection of the intelligence'@. EJ2ating the so2ls of the spheres and 2ndo2btedly also the incorporeal intelligences (ith the angels of religio2s no1enclat2re, as !haEali does here in the Mishkdt, (as co11onplace' A1ong others, Avicenna dre( the eJ2ation,>6 and !haEali hi1self re1arked in his s211ary of AvicennaIs philosophy that Mthe so2ls Qof the spheresR and the intelligences ''' are kno(n as celestial spirit2al angels Qy2cabbar canha bil1aldIika ' ' ' R'M>- Avicenna, as happens, had also 2sed the ter1 Min contactM 912bdshar: to characteriEe the relation of the so2ls of the celestial spheres to their respective spheres'>/ It is, !haEali stresses, a principle of para1o2nt i1portance, grasped solely by 1en of the very highest attain1ents, that the Mo2ter1ost celestial body,M the MsphereM dra(ing the other spheres aro2nd the earth Monce each day,M is 1oved by the co11and of a being s2bordinate to the "irst Ca2se and not by the "irst Ca2se itself'>; In other (ords, as Alfarabi and Avicenna had ta2ght, the "irst Ca2se of Ibid' >.H English translation --6H "rench translation >7' Ibid' 7?H English translation -/7H "rench translation 77' @? Ibid' >;H English translation ..H "rench translation @.' @A Ibid' .-H English translation -?-8?/H "rench translation .;8.@' @. Cf' Aristotle, Metaphysics -/'?H Avicenna, ShifaI< Ilahiyydt, ed' !' Ana(ati et al' 9Cairo -.76: ;A78 A?H "rench translation, (ith pagination of the Arabic indicated< a MdtaphysiJ2e d2 ShifaI< livres #I a +, trans' !' Ana(ati 9,aris -.A>:' @7 >6 > @>
ShifaI< Ilahiyyat @;>'
!haEali, MaJasid 9n' ; above: -A/' The phraseology is e*actly the sa1e as that in the passage J2oted in n' @7'
>/
ShifaI< Ilahiyyat @;-'
SVMishkat .-H English translation -?68?/H "rench translation .;8.@' K' Katt, MA "orgery in al8!haEaliIs MishkatlM Lo2rnal of the Royal Asiatic Society 9-.@.: 78-;, /-, J2estions the a2thenticity of this section of the Mishkdt, beca2se he finds MglaringM differences bet(een it and the earlier sections' I did not see differences in doctrine, and Ibn T2fail, Averroes, and "akhr al8%In
-;>
the 2niverse is not identical (ith the incorporeal intelligence that 1oves the o2ter1ost sphereH it transcends the incorporeal 1overs of the spheres' The Mishkdt does not n21ber the celestial spheresH it 1erely affir1s Ma pl2rality'M>@ The MdegreesM of s2pernal Mlights,M that is to say, the incorporeal intelligences and the so2ls of the spheres, Mresist en21erationM b2t Mdo not r2n to infinity'M>> 0y that state1ent, !haEali 1ay possibly be severing the link bet(een transcendent incorporeal intellects and celestial spheres, and s2ggesting, as Ab2 al0arakat and S2hra(ardi (ill, that transcendent incorporeal beings e*ist apart fro1 the incorporeal 1overs of the spheres and the spheresI so2ls' He 1ay, ho(ever, 1erely be recogniEing, as an early (ork of Averroes (ill contend,>7 that incorporeal intelligences and so2ls sho2ld be posited not only for the nine 1ain celestial spheres b2t for all the spheres, incl2ding the secondary, eccentric and epicyclical, spheresH and since the total n21ber of celestial spheres, pri1ary and secondary, had never been ascertained definitively, the total n21ber of intelligences and so2ls of spheres like(ise re1ains 2ndeter1ined' !haEali, in passages already J2oted, called !od Mthe light of lightsM and the Mfirst fo2ntM of light' He f2rther calls !od the light Mill21ining everything o2tside itself,M the light fro1 (hich Mall other lights shine in accordance (ith their Qplace in theR hierarchy,M the Mso2rceM fro1 (hich Mlight descends to others'M>? The 1ost freJ2ent analogies philosophers e1ployed for ill2strating the e1anation process (ere the flo(ing of (ater, the radiation of light, and the radiation of heat' 0y calling !od the first fo2nt and the so2rce fro1 (hich other lights descend, !haEali co1bines t(o of the three analogies' He nonetheless avoids stating e*plicitly that !od e1anated the 2niverse' Instead, 2sing 3oranic lang2age, he (rites that !od Mcreated UfatardR the heavens, the o2ter1ost sphere, and Qthe beingR that co11ands the 1ove1ent of the sphere'M;A Either !haEali believed that !od bro2ght the (orld into e*istence thro2gh a process of e1anation b2t hesitated to say so e*pressly al8RaEi all refer to the section and treat it as a gen2ine part of the Mishkdt' The pertinent passage in Ibn T2fail is Hayy ben )aJdhan 9n' -A above:, Arabic section -?H "rench translation ->H English translation, (ith pagination of !a2thierIs Arabic te*t indicated< Hayy Ibn )aJEan, trans' ' !ood1an 9$e( )ork -.?/:' The passage in Averroes is 3' al83ashf9n' -7 above: ?-' H' aEar2s8)afeh, St2dies in al8!haEEali 9Ler2sale1 -.?>: @/, cites the passage in RaEi' !haEali calls the incorporeal 1over of the o2ter1ost sphere an Mobeyed oneM 912fa6:, and the e*pression has, strangely, left a line of 1odern scholars scratching their heads' !haEali si1ply 1eans that the so2l of the o2ter1ost sphere obeys the Mco11andM of the first incorporeal intelligence in the sense that it e12lates the intelligence and thereby 1oves the sphere' S@ Mishkat .-H English translation -?6H "rench translation .;' The English translation so1eti1es speaks of MsevenM spheres, b2t nothing in the Arabic te*t G2stifies the n21ber seven' >> Ibid' >;8>@H English translation -668-6-H "rench translation >6' >7 0elo(, p' //>' >? Ibid' >@H English translation -6-H "rench translation >6' See also ibid' 76H English translation ---H "rench translation >7' >A Ibid' ./H the English translation -?/, bl2rs the pointH "rench translation .@' The passage echoes 3oran 7<?.'
-;7
beca2se the notion of divine e1anation (as s2spect in conservative circlesH or he did believe that !od created the (orld by fiatH or perhaps he 2nderstood that e1anation and creation a1o2nt to the sa1e thing' The Mishkdt betrays no hint of the proposition that fro1 one only one can proceed or of the notion that co1ple*ity in the 2niverse derives fro1 the 12ltiple tho2ghts of the incorporeal intelligences'>. The individ2al lights in the s2pernal region for1 a Mhierarchy,M inas12ch as they are Mf2eled UyaJtabisR fro1 one another'M In a different adaptation of the light i1agery, !haEali (rites that light in the s2pernal region is Mreflected,M as it (ere, fro1 one s2rface to another, and thereby s2ccessively loses intensity'76 The angels that 1ove the spheres directly, that is, the so2ls of the spheres, are related to the Mp2re divine lights,M that is, to the incorporeal intelligences governing the1, as Mthe 1oon Qis related to the s2nRM in the physical (orld'7- As so often in the Mishkdt, the lang2age is el2sive' Any do2bts abo2t !haEaliIs intent are, ho(ever, re1oved by the circ21stance that another section of the book 2ses the ter1 f2eled as an eJ2ivalent of e1anated'7/ The state1ent that the s2pernal lights are f2eled fro1 one another accordingly 1eans that the intelligences and so2ls of the spheres e1anate fro1 one another, (ith an attendant loss of intensity at each s2ccessive stage' Si1ilarly, (hen !haEali co1pares the relation of the so2ls of the spheres to the incorporeal intelligences (ith the relation of the 1oon to the s2n, he 1eans that G2st as the 1oon has no light of its o(n b2t reflects the light of the s2n, so the so2ls of the spheres e*ist solely by virt2e of an e1anation fro1 the intelligences, again (ith an attendant loss of intensity' Khat (e have seen in the preceding paragraphs is that (hile !haEali 1ay or 1ay not have 2nderstood !od to be the e1anating ca2se of (hat follo(s Hi1 in e*istence, he clearly 2nderstands the incorporeal intelligences to e1anate fro1 one another and the so2ls of the spheres to e1anate fro1 the intelligences' I co2ld not find the Mishkdt addressing the 1anner in (hich the physical (orld receives e*istence' !haEali does (rite that !od alone is a being necessarily e*istent by reason of itself, that !od created the spheres and intelligences, that everything o2tside of !od is dependent on Hi1 for its e*istence' He also (rites that the Mentire lo(er (orldM stands M2nder the do1inion and l21inanceM of the s2pernal hierarchy and hence 2lti1ately 2nder the do1inion and l21inance of !od'7; The physical (orld th2s 2lti1ately depends on !od for its e*istence and is governed, if not bro2ght into e*istence, thro2gh the inter1ediacy of the intelligences and the so2ls of the spheres' In an obliJ2e state1ent, the h21an MinternalM eye, that is, the ,ace %eladriere 9n' -A above: --68--' VMishkdt >;H English translation ..H "rench translation @.' On the the1e that s2ccessive phases of the e1anation process are acco1panied by a decrease in intensity, see A' Alt1ann and S' Stern, Isaac Israeli 9O*ford -.>A: --., -/?, -?7' 7- Mishkdt .-H English translation -?-H "rench translation .;' 7/ See i11ediately belo(' VMishkat 7?H English translation -/?H "rench translation 77' >.
-;?
h21an Mintellect,M is described as Mfro1 the s2pernal regionM7@ (hich 12st 1ean that it is e1anated fro1 one of the higher beings' MEarthly lightsM are Mf2eled fro1 ''' the celestial lights'M7> M ights e1anate QtafidR fro1M the Mlightlike s2bstances ' '' kno(n as angels ' ' ' 2pon h21an spirits'M77 The so2rce Mfro1 (hich the earthly spirits are f2eledM is Mthe s2pernal divine spirit,M a spirit identical (ith an MangelM possessing, according to an Isla1ic tradition, M?6,666 faces, each of the1 (ith ?6,666 tong2es'M7? Khile the first of the three state1ents 1ay be saying that the h21an so2l is e1anated fro1 the celestial region, the second can be seen on its face, and the third is seen fro1 its conte*t, to relate not to the so2rce of the h21an so2l b2t to the so2rce of its ill21ination' Else(here in the Mishkat, the e*pression h21an spirit designates the h21an so2l or intellect,7A or alternatively any of the fac2lties of the h21an so2l'7. The state1ents abo2t h21an spiritsI receiving an e1anation fro1 the s2pernal lights and being f2eled by a divine spirit 1ean, then, that the h21an so2l, or the h21an intellect, or the h21an cognitive fac2lties are ill21ined by an e1anation fro1 the incorporeal real1' More precisely, they are ill21ined by an e1anation fro1 a single Mdivine spiritM identical (ith the angel of ?6,666 faces' Ibn T2fail (as to take the angel of ?6,666 faces as eJ2ivalent to the active intellect, and !haEali can very pla2sibly be read in the sa1e (ay' Even in his critiJ2e of AvicennaIs philosophy, !haEali does not reGect the e*istence of the active intellect'?6 The Mishkat f2rther states< The M(ord of !od,M (hich incl2des the M3oranM and its Mverses,M ill21inates the h21an MintellectM and ca2ses it to pass fro1 MpotentialityM to Mact2ality'M The M3oran and the books' ' ' sent do(n ''' by !od,M ill21inate 1anIs MinnerM eye, that is, 1anIs Mintellect,M and are aptly Ibid' @.H English translation .;H "rench translation @7' Ibid' >;H English translation ..H "rench translation @.' 77 Ibid' 7?H English translation -/78/?H "rench translation 77' Instances (here !haEaliIs (orks speak of !odIs e1anating His grace, hence instances (here the ter1 e1anation 1ay have a nontechnical sense, are cited by aEar2s8)afeh 9n' >; above: ;--8-/' 7? Ibid' >/H English translation .AH "rench translation @.' 7A Ibid' @;H English translation A;H "rench translation @6' 7. Ibid' ?78 ??H English translation -@;8@>H "rench translation ?>8?7' The passage e*plains that fo2r of five Mdegrees of light8like h21an spiritsM are the Msense perceptive spirit,M the Mi1aginative spirit,M the Mcogitative spirit,M and the Mintellect2al spirit,M that is to say, the sense perceptive fac2lty, i1aginative fac2lty, cogitative fac2lty, and intellect2al fac2lty' The fifth MspiritM is the Mprophetic holy spirit'M On p' @7, English translation A?, "rench translation @/8@;, the Mishkat lists five inner senses of the h21an so2l, na1ely< Mretentive i1agination, esti1ation, cogitation, 1e1ory QdhikrR, and conservative 1e1ory QhifER'M That list is close to AvicennaIs list, b2t not identicalH see above, p' A., n' 77' It is also si1ilar to, b2t not identical (ith, the list of inner senses given in !haEaliIs s211ary of AvicennaIs philosophy, the MaJdsidH see MaJasid 9n' ; above: /A@8A>, and H' Kolfson, MThe Internal Senses,M reprinted in KolfsonIs St2dies in the History of ,hilosophy and Religion - 9Ca1bridge, Mass' -.?;: /A>' ?6 See belo(, p' ->-'
7> 7@
-;A
sy1boliEed by the Ms2n,M (hich enables the e*ternal h21an eye to see'?- Ke have not s2ddenly been transported to the arena of si1ple1inded script2alis1, for, !haEali adds, the 3oran and other divine books are part of the Ms2pernal (orldM 91alak2t:'?/ They are Ms2bstancesM in the s2pernal Mhierarchy'M?; The tr2e divine books are, in other (ords, not (ritten doc21ents circ2lating in the physical (orld b2t 1e1bers of the real1 of incorporeal intelligences and so2ls of the spheres' Khat casts a light on the h21an potential intellect and leads it to act2ality is the s2pernal being represented by the (ritten 3oran, not the doc21ent called the 3oran' Sho2ld, as see1s pla2sible, the 3oran represent the active intellect and no other 1e1ber of the (orld of incorporeal intellects, !haEali has repeated the philosophic thesis that the transcendent active intellect sends forth an e1anation (hich acts as light acts 2pon the eye and (hich thereby leads the h21an intellect fro1 potentiality to act2ality' Asharite dog1atics held that the 3oran, being the (ord of !od, is 2ncreated'?@ If !haEali s2bscribed to the 2ncreatedness of the 3oran (hen (riting the Mishkat, his locating the paradig1atic 3oran in the real1 of incorporeal intellects (o2ld be tanta1o2nt to again constr2ing the incorporeal intelligences as coeternal (ith !od' The Mpec2liarly h21an s2bstanceM is the h21an Mintellect2al spirit,M or intellect2al fac2lty' MThro2ghM the intellect2al fac2lty, 1an obtains M2niversal, necessary ite1s of kno(ledge,M s2ch as the proposition that Mthe sa1e thing cannot be both eternal and generatedMBCDin other (ords, the la( of contradictionBCDand the proposition that (hat Mis affir1ed of a thing 1ay be affir1ed of its likeMBCDa variation of the principle that things eJ2al to the sa1e thing are eJ2al to each other' ,lainly, the intellect2al spirit, or fac2lty, is the h21an potentiality for tho2ght' The intellect2al fac2lty is follo(ed, in !haEaliIs acco2nt, by the Mcogitative spirit,M or fac2lty, (hich co1bines Mite1s of p2re intellect2al kno(ledge, ' ' ' dra(s concl2sions fro1 the1,M co1bines propositions th2s derived, and MacJ2ires a fresh concl2sion'M?> That is to say, the cogitative spirit perfor1s f2nctions that Avicenna ascribed to the cogitative fac2lty of the so2l< It takes hold of abstract concepts, e1ploys the1 to fra1e syllogis1s, ded2ces concl2sions, and then repeats the Mishkat @.H English translation ./8.@H "rench translation @>8@7' ,assages in other (orks of !haEali (hich co1pare the 3oran to light or to the s2n are recorded by aEar2s8)afeh 9n' >; above: /.-8./' On /.;, aEar2s8)afeh cites a passage (here !haEali co1pares the 3oran to a 1edication for c2ring the eyeH see above, pp' .;8.@, for AvicennaIs 2se of the analogy of an eye 1edication' On pp' ;-/8/6, aEar2s8 )afeh gives e*a1ples of the 1irror analogy in !haEali' That analogy (as also 1et in Avicenna, above, p' .@H b2t little can be inferred fro1 its reappearance in !haEali, since it (as a co11onplace' ?/ Mishkat @.H English translation .@H "rench translation @7' ?; Ibid' ?68?-H English translation -;;8;@H "rench translation 7.8?6' ?@ H' Kolfson, The ,hilosophy of the 3ala1 9Ca1bridge, Mass' -.?7: /;., />@, />7, /A6A@' -> Mishkat --, taken together (ith @AH English translation -@>8@7 taken together (ith .-8./H "rench translation ?7, taken together (ith @>' ?l
-;.
process'?7 Since !haEali has been seen to (rite that the h21an so2l is ill21inated by an e1anation fro1 the incorporeal region, the cogitative fac2lty pres21ably perfor1s its f2nctions thanks to that e1anation' !haEali does not repeat AvicennaIs proposition that the so2l receives intelligible tho2ghts directly=ro1 the e1anation ill21inating it' Avicenna had given considerable attention to insight, the aptit2de so1e 1en have for conGoining (ith the active intellect effortlessly and (itho2t reco2rse to cogitation, and he had applied to a high degree of insight the ter1s Mholy intellect,M Mholy fac2lty Qor po(erR,M and Mpo(er Qor fac2ltyR of QaR holy so2l'M Sho2ld a 1an Mb2rnM (ith insight to the e*tent that he receives broad scientific kno(ledge fro1 the active intellect effortlessly, the 1anBCDAvicenna (roteBCDenGoys intellect2al prophecy, (hich is the Mhighest of the po(ers of prophecy'M?? The 3oranic verse 2sing the i1agery of a la1p characteriEed the oil in the la1p Mas virt2ally glo(ing forth of itself, tho2gh no fire to2ched it'M In AvicennaIs e*egesis of the verse, the oil that glo(s altho2gh virt2ally 2nto2ched by fire sy1boliEes the Mholy fac2ltyM possessed by the 1an of high Minsight'M?A It sy1boliEes a high degree of the aptit2de for effortless conG2nction (ith the active intellect' And a s2perlative degree of insight constit2tes intellect2al prophecy' !haEali does not e*plicitly dra( AvicennaIs distinction bet(een cogitation and insight 9hads: or even 2se the latter ter1' He nevertheless 1akes a si1ilar distinction, (riting< The cogitative spirit, or fac2lty, is of t(o sorts, that (hich MreJ2ires instr2ction, pro1pting, and e*ternal aid,M and that (hich is of s2fficient Mp2rityM to Mpro1pt itself, as it (ere, (itho2t e*ternal aid'M Khen the cogitative fac2lty reaches Mco1plete p2rity,M 1an possesses Mthe holy prophetic spirit attrib2ted to the 1asters Q(allR'M ?. Another passage p2ts things a bit differently' It states that the Mprophetic holy spirit,M the property of Mprophets as (ell as of so1e 1asters Q(allR,M operates (here Mthe intellect2al and cogitative spirit falls short'M The prophetic spirit is Mbeyond intellectM and Mabove science'MA6 Th2s one passage in the Mishkat identifies the holy prophetic spirit as the pinnacle of a higher sort of cogitative fac2lty, of the cogitative fac2lty that can pro1pt itself (itho2t e*ternal aid, (hereas another passage places the prophetic holy spirit beyond cogitation' Khat !haEali 1ysterio2sly calls Mtablets of the 2nseenM are MrevealedM thro2gh the prophetic spirit' Also revealed is kno(ledge of the type that occ2pied Alfarabi and Avicenna, na1ely, the tr2th abo2t Mthe ne*t (orld,M and Mkno(ledge of the s2pernal region Qthat is, the incorporeal intelligences and the so2ls of the spheresR, the heavens, the earth, and even ''' of the divine Above, pp' .78.A' Above, pp' -668-6-, --?8-A' Avicenna also applied the ter1 holy intellect to acJ2ired intellect, in the special sense of the c2l1ination of h21an intellect2al develop1entH above, p' -6;' ?A Ishdrat -/7' The 3oranic verse is /@<;>' ?. Mishkat A-H English translation ->;H "rench translation A-' A6 Ibid' ??8?AH English translation -@78@AH "rench translation ?78?A' ?? ?7
-@6
nat2re'MA- 0eca2se of the prophetic spiritIs ability to go beyond cogitation, or beyond ordinary cogitation, and to pro1pt itself, !haEali finds Mthe prophetic holy spiritM to be sy1boliEed by the oil that, in the 3oranic i1agery, glo(s altho2gh virt2ally 2nto2ched by fire'A/ Taken together, his state1ents are s2ggestive' His prophetic holy spirit, or fac2lty, goes beyond cogitation, or beyond ordinary cogitation, and pro1pts itself 12ch as the aptit2de of insight does in AvicennaBCD and in Avicenna a high degree of insight constit2tes intellect2al prophecyH at least so1e of the kno(ledge AvicennaIs intellect2al prophecy receives fro1 the active intellect is revealed thro2gh !haEaliIs prophetic spiritH and his prophetic holy spirit or fac2lty is sy1boliEed by the very 3oranic i1age sy1boliEing the holy fac2lty of insight in AvicennaIs e*egesis' Khat !haEali calls holy prophetic spirit so2nds s2spicio2sly like a high degree of insight' !haEali in addition characteriEes prophecy as a Mdirect e*perienceM 9dha(JH literally< taste:'A; If he indeed is follo(ing Avicenna and recogniEes an intellect2al prophecy that consists in the e*ercise of a high degree of insight, he has 1erely replaced the ter1 insight (ith prophetic holy spirit and direct e*perience' Calling insight a direct or i11ediate e*perience is by no 1eans inappropriate, for insight is the direct and i11ediate (ay of establishing conG2nction (ith the active intellect' Readers of !haEali (ho (ish to p2t a 1ore traditional face on the Mishkat (ill have to interpret the book as inti1ating that prophecy does not res2lt fro1 a high degree of insight, as Avicenna s2pposed, b2t fro1 so1ething different yet strikingly si1ilar, fro1 Mdirect e*perience'M %irect e*perience co1es 2p in another conte*t' !haEali (rites that for certain select 1en, the M1eaningM of the 3oranic (ords IMeverything perishes save his Q!odIsR co2ntenanceI beco1es ''' a direct e*perience Qdha(JR and a state'M &pon attaining that state, a 1anIs being is overco1e by Mdarkness,M is Me*ting2ished,M Mrendered as na2ght,M and MannihilatQedR'M MAll that re1ains is the One Tr2e 0eing,M !od'A@ %espite the 1ysteri21 tre1end21 (ith (hich the passage is freighted, !haEali stresses that the state and e*perience he is speaking of do not consist in Mbeco1ing oneM 9ittihdd: (ith !odH rather they consist in MrecogniEing the 2nityM 9ta(hid: of !od'A> %irect e*perience is, accordingly, nothing ineffable or ecstatic' It is a heightened h21an realiEation that since !od alone e*ists necessarily by virt2e of Hi1self, everything else in the 2niverse, incl2ding 1an, is as na2ght' If, as I have s2ggested, the e*pression direct e*perience is a veiled eJ2ivalent of insight, the passages J2oted in this paragraph Ibid' ??H English translation -@7H "rench translation ?7' Ibid' A-H English translation ->;H "rench translation A-' A; Ibid' ?AH English translation -@AH "rench translation ??8 ?A' A@ Ibid' ./, English translation -?/8?;H "rench translation .@8.>' The verse, 3oran /A<AA, appeared above, p' -;;' A> Ibid' ./, taken together (ith >AH English translation -?;, taken together (ith -6A 9i1precise:H "rench translation .>, taken together (ith >> 9like(ise not clear:' A/ A-
-@-
say that only the person of insight can f2lly co1prehend the 2nity of !od and the nothingness of everything o2tside of !od' Side by side (ith intellect2al prophecy, Avicenna had recogniEed a for1 of prophecy thro2gh the h21an i1aginative fac2lty and had sho(n ho( the t(o for1s of prophecy can co1bine'A7 !haEali too kno(s of prophecy thro2gh the h21an i1aginative fac2lty and he like(ise sho(s ho( it co1bines (ith intellect2al prophecy' Khen the body is asleep, he (rites, the Mdo1ination of the sense fac2ltiesM over the Mdivine inner light,M or rational so2l, is broken' As a conseJ2ence, the senses do not keep the so2l Mb2sy,M Mdragging it to the (orld of sensationM and Mt2rning its face a(ay fro1 the (orld of hidden things and the s2pernal (orld'M M#isionsM 912shahadafi- therefore generally occ2rBCD2ndo2btedly thro2gh the i1aginative fac2lty of the so2lBCD(hen 1en are asleep' E*ceptional so2ls, those that have beco1e Mprophetic lights,M can, ho(ever, gain control over their sense fac2lties even in the (aking condition, (ith the res2lt that they are vo2chsafed visions fro1 the s2pernal regions (hen a(ake' And sho2ld a prophetic so2l be Mco1pletely perfect, its perception is not li1ited to the visible for1' Its perception goes beyond the visible for1 to the inner secret'M The vision of the perfect prophetic so2l co1es abo2t as follo(s< The MnotionM 91acna: fro1 the (orld of hidden things and the s2pernal (orld appears first in an Minner visionMH that is to say, the notion fro1 above appears first to the prophetIs inner eye, to the intellect2al fac2lty of his so2l' The notion 1ay there2pon pass to the Mi1aginative Qkhayali R spirit,M to the i1aginative fac2lty, (here it takes on Ma for1 ' '' representingM the notion' In a (ord, the prophetIs intellect receives a notion, a theoretical tho2ght, fro1 the s2pernal region and trans1its the tho2ght to the i1aginative fac2lty, (hich recasts the tho2ght in a fig2rative i1age' That is tanta1o2nt to AvicennaIs thesis that i1aginative prophecy fra1es fig2rative i1ages of the theoretical tr2ths learned thro2gh intellect2al prophecy' MThis kind of revelation in the (aking state reJ2ires e*egesis QtaI(ilR, G2st as Qa visionR d2ring beneath the fig2rative i1ages, one 12st have reco2rse to allegorical e*egesis' MThe holy prophetic spiritM of the prophets, incl2ding M2ha11ad, initiates a ne( process of Me1anation,M a process in (hich vario2s types of kno(ledge Me1anate 2pon QotherR creat2resMA.H the prophet instr2cts others' Since !haEali has affir1ed the efficacy of the 1ethod p2rs2ed by M1en of science,M and since a fig2rative depiction of theoretical tr2ths can have no val2e for those (ho kno( the A7 A?
sleep reJ2ires interpretation QtacbirR'M AA To recover the theoretical tr2ths lying
The ter1 is diffic2lt to pin do(n' In Ibn T2fail, belo(, p' -@?, I translate it as
Mconscio2sness,M and in S2hra(ardI, belo(, p' -7?, I translate it as Mdirect e*perience'M The conte*t of the present passage sho(s that !haEali is speaking of a vision' Mishkat ?>8?7H English translation -@-8@; 9i1precise:H "rench translation ?@8 ?>' See above, p' -//' A. Ibid' >-8>/, and cf' 76H English translation .?, and cf' ---H "rench translation @A, and cf' >7'
Above, p' --.'
-@/
tr2th in the proper (ay, the p2rpose of the prophetIs fig2rative depiction 12st be to aid the 2nenlightened' To s211ariEe, (hen !haEaliIs Mishkat is read against the backgro2nd of Avicenna, an 2ne*pected pict2re appears, b2t one that Averroes (arned 2s (as there' ight, according to !haEali, is a synony1 for both intellect and e*istence' !od is the highest light, that is to say, the highest intellect and the highest e*istent beingH He is light by reason of itself, that is to say, a being e*istent by virt2e of itselfH and He is the first fo2nt or so2rce of light, that is to say, the so2rce of intellect and the so2rce of e*istence' The s2pernal region co1prises lights, or beings consisting in intellect, also called angelsH and they 1ove the celestial spheres either indirectly or directly' In other (ords, the s2pernal (orld co1prises the incorporeal intelligences, kno(n as angels in religio2s parlance, (hich 1ove the spheres indirectly, and the rational so2ls of the spheres, like(ise kno(n as angels, (hich 1ove the spheres directly' The 1over of the o2ter1ost sphere is not !od Hi1self, and co1prehending that the "irst Ca2se transcends the incorporeal 1overs of the spheres is of para1o2nt i1portance' !od, in !haEaliIs (ords, McreatedM the (orldH nevertheless, (hen describing the relation of !od to the incorporeal intelligences and the so2ls of the spheres, !haEali e1ploys analogies fro1 the e1anationist repertoire' T(o state1ents in the Mishkat even s2ggest that the (orld is eternal' The Mishkat declares the n21ber of intelligences and so2ls of the spheres to be 2nkno(n, either beca2se !haEali posits intelligences that are not 1overs of spheres or beca2se he do2bts that the precise n21ber of spheres, pri1ary as (ell as secondary, can be deter1ined' The intelligences e1anate fro1 one another and for1 a hierarchy, and the so2ls of the spheres are e1anated fro1 the intelligences' !haEali does not take 2p the 1anner in (hich the physical (orld co1es into e*istence, e*cept for (riting that the h21an so2l is Mfro1M the s2pernal region' He does treat the 1anner in (hich 1an acJ2ires kno(ledge' The h21an intellect is ill21inated and bro2ght to act2ality by an e1anation fro1 the transcendent region and specifically fro1 a single spirit, or angel, or prototypical divine Script2re, these all appearing to be loc2tions for the active intellect' S2perior 1en possess the prophetic holy spirit, or fac2lty, (hich goes beyond cogitation, or beyond ordinary cogitation, and they thereby discover a range of tr2ths of an intellect2al character' !haEali defines the prophetic holy spirit al1ost e*actly as Avicenna defined the holy fac2lty of insightH and indeed in Avicenna, a high degree of insight brings 1an intellect2al prophecy' !haEaliIs prophetic holy spirit and also direct e*perience, an e*pression he 2ses to characteriEe the prophetic holy spirit, are therefore very likely G2st a high degree of insight' A lesser type of prophecy also is recogniEed by !haEali, a type in (hich the i1aginative fac2lty serves as the 1edi21' Sho2ld the 1an in possession of the holy prophetic spirit be blessed as (ell (ith an inspired i1aginative fac2lty, he can recast into fig2rative i1ages the tr2ths that his intellect receives fro1 the s2pernal region'
-@;
The Mishkat, in fine, incorporates the 1ain lines of AvicennaIs syste1, altho2gh on several sensitive partic2lars !haEali still cloaks hi1self so tightly in a1big2ity that (hat he believed can only be conGect2red' The attrib2tion of the Mishkat to !haEali is virt2ally certain'.6 Another (ork attrib2ted to hi1, the a2thenticity of (hich is, by contrast, e*tre1ely do2btf2l, paraphrases and even copies verbati1 the 1ain points of AvicennaIs theory of intellect,.- (itho2t A do2bt has, ho(ever, been raised abo2t one sectionH see above, n' >;' Ma ca riG al8 P2ds 9Cairo -./?:< Each level in the hierarchy of e*istence is Me1anatedM fro1 the one above it 9/6>:' !od bro2ght the MintelligenceM into e*istence 9/6;, together (ith -..:' The Mso2lsM that 1ove the MheavensM aro2nd the earth stand belo( the intelligences 9->-, -.., /6/:' Arg21ents dra(n fro1 Aristotle and Avicenna for the e*istence of an incorporeal active intellect responsible for act2al h21an tho2ght 9>7,-;>8;7:' Arg21ents dra(n fro1 Avicenna for the Ms2bstantialityM of the h21an so2l 9/-8//, />8;/:' Arg21ents dra(n fro1 Avicenna to sho( that the destr2ction of the h21an so2l is not entailed by the destr2ction of the body 9-/A8;-:, and that the h21an so2l is intrinsically indestr2ctible 9-;-8;/H cf' above, pp' -678A:' "ive internal senses as in AvicennaIs ShifaI 9@78@?H cf above, pp' AA8A.:' The so2l can pass thro2gh three s2ccessive stages of h21an potentiality for tho2ght, ter1ed 1aterial intellect, intellect in habit2, and act2al intellectH and the three stages parallel three stages in the h21an potentiality for (riting 9>@8>7, copied fro1 Avicenna, ShifaI< %e ani1a, ed' "' Rah1an Q ondon -.>.R @A8>6H cf' above, p' A@:' MAcJ2ired intellect,M or Mholy intellect,M is act2al h21an tho2ght that occ2rs (hen the h21an intellect MconGoinsM (ith an Mangel, called an intellect,M that is, (ith the Mactive intellect,M (hich Me1anates intelligible tho2ghtsM 2pon the h21an so2l 9>7, 77, -;7, largely copied fro1 ShifaI< %e ani1a >6, /;>8;7H cf' above, p' A>:' MInsightM 9hads: is the aptit2de for receiving intelligible tho2ghts, together M(ith their de1onstrations,M (itho2t McogitationM 977:H again, insight is the aptit2de for receiving the M1iddle ter1M of a syllogis1, together (ith the syllogis1 and its concl2sion, Minstantaneo2sly or al1ost instantaneo2slyM 9-7/H cf' above, p' ..:' The niche of lights passage 93oran /@<;>: is interpreted as Avicenna had interpreted it 9>A8>.H cf' Avicenna, 3' al8Ishdrat (al8 Tanblhat Qn' -> aboveR -/7:' There are three categories of prophecy< intellect2al prophecy, a condition in (hich a 1an in possession of Mthe prophetic holy intellectM 97?: Mb2rns (ith insight regarding every s2bGect, so that the for1 in the active intellect is i1printed in hi1 instantaneo2sly or al1ost soM 9-7687-, copied fro1 ShifaI< %e ani1a /@.H cf' above, p' --?:H i1aginative prophecy, a condition in (hich the h21an practical intellect, aided by the Mco1positive i1agination,M conGoins (ith the so2ls of the spheres and sees f2t2re events prefig2red there 9->;8>>H cf' above, pp' -/-8//:H the ability, possessed by so1e 1en, to effect changes in the physical (orld by the force of their (ill 9-7@H cf' above, pp' -//8/;:' A so2l that has developed intellect2ally beco1es M2nitedM eternally (ith the incorporeal region and has Mthe intelligible order of all e*istence''' inscribed in itM 9-?68?-:H the so2l reaches the threshold for eternal Me2dae1oniaM only (hen it controls a considerable body of
kno(ledge 9-?>, copied fro1 Avicenna, ShifaI< Ilahiyyat Qn' @. aboveR @/.:H so2ls that learned to recogniEe intellect2al Goy in this life, b2t failed to attain the 1ini121 level of kno(ledge, s2ffer the eternal pain of 2nf2lfilled intellect2al desire 9-?/:H the Msi1ple1indedM enter into Ma kind of peaceM in the ne*t (orld 9-??, copying ShifaI< Ildhiyyat @;-:H 1oral fa2lts ca2se pain in the ne*t (orld, b2t the pain event2ally fades a(ay 9-?78??:' 9"or these last points, see above, pp' --68-/': The a2thor or co1piler of MacariG al8P2ds e*plains that he cites the philosophic, that is, Avicennan, acco2nt of the h21an so2l, beca2se Mintellect and Script2reM are partners, the for1er constit2ting a Mfo2ndation,M (hile the latter is a Mb2ildingM erected on the fo2ndation' Here and .- .6
-@@
1entioning the so2rce fro1 (hich it borro(s' Additional (orks attrib2ted to !haEali, the a2thenticity of (hich has been J2estioned, contain 1aterial on the s2bGect of intellect that agrees (ith (hat !haEali (rites in the Mishkat'./ T2rning to Ibn 0aGGa, (e find that his p2blished (ritings, like the Mishkat and other co1positions of !haEali, do not present their a2thorIs positions straightfor(ardly' The reason, ho(ever, is J2ite different, for 2nlike !haEali, Ibn 0aGGa e*hibits no diffidence abo2t disclosing his gen2ine beliefs' Khat obsc2res the positions he atte1pts to p2t for(ard is a barely penetrable literary style, and indeed, (ith ad1irable candor, Ibn 0aGGa hi1self characteriEes one of his (orks as poorly organiEed and poorly reasoned'.; He can nonetheless be descried, thro2gh the haEe, e*po2nding the nat2re of the h21an intellect and related topics as Alfarabi and Avicenna did' On so1e iss2es he plainly stands closer to Alfarabi than to Avicenna' He 1aintains the follo(ing< The celestial spheres are ani1ate rational beings that are governed by incorporeal intelligences.@H the intelligences are the ca2ses of the spheresI e*istence.>H and the Mactive intellect,M the agent effecting act2al h21an there the a2thor does bo( deferentially to Script2re or J2otes a verse or t(o fro1 the 3oran, b2t his reasoning is co1pletely philosophic' %' 0aneth 9n' -? above: ;-?, n' >, and !' #aGda, M e 1acariG al8J2ds,M Israel Oriental St2dies / 9-.?/: @?68?;, noted the dependence of Ma c ariG al8P2ds on Avicenna' ./ MiEan al8cA1al, "rench translation 9n' -7 above: lists the inner senses of the so2l in the spirit of Avicenna and other (orks of !haEali 9-78-?H see Kolfson Qn' 7. aboveR /A@:H ill2strates the stages of intellect by the stages in a childIs learning to (rite 9/6H see above, p' A@:H defines prophecy as the highest level of h21an Intellect2al develop1ent, (herein Mall essences, or 1ostM are revealed (itho2t effort 9/6H see above, p' --?:H affir1s the legiti1acy of the scientific, i'e', philosophic, 1ethod 9;@8;>, -6;:H calls h21an intellect the highest of the h21an fac2lties and states that it stands to the MfirstM s2pernal intellect as light to the s2n 9.?8.A:, thereby indicating that it is e1anated fro1 the first s2pernal intellectH lays do(n the r2le that a (ise 1an 12st hide his gen2ine beliefs 9-@A:' Al8Madn2n bihi cala ghair Ahlihi contains passages that appear to depend on AvicennaIs al8Risdla al8Adha(iyyaH cf' L' Michot, MAvicenne et le 3itab al8Madn2n dIAl8!haEali,M 02lletin de philosophie 1edievale -A 9-.?7: >/8>>' On the J2estion of the a2thenticity of the (orks referred to in this note, see Katt 9nn' /6 and >; above: and aEar2s8)afeh 9n' >; above:' State1ents in !haEaliIs co1prehensive religio2s (ork, the IhyaI, are co1patible (ith (hat I have pointed o2t in the MishkatH see J2otations in A' Kensink, a pensee de !haEEali 9,aris -.@6: -@78>/' 02t the' IhyaI is intended for a less sophisticated readership and, as far as I co2ld see fro1 a c2rsory e*a1ination, does not have the MishkatIs theoretical 2nderpinning' .; Ibn 0aGGa, Itlisal al8cAJl bil8Insan, ed' and Spanish trans' M' As1 ,alacios, as MTratado de Ave1pace sobre la 2ni7n del intelecto con el ho1bre,M Al8Andal2s ? 9-.@/:, Arabic section //H Spanish translation @78@?' .@ Ibn 0aGGa, Tadbir al8M2ta(ahhid, ed' and Spanish trans' M' As1 ,alacios, as El regi1en del solitario 9Madrid -.@7:, Arabic te*t A@8A>H Spanish translation -/;' More e*plicit in frag1ents 9of J2estionable
gen2ineness: p2blished by M' Macs21i as MIbn 0aGGah on the H21an Intellect,M Isla1ic St2dies @ 9-.7>: -/A, -;/' .> Tadbir al8M2ta(ahhid, Arabic te*t A>H Spanish translation -/;'
-@>
do not e*plicitly identify it as the last in the chain of incorporeal intelligences' 0esides serving as the agent that effects act2al h21an tho2ght, the active intellect is the ca2se of the e*istence of the fo2r s2bl2nar ele1ents.? and of Mso2ls'M.A The h21an Mpotential intellectM or Mrational fac2ltyM is a disposition in the h21an so2l..BCDnot, as Avicenna held, a s2bstanceH act2al h21an tho2ght co1es abo2t (hen the active intellect ill21inates i1ages in the h21an i1aginative fac2lty, (hich are then perceived by the h21an intellect-66BCD(ith no 1ention of an e1anation of tho2ghts directly fro1 the active intellectH h21an intellect2al develop1ent c2l1inates in the stage of MacJ2ired intellect,M-6- and acJ2ired intellect is the only i11ortal aspect of 1an'-6/ At the stage of acJ2ired intellect, the h21an intellect MconGoinsM (ith the active intellect-6;H in fact all h21an acJ2ired intellects, for e*a1ple, those of MHer1es and Aristotle,M 2nite (ith one another and (ith the active intellect-6@H and the condition of conG2nction and 2nion (ith the active .7
tho2ght, is an incorporeal being transcending 1an.7BCDaltho2gh the p2blished te*ts
Al8K2J2f cala al8cAJl al8"accal, in Ibn 0aGGa, Opera 1etaphysica, ed' M' "akhry 90eir2t
-.7A: -6?, -6.' "rench translation< T' %r2art, M e trait7 dIAve1pace''',M 02lletin de philosophie 1edievale // 9-.A6: ?>, ??' .? Ibid' -6?H "rench translation ?>8?7' .A Ibn 0aGGaIs interpretation of Aristotle, %e generatione ani1ali21 /';'?;7b, -7ff', J2oted by Averroes, Co11entary on %e ani1alib2s, O*ford, 0odleian ibrary, Hebre( MS Opp' 7A; 9X$e2ba2er -;?6: ->>a8b' Averroes J2otes Ibn 0aGGa to the sa1e effect in his Middle Co11entary on the Metaphysics, Casanatense, Hebre( MS ;6A;, -6. 9-6A:b' See belo(, p' /;@' .. Ittisal al84OAJl bil8Insan 9n' .; above:, Arabic te*t -;H Spanish translation ;-H AverroesI report of Ibn 0aGGaIs position on the nat2re of the 1aterial intellect, belo(, pp' /7., /A7' -66 Ittisdl al8cAJl bil8Insan, Arabic te*t -.H Spanish translation @6' Ibn 0aGGa, Risalat alKada,, ed' and Spanish trans' M' Asfn ,alacios, as M a Carta de Adios,M Al8Andal2s A 9-.@;:, Arabic te*t ;>H Spanish translation ?.' A' Alt1ann, MIbn 0aGGa on ManIs &lti1ate "elicity,M reprinted in his St2dies in Religio2s ,hilosophy and Mysticis1 9Ithaca -.7.: A>' See above, p' -6- Risdlat al8Kadac, Arabic te*t ;AH Spanish translation A@' Macs21i 9n' .@ above: -/A, -;/' The English translation of Macs21i -;/, lines /.8;-, sho2ld read< MThe s2perior Qs2bl2narR nat2re that has a disposition for receiving h21an perfection has Qat
the startR a disposition for receiving the h21an intellect, and then Qa dispositionR for receiving a divine intellect, that is to say, an intellect acJ2ired fro1 !od''''M Alt1ann .;' -6/ Ibn 0aGGa, Pa(l yatl2 Risalat al8Kadac, in Opera 1etaphysica 9n' .7 above: ->/' Ittis'al c al8 AJl bil8Insan, Arabic section /-H Spanish section @>' Alt1ann A7' I6; lttisdl al8cAJl bil8Insan, Arabic te*t -?H Spanish translation ;?' Tadbir al8 M2ta(ahhid, Arabic te*t 7-87/H Spanish translation -668-6-' Alt1ann A/8A;' On p' -6>, Alt1ann (rites that one passage in Ibn 0aGGa s2ggests a different vie( of conG2nction, b2t I have not been able to trace the passage' -6@ Ittisal al8cAJl bil8 Insan, Arabic te*t ->8-A, /68/-H Spanish translation ;;8;A, @;8@>' Alt1ann ??' Ibn 0aGGa considers the s2ccessive levels of intellect2al abstraction (hich can be attained by the h21an intellect' MThe 1assesM 9al8G21h2r:, he (rites, have as an obGect of their tho2ght M2niversalsM that are closely tied to i1ages in the i1aginative fac2lty' MThe st2dent of physical scienceM perfor1s an additional act of abstraction 2pon those 2niversals' The st2dent of
>6'
-@7
intellect constit2tes M2lti1ate h21an e2dae1onia'M-6> Man can, (ith the aid of the active intellect also foresee the f2t2re'-67 Avicenna had, in an e*peri1ental 1ood, garbed seg1ents of his syste1 in brief allegorical tales, and a1ong the1 is an allegory entitled Hayy ibn )aJEdn' Hayy ibn )aJEdn 1eans Mthe iving One, son of the Kakef2l OneMH the iving One is the active intellect, and it is a sonBCDan e1anationBCDof the ever8(akef2l "irst Ca2se' In the allegory, the active intellect, personified as an elderly sage, instr2cts the narrator, (ho represents the h21an rational so2l, abo2t the nat2re of the 2niverse'-6? Another, very short piece attrib2ted to Avicenna, the point of (hich is 2nclear, is called the Tale of Sald1dn and AbsdlH the title is borro(ed fro1 an older story of the sa1e na1e (hich apparently ca1e into Arabic fro1 the !reek'-6A Ibn T2fail took 2p AvicennaIs allegorical e*peri1ent and e*panded 2pon it, co1posing an e*tended philosophical novel, (hich he too entitled Hayy ibn )aJEdn' Hayy, the hero of Ibn T2failIs novel, is no longer an incorporeal intelligenceH he is h21an' The only t(o other h21an characters delineated in the novel are na1ed Sala1an and Absal' %espite the obvio2s borro(ing of the na1es, the plot of Ibn T2failIs novel has nothing in co11on (ith AvicennaIs tales or (ith the older Tale of Sald1dn and Absdl' Ibn T2failIs hero gro(s fro1 infancy to 1at2rity on a desert island (ith no h21an co1panionship (hatsoever' Absal, the first 1an he 1eets, does not arrive on the island 2ntil after Hayy is fifty years old' Altho2gh lacking even a h21an lang2age in (hich to for12late his reasoning and e*press concl2sions, the hero is clever eno2gh to discover the e*istence of the celestial spheres and of a Mnecessarily 1etaphysics goes f2rther, perfor1s an act of abstraction 2pon the concepts proper to physical science, and rises to a level (here he thinks tho2ghts not insofar as they refer to obGects in the physical (orld b2tBCDin Ibn 0aGGaIs 1ystifying (ordsBCDMinsofar as they are the1selves e*istent beings in the 2niverse'M And still higher levels of abstraction are possible' If the series of s2ccessive abstractions never ca1e to an end, it (o2ld r2n Mto infinityBCD(hereas an infinite of s2ch a sort does not e*ist'M The s2ccessive abstractions 12st conseJ2ently ter1inate in Ma concept that has no f2rther concept,M in a single Mfirst intelligible tho2ghtM co11on to all 1en' Since all h21an intellects fort2nate eno2gh to reach that level have the sa1e tho2ght, and since intellect is identical (ith the tho2ght it thinks, all h21an intellects at the 2lti1ate level beco1e Mone in n21ber, (ith no distinction (hatsoever bet(een the1'M They are, thro2gh their tho2ght, MconGoined''' (ith the final intelligence Qthe active intellectR,M and the condition thereby gained is Mthe 2lti1ate e2dae1onia'M There is an echo here of ,lato, ,ar1enides -;/A80' Also see above, p' >7, (here Alfarabi (rites that all so2ls in the state of e2dae1onia Goin together' -6> Ittisdl al8cAJl bil8Insan, Arabic section -?H Spanish section ;A' -67
Avicenna, Traites 1ystiJ2es, ed' A' Mehren - 9 eiden -AA.:' English translation<
Corbin 9n' - above: -;?8>6' A detailed e*egesis of the co1position, (ith partic2lar attention to the philosophic all2sions, is given by A'8M' !oichon, e recit de Hayy ibn )aJEan 9,aris -.>.:' -6A Corbin /6@, /6.8-7 9the earlier Tale :, //@8/7 9the Tale attrib2ted to Avicenna:' A Tale of Sala1an and Absal is also referred to in AvicennaIs IsharatH see above, p' -67, n' -/>'
;@-'
Tadbir al8M2ta(afrbid, Arabic section /;8/@H Spanish section >@8>>' See belo(, p'
-6?
-@?
e*istentM incorporeal ca2se beyond the1, fro1 (hich everything else MproceedsM 9sadir: and Me1anatesM 9faIid:'-6.
The hero f2rther infers that each celestial sphere
both has a Mso2lM and is governed by an Mincorporeal s2bstance'M The incorporeal s2bstance governing the o2ter1ost sphere e1anates fro1 the "irst Ca2se of the 2niverseH the one governing the ne*t sphere e1anates fro1 the first e1anated incorporeal s2bstanceH and the process contin2es 2ntil the Mincorporeal s2bstanceM governing the s2bl2nar (orld is reached' This last s2bstance is identical (ith the being that, according to a tradition also cited in !haEaliIs Mishkat,--6 has M?6,666
faces, each of the1 (ith ?6,666 1o2ths, each of the1 in t2rn (ith ?6,666 tong2es'M--- Ibn T2fail s2b1its that the J2estion (hether the 2niverse has e*isted forever or had a beginning cannot be decided,--/ altho2gh in the passage to be J2oted i11ediately belo(, he allo(s hi1self to speak of an MeternalM e1anation fro1 !od' Kithin the s2bl2nar (orld, he (rites, every rank of ani1ated beingBCDMthe species of plants, ''' the species of ani1als, ' ' ' and ' ' ' 1anMBCD1akes its appearance (hen a portion of s2bl2nar 1atter is so blended that it possesses a MdispositionM appropriate for the given for1 or so2l, (here2pon the Mspirit' ' ' fro1 !od,M (hich is an Meternal e1anating Qso2rceR,M s2pplies the for1 or so2l'--; A 1ore precise state1ent locates h21an so2ls, and pres21ably the for1s of plants and the so2ls of ani1als as (ell, (ithin the incorporeal s2bstance that governs the s2bl2nar region'--@ ,lant for1s and ani1al so2ls are, in a (ord, e1anated fro1 the active intellect' The h21an so2l is an Mincorporeal''' s2bstance,M not Ma po(er Qor< fac2ltyR in a body nor in any sense dependent on bodies'M Once it co1es into e*istence, it is therefore i112ne to destr2ction'--> H21an so2ls (hose Mconscio2snessM 912shahada:--7 is in MconG2nction ''' (iht the necessarly e*istent beingM (ill enGoy eternal pleas2re after the death of their bodies' So2ls that recogniEed the "irst Ca2se and acJ2ired a MdesireM for kno(ledge of the "irst Ca2se, b2t then Mt2rned a(ay,M (ill be torn in t(o directions after the death of the body and s2ffer Mp2nish1entM and MpainM in the afterlife' If the desire they acJ2ired for kno(ledge Ibn T2fail, Hayy ben )aJdhan 9nn' -A and >; above:, Arabic te*t A6, A7, .@8.>H "rench translation 7687-, 7>, ?68?-' --6 Above, p' -;?' --- Hayy ben )aJdhan -/?8 /.H cf' ..H "rench translation ./8.@H cf' ?;' The phrases Mla sphere elle81e1eM and MQla seconde sphereR elle81e1eM in the "rench translation, pp' ./8.;, sho2ld be corrected to Mthe so2l of the sphereM and Mthe so2l of the second sphere'M The English
translation 9n' >; above: has to be corrected si1ilarly' --/ Ibid' A-8A/H "rench translation 7-87;' --; Ibid' /A8/.H "rench translation />' The passage belongs to the introd2ction of the book, before Ibn T2fail brings his hero on the scene' --@ Ibid' -;6H "rench translation .@' --> Ibid' ./H "rench translation 7.' Cf' AvicennaIs (ording, above, p' A;' llfi This is the ter1 that si1ply 1eans vision in !haEaliIs Mishkat, above, p' -@-, and that I translate as Mdirect e*perienceM (hen it is 2sed by S2hra(ardI, belo(, p' -7.' -6.
-@A
of the "irst Ca2se is strong eno2gh, their pain in the afterlife (ill event2ally fade a(ay and they (ill gain f2ll conscio2sness of the obGect of their desire, (hile if they are 1ore strongly inclined in the opposite direction, the pain (ill end2re forever' So2ls that never MrecogniEedM or MconGoined (ith ''' the necessarily e*istent beingM (ill spend an eternal afterlife devoid of both pain and pleas2re'--? M,rophetsM recast scientific tr2ths s2ch as the foregoing in Mfig2res,M (hich have the p2rpose of providing the ordinary r2n of 1ankind (ith Mi1aginative QversionsRM of abstract tr2th'--A Khat has been J2oted th2s far is, transparently, another o2tline of AvicennaIs syste1, (ith the apparent innovation that the h21an so2l can, and sho2ld, conGoin (ith the "irst Ca2se rather than (ith the active intellect' Ibn T2fail infor1s 2s that shortly before (riting his philosophic novel, he personally attained a heightened MlevelM or MstateM of 2nderstanding and enGoyed Mdirect e*perienceM 9dha(J:'--. The heightened state, as he describes it, had affinities both (ith the e*periences of the S2fi 1ystics and (ith the Moriental philosophyM that, Avicenna had hinted, s2persedes the philosophy of Aristotle'-/6 It elevated Ibn T2fail above Ibn 0aGGaIs Mcogitative investigationM 9bahthfikri: of nat2re, as (ell as above the MphilosophyM of MAristotle, ' ' ' Alfarabi, and '' ' QAvicennaIsR ShifaI'M M$othing,M nevertheless, Mis revealed thro2gh it (hich diverges fro1 (hat (as revealedM by Ibn 0aGGaIs disc2rsive 1ethod' %irect e*perience Mdiffers fro1 the other Qdisc2rsive 1ethodR only in increased clarity'M-/- At an appropriate G2nct2re in the novel, Ibn T2failIs hero like(ise attains heightened 2nderstanding' Thro2gh it, he discovers that the incorporeal s2bstances governing the celestial spheres are reflections of the "irst Ca2seIs e*istence, analogo2s to the Mfor1 of the s2n appearing in a polished 1irror'M The incorporeal s2bstances are conseJ2ently neither MidenticalM (ith nor MotherM than the "irst Ca2se' -// The hero of the story f2rther sees that the h21an so2l, like the incorporeal intelligences, is neither identical (ith nor other than !od'-/; To characteriEe so1ething as neither identical (ith nor other than another thing violates Ibid' .>8.7H "rench translation ?-' Cf' -;68;-H "rench translation .@8.>' Ibid' -;7, -@7H "rench translation -66, -6A' --. Ibid' @8>, ?H "rench translation /8@, 7' The ter1 rendered as MecstasyM in the English translation si1ply 1eans Mstate,M as it is rendered in the "rench translation and in other passages of the English translation' -/6 Ibid' ;8 @H "rench translation -8/' The "rench translation, looking ahead to S2hra(ardlIs Mill21inationist philosophy,M translates Moriental philosophyM as Mphilosophie ill21inative'M Regarding AvicennaIs Moriental philosophy,M see above, p' ?@, n' -' -/Ibid' >, --8-/H "rench translation @, -6' A si1ilar distinction bet(een investigative science 9hik1a baftthiyya: and direct8e*perience science 9hik1a dha(Jiyya: is dra(n in a 1inor (ork attrib2ted to AvicennaH see %' !2tas, Avicenna and the Aristotelian Tradition 9 eiden -.AA: ??8?A' The (ork in J2estion cannot easily be 1atched (ith any of the ite1s in the early lists of AvicennaIs (ritings, and there also are internal reasons for do2bting its a2thenticity' -// Ibid' -/?H "rench translation ./' -/; Ibid' -/@H "rench translation A.' --A --?
-@.
the la( of the e*cl2ded 1iddle, the r2le that any given thing 12st be either * or not *, and (ith palpable satisfaction, Ibn T2fail concedes that the revelations of direct e*perience 1ay prove tro2bleso1e to the Mbat81inded,M (ho heed only the Mr2les of intellect'M-/@ One additional piece of infor1ation abo2t the state of heightened 2nderstanding is f2rnished' That state, Ibn T2fail (rites, is M2nad2lterated conscio2sness Q12shdhadaR and a co1plete absorptionM in !od, (herein the Ms2bstanceM of a 1anIs Mso2l vanishes, is annihilated, and beco1es as na2ght'M-/> The lang2age here is very si1ilar to lang2age 2sed by !haEali, to (ho1 Ibn T2fail 1oreover ackno(ledges a debt'-/7 I interpreted !haEali as inti1ating that the so2lIs highest e*perience consists in grasping the nothingness of everything in co1parison (ith the being that is necessarily e*istent by reason of itself' Ibn T2fail is plainly trying to say 1ore, to ad21brate a type of e*perience f2rther re1oved fro1 ordinary intellect2al kno(ledge than (as direct e*perience in !haEaliIs Mishkat' 02t like all (ho try to e*press the ine*pressible, he does not artic2late his 1eaning clearly' Averroes (ill be disc2ssed f2lly in the last three chapters of the present book' His early (orks (ill be fo2nd to endorse a theory of e1anation in the tradition of Alfarabi and Avicenna, and to portray the active intellectIs role in the s2bl2nar (orld 12ch as AlfarabiIs Risalafi al8cAJl did' ater (orks of Averroes rep2diated his early positions' Thro2gho2t his career, he nonetheless e*plained the 1anner in (hich the active intellect leads the h21an intellect to act2ality as Alfarabi had' And thro2gho2t his career, he (as attracted to s2bGects connected (ith the h21an intellect (hich (ere bro2ght to the fore by Alfarabi and AvicennaBCDthe conG2nction of the h21an intellect (ith the active intellect, i11ortality of the h21an intellect, and prophecy thro2gh the e1anation of the active intellect'
Ibid' -/>H "rench translation .6' Ibid' -6AH "rench translation ?.' -/7 Above, p' -@6' In Hayy ben )aJdhan -A, "rench translation -7, Ibn T2fail ackno(ledges his debt to both Avicenna and !haEali, b2t adds that books of !haEaliIs (hich Mare held backM 9al1adn2n biha, perhaps an all2sion to one of several (orks (ith a si1ilar na1e (hich are attrib2ted to !haEaliH see above, n' ./:, i'e', (hich are esoteric, had not reached hi1' He refers to !haEaliIs Mishkdt in the sa1e conte*t, and altho2gh he does not e*plicitly say that he had read the Mishkat, several passages in Hayy ben )aJdhan indicate fa1iliarity (ith it' Th2s, on @, "rench translation /8;, he J2otes three S2fi sayings to e*e1plify the danger of S2fisI being led too far in the direction of pantheis1' E*actly the sa1e three sayings (ere J2oted by !haEali in the Mishkat to e*e1plify the sa1e dangerH see Mishkat 9n' -A above: >?H English translation -67H "rench translation >@' On -/., "rench translation .@, Ibn T2fail cites the tradition abo2t the angel (ith ?6,666 faces' He 2nderstands the angel to be the active intellect, and s2ch apparently had been !haEaliIs 2nderstanding' And, as (e have seen, Ibn T2fail, like the Mishkdt, f2rther speaks of an MannihilationM of the so2l and its beco1ing Mas na2ght,M of a Mstate Q h a l R of the so2l,M and of Mdirect e*perienceM 9dha(J:' 02t those (ere co11on S2fi ter1s'
-/>
-/@
->6
The foregoing are thinkers (ho borro(ed fro1 Alfarabi and Avicenna, 1ore especially fro1 the latter' The 1ost penetrating critiJ2e of the syste1s of Alfarabi and Avicenna, again 1ore especially of the latter, (as dra(n 2p by !haEali, the sa1e 1an (ho (rote a co1prehensive s211ary of AvicennaIs philosophy and (hose Mishkdt al8An(ar conceals an o2tline of AvicennaIs syste1' !haEali entitled his critiJ2e Tahaf2t al8"alasifa 9%estr2ctio philosophor21: and p2blished it as a co2nterpart to his s211ary, the MaJasid al8"alasifa' The critiJ2e is concerned pri1arily (ith the M1etaphysical QildhiyyaR sciences'M-/? ConseJ2ently, of the positions of Avicenna analyEed in the previo2s chapter, the one attracting the largest share of !haEaliIs attention is the e1anation of the 2niverse fro1 the "irst Ca2se' AvicennaIs e1anation sche1e offered itself as a (ay to har1oniEe t(o see1ingly inco1patible theses, the 2lti1ate dependence of the co1posite 2niverse on a (holly 2nitary "irst Ca2se, and the principle that, as !haEali phrases it, Mfro1 the one, only one proceeds Qyasd2rR'M-/A Avicenna acco1plished the har1oniEation by 2ncovering three distinct aspects in the tho2ght of the incorporeal intelligence e1anated by the "irst Ca2se and three si1ilar aspects in each s2ccessive intelligence' The aspects are the intelligenceIs tho2ght of the "irst Ca2se, its tho2ght of itself as a being necessarily e*istent by virt2e of the "irst Ca2se, and its tho2ght of itself as a being possibly e*istent by virt2e of itselfH one of the aspects gives rise to the ne*t intelligence in the hierarchy, (hile the other t(o give rise to the so2l and body of the sphere governed by the intelligence' !haEaliIs critiJ2e na1es the aspects, or, to be 1ore precise, 1isna1es the1, in a fashion that facilitates ref2tation' The ref2tation goes as follo(s< 9-: If the first e1anated intelligence contains disting2ishable aspects beca2se its 2nJ2alified Me*istenceM is different fro1 its Mpossible e*istence,M then the "irst Ca2se sho2ld contain analogo2s aspectsH for its Me*istenceM 12st be different fro1 its Mnecessary e*istence'M The "irst Ca2se sho2ld therefore itself s2ffice as the i11ediate so2rce of pl2rality in the 2niverse' 9/: "2rther, if the Mintelligible tho2ghtM that the first intelligence has of its ca2se is different fro1 both its o(n Me*istenceM and its intelligible tho2ght of itself, (ith the conseJ2ence that the first intelligence contains no less than three aspects, then the intelligible tho2ght that the "irst Ca2se has of its effect sho2ld also be different fro1 its o(n e*istence and fro1 its intelligible tho2ght of itself' The "irst Ca2se sho2ld accordingly itself contain no less than three aspects and i11ediately be able to e1anate an intelligence, the body of a sphere, and the so2l of the sphere' 9;: On AvicennaIs pre1ises, the first intelligence (o2ld in fact have 1ore than the three aspects reJ2ired to e*plain the e1anation of the ne*t intelligence in the series, of the !haEali, Tahaf2t al8"alasifa 9n' ;A above: -7, 4T//' English translation in #an den 0ergh 9n' -7 above: ;6.' -/A Ibid' ;, 4T/.H English translation -6@' See above, p' ?>, for AvicennaIs for12lation of the principle' As far as I co2ld find, Alfarabi does not e1ploy it' -/?
->-
body of the celestial sphere governed by the first intelligence, and of the so2l of the sphere' "or the MessenceM of the first intelligence, its Mintelligible tho2ght of itself,M its Mintelligible tho2ght of its ca2se,M its being Mpossibly e*istent by virt2e of itself,M and its being Mnecessarily e*istent by virt2e of another,M 12st, on AvicennaIs pre1ises, all be different fro1 one another' The first intelligence sho2ld therefore contain not three b2t five different aspects' 9@: The three aspects disting2ishable in each intelligence co2ld notBCDarg2ing no( fro1 the opposite directionBCDacco2nt for everything that is s2pposed to e1anate fro1 the intelligence' The body of the o2ter1ost celestial sphere co2ld not be e1anated by a single aspect in the first intelligence, since the body of the sphere has several Mpartic2larM characteristics, na1ely< 1atterH for1H a precise siEe, (hich, !haEaliIs ref2tation ass21es in a 3ala1 vein, is a distinct characteristicH the differentiation of certain points on the s2rface as poles, (hich is still another distinct characteristic' And a single aspect in the second intelligence s2rely co2ld not e1anate the second sphere, the sphere of the fi*ed stars' "or i1bedded in the second sphere are Mone tho2sand and t(enty odd stars, varying in 1agnit2de, shape, position Qon the sphereR, color, effects, and 2npropitio2sness or propitio2sness'M 9>: To say that an intelligenceIs Mbeing ''' possibly e*istentM gives rise to the e*istence of the body of a sphere, its Mtho2ght of itself gives rise to the e*istence of the so2l of the sphere, and its Mtho2ght of the "irst QCa2seRM gives rise to the e*istence of another intelligence, is as l2dicro2s as saying that a certain M2nkno(n 1anIs ' '' being possibly e*istentM gives rise to the e*istence of a celestial sphere, and his Mhaving an intelligible tho2ght of hi1self and of his MakerM gives rise to Mt(o 1ore things'M AvicennaIs atte1pt to e*plain the e1anation of the co1posite 2niverse fro1 a 2nitary "irst Ca2se is, in a (ord, sheer Mnonsense'M-/. !haEali has no J2arrel (ith the last stage of AvicennaIs acco2nt of the e1anation process, the phase (herein nat2ral for1s as (ell as Maccidents and QotherR generated thingsM appearing in the s2bl2nar region are Me1anated fro1 the giver of for1s, (hich is an angel, or angels'M He 1erely insists on !odIs ability to intervene and redirect the c2sto1ary co2rse of nat2re'-;6 !haEali does ref2te the proposition that the so2ls of the celestial spheres kno( all partic2lar events before the events occ2rH and that predictions of the f2t2re by prophets in the (aking state, as (ell as by others in tr2e drea1s, res2lt fro1 MconG2nctionM (ith the so2ls of the spheres and Mvie(ingM (hat is forekno(n there'-;- Avicenna had stated that events occ2rring, and to occ2r, in the s2bl2nar region are kno(n in a M2niversal 1odeM by the "irst Ca2se and incorporeal intelligences, (hereas they are kno(n in a Mpartic2lar 1odeM by the so2ls of the spheresH and he had inti1ated that the so2ls Ibid' ;, 4T4T@/, @>, >;, >@8>., 7>, 7?, ?6H English translation --?, -/-, -@-, -@/8@@, -@., ->6, ->/' "or the three aspects In the incorporeal intelligence as Avicenna disting2ished the1, scc above, n' 7' -;6 Ibid' -?, 4T4T>, ?, ->8-?H English translation ;-78-?, ;/78/?' -;- Ibid' -7, preface and 4T4T78.H English translation ;66, ;6/8;' -/.
->/
of the spheres are therefore the so2rce of h21an kno(ledge of the f2t2re' Obvio2sly (ith AvicennaIs (ords in 1ind, !haEali no( contends< Each sphere perfor1s a single contin2o2s and 2nchanging 1otion, and therefore its so2l need not possess partic2lar, as distinct fro1 2niversal, kno(ledge of the ca2ses of s2bl2nar events' Still 1ore pertinently, the Mcreated so2lM of a sphere co2ld not possibly enco1pass Minfinite partic2lar' ' ' ite1s of kno(ledge,M since an infinite n21ber cannot be circ21scribed' The theory that the h21an so2l learns of f2t2re events fro1 the so2ls of the spheres is, in s21, a Mpossibility, as long as one does not ass21e that the ite1s of kno(ledge Qin the celestial so2lsR are infiniteMH b2t the correctness of the theory re1ains M2nkno(nM to h21an reason' Only the adherents of Script2re are free of diffic2lties, for they have been infor1ed reliably by Script2re that !od hi1self reveals the f2t2re to the prophet'-;/ !haEali also reGects AvicennaIs arg21ents on t(o other iss2es' He ref2tes the de1onstration of the thesis that the h21an so2l is an incorporeal s2bstance, (itho2t ho(ever obGecting to the thesis itself' AvicennaIs pri1ary arg21ent had been that intelligible tho2ghts, being indivisible, can be present only in an indivisible s2bstrat21H and since they are present in the h21an so2l, the so2l 12st be an indivisible, and hence incorporeal, s2bstance'-;; !haEali responds by pointing o2t that indivisible percepts are present in the esti1ative fac2lty of the so2ls of lo(er ani1als' Sheep, for e*a1ple, perceive the Men1ity of the (olf,M and the percept en1ity is indivisible' )et the sheepIs esti1ative fac2lty is indisp2tably a Mcorporeal fac2lty'M Hence it follo(s that indivisible percepts can after all be present in a corporeal fac2lty of the so2l'-;@ !haEali there2pon ref2tes AvicennaIs arg21ents for the i11ortality of the h21an so2l' AvicennaIs first arg21ent (as that since the so2l is in no sense dependent on the body, the death of the body does not entail the death of the Ibid' -7, 4T4T-6, -;8->, -?8-AH English translatlon ;678?, ;6A8.' The translation of 4T-6 is inacc2rate' AvicennaIs position is disc2ssed above, pp' -/-8//' -;; Above, p' A;' !haEali, Tahaf2t -A, 4T4T-/87/H English translation ;;?8>>, spins o2t ten philosophic proofs for the incorporeality of the so2l' The first t(o are versions of (hat I call the pri1ary proof' ,roofs five thro2gh eight repeat proofs given by Avicenna for the related proposition that the h21an rational fac2lty does not e1ploy a corporeal organH see ShifaI< %e ani1a 9n' .- above: /-78-.H $aGat 9Cairo -.;A: -?A8 A6H English translation< AvicennaIs ,sychology, trans' "' Rah1an 9 ondon -.>/: >68 >;' ,roof nine and its so2rce in Avicenna are disc2ssed by M' Mar12ra in M!haEali and the ,roof for the I11aterial Self,M A Straight ,ath 9Hy1an "estschrift: 9Kashington -.AA: -.>8/6>' !haEaliIs MaJafid 9n' ; above: /./8.?, has ten arg21entsBCDthree of (hich he calls Mapodictic de1onstrations, (hile the re1aining seven are Mconvincing '' ' indicationsMBCDthat the so2l does not e1ploy a corporeal organ, and the ten are si1ilar to, b2t not identical (ith, the ten arg21ents for the incorporeality of the so2l listed in the Tahaf2t' -;@ Tahaf2t -A, 4T->H English translation ;;?8;A 9inacc2rate:' This is the Msecond stageM of !haEaliIs ref2tation' The Mfirst stageM is the obGection that the h21an so2l 1ight be an ato1, and hence both
indivisible and corporealBCDan obGection that !haEali ackno(ledges (ill not carry (eight for philosophersH see ibid' 4T4T-;, /78/?H English translation ;;?, ;@/' -;/
->;
so2l'-;> !haEali responds that since each so2l is attached to a partic2lar body, so1e factor plainly Mpartic2lariEes o2tM a given so2l for the bodyH Mit is not farfetchedM that the factorBCD(hatever the factor sho2ld beBCDMis a condition for the contin2ed e*istenceM of the so2lH therefore, (hen the ne*2s bet(een body and so2l is severed and the factor attaching the so2l to the body is re1oved, the so2l 1ight very possibly perish' Moreover, even if the e*istence of h21an so2ls is not dependent on the e*istence of bodies, !od or so1e other ca2se 1ay be able to destroy h21an so2ls'-;7 AvicennaIs second and 1ore general arg21ent for i11ortality reasoned that obGects act2ally e*isting yet s2bGect to destr2ction contain t(o distinct characteristics, the act2ality of contin2ed e*istence and the possibility of being destroyedH t(o distinct factors in the obGect 12st be responsible for the t(o characteristicsH b2t the so2l, a nonco1posite s2bstance, cannot contain distinct factors, and conseJ2ently cannot have the possibility of being destroyed'-;? To that arg21ent, !haEali replies that the MpossibilityM of e*isting or of being destroyed is 1erely a MG2dg1ent of the intellectM and not so1ething s2bsisting in the obGect' $onco1posite, incorporeal obGects therefore 1ight very (ell contain the possibility of being destroyed and 1ight be s2bGect to destr2ction'-;A !haEali, in short, ref2tes AvicennaIs e*planation of the 1anner in (hich the incorporeal real1 e1anates fro1 the "irst Ca2se, his e*planation of the 1anner in (hich prophets foresee the f2t2re, his proof of the incorporeality of the h21an so2l, and his proof of i11ortality' $evertheless, nothing said here contradicts (hat (e fo2nd in Mishkat al8An(ar, (here !haEali accepted virt2ally all of AvicennaIs pict2re of the 2niverseH for !haEali is not reGecting the str2ct2re of the 2niverse depicted by Avicenna or even the possibility that !od prod2ces everything o2tside hi1self thro2gh a series of e1anations' He is 1erely reGecting AvicennaIs e*planation of the process' He certainly is not e*cl2ding the incorporeality and i11ortality of the h21an so2l b2t only AvicennaIs proofs' Ke have e*a1ined Isla1ic philosophers follo(ing in the (ake of Alfarabi and Avicenna as (ell as the 1ost co1prehensive ref2tation of Avicenna' Scraps fro1 Avicenna are also fo2nd here and there in other Isla1ic (riters,-;. and criticis1s, Above, pp' -678?' Tahaf2t -., 4T-H English translation 9AverroesI paraphrase of !haEaliIs disc2ssion: ;>78>?' -;7 Tahaf2t -., 4T4TA, --8-;' -;? Above, p' -6A' -;A Tahaf2t -., 4T4T-.8/6, taken together (ith Tahaf2t -, 4TA?H English translation 76' -;. A fe( e*a1ples, (itho2t pretense of e*ha2stiveness< MacariG al8P2ds, a te*t attrib2ted to !haEaliH see above, n' .-' Ibn Sabcin, s211ariEed by A' Mehren, MCorrespondance d2 philosophe so2fi Ibn SabIin avec -Ie1pere2r "rederic II,M Lo2rnal asiatiJ2e -@ 9-A?.: ;>. 9in MehrenIs paraphrase< the active intellect, (hich Mpresides over the 1ove1ent of the 1oon,M e1anates the Mseveral species of intelligenceM:H ;A-8A/ 9an o2tline of the levels of h21an intellect (hich is a hybrid of the sche1es of Alfarabi and Avicenna:' A1idi, !hayat al8Mara1 9Cairo -.?-: /6 9reference to the MphilosopherIs positionM that the Mactive intellect, (hich e*ists together (ith the -;>
->@
often in the tone of !haEaliIs critiJ2e, are like(ise to be fo2nd'-@6 M2ch 1ore note(orthy, ho(ever, is a line of thinkers (hich branches off fro1 the line of AvicennaIs adherents and (hich contin2es (ithin ,ersian Isla1 2p to the present cent2ry' The branching off took place thro2gh Ab2 al80arakat 9d' ca' --76:BCD(ho 1ay be classified loosely as an Isla1ic philosopher since he converted to Isla1 fro1 L2dais1 late in life, apparently after (riting his 1agn21 op2sBCDand thro2gh (ho b2rst the bonds of those (ho1 he calls MAristotleM and the Aristotelian Mschool,M altho2gh the doctrines that in fact concern hi1 are all distinctive to Avicenna' Kith a to2ch of peevishness, Ab2 al80arakat co1plains of his adversaries that they M1ake state1ents as if Q(hat they relate (ereR revealed tr2th, (hich cannot be challenged'''' If only they (o2ld say< IMatters 1ay be th2s or other(ise'I ''' Sho2ld their opinions co1e fro1 a revelation, they o2ght to 1ention the fact'M-@S2hra(ardi 9-->>8--.-:' Ab2 al80arakat sa( hi1self as an independent thinker
body of the sphere of the 1oon,M brings Ms2bstantial for1s and h21an so2lsM into e*istence (hen portions of s2bl2nar 1atter are ready to receive the1:H /A>8A7 9the philosophersI, that is, AvicennaIs, proof of the i11ortality of the h21an so2l:H /AA, /.68.- 9the philosophersI theory of the afterlife, incl2ding the e*periencing of the pro1ises of religion thro2gh the i1aginative fac2lty:H /.? 9the philosophersIBCDagain AvicennaIsBCDref2tation of the trans1igration of the so2l, (ith A1idiIs response:' IGi, Ma(aJif 9Cairo -.6?: -'/@7H !er1an translation and disc2ssion< L' van Ess, %ie Erkenntnislehre des cAd2daddln al8Icl 9Kiesbaden -.77: /.> 9the philosophersI theory that the transcendent being responsible for Mgenerated things in o2r (orldM also Me1anatesM h21an intelligible tho2ghts:' Kriters adopting a $eoplatonic cos1ic sche1e so1eti1es apply the ter1 active intellect to the cos1ic Intellect, (hich is e1anated directly by the One' E*a1ples< the redaction of the Theology of Aristotle kno(n as the M ong #ersion,M cited by ,' %2he1, e syste1e d2 1onde @ 9,aris -.-7: ;.AH Ibn al8Sld 90atlay2si: 3' al8HadaIiJ, ed' and Spanish trans' M' Asfn ,alacios, inAl8Andal2s > 9-.@6:, Arabic te*t ??H Spanish translation --AH 1edieval Hebre( translation< 0atlay2si, ha8cAg2llot ha8Racyoniyyot, ed' %' 3a2f1ann 902dapest -AA6: /?H Miska(ayh, e petit livre d2 sal2t, ed' S' Asi1a and trans' R' ArnaldeE 9n'p' -.A?:, Arabic te*t A/, -6-H "rench translation @?, 7-' -@6 Shahrastani, s211ariEed by K' Madel2ng, MAspects of Is1acili Theology,M reprinted in Madel2ng, Religio2s Schools and Sects in Medieval Isla1 9 ondon -.A>: 79criticis1 of AvicennaIs e1anation theory:' "akhr al8%In al8RaEi, M2hassal 9Cairo -.?A: /6- 9ref2tation of AvicennaIs e1anation theory, 1ainly in a 3ala1 spirit, b2t incl2ding an arg21ent in the spirit of !haEaliIs critiJ2e:H //?8/A 9ref2tation of AvicennaIs arg21ents against the trans1igration of the so2l:H //A8/. 9ref2tation of AvicennaIs proof of the i11ortality of the so2l, (ith echoes of !haEaliIs critiJ2e:' "akhr al8%In al8RaEi, 3' d8Arbacin 9Hyderabad -.;@: /7?8?6 9a recasting of AvicennaIs arg21ent sho(ing the h21an so2l to be an incorporeal s2bstance,
follo(ed by a ref2tation of the arg21ent:' A1idi, !hayat al8Mard1 9Cairo -.?-: @ / 8 ; 9ref2tation, in the spirit of one of !haEaliIs criticis1s, of AvicennaIs e*planation of the e1ergence of pl2rality o2t of a (holly 2nitary "irst Ca2se:H /.@8.7 9ref2tation, follo(ing !haEali, of the philosophersI, that is, AvicennaIs, arg21ents for i11ortality:' IGi, Ma(aJif ?'/>78/>? 9critiJ2e of AvicennaIs e1anation theory in the spirit of !haEaliIs critiJ2e:' -@- Ab2 al80arakat, 3' al8Miftabar 9Hyderabad -.;.: ;'->A'
->>
As often happens, the 1an is less independent than he (o2ld have 2s believe' Ab2 al8 0arakat lays o2t his 1ain philosophic treatise on the 1odel of AvicennaIs treatises, and the str2ct2re of his 2niverse like(ise plainly derives fro1 Avicenna' In effect, he accepts AvicennaIs fra1e(ork, then picks holes in it and proposes alternative possibilities' His arg21entation also is obvio2sly dependent on AvicennaIs b2t is less rigoro2s, and one can hardly believe that philosophic considerations alone led hi1 to the ne( alternatives' His rationale appears rather to have been that Avicenna had hypothesiEed the e*istence of vario2s 2nobserved beings in the 2niverse, and other, 1ore n21ero2s 2nobserved beings 1ight be hypothesiEed instead' He is saying, as it (ere, to Avicenna< MThere are 1ore things in heaven ''' than are drea1t of in yo2r philosophy'M Considering that AvicennaIs syste1 (as highly spec2lative, 2nder1ining it thro2gh spec2lative alternatives (as fine poetic G2stice' )et AvicennaIs syste1, (ith all its e*otic app2rtenances, (as designed as a rational e*planation of nat2ral pheno1ena, s2ch as the 1ove1ents of the heavenly bodies, the e1ergence of ne( obGects in the physical (orld, and the develop1ent of individ2al h21an intelligence' A healthier 1ove for(ard, fro1 a scientific standpoint, (o2ld have been a 1ore econo1ical e*planation of the sa1e pheno1ena, an e*planation red2cing, rather than e*panding, the n21ber of spec2lative, 2nobservable entities' 0e that as it 1ay, Ab2 al80arakatIs 2niverse consists of concentric spheres rotating aro2nd a stationary s2bl2nar region' Incorporeal beings 1ove the spheresH the "irst Ca2se transcends the 1overs of the spheresH and the 2niverse is eternal'-@/ The principle that Mfro1 one, insofar as it is one, only one can proceed Qyasd2rRM is accepted by Ab2 al80arakat as Mtr2e'M-@; Once the principle is given, he faces the J2estion ho( pl2rality in the 2niverse 1ight develop o2t of a (holly 2nitary "irst Ca2se' He records the theory according to (hich an incorporeal intelligence MproceedsM fro1 the "irst Ca2se by virt2e of the "irst Ca2seIs having itself as an obGect of tho2ghtH the first intelligenceIs tho2ght contains three aspects, its tho2ght of its ca2se, its tho2ght of itself as possibly e*istent by reason of itself, and its tho2ght of itself as necessarily e*istent by reason of ca2seH fro1 the three aspects there MproceedM a second Mintelligence,M the Mbody of the first sphere,M and the Mso2l of the first sphereMH the process contin2es M2ntil the last sphere, the sphere of the 1oon, is reachedMH and the last in the series of incorporeal intelligences is the Mactive intellect,M the MeffectM of the MintelligenceM governing the sphere of the 1oon'-@@ 02t Ab2 al8 0arakat dis1isses the theory' He contends, in a possible echo of one of !haEaliIs obGections to Avicenna,-@> that the 2nitary "irst Ca2se itself co2ld have bro2ght forth the 2niverse thro2gh a -@/ Ibid' -7/, -7?' ,' -7/, lines -?8-A, states e*plicitly that beings e1anating directly fro1 !od are eternal' -@; Ibid' ->7' -@@ Ibid' ->-' -@> Above, p' ->6'
->7
pl2rality of aspects in its o(n tho2ght' The process 1ay, Ab2 al80arakat proposes, have gone instead as follo(s< The "irst Ca2se brings Ma first intelligenceM into e*istence' 0y virt2e of having the first intelligence as the obGect of its tho2ght, a ne( aspect enters the "irst Ca2seIs tho2ght, all in an eternal 1ode, and fro1 the ne( aspect Manother being proceeds'M The "irst Ca2se there2pon, and still in an eternal 1ode, has that second being as an obGect of its tho2ght and, by virt2e of the additional aspect of its tho2ght, brings forth yet another being' And the reciprocal process contin2es 2ntil the ranks of e*istent beings are filled'-@7 In Avicenna, each celestial sphere has a so2l, b2t Ab2 al80arakat protests that his adversaries have, M(itho2t gro2nds, neglected all the stars, Qascribing to the1R neither intelligences nor so2ls'M The stars e1bedded in the celestial spheres are, h contends, alive and radiate light' They therefore deserve having so2ls attrib2ted to the1 no less than do the spheres the1selves'-@? Ab2 al80arakat f2rther ref2ses to recogniEe a single active intellect as the ca2se of the e*istence of all so2ls in the s2bl2nar (orld' He contends first that a single ca2se (o2ld not s2ffice even for the e*istence of h21an so2ls, not to speak of the so2ls of other creat2res, and secondly that the ca2ses of the e*istence of h21an so2ls 12st be so2ght not a1ong the incorporeal intelligences b2t in another echelon of the hierarchy of e*istence' "ro1 the differing Mconditions and actionsM observable in divers h21an so2ls, he infers that h21an so2ls differ fro1 one another in their Ms2bstancesM and MJ2iddities'M The differences in the s2bstances and J2iddities of so2ls then sho( hi1 that either Mevery h21an so2l has its individ2al Qs2pernalR ca2seM or, as is M1ore likely,M each MclassM of h21an so2ls has Ma single ca2se fro1 (hich they Qthe 1e1bers of the classR proceed'M-@A H21an so2ls th2s receive their e*istence fro1 a pl2rality of ca2ses' not prod2ce the different classes of h21an so2l, since bodies Minsofar as they are bodiesM are not Mthe efficient ca2ses of anything'M The ca2ses cannot be Maccidents,M (hich e*ist thro2gh bodiesH Mfor a ca2se 12st be of a 1ore perfect e*istence than its effect,M and hence anything Mhaving its e*istence thro2gh a body ' '' cannot be the ca2se prod2cing an incorporeal s2bstance'M Avicenna too had r2led o2t the possibility of h21an so2lsI having bodies or accidents in bodies as the ca2se of their e*istence, b2t he had gone on to contend that the so2ls of the spheres as (ell cannot be the ca2se of the e*istence of the h21an so2l and that only an incorporeal intelligence, and specifically the active intellect, can be the ca2se'-@. Ab2 al80arakatIs radical and original depart2re consists in reversing the (eight Avicenna placed on arg21ents that r2le o2t the so2ls of the spheres, and that 3M' al8M2ctabar ;'->7, ->.' Ibid' ->?, -7?' -@A Ibid' ->/8>;' -@. Above, pp' A68A-' -@7 -@?
As to (hat the 12ltiple ca2ses are, Ab2 al80arakat contends that MbodiesM co2ld
->?
establish an incorporeal intelligence, as the ca2se of the e*istence of h21an so2ls' The i11ediate ca2se of the e*istence of h21an so2ls cannot, in Ab2 al80arakatIs G2dg1ent, be Mthe holy s2bstances that have no link (ith bodies,M in other (ords, the incorporeal intelligences, incl2ding the s2bstance Mcalled the active intellect'M "or in every instance, Man effect is si1ilar to its ca2se, and everything belonging essentially to the effect co1es fro1 the ca2se'M Incorporeal intelligences, (hich do not operate thro2gh bodies, are too dissi1ilar fro1 h21an so2ls, (hich do operate thro2gh bodies, for the intelligences to be taken as the i11ediate ca2se of the e*istence of h21an so2ls' The ca2se of each class of h21an so2l 12st accordingly be one of the Mcelestial so2ls,M that is, a so2l of a celestial sphere or the so2l of a star i1bedded in one of the spheres'->6 A considerable n21ber of celestial so2ls is involved, one Ms2periorM to and M1ore nobleM than another, and each responsible for the e*istence of a corresponding class of so2ls in the h21an hierarchy'->- The n21ber of Mspirit2al angelsM has no( gro(n (ell beyond the fig2re that Avicenna conte1plated' The roster incl2des< the incorporeal intelligences, (hose precise contrib2tion to the 1ove1ent of the celestial spheres is left 2ne*plainedH the so2ls of the Mspheres (e kno( and those (e do not kno(MH and the so2ls of the Mvisible and nonvisible stars'M As G2st seen, the ca2ses of h21an so2ls are fo2nd a1ong the so2ls of the spheres and the so2ls of the stars' Ab2 al80arakat re1arks that the MangelQsRM serving as Mca2seM and MpreserverM of the Mother ani1al so2ls, the plant so2ls, and the 1ineral po(ers,M are MprobablyM distinct fro1 the celestial so2ls taken into consideration th2s far and therefore they too have to be added to the roster of transl2nar spirit2al beings'->/ Ab2 al80arakat has been seen to e1ploy the proposition that the h21an so2l is an incorporeal s2bstance' In Avicenna, the proposition rested on the consideration that indivisible incorporeal tho2ghts are present in the h21an so2l and anything in (hich so1ething indivisible is present is eJ2ally indivisible'->; Ab2 al80arakat like(ise points to a kind of kno(ledge that cannot be present in a body yet is in the h21an so2l' 02t as another e*pression of his independence and originality, he seeks o2t a different kind of kno(ledge that, (hile incapable of being present in the body, is present in 1anIs so2lH and he hits 2pon kno(ledge of a (holly 2ne*pected sort' He reasons< If a certain thing is present in another and the second in a third, then the first is also present in the third' Hence, if the h21an so2l resided in the body, anything in the so2l (o2ld like(ise be MinM the bodyH any percept in the h21an so2l (o2ld be present in the body as (ell' $o(, a large physical obGect cannot be contained (ithin a s1aller physical obGect, and by the sa1e token the percept of a large physical obGect cannot be contained (ithin a s1aller physical obGect' The h21an so2l does, ho(ever, receive percepts of enor1o2s obGects, AT' al8M2ctabar /';AA8;.-' Ibid' ;'/-;' ->/ Ibid' -7?, /-7' ->; Above, p' A;' ->6 ->-
->A
s2ch as Mthe heavens'M Since those percepts cannot be present in a 1anIs body, 1anIs so2l too does not e*ist in the body' Ab2 al80arakat goes on to arg2e that the h21an so2l does not e*ist (ithin a spirit that envelops the h21an body' He concl2des, as Avicenna did, that the h21an so2l is Man incorporeal s2bstance,M (ith the healthy proviso that the so2l does Mact thro2gh the body'M->@ The do1inant philosophic school, Ab2 al80arakat reports, constr2ed the transcendent active intellect as the Mteacher of 1ankind,M that is, as the ca2se of act2al h21an intelligible tho2ght' L2st as the Mlight of the s2n renders potentially visible things act2ally visibleM and 1akes Mthe potential Qfac2lty ofR vision act2ally see,M so tooBCDin his acco2nt of the do1inant theoryBCDMa po(er e1anates fro1 the active intellect on i1ages Qpresent (ithin the so2lR (hich are potentially intelligible, rendering the1 act2ally intelligibleM and the sa1e po(er thereby Mrenders the potential intellect an act2al intellect'M Ab2 al8 0arakatIs report adds a hint of AvicennaIs thesis that intelligible tho2ghts the1selves co1e fro1 the active intellect, rather than being abstracted fro1 i1ages< The philosophers, he (rites, co1pared the active intellect not 1erely to the s2n and a Mla1pM b2t also to a M1irrorM in (hich things Mcan be seen'M->> The s2ggestion is that, for the philosophers, the h21an so2l in so1e sense sees intelligible tho2ghts in the active intellect' In Ab2 al80arakatIs G2dg1ent, the active intellectIs role as a ca2se of act2al h21an tho2ght is only a Ms2pposition and int2ition QhadsR'M It rests on an often cited Aristotelian principle,->7 (hich, in o2r a2thorIs for12lation, affir1s< Khen Mact2alityM follo(s M2pon potentiality,M the ne( act2ality 12st co1e fro1 an agent that already is an Mact2alityM free Mof potentiality'M Ab2 al80arakat casts do2bt on the principle by add2cing an instance (here it does notBCDor apparently does notBCD apply< A seed Mbeco1es an act2al tree by itself and (itho2t the participation of Manother Qact2alR tree'M M0y the sa1e token the so2l 1ay perhaps pass to its perfection by itself, (itho2t there being ' ' ' anything (ith the act2al characteristic in J2estion, (hich leads it to act2ality'M After the dialectical d2st settles, Ab2 al80arakat reveals, ho(ever, that he holds fast to a principle very si1ilar to AristotleIs' His version states that (hatever is fo2nd in an effect 12st e*ist in Mthe first ca2se Qof the effectR, act2ally and eternally'M->? And despite SM' al8M2ctabar /';7@8;77' 3' al8M2ctabar /'@6;, @6?, @--, and passi1, does a(ay (ith the fac2lties of the so2l and contends that a MsingleM h21an so2l, (hich is the Messence of 1an,M is the percipient s2bGect in the case both of sense perceptions and intelligible tho2ghts, both of (hich Ab2 al80arakat calls M1ental for1s'M ,ines s2ggests that Ab2 al80arakat (as led to his conception of the h21an so2l by AvicennaIs Mfloating 1anM arg21ent' See above, p' A;, n' ;AH S' ,ines, M a conception de la conscience de soi cheE Avicenne et cheE Ab2Il80arakat al80aghdadi,M reprinted in his St2dies in Ab2Il80arakat 9Ler2sale1 -.?.: //-8;6' ->> Ibid' /'@6A' ->7 Above, p' -A' ->? The only difference I see bet(een Ab2 al80arakatIs principle and his for12lation of AristotleIs principle is that his principle looks to the 2lti1ate ca2se, rather than the i11ediate ca2se, of the act2aliEation of the effect' ->@
R erberations of the Theories of Alfarabi and Avicenna
->.
having (ritten a fe( lines earlier that the h21an so2l 1ay perhaps pass to act2ality thro2gh its o(n po(er, he does not in the end e*e1pt act2al h21an tho2ght fro1 his version of the principle' His concl2ding position is that the appearance of intelligible tho2ght in the h21an so2l al(ays reJ2ires an e*ternal ca2se, and altho2gh in so1e cases the i11ediate e*ternal ca2se is a h21an teacher, all h21an intelligible tho2ght 2lti1ately goes back to an agent eternally endo(ed (ith act2al tho2ght' Kith so1e hesitation, Ab2 al80arakat identifies the beings that Mbring abo2t the e*istence of the vario2s classes of h21an so2l as the 2lti1ate ca2ses of the tho2ght of their respective classes'->A He does not say (hether he 2nderstands intelligible tho2ghts to e1anate directly fro1 the s2pernal ca2ses or (hether those ca2ses e1it a kind of light that ill21inates i1ages in the h21an so2l and enables the so2l to abstract intelligible tho2ghts fro1 the i1ages' "ro1 the proposition that the h21an so2l is an incorporeal s2bstance, not dependent on a body for its e*istence, Ab2 al80arakat, like Avicenna, infers its intrinsic i11ortality'->. %ifferent classes of so2ls have different s2pernal ca2ses for their e*istence in Ab2 al80arakatIs sche1e, and after the death of the body, each so2l, (hether good or bad, ret2rns to its so2rce and MconGoinsM (ith the ca2se of its e*istence' A so2lIs fate in the afterlife th2s depends in the first instance on its o(n innate character< Its innate character deter1ines the r2ng on the s2pernal hierarchy, the Mho1eM and Mco1pany,M the Mgiven spot and specific level,M to (hich it ret2rns' 02t the J2ality of the e*istence a(aiting the so2l 2pon its ret2rn is deter1ined by its Mscientific and ethicalM attain1ents d2ring its earthly soGo2rn' A so2l that has gro(n McloseM to its ca2seBCDaltho2gh never MeJ2al (ith it,M since that is i1possibleBCDby acJ2iring kno(ledge and p2rifying itself fro1 MbestialityM and Mcorporeality,M (ill enGoy Me2dae1onia'M A so2l that, by contrast, is M(retched in its filth ' '' and defective beca2se of its ignoranceM (ill, 2pon ret2rning to its so2rce, find itself in a MneighborhoodM (here it is Mhated,M Mdespised,M and Msh2nned'M It (ill be like a MstrangerM (ho happened 2pon a Mland, the lang2age of (hose people he does not 2nderstand,M and the Mc2sto1s and religion of (hichM he does not co1prehend' The stranger (ho is (holly MalienatedM fro1 those aro2nd hi1 s2ffers painH the so2l that ret2rns to its s2pernal so2rce (ith characteristics co1pletely 2nlike those of the celestial being (ith (ho1 it 12st henceforth eternally associate s2ffers far greater pain, for its pain is endless and 1ore intense'-76 It is, (rites Ab2 al80arakat, a MpropertyM of the h21an so2l to Mbehold (hat is hidden,M that is, to foresee the f2t2re' Avicenna had indicated that the so2rce of 3' al8M2ctabar /'@--8@-/' Ab2 al80arakatIs n2anced position is that so1e h21an so2ls are led to act2ality by h21an instr2ctors, so1e by h21an instr2ctors as (ell as by transcendent ca2ses, and so1e fort2nate so2ls e*cl2sively by the transcendent ca2ses' In all cases, ho(ever, the 2lti1ate ca2ses of h21an tho2ght are the transcendent ca2ses of the e*istence of the h21an so2ls' A cr2cial line on @-/ appears to be corr2pt' ->. Ibid' @@6' -76 Ibid' ;'/-;8/-@, /-7' ->A
-76
h21an kno(ledge of the f2t2re is the so2ls of the spheres,-7- and Ab2 al80arakat 1akes a very si1ilar discovery' He reasons that the so2rce of h21an forekno(ledge 12st, on the one hand, be Mincorporeal s2bstances,M (hich have MintelligibleM tho2ghtH only beings possessed of intelligible tho2ght can co1prehend events that have not yet co1e to pass' On the other hand, the so2rce 12st also be Msense perceptive,M since (hat has no fa1iliarity (ith the (orld of sensation can have and convey no infor1ation abo2t physical events in their partic2larity' The so2rce of h21an kno(ledge of the f2t2reBCDand, Ab2 al80arakat appears to say, revealed kno(ledge of theoretical tr2ths as (ellBCDis hence M1ost likelyM identical (ith Mthe ca2ses Qof the e*istenceR of Qh21anR so2ls'M In other (ords, so2ls of the celestial spheres and of the stars i1bedded in spheres, (hich Ab2 al80arakat has taken to be the ca2ses of the e*istence of h21an so2ls and the probable 2lti1ate ca2se of h21an intelligible tho2ght, are also the 1ost likely so2rce of h21an kno(ledge of the f2t2re' 3no(ledge of the f2t2re co1es to 1an (hen the h21an so2l and the s2pernal so2rce co112nicate (ith each other as Mone so2l to another,M and the h21an so2l Mbeholds (hat is present in the Qs2pernalR so2l'M Since (hen 1an is a(ake, his senses distract his so2l and prevent it fro1 foc2sing its attention to the s2pernal so2rce, co112nication of kno(ledge of the f2t2re 2s2ally occ2rs in sleep and thro2gh drea1s' Occasionally, ho(ever, 1en receive kno(ledge of the f2t2re (hen a(ake, Mby (ay of inspiration Qilha1R'M-7/ To s211ariEe< AvicennaIs 1ark on Ab2 al8 0arakat is 2n1istakable' Ab2 al0arakat pict2res a physical 2niverse consisting of celestial spheres and a s2bl2nar region as Avicenna and Alfarabi did, and like the1, he takes the 2niverse to be eternal' "ollo(ing Avicenna, he recogniEes the need to har1oniEe the principle that fro1 one only one proceeds (ith the 2nitary nat2re of the "irst Ca2se' He locates the ca2se of the e*istence of h21an so2ls, as (ell as of the for1s of other ani1ate and inani1ate s2bl2nar beings, in the s2pernal real1' After so1e dialectical giveand8take, he establishes an 2lti1ate s2pernal ca2se of each h21an so2lIs intelligible tho2ght and s2ggests strongly that the s2pernal ca2se of h21an tho2ght is identical (ith the s2pernal ca2se of the so2lIs e*istence' He deploys a pec2liar adaptation, or perhaps perversion, of AvicennaIs reasoning to prove that the h21an so2l is an incorporeal s2bstance' ike Avicenna, he ded2ces the intrinsic i11ortality of the h21an so2l fro1 the proposition that the so2l is an incorporeal s2bstance' Again like Avicenna, he has the i1personal (orkings of the la(s of nat2re consign 1orally and intellect2ally perfected so2ls to a e2dae1onic eternity in the co1pany of the ca2se of their e*istence, and so2ls that fail to develop intellect2ally or are 1orally defective, to posth21o2s s2ffering' His e*planation of h21an forekno(ledge thro2gh tr2e drea1s, and occasionally even in the (aking state, reflects AvicennaIs e*planation of the sa1e pheno1ena'
-7- -7/
Above, p' -//' 3 al8M2ctabar /'@-.8@//'
-7-
02t Ab2 al80arakat re1odels the str2ct2re he has borro(ed' To solve the proble1 of pl2rality in the 2niverse, he proposes that the "irst Ca2se itself 1ight have 12ltiple tho2ghts and thereby prod2ce 12ltiple effects' He peoples the incorporeal do1ain (ith 1any 1ore incorporeal beings than Alfarabi or Avicenna had drea1t of' He splits 2p the f2nctions of the active intellect a1ong an indeter1inate n21ber of s2pernal beings, by distrib2ting the responsibility for prod2cing different classes of h21an so2ls a1ong the so2ls of the spheres or so2ls of the stars, and by recogniEing still other 2nspecified s2pernal beings as the ca2ses of the e*istence of 1inerals, plants, and ani1als' His syste1, in a (ord, is a looser version of AvicennaIs syste1, (ith a host of ne( nonphysical entities sJ2eeEed in' S2hra(ardi has left a n21ber of (orks, b2t here I shall deal (ith three< AvdE8i ,ar8i LibraIil, an allegorical tale in ,ersian, (hich has been translated into English 2nder the title The So2nd of !abrielIs KingH 3itab al8Tal(ihdt, (hich 1eans MEl2cidationsMH and Hik1at al8IshrdJ, (hich 1eans MThe Science Qor< ,hilosophyR of Ill21ination'M The So2nd of !abrielIs King is a sketch of AvicennaIs philosophy, garbed in a transparent allegory' The Tal(ihdt praises Avicenna as Mthe finest of the later QphilosophersRM-7; and, like The So2nd of !abrielIs King, follo(s hi1 closely' Hik1at al8IshrdJ, by contrast, reGects AvicennaIs pict2re of the 2niverse in favor of an alternative pict2re' In Hik1at al8IshrdJ, S2hra(ardi 1oreover reports that altho2gh he had once been an adherent of the M,eripateticM school, that is to say, of AvicennaIs version of Aristotelian philosophy, he had s2bseJ2ently seen the light'-7@ It (o2ld therefore see1 nat2ral to take the allegorical tale and the Tal(ihdt as earlier (orks, and Hik1at al8IshrdJ as later' 02t the hypothesis cannot stand (itho2t J2alification, for the Tal(ihdt refers to the disc2ssion of a certain topic Min Hik1at al8IshraJM-7> and also refers to an additional (ork of S2hra(ardiIs, (hich both criticiEes Avicenna and e*plicitly calls attention to the corrections of AvicennaIs philosophy that are 1ade in Hik1at al8IshrdJ'-77 -7; S2hra(ardI, 3' al8Tal(lhat< Metaphysics, in Opera 1etaphysica et 1ystica, ed' H' Corbin 9Istanb2l -.@>: 7.' On ?@, S2hra(ardi narrates a drea1 in (hich Aristotle appeared to hi1, and in ans(er to a J2estion stated that none of the Mphilosophers of Isla1M reached even Mone tho2sandth partM of ,latoIs Mlevel'M See CorbinIs introd2ction, viii8i*' -7@
9Teheran -.>/: -6, ->7, translated by Corbin in S2hra(ardi, Opera *8*i' -7> S2hra(ardi, 3' al8Tal(ihat< ,hysics, os Angeles, &C A ibrary, Minasian Collection, Arabic MS A@>,->A' My colleag2e Hossein Fiai helped 1e read the 1an2script and all in all (as genero2s (ith his kno(ledge of S2hra(ardi' -77 S2hra(ardi, 3' al8Tal(lhat< Metaphysics >., refers to 3itab al8Mashdric (alM2tdrahdt, and the latter 9in Opera, n' -7; above: ;7- and @>;, refers, in t2rn, to criticis1s of Avicenna in Hik1at al8IshraJ' 3' al8Masharic (al8M2tdrahat @6- and >6>, also 1ention S2hra(ardiIs MbookM entitled MHik1at al8IshraJ'M
S2hra(ardi, Hik1at al8IshraJ, in Oe2vres philosophiJ2'es et 1ystiJ2es, ed' H' Corbin
-7/
S2hra(ardiIs Hik1at al8IshraJ, for its part, re1arks that a 1astery of the M1ethod of the ,eripateticsM is a precondition for the ne( (ay'-7? The s2ggestion has accordingly been 1ade that S2hra(ardi designed a single co2rse of st2dy in (hich the presentation of AvicennaIs theories serves as a propaede2tic for the s2pposedly 1ore profo2nd MScience of Ill21ination'M-7A An eJ2ally pla2sible e*planation 1ay, ho(ever, be that the allegorical tale as (ell the Tal(ihat are indeed earlier (orks b2t that after rethinking 1atters, S2hra(ardi ret2rned to the Tal(ihat and added a fe( cross8references' In The So2nd of !abrielIs King, a yo2ng 1an, (ho obvio2sly represents the h21an so2l, leaves the (o1enIs J2arters of his ho2seH the (o1enIs J2arters represent the do1ain of sense perception' On his (ay to the 1enIs J2arters, to the do1ain of intellect, the yo2ng 1an 1eets an elderly sage,-7. (ho is clearly the active intellect, the ca2se of h21an intellect2al develop1ent' An allegorical tale of AvicennaIs entitled Hayy ibn )aJEdn, (hich (as referred to earlier, also represented the h21an so2l by a yo2ng 1an in search of instr2ction, and the active intellect by an elderly sage (ho instr2cts the yo2th'-?6 In S2hra(ardlIs tale, the sage is described as the last in a line of ten handso1e old 1en, (ho are MincorporealM beings that co1e fro1 Mno(herelandM-?-H he is, in other (ords, the last of ten incorporeal intelligences, (hich derive fro1 a 0eing that e*ists o2tside of ti1e and space' Each of the other old 1en is the teacher of the ne*t in line and is responsible for the ne*t oneIs Minvestit2reM-?/H in other (ords, each e1anates the intellect2al s2bstance of the one follo(ing it' Each old 1an 1oreover possesses a 1illstone, and all e*cept the tenth has a single child (ho ad1inisters the 1illstone-?;H that is to say, each of the first nine intelligences possesses a celestia sphere and engenders a so2l that governs the sphere' The child keeps one eye on its 1illstone and the other on its father-?@H the so2l of each celestial sphere 1oves its sphere o2t of its desire to i1itate the corresponding incorporeal intelligence' The 1illstone belonging to the tenth elder, the elderly sage (ho instr2cts the yo2th, has fo2r layersBCDthe nat2ral places of the s2bl2nar ele1ents' And this elder sends not one b2t n21ero2s children to his 1illstoneBCDthe active intellect e1anates the rational so2ls of the s2bl2nar (orld' Khen those children co1plete their ter1 in the lo(er (orld, they reGoin the so2rce of their e*istence, never to ret2rn again' Hik1at al8IshrdJ 9n' -7@ above: />A' Corbin, in S2hra(ardi, Opera i*, *v' -7. persian te*t< AvaE8i ,ar8i LibraIil, in S2hra(ardi, Oe2vres philosophiJ2'es et 1ystiJ2es /, ed' S' $asr and H' Corbin 9Tehran -.?6: /6?8/;' English translation< The Mystical and #isionary Treatises of S2hra(ardi, trans' K' Thackston 9 ondon -.A/: /?' I have relied on ThackstonIs translation and on help that Hossein Fiai gave 1e (ith the ,ersian te*t' -?6 Above, p' -@7' -?- Thackston /?' -?/ Ibid' /A' -?; Ibid' /A8/.' -?@ Ibid' /.' -7A -7?
-7;
Altho2gh the tenth elder is never changing, he has an Abyssinian slave girlBCDthe 1atter of the s2bl2nar (orldBCD(ho, (hen receptive, conceives his offspring'-?> In other (ords, so2ls and nat2ral for1s are crystalliEed o2t of the never8changing e1anation of the active intellect (hen 1atter is properly disposed to receive the1' In a digression, the yo2ng 1an representing the h21an so2l notices a bo(l (ith eleven layers, at the botto1 of (hich there lie so1e (ater and sand' The first of the eleven layers has no Ml21ino2s nodeMH it obvio2sly sy1boliEes the o2ter1ost, di2rnal sphere, in (hich no star is i1bedded' The second layer has 1any s2ch nodesH it sy1boliEes the second celestial sphere, (hich contains the fi*ed stars' The ne*t seven layers have one node each and sy1boliEe the spheres of the seven planets' The final t(o layers, (hich represent the s2bl2nar ele1ents of fire and air, are the handi(ork of the tenth old 1an hi1self, as are the (ater and sand at the botto1 of the basin, (hich represent the ele1ents (ater and earth'-?7 In other (ords, as Avicenna held, the for1s of the fo2r ele1ents are e1anated by the active intellect' As for the !abriel of the taleIs title, he is another sy1bol for the active intellect'-?? S2hra(ardiIs Tal(lhat, as (ill appear, disting2ishes three aspects in the active intellectIs tho2ght, b2t here S2hra(ardi si1plifies and (rites that !abriel has t(o (ings, or aspects' !abrielIs left (ing contains so1e darkness, beca2se it e1bodies Mnone*istenceM and Mpossible e*istence'M The left (ing, or aspect, is, in other (ords, the tho2ght that the active intellect has of itself as a possibly e*istent being' That aspect casts a Mshado(MH it brings forth the 1atter of the s2bl2nar (orld' The right (ing e1bodies !abrielIs relation to !od and is p2re lightH it is the active intellectIs tho2ght of the necessity of its e*istence by reason of the "irst Ca2se' Thro2gh it, !abriel, or the active intellect, brings forth Ml21ino2s so2lsM in the lo(er (orld and also trans1its MessencesM 9haJaIiJ: to the h21an 1ind-?AH the active intellect e1anates h21an so2ls and concepts constit2ting h21an intellect2al tho2ght' According to still another state1ent in the allegory, not 1erely so2ls b2t everything that co1es to be in the lo(er (orld has its so2rce in !abrielIs (ings'-?. The allegory th2s follo(s Avicenna as (ell as Alfarabi in recogniEing nine incorporeal intelligences, (hich e1anate one fro1 the another' The intelligences are the e1anating so2rce of the so2ls of the spheres and, altho2gh S2hra(ardi does not e*plicitly say that they e1anate their M1illstones,M pres21ably of the spheres as (ell' "ro1 the ninth intelligence, the active intellect e1anates' The active intellect is pres21ably the e1anating ca2se of the 1atter of the s2bl2nar (orld, it e1anates all nat2ral for1s appearing in s2bl2nar 1atter, fro1 the for1s of the fo2r ele1ents to h21an so2ls, and it e1anates h21an intelligible tho2ghts' That conception of the active intellect is distinctive to Avicenna' -?> I?7
Ibid' lbid' /A' -?? See belo(, p' -?@' -?A Thackston ;/8;;' -?. Ibid' ;6'
-7@
S2hra(ardiIs Tal(lhdt speaks a 1ore conventional philosophic lang2age and p2ts 1ore flesh on the skeleton' S2hra(ardi (rites there< The observed 1ove1ents of the heavens are to be e*plained by celestial Mspheres'M Each sphere is 1oved Gointly by a Mso2l,M (hich prod2ces 1ove1ent thro2gh its MdesireM to Mi1itateM a corresponding intelligence, and by the MintelligenceM that is Mthe obGect of Qthe so2lIsR desire'M The incorporeal MintelligenceM has the sa1e MrelationM to the Mso2l of QitsR sphereM that Mthe active intellectM has Mto o2r Qh21anR so2ls'M MThe later philosophers,M that is to say, Alfarabi and Avicenna, set the n21ber of intelligences as eJ2al to the Mn21ber of the general spheresMH they fi*ed the n21ber at nine, there being nine 1ain spheres' Aristotle, by contrast, had espo2sed the Ms2periorM position that the n21ber of intelligences is eJ2al to Mthe 1ove1ents of all the spheres, both general and partic2larMH in other (ords, he ass21ed intelligences not only for the 1ain spheres b2t also for each of the s2bordinate spheresBCDeccentric or epicyclicalBCDneeded to acco2nt for the f2ll co1ple*ity of celestial 1otion' He therefore recogniEed M1ore than fifty intelligences'M-A6 The infor1ation that Aristotle recogniEed Mappro*i1ately fiftyM intelligences co2ld have been fo2nd by S2hra(ardi in Avicenna'-A- The Tal(ihdt calls the "irst Ca2se< MlightM and Mlight of all light,M-A/ ter1s that recall e*pressions in the Theology of Aristotle and !haEali-A;H and also Mthe p2re goodM 9al8khair al81ahd:,-A@ a ter1 echoing the title of the Arabic version of the iber de ca2sis 93' al8Iddh li8Arist2tdlis fi al83hair al8Mahd, that is, AristotleIs E*position regarding the ,2re !ood:' The iber de ca2sis is a paraphrase of $eoplatonic theore1s dra(n fro1 ,rocl2sI Ele1ents of Theology'-A> M"ro1 the "irst Tr2e Q0eingR, only one can proceed Qyasd2rR,M and Mthey,M that is, the later philosophers, acco2nted for pl2rality and corporeality in the 2niverse as follo(s< MThro2gh the intelligible tho2ghtM that the Mfirst effectM has of Mthe necessity of its e*istenceMBCDthro2gh its tho2ght of itself as a being necessarily e*istent by reason of the "irst Ca2seBCDManother intelligence ''' is prod2ced'M MThro2gh its intelligible tho2ght of the possibility Qof its e*istenceR in respect to itself,M the intelligence brings Mthe body of the o2ter1ost celestial sphereM into e*istence' And thro2gh its Mintelligible tho2ght of its o(n J2iddity,M it brings Mthe so2l of the Qo2ter1ostR sphereM into e*istence' The process replicates itself' "ro1 the MsecondM intelligence there e1anate a f2rther Mintelligence, the sphere of the fi*ed stars, and the so2lM of that sphere, Mand so on, 2ntil the nine spheres are co1plete'M-A7 The three 3 al8Tal(ihat< Metaphysics 9n' -7; above: >?8>.' Above, p' ?@, n' /' -A/ 3' al8 Tal(ihat< Metaphysics .-, .;' -A; Above, p' -;/' -A@ 3' al8Tal(ihat< Metaphysics .-' -A> iber de ca2sis, ed' and trans' O' 0ardenhe(er, as &eber das reine !2te 9"reib2rg -AA/: --8-/' -A7 S2hra(ardi, 3' al8Tal(lhat< Metaphysics 7;87@' "or the aspects in the tho2ght of each intelligence according to Avicenna and others, see above, p' -/A, n' 7' -A- -A6
-7>
aspects in the tho2ght of each intelligence are, as (ill be noted, delineated so1e(hat differently here fro1 the (ay Avicenna delineated the1' There is a Mtenth intelligence'M MThro2gh its intelligible tho2ght of the possibility Qof its e*istenceR,M the tenth intelligenceBCDthe active intellectBCDbrings forth Mthe co11on 1atterM 2nderlying the fo2r s2bl2nar Mele1entsMH thro2gh its Mintelligible tho2ght of its J2iddity,M it brings forth Mthe for1sM in s2bl2nar 1atter, incl2ding MplantM and Mani1alM so2lsH and thro2gh its tho2ght of Mthe necessityM of its e*istence by reason of the MQ"irstR Ca2se,M it brings forth Mo2r rational so2ls'M Avicenna had (ritten that the general circ2larity of 1otion (hich is shared by all the spheres MaidsM the active intellect in the e1anation of the 2nderlying 1atter of the s2bl2nar (orld, (hile the differences bet(een the several circ2lar 1otions perfor1ed by the individ2al spheres prepare s2bl2nar 1atter for the e1anation of the f2ll range of nat2ral for1s fro1 the active intellect'-A? S2hra(ardi 2ses al1ost the sa1e (ords, (riting< The Mcirc2lar 1otion ''' co11onM to the heavens is an MaidM in bringing forth the Msingle 1atterM co11on to the fo2r s2bl2nar ele1ents, (hile the Mdiversity in the QspheresIR 1otionsM prepares s2bl2nar 1atter for receiving a Mdiversity of kinds of for1sM fro1 the active intellectIs Me1anation'M-AA The e1anation flo(ing fro1 the Mgiver Qof for1sR,M that is, the active intellect, re1ains 2nchanging thro2gh MeternityM and e*presses itself Min accordance (ith the dispositionM of the Mrecipient'M Hence, the nat2ral for1 that in every instance crystalliEes o2t of the e1anation of the active intellect is deter1ined by the blend of the portion of s2bl2nar 1atter receiving the for1' Khen a portion of s2bl2nar 1atter is blended to the highest degree of ho1ogeneity, it receives a h21an so2l'-A. Above, p' ??, Avicenna did not e*pressly disting2ish three aspects in the tho2ght of the active intellect' -AA S2hra(ardi, 3' al8Tal(ihat< Metaphysics 7@H 3' al8Tal(ahat< ,hysics 9n' -7> above: -7;' S2hra(ardiIs 3' al8Masharic (al8M2fdrahat 9in Opera, n' -7; above: @@.8>/, also poses the proble1 of corporeality and pl2rality in the 2niverse' There too S2hra(ardi ass21es that the "irst Ca2se contains no pl2rality in itself and that M(hat is one in all respects cannot be the ca2se of pl2rality ''' or of a body, since bodies ''' are Qco1posed of t(o factors, na1elyR 1atter and for1'M As to ho( pl2rality and corporeality do e1erge, 3' al8Masharic gives an abbreviated state1ent of the M,eripateticsfIR,M that is, AvicennaIs, sol2tion, (hich is close to the version of the e1anation theory G2st J2oted fro1 the Tal(ihat' In 3' al8Masharic, ho(ever, S2hra(ardi raises one of the obGections advanced in !haEaliIs ref2tation of Avicenna' 9See above, p' ->-': He contends that Mthe sphere of fi*ed stars contains tho2sands of stars'' '' There 12st, conseJ2ently, be a pl2rality in the ca2ses of those stars, and the three aspects in the second effect Qin the second e1anated intelligence, (hich governs the sphere of the fi*ed starsR (ill not do'M "2rther1ore, each of the other celestial spheres also contains 1ore 12ltiplicity than can be acco2nted for by three aspects in the intelligence ass21ed to govern it' These and other diffic2lties in AvicennaIs e1anation theory can, according to 3' al8Masharic, Monly be solved thro2gh the proced2re of the Science of Ill21ination QHik1at al8IshraJR'M S2hra(ardi
then concl2des the disc2ssion (ith a brief sketch of the sol2tion that his Hik1at al8 IshraJ (ill offer' -A. 3' al8Tal(ihat< Metaphysics ?7' -A?
-77
The h21an rational so2l can have a MpotentialityM for tho2ght at Mthree levels,M and they are e*actly the three stages of potentiality for tho2ght that Avicenna delineated-.6< The infant is born (ith a Mfirst dispositionM for tho2ght, called M1aterial intellect'M Khen the h21an so2l develops and controls the Mfirst intelligible tho2ghts,M thereby readying itself for learning the Msecond Qintelligible tho2ghtsR thro2gh cogitation or insight,M it attains Mintellect in habit2'M And the final level of potentiality, called Mact2al intellect,M is the Madvanced disposition,M in (hich intelligible tho2ghts are not present to the so2l, b2t the so2l can 1ake a f2ll range of tho2ghts Mpresent (henever it (ishes,''' (itho2t searching'M Khen Mintelligible tho2ghtsM are Mpresent in act2alityM and not 1erely potentially, 1an possesses the MperfectionM called MacJ2ired intellect'M-.- MThe so2l does not lead itself fro1 potentiality to act2ality'M To de1onstrate that the factor MperfectingM o2r so2l and Mbringing it to act2alityM is an Mintellect2al s2bstanceM called the Mactive intellectM (ith (hich M(e conGoin,M S2hra(ardi add2ces AvicennaIs arg21ent fro1 the pheno1enon of intellect2al 1e1ory' And repeating an analogy of AvicennaIs, he (rites that Mo2r so2ls are like a 1irrorMH (hen a h21an so2l faces in the correct direction, it reflects (hat is in the active intellect, b2t it loses the reflection (hen it t2rns a(ay'-./ The Tal(ihat establishes the incorporeality of the h21an so2l thro2gh the sa1e arg21ents that Avicenna deployed for the p2rpose'-.; S2hra(ardi also offers an Marg21ent for the i1possibility of the trans1igration Qof the so2lRM (hich is a condensation of AvicennaIs arg21ent against trans1igration' His version goes< MKhen the body has a blend Qof 1atterR (hich is s2ch that it Qthe bodyR 1erits a so2l fro1 the giver Qof for1sR,M it receives the so2lH (ere a Mtrans1igrating so2l QalsoR to Goin the body, a single ani1al (o2ld have t(o so2lsMH since s2ch a sit2ation is obvio2sly prepostero2s, the trans1igration of so2ls is i1possible'-.@ After the death of the body, the so2ls of M1en of science (ho have attained s2perior QethicalR J2alitiesM enter a state of MconG2nction and 2nity ' '' (ith the active intellectM and (ith so2ls si1ilar to the1selves' They thereby enGoy the highest degree of Me2dae1onia'M-.> The Tal(ihat does not spell o2t all the possible fates in the afterlife (hich Avicenna had disting2ished, b2t it is intrig2ed by the rationaliEation that, Avicenna had reported, Mso1e scholarsM 9c2la1aI: gave of traditional acco2nts of the hereafter and that, he had co11ented, Msee1s to be ''' tr2e'M-.7 S2hra(ardi records the sa1e rationaliEation, again in the na1e Above, p' A@' 3' al8Tal(ihat< ,hysics ->;' -./ 3' al8Tal(lhat< ,hysics -;78;?' 9The leaf is 1isbo2nd, and sho2ld follo( p' ->@': "or AvicennaIs arg21ent fro1 the pheno1enon of intellect2al 1e1ory, see above, p' A.' "or the 1irror analogy in Avicenna, see above, p' .@' -.- -.6
l.;
-.@
3' al8Tal(ihat< Metaphysics 9n' -7; above: A-H see above, p' -6.' -.> 3' al8Tal(ihat< Metaphysics ?;, .@' -.7 Above, pp' --/8-@'
3' al8Tal(ihat< ,hysics ->.87/H see above, p' A;'
-7?
of Mso1e scholars,M and he calls it Ma fine state1ent'M In S2hra(ardiIs for12lation, Mthe body of the heavens serves as a s2bstrat21 for the co1positive i1aginations of different classes of happy and 1iserableM so2ls in the hereafter, these being so2ls that, in the present life, acJ2ired no Mconception of the intellect2al (orldM and (hose Mlink to bodies (as never severed'M Sho2ld the so2ls in J2estion be Msi1ple1inded, good, and chaste,M their i1agination enables the1 to e*perience M1arvelo2s, handso1e pict2res and for1s,M-.? s2ch as Ma garden constr2cted of precio2s stones, Mdark8eyed 1aidens,M and Mthe like'M-.A $onvirt2o2s si1ple1inded so2ls have e*periences in the afterlife (hich accord (ith their deserts'-.. "inally, the Tal(ihat recogniEes the three kinds of pheno1ena to (hich Avicenna attached the na1e prophecy' MInsightM 9hads:, in S2hra(ardiIs definition, is the aptit2de for discovering the M1iddle ter1sM of syllogis1s (ith little effort' Men vary in the aptit2de, and so1e Me*ceed others in the J2antity and J2ality Qof their insightR,M (ith the res2lt that they enGoy an Mintensity of conG2nction (ith the active intellect'M/66 Since there is Mno li1itM to the a1o2nt of insight that a 1an 1ight possess, a 1an M1ay co1e into e*istence (ho, thro2gh his insight, co1prehends the larger part of Qthe corp2s ofR intelligible tho2ghts, (itho2t a teacher and in a brief ti1e'M At the top of the spectr21 stands the Mholy ' ' ' so2l, po(erf2l Qin its insightR, s2ch as QbelongsR to the prophets'M/6- Here (e have intellect2al prophecy, replete (ith phrases borro(ed fro1 Avicenna'/6/ The Tal(ihat f2rther recogniEes the type of prophecy that is centered in the co1positive i1aginative fac2lty, altho2gh I did not find S2hra(ardi 2sing the na1e prophecy in connection (ith it' The Mco1positive i1aginative fac2lty,M he (rites, is charged (ith Mfra1ing fig2rative i1ages'M &s2ally, the ra( 1aterial for s2ch i1ages is f2rnished by sense perceptions, (hich 1ake their (ay fro1 the e*ternal sense organs, thro2gh the several internal senses, to the co1positive i1agination' 02t (hen bodily MconcernsM fall a(ay, the so2l 1ay t2rn in the Mdirection of holiness,M (here2pon so1ething MhiddenM fro1 the incorporeal region 1ay be MengravedM 2pon the co1positive i1agination' The ro2te traveled by an i1pression engraved 2pon the co1positive i1agination fro1 above is the reverse of that traveled by sense perceptions' The i1pression co1ing fro1 above is trans1itted by the co1positive i1agination to the M1e1ory,M/6; and fro1 the 1e1ory it Mpasses to the retentive i1agination'M The retentive i1agination Me*ercises control 3' al8Tal(ihat< Metaphysics A.8.6' Ibid' ./, .>' -.. Ibid' A.' /66 3' al8Tal(ihat< ,hysics -7>H 3' al8Tal(ihat< Metaphysics .>' /6- 3' al8Tal(ihat< ,hysics -7>' /6/ See above, pp' --?8-A' /6; The introd2ction of M1e1oryM at this point does not accord (ith AvicennaIs sche1e of internal sensesH see above, p' A., n' 77' -.A -.-
-7A
Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Aver roes, on Intellect
over the ''' sens2s co112nis, so that a f o r 1 ' ' ' is inscribed there'M Khat finally takes shape in the sens2s co112nis 1ay be Ma for1 of 2t1ost bea2tyM (hich M(hispersM secrets to the so2lBCDan 2n1istakable all2sion to the Mosle1 prophetIs vision of the angel !abriel'/6@ Alternatively, (hat appears 1ay be a lo2d call or (ritten 1essage' Or it 1ay be an e*act pictorial representation of the Mthing that is hidden'M Or, again, the hidden things revealed to the so2l 1ay be recast in Mfig2rative i1ages'M Khen the so2l retains an i1pression e*actly as it received fro1 above, it has a Mtr2e drea1M or a Mstraightfor(ard revelation Q(ahyR'M Khen, by contrast, the so2l recasts (hat it received into fig2rative i1ages, it has Ma revelation reJ2iring e*egesis QtaI(llR or a drea1 reJ2iring interpretation QtacbirR'M/6> As for the content of the hidden things co112nicated to the so2l fro1 above, the single e*a1ple S2hra(ardi gives is MpredictionsM of the f2t2re' Avicenna had s2ggested that the specific s2pernal so2rce of predictions of the f2t2re are the so2ls of the celestial spheres, and S2hra(ardiBCDlike Ab2 al80arakatBCDe*plicitly reasons that the so2ls of the spheres are indeed the so2rce' The so2ls of the spheres, he e*plains, are the only s2pernal beings (ith s2fficiently detailed kno(ledge of the la(s governing physical events to be able to foresee, and to convey predictions of, partic2lar f2t2re events' They therefore 12st be the so2rce of the i1aginative fac2ltyIs kno(ledge of those events'/67 The third pheno1enon classified by Avicenna as a kind of prophecy (as the effecting of changes in the physical (orld by an act of sheer (ill' The Tal(lhat recogniEes that noncognitive pheno1enon too, altho2gh I again did not find S2hra(ardi calling it prophecy' MSo1e so2ls,M he (rites, possess a Mdivine po(erM of s2ch strength that M1atter obeys the1 as their o(n bodies do'M S2ch so2ls can therefore Mact on the blend and Qthe fo2r basicR J2alities Qof 1atter, that is, heat, cold, dryness, and da1pnessR'M Since a physical obGectIs McharacterM is deter1ined by the 2nderlying J2alities and blend of 1atter of (hich the obGect is 1ade, those po(erf2l so2ls can, by changing the J2alities and blend, bring abo2t a transfor1ation of physical obGects and Meffect'' ' 1arvels'M/6? In s21, the Tal(ihat, like the allegorical tale of S2hra(ardiIs e*a1ined previo2sly, portrays a 2niverse (hose str2ct2re is identical (ith that of the 2niverse portrayed by Avicenna and Alfarabi' The Tal(ihat f2rther follo(s Avicenna closely in e*plaining the e1ergence of the co1ple* 2niverse fro1 a (holly 2nitary "irst Ca2se, the active intellectIs role as ca2se of the 1atter and for1s of the s2bl2nar (orld, the stages of h21an intellect2al develop1ent, the role of the active intellect in prod2cing act2al h21an tho2ght, the fate of so2ls after the death of their
3oran /<.?' 3' al8Tal(ihat< Metaphysics -6;8@' /67 Ibid' ..' /6? Ibid' .?' /6>
/6@
-7.
bodies, and the nat2re as (ell as the types of prophecy' Other, briefer (orks of S2hra(ardi also do nothing b2t s211ariEe AvicennaIs syste1'/6A S2hra(ardiIs Hik1at al8IshraJ anno2nces a ne( depart2re' Hik1at al8IshrdJ 1eans MScience of Ill21ination,M and in the pages to follo(, I shall 2se the Arabic ter1 to designate the book, and the English e*pression Mscience of ill21inationM to designate the doctrine that S2hra(ardi e*po2nds there' Hik1at al8IshraJ gro2nds itself in the notion, (hich (as enco2ntered earlier in !haEali and Ibn T2fail and (hich (as a S2fi co11onplace, that Mdirect e*perienceM 912shahada: rather than disc2rsive thinking constit2tes the high road to 1etaphysical tr2th' S2hra(ardi tells 2s that he (as hi1self vo2chsafed direct e*perience of the divine MlightM s2bseJ2ent to his M,eripateticM period' His Hik1at al8IshraJ is designed e*cl2sively for those on (ho1 the Mdivine flash has appeared and for (ho1 the appearance Qof the divine lightR has beco1e habit2alMH 2ninitiated readers (ill conseJ2ently Mdra( no benefit (hatsoeverM fro1 the book' Any (ho Mdesire only a Qdisc2rsiveR investigationM 9bahth: sho2ld go to the M,eripatetics,M that is, to Avicenna and his adherents, for there they (ill find the MfinestM and M1ost solidM version of disc2rsive philosophy'/6. )et it is not the entire science of ill21ination that direct e*perience reveals b2t only the basic pre1ises' Once they are given, the Mill21inationistM thinker 12st Mb2ildM his syste1 on the1'/-6 The science of ill21ination th2s is a science in the technical sense that it is a body of kno(ledge erected by h21an reasoning 2pon a set of pres2ppositionsBCDpres2ppositions discovered thro2gh direct e*perience'/-- $or does S2hra(ardi regard hi1self as the first to have beheld the divine Mlights'M He lists a n21ber of e1inent predecessors, and they are a biEarre cre(' MHer1es QTris1egistosR,M/-/ M,lato,M MFarath2stra,M the 1ythical Mfaithf2l, blessed king 3ay S2hra(ardlIs 3' al8 a1ahat, ed' E' Maalo2f 90eir2t -.7.:, and "i"tiJad al8H2ka1aI QOn the ,hilosophersI CreedR, in Oe2vres 9n' -7@ above:, are brief s211aries of AvicennaIs philosophy' ,p' --.8/-, -@-8@;, -@?, in the for1er (ork, and pp' /7?8?-, in the latter (ork, cover the points presented here' In addition to The So2nd of !abrielIs King other allegorical tales translated by Thackston 9n' -7. above: incorporate 1otifs fro1 Avicenna' /6. Hik1at al8IshraJ 9n' -7@ above: -/8-;, ->7H translated in CorbinIs introd2ction /.8;6, ;;8;@' ,p' />A8>., translated in CorbinIs introd2ction >A, o2tline a regi1en for e*periencing the revelatory light' Corbin, Avicenna and the #isionary Recital 9n' - above: @/, J2otes a re1ark that another of S2hra(ardiIs allegories 1akes abo2t AvicennaIs li1itations' See also above, p' -;-, (here !haEali enco2raged readers to Mbeco1e 1en of direct e*perience Qdha(JR,M (hile advising those (ho are incapable of direct e*perience to Mbeco1e 1en of scienceMH and above, p' -@A, (here Ibn T2fail contrasted his o(n direct e*perience (ith Ibn 0aGGaIs Mcogitative investigationM 9bahth fikri: of nat2re' /l6 Hik1at al8IshraJ -;' /-- See AlfarabiIs notion of science, above, p' >;' /-/ "or Arabic te*ts carrying Her1esI na1e as their a2thor, see A' "est2giere, Revelation dM Her1es Tris1egiste 9,aris -.>6: appendi* ; 9by ' Massignon:' The 1ost s2bstantial Arabic philosophic te*t (ith Her1esI na1e is kno(n as Her1etis tris1egisti' ' ' de castigatione ani1ae
libell21, ed' and atin trans' O' 0ardenhe(er 90onn -A?;:' 9It has nothing /6A
-?6
3hosro(,M/-; and ME1pedocles,M/-@ to (ho1 several 1inor $eoplatonic te*ts (ere attrib2ted, are all credited (ith having vie(ed the divine lights before S2hra(ardl'/-> Altho2gh S2hra(ardi does not list Avicenna a1ong those (ho had e*perienced the divine light, he ackno(ledges that a 1astery of the M1ethod of the ,eripateticsM is a precondition of the ill21inationist e*perienceH/-7 and echoes fro1 Avicenna reverberate thro2gh his Hik1at al8IshrdJ' Had S2hra(ardi been frank in listing the thinkers (ho in tr2th inspired his ne( sche1e, he (o2ld also have incl2ded at least t(o 1ore na1es, those of !haEali and Ab2 al80arakat' Arg21ents fro1 !haEaliIs critiJ2e of Avicenna, as set forth in Tahdf2t al8"aldsifa, prepare the gro2nd for the central doctrine of Hik1at al8IshraJH the spirit of !haEaliIs Mishkdt al8An(ar (ill be apparent in the application of light ter1inology to the incorporeal beings, and in the na1e light of lights (hich S2hra(ardi chooses for the "irst Ca2seH and the spirit of Ab2 al80arakat (ill be apparent in the proliferation of s2pernal entities (hich constit2tes the bookIs central doctrine' Occasional, albeit critical, references to Ab2 al80arakat disclose that S2hra(ardi kne( his (ork'/-? Anyone (ith S2hra(ardiIs ed2cation can be pres21ed to have been fa1iliar (ith the (ritings of !haEali' S2hra(ardiIs Hik1at al8IshrdJ establishes the e*istence of a Mlight of lightsM 9n2r al8 an(dr:, that is to say, a first, self8s2bsistent, being, thro2gh one of the standard proofs of the e*istence of a "irst Ca2se, the proof fro1 the i1possibility that ca2sesBCDor, in the parlance of the book, MlightsMBCDsho2ld Mregress ''' to infinity'M/-A The book goes on to borro( AvicennaIs proof for the 2nity and nonco1posite character of the "irst Ca2se in order to establish that the Mlight of in co11on (ith the !reek Her1etic corp2s': Apart fro1 a fe( instances of light i1agery, nothing in it co2ld have led S2hra(ardi to na1e Her1es as one of his predecessors' /-; H' Corbin, En isla1 iranien - 9,aris -.?-: -768A-, tries to e*plain the relevance of 3ay 3hosro(, b2t not all readers (ill find his e*planation pla2sible' /-@ The largest collection of 1edieval frag1ents carrying E1pedoclesI na1e is preserved in a Hebre( translation fro1 the Arabic, p2blished by %' 3a2f1ann, St2dien 2ber Salo1on ibn !abirol 902dapest -A..: -8>-' The frag1ents incl2de the follo(ing state1ents that S2hra(ardi 1ight have fo2nd har1onio2s (ith his Hik1at al8IshraJ< The deity is Mthe first p2re tr2e lightM 9;-:H the higher (orld is Ma light8like (orld, f2ll of lightM 9/.:H Mthe so2l is light8like, and its (orld is p2re lightM 9ibid':' Infor1ation regarding pse2do8E1pedocles is given in Encyclopaedia of Isla1, ne( ed', s'v' Anbad2klis' /l> Hik1at al8IshraJ ->?8>AH partly translated in CorbinIs introd2ction ;@8;>' /-7 Ibid' />A' /-?
3' al8Masharic (al8M2tarahat 9in Opera, n' -7; above: @;7, @7A, @?-' The second and
third passages do not e*plicitly na1e Ab2 al80arakat' All three are critical of Ab2 al8 0arakat and appear to have in vie( his e*planation of the e1anation of a pl2ral 2niverse fro1 a 2nitary "irst Ca2seH see above, p' ->7' They (ere called to 1y attention by H' Fiai' 3' al8Tal(that< ,hysics 9n' -7> above: -;?, 1akes an obliJ2e reference to Ab2 al80arakat and his theory of h21an perception' VBCZVHik1at al8 IshraJ 9n' -7@ above: -/-< MS2bsistent lights, arranged in an ordered chain, cannot regress to infinity'M See %avidson 9n' ;> above: ;;78@;'
-?-
lights is one, contains no condition (ithin its s2bstance,' ' ' and is affected by no characteristic'M/-. The Mlight of lightsM is s2perlatively MbeneficentM inas12ch as it is an Me1anating Qca2seR by virt2e of its essenceM and not for any other reason'//6 Since the Mlight of lightsM is free of co1position, M12ltiplicityM cannot MproceedM fro1 it' MThe first thing to proceed fro1 it is a single incorporeal lightMBCDa first incorporeal intelligenceBCD(hich Malso ' ' ' does not contain ' ' ' pl2ral aspects'M//- The perennial J2estion hence rears its head< Ho( do pl2rality and also corporeality e1erge in the 2niverse, given a 2nitary and incorporeal "irst Ca2se that e1anates only a 2nitary and incorporeal first effectN/// The Hik1at al8IshrdJ begins its sol2tion of the proble1 of pl2rality in the 2niverse as Avicenna had done and as S2hra(ardi had hi1self done in the Tal(ihdt, b2t (ith the difference that S2hra(ardi here disting2ishes only t(o aspects in the tho2ght of the first intelligence and dresses 2p (hat he says in the pec2liar lang2age of the book' The first e1anated lightBCDin other (ords, the first e1anated intelligenceBCDhas an intelligible tho2ght of Mits (ealth and its necessity Qof another incorporeal light,M or incorporeal intelligence' In addition, the first e1anated light, or intelligence, has Man intelligible tho2ght of its poverty Qthat is, its dependence and possible e*istenceR, (hich is a dark characteristic in it'M M0y the darknessM of the first intelligence, S2hra(ardi adds, he does not Min the present instance ' '' 1eanM gen2ine darknessH he 1eans the intelligenceIs being a Mlight not thro2gh itself b2t solely by virt2e of its ca2se' "ro1 this second tho2ght of the first intelligence, Mthere proceeds a shado(, that is to say, the o2ter1ost celestial sphere QbarEakhR'M//; Earlier (e sa( !abrielIs left (ing, the aspect of the active intellect e1bodying its possible e*istence by reason of itself, si1ilarly described as containing darkness and as casting a shado(, the shado( being the 1atter of the s2bl2nar (orld'//@ To translate (hat S2hra(ardi has said back into the lang2age of AvicennaIs philosophy, the t(o aspects in the first e1anated light, or first intelligence, are its tho2ght of itself as necessarily e*istent by virt2e of its ca2se and its tho2ght of itself as possibly e*istent by virt2e of itselfH and those t(o tho2ghts give rise to a second e1anated light, or intelligence, and the body of the o2ter1ost sphere' S2hra(ardi, as (ill presently be seen, e*plains the origin of the sphereIs so2l in an original 1anner' e*istenceR thro2gh the light of lights'M "ro1 that tho2ght Mthere proceeds Qyahs2lR
/-. Ibid' -//8/;' See %avidson 9n' ;> above: /.78.?, for AvicennaIs proof of the 2nity and nonco1posite nat2re of the being that is Mnecessarily e*istent by reason of itself,M (hich is AvicennaIs ter1 for the "irst Ca2se' //6 Hik1at al8IshraJ -;@' //Ibid' -/7, -;/' /// Ibid' -;;8;@' //; Ibid' MKealthM and MpovertyM are defined on -6?, and barEakh is defined on the sa1e page as Mbody'M S2hra(ardiIs definition of (ealth co1es fro1 Avicenna, Ishardt 9n' -> above: ->A' //@ Above, p' -7;'
-?/
!haEali had, in his critiJ2e of Avicenna, arg2ed that a single aspect in the second incorporeal intelligence co2ld not e1anate the second of the celestial spheres, the sphere of the fi*ed stars' "or besides its o(n body, the sphere of the fi*ed stars contains Mone tho2sand and t(enty odd stars, varying in 1agnit2de, shape, position Qon the sphereR, color, effects, and 2npropitio2sness Qn2htisR or propitio2sness Qs2c2dR'M//> S2hra(ardiIs Hik1at al8IshraJ no( contends in the sa1e vein< The stars in Mthe sphere of the fi*ed starsM are so n21ero2s that 1an cannot Mdeli1itM the1, and they 12st therefore have as their ca2ses Mn21bers of aspects (hich cannot be deli1ited by 2s'M 02t no single Mone of the higherM lights has anything re1otely approaching the reJ2isite Mpl2ral aspects'M The e*planation of the M,eripatetics,M that is, of Avicenna, according to (hich a single aspect in an incorporeal intelligence brings the sphere of the fi*ed stars into e*istence, conseJ2ently collapses'//7 In another of his criticis1s, !haEali had arg2ed that on a consistent application of AvicennaIs ass21ptions, the incorporeal intelligences (o2ld have to have 1ore than the three aspects of tho2ght (hich Avicenna disting2ished'//? S2hra(ardiIs Hik1at al8IshraJ 1akes a si1ilar point, and his p2rpose, 2nlike !haEaliIs, is constr2ctive' S2hra(ardi s2b1its that the n21ber of MlightsMBCDincorporeal intelligencesBCD e1anating fro1 one another far e*ceeds the nine recogniEed by Alfarabi and Avicenna' There are M1ore than ten, t(enty, one h2ndred, QevenR t(o h2ndred Qincorporeal lights, or intelligencesR'M And that is not all' The tho2ght of each s2ccessive light in the hierarchy has 1ore aspects than the tho2ght of the one preceding it' The second e1anated light, or intelligence, M(ill receive the light descending fro1 the light of lights t(ice, once directly fro1 it Qthat is, fro1 the light of lightsR, and another ti1e by virt2e of the first Qe1anatedR light'M The third in the series has a fo2rfold refraction of light, for it receives the light shining fro1 the light of lights, a reflection fro1 the first e1anated light, and the d2ple* reflection fro1 the second e1anated light' And as the series contin2es, the aspects of light contin2ally Mredo2ble'M//A "2rther1ore, each reflection of light in each intelligence redivides, thanks to the aspects in the intelligence (hich (ere already disting2ishedBCDthe intelligenceIs M(ealth,M or necessary e*istence, and its Mpoverty,M or possible e*istenceBCDas (ell as thro2gh, ne(, additional aspects that S2hra(ardi no( introd2ces'//. The total n21ber of aspects in the totality of intelligences is th2s enor1o2s' The syste1s of Alfarabi and AvicennaBCDand a possible interpretation of AristotleIs syste1BCD8placed t(o classes of entity bet(een the "irst Ca2se and the //> //7
Hik1at al8IshraJ -;.' "or a si1ilar arg21ent in 3' al8Mashan c , see above, n' -AA' //? Above, pp' ->68>-' //A Hik1at al8IshraJ -@6' //. Ibid' -@/'
Above, p' ->-'
-?;
celestial spheres< incorporeal intelligences and so2ls of the spheres' S2hra(ardiIs science of ill21ination posits three, not t(o, tiers of s2pernal lights' The first tier, the one described in the previo2s paragraph, is MverticalMH that is to say, its 1e1bers e1anate one fro1 another seriati1, e*actly like the incorporeal intelligences in Alfarabi and Avicenna, altho2gh (ith the difference that, as G2st seen, they are far 1ore n21ero2s and contain 1any 1ore aspects'/;6 "ro1 so1e aspects in the 1e1bers of the first tier, there Mproceed the fi*ed stars, the sphere Qof the fi*ed starsR,M/;- and other 2nkno(n M(ondersM in and above the sphere of the fi*ed stars'/;/ "ro1 other aspects in 1e1bers of the first tier, there e1anates a second tier of Mlights'M ights in the second tier, deriving as they do fro1 the first tier and not fro1 one another, no longer for1 a vertical series b2t rather Mstand all on the sa1e level'M They are called, 1ost 1ysterio2sly, Mthe 1asters of icons of species and of spheres, Q1astersR of the talis1ans of si1ple Qele1entsR and (hat is co1po2nded o2t of the ele1ents, and Qin general, 1astersR of (hatever e*ists belo( the sphere of the fi*ed stars'M/;; S2hra(ardi see1s to 1ean that so1e 1e1bers of the second tier are responsible for the e*istence of the celestial spheres standing belo( the sphere of the fi*ed stars as (ell as the stars borne by those spheres' And, he notes, (hether a star has Mpropitio2snessM 9sacdiyya: or M2npropitio2snessM 9nahsiyya: depends on the character of the aspect in the first tier (hich gives rise to the 1e1ber of the second tier (hich in t2rn brings the given star into e*istence'/;@ Other 1e1bers of the second tier share a1ong the1selves the f2nctions of AvicennaIs active intellect' They contain the for1sBCDthe MiconsM and Mtalis1ansMBCDof the fo2r s2bl2nar ele1ents, of inani1ate co1po2nds fro1 the fo2r ele1ents, and of the vario2s plant and ani1al species, and they e1anate those for1s onto the 1atter of the s2bl2nar (orld' "ro1 still other aspects of 1e1bers of the second tier of lights, a third tier Mproceeds'M These are the Mincorporeal lightsM that Mgovern the spheres QbardEikhR, (itho2t e*isting in the1,M and that ca2se the spheresI M1otions'M/;> They are si1ply the so2ls of the spheres 2nder a ne( na1e' The Mlight of lightsM and all 1e1bers of the three tiers have e*isted fro1 eternity/;7H they are M2nchangingM/;?H and the 1ode of action of each of the higher lights consists in eternally Me1anating QfayyadR thro2gh its essence'M/;A Hence they are as i1personal as the "irst Ca2se, Ibid' -@@' Ibid' -@;' /;/ Ibid' -@.' /;; Ibid' -@;8@@, -?.' The first and second tiers are both Mdo1inantM 9Jahir: lights, in contrast to the third tier, (hich are the MgoverningM 912dabbir: lights, that is, lights governing the celestial bodies' /;@ Ibid' -@;' /;> Ibid' -@>8@7, -A;' /;7 Ibid' -?/8?@, -?A, -A-' /;? Ibid' /66' /;A Ibid' --?' /;- /;6
-?@
the intelligences, and the so2ls of the spheres, in the syste1s of Alfarabi and Avicenna'/;. S2hra(ardi has follo(ed the lead of Ab2 al80arakat on t(o scores, in e*ploding the fra1e of AvicennaIs cos1ology and letting the inhabitants of the incorporeal region reprod2ce l2*2riantly, and also in distrib2ting the e1anation of nat2ral s2bl2nar for1s a1ong a n21ber of transcendent entities' He differs sharply fro1 Ab2 al80arakat, ho(ever, regarding the 1anner in (hich pl2rality and corporeality e1erge in the 2niverse' Ab2 al80arakat had proposed that (hen the 2nitary "irst Ca2se has the first being it eternally brings into e*istence as an obGect of tho2ght, it can, by virt2e of that tho2ght, eternally bring another being into e*istenceH it can then have the ne( being as an obGect of tho2ght and thereby eternally bring a f2rther being into e*istenceH and so forth' One of S2hra(ardiIs (orks that 1akes reference to the Science of Ill21ination cites Ab2 al80arakatIs e*planation of pl2rality and corporeality (ithin the 2niverse, in Ab2 al80arakatIs na1e' S2hra(ardi there reGects the e*planation disdainf2lly on the gro2nds that the (holly 2nitary and 2nchanging "irst Ca2se can be directly responsible for nothing 1ore than a single e1anated intelligence'/@6 In the sa1e vein, S2hra(ardiIs Hik1at alIshraJ insistsBCDas Avicenna had doneBCDthat pl2rality, co1position, and corporeality e1erge only thro2gh Minter1ediaries'M/@- "ro1 the h21an so2lIs conscio2sness of itself, Hik1at al8IshraJ concl2des that the so2l is an incorporeal s2bstance,/@/ and in har1ony (ith the ter1inology of the book, S2hra(ardi calls the h21an so2l an Mincorporeal light governing in 1an'M/@; As in Avicenna and in S2hra(ardiIs Tal(ihdt, a h21an so2l appears (hen a portion of s2bl2nar 1atter is te1pered to the degree that it has Mthe 1ost perfect blendM 91iEaG: and co1plete MbalanceM of J2alitiesH as soon as a portion of 1atter is prepared for receiving a h21an so2l, it i11ediately receives one fro1 a being called the Mgiver'M/@@ The being that gives h21an so2ls is one of the second tier of s2pernal Mlights,M a light (ith a n21ber of titles, na1ely< M!abriel,M the Mspirit of holiness,M Mthe giver of kno(ledge Qor< science 9cil1:R and s2ccor,M and Mthe besto(er of life and virt2e'M/@> The ter1 MgiverM echoes Mgiver of for1s,M AvicennaIs sobriJ2et for the active intellect (hen considered as the e1anating so2rce of s2bl2nar for1sH the ter1 M!abrielM (as the na1e assigned the active intellect in S2hra(ardiIs allegory, entitled The So2nd of !abrielIs KingH and prod2cing h21an so2ls and i1parting kno(ledge to the1 are fa1iliar f2nctions of the active intellect' Khat (e have here, then, is plainly a version of the active /;. /@6
2l
Ibid' --/, --@' Ibid' ->@' Si1ilarly on /6-' /@@ Ibid' /668/6-' /@> Ibid' -76, /668/6-, taken together (ith -@;'
/@;
/@/
Hik1at al8IshraJ -@@'
,ace Corbin 9n' -7@ above: @@, and else(here' 3' al8Masharic (al8M2tarahat 9in Opera, n' -7; above: @;7, @7A, @?-'
-?>
intellect' 0y calling his version the giver of kno(ledge, S2hra(ardi s2ggests that it is the direct so2rce of h21an tho2ght, b2t he does not p2rs2e the s2bGect' Since the h21an so2l is an incorporeal s2bstance, it is i11ortal by its very nat2re and is 2naffected by the death of the body'/@7 S2hra(ardi reports AvicennaIs ref2tation of the doctrine of trans1igration/@?H yet altho2gh he e1ployed the ref2tation in his o(n Tal(ihat, in the present (ork he notes possible reb2ttals'/@A In the end S2hra(ardiIs Hik1at al8IshraJ takes no definitive stand on the iss2e, giving as its reason that the Marg21entsM on both sides are M(eak'M/@. Khen delineating the fates of h21an so2ls in the afterlife, Hik1at al8IshraJ betrays dependence on Avicenna once again, altho2gh itBCDlike the Tal(ihatBCDdoes not spell o2t the posth21o2s fates of all the categories of so2ls disting2ished by Avicenna' S2hra(ardi (rites< To the e*tent that a so2l Mincreases in light,M that is, in intellect2al perfection, it thro(s off its ties to its body, gro(s in desire for the higher real1s, and acJ2ires Ma habit2s for conG2nction (ith the (orld of p2re light'M/>6 &pon leaving its deceased body, a so2l (ith a habit2s for conG2nction beco1es an MadG2nct of the Qs2pernalR lights'M Avicenna had described the e2dae1onia enGoyed by the perfect rational so2l in si1ilar lang2age, altho2gh (itho2t the i1agery of light'/>- S2hra(ardi adds that Minfinite ill21inations,M fro1 the Mlight of lightsM and the other s2pernal lights, MreflectM 2pon the fort2nate so2l that conGoins (ith the1,/>/ and s2ch a so2l 1ay Ms2pposeM that it has beco1e MidenticalM (ith those lights, altho2gh in fact it retains its individ2ality'/>; The fate of so2ls (hose intellect is (ell developed b2t (hich are 1orally deficient is not e*plored' Avicenna had recorded, and S2hra(ardiIs Tal(ihdt endorsed, the theory that after the death of the body the i1aginative fac2lty of a si1ple1inded so2l allo(s it to 2ndergo (hat (as pro1ised by pop2lar religion' The h21an i1aginative fac2lty needs a physical organ in order to f2nction, and, the theory (ent, the celestial spheres serve as the i1aginative fac2ltyIs posth21o2s organ'/>@ S2hra(ardiIs Hik1at al8IshraJ goes a step f2rther' It envisions an entire, obGectively e*isting Mother (orld,M a (orld of Mi1agesM 912th2l: and Mdise1bodied spectersM 9ashbah 12Garrada:, (here certain so2ls receive their Mi1agined e2dae1oniaM in the hereafter'/>> The i1ages contained in the (orld of i1ages are Mnot ,latoIs "or1s'M Ibid' ///8/;' Ibid' /-A' /@A Ibid' /-A8/-' /@. Ibid' ///, /;6' />6 Ibid' //;8/@' />Above, p' --6' />/ Hik1at al8IshraJ //7, />>' />; Ibid' //A' />@ Above, p' -7?' />> Hik1at al8IshraJ /;/, /;@, /@;' "' Rah1an calls attention to state1ents in Ibn al8 cArabi and !haEali (hich 1ay have contrib2ted to S2hra(ardiIs conception' See Rah1an, M%rea1, I1agination, and cAla1 al8Milhal,M Isla1ic St2dies ; 9-.7@: -?-8 ?/' /@? /@7
-?7
"or 2nlike ,latonic "or1s they are MdependentM and not Msteadfast,M (hich see1s to 1ean that they have no per1anence b2t contin2ally co1e into e*istence and pass o2t of e*istence'/>7 In order to beco1e M1anifest,M they 1oreover need Mthe higher QcelestialR bodies'M/>? Ho( the i1ages are bro2ght into e*istence to serve individ2al so2ls, ho( the celestial spheres enable the i1ages to 1anifest the1selves, and ho( i1ages adapt the1selves to the tastes of the so2ls spending an eternal afterlife in their presence, are not, as far as I co2ld see, e*plained' ,erhaps the celestial bodies still serve as the i1aginative fac2ltyIs posth21o2s organ' H21an so2ls (hose intellect is 2ndeveloped, or ins2fficiently developed, go Mto res2rrection of the dead''' and all the pro1ises of the prophets are f2lfilled'M/>A MHappy Qs2cadaI] averageM so2lsBCD(hich probably 1eans so2ls (hose intellect2al develop1ent is ins2fficient to 1erit an afterlife in the (orld of lightsBCDand MchasteM so2lsBCD(hich probably 1eans good so2ls (hose intellect is co1pletely 2ndevelopedBCDdelight in (hatever Mfine food, shapes, and so2ndsM please the1' So2ls destined to M1isery,M end2re Mshado(s''' in proportion to their ethical J2alities'M These conditions Mcontin2e forever,M for the (orld of i1ages and the celestial bodies serving as the i1agesI 1edi21 are i112ne fro1 destr2ction'/>. S2hra(ardi congrat2lated hi1self on his personal direct e*perience of the s2pernal lights, and he enco2rages others to tread the sa1e path'/76 In addition, Hik1at al8IshraJ 1entions t(o other types of s2persensory perception achievable d2ring the life of the body, each of (hich has a real1 inferior to the s2pernal lights as its obGect' Since these t(o other types relate to lesser real1s, they are, by i1plication, inferior to the direct e*perience of the s2pernal lights (ith (hich, S2hra(ardi (o2ld have 2s believe, he had been graced' One of the t(o lesser types of s2persensory perception is the portion of Mprophets and 1asters,M (ho perceive Mhidden thingsM of an e*traordinary vis2al, a2dible, and even olfactory character' S2ch e*periences are not obGective in the sense that they are accessible to the e*ternal sense organs, b2t they are obGective in that the things e*perienced s2bsist in the M(orld of i1ages'M/7- The organ thro2gh Ibid' /;68;/' Ibid' /;6' />A Ibid' //.8;6, /;@' />. Ibid' //.8;6' /76 Ibid' />/8>;' /7- Ibid' /@68@-' 3' al8Masharic (al8M2tarahat 9in Opera, n' -7; above: @.@8.7 9called to 1y attention by H' Flai: speaks of the visions that the Mvirt2o2sM have thro2gh the M(orld of HeraJlia'M The description clearly echoes AvicennaIs acco2nt of visions of the s2pernal (orld (hich are 1ediated thro2gh the i1aginative fac2ltyH see above, pp' --.8/6' S2hra(ardi insists, ho(ever, that the visions he is referring to go far beyond (hat the M,eripatetics,M that is, Avicenna, had in 1ind' MHeraJliaM reappears in Hik1at al8IshraJ />@, and the co11entators J2oted in the notes on that passage take it to be part of the (orld of i1ages' 02t as far as I co2ld see, the description of HeraJlia does not, in either passage, 1atch the description of the (orld of i1ages' />? />7
the (orld of i1agesM (hen they are MreleasedM fro1 their bodies, and there Mthe
-??
(hich the prophet and holy 1an perceive the contents of the (orld of i1ages and the i1port of (hat they perceive are a1ong the 1any ite1s that S2hra(ardi leaves 2ne*plained' The other lesser type of s2persensory perception recogniEed by Hik1at al8hhraJ is kno(ledge of the f2t2re' Avicenna had inti1ated that since the so2ls of the spheres are the only s2pernal beings in possession of partic2lar kno(ledge, they 12st be the so2rce of h21an kno(ledge of f2t2re events, and S2hra(ardiIs Tal(thdt e*plicitly espo2sed that position' The Hik1at al8hhraJ no( e*plains in a si1ilar vein that since all events in the s2bl2nar (orld are traceable to the 1ove1ents of the heavens, the Mcelestial bodiesMBCDas distinct fro1 their so2lsBCDcontain Mi1pressions o f ' ' ' eventsM to take place on earth' A h21an so2l that frees itself fro1 the distractions of its Me*ternal and internal sensesM incl2ding the Mco1positive i1aginative fac2lty Qtakhayy2lRM Goins the co1pany of the MlightsMBCD1e1bers of the third tier of s2pernal lightsBCDthat govern the celestial spheres' S2ch a so2l Goins the co1pany of the so2ls of the spheres and there it Mbeholds the i1pressions of events in the celestial bodies'M Khether the vie( of (hat is i1printed in the spheres occ2rs in a Mtr2e drea1MBCDas is co11onBCDor in a (akef2l vision, the h21an M1e1oryM 1ay retain (hat it sees and thereby obtain a pict2re of the f2t2re M(hich does not need e*egesis QtaI(ilR and interpretation QtacbirR'M Alternatively, the Mco1positive i1aginative fac2ltyM 1ay recast (hat the so2l beheld into another, fig2rative shape' In the latter instance, Me*egesisM 9tafsir: and MinferenceM 12st be called 2pon to recover precisely (hat the so2l sa('/7/ The different for1s of s2persensory perception that S2hra(ardi recogniEes in Hik1at al8hhraJ BCDdirect e*perience of the (orld of lights and the t(o for1s of lesser s2persensory perceptionBCDcan be read as a revision of AvicennaIs sche1e of prophecy' He has replaced AvicennaIs highest for1 of prophecy, intellect2al prophecy, (ith direct e*perience of the (orld of lightsH the s2bstit2tion (as s2ggested by !haEali and Ibn T2fail'/7; And he has recogniEed prophecy thro2gh the i1aginative fac2lty in t(o g2ises< first as MprophecyM thro2gh contact (ith the (orld of i1agesH secondly as the so2lIs perceiving the f2t2re events inscribed in the celestial spheres and in so1e instances recasting (hat it sees thro2gh its co1positive i1aginative fac2lty' Khen treating the i1aginative prophecy that discloses f2t2re events, S2hra(ardi speaks of the so2lIs MbeholdQingRM (hat is in the spheres, and of the need to apply Me*egesisM and MinterpretationM in instances (here the i1aginative fac2lty has reshaped (hat (as seen' Those ter1s co1e fro1 Avicenna'/7@ Avicenna had given credence to a noncognitive preternat2ral pheno1enon that he classified as an additional kind of prophecy, na1ely, the possibility of a h21an so2lIs effecting changes in the physical (orld by the sheer po(er of (ill' Hik1at al8IshrdJ also refers to that pheno1enon' In one of 1any obsc2re passages in the /7/
/7;
Hik1at al8IhraJ /;78;?' Above, pp' -@6, -@A' /7@ Above, p' -/-'
-?A
book, S2hra(ardi (rites that certain 1en Mare able to bring stable i1ages into e*istence,M and those i1ages take M(hatever for1 they Qthe 1enR (ish'M In so1e fashion the apparitions created by 1en are related to the higher M(orldM of Mi1ages'M/7> S2hra(ardi does not, ho(ever, e*plain (hat the relation is or ho( the apparitions are created' To s211ariEe, S2hra(ardiIs Hik1at al8IshrdJ bases the e*istence of an incorporeal "irst Ca2se not on direct e*perience b2t on a standard proof of the e*istence of !od, the arg21ent fro1 the i1possibility of an infinite regress of ca2ses' The book repeats the proposition that the "irst Ca2se of the 2niverse, being (holly 2nitary and nonco1posite, can prod2ce only one effect' ike Alfarabi and Avicenna, it e*plains that pl2rality, co1position, and corporeality, in the 2niverse e1erge thro2gh the inter1ediacy of incorporeal beings s2bseJ2ent to the "irst Ca2se' The "irst Ca2se e1anates a single incorporeal being, and the first e1anated incorporeal being prod2ces pl2ral effects by reason of pl2ral aspects in its tho2ght' Once he reaches that point, S2hra(ardi begins to plot a different co2rse' He repeats !haEaliIs criticis1 that a single aspect, or even t(o or three, in an incorporeal intelligence (o2ld not s2ffice as the ca2se of the sphere of the fi*ed stars' And he e*plains the f2ll co1ple*ity of the 2niverse by positing that the incorporeal (orld co1prises 1any 1ore incorporeal beings, and the incorporeal beings s2bseJ2ent to the first e1anated intelligence contain 1any 1ore aspects, than Avicenna conte1plated' The added intelligences and added aspects in the1 are the so2rce of the enor1o2s 12ltiplicity in the 2niverse' In another depart2re fro1 Avicenna, S2hra(ardi distrib2tes the f2nctions of AvicennaIs active intellect a1ong a n21ber of incorporeal beings belonging to a second tier of lights, one 1e1ber of the second tier e1anating h21an so2ls (hile others e1anate the vario2s nat2ral for1s' Still other 1e1bers of the second tier e1anate all e*cept the o2ter1ost sphere, the stars e1bedded in the spheres, and the so2ls of the spheres, these last constit2ting a third tier of lights' Again in har1ony (ith Avicenna, S2hra(ardiIs Hik1at al8IshrdJ constr2es the h21an so2l as an incorporeal s2bstanceBCDbasing the incorporeality of the h21an so2l on a philosophic de1onstration that is, ho(ever, different fro1 AvicennaIs de1onstration' It ref2ses to credit AvicennaIs ref2tation of the trans1igration of the so2l, yet it does not endorse trans1igration either' It consigns h21an so2ls that have acJ2ired a Mhabit2s for conG2nctionM (ith the incorporeal (orld to the everlasting (orld of lights' Si1ple so2ls e*perience the pro1ises of pop2lar religion after the death of their bodies b2t not 1erely thro2gh their i1aginative fac2lty' The so2ls in J2estion go to their re(ard in an act2ally e*istent (orld of i1agesBCDaltho2gh (ith the celestial spheres still serving as the 1edi21 (hereby the i1ages 1anifest the1selves' Hik1at al8IshrdJ replaces AvicennaIs intellect2al prophecy (ith direct e*perience, and it recogniEes lesser for1s of s2persensory perception that parallel AvicennaIs i1aginative prophecy' /7>
Hik1at al8lshraJ /@/8@;'
Reverberations of the Theories ofAlfarabi
and Avicenna
-?.
The Science of Ill21ination rests, by S2hra(ardiIs prono2nce1ent, 2pon a direct e*perience of the transcendent lights' 02t the felicito2sness of light i1agery for describing s2pernal beings had been kno(n fro1 ti1e i11e1orial' !haEali in partic2lar had 1ade e*tensive 2se of light i1agery (hen describing the incorporeal do1ain in his Mishkat, and the appellation Mlight of lightsM for the "irst Ca2se co2ld have been learned by S2hra(ardi fro1 the Mishkat' The for12lation of the critical fla( in AvicennaIs e*planation of co1ple*ity in the 2niverse also co1es fro1 !haEali, and not fro1 any direct e*perience that S2hra(ardi 1ight have had of the transcendent lights' Hik1at al8IshrdJIs tactic for circ21venting the fla( in AvicennaIs e*planation, by allo(ing s2pernal beings and their aspects to proliferate, (as s2ggested by another of !haEaliIs criticis1s of Avicenna and (as a central 1otif in Ab2 al80arakat' Ab2 al80arakat f2rther sho(ed ho( the f2nctions of AvicennaIs active intellect 1ight be distrib2ted a1ong a n21ber of transcendent beings' ,erhaps direct e*perience revealed to S2hra(ardi that the s2pernal lights are divided in three, rather than t(o tiers, and that the total n21ber of lights r2ns into the h2ndreds' After S2hra(ardi, a line of Iranian thinkers, inspired by hi1 and by Avicenna, e*tends 2p to the t(entieth cent2ry'/77 The best kno(n is the seventeenth8cent2ry thinker M2lla Sadra, (ho, in his treat1ent of the iss2es relating to intellect, J2arries 1aterials fro1 Avicenna, fro1 S2hra(ardiIs science of ill21ination, and fro1 S2fi and Shiite tho2ght, then ce1ents the1 together (ith original ideas of his o(n'/7? So1e of the other Iranian thinkers (hose (ork is accessible sho( a si1ilar eclecticis1, te1pered by a s1aller 1eas2re of originality'/7A The literat2re is very diffic2lt to eval2ate, ho(ever' It lies encased in (eighty Arabic and ,ersian to1es, 12ch of (hich is 2np2blishedH and assess1ent is 1ade harder by the proclivity of 1odern scholars (ho st2dy the literat2re to lose their scholarly obGectivity and convince the1selves that they have happened on the (isdo1 of the ages'/7. Corbin 9n' -7; above: *lvii8*li*, li*H T' IE2ts2, The Concept and Reality of E*istence 9Tokyo -.?-: >?, 7@87>H L' Morris, The Kisdo1 of the Throne 9,rinceton -.A-: 9an introd2ction to, and translation of a (ork of M2lla Sadra: @78@.' /7? See "' Rah1an, The ,hilosophy of M2lla Sadra 9Albany -.?>: -68-;, A>8A? 9a pec2liar e1anation theory:H -.A8.. 9a pec2liar theory of the relation of so2ls to bodies:H /;@8;> 9AvicennaIs notion that e1anation of kno(ledge fro1 the active intellect has t(o phasesH cf' above, pp' .-8./:H /@68@- 9the active intellect as ca2se of s2bl2nar e*istence, and intellect2al kno(ledge thro2gh 2nion (ith the active intellect:H /@A 9afterlife of 2ndeveloped so2ls and evil so2ls in the (orld of i1ages:H />@ 9a pec2liar version of the afterlife of developed so2ls in the real1 of the intelligences:' See also M2lla Sadra, e livre des penetrations 1etaphysiJ2es, ed' and "rench trans' H' Corbin 9Tehran -.7@:H Morris 9n' /77 above:' /7A See H' Corbin, a philosophic iranienne isla1iJ2e a2* *viie et *viiie si^cles 9,aris -.A-:' /7. See Corbin 9n' -7; above:
*liii, Corbin 9n' -7@ above: >A, and Corbin 9n' /-; above: ;>;., all on S2hra(ardiH IE2ts2 9n' /77 above: 7-, on S2hra(ardi and his follo(ersH 7A87. and -@., /77
-A6
Res21e' AvicennaIs thinking on the proble1s relating to intellect (as available to readers of Arabic and ,ersian in a n21ber of versions and s211aries' Of (riters (ho follo(ed Avicenna in their o(n philosophies, the 1ost 2ne*pected is !haEali' !haEali is co11only regarded as an i1placable foe of Avicenna, yet his Mishkdt al8 An(ar reprod2ces 12ch of AvicennaIs syste1, partially disg2ised in all2sive lang2age' Another (ork that follo(s Avicenna (hile clothing its thinking in 2nconventional lang2age is Ibn T2failIs philosophic novelH b2t Ibn T2fail, in contrast to !haEali, apparently does atte1pt to go beyond Avicenna in ranking direct e*perience above disc2rsive tho2ght as the preferable road to h21an 2nderstanding' Ibn 0aGGa stands in the tradition of Avicenna and Alfarabi and borro(s fro1 both' As (ill be seen in the ne*t chapter, AverroesI early (orks endorse a theory of e1anation and a conception of the active intellect (hich are related to the positions of Alfarabi and Avicenna, (hile his later (orks strain to break free of the infl2ence of those positions' The final chapter of the present book (ill find Averroes e*plaining the active intellectIs effect on the h21an intellect in a 1anner si1ilar to Alfarabi' The 1ost thoro2ghgoing ref2tation of Avicenna (as dra(n 2p by !haEali, (ho th2s dances aro2nd Avicenna in three capacities, as a s211ariEer, a critic, and a covert adherent' Ab2 al80arakat fashions a partly ne( syste1 by starting (ith AvicennaIs fra1e(ork, then stretching it to the b2rsting point' "ro1 the o2tlook of the present st2dy, his 1ost significant innovations are his allo(ing the pop2lation of the s2pernal region to proliferate and his distrib2ting of the active intellectIs f2nctions a1ong a n21ber of s2pernal beings' So1e of S2hra(ardiIs (orks caref2lly reprod2ce AvicennaIs syste1' 02t S2hra(ardiIs Science of Ill21ination is another atte1pt to b2rst the fra1e(ork of AvicennaIs philosophy by adding a host of ne( incorporeal entities, by distrib2ting the f2nctions of the active intellect a1ong a n21ber of s2pernal beings, and by elevating direct e*perience of the incorporeal real1 to the ape* of h21an cognitive activity' In the cent2ries after S2hra(ardi, a long line of Iranian thinkers constr2ct their syste1s o2t of 1aterials borro(ed fro1 hi1 and fro1 Avicenna'
Reverberations in Medieval Le(ish ,hilosophy AlfarabiIs tho2ght on the iss2es (ith (hich (e are concerned entered the 1edieval Le(ish (orld thro2gh translations of his (orks into Hebre(/?6 as (ell as on SabEa(arlH J2otations fro1 t(o 1odern ,ersian (riters on the greatness of M2lla Sadra and the s2periority of ,ersian philosophy in general, in Rah1an 9n' /7? above: //H S' $asr, _adr al8%I1 ShlraEi and His Transcendent Theosophy 9Tehran -.?A: .;8 .@, on M2lla SadraH Morris 9n' /77 above: /?8;-, on Ibn cArabi and M2lla Sadra' /?4OM' Steinschneider, %ie hebraischen &ebersetE2ngen des Mittelalters 2nd die L2den als %ol1etscher 90erlin -A.;: /.6 9al8Siydsa al8Madaniyya: and /.@ 9Risala fi al8cAJl:'
-A-
indirectly thro2gh the (ritings of Le(ish philosophers (ho read Arabic and borro(ed fro1 hi1' In the case of Avicenna, the translation of his o(n (orks (as not a 1aGor ro2te of entry' Only one of his co1prehensive philosophic (orks (as translated into Hebre( in the Middle Ages, the translation (as not done 2ntil the 1iddle of the fo2rteenth cent2ry, and it apparently attracted little attention'/?- His tho2ght beca1e kno(n to the 1edieval Le(ish (orld thro2gh the (ritings of Le(ish philosophers (ho read hi1 in the original, thro2gh the Arabic te*t and Hebre( translation of !haEaliIs s211ary,/?/ and thro2gh the Hebre( translations of AverroesI early co11entaries, (hich espo2sed a cos1ology si1ilar to AvicennaIs'/?; Altho2gh AlfarabiIs (orks (ere 1ore easily available to the 1edieval Le(ish thinkers, Avicenna left the stronger 1ark both on gen2ine philosophers and on those (ho 1erely dabbled in philosophy' "or a n21ber of reasonsBCDbeca2se the earliest Le(ish (riters (ho adopted or referred to positions deriving fro1 Avicenna did not 1ention hi1 by na1e, beca2se his tho2ght (as largely 1ediated thro2gh others, beca2se his positions often intert(ine (ith AlfarabiIsBCDLe(ish thinkers follo(ing in his path do not generally realiEe that they are doing so' It 1ay be 1entioned here that an even stronger 1ark on 1edieval Le(ish philosophy (o2ld s2bseJ2ently be 1ade by Averroes' The Le(ish philosophers (ho did 1ost to introd2ce AvicennaIs tho2ght into the Le(ish 1ilie2 (ere L2dah Hallevi 9ca' -6A>8ca' --@6:, Abraha1 Ibn %a2d 9ca' ---68ca' --A6:, and Mai1onides 9--;>8-/6@:, all of (ho1 read Arabic and (rote their philosophic (orks in that lang2age' The (orks of Hallevi and Mai1onides (ere J2ickly translated into Hebre(' Ibn %a2d (as translated to(ard the end of the fo2rteenth cent2ry' HalleviIs religio2s op2s takes the for1 of a dialog2e in (hich a Mphilosopher,M a Mosle1, a Christian, and a Le( set forth their several creeds before the king of the T2rkish ChaEar 9in Hebre(< C2Ear: nation' The Le(ish participant, (ho serves as HalleviIs spokes1an, ref2tes the philosopherIs creed in the co2rse of presenting his o(n (orldvie(, and the dialog2e concl2des (ith the kingIs conversion to the Le(ish faith' The speech placed in the 1o2th of the MphilosopherM together (ith s2pple1entary infor1ation abo2t the tenets of MphilosophyM f2rnished by the Le(ish interloc2tor o2tline a cos1ology and a theory of h21an intellect' Hallevi tells 2s that the MphilosophersM co2nted M1ore than fortyM 1otions in the net(ork of celestial Mspheres'M MSpec2lationM led the philosophers to affir1 that celestial 1otion, being circ2lar, 12st be Mvol2ntaryMH that each spherical 1otion therefore derives Mfro1 a so2lMH that Meach so2l has an intelligence,M or Mincorporeal /?-
/A>'
The (ork (as the $aGat, the shorter version of his entire philosophy' See Steinschneider
Ibid' /..' Ibid' -@@ 9Co11entary on %e generatione ani1ali21:H ->@ 9Epito1e of the ,arva nat2ralia:I, ->. 9Epito1e of the Metaphysics:' /?;
/?/
-A/
angelM to direct itH and that Mthe last stage Qin the chain of intelligencesR ''' is the active intellect,M (hich Mgoverns this lo(er (orld'M/?@ MAllM derives fro1 the M"irst Ca2se, not thro2gh the p2rs2it of any goal on its Qthe "irst Ca2seIsR part, b2t Qthat is, fro1 the "irst Ca2seR, follo(ed by a third echelon of beings Qthe sphere and intelligence e1anated by the second ca2seR and then a fo2rth' Ca2ses and effects are interlinked, they s2cceed one another in a chain,' ' ' and the interlinking is eternal'M/?> 0eca2se the philosophers accepted the r2le that Mfro1 the one only one can proceed Qyasd2rRM they had to e*plain ho( a 12ltifaceted 2niverse can e1erge fro1 a (holly 2nitary "irst Ca2se' They Mass21ed an ''' angel that e1anates fro1 the "irst QCa2seR' Then they stated that the angel has t(o attrib2tes, one of (hich is its kno(ledge of its o(n e*istence,'' ' (hile the other is its kno(ledge that it has a ca2se' Q0y virt2e of the t(o attrib2tes,R t(o things necessarily co1e fro1 the angel, na1ely, anQotherR angel and the sphere of the fi*ed stars' "ro1 this Qsecond angelIsR having an intelligible tho2ght of the "irst QCa2seR, there necessarily co1es another angel, (hile fro1 its having an intelligible tho2ght of itself, there necessarily co1es the sphere of Sat2rn' And so on, 2ntil the 1oon and, follo(ing it, the active intellect'M M,eopleM s2ppose that the foregoing is Mde1onstratfedR,M beca2se it carries the prestige of Mthe philosophers of !reece'M/?7 &nlike the other incorporeal intelligences, the active intellectBCDcontin2ing HalleviIs acco2nt of the philosophersI creedBCDprod2ces Mneither an angel nor a sphere'M/?? Hallevi records no opinion regarding the origin of s2bl2nar 1atter' The give8and8take in the dialog2e does bring for(ard the hypothesisBCD(hich had been advanced by Alfarabi and ref2ted by Avicenna/?ABCDthat a portion of s2bl2nar 1atter beco1es one or another of the fo2r nat2ral ele1ents si1ply by virt2e of its closeness to, or distance fro1, the inner1ost celestial sphere'/?. M$ecessity,M Hallevi (rites, led the philosophers to reGect the hypothesis' They realiEed that since the fo2r ele1ents differ fro1 each other in Mfor1,M and not 1erely in accidental J2alities, the ca2se of the ele1entsI e*istence 12st be of a nat2re capable of instilling s2bstantial for1s' They accordingly concl2ded that the Mactive intellect ' '' gives '' ' the for1sM of the fo2r ele1ents, MG2st as it gives the for1s /?@
as an e1anation, (herein a second ca2se Qthe first intelligenceR e1anates fro1 it
Hallevi, 3' al8Radd (al8%alil fi al8%in al8%halil 9henceforth cited as C2Eari: ed' %' 0aneth 9Ler2sale1 -.??: >, 4T/-' Medieval Hebre( translation< Sefer ha8C2Eari, ed' A' Sifroni 9Tel Aviv -.7@ QNR:H !er1an translation< %as 02ch 32sari, trans' %' Cassel 9 eipEig -A7.:H English translation< 0ook of 32Eari, trans' H' Hirshfeld 9 ondon -.6>: 9inadeJ2ate:' The disc2ssion of Hallevi offered here is partly based on 1y article MThe Active Intellect in the C2Eari and HalleviIs Theory of Ca2sality,M Rev2e
des el2des G2ives -;- 9-.?/: ;>-8.7' /?> C2Eari -,4T-' /?7 Ibid' @, 4T/>' /?? Ibid' >, 4T-@' /?A Above, p' ?A' /?. C2Eari>, 4T;'
-A;
of plants and ani1alsMH and the philosophers therefore McallM the active intellect Mthe giver of for1s'M/A6 Regarding M1inerals,M Hallevi records a difference of opinion' The generality of philosophers 2nderstood that (hen the ele1ents are M1i*edM by physical forces into Mdivers blends, ' ' ' the ele1ents 1erit divers Q1ineralR for1s fro1 the giver of for1s'M MSo1e,M ho(ever, held the contrary opinion that the characteristics of 1inerals do not co1e fro1 a transcendent ca2se and e1erge Msolely fro1 the blend'M All conc2rred that as the blends of s2bl2nar 1atter beco1e MfinerM and Mstill''' finer,M 1atter receives the for1s of MplantsM and Mani1als'M Khen the J2alities in a portion of 1atter reach f2ll MeJ2ilibri21,M the Mfor1 '' ' called the passive, 1aterial intellectM is Me1anated,M/A- and a 1e1ber of the h21an species co1es into e*istence' S2ch is HalleviIs acco2nt of the philosophersI cos1ology' Most of (hat he reports is co11on to Alfarabi, partic2larly as Alfarabi set forth his thinking in the Risdla fi al8cAJl/A/ and to Avicenna' 02t certain feat2res are distinctive to Avicenna, na1ely< the principle that fro1 the one only one can proceedH the reGection of the hypothesis that distance fro1 the inner1ost celestial sphere is the sole factor engendering the for1s of the fo2r ele1entsH the tracing even of the for1s of the fo2r ele1ents to the active intellectH the ter1 giver of for1s' The philosophersI cos1ology, as Hallevi reports it, is nonetheless not identical (ith AvicennaIs cos1ology' HalleviIs philosopher disting2ishes only t(o aspects in the tho2ght of each intelligence, (hich (as AlfarabiIs position, rather than three, (hich (as the position of Avicenna'/A; Khen describing the e1anation of the transl2nar real1, the philosopher o1its the o2ter1ost starless, di2rnal sphere and acco1panying intelligence (hich (ere recogniEed by both Alfarabi and AvicennaBCDaltho2gh Hallevi does appear to recogniEe a starless di2rnal sphere and its intelligence else(here in the dialog2e'/A@ And HalleviIs acco2nt of the vie(s of the philosophers fails to recogniEe, or forgets to 1ention, a role for the active intellect as the ca2se of the e*istence of s2bl2nar 1atter' The philosopher in HalleviIs dialog2e co1ple1ents his cos1ology (ith a theory of h21an intellect' A MpassiveM or Mpassive 1aterial intellect,M/A> also called /A6 /A- /A/
Ibid' >, 4T-6' Above, pp' 7>87?' /A; !haEaliIs s211ary of AvicennaIs philosophy also recogniEes only t(o aspects in each intelligence, b2t they are different fro1 the aspects that HalleviIs philosopher disting2ishesH see above, n' 7' /A@ C(Eari >, 4T/, (here Hallevi speaks in his o(n na1e, refers to the Mo2ter1ost sphere, (hich rotates once every t(enty fo2r ho2rs and 1akes the other spheres rotate (ith itMH he see1s to be disting2ishing the di2rnal sphere fro1 the sphere of the fi*ed stars' According to C2Eari >, 4T-@, the philosophers believed that there are Meleven levelsM of incorporeal e*istence, and the Me1anation stops at the active intellect'M The eleven levels 12st be
the "irst Ca2se, the intelligence of the di2rnal sphere, the intelligence of the fi*ed stars, the intelligences of the seven planetary spheres 9incl2ding the s2n and 1oon:, and the active intellect' /A> C2Eari -, 4T-'
Ibid' >, 4T@'
-A@
MpotentialM intellect,/A7 is, according to the philosopher, e1anated fro1 the active intellect 2pon any portion of s2bl2nar 1atter that is disposed to receive s2ch an intellectH passive intellect (as a ter1 2sed by Alfarabi,/A? b2t not Avicenna, for the h21an potential or 1aterial intellect' The philosophers constr2e the MQh21anR so2lM as Man intellect2al s2bstance, (hich does not occ2py space and is not s2bGect to generation and destr2ction'M/AA If no (eight is placed on the ter1 generation, Hallevi here closely reflects AvicennaIs thinking' Avicenna took the h21an so2l to be an incorporeal s2bstance that co1es into e*istence together (ith the h21an body and therefore is in a sense generatedH b2t he held that once the h21an so2l e*ists, it is e*e1pt fro1 the la(s of generation and destr2ction'/A. A long chapter in the dialog2e consists of e*cerpts fro1 a 1edieval Arabic psychological (ork that scholars take to be an early co1position of AvicennaIs' There Hallevi copies fro1 his so2rce a MphilosophicM proof of the proposition that the h21an so2l is a Mselfs2bsistent QincorporealR s2bstance'M The proof, (hich is the sa1e as that advanced by Avicenna in his 2nJ2estionably gen2ine (orks, r2ns as follo(s in HalleviIs version< MIntelligible tho2ghtQsRM beco1e present in the h21an so2lH intelligible tho2ghts are indivisibleH anything in (hich so1ething indivisible 1akes itself present 12st be eJ2ally indivisibleH therefore the h21an so2l is an indivisible s2bstance possessing Mthe attrib2tes of the divine s2bstances'M/.6 Else(here Hallevi represents the philosophers as 1aintaining that (hen Me*istent beingsM beco1e Mintelligible in the potential intellect,M the potential intellect is transfor1ed into Mact2al intellect, and then acJ2ired intellect'M/.- Those are the stages of h21an intellect as Alfarabi disting2ished the1'/./ MThe 2lti1ate e2dae1onia for 1anM is attained (hen the h21an intellect reaches its highest stage of develop1ent/.;H that is a senti1ent shared by Alfarabi, Avicenna, Ibn 0aGGa, and others of an Aristotelian pers2asion' The chapter of the dialog2e consisting of e*cerpts fro1 the psychological (ork attrib2ted to Avicenna copies fro1 its Arabic so2rce an arg21ent sho(ing that 2niversal G2dg1ents cannot be validated by h21an Me*perience'M The reasoning, as Hallevi restates it, is that e1pirical e*perience can never be e*ha2stive and hence can never enco1pass all the instances covered by a 2niversal G2dg1ent' Since e*perience cannot enco1pass all the instances covered, it cannot be (hat validates Ibid' @, 4T-.' Above, p' @.' /AA C2Earn>, 4T-@' /A. Above, pp' -678A' AlfarabiIs Risala ft al8cAJl also ter1ed the h21an intellect a s2bstance, b2t not an incorporeal s2bstanceH above, p' 7?' /.6 C2Eari >, 4T-/' Cf' S' anda2er, M%ie ,sychologie des Ibn SIna,M Feitschrift der de2tschen 1orgenlandischen !esellschaft /. 9-A?7: ;;>8 @-A, chap' .' anda2er identified the te*t as the so2rce of C2Eari >, 4T-/' "or the arg21ent in Avicenna, see above, p' A;' /.- Ibid' @, 4T-.' /./ Above, p' @.' /.; C2Eari @, 4T-.' /A? /A7
-A>
the G2dg1ent' 02t if 2niversal G2dg1ents are not validated by e*perience, they 12st co1e Mfro1 a divine e1anation that conGoins (ith the rational so2l'M The it Mi1prints on the rational so2l'M And M(hat contains an intellect2al for1 ''' is an incorporeal, intellect2al s2bstance'M/.@ The so2rce of h21an 2niversal G2dg1ents is conseJ2ently an incorporeal s2bstanceBCDthe active intellect' Hallevi does not describe the (ay in (hich the philosophers 2nderstood the active intellect to prod2ce intelligible tho2ght in the h21an intellect' Khen the philosopher 1akes the initial for1al presentation of his vie(s, he does state that the intellect of the MperfectM 1an enters into a MconG2nction82nionM (ith the active intellect, (here2pon Mthe 1an appears to be the active intellect, (ith no distinction bet(een the1'M The Mso2l of the perfect 1an beco1es one (ith the QactiveR intellectM and the 1an Goins the Mco1pany of Her1es, Asclepi2s, Socrates, ,lato, Aristotle,M and other l21inaries, (ho also have beco1e Mone (ith the active intellect'M/.> At a later point in the dialog2e, (hen again recording the vie(s of the philosophers, Hallevi p2ts things differently' He has the philosophers 1aintain that h21an intellect at its c2l1ination beco1es 1erely Mclose to the active intellect'M/.7 The state1ent to the effect that the h21an intellect at its cro(ning stage beco1es identical (ith the active intellect har1oniEes (ith Ibn 0aGGaIs position'/.? The other state1ent, to the effect that the h21an intellect at its cro(ning stage beco1es close to the active intellect b2t not identical, reflects the position of Alfarabi and Avicenna'/.A Hallevi also ascribes inconsistent positions on h21an i11ortality to the philosophers' One passage has the philosophers 1aintain that the h21an so2l is i11ortal by its nat2re,/.. (hile other passages report the philosophic vie( to be that h21an i11ortality is contingent on a personIs attaining the stage of acJ2ired intellect';66 The for1er is AvicennaIs position,;6- and the latter, the position of Alfarabi as (ell as Ibn 0aGGa';6/ "inally, HalleviIs acco2nt of the vie(s of the philosophers takes notice of intellect2al prophecy and prophecy thro2gh the i1aginative fac2lty, both of (hich it represents as nat2ral pheno1ena res2lting fro1 conG2nction (ith the active intellect' The section of the book e*cerpted fro1 the psychological (ork attrib2ted to Avicenna reports that the philosophers believe< MIn so1e 1en '' ' conG2nctionM Ibid' >, 4T -/, based on the te*t p2blished by anda2er 9n' /.6 above: chap' -6' The arg21ent in anda2erIs te*t is J2oted above, p' AA' /.> Ibid' -, 4T-H @, 4T-6 9end:' Cf, above, pp' >7, -@>' /.7 Ibid' @, 4T-.' /.? Above, p' -@>' /.A Above, pp' >@, -6.' /.. CHEan >, 4T-/, the chapter consisting in e*cerpts fro1 the (ork attrib2ted to Avicenna, (hich is p2blished by anda2er 9n' /.6 above:' ;66 Ibid' @, 4T-.' Si1ilar senti1ents are e*pressed in >, 4T-@, and -, 4T-' ;6- Above, pp' -678A' ;6/ Above, pp' >7, -@>' /.@
MQso2rce of theR e1anationM 12st itself contain Mthe 2niversal intellect2al for1M that
-A7
(ith the active intellect frees Mthe rational fac2ltyM fro1 reliance on Msyllogistic and disc2rsive reasoningM and per1its the rational fac2lty to acJ2ire kno(ledge thro2gh Minspiration Qilhd1R and revelation Q(ahyR'M MThat property ''' is called holiness,' ' ' and s2ch Qa rational fac2ltyR is called the holy spirit'M;6; The passage plainly has in vie( the prophecy that, according to AvicennaIs 2nJ2estionably gen2ine (orks, consists in a 1anIs dispensing (ith the services of his cogitative fac2lty and acJ2iring theoretical kno(ledge thro2gh insightH those (orks of Avicenna, 1oreover, called the e*ercise of a high degree of insight in prophecy< holy spiritN;6@ Khen HalleviIs philosopher 1akes his o(n for1al presentation, he infor1s the ChaEar king that 2pon the latterIs entering into MconG2nction ''' (ith the active intellect,M the active intellect M1ay reveal to yo2 '' ' hidden kno(ledge, thro2gh tr2e drea1s and acc2rate i1aginative QvisionsR'M;6> Here the reference is to prophecy thro2gh the i1aginative fac2lty, it being the fac2lty that fra1es drea1s and i1aginative visions' The content of the drea1s and visions is not stated' A third passage reports< MThe philosophers 1aintainM that MprophecyM occ2rs (hen a 1anIs Mtho2ghts QafkdrR are p2rifiedM and his so2l MconGoins (ith the active intellectBCDalso called the holy spirit or !abrielBCD (here2pon the so2l is inspired Uy2lha1R'M MEither in sleep, or bet(een sleep and (akef2lness,M the prophet then M1ay i1agine ''' that so1eone speaks to hi1' The prophet hears the speakerIs (ords in an i1aginative 1ode (ithin his so2l, rather than (ith his earsH he sees the speaker in the inner fac2lty of his so2l Q(ah1R, rather than (ith his eyeMH and people Msay that !od spoke to hi1'M;67 The reference is obvio2sly again to prophecy thro2gh the i1aginative fac2lty, b2t as in the previo2s instance, specific content is absent' HalleviIs philosopher th2s recogniEes both intellect2al and i1aginative prophecy thro2gh the active intellect, (itho2t, ho(ever, saying eno2gh abo2t i1aginative prophecy to allo( 2s to deter1ine (hether he recogniEed both the for1 that s2pplies kno(ledge of the f2t2re and the for1 that recasts theoretical tr2ths into fig2rative i1ages' Intellect2al prophecy (as AvicennaIs doctrine' 0oth Alfarabi and Avicenna described an i1aginative prophecy that res2lts fro1 conG2nction (ith the active intellect and that depicts theoretical tr2ths fig2ratively';6? Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Ibn 0aGGa all recogniEed an i1aginative prophecy that f2rnishes predictions of the f2t2re, altho2gh only Alfarabi and Ibn 0aGGa, and not Avicenna, traced those predictions to an e1anation co1ing fro1 the active intellect';6A HalleviIs acco2nt of the philosophersI cos1ology, as (e sa( previo2sly, co1bined feat2res co11on to Alfarabi and Avicenna (ith a n21ber of feat2res C2Ear >, 4T-/, based on the te*t p2blished by anda2er 9n' /.6 above:, chap' A 9end:' Above, p' --.' ;6> C(Eari -, 4T-' ;67 Ibid' -, 4TA?' ;6? Above, pp' --.8/6' ;6A Above, pp' >., -//, and belo(, p' ;@-' In Avicenna, the e1anation f2rnishing predictions of the f2t2re apparently co1es fro1 the so2ls of the spheres' ;6@ ;6;
-A?
distinctive to Avicenna and at least one feat2re distinctive to Alfarabi' His acco2nt of the philosophersI theory of h21an intellect, (hich has G2st been e*a1ined, also contains a n21ber of theses pec2liar to Avicenna, b2t al1ost all of the1 are e*cerpted fro1 a single Arabic (ork (ritten by Avicenna or a 1e1ber of his school' Aside fro1 the e*cerpts, the only ite1 distinctive to Avicenna in the philosopherIs theory of intellect is the constr2ction of the h21an so2l as an incorporeal s2bstance' Other theses concerning intellect derive fro1 Alfarabi, and one or t(o, perhaps, fro1 Ibn 0aGGa' On a pair of iss2es, i11ortality and the possibility of the h21an intellectIs beco1ing (holly identical (ith the active intellect, Hallevi carelessly credits the philosophers (ith contradictory positions' Inas12ch as Hallevi lists vario2s historical and legendary !reek philosophers, 1ost freJ2ently Aristotle,;6. b2t 1entions the na1e of no Arabic philosopher, he 12st have believed that the cos1ology and theory of intellect (hich have been o2tlined reflect either the general (orldvie( of !reek philosophy or, specifically, AristotleIs syste1' Khat he has in fact presented is an eclectic set of doctrines dra(n fro1 the Arabic Aristotelians' Since he (as a physician, he sho2ld have at one ti1e read so1e philosophy, philosophy being a co1ponent of the 1edical c2rric2l21' )et (ith the e*ception of the psychological (ork attrib2ted to Avicenna (hich he e*cerpted, he co2ld hardly have had a serio2s philosophic treatise before hi1 (hen he (rote his dialog2e' He 12st have relied on notes, or on his recollection of earlier reading, lect2res, and conversations' Having recorded the philosophersI creed, Hallevi, thro2gh his spokes1an in the dialog2e, ref2tes it and e*po2nds his o(n position' He criticiEes the philosophersI theory of s2ccessive e1anations on three scores, t(o of (hich go back to !haEaliIs critiJ2e of AvicennaIs version of the theory' !haEali had, in one of his obGections, contended that, on AvicennaIs pre1ises, no less than five different aspects 1ight be disting2ished (ithin the first intelligence, rather than the three aspects thro2gh (hich Avicenna had e*plained the e1anation of the ne*t intelligence in the incorporeal hierarchy, the e1anation of the body of the celestial sphere governed by the first intelligence, and the e1anation of the so2l of the sphere' In another of his obGections, !haEali had scoffed that ascribing the e*istence of the body of a sphere, the e*istence of the so2l of the sphere, and the e*istence of an additional intelligence, to three aspects of an intelligenceIs tho2ght is as prepostero2s as saying that a certain M2nkno(n 1anIs '' ' being possibly e*istentM gives rise to the e*istence of a celestial sphere, and that the 1anIs Mhaving an intelligible tho2ght of hi1self and of his MakerM gives rise to Mt(o 1ore things'M;-6 Hallevi, for his part, s2b1its that the e1anation theory he recorded in the na1e of the philosophers Mcan be obGected to, on several gro2nds'M One obGection is that Mit 1ay be said< Khy does not so1ething necessarily co1e fro1 Sat2rnIs ;6. ;-6
C2Eari, @, 4T/> 9end:H >, 4T-@ 9end:' Above, p' ->-'
-AA
QintelligenceIsR having (hat is above it as an obGect of tho2ght, and so1ething else fro1 its having the first angel as an obGect of tho2ghtN The e1anations of Sat2rnIs QintelligenceR (ill then add 2p to fo2r'M In other (ords, the intelligence of the sphere of Sat2rn sho2ld have not only the "irst Ca2se and itself as obGects of tho2ght b2t also M(hat is above itMBCDa vag2e phrase that perhaps refers to the sphere of the fi*ed starsBCDas (ell as the first intelligence, (hich, in HalleviIs acco2nt of the philosophersI cos1ology, is the intelligence governing the sphere of the fi*ed stars' The intelligence of Sat2rn sho2ld th2s have fo2r obGects of tho2ght and as a conseJ2ence e1anate fo2r distinct beings, (hich is 1ore than the n21ber of beings it e1anates according to the philosophers';-- In a second obGection Hallevi asks< MHo( can (e s2ppose that (hen so1ething has an intelligible tho2ght of itself, a sphere necessarily co1es forth fro1 it, and (hen so1ething has an intelligible tho2ght of the "irst QCa2seR, an angel necessarily co1es forthN Kere it so, (hen Aristotle asserts that he has hi1self as an obGect of tho2ght, (e sho2ld de1and that a sphere e1anate fro1 hi1, and if he asserts that he has the "irst QCa2seR as an obGect of tho2ght, (e sho2ld de1and that an angel e1anate fro1 hi1SM;-/ HalleviIs third obGection addresses an iss2e that Avicenna had raised and (as satisfied he solved, na1ely, the need to e*plain (hy the process ceases at the active intellect';-; Hallevi (onders< MKhy does the e1anation ceaseN Is it beca2se of inadeJ2acy in the "irst QCa2seRNM;-@ Hallevi proceeds to J2estion the very e*istence of intelligences and so2ls of spheres' In one of the sections of the dialog2e (hich state his o(n beliefs, he does gr2dgingly refrain fro1 reGecting the co11on eJ2ation of Mthe eternal angelsM of religio2s tradition (ith the Mbeings (hose e*istence the philosophers recogniEe'M MKe have,M he (rites, Mno reason for either reGecting or acceptingM the philosophersI intelligences';-> His final s211ation of his o(n beliefs does not, ho(ever, leave the 1atter in do2bt' There he asserts< The Mphilosophers ''' divide the divine (orld into degreesM and thereby M12ltiply deities,M b2t Mlet 2s not give heedM to s2ch scandalo2s notions' Anyone Mdeceived byM the philosophers into accepting the e*istence of intelligences and the so2ls of the spheres is a Mheretic,M since he encroaches 2pon the 2nity of !od' M"or 2s, everythingM beyond the corporeal The present passage does not 1ention a di2rnal sphere and corresponding intelligence above the sphere of the fi*ed stars and its intelligence' See above, pp' -A/8A;' Conceivably, ho(ever, a reference to the di2rnal sphere has fallen o2t of o2r te*t or perhaps Hallevi copied his ref2tation of the philosophersI theory of e1anation fro1 notes that did take the di2rnal sphere and its intelligence into consideration' Then his obGection to the theory (o2ld be< The intelligence of the sphere of Sat2rn sho2ld have fo2r obGects of tho2ght< itselfH the intelligence Mabove it,M that is, the intelligence of the sphere of the fi*ed starsH the first angel, that is, the intelligence of the di2rnal sphereH and the "irst Ca2se' ;-/ C4`Ean@, 4T/>' ;-; See above, p' ?7' ;-@ C2Eari@, 4T/>' ;-> Ibid' @, 4T;' ;-l
-A.
real1 Mis a QsingleR divine degreeH there is only a QsingleR deity, (ho governs the corporeal Q(orldR'M;-7 Hallevi f2rther reGects the philosophic proposition that the h21an so2l is Man intellect2al s2bstance, (hich does not occ2py space and is not s2bGect to generation and destr2ction'M He pres2pposes that if h21an so2ls (ere intellect2al s2bstances, as his adversaries conceive of s2ch s2bstances, so2ls (o2ld all be e*actly of the sa1e character and co2ld not be individ2atedH and he reads o2t the abs2rdities that ens2e< MHo( Qon the philosophersI ass21ptionR 1ight 1y so2l be disting2ished fro1 yo2r so2l, or fro1 the active intellect, the QincorporealR ca2ses, and the "irst Ca2seNM;-? If so2ls (ere not individ2ated, Mone Q1anR (o2ld kno( the other, his belief, his inner1ost tho2ghts'M And each 1an (o2ld possess all possible Mintelligible tho2ghts at once, as !od and the active intellect do'M There are ano1alies of another sort as (ell< If the h21an so2l (ere an intellect2al s2bstance, it co2ld not forget' Men (o2ld not lose conscio2sness (hen they fall asleep, beco1e into*icated, have brain fever, s2ffer brain conc2ssions, gro( old and feeble' And so on';-A "inally, Hallevi lays bare distastef2l conseJ2ences of the s2pposition that h21an i11ortality depends on intellect2al perfection< If Mthe h21an so2l beco1es separate fro1 the body and indestr2ctibleM only thro2gh Ma total kno(ledge of e*istent beings,M no one J2alifies, for there is M12ch t h a t ' ' ' the philosopher Qhi1selfR does not kno( of (hat is in the heavens, the earth, and the sea'M If, by contrast, Ma little kno(ledge s2ffices, then every rational so2l is separate Qfro1 the body and i11ortalRH for the first principles of tho2ght are innate to the so2l,M and therefore every rational so2l has so1e intellect2al kno(ledge' And Mif,M testing one 1ore hypothesis, Mthe so2l separates itself Qand gains i11ortalityR by grasping the ten QAristotelianR categories together (ith (hatever principles of tho2ght are 1ore co1prehensive than they, the rationale being that all e*istent beingsM are in a general sense Ms2bs21QedRM 2nder the ten categories and the 1ore co1prehensive ;-7 ;-?
S' ,ines, MShlcite Ter1s and Conceptions in L2dah HaleviIs 32Eari,M Ler2sale1 St2dies in Arabic and Isla1 / 9-.A6: /-78-?, 2nderstands this arg21ent to i1ply that h21an so2ls are not, in the vie( of the philosophers, identical (ith one anotherH and he sees a discrepancy bet(een that i1plication of the arg21ent and the state1ent of the philosopher, J2oted above, p' -A>, to the effect that the so2ls of perfect 1en do beco1e identical (ith one another' Even granting the i1plication, it is hard to see a discrepancy' The arg21ent here is that if h21an so2ls (ere incorporeal s2bstances, they (o2ld be identical (ith one another fro1 the o2tset, (hich is prepostero2sH the state1ent of the philosopher there is that h21an intellects beco1e identical (ith one another at the cli1a* of their develop1ent' As pointed o2t above, p' -A>, discrepancies are discoverable in HalleviIs presentation of the vie(s of the
philosophers' The discrepancies do not, ho(ever, s2pport ,inesI s2ggestion that ,arts - and > of the C2Eari reflect different philosophic syste1s' ;-A C2Eari >, 4T-@' The J2estion ho( 1en can have private tho2ghts if all so2ls are one goes back to ,lotin2s, Enneads @'.'-' English translation of the Arabic paraphrase of the passage, in the Henry8Sch(yEer edition of ,lotin2s 9n' /@ above: ad loc21'
Ibid' >, 4T/-'
-.6
principles, Mthen that is an easy kind of kno(ledge, to be acJ2ired in a day'M 02t Mit is farfetched that 1an sho2ld be transfor1ed into an angel in a single day'M;-. S2ch are HalleviIs obGections to the philosophersI cos1ology and theory of intellect' Khen Hallevi sets forth his o(n beliefs, he sho(s hi1self to be yet another thinker (ho re1ained 2nder the spell of Arabic Aristotelianis1 to a greater e*tent than he i1agined or ackno(ledged' He borro(s the ter1inology of his opponents and states that Mthe "irst Ca2se ''' is in its essence intellect Qor< intellect by reason of itselfR'M;/6 Altho2gh he hesitates, as (e have seen, to identify the angels of religio2s tradition (ith the philosophersI incorporeal intelligences, he allo(s hi1self lang2age appropriate to the intelligences (hen describing the MangelsM of tradition< They are Mact2al intellectM;/- and 1ake 2p the M(orld of intellect'M;// Hallevi does depart fro1 Alfarabi and Avicenna on other iss2es concerning the s2pernal region' In place of s2ccessive necessary e1anations, (hich he ref2ted, he s2b1its that !od, thro2gh an act of M(ill, ' ' ' instantaneo2sly created the n21ero2s things Qconstit2ting the 2niverseRM;/;H Mthe 2niverse ' ' ' ca1e into e*istence by !odIs (ill, (hen He (ished and as He (ishedM;/@H the Mspirit2al angels are createdM specifically fro1 so1ething that Hallevi calls Mthe spirit of !odM or the Mholy spirit'M;/> Instead of the incorporeal intelligencesI 1oving the celestial spheres, Hallevi 2nderstands that the M"irst Ca2se,M (itho2t inter1ediaries, prod2ces the Morder and arrange1ent seen in ''' the heavensM;/7H Mthe heavens perfor1 Qtheir f2nctionsR solely thro2gh !odIs (ill, (ith no ''' inter1ediate ' ' ' ca2ses bet(eenM the1 and !od;/?H the Mdivine thing Qa1r ilahiR' ' ' governs the spheres'M;/A 0y divine thing, Hallevi 1eans a proGection of !od into the 2niverse, and he see1s to conceive of the divine thing specifically as a divine e1anationBCDan e1anation that for hi1, of co2rse, neither is necessary and eternal nor has the stat2s of a distinct s2bstance';/. He is saying that !od, or a proGection ;-. ;/6
Ibid' >, 4T/6 9@:' Si1ilarly in /, 4T/ 9end:' ;/- Ibid' @, 4T;' ;// Ibid' @, 4T/>' ;/; Ibid' @, 4T/7' ;/@ Ibid' >, 4T-@' ;/> Ibid' @, 4T/>' ;/7 Ibld' >, 4T/6' ;/? Ibid' @, 4T;' ;/A Ibid' @, 4T/>' ;/. Ibid' @, 4T/>' The ter1 a1r of !od goes back to 3oran ?<>@, -?<A>, (here it 1eans !odIs Mco11and,M and the ter1 plays a role in vario2s strands of Isla1ic theology' "or the divine a1r in Hallevi, see I' !oldEiher, M e a1r ilahi cheE L2da Hale#i,M Rev2e des et2des G2ives >6 9-.6>: ;/8@-H %avidson 9n' /?@ above: ;A-8.>H ,ines 9n' ;-? above: -?/8A6' My article contends fro1 internal evidence that the basic sense of the divine a1r in Hallevi is an e1anation fro1 !od' Other Arabic te*ts 2se the ter1 a1r in that sense' Ibn T2fail 9nn' -A, >; above: Arabic section /AH "rench translation />, speaks of Mthe spirit fro1 the a1r of !odM
Ibid'
Reverberations of the Theories of Alfarabi and Avicenna -.-
of !od, or an e1anation sent forth thro2gh an act of !odIs (ill, ca2ses the heavens to rotate' The infiltration of Arabic Aristotelianis1, and partic2larly of Avicenna, into HalleviIs tho2ght beco1es broad and 2n1istakable (hen Hallevi t2rns to the generation of nat2ral obGects in the s2bl2nar (orld' He too is convinced that Mthe ele1ents, the 1oon, the s2n, and the starsM e*ercise an MeffectM on the 1atter of the s2bl2nar region Mby (ay of heating, cooling, 1oistening, and dryingM 1atter';;6 MMi*t2reQsRM 91iEdG, i1tiEaGH Hebre(< 1eEeg, hi11aEeg: of 1atter thereby beco1e MbalancedM to varying degrees, portions of 1atter beco1e MpreparedM for ne( for1s, and each portion of 1atter receives the Mfor1 of Q(hateverR ani1al or plant it deserves'M;;- 02t nat2ral forces, altho2gh they prepare 1atter for a given for1, are not capable of MefficientM ca2sation'M;;/ MThe instilling of for1 as (ell as the eval2ation Qof the correct for1 for each portion of 1atterR, the bringing forth Qof a ne( obGectR, and everything involving (isdo1 QdirectedR to(ard a goal,M can proceed only fro1 a M(ise and po(erf2lM agent';;; Hallevi th2s arrives at the proposition that s2bl2nar for1s co1e fro1 an agent transcending the forces of nat2re' The (ise and po(erf2l agent that instills for1s in 1atter can, ho(ever, no longer be the active intellect, for in doing a(ay (ith the incorporeal intelligences, Hallevi did a(ay (ith the active intellect as (ell' M!odM is the agent (ho Mgives everything Qthe for1R that it deserves'M;;@ The M(isdo1M and MprovidenceM of MQ!odR the giver of for1sM is, he posits, Mone and ''' the sa1eM at all levels of the 2niverse' A M2nitaryM divine M(isdo1M and Mdivine thingM 9a1r ildht: 1anifest the1selves8BCDor, 1anifests itselfBCDdifferently at each level of the 2niverseH and the differing 1anifestations of the 2nitary divine (isdo1 and divine thing are deter1ined by the Mdifference Qin the receptivityR of 1atter'M MThe differences bet(een thingsM are d2e to Mdifferences in their 1atter'M;;> Hallevi does not 2s2ally e1ploy the lang2age of e1anation in conte*ts (here he sets forth his o(n 2nderstanding of the e1ergence of nat2ral for1s, b2t in so1e instances he does';;7 Since he also stresses that M!od gives every Qportion ofR 1atter the best for1 it can receive,M that !od Mis beneficent and does not (ithhold ' '' His governanceM (hich Meternally e1anates on all e*istent beingsM and (hich e*presses itself differently, depending on the preparation of 1atter for receiving it' ,ines -??, calls attention to a Shiite te*t (here the ter1 a1r has the sense of a divine e1anation' ;;6 Ibid' -, 4T??' 0oth celestial forces and forces indigeno2s to the s2bl2nar (orld are Minter1ediate ca2ses,M that is, ca2ses acting se1i8independently b2t 2lti1ately dependent 2pon !od, and al(ays s2bGect to divine intervention' See ibid' >, 4T/6' ;;Ibid' ;, 4T4T/;, >;' ;;/ Ibid' >, 4T/6 9/: ;;; Ibid' -, 4T??' ;;@ Ibid' >, 4T-6 9end:' ;;> Ibid' @, 4T/>H >, 4T/6 9;:' Cf' above, pp' ;68;-, ?.8A6' ;;7 Ibid' /, 4T/7H @, 4T4T;, />'
-./
fro1 anything capable of receiving it,;;? Hallevi 12st 1ean that (henever 1atter is prepared to receive a for1, the for1 is 2nfailingly crystalliEed o2t of the divine thing, the 2ndifferentiated proGection of !od into the 2niverse, or divine e1anation' The state1ent that the Minstilling of for1 as (ell as the eval2ationM of the for1 s2itable for a given portion of 1atter proceed fro1 a M(ise and po(erf2lM agent cannot, therefore, envisage an individ2al eval2ation of each portion of 1atter and an individ2al decision as to (hat for1 the 1atter deserves' Rather8BCDs2ch 12st be HalleviIs intentBCD!od devised the 2niverse in s2ch a (ay that each portion of 1atter a2to1atically receives (hatever for1 is appropriate to it' In his acco2nt of the vie(s of the philosophers, Hallevi reported that they trace even the for1s of the fo2r ele1ents to a s2pernal giver of for1s, and he conc2rred altho2gh, (e have no( seen, he differs as to (ho the giver of for1s is' Avicenna (as the philosopher (ho traced even the for1s of the fo2r ele1ents to a transcendent ca2se' &nprepossessed readers (ill have to concl2de that Hallevi has adopted AvicennaIs position on the appearance of s2bl2nar for1s and has 1erely added the proviso that they co1e fro1 !od and not the active intellect' Hallevi sa( his relationship to his philosophic adversaries differently' He sa( his opponents 1aking a significant concession to revealed religion< MThe philosophers (ere forced to affir1 that the divine thing gives these Qs2bl2narR for1s,M b2t they 1istakenly McallM the divine thing Mthe intellect that is the giver of for1s'M;;A Hallevi has, then, accepted the proposition that each portion of s2bl2nar 1atter receives, fro1 a transcendent so2rce, the for1 for (hich it is prepared' Khen the J2alities of a portion of 1atter are f2lly Mbalanced,M the 1atter is MpreparedM for a Mrational so2l,M and a rational so2l is 2nfailingly f2rnished by an Me1anationM 9ifadaH Hebre(< a8s8l: co1ing fro1 the Mbeneficent' ' ' divine thing Qa1r ilahiR'M Hallevi describes the h21an rational so2l as an Mincorporeal s2bstanceM 9Ga(har 12faraJ:, (hich does not occ2py MplaceM and (hich rese1bles the Ms2bstance of the angels'M;;. Ke have already seen that the angels are p2re intellect' He does not e*plain ho( his conception of the h21an so2l differs fro1 the philosophersIBCDthat is, AvicennaIsBCDconstr2ction of the h21an so2l as an incorporeal s2bstance, nor ho( the obGections he raised against AvicennaIs position 1ay be deflected fro1 his o(n' E1ploying concepts that plainly go back to Alfarabi and Avicenna, Hallevi f2rther speaks of the MconGoiningM of Mspirit2al Qh21anR so2lsM (ith M!od,M (ith the Mspirit of !od,M (ith the Mdivine light,M (ith the Mdivine thing,M or (ith Mspirit2al QbeingsRM;@6H of so2lsI Mkno(ing tr2ths (itho2t instr2ction and, indeed, Ibid' >, 4T/6 9;:' Ibid' >, 4T@' ;;. Ibid' /, 4T/7' ;@6 Ibid' -, 4T.>H /, 4T-@H ;, 4T/6H @, 4T/>' The notion of conG2nction (ith !od or (ith a 1e1ber of the incorporeal hierarchy (as already entrenched in Le(ish philosophic and theological literat2re by HalieviIs ti1e' A tenth8cent2ry L2deo8Arabic te*t states that the so2l of Moses M2nited (ith the (orld of the Rational So2l before it separated fro1 its body,M and that, in general, ;;A ;;?
-.;
thro2gh 1ini1al cogitative tho2ght QfikraR,M thanks to their conG2nction (ith so2lsI prophesying as a res2lt of conG2nction;@;H of prophecy thro2gh Man inner eye,' ' ' (hich 1ay be identical (ith the i1aginative fac2lty Q12takhayyilaR (hen it is 2nder the control of the intellect2al fac2lty'M;@@ Hallevi says little abo2t these pheno1ena, beyond insisting that they are the fr2it not of h21an intellect2al develop1ent b2t of the perfor1ance of rit2al acts,;@> and that they are closed to 1ost h21an so2ls' ConG2nction, e2dae1onia, and prophecy are reserved for a narro( h21an elite' They lie solely (ithin the grasp of 1en 2pon (ho1 the divine thing governing the 2niverse has e1anated a nat2re higher than 1ere h21an intellect, of 1en (ho therefore constit2te Mvirt2ally a different species'M;@7 Khen a Mthe separationM of so2ls fro1 bodies, M(hen the latter are still alive,''' is a conG2nction Qittifal, dibb2JR and 2nion (ith the s2pernal (orldsM and (ith Mthe divine light'M Arabic te*t< !' #aGda, M$o2vea2* frag1ents arabes d2 co11entaire de %2nash b' Ta1i1,M Rev2e des et2des G2ives --; 9-.>@: @-H 1edieval Hebre( translation and "rench translation< !' #aGda, M e co11entaire kairo2anais s2r le I ivre de la Creation,IM Rev2e des et2des G2ives -6? 9-.@78-.@?: ->6,->>8>7' Solo1on Ibn !abirol 9eleventh cent2ry:, (ho espo2sed a $eoplatonic philosophic syste1, described the h21an so2lIs Me2dae1oniaM 9Hebre(< haslaha: as consisting in the h21an Ms2bstanceIs 2nitingM (ith the Mspirit2alM or Mintelligible s2bstances,M and the h21an Mfor1Is conGoining QdebeJ2tH adi2nctioR (ith their for1s'M The Arabic original is lost' Medieval atin translation fro1 the Arabic< Ibn !abirol, "ons vitae, ed' C' 0ae21ker 9M2nster -A./8-A.>: ;, 4T>7, pp' /6@8>H e*cerpts fro1 the Arabic in 1edieval Hebre( translation< iJJ2ti1, ed' S' M2nk 9,aris -A>?: ;, 4T4T;?8;A' Slightly later, 0ahya Ibn ,aJ2da, al8HiddGa 9al8Hidaya: 9Hobot ha ebabot: ed' A' )ah2da 9 eiden -.-/: -6'-, speaks of the s2perior so2lIs desire to MconGoin (ithM 9tattasilH tiddabeJ: !odIs Mlight'M Abraha1 Ibn EEra, a conte1porary of Hallevi, refers to a conG2nction of a s2perior h21an so2l both (ith !od and (ith the Ms2pernal so2l, (hich is the so2l of the heavensMH and he (rites that conG2nction can take place either 2pon the death of the body or before, and that in the latter instance prophecy can res2lt' A' Ibn EEra, 0ible Co11entary, E*od2s 7<;H %e2terono1y --<//H ,sal1s -<;H -7<AH @.<-7H -;.<-A' To render the Arabic root 2nderlying the cl2ster of (ords 1eaning conGoin, conG2nction, and the like, the 1edieval translators of philosophic (orks fro1 Arabic into Hebre( chose the Hebre( root d8b8J, (hich a n21ber of 0iblical verses, s2ch as %e2terono1y @<@, --<//, ;6</6, 2se for the notion of 1anIsBCDas distinct fro1 the h21an so2lIsBCDcleaving to !od' As a conseJ2ence, conG2nction acJ2ired a script2ral resonance in Hebre( (hich it has retained ever since "ro1 the Middle Ages on, every Hebre( (riter (ho speaks of the so2lIs conGoining (ith the active intellect or !od is at the sa1e ti1e incidentally offering an interpretation of the biblical cleaving to !od' ;@- Ibid' -, 4T.>' ;@/ Ibid' /, 4T-@' ;@; Ibid' -, 4T-6.H cf' @, 4T->' ;@@ Ibid' @, 4T;' ;@> Ibid' ;, 4T>;' ;@7 Ibid' -, 4T4T;.8@/, -6;H @, 4T;' The plant real1 is characteriEed by the Mnat2ral thing,M the ani1al real1 by the Mso2l8thing,M and the ordinary r2n of 1ankind by the Mintellect2al
thing,M that is, by the possession of the intellect2al fac2ltyH ibid' 4T4T;-8;>' The elite seg1ent has, in addition to the Mintellect2al thing,M a higher principle called the Mdivine thingM 9a1r ilahi:I, and divine thing in the other sense, in the sense of the proGection, or e1anation, fro1 !od (hich governs the 2niverse, e1anates 9y2fid: the h21an divine thing 2pon properly prepared 1atter in the 1otherIs
!od;@-H of a Me2dae1oniaM 9sacada: of the h21an so2l Min the ne*t (orldM;@/H of
-.@
1e1ber of the eliteBCD(hich is coter1ino2s (ith the Israelite nation;@?BCDact2aliEes his nat2re by f2lfilling religio2s precepts, he achieves conG2nction and the related pheno1ena' To s211ariEe< Hallevi attrib2tes to the MphilosophersM an eclectic cos1ology and theory of intellect, fashioned o2t of theses dra(n fro1 Alfarabi and Avicenna' He (as not oppressed by a co1p2lsion for consistency, and he allo(s his acco2nt of the philosophersI theory of intellect to contradict itself on at least t(o significant points' After setting forth the philosophersI creed, Hallevi ref2tes its key constit2ents, na1ely< the theory of s2ccessive e1anationsH the very e*istence of incorporeal intelligences that 1ove celestial spheresH the propositionBCD(hich (e kno( to be specifically AvicennaIsBCDthat the h21an so2l is an incorporeal s2bstanceH and the proposition, not (holly co1patible (ith the constr2ction of the h21an intellect as an incorporeal s2bstance, that i11ortality is contingent 2pon intellect2al attain1ents' %espite the harsh tone in (hich he criticiEes his philosophic adversaries, Hallevi incorporates 12ch of their pict2re of the 2niverse into his o(n' In agree1ent (ith his adversaries, he represents the deity and the angels of religio2s tradition as consisting in p2re intellect' In opposition, he asserts that !od created the 2niverse o2tside Hi1self (itho2t the aid of inter1ediaries, and that !od Hi1self, or the divine thing, (hich is a proGection fro1 !od and not a distinct s2bstance, governs the celestial spheres' Again in agree1ent (ith his adversaries, he e*plains that s2bl2nar nat2ral obGects co1e into e*istence (hen the interaction of celestial forces and forces indigeno2s to the s2bl2nar region blend 1atter and prepare it for a given for1, (here2pon the appropriate for1 is 2nfailingly provided by a transcendent so2rce' 02t then, again correcting his adversaries, he 1aintains that s2bl2nar for1s are f2rnished by the 2nitary, 2ndifferentiated divine thing, (hich is a proGection or e1anation fro1 !od, and that !od is therefore the giver of for1s' $o independent s2bstance called the active intellect participates, and indeed no s2ch s2bstance e*ists' Khenever the blend of a portion of 1atter is s2fficiently balanced to receive a h21an so2l, one is e1anated, and the h21an so2l is, as in Avicenna, an incorporeal s2bstance' "ollo(ing Alfarabi and Avicenna, Hallevi recogniEes a s2pre1e state of conG2nction, (hich, ho(ever, is conG2nction (ith !od and the divine thing, rather than (ith the active intellectH prophetic kno(ledge thro2gh conG2nctionH and e2dae1onia in the ne*t life' Hallevi reserves those pheno1ena for a narro( seg1ent of 1ankind, for 1en (hose constit2tion enables the1 to receive an e1anated nat2re s2perior to 1ere h21an intellect' And he 1aintains that (o1b' See 1y article on Hallevi 9n' /?@ above: ;A/8A>' I s2ggest there, ;.;8.>, a reason (hy the ter1 divine thing is 2sed by Hallevi to characteriEe the h21an elite< The h21an elite are those in (ho1 the Mdivine thingM in the sense of the 2nitary e1anation proceeding fro1 !od and governing the 2niverse has its p2rest 1anifestation' "or the notion of a divine degree of 1ankind, in a variety of conte*ts, see the references in the sa1e article, ;A;, n' -, and ,ines 9n' ;-? above: -A-8A@ and passi1' ;@? Ibid' /, 4T-@'
-.>
conG2nction, e2dae1onia, and prophecy are enGoyed only by those (ho bring their s2perior nat2re to act2ality thro2gh rit2al, rather than intellect2al, activity' Abraha1 ibn %a2d, (ho lived and (rote a generation after Hallevi, is not of interest beca2se of any prof2ndity or originality in his tho2ght' 02t he is the earliest Le(ish philosopher kno(n to have conscio2sly borro(ed fro1 the Arabic Aristotelians' He portrays a fa1iliar 2niverse, (ith the deity prod2cing, thro2gh a chain of ca2sation, the incorporeal MintelligenceQsR or angelfsR,M the Mso2lsM of the celestial spheres, and the Mspheres'M The last of the intelligences is the Mactive intellect,M the e*istence of (hich can be inferred fro1 the transition of the Mh21an so2l fro1 ' '' potential intellect to ''' act2al intellect'M;@A Script2re, as read by Ibn %a2d, confir1s the pict2re of the 2niverse o2tlined th2s far';@. The philosophers, he contin2es, (ere hard p2t to har1oniEe the 2nitary character of the "irst Ca2se (ith their r2le that Mfor pl2rality to proceed fro1 the one in a pri1ary fashion Qthat is, directlyR is QG2dgedR i1possible by the intellect'M They solved their dile11a by ass21ing that (hile the "irst Ca2se e1anates only Ma single thing, called an intelligence in their ter1inology and an angel in the lang2age of the a(,M the tho2ght of the intelligence contains three aspects' Those three aspects in the intelligenceIs tho2ght give rise to three effects, to the Mbody of the Qo2ter1ostR sphere,M the Mso2l of the Qo2ter1ostR sphere,M and an additional incorporeal M2n1oved 1overMH and the process contin2es 2ntil the incorporeal M1over''' of the sphere of the 1oonM prod2ces the Mactive intellect'M;>6 Ibn %a2d is MskepticalM abo2t the foregoing e*planation of pl2rality in the 2niverse, dis1issing it as 1ere Massertions, the proofs of (hich (e do not find de1onstrable'M In his G2dg1ent, the 1anner (hereby !od bro2ght forth a pl2ral 2niverse lies beyond h21an co1prehension';>- ike Alfarabi, he (rites that the Me*istenceM of the 2nderlying Mco11on 1atterM of the s2bl2nar region co1es Mfro1 the o2ter1ost sphere'M;>/ He leaves 2nclear (hether the for1s of the fo2r ele1ents and of inani1ate nat2ral obGects e1erge o2t The original Arabic te*t is lost' Medieval Hebre( translation< E12nah Ra1ah, ed' and !er1an trans' S' Keil 9"rankf2rt -A>/:, Hebre( te*t >A, 7/, 7@H !er1an translation ?;, ?A, A-' There is also an English translation< Ibn %a2d, The E*alted "aith, trans' $' Sa12elson 9R2therford, $'L' -.A7:' Mant2a, 0iblioteca della co12nita israelitica, Hebre( MS A-, contains (hat is often described as another translation of the book, b2t (hat is in fact only a different recension of the sa1e translation' The Mant2a 1an2scriptIs version is poorer than that of the printed edition, b2t here and there helps to correct the latter' I have not seen T' "ontaine, In %efense of L2dais1, Abraha1 Ibn %a2d 9Assen -..6:' ;@. Ibid', Hebre( te*t 7?87AH !er1an Iranslation A@8A>' ;>6 Ibid' 7;87@, 7?H !er1an translation ?.8A6, A@ The distinction of three aspects is pec2liar to Avicenna, b2t Ibn %a2d does not describe the aspects e*actly as Avicenna did' ;>- Ibid' 7?H !er1an translation A@' ;>/ Ibid' 7@H !er1an translation A6' Ibid' -6, !er1an translation -@, describes !od as having created 1atter as (ell as the ele1ental for1s' There is, ho(ever, no contradiction if (e 2nderstand that !od perfor1ed His act of creation thro2gh the inter1ediacy of the sphere and active
intellect' ;@A
-.7
of the 1i*t2re, or are e1anated fro1 above';>; 02t regarding the for1s of plants, ani1als, and 1an, he allo(s no a1big2ity< The for1s of ani1ate beings co1e fro1 (itho2t';>@ M!od has e1anated the giving of for1s to an intellect2al s2bstance,M to the Mactive intellect,M (hich serves as Mthe giver of for1s,M and the active intellect Me1anatesM (hatever for1 of a living being each MblendM of 1atter is MpreparedM to receive' The active intellectIs f2nction as the so2rce of s2bl2nar for1 is, in Ibn %a2dIs vie(, another philosophic proposition confir1ed by Script2re';>> He proves, as Avicenna did, that the h21an so2l is an incorporeal s2bstance,;>7 that the h21an so2l 12st be i11ortal beca2se it is in no sense dependent on the body,;>? and that trans1igration is i1possible beca2se it (o2ld entail t(o so2ls in a single body, na1ely, the so2l reJ2ired by the MblendM of 1atter and the trans1igrating so2l';>A At birth, he (rites, 1an possesses Mpotential intellect'M &pon learning the Mfirst principles of tho2ght thro2gh divine inspiration, s2ch as the proposition that t(o things eJ2al to the sa1e thing are eJ2al to each other, and the i1possibility of t(o contrariesI being co1bined in the sa1e respect in the sa1e s2bGect,M the h21an fac2lty for tho2ght beco1es Mact2al intellect'M Khen it dra(s the inferences that can be 1ade fro1 the first principles of tho2ght and 1asters the Msciences,M it beco1es MacJ2ired intellect'M;>. So far, the sche1e and the ter1inology are AlfarabiIs';76 Ibn 0a2d goes on< Since the ca2se leading the h21an intellect fro1 potentiality to act2ality 12st itself contain Min act2alityM the concepts it brings forth, Mthe active intellect,M the factor leading the h21an intellect to act2ality, 12st be an incorporeal, Msi1ple s2bstance'M Here again, MScript2re and philosophy conc2r'M;7- The active intellect stands Mto h21an so2ls as light stands to Qthe fac2lty ofR vision'M L2st as light activates the fac2lty of vision, the active intellect The printed edition -6, !er1an translation -@, speaks of the e1anation of the ele1ents, b2t the ter1 e1anation is 1issing in the version of the Mant2a 1s' ;>@ Ibn %a2dIs reason is that if for1s arose solely fro1 the 1i*t2re of J2alities in 1atter, nat2ral obGects (o2ld be infinite in their variety and (o2ld not lend the1selves to a ta*ono1y of species and genera' ;>> E12nah Ra1ah, Hebre( te*t ;/, ;78;?,@@, 7@8 7?, (ith help of the Mant2a 1s'H !er1an translation @-, @78@?, >?, A68A@' ;>7 Ibid' ;@, ;?, >A, (ith corrections fro1 the Mant2a 1s'H !er1an translation @@, @?, ?;' Ibn %a2d reasons, as Avicenna did, that indivisible concepts 1ake the1selves present in the h21an so2lH that indivisible concepts can be present only in an indivisible, and hence noncorporeal, s2bGectH and that Mthe h21an so2l, (hich does contain intellect2al tho2ght,M is therefore not Ma body,M a Mpo(er in a body,M or a Mcorporeal for1'M He also repeats AvicennaIs arg21ents sho(ing that the h21an intellect does not e1ploy a physical organ' ;>? Ibid' ;?8;AH !er1an translation @A' See above, p' -6?' Ibn %a2dIs for12lation loses so1e of the cogency of AvicennaIs reasoning' ;>A Ibid' ;.H !er1an translation @.' See above, p' -6.' ;>. Ibid' ;?H !er1an translation @?' ;76 See above, pp' @., 7?' ;7- E12nah Ra1ah, Hebre( te*t >AH !er1an translation ?;' ;>;
-.?
activates the intellect by, for e*a1ple, Ma(akening Qor< inspiringRM the so2l Mto the first principles of tho2ght, s2ch as the proposition that t(o things eJ2al to the sa1e thing are eJ2al to each other'M;7/ Apart fro1 the possible s2ggestion here that the first principles of tho2ght co1e directly fro1 the active intellect, I did not see Ibn %a2d stating that tho2ghts e1anate directly fro1 the active intellect 2pon the h21an intellect' He kno(s of a type of prophecy in (hich the MQco1positiveR i1aginative s2bstances (hat is hiddenM and thereby foresee the Mf2t2re,M;7@ and another type in (hich the incorporeal intelligences Mappear''' in corporeal for1sM to so2ls that the f2t2re thro2gh the i1aginative fac2lty, recalls (hat (e fo2nd in Alfarabi and AvicennaH b2t Ibn %a2d describes the second type in too obliJ2e a fashion to connect it (ith anything specific in either of those philosophers' He recogniEes, as (ell, the e*traordinary noncognitive ability classified by Avicenna as another for1 of prophecy, na1ely, as he p2ts it, the ability of Mso2ls of highest virt2eM to Mchange e*istent beingsM in the physical (orld';77 All in all, the general lines of Ibn 0a2dIs sche1e of the 2niverse and theory of intellect are co11on to Alfarabi and Avicenna' T(o details, the celestial origin of s2bl2nar 1atter and the ter1inology for the stages of h21an intellect, co1e fro1 Alfarabi' Many of the other details, incl2ding 12ch of the arg21entation, co1e fro1 Avicenna' In Moses Mai1onides, (e enco2nter, one 1ore ti1e, a transl2nar 2niverse consisting of celestial spheres, the so2ls that 1ove the1, and the incorporeal intelligencesBCDor Mangels,M in religio2s parlance;7?BCDthat inspire the so2ls to do so' Ibid' 76H !er1an translation ?>8?7' See above, pp' >- 9Alfarabi: and ./8.; 9Avicenna:' The doctoral dissertation of A1ira Eran 1akes a convincing case for taking ilha1 to have been the Arabic ter1 standing behind the Hebre( ter1 that I translate as< Ma(akening Qor< inspiringR'M The Hebre( is EareE and else(here the ter1 hecara is 2sed as its eJ2ivalent' ;7; Ibid' ?6H !er1an translation AA' 0oth redactions of the Hebre( translation 2se the ter1 1esayyer 9XArabic< 12sa((iraH see above, p' A.:, (hich earlier in the Hebre( te*t /., !er1an translation ;?, had designated the retentive i1agination' 02t the f2nctions ascribed here to the fac2lty operative in prophecy sho( that Ibn %a2d, like Avicenna, has the co1positive i1agination in 1ind' ;7@ Ibid' ?68?-, translated (ith the help of the Mant2a 1s'H !er1an translation AA8A.' ;7> Ibid' A>H !er1an translation -6?' ;77 Ibid' .;H !er1an translation --A' See above, p' -//' ;7? Mai1onides, %alalat al8HaIirln 9henceforth cited as !2ide: /'7' Edition and "rench translation< e g2ide des egares, ed' and trans' S' M2nk 9,aris -A>78-A77:H a corrected edition of the Arabic te*t< I' Loel 9Ler2sale1 -.;6:H 1edieval Hebre( translation< Moreh $eb2ki1, trans' Sa12el ibn Tibbon, ed' )' Ibn Sh12el 9Lers2ale1 -.A-:H yet another edition of the Arabic te*t, (ith 1odern Hebre( translation< Moreh $eb2ki1, ed' and trans' L' 3afah 9Ler2sale1 -.?/:H English translation< The !2ide of the ,erple*ed, trans' S' ,ines 9Chicago -.7;:' M2nkIs ;7/
Qfac2ltyRM;7; enables the h21an Mrational so2l to receive fro1 the s2pernal
have Marrived at co1plete perfection'M;7> The first type, prophetic predictions of
-.A
0eyond the incorporeal intelligences that 1ove the spheres resides a transcendent "irst Ca2se,;7A and it brings the first intelligence into e*istence thro2gh an Me1anationM 9faidH Hebre(< shefac:, e1anation being the ter1 for all action perfor1ed by an incorporeal being';7. The first intelligence Me1anatesM the ne*t intelligence in the series, its o(n celestial sphere, and the so2l of its sphere' And each s2cceeding intelligence does the sa1e, 2ntil the intelligence of the 1oon e1anates the MtenthM intelligence, called the Mactive intellect'M That an active intellect e*ists 1ay be inferred fro1 the Mpassage of o2r intellect fro1 potentiality to act2alityM as (ell as fro1 the Mappearance of the for1s of generated8destr2ctible beings'M;?6 In one of its capacities, the active intellect e1anates the 1atter of the s2bl2nar (orld';?Infl2ences descending fro1 the spheres as (ell as forces (ithin the s2bl2nar (orld then act 2pon s2bl2nar 1atter and MprepareM it for a for1;?/H and (henever 1atter has the MblendM 91iEaG, i1tiEaGH Hebre(< 1eEeg, hi11aEeg2t: appropriate to a given nat2ral for1, the for1 appears' $o s2bl2nar for1 can, ho(ever, e1erge fro1 belo(, o2t of the blend of 1atter, for M(hat prod2ces a for1 12st itself be an incorporeal for1'M MAllM s2bl2nar for1sBCD(hich has to 1ean for1s do(n to the level of the fo2r ele1entsBCDconseJ2ently have an incorporeal so2rce, o2tside the physical (orld' ike the 1atter of the s2bl2nar (orld, for1s co1e fro1 the ever8present and never8 changing e1anation of the active intellect, and the active intellect is accordingly ter1ed the Mgiver Q12ctiR of for1s'M;?; translation is one of the t(o or three best 1odern translations ever 1ade of a 1edieval Arabic or Hebre( philosophic te*t' ;7A Ibid' /'@' Mai1onides proves the point by sho(ing that the 1overs of the spheres have a co1posite essence, (hereas the "irst Ca2se 12st be (holly free of co1position' ;7. Ibid' /'-/' ;?6 Ibid' /'@' Khen speaking in his o(n na1e, Mai1onides does not e*plicitly say that each intelligence e1anates the so2l, as (ell as the body, of its sphere, b2t that is certainly i1plied' ;?Ibid' /'@ and --' ;?/ Ibid' -'?/H /'-6 and -/' ;?; Ibid' /'-/H -A 9-:' Mishneh Torah< )esode ha8Torah @'7H English translation< Mishneh Torah -, ed' and trans' M' Hya1son 9$e( )ork -.;?:' Mai1onidesI reasoning is that changes in the blend of a portion of 1atter, (hich are d2e to physical ca2ses, are grad2al and contin2o2s, (hereas the change fro1 one nat2ral for1 to another is instantaneo2s and s2ddenH the ca2se prod2cing nat2ral for1s 12st therefore be of a kind co1pletely different fro1 physical ca2ses' Since the arg21ent applies to all nat2ral for1s, incl2ding those of the fo2r ele1ents, and since Mai1onides e*pressly (rites that MallM for1s e1anate fro1 the active intellect, he 12st be saying that even the for1s of the fo2r ele1ents co1e fro1 the active intellect' H' Kolfson, MHallevi and Mai1onides on %esign, Chance, and $ecessity,M reprinted in his St2dies in the History of ,hilosophy and Religion / 9Ca1bridge, Mass' -.??: ;@, J2otes a passage in !2ide /'-. as evidence for Mai1onidesI having recogniEed the 1ove1ents of the heavens as the ca2se of the for1s of the fo2r ele1ents' 0eca2se of the evidence cited here to the contrary, the passage in the !2ide sho2ld be read as saying 1erely that celestial 1otion prepares s2bl2nar 1atter for receiving the for1s of the fo2r ele1ents, (hereas the active
intellect is the agent prod2cing the for1s'
-..
M2ch of the pict2re sketched th2s far is 2nkno(n prior to the Arabic Aristotelians, and in crediting the active intellect (ith the e1anation of s2bl2nar 1atter and MallM s2bl2nar for1s, Mai1onides has endorsed theses pec2liar to Avicenna';?@ $evertheless, he na1es MAristotleM as the a2thor of the sche1e,;?> and he f2rther 1aintains that the sche1e isBCD(ith a J2alificationBCDshared by Script2re';?7 MAristotle and all those (ho philosophiEedM f2rther s2bscribed, in Mai1onidesI (ords, to the Mproposition '' ' that fro1 (hat is si1ple, only one si1ple thing can proceed necessarily QyalEa1R'M 02rdened (ith that proposition, MAristotleM did his best to e*plain ho( a 12ltifaceted 2niverse can have e1anated fro1 a (holly nonco1posite "irst Ca2se' The e*planation Mai1onides attrib2tes to Aristotle t2rns o2t to be the e1anation theory that (e kno( fro1 Alfarabi and Avicenna, and Mai1onides finds the e*planation (anting' In his critiJ2e of the e1anation theory of Alfarabi and Avicenna, Mai1onides reasons, firstly, that since anything proceeding necessarily fro1 (hat is nonco1posite 12st be eJ2ally nonco1posite, nothing co1ple* co2ld ever e1erge in the 1anner s2pposed' If the series of e1anated beings flo(ing by necessity o2t of the nonco1posite "irst Ca2se (ere to descend Mthro2gh tho2sands of stages,M no stage (o2ld contain a greater degree of co1position than the preceding one, and the MlastM e1anated being (o2ld be as Msi1pleM as the first' Secondly, even granting the distinction of Mt(oM aspectsBCDas Mai1onides reports the theoryBCDin the tho2ght of each e1anated intelligence, the t(o aspects (o2ld not s2ffice' As (ill be recalled, !haEaliIs critiJ2e of Avicenna incl2ded the contention that a single one of the MthreeM aspects in the first intelligence co2ld not acco2nt for the body of the first sphere, beca2se the first sphere is not 2nifor1 b2t consists of 1atter, for1, and other characteristicsH and a single aspect in the second intelligence certainly co2ld not acco2nt for the f2ll co1ple*ity of the second celestial sphere, since the second sphere contains a Mtho2sand and t(enty odd stars'M;?? Mai1onides arg2es in the sa1e vein< 9-: In necessary e1anation, Ma correspondence al(ays obtains bet(een ca2se and effect,M so that Ma for1 cannot proceed necessarily fro1 1atter, nor 1atter fro1 for1'M ConseJ2ently, even granting the distinction of aspects in the incorporeal intelligences, the intelligences co2ld, in the 1anner that the theory s2pposes, prod2ce only (hat is incorporeal like the1selves, and the corporeality of the spheres and of the s2bl2nar (orld re1ains 2nacco2nted for' 9/: If an additional concession be 1ade and it is granted that an aspect of an incorporeal intelligence can prod2ce so1ething corporeal, the theory co2ld still not e*plain the e*istence of the In !2ide /'-A 9-:, Mai1onides cites AlfarabiIs Risalafi al8cAJl regarding the active intellectIs role in prod2cing nat2ral for1sH b2t the range of for1s that he ascribes to the active intellect clearly reflects AvicennaIs position' ;?> Ibid' /'@ 9end:H 7 9end:H //' Mai1onides does recogniEe that setting the n21ber of spheres, or 1ain spheres, at nine is post8AristotelianH see /'@ and .' ;?7 Ibid' /'> and 7' ;?? Above, p' ->-' ;?@
/66
spheres' Most of the spheres consist of at least fo2r factors, the 1atter and for1 of the body of the sphere, as (ell as the 1atter and for1 of the star e1bedded in the sphereH and a single aspect co2ld not give rise to a fo2rfold prod2ct' And 9;: the co1ple*ity of the sphere of fi*ed stars (o2ld re1ain co1pletely 2ne*plained, since that sphere contains stars of vario2s types, each of the1 co1posed of 1atter and for1';?A Mai1onides (as caref2l to for12late the r2le 1otivating the theory of s2ccessive e1anations as the i1possibility of 1ore than one effectIs proceeding necessarily fro1 a nonco1posite ca2se' 0oth Alfarabi and Avicenna did in fact 2se the ter1 Mproceed necessarilyM 9yalEa1: in e*po2nding the e1anation of intelligences and spheres';?. The 2pshot of Mai1onidesI critiJ2e is, accordingly, that the corporeal and co1ple* 2niverse cannot have e1anated MnecessarilyM fro1 the 2nitary "irst Ca2se' He does not disp2te that the "irst Ca2se, or !od, brings the first intelligence into e*istence thro2gh an act of e1anation, that the first intelligence brings its sphere and the ne*t intelligence into e*istence thro2gh a f2rther act of e1anation, and so on thro2gh the series' His concl2sion is only that e1anation takes place not thro2gh eternal necessity b2t thro2gh a noneternal act of (ill';A6 A h21an so2l, like every other nat2ral s2bl2nar for1, is crystalliEed o2t of the e1anation of the active intellect (henever s2bl2nar 1atter is ready to receive one' Mai1onides characteriEes the Mh21an rational fac2ltyM as Ma po(er in a body,M as a MdispositionM in the h21an organis1, and as Minseparable fro1M its body,;A- altho2gh not inseparable in the sense of being distrib2ted thro2gh the h21an body';A/ He thereby parts (ays (ith Avicenna, (ho had arg2ed that the h21an so2l is an incorporeal s2bstance' ,erhaps he is conscio2sly follo(ing Ibn 0aGGa' Ibn 0aGGa had constr2ed the h21an intellect as a disposition in the h21an organis1,;A; and Mai1onides e*plicitly cites hi1 in connection (ith another detail related to the h21an intellect';A@ Mai1onides does not for1ally list the stages thro2gh (hich the h21an intellect progresses, b2t he does disting2ish bet(een MpotentialM or M1aterial intellect,M !2ide /'//' Above, pp' @7, ?>' ;A6 Mai1onidesI finding that !od initiated the e1anation of the 2niverse thro2gh an act of (ill serves as the nerve of a caref2lly (ro2ght Marg21entM for the creation of the (orld' After establishing that the 2niverse 12st have been e1anated thro2gh an act of (ill, he adds the f2rther pre1ise that necessity entails eternity, (hereas (ill entails an agentIs acting after not having acted' Mai1onides concl2des that the 2niverse o2tside of !od, being the res2lt of an act of (ill, cannot be eternal, b2t 12st have been created' See !2ide /'/- and //H H' %avidson, MMai1onidesI Secret ,osition on Creation,M in St2dies in Medieval Le(ish History and iterat2re, ed' I' T(ersky 9Ca1bridge, Mass' -.?.: ;@' ;?. ;A- ;A/ ;A; ;?S
!2ide -'?6 and ?/'
Ibid' /, introd2ction 9--:' See A' Alt1ann, #on der 1ittelalterlichen E2r 1odernen
A2fklar2ng 9T2bingen -.A?: 7?' ;A@
Above, p' -@>' !2ide -'?@ 9?:'
/6-
(hich is the h21an rational fac2lty before it begins to think, Mact2al intellect,M (hich is h21an intellect (hen thinking any intelligible tho2ght,;A> and acJ2ired intellect' Act2al h21an intelligible tho2ght co1es, as in Avicenna, Mfro1 the e1anation of the active intellect'M;A7 Avicenna had e*plained the process (hereby a 1an acJ2ires act2al intelligible tho2ght as the 1anIs entering into MconG2nctionM 9ittisdl: (ith the active intellect and receiving the active intellectIs e1anation';A? Mai1onides si1ilarly (rites that 1an obtains intelligible tho2ght thro2gh MconG2nction QittisalI, Hebre(< hiddabeJR (ith the divine QactiveR intellect, (hich e1anates 2pon hi1 and fro1 (hich the for1 Qthe intelligible tho2ghtR co1es into e*istence'M;AA He does not, ho(ever, e1ploy another for12la of AvicennaIs, the characteriEation of all act2al h21an tho2ght as acJ2ired intellect' A h21an intellect that has already passed to act2ality, yet is not at the 1o1ent act2ally thinking, is described by Mai1onides as neither Mact2al intellect,M on the one hand, nor an 2nJ2alified potentiality, on the other' It is in a state of potentiality McloseM to act2ality and rese1bles the Mskilled scribe (hen he is not (riting'M;A. Avicenna had 2sed the analogy of the skilled scribe to 1ake the sa1e point';.6 The h21an MacJ2ired intellect,M in contrast to the h21an potential intellect, is Mnot a po(er in a bodyM b2t rather is Mco1pletely separate fro1 the body, and e1anates 2pon it'M It is related to the individ2al M1anM as M!od is QrelatedR to the (orldM;.-H it th2s apparently is so1ething s2bstantial' The only other passage in Mai1onides (hich e1ploys the ter1 classifies acJ2ired intellect as an Mintellect2al virt2eM and contrasts it (ith h21an intellect (hen 1an possesses no 1ore than the Mfirst principlesM of tho2ght';./ The state1ents, (hen taken together, tho2gh not ;A> ;A7
Ibid' /'@ and ;?H ;'A' ;A? Above, p' A.' ;AA !2ide ;'A' Alt1ann 9n' ;A/ above: A68A-, A;, takes note of Mai1onidesI state1ents, b2t does not accept (hat they e*pressly say, in order to avoid reading Mai1onides as tracing all act2al h21an tho2ght to an e1anation fro1 the active intellect' 0' 3ogan, MKhat Can Ke 3no( Mai1onides on the Active Intelligence and H21an Cognition,M in Moses Mai1onides and His Ti1e, ed' E' Or1sby 9Kashington -.A.: -/?, interprets Mai1onides in (hat I consider to be the correct (ay, altho2gh (itho2t J2oting the passages in Mai1onides (hich I find to be distinctive of AvicennaIs conception' ;A. Ibid' ;'>-' ;.6 Avicenna disting2ished three stages of h21an potentiality for tho2ght and ill2strated the1 by three senses in (hich a 1an 1ay have a potentiality for (riting' The third stage of potentiality for tho2ght parallels the MscribeM (ho is Macco1plished in his artM and (ho can apply the art of (riting Mat (ill,M b2t is not at the 1o1ent e*ercising his skillH see above, p' A@' Mai1onides, Millot ha8Higgayon, Hebre( and Arabic te*ts, ed' and trans' I' Efros as Mai1onidesI Treatise on ogic 9$e( )ork -.;A:, chap' --, ill2strates three senses of
potentiality in general by the three senses in (hich, according to Avicenna, a 1an 1ay have the potentiality for (ritingH b2t Mai1onides 1akes no reference there to h21an intellect' ;.- Ibid' -'?/' ;./ Mai1onides, Tha1aniya "2s2l 9She1onah ,eraJi1:, ed' and !er1an trans' M' Kolff, as Acht Capitel 9 eiden -.6;: chap' /' Medieval Hebre( translation< The Eight Chapters of
Ibid' -'7A'
/6/
very infor1ative, do tell 2s that acJ2ired intellect is an advanced stage or state of h21an intellect, that it is so1ething incorporeal, and that it e*ists independently of the h21an body' Mai1onides f2rther (rites that 1anIs Mfinal perfectionM consists in attaining Mact2al intellectM and he adds that s2ch a condition co1es abo2t (hen one Mkno(s everything a 1an can kno( abo2t all e*istent things'M;.; Act2al intellect in this sense, as 1anIs final perfection, is different fro1 act2al intellect in the sense previo2sly e1ployed by Mai1onides, in the sense of a h21an intellect act2ally thinking any tho2ght (hatsoever,;.@ and very pla2sibly is eJ2ivalent, in Mai1onidesI ter1inology, to acJ2ired intellect' The ter1 acJ2ired intellect (o2ld, then, denote for Mai1onidesBCDas it did for Alfarabi and as one acceptation of acJ2ired intellect did for AvicennaBCDh21an intellect at the c2l1ination of its develop1ent' Mai1onides does not 1ention the proposition that (hen h21an intellect2al develop1ent is co1plete, 1an enters into per1anent conG2nction (ith the active intellect';.> 02t he does kno( of a closely related state, the h21an intellectIs having incorporeal beings;.7 and the active intellect in partic2lar as a direct obGect of tho2ght' He (rites< The MintellectM belonging to the rational so2l of a celestial sphereBCD(hich is an intellect bro2ght into e*istence by Mthe e1anationM of the incorporeal intelligence acco1panying the sphereBCDenables the sphere to Mkno( Uy2drik] the incorporeal QintelligenceR and have it as an obGect of concept2al tho2ght Qyatasa((ar2h2RM In a parallel fashion, the h21an Mact2al intellect,M (hich co1es Mfro1 the e1anation of the active intellect,M enables 1an to Mkno( the active intellect'M;.? If (e can ass21e that act2al intellect in the present passage is again the h21an intellect at the c2l1ination of its develop1ent, Mai1onides is saying that G2st as the rational so2l of a celestial sphere has a direct concept of its incorporeal intelligence, so too a perfect h21an intellect has a direct concept of the active intellect' ,ossessing act2al intellect at the level of Mfinal perfectionM is, for Mai1onides, the Msole ' ' ' ca2seM of h21an i11ortality';.A That state1ent 1eshes (ith Mai1onides, ed' and trans' L' !orfinkle 9$e( )ork -.-/:' Mai1onidesI state1ent is based on Alfarabi, "2N2l al8Maaani, ed' and trans' %' %2nlop 9Ca1bridge -.7-: 4T?' See Alt1ann 9n' ;A/ above: A6' ;.; Ibid' ;'/?' ;.@ The t(o senses of act2al intellect in Mai1onides see1 to correspond to the t(o senses of acJ2ired intellect in Avicenna' ;.> The closest I fo2nd (as a state1ent to the effect that the patriarchs enGoyed a M2nion QittihadR of their intellects (ith kno(ledge QidrakR of !od' !2ide ;'>-' ;.7 Mai1onides, Co11entary on Mishnah, Abot ;'-? 9/6:, cited by Alt1ann 9n' ;A/ above: ??H and perhaps Mishneh Torah< )esode ha8Torah @'A' Alt1ann A@, again does not take the state1ents at face val2e' ;.? !2ide /'@' See also -'7/, (here Mai1onides (rites that Mkno(ledgeM 9idrdk: of the active intellect cannot be forgotten' He is there echoing Ibn 0aGGa, Risalat al8Kadac 9n' -66, above: 4T->' ;.A Ibid' ;'/?' Si1ilarly in /'/?'
/6;
state1ents already J2oted, to the effect that the h21an potential intellect is a Mpo(erM in the body (hereas acJ2ired intellect is Mco1pletely separate fro1 the body'M Mai1onides nonetheless recogniEes at least so1e gradation in the intellect2al attain1ents J2alifying 1an for i11ortality' In one passage he (rites that altho2gh Mprophets and virt2o2s 1en fall short of the biblical Moses in intellect2al perfection, they too gain intellect2al i11ortality and the Menor1o2s pleas2reM attendant thereon,;.. and in another he notes that the prophets the1selves differed considerably in their intellect2al attain1ents'@66 Ho( far one 1ay fall belo( absol2te h21an intellect2al perfection (itho2t losing i11ortality is left 2nclear' %espite his insistence on the enor1o2s pleas2re a(aiting the h21an intellect in its afterlife,@6Mai1onides cites (itho2t de12rral the opinion of Ibn 0aGGa that individ2ality and all distinction bet(een h21an intellects is inconceivable after the bodyIs de1ise'@6/ The state1ents abo2t h21an intellect disc2ssed 2ntil this point are occasional re1arks that have to be pieced together in order to give 2s anything even appro*i1ating a theory' The only topic relating to the h21an intellect (hich Mai1onides addresses in a syste1atic fashion is prophecy' His proced2re there is to set forth (hat he calls the MphilosophersI vie(M and then to add the theological provisos that, in his opinion, render it acceptable' He (rites that sho2ld a 1an develop his intellect, b2t lack a s2fficiently strong and healthy Mi1aginative fac2ltyM 912takhayyila:, the rational fac2lty alone receives the e1anation of the active intellectBCDan e1anation (hose 2lti1ate so2rce is M!odMBCDand the o2tco1e is a M1an of science'M Sho2ld, on the contrary, a 1an possess the reJ2isite i1aginative fac2lty and not develop his intellect, the e1anation fro1 the active intellect (ill pass thro2gh the rational fac2lty and act solely on the i1agination' The o2tco1e no( is a Mstates1an,M a Mla(giver,M a MclairvoyantM 9kdhinH Hebre(< Jose1:, an Ma2g2r,M or a M1an of tr2e drea1s'M The incl2sion of tr2e drea1s in the effect of the active intellectIs e1anation 2pon the i1aginative fac2lty recalls the descriptions of i1aginative prophecy that (ere 1et in Alfarabi and Avicenna,@6; b2t Mai1onides ref2ses to dignify a pheno1enon restricted to the i1aginative fac2lty (ith the na1e of prophecy'@6@ Tr2e prophecy, in his acco2nt, takes place only (hen the rational and i1aginative fac2lties together enGoy the Ibid' ;'>- 9end:' Ibid' /';7' @6- See Co11entary on Mishnah, Sanhedrin -6'-H Mishneh Torah< Hilkot Tesh2bah A'78?' See above, p' -6.8-6' @6/ !2ide -'?@ 9?:, taken together (ith /, Introd2ction, proposition -7H -'?6' Ibn 0aGGaIs position, is disc2ssed above, p' -@>' On the s2bGect of i11ortality in Mai1onides, see Alt1ann A>8.-' @6; Above, pp' 7-, --.' @6@ The point is 1ade very sharply by Mai1onides in Sefer ha8Mif(ot, negative co11and1ents 4T;-H English translation< The Co11and1ents< Sefer ha8MitEvoth of Mai1onides, trans' C' Chavel 9 ondon -.7?:' @66 ;..
/6@
e1anation of the active intellect'@6> The e1anation fro1 the active intellect 12st co1e Mfirst to the rational fac2lty and then e1anate 2pon the i1aginative fac2lty'M@67 "or a 1an to J2alify for tr2e prophecy, Mthe s2bstance of his brainM 12st be, Mfro1 birth, in a state of co1plete balance, by reason of the p2rity of its 1atter and its blend'M The 1anIs i1aginative fac2lty, (hich is a f2nction of a part of the brain, (ill as a res2lt be s2perlatively strong and healthy' The 1an 12st Mst2dy,' '' pass fro1 potentiality to act2ality, and proc2re a h21an intellect in a perfect state'M He 12st in addition possess ethical virt2e, so that he can (ithstand the blandish1ents of corporeal pleas2res' And he 12st direct all his attention to Mkno(ledge of the secrets of the 2niverse,' ' ' kno(ledge of the 2niverseIs ca2ses,' ' ' and ' '' kno(ledge of !od'M If s2ch a 1anIs Mi1aginative fac2lty beco1es active, and there reaches it an e1anation fro1 the QactiveR intellect co11ens2rate (ith the 1anIsM intellect2al attain1ents, he M(ill see !od and His angelsM and learn Mtr2e opinions and general 1odes of govern1ent QtadbirH hanhagaR for the (elfare of 1ankind'M The prophetic e*perience 1ay occ2r in a Mdrea1M or in a MvisionMH (hen it occ2rs in a vision, the i1aginative fac2lty Msees the thing as if o2tside Qthe so2lR,M and the i1age Moriginating in it Qthat is, in the i1aginative fac2ltyR see1s to arrive thro2gh e*ternal perception'M The person vo2chsafed the e*perience stands at the Mhighest h21an level and the 2lti1ate perfection possible for his species'M@6? Khat Mai1onides has described as Mtr2e prophecyM is i1aginative prophecy in the case (here the active intellectIs e1anation affects the i1aginative fac2lty of a 1an of perfect intellect' &nder the infl2ence of the active intellect, the prophetIs i1aginative fac2lty Msees,M as it (ere, !od and the incorporeal intelligencesH that is to say, his i1aginative fac2lty depicts theoretical tr2ths fig2ratively' And Mai1onides e1phasiEes, 2ndo2btedly beca2se of the legal bias of the Le(ish religion, that codes of la( are also revealed to the prophet'@6A He has not yet 1entioned predictions of the f2t2re thro2gh tr2e prophecy b2t does so in a nearby passage' 0esides the pri1ary J2alifications for prophecy, there are, he (rites, secondary J2alifications, and one of the1 is the aptit2de of Mint2itionM 9sh2c2r: or MinsightM 9hads:' Int2ition, or insight, enables certain 1en to dra( rapid inferences fro1 kno(n events and predict the f2t2re, and (hen the 1en are prophets, int2ition, or insight, enables the1 to Mforetell f2t2re events in the shortest ti1e'M Khat is 1ore !2ide /';?' "or !od as the 2lti1ate so2rce of the e1anation, see above, p' 7-' Mai1onides, like Alfarabi, does not disting2ish bet(een a retentive and a co1positive i1agination' @67 Ibid' /';7' @6? Ibid'H Co11entary on Mishnah, Sanhedrin -6'-H Mishneh Torah< )esode ha8Torah ?'- 9(here the participation of the i1aginative fac2lty is not stated e*plicitly b2t only i1plied:' On seeing !odIs angels, see above, p' -/6' @6A !2ide /';7' @6>
/6>
i1portant, it also M2ndo2btedlyM enables Mtr2e prophetsM to attain Mtheoretical kno(ledgeM in instances (here Ma 1an co2ld not by 1ere spec2lation learn the ca2ses Qthat is, the pre1isesR fro1 (hich the proposition follo(s'M@6. ,rophecy, in other (ords, prod2ces gen2ine theoretical kno(ledge, as distinct fro1 the 1ere fig2rative depiction of theoretical tr2ths' !en2ine theoretical kno(ledge thro2gh prophecy recalls AvicennaIs intellect2al prophecy, b2t Mai1onidesI version has pec2liarities of its o(n' AvicennaIs intellect2al prophecy consisted in the intellect2al fac2ltyIs receiving the e1anation of the active intellect effortlessly, thanks to insight, and the res2lt (as scientific propositions' In Mai1onidesI version, both the h21an intellect and i1aginative fac2lty 12st participate in receiving the active intellectIs e1anation, (ith the aid of insightH and the res2lt is theoretical kno(ledge lying beyond ordinary h21an science, beyond the f2rthest li1it to (hich the h21an intellect can reach by itself' Mai1onides does not state (hether insight brings the prophet effortless kno(ledge of ordinary scientific tr2ths as (ell' Since he has said that a 1an 12st already 1aster all science before receiving prophecy, he (o2ld perhaps reGect prophetic kno(ledge of ordinary scientific tr2ths'@-6 The foregoing is Mai1onidesI acco2nt of the philosophersI position on prophecy, and it beco1es the core of his o(n position' The e1anation fro1 the active intellect (hich 2lti1ately derives fro1 !od, the participation of the i1aginative fac2lty, tr2e drea1s regarding the f2t2re and a fig2rative depiction of theoretical tr2th as the contents of i1aginative prophecyBCDthose ele1ents co1e fro1 Alfarabi and Avicenna' ,ec2liar to Avicenna is the contrib2tion of the aptit2de of insight, (hich enables the prophet to receive the e1anation of the active intellect effortlessly and thereby acJ2ire gen2ine theoretical tr2ths' T(o significant ele1ents in Mai1onidesI acco2nt of the philosophersI position on prophecy do not, ho(ever, co1e fro1 Alfarabi, Avicenna, or any other kno(n philosopher, and probably are original (ith hi1' They are the ref2sal to dignify the effect of the active intellect on the i1aginative fac2lty alone (ith the na1e of prophecy, and the assertion that thro2gh insight, the prophet can attain theoretical kno(ledge beyond the real1 of ordinary science' Mai1onidesI personal position on prophecy is co1pleted (hen he adds his t(o theological provisos to the philosophic position' The provisos are 9-: that prophecy is not a co1pletely a2to1atic and nat2ral pheno1enon, for !od can, if He so (ishes, stay the effect of the active intellectIs e1anation on the rational and i1aginative fac2lties, and thereby prevent those (ho are J2alified for prophecy fro1 receiving itH and 9/: that the philosophic theory of prophecy in no (ay covers the prophecy of Moses'@-@6. Ibid' /';A' The other secondary J2alification is bravery' In /'-7 9end:, Mai1onidesI e*a1ple of theoretical kno(ledge thro2gh prophecy is prophetic kno(ledge of the creation of the (orld' @-6 !(Ke /';A 9end:' Above, p' /6;, Mai1onides did recogniEe degrees in the prophetsI intellect2al attain1ents' @-- Ibid' /';/H ;>'
/67
To s211ariEe, the str2ct2re of the 2niverse and e1anation of the 2niverse fro1 the "irst Ca2se, (hich Mai1onides attrib2tes to Aristotle and says is shared by Script2re, the range of the active intellectIs f2nctions, (hich he like(ise attrib2tes to Aristotle and discovers in Script2re, his state1ents abo2t h21an intellect, (hich he i1plies are dra(n fro1 Aristotle or fro1 the MphilosophersM generally, and the theory of prophecy (hich he e*plicitly attrib2tes to the philosophers and aro2nd (hich he b2ilds his o(n position on prophecy, these all derive fro1 the Arabic Aristotelians, rather than fro1 Aristotle hi1self' Mai1onidesI 1ain philosophic (ork, the !2ide for the ,erple*ed, refers to Alfarabi and Ibn 0aGGa several ti1es by na1e,@-/ (hile never 1entioning Avicenna' )et of the Arabic Aristotelians, Avicenna is the one fro1 (ho1 Mai1onides borro(s 1ost, both in recording the vie(s of the philosophers and in delineating his o(n positions' Theses and details in Mai1onides for (hich Avicenna is the so2rce incl2de the e*plicit for12lation of the principle that fro1 the one only one can necessarily proceed, the e1anation of the 1atter of the s2bl2nar region fro1 the active intellect, the e1anation of all s2bl2nar for1s fro1 the active intellect, and the designation of the active intellect as the giver of for1s' In constr2ing the h21an rational fac2lty as a po(er or disposition in the h21an organis1, Mai1onides does not follo( Avicenna and 1ay be conscio2sly borro(ing fro1 Ibn 0aGGa' His ter1s for the stages of h21an intellectBCDpotential or 1aterial intellect, act2al intellect, acJ2ired intellectBCDare not defined very precisely, b2t his 2se of the ter1s reflects AlfarabiIs 2sage 1ore than AvicennaIs' The thesis that 1an obtains act2al intellect2al tho2ght by entering into conG2nction (ith the active intellect and receiving the active intellectIs e1anation brings 2s back again to Avicenna' The possibility of the h21an intellectIs having the active intellect as a direct obGect of tho2ght is co11on to Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Ibn 0aGGa, as is Mai1onidesI acco2nt of the centrality of the i1agination in prophecy' The part played by insight in sec2ring theoretical kno(ledge for the prophet effortlessly is, ho(ever, one 1ore point borro(ed fro1 Avicenna, altho2gh Mai1onides (orks o2t the notion of prophetic theoretical kno(ledge in his o(n (ay' Thro2gh a fe( caref2lly placed corrections, Mai1onides transfor1s the deis1 of the Arabic Aristotelians into a rationalistic theis1< Kith the help of arg21ents dra(n fro1 !haEaliIs critiJ2e of Avicenna, he ref2tes the e1anation sche1e of Alfarabi and Avicenna, insofar as the sche1e ass21es e1anation to occ2r necessarily' He can then concl2de that the e1anation of the 2niverse fro1 the "irst Ca2se takes place not by necessity b2t thro2gh an act of (ill, and is hence noneternal' Having established that the deity possesses (ill, he can also reserve for the deity the possibility of intervening in the prophetic process and staying the effect See ,inesI introd2ction to his translation of the !2ide 9n' ;7? above: I**i*, civ, evii' In a letter to L2dah Ibn Tibbon, Mai1onides ranks Avicenna belo( Alfarabi as a philosopher' See Steinschneider 9n' /?6 above: @/H A' Mar*, MTe*ts by and abo2t Mai1onides,M Le(ish P2arterly Revie( /> 9-.;>: ;A6' @-/
/6?
of the active intellectIs e1anation' And he e*e1pts the prophecy of the biblical Moses fro1 the philosophic definition of prophecy on no other gro2nds than the te*t of Script2re' Regarding h21an i11ortality, an iss2e (ith obvio2s ra1ifications for religion, Mai1onidesI rationalis1 o2t(eighed any religio2s scr2ples' He (rites that h21an i11ortality is the e*cl2sive o2tco1e of 1anIs intellect2al develop1ent and he refrains fro1 defending the individ2al i11ortality of the h21an so2l or intellect' Res21e' Hallevi o2tlines a pict2re of the 2niverse and a theory of h21an intellect, both of (hich he attrib2tes to 2nna1ed philosophers' He criticiEes those philosophers harshly b2t there2pon t2rns aro2nd and incorporates 12ch of their thinking into his o(n vie( of things' Ibn %a2d and Mai1onides also present acco2nts of the str2ct2re of the 2niverse and the nat2re of the h21an intellect in the na1e of Aristotle or 2nna1ed philosophers' &nlike Hallevi, they openly accept the sche1es they set forth, altho2gh (ith significant reservations' Khat is co11on to the three 1en is revealing' Each kne( Arabic and co2ld have read Avicenna if te*ts (ere available' Each s2b1its his acco2nt of the vie(s of the philosophers as if it (ere the syste1 of Aristotle or, in so1e sense, an official philosophic syste1' Each acco2nt is in fact an eclectic co1bination of doctrines fro1 the Arabic Aristotelians' Avicenna is not 1entioned by Hallevi, by Ibn %a2d, or by Mai1onides in his 1ain philosophic (ork' )et in each of the eclectic acco2nts, AvicennaIs positions predo1inate' "ro1 the thirteenth cent2ry on(ard, Le(ish philosophy (as cond2cted al1ost e*cl2sively in Hebre(, and Le(ish thinkers learned their philosophy pri1arily fro1 Hebre( translations of Mai1onides and Averroes' 3ey (orks of Alfarabi contin2ed to circ2late in Hebre( translation' There (as, by contrast, virt2ally no direct acJ2aintance (ith Avicenna, at least as regards the s2bGects (e are st2dying'@-; $evertheless, thro2gh the 1edi21 of Hallevi, Ibn %a2d, Mai1onides, and one or t(o others (ho read Avicenna in Arabic, that philosopher left a solid 1ark on s2bseJ2ent Le(ish philosophy' The follo(ing theses deriving fro1 Alfarabi and 1ore especially fro1 Avicenna appear a1ong Le(ish philosophic (riters fro1 the thirteenth to the si*teenth cent2ries< the theory of s2ccessive e1anations, (hich is often cited for the p2rpose of ref2ting it@-@H the identification of the active intellect
@-;
!ersonides, Milha1ot ha8She1 9%ie 3a1pfe !ottes: 9 eipEig -A77: >';'AH English translation of Mil ha1o t -8@< evi ben !ersho1, The Kars of the ord, trans' S' "eld1an 9,hiladelphia -.A@8-.A?:H Abraha1 Shalo1, $e(eh Shalo1 9#enice ->?>: -'-@, /-bH see H' %avidson, The ,hilosophy of Abraha1 Shalo1 90erkeley -.7@: @?8 @AH eone Ebreo, %ialoghi dIA1ore, ed' S' Cara1ella 90ari -./.: /A-8A@ 9nonco11ittal:H disc2ssed by H' %avidson, MMedieval Le(ish ,hilosophy in the Si*teenth Cent2ry,M in Le(ish Tho2ght in the Si*teenth Cent2ry, ed' 0' Cooper1an
9Ca1bridge, Mass' -.A;: -/?8/A'
/?-'
On the translations into Hebre( of the (orks of Alfarabi and Avicenna, see above, nn' /?6,
@-@
/6A
as the last of the incorporeal intelligences@->H e1anation of the 1atter of the s2bl2nar (orld fro1 the active intellect@-7H e1anation of s2bl2nar for1s fro1 the active intellect 2pon properly blended 1atter@-?H the appellation Mgiver of for1sM for the active intellect@-AH the h21an so2l as an incorporeal s2bstance@-.H the e1anation of h21an intelligible tho2ght fro1 the active intellect@/6H prophecy thro2gh an e1anation of the active intellect arriving in the h21an intellect and giving rise to instantaneo2s theoretical kno(ledge@/-H forekno(ledge of the f2t2re thro2gh prophecy, or 1erely tr2e drea1s, thro2gh an e1anation 2pon the h21an i1aginative fac2lty fro1 either the active intellect,@// or the so2ls of the celestial spheres@/;H and h21an e2dae1onia as conG2nction (ith the active intellect or (ith !od'@/@
R2ah Hen 90erlin -.;6: ;, p' .H She1 Tob "alaJ2era, Moreh ha8Moreh 9,ressb2rg -A;?: -@-H M2sa al8 a(i, 2ntitled treatise, trans' !' #aGda, M&n cha1pion de -Iavicennis1e,M Rev2e tho1iste @A 9-.@A: >6?H !ersonides, Milha1ot -'7, @>H >';'-; 9the strange thesis that the active intellect co1es into e*istence thro2gh a collective e1anation of all the intelligences:' Medieval Le(ish philosophers (ho accept a $eoplatonic pict2re of the 2niverse so1eti1es attach the na1e active intellect to the $eoplatonic cos1ic intellect' E*a1ples< S' Ibn !abirol, "ons vitae 9n' ;@6 above: >, 4T-., p' /.@H iJJ2ti1 9n' ;@6 above: >, 4T/>H pse2do80ahya, 3' Macani al8$afs, ed' I' !oldEiher 90erlin -.6?: >@H proto8Cabalistic te*ts cited by A' "arber, MOn the So2rces of Moses de eonIs Early 3abbalistic Syste1,M in St2dies in Le(ish Mysticis1, ,hilosophy, and Ethical iterat2re 9Tishby "estschrift: 9Ler2sale1 -.A7: ??8?A, A/ 9in Hebre(:' @-7 M2sa al8 a(i >6?' @-? R2ah Hen -6, p' ;.H Moses ben $ah1an, Co11entary on the ,entate2ch, evitic2s -?<--H English translation< Co11entary on the Torah, trans' C' Chavel 9$e( )ork -.?--.?7:H M2sa al8 a(i >6?H !ersonides, Milha1ot -'7, @-H -'A, >6H >';'-;, /A.H A' Shalo1, $e(eh Shalo1 ?'/'@,--/aH ?'/'7, -->bH %avidson, ,hilosophy of Abraha1 Shalo1 >-8>/' @-A R2ah Hen -6, p' ;.H !ersonides, Milha1ot -'7, @;H M' Isserles 9a si*teenth8cent2ry rabbinic scholar:, Torat ha8cOla 9 e1berg -A>A: -'7b' @-. In the eleventh cent2ry, 0ahya Ibn ,aJ2da 9n' ;@6 above: /'>H -6'-, constr2ed the h21an so2l as a Msi1pleM or Mlight8like spirit2al s2bstance'M Above, p' -./, Hallevi (as seen to constr2e the h21an so2l as an incorporeal s2bstance' After Mai1onides, si1ilar constr2ctions of the h21an so2l are fo2nd in< Hasdai Crescas, Or Ha8She1 9#ienna -A>.: /'7'-, >;b8>@aH Loseph Albo, Sefer ha8clkkari1 9ha8clJJari1:, ed' and trans' I' H2sik 9,hiladelphia -.@7: @'/., pp' /A;8A>H A' Shalo1, $e(eh Shalo1 9n' @-@ above: A'., -@@aH --'A, -.AbH %avidson, ,hilosophy of Abraha1 Shalo1 9n' @-@ above: A/8A;' @/6 She1 Tob "alaJ2era, Sefer ha8$efesh, ed' and trans, in R' Lospe, Torah and Sophia 9Cincinnati -.AA:, chap' -A, pp' ;-; 9Hebre( te*t:, ;@7 9English translation:' @/l R2ah Hen @, p' -;' !ersonides, Milha1ot /'@' A' Shalo1, $e(eh Shalo1 7'-, AAbA.aH 7'>, .;bH b2t see 7'/, A.bH %avidson, ,hilosophy of Abraha1 Shalo1 .>8..' @// R2ah Hen @, p' -;' @/; !ersonides, Milha1ot /'7, --@' !ersonides, ibid' /'/8;, e*plains that prophetic forekno(ledge res2lts fro1 an e1anation of the active intellect on the h21an
intellect' In /'7, he 1aintains that nonprophetic forekno(ledge thro2gh drea1s 12st res2lt fro1 an e1anation of the so2ls of the spheres 2pon the h21an i1aginative fac2lty' Altho2gh !ersonides had no direct acJ2aintance (ith Avicenna, this latter thesis recalls AvicennaIs position' @/@ R2ab Hen ;, pp' -68--H She1 Tob "alaJ2era, Moreh ha8Moreh 9n' @-> above: -@-8@/H !ersonides, Milha1ot @'@, -7> 9conG2nction only in a loose senseH see ibid' -'-/:'
@l>
/6.
Alfarabi and Avicenna see1 even to have infiltrated the theosophical doctrine kno(n as the Cabala' The distinctive doctrine of the 1edieval Cabala is an e1anation process taking place (ithin !od Hi1self' Thro2gh the internal e1anation, ten divine aspects e1erge' The tenth and last of the aspects serves as the channel thro2gh (hich e*istence, h21an so2ls, and the holy a( are e1anated into the real1 o2tside of !odH@/> and h21an e2dae1onia consists in reascending to a state of conG2nction (ith one or another of the divine aspects'@/7 Those plainly are not the philosophic doctrines (e have been e*a1ining, b2t the si1ilarities can hardly be fort2ito2s'
Reverberations in Scholastic ,hilosophy In the t(elfth cent2ry, the atin (orld received a corn2copia of translations of !reek and Arabic philosophic (orks' A1ong the1 (ere AlfarabiIs Risdlafialc AJl, kno(n vario2sly as %e intellect2, %e intellect2 et intellecto, and %e intelligentiis@/?H the parts of AvicennaIs 1ost co1prehensive (ork (hich bear 1ost directly on o2r s2bGect, na1ely, the %e ani1a and Metaphysics of the ShifaI@/AH and !haEaliIs s211ary of AvicennaIs philosophy' The pertinent parts Moses ben $ah1an, Co11entary on the ,entate2ch, !enesis -<--, /7H /<? 9in his co11entary on evitic2s -?<--, Moses ben $ah1an 1entions the philosophersI theory that the active intellect e1anates ani1al so2ls:H Lacob ben Sheshet, cited by !' #aGda, L2da ben $issi1 ibn Malka 9,aris -.>@: ?? 9(hat the philosophers s2pposed to be an active intellect located at the end of the hierarchy of intelligences is Maccording to 2sM a part of the godhead:H M' Recanati, Co11entary on the ,entate2ch, !enesis -</7H --<@H E*od2s ;<-;' On 1edieval atte1pts to coordinate the cabalistic aspects of !od (ith the philosophic incorporeal intelligences, see A' Alt1ann, MMoses $arboniIs IEpistle on Shic2r Po1a,IM in Alt1ann 9n' ;A/ above: -@78@?' @/7 Moses ben $ah1an, Co11entary on the ,entate2ch, %e2terono1y --<//H I' Tishby, Mishnat ha8 Fohar / 9Ler2sale1 -.7-: /./8.;, ;6/8>H !' Schole1, M%evek2th or Co112nion (ith CodM Revie( of Religion -@ 9-.@.8-.>6: -->8-?,-/68//, and -/.8;6 9(here Schole1 is s2rprised that altho2gh eighteenth8 and nineteenth8cent2ry ,olish Hasidis1 dee1phasiEed intellect2al val2es, 1any in the 1ove1ent describe conG2nction Qdebek2tR as Mreached by a fi*ation of oneIsM tho2ght Q1ahshavahR or intellect QsekelR on !od:H !' Schole1 3abbalah 9$e( )ork -.?@ : -?@8?7' A' Ab2lafia, (ho is co11only 9and perhaps incorrectly: classified as a Cabalist, speaks repeatedly of the conG2nction of the h21an intellect (ith the active intellect, altho2gh (hat the active intellect 1eans fro1 hi1 is not clear to 1eH see passages J2oted by M' Idel, The Mystical E*perience in Abraha1 Ab2lafia 9Albany -.AA: -/A8;;' @/? The atin te*t is edited by E' !ilson, in M es so2rces grfico8arabes de ,a2g2stinis1e avicennissant,M Archives dIhistoire doctrinale et litteraire d2 1oyen age @ 9-.;6: -6A8 /7' @/A The atin translation of ShifaI< %e ani1a 9n' .- above: has been preserved in no less than fifty 1an2scripts, fo2nd in the libraries of ten E2ropean co2ntries' The
te*t (as edited by S' van Riet, as iber de ani1a se2 se*t2s de nat2ralib2s, / vols' 9 o2vain -.7A8-.?/:H the 1an2scripts are described in vol' -, -6>[8--/[' ShifaI< Lldhiyyat 9n' @. above: (as translated into atin as iber de philosophia pri1a sive scientia divinaH it (as edited by S' van Riet, / @/>
/-6
of the ShifaI as (ell as !haEaliIs s211ary (ere translated in the 1iddle of the cent2ry, and AlfarabiIs Risdla (as probably translated at abo2t the sa1e ti1e' The translations of Avicenna have been preserved in an i1pressive n21ber of 1an2scripts, the 1an2scripts are spread thro2gho2t the libraries of E2rope, and citations of Avicenna by scholastic philosophers also abo2nd' There are th2s good gro2nds for s2pposing that, (hether in their o(n right or as an interpretation of Aristotle, his (ritings aro2sed considerable interest' $evertheless, AvicennaIs i1pact (as not large in the areas that concern 2s, and AlfarabiIs i1pact (as still s1aller' T(o 1inor atin te*ts do follo( Avicenna on certain pivotal points' The first of the t(o is a s1all co1position dating fro1 the late t(elfth or early thirteenth cent2ry, (hich is entitled %e ca2sis pri1is et sec2ndis et de fl2*2 J2i conseJ2it2r eas or, in other 1an2scripts, %e pri1is et sec2ndis s2bstantiis et de fl2*2 ear21' The a2thor is 2nkno(nH one of the three 1an2scripts na1es no a2thor, (hile the others credit Avicenna hi1self (ith the a2thorship'@/. Khen treating the derivation of the 2niverse fro1 the "irst Ca2se, the co1position states that the first ca2sed intelligence contains t(o aspects, its being Mpossible in itself and its having Man intellect2al nat2re in itself'M "ro1 the t(o aspects there flo(BCDif I 2nderstood correctly8BCDMthe corporeality ''' of the o2ter1ost heavenM and the Mo2ter1ost heavenIs for1,M or Mso2l'M@;6 The ter1inology and the distinction bet(een the ca2se of the sphereIs body and the ca2se of its so2l plainly co1e fro1 Avicenna, yet AvicennaIs position is not represented at all precisely' The te*t does not, for instance, 1ention the first intelligenceIs tho2ght of its ca2se, the first intelligenceIs tho2ght of itself as a necessarily e*istent being, or the e1anation of the ne*t intelligence in the hierarchy'@;- A later passage reprod2ces a different thesis of AvicennaIs 1ore faithf2lly' H21an tho2ght, the anony1o2s a2thor here tells 2s, takes place (hen Mthe active intellect,M (hich e1bodies Mthe 12ltit2de of for1s,' '' conGoinsM (ith the Mpotential intellectM in a certain 1ode Mof conG2nction'M 9Alternative, possible translation, (hich (ill reflect Avicenna even 1ore closely< (hen Mthe potential intellect' ' ' conGoinsM (ith Mthe active intellect' ' ''M: Thro2gh conG2nction (ith the active intellect, the potential intellect is
vols' 9 o2vain -.??8-.A6:' T(enty8five 1an2scripts containing the entire te*t, and distrib2ted thro2gh the libraries of E2rope, have been preserved, and other 1an2scripts have frag1entsH see vanRiet, vol' -, -/@[8-/>[, -/A[8-/.[' @/. R' de #a2*, $otes et te*tes s2r IIAvicennis1e atin 9,aris -.;@: 7;87@, 7A87.' The te*t (as printed together (ith atin versions of several (orks of AvicennaBCDincl2ding the %e anitna and Metaphysics of the ShifaIBCDand AlfarabiIs %e intellect2 9called %e intelligentiis: in a vol21e p2blished in #enice, ->6A' %e #a2* 7;8-@6, provides a critical, annotated edition of the te*t' @;6 %e #a2* ?@, -6-' @;-
@/A above: /'@A-' Cf' above, n' 7'
Avicenna, ShifaI< Ildhiyydt 9n' @. above: @6>H atin< iber de philosophia pri1a 9n'
/--
Mill21inated, ' ' ' receives a for1 fro1 the active intellect,M and beco1es Mact2al'M@;/ 0oth the passage regarding the e1anation of the o2ter1ost sphere and the passage regarding the e1anation of h21an tho2ght repeat theses lying at the heart of AvicennaIs philosophy' They are (oven together (ith less distinctive theses of Avicenna b2t also (ith paraphrases or J2otations fro1 other so2rcesBCDfro1 the iber de ca2sis, fro1 A2g2stine, fro1 Lohn Scot2s Erigena, and, thro2gh Erigena, fro1 !regory of $yssa and pse2do8%ionysi2s the Areopagite'@;; The iber de ca2sis is a paraphrase of sections of one of ,rocl2sI (orks, and Erigena as (ell as pse2do8 %ionysi2s betray $eoplatonic inspiration' To so1e e*tent, they therefore share a co11on backgro2nd (ith Avicenna' The anony1o2s a2thor of o2r (ork does not, ho(ever, integrate AvicennaIs positions (ith (hat he takes fro1 his other so2rces and 1erely concocts an e1anationist pot po2rri' The second 1inor te*t that follo(s Avicenna carries the stereotyped title %e ani1a' So1e, altho2gh not all, of the 1an2scripts na1e %o1inic !2ndissalin2s, a 1an (ho participated in the translation of Avicenna into atin, as the a2thor,@;@ b2t a st2dy of the contents has 2nearthed ele1ents that do not sit (ell (ith the attrib2tion to !2ndissalin2s'@;> This second co1position borro(s 12ch 1ore fro1 Avicenna than the previo2s one' Once again, tho2gh, AvicennaIs vie(s are te1pered (ith 1aterial of a different provenance and different character' Kitho2t ever 1entioning Avicenna by na1e, the atin %e ani1a repeats his arg21ent fro1 the pre1ise that the so2l serves as the s2bstrat21 for indivisible tho2ghts to the concl2sion that the so2l is an indivisible, and hence incorporeal, s2bstance@;7 and also his arg21ents for the i11ortality of the h21an so2l'@;? The treatise refers to the MphilosophersQIRM proof that h21an Mso2ls''' are created by the angels,M altho2gh (ith the stip2lation that !od, acting thro2gh the instr21entality of the angels, has 2lti1ate responsibility for creating so2ls'@;A It copies, virt2ally verbati1, AvicennaIs three stages of h21an potentiality for tho2ght, these being the M1aterial intellect,M Mintellect in habit2M and Mact2al intellect'M ike Avicenna, it ill2strates the three stages by three levels in the h21an potentiality for (riting' It J2otes AvicennaIs thesis that (hen the h21an potential intellect %e #a2* ?A, -;6' See Avicenna, ShifaI< %e ani1a 9n' .- above: /;>8;7H atin translation 9n' @/A above: /'-/AH above, p' .;' @;; %e #a2* 7>877, ?/8A6' @;@ L' M2ckle, MThe Treatise %e Ani1a of %o1inic2s !2ndissalin2sM 9annotated edition of the te*t:, 9henceforth cited as< !2ndissalin2s QNR, %e ani1a: Mediaeval St2dies / 9-.@6: /A8/.' @;> %e #a2* -@@8@>' @;7 !2ndissalin2s 9N:, %e ani1a ;?8;., paralleling ShifaI< %e ani1a /6.8-.H atin translation of ShifaI /'A-8.A' See above, p' A;' On p' ;?, the !2ndissalin2s te*t repeats AvicennaIs floating 1an arg21entH see above, p' A;, n' ;A' @;? !2ndissalin2s 9N:, %e ani1a 7-87;, paralleling ShifaI< %e ani1a //?8;;H atin translation of ShifaI /'--;8-/@' See above, pp' -6?8A' @;A !2ndissalin2s 9N:, %e ani1a >-' @;/
/-/
MconGoins (ithM the active intellect in Ma certain 1ode of conG2nction,''' a species Qthat is, a concept2al copyR of QintelligibleR for1s, (hich is acJ2ired fro1 (itho2t, is i1printed inM the h21an intellect' And it accordingly calls act2al h21an tho2ght Mintellect acJ2ired Qadept2sR fro1 (itho2t'M@;. As it proceeds, the treatise reprod2ces AvicennaIs analysis of the sit2ation in (hich a person is confident that he can ans(er a theoretical J2estion even before for12lating the ans(er, and AvicennaIs arg21ent fro1 the pheno1enon of intellect2al 1e1oryH and it finds, as Avicenna did, that to learn a tho2ght is to MacJ2ire a perfect disposition for conGoining Qat (illR (ith the active intellectM vis a vis the given tho2ght'@@6 "inally, it e*plains that MinsightM 9s2btilitas, ingeni21: is an inborn aptit2de for MconGoining (ith the QactiveR intellectM effortlessly' A 1an (ho Mb2rns (ith insightM receives Mfro1 the active intellect Qthe ans(ers toR all J2estions, i1printed fir1ly Qin hi1selfR, instantaneo2sly or al1ost so,M and in receiving kno(ledge, the 1an of insight is vo2chsafed Mthe 1iddle ter1sM as (ell as the concl2sions of syllogis1s' Theoretical kno(ledge thro2gh s2perlative insight is a M1ode of prophecy, ' '' higher than all the po(ers of prophecyH ''' Qit isR appropriately called holy intellect,'' ' QandR is a higher levelM than any other h21an Mpo(er Qor< fac2ltyR'M@@- The passages that have been J2oted cover all the significant aspects of AvicennaIs theory of intellect' The final chapter in the treatise then s2ddenly veers off on another tack' 0orro(ing a distinction fro1 0oethi2s, the a2thor differentiates bet(een h21an Mscience,M (hich falls (ithin the scope of 1anIs Mintellect,M and h21an M(isdo1,M (hich is a brand of kno(ledge attainable only thro2gh a different h21an fac2lty called Mintelligence'M Earlier, the treatise had affir1ed that since a high degree of insight enables the h21an intellect to conGoin effortlessly (ith the active intellect and receive i11ediate theoretical kno(ledge, insight constit2tes the highest h21an po(er' It no(, by contrast, s2b1its that the so2lIs tr2e goal is not MscienceM at all b2t M(isdo1,M and the so2l reaches that goal (hen the Meye of the so2l, (hich is intelligence,M conte1plates Mthe creatorM thanks to a light radiated by !od hi1selfBCDM(herefore the prophet says< IO ord, in yo2r light (e shall see light'IM@@/
Ibid' A?8AA, paralleling ShifaI< %e ani1a @A8>6H atin translation of ShifaI -'.>8..' The atin translation e*ists In t(o slightly different versions 9van Riet, iber de ani1a, n' @/A above, -'-6.[:, and in one versionBCDprobably the originalBCDacJ2ired intellect is ter1ed intellects acco11odat2s rather than intellect2s adept2s' @@6 !2ndissalin2s 9N:, %e ani1a .-8.@, paralleling ShifaI< %e ani1a /@-8@?H atin translation of ShifaI /'-;A8-@.' See above, p' A.' @@- !2ndissalin2s 9N:, %e ani1a .>8 .7, paralleling ShifaI< %e ani1a /@.8>6H atin translation of ShifaI /'->-8->;' See above, pp' --?8-A' The atin translation of the ShifaI falls into so1e conf2sion in its handling of the ter1 insight' @@/ !2ndissalin2s 9N: %e ani1a .A8..H cf' !ilson 9n' @/? above: A>8./' The verse is ,sal1s ;7<-6'
@;.
/-;
The %e ani1a attrib2ted to !2ndissalin2s th2s reprod2ces and apparently s2bscribes to AvicennaIs theory of intellect, yet the a2thor or, conceivably, a correcting hand felt that Avicenna co2ld not be allo(ed to stand by hi1self' Earlier (e sa( Isla1ic (riters of a 1ystical bent overlaying AvicennaIs theory of intellect (ith the doctrine of a direct e*perience that s2rpasses intellect2al tho2ght' In a si1ilar fashion, the present te*t overlays AvicennaIs theory (ith the doctrine, inspired by an older Christian theology, of an intellect2al activity s2rpassing ordinary ratiocination' Khen (e t2rn to other Scholastic philosophers, (e find that neither the str2ct2re of the transl2nar (orld envisioned by the Arabic Aristotelians, nor the e1anation sche1e of Alfarabi and Avicenna, (on a sy1pathetic reception'@@; The e1anation of nat2ral for1s in general fro1 the active intellect and the e1anation of h21an so2ls in partic2lar, theses that co2ld have been learned fro1 either AlfarabiIs Risala fi al8cAJl 9%e intellect2: or Avicenna, did gain a very li1ited follo(ing' Lohn 0l2nd 9d' -/@A: disting2ishes the Mfirst giver of for1sM fro1 the MintelligenceM that, according to Ma n21ber of (riters,M serves as the inter1ediary of the first giver of for1s'@@@ 0y first giver of for1s, 0l2nd plainly 1eans the "irst Ca2se' He then (rites that (hen 1atter is properly prepared to receive a h21an so2l, a so2l is Me1anated fro1 the first giver of for1s'M His position is, in a (ord, that h21an so2ls are indeed e1anated fro1 (itho2t 2pon properly prepared 1atter b2t that the so2rce is !od Hi1self'@@> Albert the !reat 9-/678-/A6: has left an enor1o2s corp2s of (ritings, enco1passing borro(ings that are not al(ays f2lly assi1ilated and, as a res2lt, not al(ays consistent' He repeatedly lays do(n the principle that E*a1ples< Killia1 of A2vergne dis1isses, on both religio2s and philosophic gro2nds, the e*planation of celestial 1otion thro2gh a desire that so2ls of the spheres have to i1itate Incorporeal intelligences' He contends that the s2pposition of intelligences and so2ls of spheres arrogates to the1 f2nctions properly belonging to the deityH and the s2pposition that desire to e12late an intelligence 1ight ind2ce a celestial so2l to 1ake its sphere rotate contin2ally is, fro1 a logical standpoint, Mridic2lo2sM and Mi1possible'M The reasoning is c2rio2sly si1ilar in spirit to that of L2dah Hallevi' Killia1 also reGects the e1anation of h21an so2ls fro1 the active intellect' See E' !ilson, M,o2rJ2oi Saint Tho1as a critiJ2e Saint A2g2stin,M Archives dIhistoire doctrinale et litteraire -'@.8>-H %e #a2* 9n' @/. above: /7, n' -H ;-8;/' Lohn 0l2nd, (ho on other iss2es betrays the infl2ence of both Aristotle and Avicenna, reGects the e*istence of celestial so2ls andIl*plains the 1otion of the spheres by their Mnat2re'M See Lohn 0l2nd, Tractat2s de ani1a, ed' %' Call2s and R' H2nt 9 ondon -.?6: 4T-6' Albert the !reat, (hose vast corp2s is not al(ays consistent, so1eti1es arg2es against the constr2ction of the active intellect as the tenth and last of the incorporeal intelligences, b2t in one (ork does recogniEe celestial intelligences and an intellect M2niversally active in the lo(er (orld'M See Albert2s Magn2s, %e intellect2 /'., in Opera o1nia, ed' A' 0orgnet . 9,aris -A.6: >-7H A' Schneider, %ie ,sychologie Alberts des !rossen 9M2enster -.6;8-.67: 90eitrage E2r !eschichte der ,hilosophie des Mittelalters @'>87: ?/8?;, -A., ;76' AJ2inas ref2tes the e1anation
sche1e of MAvicenna,M the conception of the active intellect as a transcendent being, and MAvicennaQIsRM arg21ent fro1 intellect2al 1e1ory' See S211a contra gentiles /'@/, ?@, ?7H S211a theologiae -'@?'-H -'?.';, @, 7' @@@ Lohn 0l2nd, Tractat2s de ani1a, 4T;@@' @@> Ibid' 4T;7-' @@;
/-@
fro1 one only one can proceed b2t probably never had the intention of accepting its applicability to the deity'@@7 So1eti1es he reGects the e1anation of nat2ral for1s fro1 the active intellect, (hile else(here, on the contrary, he accepts the e1anation of nat2ral for1s fro1 the Mintelligence,M or fro1 the Mactive intellect'M Here, he is si1ply inconsistent'@@? Regarding the h21an so2l in partic2lar, he in one (ork ref2tes the notion that the last of the intelligences is the so2rce of the h21an rational so2l and instead identifies !od as the so2rce'@@A In other (orks, he apparently conflates the active intellect of the Arabic Aristotelians, the cos1ic Intellect of $eoplatonic philosophy, and the deityH and he calls !od Mthe giver of for1s'M@@. Khatever Albert in fact believed, of interest for 2s are the threads dra(n fro1 Avicenna (hich he intert(ines (ith other notions'@>6 Alfarabi and Avicenna probably 1ade their strongest 1ark 2pon the atin (orld by helping convince a fair n21ber of thirteenth8cent2ry Scholastics that the active intellect, in the original sense of the agent leading the h21an potential intellect to act2ality, is an incorporeal being transcending the h21an so2l' Credit for teaching the transcendent constr2ction of the active intellect to the atin (orld has to be shared, ho(ever, for that constr2ction co2ld also have discovered in the %e intellect2 attrib2ted to Ale*ander of Aphrodisias, (hich circ2lated in atin by the end of the t(elfth cent2ry@>-H the "ons vitae of Solo1on Ibn !abirol 9Avicebron:, (hich (as translated by the sa1e circle that rendered AvicennaIs (ritings in atin and (hich evoked considerable interestH and AverroesI ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a, (hich (as translated abo2t -/;6 and (hich also (as (idely read' Ibn !abirol espo2sed a $eoplatonic sche1e of "irst Essence=Intellect=So2l=$at2re, rather than the e1anation sche1e of Alfarabi and AvicennaH b2t he attached the na1e Mactive intellectM to the cos1ic Intellect, the second hypostasis in his $eoplatonic hierarchy, and th2s Goined the co1pany of those endorsing a transcendent active intellect'@>/ In -/7?, (hen the transcendent constr2ction already had a certain follo(ing, one 1ore (ork, The1isti2sI ,araphrase of the %e M' !rab1ann, Mittelalterliches !eistesleben / 9M2nich -.;7: /AA8A., /./8.;, ;6-8.' Schneider ;@68@-' So1eti1es Albert2s 1akes clear that he (as recording philosophic doctrines (itho2t intending to affi* his o(n endorse1entH see !rab1ann /.@8.?' ' 3ennedy, MSt' Albert the !reatIs %octrine of %ivine Ill21ination,M The Modern School1an @6 9-.7/: ;>;?, proposes a develop1ent in AlbertIs positions regarding the 1anner in (hich 1an acJ2ires kno(ledge' @@A Albert2s, %e intellect2 et intelligibili -'-'@, in Opera o1nia .'@A-8@A;' English translation< Selections fro1 Medieval ,hilosophers -, ed' and trans' R' Mc3eon 9$e( )ork -./.: ;;@8;A' @@. Schneider ?;8?A' @>6 The state1ents J2oted in the previo2s t(o notes can be har1oniEed by 2nderstanding that the deity, also kno(n as the active intellect, the cos1ic Intellect, and the giver of for1s, is the agent (ho creates h21an so2ls' See Schneider ?A8A6' @>- !' Thery, A2to2r d2 decret de -/-6<-BCDAle*andre 9 e Sa2lchoir -./7: A/8A;' @>/ S' Ibn !abirol, "ons vitae 9n' @-> above: >, 4T-., p' /.@H e*cerpts in 1edieval Hebre( translation< iJJ2ti1 9n' @-> above: >, 4T/>'
@@? @@7
/->
ani1a, (as translated into atin and added its s2pport' The1isti2s envisaged a single transcendent active intellect fro1 (hich rays proceed and enter the so2ls of individ2al 1en'@>; A1ong the Scholastics (ho (ere e*posed to the atin translations of Alfarabi, Avicenna, and the others, Killia1 of A2vergne 9d' -/@.: reGected the e*istence of an active intellect Mthat generates h21an so2ls,M as (ell as the e*istence of an active intellect, (hether located inside or o2tside the h21an so2l, that leads the h21an fac2lty for tho2ght fro1 potentiality to act2ality' He ho(ever did, follo(ing the lead of A2g2stine, recogniEe a Mlight''' fro1 above,M that is to say, a light fro1 !od, (hich ill21inates the h21an intellect'@>@ A report trans1itted by Roger 0acon s2ggests that, (ith the notion of !odIs being the ill21inator of the h21an so2l as a f2lcr21, Killia1 (as 1ane2vered, in p2blic disp2tations, into accepting the appellation active intellect for !od'@>> 0acon f2rther reports that in the co2rse of a disp2tation, Ada1 of Marsh 9d' bet(een -/>. and -/7.:, (hose (ritings have not been preserved, e*plicitly eJ2ated the active intellect (ith !od, and that Robert !rossteste 9--?>8-/>;: (as a third thinker (ho acJ2iesced in the eJ2ation'@>7 Ale*ander of Hales 9d' -/@>: acco11odates an active intellect located in the h21an so2l (ith a divine ill21ination fro1 (itho2t' He acco2nts for ordinary h21an intelligible tho2ght thro2gh the internal active intellectH and he holds that 1an needs the ill21ination fro1 !od for s2pernat2ral, as distinct fro1 nat2ral, kno(ledge' He 1oreover concedes indirectly that since !od is the so2rce of the s2pernat2ral ill21ination, !od 1ay be called the Mactive intellect'M@>? Albert the !reatIs (ritings contain both passages insisting that the active intellect e*ists (ithin the h21an so2l and other passages recogniEing a transcendent active intellect' Since Albert f2rther e*plains that the internal active intellect reJ2ires the aid of a divine ill21ination in order to perfor1 its f2nction of prod2cing intelligible tho2ghts, his differing state1ents on the location of the active intellect have been har1oniEed as 1eaning that the e*ternal active intellect, pres21ably the deity hi1self, enables the internal active intellect to do its (ork'@>A So1e state1ents of AlbertIs regarding the active intellect nevertheless resist har1oniEation' In one spot, he caref2lly ref2tes AvicennaIs arg21ent fro1 intellect2al 1e1ory, together The1isti2s, Co11entaire s2r le Traite de IIa1e dIAristote, trad2ction de !2illa21e de Moerbeke, ed' !' #erbeke 9 eiden -.?;: vii' Regarding The1isti2sI position, see above, p' -@' @>@ !ilson 9n' @@; above: >A8>., ?-, ?.H %e #a2* 9n' @/. above: /7, n' -' @>> !ilson 9n' @@; above: ?-, ?78??, A-8A;' @>7 Ibid' A-, n' -' !llson .-, finds that !rosstesteIs (ritings recogniEe A2g2stineIs doctrine of divine ill21ination, b2t do not e*plicitly identify !od as the active intellect' @>? Ibid' A7, n' /' Ale*ander takes 2p a possible arg21ent in favor of an incorporeal active intellect, and he responds that the arg21ent sho(s only that 1an needs an ill21ination fro1 !od for s2pernat2ral kno(ledge' He neither reGects nor e*pressly accepts the i1plication that !od 1ay therefore be called the e*ternal active intellect' @>A Schneider 9n' @@; above: ;@;8@A' @>;
/-7
(ith the arg21entIs concl2sion that the h21an intellect receives intelligible tho2ghts directly fro1 the active intellect, and that Mto learnM a tho2ght is Mto acJ2ire a perfect aptit2de for conGoining (ith the active intellect'M@>. Else(here, by contrast, he arg2es (holly in the spirit of Avicenna not only that act2al h21an tho2ght depends on an incorporeal agent b2t that intelligible for1s e1anate directly fro1 the incorporeal agent 2pon the h21an so2l'@76 And in still other state1ents, he echoes Alfarabi 1ore than AvicennaBCDaltho2gh he chooses to cite Averroes, rather than either Alfarabi or Avicenna, as his a2thority'@7- He affir1s that 2pon the h21an intellectIs attaining perfection, the Mincorporeal''' active intellectM MconGoins (ith the Qh21anR possible intellect as its for1MH Mthis co1po2ndM of the t(o intellects Mis intellect can then have MincorporealM s2bstances as the obGect of its tho2ght'@7/ Lohn ,eckha1 9d' -/./: is an additional philosopher recogniEing both an i11anent and a s2pernal active intellect' "or he locates a Mcreated active intellectM in the h21an so2lH and he also 1aintains that the h21an intellect cannot pass to act2ality in respect to any intelligible tho2ght (itho2t the aid of an e*ternal Mlight,M that the MlightM or Ms2nM ill21inating the h21an intellect is M!od,M and that therefore M!odM is the Mactive intellect of (hich the ,hilosopher QAristotleR spoke'M@7; #ario2s (orks of Roger 0acon 9d' after -/./: like(ise affir1 an i11anent active intellect, a s2pernal, incorporeal active intellect, and the identification of the s2pernal active intellect (ith !od' Since, ho(ever, the disparate state1ents appear in different (orks of 0acon and are not coordinated by hi1, scholars have differed as to ho( he sho2ld be read' He has, on the one hand, been 2nderstood as affir1ing an i11anent active intellect side by side (ith an e*ternal active intellect, and identifying the latter as !od@7@H on the other hand, his differing state1ents on the active intellect have been taken as reflecting different, s2ccessive phases in his tho2ght'M@7> To cite the e*a1ple of one 1ore Scholastic (riter, Roger Marston 9end of the thirteenth cent2ry: s2b1its that the position Mof the philosopher QAristotleR @>. @76
called divine, acJ2ired Qadept2sR intellect by the ,eripateticsMH and the h21an
Ibid' /6.8--' Ibid' ;@-8@/' ' 3ennedy 9n' @@? above: /., n' @6' @7- @7- ' 3ennedy, MThe $at2re of the H21an Intellect according to St' Albert,M The Modern School1an ;? 9-.76: -;68;-, nn' >?, 76, 7-' Regarding the 1anner in (hich 1an obtains intelligible tho2ght, Albert2s (rites< M''' convenie12s in toto c21 Averroe'M @7/ Ibid' -;68;;' @7; !ilson 9n' @@; above: ..8-6@' ,eckha1 e*presses approval of MAvicennaQIsRM constr2ction of the active intellect as an Mincorporeal intelligence,M adding his o(n J2alification that the active intellect is !odH b2t at least in the citations provided by the secondary literat2re, he does not repeat (hat is distinctive in Avicenna, na1ely, that tho2ghts e1anate directly fro1 the active intellect, (hich he
identifies (ith !od, on to the h21an so2l' @7@ E' !ilson, History of Christian ,hilosophy in the Middle Ages 9$e( )ork -.>>: ;6@' T' Cro(ley, MRoger 0acon and Avicenna,M ,hilosophical St2dies 9%2blin:' @7> %' Sal1an, M$ote s2r la pre1iere infl2ence dIAverroes,M Rev2e neoscolasliJ2e de philosophie @6 9-.;?: /6>8AH T' Cro(ley, Roger 0acon 9 o2vain -.>6: -7>877'
/-?
regarding the active intellectM is in Mhar1onyM (ith Mthe position of Saint A2g2stine regarding the lightM fro1 above (hich ill21ines all h21an so2ls' The h21an intellect, in other (ords, reJ2ires a light fro1 !od to perfor1 its activity, as A2g2stine ta2ghtH and !od is, by virt2e of f2rnishing the light, none other than the transcendent active intellect of the Aristotelians'@77 In s21, several thirteenth8cent2ry Scholastics posit t(o distinct active intellects, one internal and the other e*ternal 9Ale*ander of Hales, Albert the !reat, Lohn ,eckha1, Roger 0acon:' A line of Scholastics identify the active intellect (ith !od, 2s2ally all2ding at the sa1e ti1e to the old A2g2stinian notion that !od is a light, or provides a light, ill21inating the h21an so2l 9Killia1 of A2vergne, Ada1 of Marsh, and Robert !rossteste, all on the report of Roger 0aconH Ale*ander of Hales, by i1plicationH Albert the !reatH Lohn ,eckha1H Roger 0aconH Roger Marston:' Khile the (orks of Alfarabi and Avicenna can be credited (ith a role in trans1itting a transcendent constr2ction of the active intellect to Scholastic philosophy, other philosophic (orks translated into atin fro1 !reek or Arabic also helped propagate that constr2ction' Tho1as AJ2inas 9-//>8-/?@: accepted the arg21ent for the e*istence of an active intellect that leads the potential intellect to act2ality, b2t he reGected the transcendent constr2ction of the active intellect and located the active intellect e*cl2sively (ithin the h21an so2l'@>? After the thirteenth cent2ry, the theory of an incorporeal active intellect transcending the h21an so2l (as kept alive only a1ong the adherents of Averroes'@7A
E' !ilson, MRoger Marston< 2n cas dIa2g2stinis1e avicennisant,M Archives dIhistoire doctrinale et litteraire A 9-.;;: ;A8@-' On @-, !ilson J2otes a passage (here Marston accepts MA2g2stineIs doctrineM that Mall things are tho2ght in an eternal lightM as (ell as AristotleIs position that intelligible tho2ghts 9MspeciesM: are abstracted fro1 i1ages in the i1aginative fac2lty of the so2lH and Marston adds that MAvicennaIsM position, according to (hich Mintelligible for1s are e1anated 2pon o2r intellect by (ay of being i1printed,M 1ay also Mbe tr2e'M !ilson calls the yoking of A2g2stineIs theory of divine ill21ination (ith the identification of !od as the active intellect< Ma2g2stinis1e avicennisant'M A tr2e a2g2slinis1e avicennisant (o2ld, ho(ever, have !od, the active intellect, e1anating tho2ghts directly on the h21an intellect, and virt2ally none of the Scholastics (ho1 !ilson cites as e*a1ples of the pheno1enon espo2se the direct e1anation of tho2ghts' His ter1 a2g2stinis1e avicennisant has been criticiEedH see "' van Steenberghen, a philosophie a2 +IIIe siecle 9 o2vain -.77: -?8-A' @7? AJ2inas, S211a contra gentiles /'?78?AH S211a theologiae -'?.';8 ?' @7A 0its and pieces of AvicennaIs theory of intellect s2rvive in fifteenth8 and si*teenth8cent2ry atin (riters' E*a1ples in< S' S(ieEa(ski, M$otes s2r -Iinfl2ence dIAvicenne s2r la pensee philosophiJ2e latine d2 +#e siecle,M in Recherches dIIsla1ologie 9Ana(ati8!ardet "estschrift: 9 o2vain -.??: /..8;6H "' 2cchetla, MRecentS st2di s2llIAverrois1o padovano,M IAverrois1o in ItaliaM 9Ro1e -.?.: --@'
@77
/-A S211ary
A n21ber of Isla1ic thinkers either s211ariEed AvicennaIs e1anation sche1e and theory of intellect for the 2se of Arabic readers, incorporated AvicennaIs theses into their o(n (ritings, or garbed AvicennaIs syste1 in 2nconventional attire' The last gro2p is the 1ost interesting, and its 1ost 2ne*pected representative is !haEali' Altho2gh !haEali had, at one stage, dra(n 2p a thoro2ghgoing critiJ2e of AvicennaIs philosophy, his Mishkat al8An(ar reprod2ces 12ch of AvicennaIs syste1, disg2ised in all2sive lang2age' Ibn T2failIs philosophic novel like(ise presents a good part of AvicennaIs syste1 in an 2nconventional 1ode' As for other avo(ed Isla1ic Aristotelians, Ibn 0aGGa borro(s fro1 both Alfarabi and Avicenna, and on several critical iss2es takes a stand closer to the for1er' AverroesI early (orks, as (ill be seen in the ne*t chapter, endorse an e1anation sche1e and a conception of the active intellect (hich co1e fro1 Alfarabi and AvicennaH and, as (ill appear in the final chapter of the book, Averroes, thro2gho2t his career, e*plained the active intellectIs effect on the h21an intellect in a 1anner si1ilar to Alfarabi' Ab2 al80arakat took his depart2re fro1 Avicenna b2t stretched AvicennaIs fra1e(ork to the b2rsting point' "ro1 the o2tlook of the present st2dy, his 1ost significant innovations are his allo(ing the pop2lation of the s2pernal region to proliferate and his distrib2ting of the active intellectIs f2nctions a1ong a n21ber of s2pernal beings' One of S2hra(ardiIs (orks faithf2lly reprod2ces AvicennaIs syste1, and another decks AvicennaIs syste1 o2t in allegorical attire' 02t S2hra(ardiIs Science of Ill21ination is a fresh atte1pt to b2rst AvicennaIs fra1e(ork' S2hra(ardi there adds a host of ne( incorporeal entities to AvicennaIs intelligences and so2ls of the spheres, he distrib2tes the f2nctions of the active intellect a1ong the ne(ly 1inted s2pernal beings, and he elevates direct e*perience of the incorporeal real1 to the ape* of h21an cognitive activity' In the cent2ries that follo(, a line of Iranian thinkers fashion their syste1s o2t of 1aterials J2arried fro1 S2hra(ardi and Avicenna' L2dah Hallevi, Abraha1 Ibn %a2d, and Moses Mai1onides (ere the first Le(ish philosophers to adopt theories of Alfarabi and Avicenna' Hallevi o2tlines a pict2re of the 2niverse and a theory of h21an intellect (hich he ascribes to 2nna1ed philosophers, he criticiEes the 2nna1ed philosophers harshly, and he then t2rns aro2nd and constr2cts his o(n (orldvie( o2t of conceptions borro(ed fro1 the1' The thesis that 1ost ca2ght HalleviIs fancy (as the e1anation of nat2ral for1s 2pon properly prepared s2bl2nar 1atter' $at2ral for1s, Hallevi agrees, are indeed e1anated fro1 (itho2t, b2t !od and not the active intellect is the giver of for1s' Ibn %a2d and Mai1onides endorse, (ith certain reservations, the pict2re of the 2niverse and theory of intellect that they set forth in the na1e of Aristotle and 2nspecified Mphilosophers'M Mai1onides, for instance, accepts< the sche1e of s2ccessive e1anations espo2sed by Alfarabi and Avicenna, (ith the proviso that a gen2ine act of (ill by the deity initiates the processH the e1anation of all nat2ral
/-.
for1s incl2ding the h21an so2l fro1 the active intellectH the e1anation of all h21an intelligible tho2ghts fro1 the active intellectH and an adaptation of AvicennaIs theory of prophecy' Altho2gh neither Hallevi, Ibn %a2d, nor Mai1onides lets slip that Avicenna is his pri1ary so2rce, Avicenna do1inates in each instance' "ro1 the thirteenth to the si*teenth cent2ries, vario2s co1binations of theses deriving fro1 Alfarabi and 1ore especially fro1 Avicenna appear in Le(ish philosophic (ritersH and Alfarabi and Avicenna see1 even to have infiltrated the theosophical doctrine kno(n as the Cabala' In Scholastic philosophy, the i1pact of Avicenna (as 1odest and that of Alfarabi even s1aller' An anony1o2s te*t entitled %e pri1is et sec2ndis s2bstantiis repeats t(o significant ite1s fro1 Avicenna< a frag1ent of his e1anation sche1e and the central thesis of his theory of h21an intelligible tho2ght' A second te*t, entitled %e ani1a and perhaps (ritten by %o1inic !2ndissalin2s, copies copio2sly fro1 AvicennaIs theory of h21an intelligible tho2ght' 0oth te*ts, ho(ever, overlay Avicenna (ith doctrines of a 1ore traditional Christian character' The e1anation fro1 above of nat2ral for1s and of the h21an so2l in partic2lar, (hich co2ld have been learned fro1 either AlfarabiIs Risalafi al8cAJl or fro1 Avicenna, reappear in Lohn 0l2nd and Albert the !reat' 0oth 0l2nd and Albeit noticed (hat L2dah Hallevi had seen, that philosophy co2ld be relegated to its proper station as the hand1aiden of religion, if !od hi1self is identified as the giver of for1s' ,ers2aded in part by Alfarabi and Avicenna, a n21ber of Scholastics recogniEe an incorporeal active intellect transcending the h21an so2l (hich leads the h21an intellect to act2alityBCDeither side by the side (ith an additional active intellect that e*ists (ithin the so2l, or to the e*cl2sion of an internal active intellect' Those accepting a transcendent active intellect (hich leads the h21an intellect to act2ality generally identify it too (ith !od'
A#ERROES O$ EMA$ATIO$ A$% O$ THE ACTI#E I$TE CA&SE O" E+ISTE$CE
ECT AS A
!eneral Considerations The present chapter (ill e*a1ine AverroesI atte1pts to deter1ine, first, the ca2sal connections obtaining (ithin the real1 of incorporeal intelligences, and, secondly, the active intellectIs role as a ca2se of e*istence in the s2bl2nar real1' Averroes treats those t(o related s2bGects a n21ber of ti1es in his co11entaries on Aristotle and in other co1positions' As he ret2rns to the t(o s2bGects on s2ccessive occasions, he endeavors to pare a(ay post8Aristotelian accretions that, he had beco1e convinced, colored his previo2s efforts, and to recover the gen2ine Aristotelian doctrine e1bodyingBCDso he ass21esBCDphilosophic tr2th' Ke shall find that the enterprise of recovering the gen2ine Aristotle leads hi1 to revise and rerevise his thinking' So1ething has to be said abo2t his co11entaries on Aristotle' That Averroes (rote co11entaries on Aristotle in three disting2ishable 1odes is (ell kno(n' In generalBCDaltho2gh there are variationsBCDthe so8called Epito1e or Co1pendi21 reorganiEes the 1aterial of a given Aristotelian (ork and recasts it in AverroesI o(n (ordsH the Middle Co11entary paraphrases an Aristotelian te*t al1ost sentence by sentenceH and the ong Co11entary, a genre Averroes e1ployed for only a fe( i1portant Aristotelian (orks,- J2otes each passage of the Aristotelian te*t in e*tenso and proceeds to e*po2nd it at considerable length' Khere the co11entaries can be dated, the Epito1es are fo2nd to belong to his early, and the ong Co11entaries to his later, career'/ So1eti1es, after having co1pleted his Epito1e of a given Aristotelian (ork, Averroes changed his 1ind on an iss2e and e*po2nded his revised position in the ong Co11entary or Middle Co11entary on the sa1e (ork' On occasion, he then (ent back to the Epito1e and added annotations that reflect his rethinking of the iss2e' AverroesI Epito1e of the %e ani1a (ill be seen in the ne*t chapter to be one s2ch instance' His Epito1e of the
VE' Renan, Averroes et IIAverrois1e 9,aris -A77: 7/' Ibid' 7687-'
//6
Averroes on E1anation and the Active Intellect as a Ca2se of E*istence
//-
,hysics is another'; In both cases, certain passages can be s2r1ised to be later annotations incorporated into the original te*t, since 1an2scripts containing the passages e*ist side by side (ith 1an2scripts fro1 (hich they are 1issing' One of the annotations incorporated into the Epito1e of the %e ani1a carries 2s beyond s2r1ise, ho(ever, for it e*plicitly directs readers to AverroesI ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a, (here, Averroes (rites, readers can find his revised position on the s2bGect'@ AverroesI Epito1e of the Metaphysics, (hich plays a central role in the present chapter, is a third instance' Several Arabic 1an2scripts of the Epito1e of the Metaphysics contain interpolations correcting positions advanced in the original
version' In one s2ch passage, (hich appears in so1e b2t not all of the Arabic 1an2scripts, Averroes e*pressly disavo(s the arg21ents MI QoriginallyR gave,M and 1an2scripts of the 1edieval Hebre( translation of the Epito1e 1ark the passage as a Mgloss'M> In a second passage, (hich happens to have been incorporated into all
; H' %avidson, MAverroes on the Active Intellect as a Ca2se of E*istence,M #iator -A 9-.A?: -.;' Averroes, Epito1e de "isica, trans' L' ,2ig 9Madrid -.A?:, (hich according to a revie(er disc2sses the iss2e, is not available to 1e' @ See belo(, p' /?6' > I did not e*a1ine the Arabic 1an2scripts of the Epito1e b2t did 2se fo2r printed editions, each of (hich follo(s a different 1an2script tradition' One 1an2script, fo2nd in Madrid, contains the passage I refer to here, (itho2t the designation MglossMH see Averroes, Co1pendia de Metafisica, ed' (ith Spanish trans' C' P2iros Rodrig2eE 9Madrid -.-.: @, 4T76' A te*t p2blished by M' Pabani 9Cairo ca' -.6;: and based on a single Cairo 1an2script does not have the passage' The t(o !er1an translationsBCD%ie Metaphysik des Averroes, trans' M' Horten 9Halle -.-/:, and %ie Epito1e der Metaphysik des Averroes, trans' S' #an den 0ergh 9 eiden -./@:BCDdo not translate the passageH see Horten -./ and #an den 0ergh -;>' Horten had only the edition of Cairo -.6;:' #an den 0ergh had both that Cairo te*t and the P2iros te*t, b2t s2pposed the passage in J2estion to be Mein spaterer F2satEMH see his appendi*, ;-?8-A' It is indeed a later addition b2t one (ritten by Averroes hi1self' A third Arabic te*t, (hich has the present passage and other additions to the original Epito1e b2t is not identical (ith the Madrid 1an2script, (as p2blished in RasaIil Ibn R2shd 9Hyderabad -.@?:' A fo2rth te*t (as p2blished by &' A1in as Talkhis 1a bacda al8Tablca 9Cairo -.>A:' 9The ter1 talkhis is 1isleading, beca2se it properly designates a Middle Co11entary, rather than an Epito1e': A1in cons2lted the Madrid and Hyderabad editions, (hich have AverroesI later corrections, and the Cairo 1an2script 2nderlying the Pabani te*t, (hich does notH b2t in the 1ain he follo(s a second Cairo 1an2script, (hich also lacks the added corrections' 9)et a third Cairo 1an2script e*istsH see A1inIs introd2ction, -8/': So1e eight or nine 1an2scripts of the Hebre( translation are e*tant, of (hich I (as able to e*a1ine three' Madrid,
Escorial Hebre( MS !l8-@, -6;b8-6@a, and M2nich, Staatsbibliothek, Hebre( MS -6A, --;b8--@a, contain the present passage and both have, (ithin their te*ts, the notation MglossM near the beginning of the passage and the notation Mend of glossM 9cad kan hahaggaha: near the end' In both, the for1er notation appears a fe( lines too early and the latter a fe( (ords too late' The 1an2scripts 12st conseJ2ently ste1 fro1 an earlier 1an2script in (hich the passage (as already incorporated into the te*t, (hile the notations still re1ained in the 1argin' The third Hebre( 1an2script that I e*a1ined contains the passage (itho2t the notationsH see belo(, n' ;/'
///
kno(n 1an2scripts of the Epito1eBCDthose that do, as (ell as those that do not, incorporate the other correctionsBCDAverroes co11ents that he Mhad clarifiedM the topic at hand in his MCo11entaryM 9sharh:, that is to say, his ong Co11entary, ong Co11entary' They are th2s 2ndo2btedly notes (ritten by Averroes after the co1pletion of the original Epito1e and incorporated into the te*t by hi1 or by scribes' The t(o s2bGects to be disc2ssed in this chapterBCDthe ca2sal relations obtaining (ithin the s2pernal hierarchy, and the active intellectIs role as a ca2se of e*istence in the s2bl2nar real1BCD(ere integral to the syste1s of Alfarabi and Avicenna' Averroes (as acJ2ainted (ith AlfarabiIs (ritings and refers by na1e to the Risala fi al8CAJl,? the (ork of AlfarabiIs (hich is 1ost pertinent here' He see1s to have had only li1ited direct kno(ledge of AvicennaIs (ritings,A b2t he nonetheless possessed a fair 2nderstanding of AvicennaIs syste1, largely thro2gh !haEaliIs restate1ent of it' He also kne( the (orks of Ibn 0aGGa 9Ave1pace:, a philosopher nearer to his ti1e, (ho stood in the tradition of Alfarabi and Avicenna'. In both iss2es to be disc2ssed, Averroes originally took positions close to Alfarabi and Avicenna and s2bseJ2ently, after rethinking 1atters, reGected those positions' on the Metaphysics'7 The corrections do in fact reflect positions espo2sed in the
The Pabani and A1ln te*ts and the !er1an translations 1ore or less represent the original Epito1e' The P2iros and Hyderabad editions, the third Cairo 1an2script cons2lted by A1in, and the 1edieval Hebre( translation incorporate AverroesI later corrections' I (as not able to 2se the te*t of the Epito1e of the Metaphysics in the Chester 0eatty collection, MS @>/;' In the follo(ing notes, references to the Epito1e of the Metaphysics (ith no f2rther J2alification are to the P2iroIs te*t, and references to the !er1an translation are to #an den 0ergh' An appendi* in P2irosI edition lists the differences bet(een his te*t and the earlier Pabani edition' 0' $ardi, (ho read the Epito1e in a atin translation fro1 the Hebre(, sa( that the Epito1eBCDthat is, the sections representing the original te*tBCDstate different positions fro1 AverroesI later (ritings' He 1istakenly inferred therefro1 that the Epito1e is not a gen2ine (ork of Averroes' See 0' $ardi, MSigieri di 0rabante nella %ivina Co1edia,M Rivista di filosofia neoscolastica ; 9-.--: >;/, n' /H reprinted as Sigieri di 0rabante nella %ivina Co1edia 9Spiante -.-/: -?, n' /' 7 See belo(, p' /@-' ? Averroes, %rei Abhandl2ngen 2ber die ConG2nction, ed' and !er1an trans' L' HercE 90erlin -A7.:, Hebre( te*t ?, !er1an translation /?' Averroes refers to AlfarabiIs ,hilosophies of ,lato and Aristotle 9see above, pp' 7;87@H the ,hilosophy of ,lato is a co1panion of the ,hilosophy of Aristotle: in the ong Co11entary on the Metaphysics ?, co11' ;-, and -/, co11' -AH Arabic te*t< Tafsir 1a bacda al8Tabi c a, ed' M' 0o2yges 90eir2t -.;A8-.@A: AA7, -@..' English translation of ong Co11entary on Metaphysics 0ook -/, (ith pagination of Arabic indicated< C' !eneJ2and, Ibn R2shdIs Metaphysics 9 eiden -.A@:' "rench translation of sa1e, (ith pagination of the Arabic indicated< A' Martin, Averroes, !rand co11entaire de la MetaphysiJ2e
dIAristote 9,aris -.A@:' A See H' %avidson, ,roofs for Creation, Eternity, and the E*istence of !od, in Medieval Isla1ic and Le(ish ,hilosophy 9$e( )ork -.A?: ;-., ;;@' . See above, p' -@-'
Averroes on E1anation and the Active Intellect as a Ca2se of E*istence The E1anation of the &niverse
//;
AverroesI original Epito1e of the Metaphysics advocates an e1anation sche1e that diverges only in partic2lars fro1 the sche1es of Alfarabi and Avicenna' Averroes takes for granted that stars and planets do not travel thro2gh space freely b2t are i1bedded in rotating celestial spheres'-6 In one depart2re fro1 Alfarabi and Avicenna, (hich is of secondary i1portance for o2r p2rpose, he reGects the e*istence of a di2rnal sphere beyond the sphere of the fi*ed stars, that is to say, a sphere (itho2t stars of its o(n (hich dra(s the entire celestial region aro2nd the stationary earth once every t(enty8fo2r ho2rs' He G2dges s2ch a sphere, e1pty of all stars, to be Mi1probableM or Mrather i1possible,M inas12ch as Mspheres e*ist only for the sake of stars,M and inas12ch as the daily rotation of the heavens can be acco2nted for satisfactorily thro2gh a rotation of the sphere of the fi*ed stars itself, (ith no additional sphere beyond it'-- Having 1ade the reservation abo2t the e*istence of a di2rnal sphere lying beyond the sphere of the fi*ed stars, Averroes reasons as follo(s< The contin2o2s rotation of the celestial spheres rese1bles neither the 1otion of the physical ele1ents, (hich 1ove to their nat2ral place, nor ani1al 1otion, (hich is ind2ced by MsensationM and Mi1aginationMH for both those sorts of 1otion attain a goal and cease'-/ Seeing that the spheres do not 1ove as the physical ele1ents or ani1als do, their contin2o2s and 2nending 1otion 12st, for lack of any other e*planation, be effected by a rational so2l' Spherical 1otion 12st res2lt fro1 a MdesireM acco1panying an Mintellect2al conceptionM in a rational so2l belonging to the sphere' "2rther, since the obGect of desire of a rational so2l is perforce at a higher level of perfection than the so2l harboring the desire, the obGect that the rational so2l of the sphere conceives, and (hose concept ind2ces desire, 12st be an incorporeal being'-; The e*istence of the so2ls of the spheres and of the incorporeal intelligences is hereby established, the so2l acting as the direct, and the intelligence as the indirect, 1over of the sphere' In the very act of conceiving the perfection of the incorporeal intelligence, the so2l of a celestial sphere desires, for itself and its sphere, a state of perfection (hich is as close to the perfection of the incorporeal intelligence as possible' And beca2se 1otion is a 1ore perfect state for a body than rest, 1otion being a 1anifestation of life, the desire to e12late the intelligence e*presses itself in constant circ2lar 1otion'-@ Each sphere 12st have its o(n incorporeal intelligence, (hich serves as its Mo(n obGect of desire,M since each perfor1s its o(n 2niJ2e 1otion'-> Epito1e of the Metaphysics 9n' > above: @, 4T7H !er1an translation -6A' lbld' 4T4T->8-7H !er1an translation --;' -/ Ibid' 4T4T?8AH !er1an translation -6A8.' -; Ibid' 4T4TA8.H !er1an translation -6.8-6' -@ Ibid' 4T/?H !er1an translation --A 9ine*act:' -> Ibid' 4T-?H !er1an translation --;' n -6
//@
In a second depart2re fro1 Alfarabi and Avicenna, the Epito1e of the Metaphysics does not 1ention, and plainly reGects, a ca2se of the e*istence of the
bodies-7 of the spheres' As for the for1s or so2ls of the spheres, Averroes (rites that each intelligence Mgives the sphere its for1,M-? and that the for1, or so2l, of
the sphere MproceedsM 9sadara: fro1 the corresponding intelligence'-A He also
(rites, in a so1e(hat different conception, that the for1, or so2l, of each sphere consists in nothing other than the Mintelligible tho2ghtM the sphere has of its receives its Mfor1M and Messence'M 0y virt2e of f2rnishing the for1, or so2l, and essence of its sphereBCDaltho2gh not the sphereIs bodyBCDthe intelligence 1ay be dee1ed the sphereIs Mefficient Qca2seRM 9fa c il:' /6 Averroes advances arg21ents to establish that the intelligences constit2te a ca2sal hierarchy in (hich every link is responsible for the e*istence of the ne*t'/- Then he goes on< MMore than oneM effect MproceedsM 9sadara, laEi1a: fro1 each celestial intelligence, since the intelligence Mprovides QbothR the for1M of its o(n sphere and the Me*istence of the QincorporealR 1over of the ne*t sphere'M// That is, the intelligence e1anates both the so2l of the sphere (ith (hich it is associated and the ne*t intelligence in the series' )et an old, fa1iliar r2le affir1s that Mfro1 the associated (ith celestial spheres, having 12ltiple effects, are not (holly one b2t contain Mparts'M/@ The 2lti1ate so2rce of the 2nity that knits the 2niverse together 12st, ho(ever, be 2nJ2alifiedly 2nitary, and, beca2se of the r2le that only one thing proceeds fro1 (hat is 2nitary, the 2lti1ate so2rce of 2nity in the 2niverse can have a single effect and nothing 1ore'/> As a conseJ2ence, the "irst Ca2se of the 2niverse cannot be any of the intelligences coordinated (ith celestial spheres' The VAverroes, %e s2bstantia orbis, ed' and trans' A' Hy1an 9Ca1bridge, Mass' -.A7:, Hebre( te*t /7, English translation ?., states that the Msphere is a si1ple body, not co1posed of for1 and 1atter'M Ibid', Hebre( te*t /?, English translation A/, states that the Mcelestial bodyM serves as M1atter,M or 1ore correctly Ms2bGect,M for its Mincorporeal for1'M %e s2bstantia orbis is a collection of AverroesI essays on the nat2re of the heavens, (hich are not kno(n to be e*tant in the Arabic, and (hich have been preserved in a 1edieval Hebre( translation' The essays are not (holly consistent, and very likely ste1 fro1 different periods in AverroesI career' -? Epito1e of the Metaphysics @, 4T/.H !er1an translation --.' Averroes 2ses the phrases Mfor1M of the sphere and Mso2lM of the sphere interchangeably' Cf' ibid' 4T4T>@, >?H !er1an translation -;-, -;;' -A Ibid' 4T>@H !er1an translation -;-' -.
Ibid' 4T/.H !er1an translation --.' /6 Ibid' /- Ibid' 4T4T;/H ;7H !er1an translation -/68//' // Ibid' 4T>@H !er1an translation -;-' /; Ibid' 4T>.H !er1an translation -;>' Cf above, pp' ?>, ->6' /@ Ibid' /> Ibid' @, 4T4T;A, >;H !er1an translation -/;, -;6' Cf' Aristotle, Metaphysics -/'-6'-6?>a, --8/>H ,lotin2s, Enneads 7'>'-H 7'.'-H 7'.';' intelligence,-. and the sphereBCD(hich 12st 1ean the so2l of the sphereBCDthereby
one ' ' ' only one can proceed QsadaraR'M/; It follo(s that the intelligences
//>
"irst Ca2se, or M!od,M 12stBCDas Alfarabi and Avicenna held8be a s2bstance 2nassociated (ith any sphere and transcending all the intelligences that 1ove spheres'/7 AverroesI original Epito1e of the Metaphysics th2s agrees (ith Alfarabi and Avicenna in setting a "irst Ca2se beyond the intelligences that 1ove the spheres' The (holly 2nitary "irst Ca2se once again eternally e1anates a single incorporeal being' Altho2gh the first e1anated intelligence consists, like its ca2se, in p2re tho2ght, its tho2ght is 12ltifaceted' "ro1 the first intelligence there eternally e1anate a second intelligence as (ell as the for1 or so2l, b2t not the body, of the o2ter1ost sphere'/? And the process replicates itself thro2gh the series of intelligences and spheres'/A In one f2rther J2alification of the sche1e co11on to Alfarabi and Avicenna, Averroes adds that (here the co1ple* 1otion of any of the planets points to a s2bsyste1 of secondary spheres interacting (ith each other and (ith the 1ain planetary sphere, the intelligence coordinated (ith the 1ain sphere 12st eternally bring forth not only the ne*t 1ain intelligence and the for1 of its o(n sphere b2t the first of the secondary intelligences in the s2bsyste1 as (ell' That secondary intelligence then brings forth the for1 or so2l of its secondary sphere and a f2rther secondary intelligenceH and so on, 2ntil the f2ll co1ple1ent of secondary intelligences and so2ls of the secondary spheres is filled'/. "inally, fro1 the intelligence of the l2nar sphere, the last of the pri1ary intelligences eternally MproceedsM 9sadir:' It is the Mactive intellect,M the ca2se of act2al h21an tho2ght, (hose e*istence Aristotle posited in the %e ani1aN;6 S2ch is the cos1ology that Averroes endorses in the original te*t of his Epito1e of the Metaphysics' It breathes the sa1e spirit as the co1ologies of Alfarabi and Avicenna' A passage already referred to, (hich is fo2nd in so1e altho2gh not all of the available Arabic 1an2scripts of the Epito1e of the Metaphysics,;- (hich is fo2nd as (ell in the 1edieval Hebre( translation, and (hich is labeled by so1e Hebre( Epito1e of the Metaphysics @, 4T>@H !er1an translation -;-8;/' Ibid' 4T>@H !er1an translation -;-8;/' /A Ibid' 4T7-H !er1an translation -;>8;7' /. Ibid' 4T4T//, ;>, >?H !er1an translation --7, -/- 9M,rinEip,M si* lines 2p, is a typographical error for M0e(egerM:, -;;8;@' Averroes recogniEed eccentric spheres in the Epito1e of the Metaphysics, b2t e*pressed do2bts abo2t both eccentric and epicyclical spheres in the ong Co11entary on the MetaphysicsH see A' Sabra, MThe Andal2sian Revolt against ,tole1aic Astrono1y,M in Transfor1ation and Tradition in the Sciences 9I' 0' Cohen "estschrift:, ed' E' Mendelsohn 9Ca1bridge -.A@: -;.8@/' ;6 Ibid' 4T7/H !er1an translation -;7' ;- The passage appears in the Madrid 1an2script 2nderlying P2iresI te*t, in the Hyderabad printed te*t, and in the third Cairo 1an2script, as recorded in A1inIs apparat2s, ->;' See above, n' >' /? /7
//7
1an2scripts as a gloss,;/ rep2diates 12ch of (hat has been said' Averroes there calls the M1ethodM he e*po2nded in the original Epito1e a theory of Mrecent philosophers of Isla1 s2ch as Alfarabi,M and possibly also of MThe1isti2s '' ' and ,lato'M He characteriEes the lengthy arg21ents MI gaveM in the original te*t not as his o(n b2t as Mthe 1ost solidM that those philosophers had Madd2ced'M And he brands the 1ethod of the afore1entioned philosophers as Mdefective'M AverroesI reversal does not concern the str2ct2re of the heavens, or the e*istence of intelligences and so2ls of spheres';; Khat he revises is the relation of the intelligences to one another, their relation to the "irst Ca2se, and the "irst Ca2seIs place (ithin the hierarchy' Madrid, Escorial Hebre( MS !l8-@, -6;bH M2nich, Staatsbibliothek, Hebre( MS -6A, --;b8--@aH see above, n' >' ,aris, 0ibliotheJ2e $ationale, Hebre( MS .-A, -@>a, has the passage b2t (itho2t the notation Mgloss'M ;; At least one of the essays in AverroesI %e s2bstantia orbis states that the spheres have only a single percipient s2bstance associated (ith the1H that is to say, they do not have both a so2l of their o(n and an intelligence coordinated (ith the1' See %e s2bstantia orbis 9n' -7 above:, Hebre( te*t /;, English translation ?6' 02t another of the essays, ibid', Hebre( te*t @A, English translation --;8->, appears, on the contrary, to assign a so2l and incorporeal intelligence to each sphere' Here I a1 relying on a passage in AverroesI Tahaf2t al8Tahaf2t, (here he advocates the theory ad21brated in the later annotations to the Epito1e of the Metaphysics (hich I a1 disc2ssing' The passage in J2estion ascribes a conception to each of the spheres and disting2ishes the sphereIs conception fro1 the 1over of the sphereH and, (hat is especially to the point, it e*pressly ascribes to the o2ter1ost sphere a conception of its 1over' The i1plication is that the spheres have so2ls doing the conceiving (hich are distinct fro1 the intelligences 1oving the spheresH and that the o2ter1ost sphere, in partic2lar, has a so2l (hich is distinct fro1 its 1over' The passage reads< MKe find that all the celestial spheres, in their Qco11onR di2rnal 1ove1ent, and the sphere of the fi*ed stars as (ell, have the sa1e concept Qthat is, a concept of the 1over of the sphere of fi*ed stars, (hich in AverroesI later tho2ght is identical (ith the "irst Ca2seR' "or they all 2ndergo that Qco11on di2rnalR 1otion by reason of a single 1over, the 1over of the sphere of fi*ed stars' Ke f2rther find that the spheres have divers 1ove1ents pec2liar to each, (hence it follo(s that their 1ove1ents are d2e to 1overs divers in one respect, and 2nited in another' They Qthe 1oversR are 2nited insofar as their 1ove1ents Qtheir 1ay refer either to the incorporeal 1overs or to the spheresH see 0o2ygesI apparat2sR are linked to the 1ove1ent of the first sphere'M See Averroes, Tahaf2t al8Tahaf2t, ed' M' 0o2yges 90eir2t -.;6: /;-H English translation (ith pages of the original Arabic indicated< AverroesI Tahaf2t al8Tahaf2t, trans' S' #an den 0ergh 9 ondon -.>@:' I think Averroes is ass21ing that each celestial so2l, (ith the e*ception of the so2l of the o2ter1ost sphere, has t(o obGects of desire' One of the t(o obGects of desire, the intelligence 1oving the o2ter1ost sphere, that is, the intelligence that is identical (ith the "irst Ca2se of the 2niverse, ind2ces the so2l of the sphere to 1ove its sphere aro2nd the earth once every t(enty8fo2r ho2rs, (hile the other obGect of desire, the
intelligence paralleling the sphere, ind2ces the so2l of the sphere to prod2ce the sphereIs o(n pec2liar 1otion' The incorporeal 1overs of the spheres are M2nitedM in the sense that they all contrib2te to a single interlocking syste1, as e*plained in Aristotle, Metaphysics -/'-6H Metaphysics -/'-6, is clearly all2ded to in the contin2ation of the passage G2st J2oted fro1 the Tahaf2t al8Tahaf2t' Averroes, ong Co11entary on the Metaphysics -/, co11' @@H Arabic te*t -7@., also appears to recogniEe so2ls of the spheres, b2t that passage is even 1ore diffic2lt than the passage J2oted here fro1 the Tahaf2t al8Tahaf2t' ;/
//?
He 1akes the follo(ing state1ents< Alfarabi and the others did not realiEe that for the Mefficient Qca2seRM in the strict sense of the ter1H it is not valid for the Mfor1al ca2seM or Mfinal ca2se,M even (hen they 1ay be regarded, in an e*tended and analogical sense, as an Mefficient ca2se'M;@ The Mproble1 at handM 1ay be p2t as the J2estion M(hether 1ore than one concept''' can be fra1edM of the being that is Mone and si1ple,M and hence M(hether 1ore than one thing can receive its perfectionM fro1 a si1ple, absol2tely 2nitary being' The ans(er to those J2estions 12st be negative to render the theory of Alfarabi and the others Mtr2e'M Sho2ld the ans(er be affir1ative, as Averroes inti1ates it is, their theory (ill be Mfalse'M MKe have,M the annotation closes, Mdisc2ssed the s2bGect else(here'M;> AverroesI re1arks are not so inti1idatingly enig1atic as they 1ay at first appear' He is saying< To de1onstrate their pict2re of the 2niverse, Alfarabi and philosophers taking the sa1e line (o2ld have to establish that an absol2tely 2nitary being can e*ercise ca2sality in G2st a single fashion, solely as an efficient ca2se in the strict senseBCDIn other (ords, by engendering its effect by direct action' If s2ch (ere the case, the r2le that fro1 one only one can proceed (o2ld apply to the "irst Ca2se, the "irst Ca2se co2ld have only one effect, and 12ltiplicity in the 2niverse (o2ld have to enter at a s2bseJ2ent stage' In fact, ho(ever, an absol2tely 2nitary directly engendering the1 b2t in another 1annerBCDvery 12ch as the intelligences (ere described, in AverroesI early vie(, as f2rnishing the celestial so2lsI essence by offering the1selves as an obGect of tho2ght';7 The first 2nitary being can act on the incorporeal intelligences as a for1al ca2se, providing the1 (ith for1 insofar as each intelligence enGoys a conception of the first being proportionate to the intelligenceIs level of e*istence' Averroes is s2ggesting that each intelligence has so1e strat21 of e*istence in its o(n right, a strat21 that one of his later (orks does e*pressly recogniEe as a J2asiintelligence eternally t2rns its intellect2al gaEe,;A as it (ere, 2pon the "irst Ca2se' The conception it thereby gains beco1es its eternal for1, the for1 thro2gh (hich it ;@
the r2le affir1ing Mfro1 one only one can proceed QsadaraRM is MvalidM e*cl2sively
being 1ay, and does, serve as the i11ediate ca2se of 12ltiple effects not by
1aterial aspect of the incorporeal intelligence';? The inchoate aspect of the
See Aristotle, ,hysics /';' Epito1e of the Metaphysics @, 4T76H !er1an translation, appendi*, ;-?8-A' The1isti2s took a position on the generation of s2bl2nar for1s
(hich is pertinent to the active intellectIs role as a ca2se of s2bl2nar for1sH see above, p' ;/, and belo(, p' />-' 02t I do not kno( (hy Averroes 1entions hi1 in the present connection' ;7 Cf' above, p' //@' ;? Averroes, Co11entari21 1agn21 in Aristotelis de Ani1a libros, ed' "' Cra(ford 9Ca1bridge, Mass' -.>;: 9henceforth cited as< ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a: @6.8-6H cf' H' Kolfson, MAverroesI ost Treatise on the ,ri1e Mover,M reprinted in his St2dies in the History of ,hilosophy and Religion -, ed' I' T(ersky and !' Killia1s 9Ca1bridge, Mass' -.?;: @/7, n' 76H belo(, p' /.-' ;A Cf' ,lotin2s, Enneads -'?'-H -'A'/' ;>
//A
receives perfection in proportion to its rank in the hierarchy of e*istence' Ke 1ay conGect2re that, in AverroesI 1at2re vie(, the so2l of each celestial sphere receives its f2ll 1eas2re of e*istence thro2gh its conception of the corresponding intelligence' The r2le that fro1 one only one proceeds th2s need notBCDand, Averroes inti1ates, does notBCDapply to the "irst Ca2se of the 2niverse, nor need the "irst Ca2se initiate a process of e1anation' Each incorporeal intelligence 1ay receive its for1 and be perfected at its o(n level thro2gh its 2niJ2e conception of the "irst Ca2seH and the latter 1ay endo( all r2ngs of the incorporeal hierarchy, and not G2st the first intelligence, (ith for1 and thereby also (ith a f2ll 1eas2re of e*istence' The e1anation sche1e espo2sed by AverroesI original Epito1e entailed as a corollary that the "irst Ca2se of the 2niverse transcends the incorporeal 1overs of the spheres' Seeing that all the intelligences, incl2ding the intelligence 1oving the o2ter1ost celestial sphere, have 12ltiple effects, none of the1, the original Epito1e contended, can be the 2lti1ate ca2se of the 2niverseH for the 2lti1ate ca2se is absol2tely 2nitary and, prod2cing its effect by a process of e1anation, can have only one effect' If, ho(ever, the "irst Ca2se is no( no longer constr2ed as an e1anating ca2se, and if it does after all have 12ltiple effects in the (ay Averroes has described, the corollary vanishes' The 1over of the o2ter1ost sphere, (hich Averroes has been seen to identify as the sphere of the fi*ed stars,;. 1ight indeed be the (holly 2nitary "irst Ca2se of the 2niverseH and nothing (ill have to transcend the incorporeal 1overs of celestial spheres' The "irst Ca2se (o2ld 1ove the sphere of the fi*ed stars by presenting itself to the rational so2l of the sphere as an obGect of desire,@6 12ch as it i1parts perfection to the intelligencesBCDas (ell as to the so2l of the sphere of fi*ed starsBCDby presenting itself as an obGect of tho2ght' Khat Averroes ad21brates in the annotation to the Epito1e of AristotleIs Metaphysics, he affir1s o2tright in the Middle and ong Co11entaries on the Metaphysics, as (ell as in his Tahdf2t al8Tahaf2t 9%estr2ctio destr2ction21:'
The ong Co11entary on the Metaphysics, (hich he tells 2s he (rote in his Mold age,M@- 1akes the point 1ost f2lly and 1ost sharply' Averroes contends there that e1anation is not a tr2e category of efficient ca2sation and, 1oreover, that efficient ca2sation is (holly foreign to the incorporeal do1ain' MMen of o2r ti1e,M he (rites, Mare acc2sto1ed to assert that fro1 s2ch and s2ch an QincorporealR 1over, another QincorporealR 1over proceeds or e1anates or necessarily co1es forth Qsadara,fada, laEi1aRM or else they say the sa1e 2sing Msi1ilar e*pressions'M ang2age of the sort is not, ho(ever,
;.That in his later tho2ght Averroes still reGected a di2rnal sphere beyond the sphere of fi*ed stars is clear fro1 Metaphysics -/, co11' @@H Arabic te*t 9n' ? above: -7@.H and fro1 the passage in Tahaf2t al8Tahaf2t J2oted above in n' ;;' @6 See above, n'
;;' @- ong Co11entary on the Metaphysics -/, co11' @>H Arabic te*t -77@'
//.
applicable to incorporeal entities' In the first place, procession, e1anation, and realityMH for Mnothing proceeds fro1M an efficient ca2se, and efficient ca2sation consists 1erely in Mleading (hat is potential to act2ality'M Seeing that e1anation is not in fact a kind of efficient ca2sation, and hence no kind of ca2sation (hatsoever, e1anation sho2ld not be so2ght at any level of the 2niverse' In the second place, since the incorporeal real1 Mcontains no potentiality,M no Mefficient ca2seM at all can operate there' The (hole notion of e1anation is, then, to be dis1issed as illegiti1ate, and J2ite apart fro1 that, the category of efficient ca2sation cannot be 2sed to e*plain the e*istence of the incorporeal real1'@/ As a conseJ2ence, the 2nitary "irst Ca2se 12st operate on the (orld of intelligible beings not as an efficient ca2se b2t in a different 1anner, in the (ay that the MobGect of intelligible tho2ght is the ca2se of the s2bGect thinking intelligible tho2ghts,M in other (ords, in the (ay that the obGect of tho2ght f2rnishes the tho2ght content of the s2bGect thinking it' The 2lti1ate ca2se of the 2niverse acts as a ca2se in the sense that the MintelligencesM have Man intelligible tho2ghtM and MconceptM of it and thereby receive their Mperfection'M Since Mdivers beingsM receive their tho2ght and concept of the first being in MdiversM and MdifferingM degrees, depending on their rank in the hierarchy of e*istence, the 2lti1ate, absol2tely si1ple ca2se can, and does, have 12ltiple effects'@; As for the arg21ent (hereby MlaterM philosophers inferred the e*istence of a being transcending the 1overs of the spheres, its MinvalidityM sho2ld no( be apparent to Manyone (ith the slightest training in the science Qof 1etaphysicsR'M@@ The arg21ent had been that Mfro1 the 1over of the first heaven, there proceed the so2l of the first heaven and the QincorporealR 1over of the ne*t sphereMH b2t Mfro1 (hat is one and absol2tely si1ple, only one can e1anate or proceedMH the incorporeal 1over of the first, o2ter1ost sphere, fro1 (hich 1ore than one thing does e1anate, is therefore Mnecessarily not si1pleMH the Mfirst s2bstance,M (hich is the 2lti1ate ca2se of the 2niverse, 12st, ho(ever, Mbe absol2tely one and si1pleMH Ibid' co11' @@H Arabic te*t -7>/' Ibld'H Arabic te*t -7@A8@., -7>/H Tahdf2t al8 Tahdf2t /;-H Middle Co11entary on the Metaphysics, Casanatense Hebre( MS ;6A;, --> 9--@: a8bH appendi* to AverroesI Iggeret Efshar2t ha8%ebeJ2t 9Arabic original lost:, ed' and trans' 3' 0land, as Epistle on the ,ossibility of ConG2nction 9$e( )ork -.A/:, Hebre( te*t ->-H English translation --- 9the printed te*t is defective, and I 2sed ,aris, 0ibliotheJ2e $ationale, Hebre( MS .@?, the readings of (hich are recorded in ElandIs apparat2s:H Kolfson 9n' ;? above: @/-8//' The translation of the passage in the Tahaf2t al8Tahaf2t sho2ld be corrected to read< M''' and it is not i1possible that it Qthe "irst Ca2seR sho2ld be so1ething 2nitary, of (hich a pl2rality of things have differing conceptions, G2st as QconverselyR it is not i1possible that a pl2rality sho2ld be grasped in a single conception'M That in the present stage of his tho2ght Averroes still vie(ed the intelligences as for1ing a hierarchy is clear fro1 ong Co11entary on the Metaphysics -/, co11' @@H Arabic te*t -7@.H Tahdf2t al8Tahaf2t /;/H and Epistle on the ,ossibility of ConG2nction ->-' @@ ong Co11entary on the Metaphysics, -/, co11' @@H Arabic te*t -7@A'
@; @/
the like are Mostensibly attrib2tes of efficient ca2sesQfacilR, b2t they are not so in
/;6
hence the 1over of the first sphere, (hich is not absol2tely 2nitary, 12st Mhave a ca2se prior to itM and is not the "irst Ca2seH and the "irst Ca2se, (hich transcends even the 1over of the o2ter1ost sphere, engenders it alone thro2gh an eternal process of e1anation'@> S2ch is the arg21ent that AverroesI ong Co11entary on the Metaphysics attrib2tes to the MlaterM philosophersH and it is the arg21ent that his original Epito1e had advanced in its o(n na1e b2t that the annotation interpolated into the Epito1e had attrib2ted to Alfarabi, to other Isla1ic philosophers, and tentatively to The1isti2s and ,lato'@7 In the ong Co11entary, Averroes dis1isses the arg21ent as invalid and Mdel2soryM for the reason the ong Co11entary has already given, na1ely, that Mneither procession Qs2d2r, l2E21] nor efficient ca2sation occ2rs Qin the intelligible (orldR'M@? The arg21ent s2pposedly sho(ing that the 1over of the o2ter1ost sphere cannot be the "irst Ca2se of the 2niverse is th2s baseless' Moreover, Averroes adds, an incorporeal s2bstance that does not 1ove a sphere is intrinsically i1pla2sible, for, Mas Aristotle (rote, if QincorporealR s2bstances e*isted (hich did not 1ove QspheresR, their act2ality Qfi c lR (o2ld be in vainM@AH the "irst Ca2se (o2ld e*ist in vain, if it did not 1ove a sphere' AverroesI ong Co11entary on the Metaphysics accordingly concl2des that the s2pposition of a Mfirst s2bstanceM transcending Mthe 1overM of the o2ter1ost sphere, the sphere of the fi*ed stars, is Mfalse'M The intelligence 1oving the o2ter1ost sphere is the "irst Ca2se'@. As for the active intellect, altho2gh it is no longer the prod2ct of a process of e1anation, it still stands at the end of the hierarchy of incorporeal beings'>6 Res21e' AverroesI original Epito1e of the Metaphysics sets forth an e1anation sche1e si1ilar to that of Alfarabi and Avicenna' The "irst Ca2se transcends the incorporeal intelligences that 1ove the celestial spheresH an intelligence eternally Ibid'H Arabic te*t -7@A8@.' See above, p' //7' @? ong Co11entary on the Metaphysics -/, co11' @@H Arabic te*t -7@.' Cf' Middle Co11entary on the Metaphysics 9n' @; above: --> 9--@: a8bH Tahaf2t al8Tahaf2t -?.8A6H Kolfson 9n' ;? above: @//' @A ,erhaps a reference to Aristotle, Metaphysics -/'A, -6?@a, //8/;' In Aristotle, (here the intelligences are not ca2ses of e*istence, it is 2nderstandable (hy they (o2ld e*ist in vain if they had no spheres to 1ove' 02t since Averroes, even in his 1at2re thinking, contin2es to 1isread Aristotle, by still agreeing (ith his Isla1ic predecessors that the "irst Ca2se is the ca2se of the e*istence of all s2bseJ2ent intelligences, it is hard to see (hy the "irst Ca2se (o2ld e*ist in vain if it had no sphere to 1ove' @. ong Co11entary on the Metaphysics -/, co11' @@H Arabic te*t -7@A' Cf' Kolfson @/>' >6 ong Co11entary on the Metaphysics -/, co11' ;AH Arabic te*t -7-/8-;H ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a 9n' ;? above: @@/' The ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a does not, to be precise, place the active intellect at the very end of the incorporeal hierarchyH for it locates the 1aterial h21an intellectBCD(hich Averroes there constr2es as a single eternal s2bstance shared by all 1enBCDdirectly after the active intellect in the incorporeal hierarchy' @7 @>
/;-
e1anates fro1 the "irst Ca2seH the first intelligence and those s2bseJ2ent to it contain 12ltiple aspects, (hich enable each of the1 to prod2ce 12ltiple effects, specifically, the so2l of the corresponding celestial sphere and the ne*t intelligence in the seriesH the active intellect, the final r2ng in the incorporeal hierarchy, e1anates eternally fro1 the intelligence associated (ith the l2nar sphere' Averroes does diverge fro1 his predecessors on partic2lars' He dis1isses the notion of a di2rnal sphere beyond the sphere of the fi*ed stars, and he does not constr2e the intelligences as the e1anating ca2se of the bodies of the spheres' He also s2pple1ents the sche1e by e*tending the e1anation thesis to the s2bsyste1s of spheres (hich astrono1ers ass21ed in order to e*plain the f2ll co1ple*ity of celestial 1otion' AverroesI 1ore considered position is ad21brated in an interpolation in the Epito1e of the Metaphysics and is artic2lated in the ong Co11entaryBCDas (ell al8Tahdf2t' Averroes no( does a(ay (ith the e1anation of incorporeal beings' He e*plains that the "irst Ca2se serves as the ca2se of all the incorporeal intelligences, inas12ch as each of the1 has a tho2ght of the "irst Ca2se and thereby receives its for1' And having liberated hi1self fro1 the e1anation thesis, he also does a(ay (ith the hypothesis of a being beyond the 1overs of the spheres' Since a (holly 2nitary being 1ay after all have 12ltiple effects, there is no reason (hy the intelligence associated (ith the o2ter1ost sphere 1ay not be the (holly 2nitary "irst Ca2se of the 2niverse' Averroes see1s to envision a hierarchy of eternal and independently e*isting, J2asi81aterial strata for the intelligences, J2asi 1atters that involve no potentiality' Each strat21 has a 2niJ2e eternal conception of the "irst Ca2se, (hich is different fro1 the conceptions constit2ting the essences of the other intelligences, and each thereby gains for its intelligence the eternal perfection proportionate to the intelligenceIs rank (ithin the incorporeal hierarchy' Ke have here a strange collection of entities that are free of potentiality yet need to be perfected, that do not e1anate fro1 one another yet arrange the1selves in a hierarchy' Averroes has been led to posit the1, beca2se he has, on the one hand, reGected the e1anationis1 of his Isla1ic predecessors, (hile, on the other, contin2ed to interpret AristotleIs "irst Ca2se as the ca2se of the very e*istence, and not 1erely the 1otion, of the 2niverse' At all events, the active intellect still stands at the end of the incorporeal hierarchy' ike the other incorporeal beings in the hierarchy, it possesses so1e sort of e*istence in its o(n right and eternally receives its proper degree of perfection thro2gh the intelligible tho2ght that it has of the "irst Ca2se' as being affir1ed in the Middle Co11entary on the Metaphysics and in the Tahaf2t
/;/
The Active Intellect as a Ca2se of E*istence< Epito1es of the ,arva nat2ralia and the Metaphysics Averroes also retho2ght the range of f2nctions perfor1ed by the active intellect'>- As (as seen in an earlier chapter, certain of AlfarabiIs (orks recogniEed no role for the active intellect in bringing forth s2bl2nar beings, b2t AlfarabiIs Risalafi alc AJl described the active intellect as e1anating a range of nat2ral for1s above the level of the fo2r ele1entsBCDthe h21an for1, ani1al for1s, plant for1s, and probably certain inani1ate for1s' Avicenna (ent f2rther and represented the active intellect as giving forth fro1 itself, thro2gh a process of e1anation, the 1aterial s2bstrat21 of the entire s2bl2nar (orld and all, or virt2ally all, nat2ral for1s in the s2bl2nar (orld' AverroesI early position on the f2nctions of the active intellect is close to that of AlfarabiIs Risalafi al84OAJl' Averroes states his original position 2na1big2o2sly in the Epito1e of the ,arva nat2ralia' The conte*t (here the s2bGect co1es 2p does not reJ2ire hi1 to deal (ith the so2rce of s2bl2nar 1atter, b2t he cites t(o (orks of Aristotle, the %e generatione et corr2ptione and the %e generatione ani1ali21, in order to deter1ine the so2rce of the vario2s classes of s2bl2nar for1s' The pertinent chapter of AristotleIs %e generatione et corr2ptione had traced the processes of MgenerationM and Mdestr2ctionM (ithin the s2bl2nar region to t(o 1ove1ents of the heavens aro2nd the earth< the daily 1ove1ent of the entire celestial syste1, on the one hand, and the periodic 1ove1ent of the s2n, on the other' The for1er, being 2nifor1, ca2sesBCDaccording to AristotleBCDthe 2nifor1ity in nat2ral s2bl2nar processesH the latter, (hich at one season of the year brings the s2n nearer to the earth and at another season carries it a(ay, ca2ses the diversity'>/ Kith that chapter in 1ind, Averroes (rites in his Epito1e of the ,arva nat2raliaH MIt is proved QtabayyanaRM in AristotleIs %e generatione et corr2ptione that individ2al portions of 1atter receive the for1s of one or another of the fo2r ele1ents Mthanks to the 1ove1ents of the celestial bodies,M and that Mho1oeo1eric bodiesMBCDbasic nat2ral co1po2nds in (hich the ele1ents are blended and their J2alities te1pered>;BCDare bro2ght into e*istence (hen the 1ove1ents of the heavens (ork together (ith the nat2ral 1ove1ents of the ele1ents the1selves to !ersonides, Milha1ot ha8She19%ie 3a1pfe !ottes: 9 eipEig -A77: >';'-, observes that AverroesI (orks e*press three different vie(s on the active intellectIs role in the generation of s2bl2nar obGects' >/ Aristotle, %e generatione et corr2ptione /'-6H H' Loachi1Is notes on the chapter, in his edition 9O*ford -.//:' AverroesI Epito1e of the %e generatione et corr2ptione e*plicitly brings the planets into the processH see Middle Co11entary and Epito1e of the %e generatione et corr2ptioneH 1edieval Hebre( translation fro1 the Arabic, ed' S' 32rland 9Ca1bridge, Mass' -.>A: -/-8//H English translation, trans' S' 32rland 9Ca1bridge Mass' -.>A: -;;' >; Organic 1aterialBCDplant and ani1al cells of vario2s sortsBCDis incl2ded in the class of ho1oeo1eric bodies' See H' 0onitE, Inde* Aristotelic2s 90erlin -A?6: >-6b, lines ;>8 @/H A' ,eckIs edition and translation of %e generatione ani1ali21 9Ca1bridge, Mass' -.@/: *lviii8*li*' >-
/;;
1i* the ele1ents into ho1ogeneo2s blends'>@ As soon as 1atter is 1i*ed in the reJ2isite (ay, the for1 of an ele1ent or of a ho1oeo1eric body is, ipso facto, present' The pertinent passage in AristotleIs %e generatione ani1ali21 (as 12rky, and Averroes read it (ith the help of Ibn 0aGGaIs interpretation' The %e generatione ani1ali21 stated that a physiological factor called so2lheatBCDcharacteristic of ani1als b2t also appearing in inani1ate nat2reBCDis s2fficient to e*plain both se*2al reprod2ction and spontaneo2s generation' So2l8heat, (hich is related to the heat of the s2n, engenders plants and ani1als and also the nonintellect2al side of h21an life' MIntellect aloneMBCDand Aristotle did not indicate (hether he 1eant the h21an potentiality for tho2ght or act2al intelligible tho2ghtBCD 12st, since it is not a bodily f2nction, be so1ething MdivineM entering Mfro1 Those state1ents (o2ld see1 to e*press a straightfor(ard, nat2ralistic vie( of the origin of life belo( the level of h21an intellect and r2le o2t any transcendent so2rce of plant and ani1al for1s' A fe( lines later, ho(ever, Aristotle (ent on to speak of a Mso2l8like principleM , (hich acco1panies the 1ale se1en, and added that the so2l8like principle is so1eti1es MseparableM fro1 Mbody,M so1eti1es Minseparable'M It is separable in the case of ani1als having Mso1ething divine' And (hat is called intellect is of s2ch a sort'M;7 The !reek te*t is obsc2re, to say the least,>? and the only kno(n 1edieval Arabic translation, (hich 1ay or 1ay not be the one that Averroes and Ibn 0aGGa 2sed,>A 1akes things (orse' Instead of a Mso2l8like principleM in se1en, the Arabic speaks of Ma po(er of the origin QibtiddIR of so2lM (hich is carried by the MseedM of the Mbody of the 1ale se1en'M MItMBCDgender and conte*t 1ake MoriginM the probable antecedentBCDis Mseparate fro1 the body Qof the se1enR ''' and is so1ething divineMH and M(hat is of this character is called intellect'M>. Khile the !reek said that the so2l8 like principle is so1eti1es separable fro1 1atterBCDand G2st (hat that 1eans is debatableBCDthe Arabic drops the J2alification so1eti1es and says that the Morigin (itho2t'M>>
>@ Averroes, Epito1e of the ,arva nat2ralia, Arabic te*t, ed' H' 0l21berg 9Ca1bridge, Mass' -.?/: ?7H 1edieval Hebre( translation, ed' H' 0l21berg 9Ca1bridge, Mass' -.>@: @.8>6H English translation, trans' H' 0l21berg 9Ca1bridge, Mass' -.7-: @@8@>' >> %e generatione ani1ali21 /';'?;7b, /-8?;?a, >H ,eck >A78A.' >7 Ibid' ?;?a, ?8--' >? >?"' $2yens, Ievol2tion de la psychologie dIAristote 9 o2vain -.@A: ;A8;., gives a pla2sible interpretation' He p2nct2ates and reads the te*t in s2ch a (ay that only the inseparable, and not the separable, so2l8principle is described as carried by the se1en' >A Averroes co1plained abo2t the poor J2ality of the translation of the %e partib2s ani1ali21 and %e generatione ani1ali21 (hich he 2sedH see M' Steinschneider, %ie hebraischen &ebersetE2ngen des Mittelalters 2nd die L2den als %ol1etscher 90erlin -A.;: -@@' >. Aristotle, The !eneration of Ani1als< The Arabic Translation, ed' L' 0r2g1an and H' 2lofs 9 eiden -.?-:7@'
/;@
of so2lM (hich is carried by the seed of the se1en is separate fro1 1atter and hence divine'76 The (ay Ibn 0aGGa and others 2nderstood the Arabic te*t is reported in AverroesI Co11entary on the %e generatione ani1ali21, a (ork not kno(n to e*ist in the original Arabic b2t preserved in a 1edieval Hebre( translation' MThey s2pposedM AristotleIs 1eaning to be that Mthe principle QHebre(< hathalaXArabic< 1abddIR of the po(er in the s2bstance of the seed Qor< se1enR (hich Qand again the antecedent is 2nclearR besto(s the so2l and brings it into e*istenceM is a Mseparate QincorporealH nibdalX12faraJR po(er'M Altho2gh the lang2age is c21berso1e, the intent is clear' On Ibn 0aGGaIs reading of Aristotle, so2ls in the s2bl2nar (orld co1e fro1 an incorporeal s2bstance' To G2stify his interpretation, Ibn 0aGGa and the others citedBCDaccording to AverroesI reportBCDthe Aristotelian r2le7- that the agent bringing so1ething into e*istence 12st already act2ally itself have the characteristic it brings into e*istence' MKhat prod2ces heatM is, for e*a1ple, MheatMH (hat Mprod2ces so2lM 12st conseJ2ently be a Mso2l'M Since 1ale se1en plainly Mdoes not contain act2al so2l,M the Aristotelian r2le (o2ld i1ply that the agent prod2cing act2al so2l is distinct fro1, and transcends, the se1en' On Ibn 0aGGaIs reading, then, (hen Aristotle spoke of so1ething separate fro1 the body of the 1ale se1en and divine, (hich is the origin of so2l, he 1eant an incorporeal agent that contains in itself the so2ls of all living beings and i1parts the1 to s2bl2nar 1atter'7/ Ret2rning no( to AverroesI Epito1e of the ,arva nat2ralia, (e find that Averroes there follo(s the interpretation of Aristotle (hich he reported in the na1e of Ibn 0aGGa' The Epito1e of the ,arva nat2ralia states< MIt is ''' proved in the %e ani1alib2sMBCD%e ani1alib2s being the na1e for AristotleIs three Eoological (orks taken as a 2nitBCDthat in instances (here Mindivid2al plants and ani1als'' ' reprod2ce,M their Mca2sesM are the Mseed and the active intellectMH and in instances (here plants and ani1als do not reprod2ce b2t are generated spontaneo2sly, their ca2ses are the Mele1ents, the celestial bodies, and the active intellect'M7; That is to say, plant and ani1al seed, in the one instance, and the effect of celestial 1otions 2pon the ele1ents, in the other, render a portion of 1atter As the Arabic translation renders the te*t, the attrib2te separable J2alifies Mso2l8like principleM and the attrib2te inseparable J2alifies Mseed'M The thing that is MinseparableM fro1 body is therefore not Mthe origin of so2lM b2t the MseedM in the 1ale se1en' 7- %e generatione ani1ali21 /'-'?;@b, /-8//' Above, p' -A' 7/ Averroes, Co11entary on %e ani1alib2s, O*ford, 0odleian ibrary, Hebre( MS Opp' 7A; 9X$e2ba2er -;?6: ->>a8b' The (ork of Ibn 0aGGaIs in (hich Averroes finds the interpretation is that philosopherIs %e ani1a' Averroes 1ay, as he often does, be giving (hat he 2nderstands to be the i1plications of Ibn 0aGGaIs state1ents, rather than (hat Ibn 0aGGa e*pressly said' The Co11entary on the %e ani1alib2s looks like a Middle Co11entary, b2t M' Steinschneider 9n' >A above: -@@, n' />A, cites so1e evidence for classifying it as an Epito1e' AverroesI Middle Co11entary on the Metaphysics 9n' @; above: -6. 9-6A:b, also refers to Ibn 0aGGaIs interpretation of the %e generatione ani1alib2s ' 7; Averroes, Epito1e of the ,arva nat2ralia 9n' >@ above:, Arabic te*t ?78??H Hebre( translation >6H English translation @>'
76
/;>
receptive of a partic2lar organic for1, and (hen a portion of 1atter is th2s prepared, it receives the appropriate for1 fro1 the e1anation of the incorporeal active intellect'7@ AverroesI Epito1e of the ,arva nat2ralia, in short, relates t(o Aristotelian passages, one in %e generatione et corr2ptione and one in %e generatione ani1ali21, to distinct classes of s2bl2nar e*istence' On AverroesI reading, the passage in %e generatione et corr2ptione (hich traces the processes of generation and destr2ction to the 1ove1ents of the heavens has in vie( for1s belo( the level of living plants and ani1als' The passage in the %e generatione ani1ali21, (hich Averroes 2nderstands to affir1 an incorporeal so2rce of plant and ani1al for1s, has only the for1s of ani1ate beings in vie(, and it traces the1, in instances of both se*2al reprod2ction and spontaneo2s generation, to the active intellect' The position Averroes here takes on the f2nctions of the active intellect his reference to the %e generatione ani1ali21 indicates that he (as relying on Ibn 0aGGaIs interpretation of that (ork of AristotleIs' agrees, 1ore or less, (ith the line adopted by AlfarabiIs Risdlafi al8cAJl,7> b2t
Averroes also treats the active intellectIs role in the s2bl2nar (orld in his Epito1e of the Metaphysics, and there the sit2ation is 1ore co1ple*' The original version of the Epito1e of the Metaphysics sees the active intellect as the ca2se of certain s2bl2nar nat2ral for1s, (ith an 2ne*pected n2ance' Then annotations added in so1e 1an2scripts rep2diate AverroesI early position, G2st as annotations in the sa1e 1an2scripts rep2diated AverroesI early endorse1ent of the theory of s2ccessive incorporeal e1anations' As already seen, the original Epito1e of the Metaphysics o2tlines a process of e1anation (herein each incorporeal intelligence brings forth the ne*t intelligence in the incorporeal hierarchy as (ell as the for1 or so2l of its o(n celestial sphere'77 The process, the Epito1e goes on, e*tends into the s2bl2nar (orld' Averroes e*cl2des an e1anation of the 2nderlying 1atter of the s2bl2nar (orld' Khen he had o2tlined the transl2nar e1anation process, he did not recogniEe a ca2se of the e*istence of the bodies of the spheres,7? and in the sa1e vein, he contends that an Mefficient ca2seM 9fa c il: of the 2nderlying 1atter of the s2bl2nar (orld is inconceivable' An efficient ca2se, the original Epito1e reasons, Mprod2ces a thing by providing it (ith the s2bstance thro2gh (hich it is (hat it isBCDin other (ords, by providing it (ith for1' In itself, ho(ever, the pri1e 1atter Qof the s2bl2nar (orldR has no for1, thanks to (hich it 1ight have an efficient ca2se' "2rther1ore, pri1e 1atter cannot conceivably have another 1atter Qfro1 (hich it is fashionedR, 7@ 7@Averroes, Epito1e of the %e ani1a, ed' A' Ah(ani as Talkhis_ 3itab al8$afs 9Cairo -.>6: AA, si1ilarly ass21es that the active Intellect is the ca2se of the Me*istenceM of the 1aterial h21an intellect' 7> Above, pp' 7787?' 77 Above, pp' //@8 //>' 7? Above, p' //@'
/;7
beca2se it is itself the first 1atter'M That is to say, anything 1aterial not 1ade fro1 a prior 1atter is not 1ade at all, pri1e 1atter is not 1ade fro1 a prior 1atter, hence pri1e 1atter can have no efficient ca2se'7A The 2nderlying 1atter of the s2bl2nar (orld is, therefore, the prod2ct of neither the active intellect nor any other agent' Matter does, in a sense, have a for1al and final ca2se' In the first place, since the for1s of the fo2r ele1ents invest indeter1inate 1atter (ith a deter1inate character, and since 1atter e*ists for the p2rpose of allo(ing the ele1ents to e1erge, the for1s of the ele1ents are the Mi11ediate ' ' ' for1al and final' '' ca2se of the e*istence of pri1e 1atter'M In the second place, since the Mcelestial bodiesM bring forth the ele1ental for1s in pri1e 1atter, the celestial bodies can be taken as the 2lti1ate for1al and final ca2se of the e*istence of pri1e 1atter'7. And the 1atter of the lo(er (orld has a ca2se Min another respectM as (ell' "or the ter1 1atter is predicated of transl2nar and s2bl2nar 1atter in one of the several 1odes of Mpriority and posteriorityM?6H the MpriorM in any class can be dee1ed the Mca2se of the e*istence of the posteriorMH and Mtherefore the 1atter of the celestial bodies is in this sense too the ca2se of the e*istence of s2bl2nar 1atter'M?- Th2s the 2nderlying 1atter of the s2bl2nar (orld has no tr2e efficient ca2se, altho2gh it can be described as having a ca2se in vario2s loose senses' Khen the Epito1e of the Metaphysics t2rns to the ca2se of the for1s of the fo2r ele1ents, it endorses a nat2ralistic theory that Alfarabi had espo2sed and Avicenna had reGected'?/ Averroes e*plains that, as Mproved in QAristotleIsR %e caelo,M?; the rapid 1ove1ent of the celestial spheres heats the 1atter f2rthest fro1 the center of the s2bl2nar (orld and closest to the inner1ost sphereH Mheat entails lightnessMH and lightness constit2tes Mthe for1 of fire'M The o2ter1ost s2bl2nar 1atter, (hich is 1oved 1ost rapidly, therefore beco1es fire' The inner1ost 1atter, the 1atter farthest fro1 the celestial spheres, is not 1oved or heated, re1ains heavy, and, heaviness being the for1 of earth, beco1es earth' Inter1ediate 1atter ass21es the for1 of air or (ater, depending on its relative lightness or heaviness'?@ The appearance of Mho1oeo1ericM bodies, blended co1po2nds constit2ting levels of e*istence i11ediately above the fo2r ele1ents, is like(ise a1enable to a nat2ralistic e*planation' Ho1oeo1eric bodies Mhave been sho(nM in AristotleIs Mphysical scienceM to MreJ2ireM nothing for their e*istence beyond the effect that celestial 1ove1ent e*ercises on the fo2r ele1ents'?>
Epito1e of the Metaphysics 9n' > above: @, 4T7AH !er1an translation -;.' Ibid' ?6 Regarding priority and posteriority, see Aristotle, Metaphysics >'--' ?- Epito1e of the Metaphysics @, 4T7.H !er1an translation -;.' See the passage J2oted fro1 Ale*ander, above, p' /6, n' A6' ?/ Above, p' ?A' ?; ,erhaps a reference to %e caelo @'@' ?@ Epito1e of the Metaphysics @, 4T7;H !er1an translation -;78;?' ?> Ibid' 4T7>H !er1an translation -;?' 7.
7A
/;?
Since the e*istence of the fo2r ele1ents and of ho1ogeneo2s blends of the ele1ents can be acco2nted for thro2gh the interaction of physical forces, the Mafore1entioned scienceMBCDphysicsBCDreJ2ires 2s Mto introd2ce a principle fro1 (itho2tM only for Mthe e*istence of plants and ani1als'M ,lants and ani1als e*hibit Mfac2lties,M s2ch as the Mn2tritive so2l,M (hich perfor1 Mdeter1inate acts (orking to(ard a given end'M The e1ergence of those fac2lties Mcan be attrib2ted neither to the ele1ents,M (hich possess only pri1itive physical J2alities, nor to the organis1Is Mindivid2al progenitorH for the progenitor f2rnishes 1erely ' ' ' the receptive 1atter or the instr21ent,M as for e*a1ple, Mse1en Q(hich is an instr21entR, and 1enstr2al blood Q(hich is the receptive 1atterR'M If organic for1s do not e1erge fro1 (ithin, they 12st enter fro1 (itho2t, s2pplied by an e*ternal Mprinciple'M?7 circ21stantially the position that his Epito1e of the ,arva nat2ralia sketched' The 2nderlying 1atter of the s2bl2nar (orld, Averroes has again e*plained, cannot conceivably have an efficient ca2se of its e*istence' The for1s of the fo2r ele1ents are bro2ght into e*istence by the 1otion of the celestial region, and nat2ral ho1oeo1eric co1po2nds co1e into e*istence (hen the ele1ents are, in t2rn, 1i*ed by celestial 1otion' 02t the for1s or so2ls of living beings are crystalliEed o2t of the e1anation of the active intellect (hen a given portion of 1atter beco1es disposed to receive a given for1, as (hen fe1ale 1enstr2al blood is fertiliEed by 1ale se1en' Khere2pon Averroes adds an 2ne*pected scholi21' The foregoing, he (rites, Mhas been proved in physical science,M (hile fro1 the standpoint of 1etaphysics, the active intellect 12st be credited (ith a (ider role' "or M1aterial for1sM can instill in 1atter only eJ2ally M1aterialM for1s, not Mfor1s separate Qfro1 1atterR,M and a Mpartic2lar 1aterial obGect can prod2ce only a partic2lar thing like itself'M The MfactorM 9or< notionH 1acna: in a s2bl2nar physical obGect rendering it MintelligibleMBCDthat is, the for1 of the physical obGect, (hich can be abstracted fro1 the obGect and grasped by the 1ind as an intelligible tho2ghtBCDis, ho(ever, neither 1aterial nor partic2lar' The celestial bodies, the1selves 1aterial obGects possessing 1aterial for1s, conseJ2ently cannot instill in 1atter the for1 that the h21an intellect abstracts and co1prehends as an intelligible tho2ght' "ro1 (hat Averroes calls the 1etaphysical, and (hat (e 1ight prefer to call the episte1ological, perspective, the Mactive intellectM 12st therefore be ass21ed to MgiveM not G2st the ?7 Ibid' 4T77H !er1an translation -;?8;A' Cf' Aristotle, %e generatione ani1ali21 -'/6'?/.a, .8--H /A8;;' In Metaphysics .'?'-6@.a, /, and else(here, Aristotle see1s to regard se1en as the 1aterial fro1 (hich the ani1al is generated, RossI co11entary ad loc21 e*plains that Aristotle is G2st speaking i1precisely and according to pop2lar notions' %' 0al1e, M%evelop1ent of 0iology in Aristotle and Theophrast2s< Theory of Spontaneo2s !eneration,M ,hronesis - 9-.7/: .>8.7, takes the passages as evidence that the Metaphysics represents a stage in Aristotle before he developed his biological thinking'
AverroesI Epito1e of the Metaphysics has so far li1ned so1e(hat 1ore
/;A
for1s of plants and ani1als b2t all other for1s capable of beco1ing obGects of tho2ght, incl2ding the for1s of Mthe si1ple bodies,M or ele1ents'?? Averroes has propo2nded the 2n2s2al thesis that as long as a philosopher (orks in physical science, he can acco2nt for the e*istence of the fo2r ele1ents and of inani1ate co1po2nds thro2gh physical factors and he has to attrib2te only the e*istence of plants and ani1als to the active intellect' Khen the philosopher shifts to the science of 1etaphysics, (hich inJ2ires into physical obGectsI intelligibility,?A he finds, on the contrary, that he 12st constr2e the active intellect as the so2rce of all for1s, do(n to the level of the ele1ents' Th2s far, the position taken by the Epito1e of the Metaphysics in its original version' At several G2nct2res, the 1an2scripts of the Epito1e (hich contain the annotation rep2diating AverroesI original position on the e1anation of the incorporeal real1 also have annotations rep2diating his original position on the active intellectIs role in prod2cing s2bl2nar for1s' The 1an2scripts are especially revealing in one spot (here Averroes defends the Aristotelian proposition that the agent engendering an individ2al ani1al al(ays belongs to the Msa1e speciesM as the offspring it engenders ?. or is at least Msi1ilar and analogo2sM to its offspring' The Mse1en ' ' ' 1oving the 1enstr2al blood so that it beco1esM a living ani1al 1ight, Averroes observes, appear to constit2te a co2ntere*a1ple, since se1en obvio2sly is not an ani1al belonging to the sa1e species as the ani1al born of the fertiliEed fe1ale' 02t in fact, he (rites, the agent standing behind the se1en does confor1 to the r2le' The reasoning (hereby Averroes 1akes the point is p2t differently in the different 1an2scripts'
Ibid' 4T7?H !er1an translation -;AH cf' ibid' /, 4T4T;78;? 9a line has dropped o2t of the te*t in 4T;?:H !er1an translation @@8@>' Averroes goes on to insist that he has neither backslid into ,latonis1 nor forgotten the Aristotelian dict21 that each M1an is generated by a 1an and the s2nM 9cf' Aristotle, ,hysics /'/'-.@b, -;H Metaphysics ?'.'-6;@a, /-8/>:' MKhat is generated essentially,M he e*plains, Mis the individ2al,M and its generating ca2se is another individ2al, M(hereas the for1 is generatedM not essentially b2t MaccidentallyM 9cf' Aristotle, Metaphysics ?'A'-6;;b, >8AH ->'-6;.b, /68/7:' Th2s Man individ2al 1an,M the thing generated essentially, is bro2ght into e*istence by Mthe individ2al s2n and an individ2al 1an'M The 1anIs for1, his Mh21anity,M is Mgenerated in hi1 accidentallyMH it is bro2ght into e*istence by Mh21anity abstracted fro1 1atter Qand inhering in the active intellectR'M The difference bet(een the syste1s of ,lato and Aristotle, as Averroes vie(s the1 at the present stage of his thinking, is accordingly as follo(s< On the ,latonic position, the incorporeal "or1 prod2ces the individ2al essentially, that is to say, it is the Mi11ediateM ca2se, (hereas on the Aristotelian position, one individ2al prod2ces another individ2al essentially, and the ne( individ2alIs for1 s2pervenes in an accidental generation' ?A Aristotle, Metaphysics @';H Kolfson, MThe Classification of Sciences in Medieval Le(ish ,hilosophy,M reprinted in his St2dies 9n' ;? above: >-A' ?. See Aristotle, ,hysics /'/'-.@b, -;'
??
/;.
The Arabic 1an2scripts preserving the reasoning in its original for1BCDthey are the sa1e 1an2scripts that re1ain faithf2l to AverroesI early position on transl2nar e1anationA6BCDread< The 1over that necessarily has to be of the sa1e J2iddity as (hat is 1oved Qthat is, as the offspringR or analogo2s and si1ilar thereto is the 2lti1ate 1over' "or the 2lti1ate 1over is (hat gives the i11ediate 1over the po(er (hereby it 1oves Qand engenders the offspringR' In the case of se1en, the 2lti1ate 1over is the father,A- and in the case of QfertiliEedR eggs the 2lti1ate 1over is the Q1aleR birdBCD(ith, ho(ever, the proviso that these factors have been proved to be ins2fficient (itho2t a principle fro1 (itho2t, as proved in physical science' As for ani1als and plants that are generated spontaneo2sly, their generation res2lts fro1 the heat of the stars, yet that heat is not the 2lti1ate ca2se of their co1ing into e*istence' Here too, it has been proved, a 1over analogo2s Qto the organis1 being generatedR e*ists (hich gives the organis1 its s2bstantial for1' The reason (hy the 2lti1ate 1over is not, in this instance, of the sa1e J2iddity as (hat is 1oved Qand engendered, b2t only analogo2s and si1ilar theretoR, is that the 1over is, as has been proved, incorporeal'A/ The Arabic 1an2scripts incorporating the corrections read< The 1over that necessarily has to be of the sa1e J2iddity as (hat is 1oved Qthat is, as the offspringR or analogo2s and si1ilar thereto is the 2lti1ate 1over' "or the 2lti1ate 1over is (hat gives the i11ediate 1over the po(er (hereby it 1oves Qand engenders the offspringR' In the case of se1en, the 2lti1ate 1over is the father, and in the case of QfertiliEedR eggs the 2lti1ate 1over is the Q1aleR birdBCD(ith, ho(ever, the proviso that these factors have been proved to be ins2fficient (itho2t a principle fro1 (itho2t' The latter is the celestial bodies in AristotleIs vie(, (hich is the correct one, or the active intellect in the vie( of 1any of the later philosophers'A; As for ani1als and plants that are generated spontaneo2sly, the 2lti1ate 1over is, in AristotleIs syste1, the celestial bodies thro2gh the 1ediacy of so2l8po(ers e1anating fro1 the1, or else the active intellect as the later philosophers interpret hi1 QAristotle]' ' ' , A@ A6 A-
Cf' Aristotle, %e generations ani1ali21 -'//' A/ P2iros Rodrig2eE edition 9n' > above: /, 4T4T/?8/A, and apparat2sH A1in edition 9n' > above: @78@?' A; P2iros Rodrig2eEIs edition i1plies that the Madrid 1an2script contin2es (ith the (ords< Mas proved in physical science'M If the edition can be relied on, the scribe (ho interpolated the gloss in the Madrid 1an2script 12st have (orked 1echanically and did not realiEe that the gloss s2perseded the reference to physical science' A@ P2iros Rodrig2eE edition /, 4T4T/?8/A, and apparat2sH A1in edition @?, apparat2sH Hyderabad edition 9n' > above: >6'
See above, n' >'
/@6
Of the Hebre( 1an2scripts that I e*a1ined, t(o have the e1ended version of the te*t,A> and one conflates the e1ended version (ith the original te*t'A7 Khat has happened is plain eno2gh' In the original version of the te*t, the first of the t(o paragraphs e*plained that in se*2al reprod2ction, the 2lti1ate agent belonging to the sa1e species as the offspring is not the se1en b2t the fatherH and it added that physical scienceBCDAristotleIs %e generatione ani1ali21 as interpreted by Ibn 0aGGaBCDsho(s the tr2e 2lti1ate agent to be a s2bstance o2tside the s2bl2nar (orld, that is, the active intellect, fro1 (hich plant and ani1al for1s e1anate' A s2bseJ2ent annotation stated that in the correct, Aristotelian vie(, the 2lti1ate 1over is the celestial bodies, altho2gh 1any later philosophers did identify the 2lti1ate 1over as the active intellect' The second paragraph originally e*plained that in spontaneo2s generation, (here there is no father and hence no agent belonging to the sa1e species as the offspring, the 2lti1ate 1over analogo2s to the offspring is an incorporeal beingBCDthe active intellect' Averroes later added an annotation, (hich again stated that the 2lti1ate 1over analogo2s to the offspring is, in the correct, Aristotelian vie(, the celestial bodies, (hich e1anate physical so2lpo(ers, altho2gh later philosophers did interpret Aristotle as affir1ing that the active intellect is the 2lti1ate 1over' The annotations e1ending AverroesI original position 12st have been penned into the 1argins of one or 1ore 1an2scripts of the Epito1e' In the case of the first paragraph, one or 1ore scribes, b2t not all, incorporated the annotation into the te*tBCD(hile dropping the phrase Mas proved in physical science'M In the case of the second paragraph, the scribes s2bstit2ted the annotation for the (ords it s2persedes' Since the Hebre( 1an2scripts vary in their handling of the annotations, the Hebre( translator 12st have had a 1an2script in (hich the annotations (ere still appended to the te*t and not yet incorporated' He left the1 as 1arginal notes' One Hebre( scribe s2bstit2ted the annotation to the second of the t(o paragraphs for the passage 1eant to be s2perseded, (hile another conflated the e1endation (ith the original version' At f2rther G2nct2res, 1an2scripts of the Epito1e of the Metaphysics incorporate additional glosses rep2diating AverroesI original position on the active intellect' The first of the additional glosses is a 1inor parenthetic sentence'A? A second appears after a passage disc2ssed earlier (hich acco2nts for the for1s of ho1oeo1eric bodies (itho2t ass21ing an e*ternal incorporeal so2rce'AA The original version there contin2es (ith a paragraph stating that an incorporeal so2rce 12st be ass21ed for the for1s of plants and ani1alsH and then the ne*t paragraph 1akes the state1ent that fro1 the 1etaphysical vie(point, an e*ternal so2rce 12st be ass21ed not only for organic b2t for all nat2ral for1s, incl2ding the for1s of the A>
A6b'
M2nich, Staatsbibliothek, Hebre( MS -6A, .Aa8bH Madrid, Escorlal, Hebre( MS !l8 -@,
,aris, 0ibliotheJ2e $ationalc, Hebre( MS .-A, -/7b' Epito1e of the Metaphysics 9n' > above: /, 4T;7' AA Abovc, p' /;7' A?
A7
/@-
t(o Arabic 1an2scripts.6 as (ell as in the 1edieval Hebre( translation, an annotation correcting AverroesI original position has been inserted G2st before those t(o paragraphs' The annotation ends (ith the sa1e transitional cla2se as the second of the t(o paragraphs,.- (hich indicates that it (as 1eant to replace the1' In a third Arabic te*t the annotation does replace the t(o paragraphs'./ Other 1an2scripts, those reflecting the original Epito1e, lack the annotation altogether'.; Khat the
fo2r ele1ents, since other(ise their intelligibility co2ld not be acco2nted for'A. In
annotation says is that ani1ate beings, no less than ho1oeo1eric bodies, receive their for1s fro1 the Mcelestial bodies'M The celestial bodies Mgive lifeM to the (orld, and they alone can do so, for Mone thing gives another only (hat it contains in its o(n s2bstance,M and therefore only a Mbody by its o(n nat2re ani1ateM can M1ove 1atter to an ani1ate perfection'M Aristotle accordingly Mintrod2ced''' an incorporeal principleM into his pict2re of the s2bl2nar (orld Msolely Qto acco2ntR for the h21an intellect'M.@ A final passage in the Epito1e, one fo2nd in all the preserved 1an2scripts, reiterates that Mthere is no need ''' to introd2ce incorporeal for1s in connection (ith anything generated Qnat2rallyR ' ' ' e*cept for the h21an intellect'M The passage concl2des by directing readers to AverroesI MQ ongR Co11entaryM 9sharh: on the Metaphysics, (here he treated the s2bGect 1ore f2lly'.> Ke 2ndo2btedly here have a gloss that happened to be incorporated into all the kno(n 1an2scripts, incl2ding the 1an2scripts that generally reflect the original te*t of the Epito1e' Res21e' AverroesI Epito1e of the ,arva nat2ralia takes the for1s of the ele1ents and of ho1oeo1eric bodies to be the prod2ct of celestial 1otion' The 1ove1ents of the heavens heat s2bl2nar 1atter to vario2s degrees and thereby t2rn it into the fo2r ele1ents, and they 1i* the ele1ents into a variety of config2rations, the for1s of ho1oeo1eric bodies being nothing other than those config2rations' The sa1e Epito1e traces all plant and ani1al for1s to the active intellect' The Epito1e of the Metaphysics has preserved at least t(o positions' Its earlier position (as that fro1 the standpoint of physical science, a philosopher 12st Mintrod2ceM the active intellect to acco2nt for plant and ani1al for1s, (hile other, inani1ate for1s are e*plicable by the 1ove1ents of the heavenly bodies' 02t fro1 a 1etaphysical, or episte1ological, standpoint the appearance of all nat2ral s2bl2nar for1s, ani1ate as (ell as inani1ate, 12st be ascribed to the active intellect, beca2se only for1s deriving fro1 a so2rce consisting in p2re tho2ght can the1selves beco1e obGects of intellect2al tho2ght' Annotations incorporated into the Epito1e See above, p' /;?' The Madrid and third Cairo 1an2script 9n' > above:' .- The cla2se is< MSince 1atters are as (e laid do(n''''M ./ The Hyderabad edition 9n' > above:' .; The 1an2scripts on (hich the t(o p2blished Cairo te*ts are based 9n' > above:' .@
Epito1e of the Metaphysics @, 4T7>' .> Ibid' /, 4T;.' .6 A.
/@/
of the Metaphysics rep2diate the earlier position' The celestial bodies no( are not 1erely the ca2se of inani1ate nat2ral for1s' They are, thro2gh physical so2lpo(ers that they e1anate, the 2lti1ate ca2se of ani1ate for1s, in instances of both se*2al reprod2ction and spontaneo2s generation' According to the annotations, an incorporeal ca2se has to be Mintrod2cedM only to acco2nt for h21an intellect' That state1ent 1ight on its face 1ean either that an incorporeal ca2se 12st be posited to e*plain the appearance of the h21an potential intellect, or to e*plain the passage of the h21an intellect fro1 a state of potentiality to act2ality'
The Active Intellect as a Ca2se of E*istence< The Co11entary on %e generatione ani1ali21 Averroes, as (as seen, records Ibn 0aGGaIs interpretation of the passage in the %e generatione ani1ali21, (here Aristotle spoke of a Mso2l8like principleM acco1panying the 1ale se1en (hich is so1eti1es MseparableM fro1 Mbody,M and so1eti1es Minseparable'M The so2l8like principle is separable, Aristotle (rote, in the case of ani1als having Mso1ething divineH and (hat is called intellect is of s2ch a sort'M.7 On Ibn 0aGGaIs reading, the passage in Aristotle recogniEes an incorporeal so2rce of plant and ani1al for1s' The co1position (here Averroes reports Ibn 0aGGaIs interpretation is his o(n Co11entary on the %e generatione ani1ali21' In contrast to the Epito1e of the ,arva nat2ralia and original Epito1e of the Metaphysics, (hich follo( Ibn 0aGGa, (hen the Co11entary on the %e generatione ani1ali21 disc2sses the pertinent passage in Aristotle, it ref2tes Ibn 0aGGaIs interpretation' Averroes contends< To s2ppose that Man incorporeal for1M i1parts plant and ani1al for1s fro1 (itho2t and Mcreates for1QsR in 1atterM (o2ld be to backslide into the ,latonic Mdoctrine of "or1s,M.? (ith the attendant abs2rdity that Mso1ething (o2ld co1e o2t of nothing'M To s2pport his contention, Averroes cites MAristotle in 0ook ? of the Metaphysics'M He apparently 1eans, as Aristotle arg2ed in Metaphysics ?,.A that ,latonic ideal "or1s, (hich do not e*ist on the
physical plane, can in no (ay help e*plain the appearance of ne( for1s in 1atter, since the appearance of ne( for1s occ2rs co1pletely (ithin the physical plane' An e*planation of the appearance of physical for1s solely thro2gh ,latonic "or1s (o2ld accordingly be no e*planation at all and (o2ld be tanta1o2nt to having for1s co1e into e*istence (itho2t a ca2se' There re1ains the 1ore n2anced theory that celestial 1ove1ents and other nat2ral forces act 2pon 1atter 2ntil it possesses a Mblend8for1M 9Hebre(< s2ra Aristotle, %e generatione ani1ali21 ?;?a, ?8--' Above, p' /;;' Cf' above, n' ??' .ASee Aristotle, Metaphysics ?'AH also Aristotle, Metaphysics -;'>, -6A6a, ;8@< MEven
if there are "or1s, nothing can co1e into e*istence 2nless there is so1ething to originate 1otion'M .? .7
/@;
1iEgitXArabic< s2ra 1iEaGiyya or s2ra i1tiEdGiyya:, that is to say, a certain blend of the fo2r ele1ents, (here2pon the Mactive intellectM a2to1atically MgivesM the appropriate Mso2l8for1'M Averroes, as (e sa(, e1braced a theory of the sort in early (orks' His Co11entary on %e generations ani1ali21 no( ref2tes it' The theory (o2ld hold (ater, he reasons, only if the sa1e Mter1M co2ld be Mpredicated ' '' 2nivocallyM of the blend8for1 after it receives a so2l fro1 the active intellect and of the blend8for1 before the so2l (as presentBCDonly if, to invent an e*a1ple of o2r o(n, a fertiliEed h21an ov21 co2ld be called an ov21 after receiving a h21an so2l in the sa1e sense as before' In fact, ho(ever, ter1s are perforce predicated eJ2ivocally in the t(o instances, G2st as the Mter1 fleshM is predicated MeJ2ivocallyM of the flesh of a living being and of the flesh of the dead'M Averroes leaves his reasoning tr2ncated, b2t since, as (ill appear presently, he develops it f2lly else(here,-66 (e can co1plete it for hi1' His point, p2t briefly, is this< If (e look only at the physical s2bstrat21 receiving a so2l, (e find the s2bstrat21 itself 2ndergoing a critical change at the 1o1ent of receiving the so2l, so great a change that to describe the s2bstrat21 by the sa1e ter1 after as (ell as before the change (o2ld be to 2se the ter1 eJ2ivocally' Inas12ch as the change in the s2bstrat21 2ndo2btedly takes place on the physical plane, it 12st be e*plained by a physical factor' The for1 appearing in the s2bstrat21 12st be d2e to the sa1e physical factor, and not to the action of an incorporeal being, (hich f2nctions on a (holly different plane' The 2pshot of AverroesI rereading of AristotleIs %e generatione ani1ali21 is, accordingly, that the so2l of an organis1 e1erges thro2gh a process (ithin the physical (orld, a process in (hich the Mengendering agent' ' ' alters 1atter potentially containing the for1 2ntil it prod2ces the for1 in 1atter act2ally'M To identify G2st (hat the engendering agent is, Averroes add2ces the Aristotelian concept of so2l8heat,(i a concept that he neglected in his early treat1ent of the appearance of organic for1s, perhaps beca2se he (as not yet fa1iliar (ith %e generatione ani1ali21'-6/ So2ls, he (rites, are bro2ght forth by a Mso2l8heatM or Mso2l8po(erM in 1atter' ,araphrasing the te*t of AristotleIs (hich he is e*po2nding, he adds that so2l8heat is 2nrelated to the heat of the ele1ent fire and belongs instead to Mthe gen2s of the celestial nat2re'M-6; It is prod2ced by a ca2sal process going back to the Ms2n and the celestial spheres,M and is identical (ith the physiological factor that M!alenM called the Mfor1ative Qpo(erR'M-6@ In cases of VVAverroes, Co11entary on the %e ani1alib2s 9n' 7/ above: ->>b' "or the eJ2ivocation in predicating the ter1 eye of the organ of a living being and that of a dead being, see Aristotle, %e generatione ani1ali21 /'-'?;>a, A' -66 0elo(, pp' /@?8 @A' -6- See above, p' /;;H ,eck 9n' >; above: >A68A@' -6/ AverroesI Epito1e of the %e ani1a 9n' 7@ above: ?, see1s to refer to so2l8heat, b2t I find the 1eaning of the passage 2nclear' -6; Cf' Aristotle, %e generatione ani1ali21 /';'?;7b, ;>8?;?a, -' -6@ Cf' !alen, %e nat2ralib2s fac2ltatib2s -'7'->'
/@@
organic reprod2ction, it is present in the seed of a plant or in the 1ale se1en, both of (hich are generated fro1 a Mresid2eM of the bodyIs Mno2rish1ent,M-6> (hile in spontaneo2s generation, (here seed and se1en play no role, it is present in a Mnat2ral resid2e,M that is to say, in decaying 1aterial'-67 It operates on an appropriate portion of 1atter to bring into act2ality the so2l that is already latent and potential there'-6? The proposition that Mso2l8heat in seed ''' prod2ces a so2lM 1ay see1, on the s2rface, to contradict the Aristotelian principle that Mthe agent''' 12st agree in that only (hat is itself of a certain character in act2ality can prod2ce so1ething having the sa1e character' Averroes resolves the apparent contradiction by e*plaining that altho2gh the agent prod2cing a given act2al for1 12st indeed be the sa1e in for1 as its prod2ct, it Mneed not e*ist in the sa1e sort of 1atter as the 1atter in (hich it prod2ces the Qne( act2alR for1'M "or e*a1ple, the agent that prod2ces an act2al for1 of a bed in (ood is the act2al for1 of bed residing not in another piece of (ood b2t in the Mso2l of the crafts1an'M The 1acrocos1ic analog2e of the for1 in the crafts1anIs so2l, the analog2e of the agent that tr2ly prod2ces the bed, is plainly different fro1 so2l8heatH so2l8heat, (hich operates on the physical plane, parallels instead the McraftM by (hich the crafts1an fashions the bed'-6. Averroes does not e*plicitly say (hat he 2nderstands the analog2e of the act2al for1 in the so2l of the crafts1an to be' He does (rite, ho(ever, that the ca2se MengenderingM so2l8heat Mis perforce an incorporeal po(er,M an Mintellect' ' ' distinct fro1M and standing belo( the "irst Ca2se of the principle acco1panying se1en (hich is Mseparate,M Mso1ething divine,M and of the nat2re of Mintellect'M--- I take AverroesI 1eaning to be that the analog2e of the for1 in the 1ind of the crafts1an, and hence the tr2e agent prod2cing a nat2ral obGect, is a for1 contained in the incorporeal agent (hich is the 2lti1ate ca2se of so2l8heat' Since the incorporeal agent is s2bordinate to the "irst Ca2se, it (o2ld have to be either the active intellect or one of the incorporeal intelligencesBCDand 12ch 1ore likely the for1er' If I have 2nderstood Averroes correctly, his present acco2nt therefore traces the so2rce of so2l8heat back beyond the s2n and the celestial spheres to either the active intellect or, possibly, the 1overs of the spheres' The active intellect or the 1overs of the spheres e1ploy so2l8heat in a 1anner analogo2s to that in (hich the crafts1an e1ploys his craft' Cf' Aristotle, %e generatione ani1ali21 -'-A'?/>a, ;' Ibid' ;'--'?7/a, -;8->' -6? Averroes, Co11entary on the%e ani1alib2s ->@b8->>b' -6A Cf' Aristotle, Metaphysics ?'.'-6;@a, //H -/';'-6?6a, @8>' -6. The crafts1an analogy is fro1 Aristotle, %e generatione ani1ali21 -'//'?;6b, -@H ;'--'?7/a, -?' --6 Averroes, Co11entary on the %e ani1alib2s ->>b8->7a' --- Above, p' /;;' -67 -6>
na1e and definition (ith its effect,M-6A (hich is a version of the broader principle
2niverse--6H the lang2age 2n1istakably echoes AristotleIs reference to a so2l8like
/@>
The Co11entary on the %e generatione ani1ali21, in s21, arg2es stren2o2sly that (hat endo(s plants and ani1als (ith their so2ls is not an e1anation fro1 the active intellect or any other incorporeal being b2t a physical factor, called so2l8po(er or so2l8heat, operating (ithin 1atter' )et not(ithstanding its insistence 2pon a physical factor as the i11ediate ca2se of the for1s of living beings, the present (ork still cannot do (itho2t an incorporeal agent' Either the active intellect or the incorporeal 1overs of the celestial spheres engender so2l8heat and e1ploy it to i1part for1, as the act2al for1 of a bed in the 1ind of the crafts1an e1ploys the crafts1anIs craft to fashion a bed' AverroesI Middle Co11entary on the Metaphysics, (hich (as co1pleted five years after the Co11entary on the %e generatione ani1ali21 and (hich refers to it by na1e, s2ggests a si1ilar position'--/ The Active Intellect as a Ca2se of E*istence< 9%estr2ctio %estr2ction21: The ong
Co11entary on the Metaphysics and Tahaf2t al8Tahdf2t
Averroes treats the provenance of nat2ral for1s 1ost f2lly and syste1atically in his ong Co11entary on the Metaphysics' The position he takes there agrees (ith Co11entary on %e generatione ani1ali21' "or the first ti1e Averroes has so1ething specific to say abo2t Avicenna' MAvicennaM and others, he reports, 1aintained that Ma (holly non1aterial' '' agent,M na1ely, the Mactive intellect,M also called the Mgiver of for1s,M Mcreates the for1M of every nat2ral obGect and Mfi*es the for1 in 1atter'M--; A 1inor arg21ent s2pporting an incorporeal so2rce of nat2ral for1s (o2ld be that (hen fire ens2es 2pon rapid 1otion, M(e cannot say (e see 1otion engendering the s2bstantial for1 of fireH conseJ2ently, the for1 of fire ' ' ' 12st co1e into e*istence thanks to the QincorporealR giver of for1s'M--@ That arg21ent is si1plistic, b2t Averroes also for12lates a 1ore sophisticated arg21ent (ith (hich his opponents 1ight b2ttress their position' It rests on the Aristotelian principle that has governed every stage of the disc2ssion, the principle that the Mpotential beco1es act2al only thro2gh so1ething already act2al in the sa1e gen2s or species'M The arg21ent is especially pla2sible in cases of spontaneo2s generation, (here Mani1als '' ' and plantsM are fo2nd to Mpass fro1 potentiality to act2alityM in the absence of any MseedM born of a --/
the annotations to the Epito1e on the Metaphysics and goes a step beyond the
Middle Co11entary on the Metaphysics 9n' @; above: -6. 9-6A:b' "or the dates of
co1position of these (orks, see Renan 9n' - above: 7-' --; ong Co11entary on the Metaphysics ?, co11' ;-H -/, co11' -AH Arabic te*t 9n' ? above:, AA/, -@.7, -@.A' --@ ong Co11entary on the Metaphysics ?, co11' ;-H Arabic te*t AA;'
/@7
progenitor Msi1ilar''' in for1M to the ne( organis1' Since no agent already act2ally endo(ed (ith the reJ2isite for1 can be discovered (ithin the physical setting, Mit (o2ld see1 that QincorporealR s2bstances and for1s 12st e*ist, (hich give for1s to the Qspontaneo2slyR generated ani1als and plants'M--> The arg21ent can, Averroes contin2es, be e*tended to plants and ani1als capable of reprod2cing and even to inani1ate s2bstances, do(n to the level of the fo2r ele1ents' The reasoning (o2ld be that Mthe s2bstantial for1s in each and every obGect are so1ething added to the blend8 for1s Qs2(ar 1iEaGiyyaR,M the for1s on the physical level (hich represent nothing 1ore than a 1i*t2re of 1aterial co1ponents' So1ething 12st bring those s2bstantial for1s into e*istence' In the generation of plants, ho(ever, the Mseed does not contain a so2l act2ally, b2t only potentially, and (hatever is potential reJ2ires so1ething act2al Qto lead it to act2alityR'M $othing act2ally possessing the for1BCDor Mso2lMBCDof the ne( plant and able to prod2ce the sa1e kind of for1 in the plant is present (ithin the physical setting'--7 Si1ilarlyBCDto add an e*a1ple that Averroes (as seen to offer else(here,--? altho2gh he does not 2se it hereBCD(hen 1ale se1en fertiliEes fe1ale 1enstr2al blood, the se1en does not contain an act2al so2l (hich then prod2ces another act2al so2l (ithin the blood' Carrying the arg21ent do(n to the lo(est r2ng of the incorporeal real1, the proponents of an incorporeal giver of for1s 1ay contend that even in the generation of the fo2r ele1ents, no physical s2bstance endo(ed (ith the ele1entIs for1 acts directly on the s2bstance possessing the for1 potentially' Khen act2al fire, for e*a1ple, ostensibly ignites another s2bstance and prod2ces fire in it, the MactiveM factor in the first s2bstance, in the act2al fire, is the MJ2alityM of Mheat,M and heat alone is co112nicated to the second s2bstance' )et the Ms2bstantial for1M of fire is Mlightness,M--A not heat, and the lightness of the first s2bstance is never bro2ght to bear on the second' The for1 of the one s2bstance th2s does not operate on the other s2bstance, nor is the for1 of the second generated by contact (ith the for1 of the first' To s2ppose that the Mgeneration of the for1 of fireM is not effected by a s2bstantial for1 b2t is Mattendant 2pon the generation of the fiery heat, as accidents are attendant 2pon the generation of a for1M (o2ld be a MreprehensibleM 9shanic: thesis' The only re1aining thesis, so the arg21ent concl2des, is that the for1 of the ne(ly generated fire, as (ell as of a ne(ly generated plant or ani1al, co1es fro1 the MincorporealM real1'--. The foregoing considerations, (rites Averroes, 1ay even be tho2ght to s2pport the ,latonic theory of "or1s' And they are the fo2ndation 2nderlying AvicennaIs theory that all nat2ral for1sBCDthe Mso2l8for1sM of plants and ani1als, (hether they Ibid'H Arabic te*t AA-' Ibid'H Arabic te*t AA-8A/' --? Above,p' /;?' --A See above, p' /;7' --. ong Co11entary on the Metaphysics ?, co11' ;-H -/, co11' -AH Arabic te*t AA/, -@.7' Si1ilarly, Tahaf2t al8Tahaf2t 9n' ;; above: @6?' --7 -->
/@?
reprod2ce se*2ally or are engendered spontaneo2sly, the Ms2bstantial for1s of ho1oeo1ericM co1po2nds, and the Ms2bstantial for1s of the ele1entsMBCDco1e Mfro1 the active intellect, (hich Avicenna calls the giver of for1s'M-/6 AverroesI ong Co11entary on the Metaphysics 2ndertakes to settle the iss2e by proceeding solely in accordance (ith the Mpropositions and principlesM of AristotleIs philosophyH for AristotleIs syste1 is the one Mthat involves fe(est do2bts, that 1ost fir1ly reflects reality,' ' ' and that stands at the f2rthest re1ove fro1 contradiction'M-/- Aristotelian propositions and principles lead Averroes to reGect an incorporeal so2rce of any s2bl2nar nat2ral for1' The train of reasoning thro2gh (hich Averroes brings the iss2e to its final deno2e1ent is so1e(hat abstr2se' He reasons as follo(s< Khen an obGect co1es into e*istence, to regard its Mfor1M and Ms2bstrat21M as Mt(o act2allyM distinct entities (o2ld be Mabs2rdMH if the for1 (ere co1pletely distinct fro1 the s2bstrat21, for1 and s2bstrat21 (o2ld constit2te not a single obGect b2t t(o' That 1eans that (hen a portion of 1atter possessing a physical blend8for1 receives a ne(, s2bstantial for1, (hether the for1 of an inani1ate obGect, a plant, or an ani1al, the portion of 1atter beco1es so1ething co1pletely different fro1 (hat it (as before the ne( for1 appeared' As p2t by Averroes, to call 1atter that possesses a blend8for1 the s2bstrat21 of the s2pervening s2bstantial for1 before as (ell as after it receives the s2bstantial for1 (o2ld be to e1ploy the ter1 s2bstrat21 MeJ2ivocally'M T(o inferences can be dra(n< The s2bstrat21 of a (hen it receives the for1H and the agent bringing an obGect into e*istence prod2ces neither Mfor1 by itself nor the s2bstrat21 (itho2t the for1,M b2t rather brings Mboth into e*istence togetherM and as a single obGect' ConseJ2ently, there can be no 1ore than one agent' "or Mif the s2bstrat21 of the for1 Qin the sense G2st definedR ca1e into e*istence thro2gh an agent and the for1 thro2gh another, a single prod2ct (o2ld, insofar as it is a 2nity, co1e into e*istence thro2gh t(o agents, (hich is abs2rd'M Any obGect co1ing into e*istence 12st therefore have a single agent, (hich si12ltaneo2sly both brings the s2bstrat21 into e*istenceBCDby rendering a portion of 1atter the s2bstrat21 of a given for1BCDand also prod2ces the ne( for1 in the s2bstrat21' Inas12ch as the agent bringing the 1aterial s2bstrat21 into e*istence does its (ork on the physical plane, it 12st be physical' It 12st be either Ma body possessing an active J2ality, or a po(er ' '' operating thro2gh a body possessing an active J2ality'M And the sa1e agent, acting on the physical plane, is (hat brings forth the for1 in the s2bstrat21' The agent bringing forth any nat2ral for1 is conseJ2ently physical'-// -/6 ong Co11entary on the Metaphysics ?, co11' ;-H Arabic te*t AA/' AverroesI lang2age does not 1ean that plants and ani1als lack Ms2bstantialM for1s, b2t rather that their Mso2l8for1sM are a specific kind of s2bstantial for1' -/- ong Co11entary on the Metaphysics -/, co11' -AH Arabic te*t -@.?' -// Ibid' ?, co11' ;-H Arabic te*t AA@8A>'
s2bstantial for1 e*ists as the s2bstrat21, in the strict sense, only fro1 the 1o1ent
/@A
The concl2sion AverroesI ong Co11entary on the Metaphysics dra(s and, inevitably, discovers in Aristotle is then that ne( nat2ral for1s are bro2ght into e*istence by physical agents, that M1aterial for1s generate 1aterial for1s'M-/; The for1 of any e1erging nat2ral obGect (as already present (ithin the portion of 1atter that is going to t2rn into the obGectH in fact, Mall'' ' for1s are potentially present in pri1e 1atterMH and the Magent,M (hich is physical, Mprod2ces the co1po2nd of 1atter and for1 ''' by 1oving 1atter ' ' ' 2ntil (hat is potentially for1 therein passes to act2ality'M The agent accordingly does not Mintrod2ce anything fro1 (itho2t into the 1atter'M "or e*a1ple, a portion of 1atter to be ignited already contains fire in potentiality, and Mfire co1es into e*istenceM beca2se either M1otionM or other act2al MfireM brings the potential fire (ithin the 1atter to act2ality' Si1ilarly, an ani1ate being co1es into e*istence beca2se Mfor1s e*isting in the agent that generates the ani1al' ' ' bring ' ' ' the for1s in 1atter Qthat is, in the 1otherIs 1enstr2al blood and, 2lti1ately, in pri1e 1atter itselfR fro1 potentiality to act2ality'M-/@ The generation of living beings does differ fro1 the generation of inani1ate obGects in one respect, inas12ch as so2l8heat or an eJ2ivalent also plays a role there' Khen plants and ani1als reprod2ce, the agent leading the potentiality to act2ality is a Mso2l8heatM inhering in the seed or se1en' So2l8heat is MgeneratedM in the seed by the 1at2re parent plant and in the se1en by the 1ale parent, acting, in each instance, together (ith the heat of the Ms2nM or, to be 1ore precise, (ith the heat of the s2n MblendedM (ith the heat of the other starsBCD(hence AristotleIs dict21 Mthat 1an is generated by a 1an and the s2n'M Khere plants and ani1als do not reprod2ce b2t are generated spontaneo2sly Mfro1 decayed 1aterialM 9c2f2na:, the Mdecayed 1aterial serves in place of the seed,M and the s2rrogate of so2l8heat is a heat MgeneratedM by the Mheat of the s2n blended (ith the heat of the other stars'M-/> So2l8heat or its s2rrogate s2ffices to bring living beings into e*istence' Averroes does not forget that AristotleIs %e generatione ani1ali21 spoke of a Mpo(er of the origin of the so2l,M (hich po(er or origin is Mso1ething divineM and Mcalled intellect'M-/7 Ibn 0aGGa had read the (ords as referring to an incorporeal giver of for1s' The original version of AverroesI Epito1e of the Metaphysics as (ell as his Epito1e of the ,arva nat2ralia had agreed and identified the active intellect as the agent prod2cing the so2ls of ani1ate beings'-/? AverroesI Co11entary on the %e generatione ani1ali21 dis1issed the notion of an incorporeal giver of for1s b2t still 2nderstood the passage in Aristotle to refer to an Ibid'H Arabic te*t AA;' AverroesI proof te*t in Aristotle is Metaphysics ?'., -6;@b, -6, according to (hich< O2r Mreasoning sho(s that for1 is not generated,M and (hat co1es into e*istence is not the for1 itself, b2t the s2bstance consisting of for1 and 1atterH see Averroes, ibid' AA@' -/@ Ibid' -/, co11' -AH Arabic te*t -@..8->66, ->6>' -/> Ibid' -/, co11s' -; and -AH Arabic te*t -@7@, ->6-8/' -/7 Above, p' /;;' -/? Above, pp' /;@8;>' -/;
/@.
Mincorporeal po(erM that MengendersM so2l8heat, so2l8heat being the pro*i1ate ca2se bringing plant and ani1al for1s into e*istence'-/A The ong Co11entary on the Metaphysics no( recogniEes no incorporeal po(er that engenders so2lheat, altho2gh it does re1ark blandly that G2st as all nat2ral for1s e*ist potentially (ithin 1atter, so too Min a sense, they e*ist act2ally in the pri1e 1over'M-/. "ro1 the standpoint of the ong Co11entary on the Metaphysics, the e*pression MdivineM po(er Mcalled intellectM celebrates the (ondro2s physical po(ers (ithin so2l8heat' The po(ers in so2l8heat are not, of co2rse, Mseparate Qfro1 1atter, that is, incorporealRM nor do they Mhave the1selves as obGects of intellect2al tho2ght'M 0eing corporeal, they have no conscio2sness at all' $evertheless, they are appropriately described as Mdivine,M Mintellect,M and MinspiredM beca2se they Mdrive to(ard an endM and MgenerateM organis1s in an Mintelligent 1anner'M-;6 S2ch is AverroesI e*planation of the provenance of nat2ral for1s in his ong Co11entary on the Metaphysics' %espite the care (ith (hich the ong Metaphysics e*plores the s2bGect, Averroes leaves the 1echanics of plant and ani1al generation obsc2re at several points' He speaks of Mfor1sM inhering in seed (hich i1part the Mfor1s of things generated fro1 seed,M-;of so2l8heatIs being Mpossessed of for1,M and of Mpo(ers in seedM or, 1ore precisely, po(ers associated (ith the Mheat of the seed,M (hich Mprod2ce living beings'M-;/ $o clarification is forthco1ing as to (hether the for1s in seed or in the so2l8heat contained in seed are the sa1e as the po(ers, as they pres21ably are,-;; or (hether the for1s and po(ers are perhaps related to each other in a different concerning both the afore1entioned for1s and the afore1entioned po(ers that they are not Mso2lM and Menso2led in act2ality,M b2t are so only Min potentiality'M ConseJ2ently, the Aristotelian r2le that the potential beco1es act2al only thro2gh so1ething act2al in the sa1e gen2s or species is not to be taken a2 pied de la lettre and Min every respect'M-;> Averroes kno(s that factors in a state of potentiality do not initiate action (ithin an Aristotelian 2niverse,-;7 yet he fails to identify any factor already in a state of act2ality and carried by seed or se1en (hich brings forth act2al plant and ani1al so2ls'-;? He is vag2e on another ite1 as (ell, never -/A
fashion' Again, AverroesBCDreflecting si1ilar state1ents in Aristotle-;@BCDstresses
-/. -;6
Above, p' /@@'
Ibid' ?, co11' ;-, and -/, co11' -AH Arabic te*t AA@, ->668->6-' -;- Ibid' ?, co11' ;-H Arabic te*t AA;' -;/ Ibid' ?, co11' ;-, and -/, co11' -AH Arabic te*t AA@, ->668 ->6-' Cf' Aristotle, %e generatione ani1ali21 -'/-'?/.b, @8.' -;; Cf' belo(, p' />/' -;@ Cf' Aristotle, %e generatione ani1ali21 /'-'?;>a, A8.' -;>
ong Co11entary on the Metaphysics -/, co11' -AH Arabic te*t ->6>'
Cf' above, p' /@>' -;? Aristotle, %e generatione ani1ali21 /'/'?;@b, /68?;>a, @, e*plains that the 1ale parent is the factor, already an ani1al in act2ality, (hich sets the se1en in 1otion, (here2pon the
-;7
ong Co11entary on the Metaphysics -/, co11' -AH Arabic original ->668->6-'
/>6
indicating e*actly (hat so2l8heat operates on in the vario2s categories of generation' In ani1al reprod2ction, Averroes had re1arked in an earlier (ork, 1ale se1en acts on fe1ale 1enstr2al blood-;AH translated into the present sche1e, that (o2ld 1ean that the po(er or for1 in the so2l8heat of the 1ale se1en brings a potential ani1al for1 in the fe1ale 1enstr2al blood to the state of act2ality' Khat so2l8heat acts on (hen seeds ger1inate, or (hen a s2rrogate of so2l8heat is engendered (ithin decayed 1aterial, re1ains 2nclear' At all events, AverroesI ong Co11entary on the Metaphysics 2na1big2o2sly e*cl2des the active intellect or any other incorporeal agent fro1 the process (hereby nat2ral for1s e1ergeH no incorporeal being serves as either the e1anating so2rce of ani1ate for1s, (hich (as the position of AverroesI early (orks, or as the so2rce of so2l8heat, (hich (as the position of his Co11entary on %e generatione ani1ali21' In inani1ate nat2reBCDaccording to AverroesI final vie( of thingsBCD1echanical physical forces bring for1s already e*isting potentially in 1atter to a state of act2ality' In the sector of ani1ate nat2re (here plants and ani1als reprod2ce, the physical agent is so2l8heat, (hich is generated in seed and se1en by the parent plant or ani1al in conG2nction (ith the s2n and stars' And in the sector of ani1ate nat2re (here generation occ2rs spontaneo2sly, the physical agent is a s2rrogate of so2l8heat, instilled in decayed 1aterial e*cl2sively by the heavenly bodies' So2l8heat and its s2rrogate carry an 2nconscio2s, physical for1 or po(er, (hich so1eho( leads the for1s of plants and ani1als potentially in 1atter to a state of act2ality' The origin of nat2ral for1s is disc2ssed by Averroes in other (orks as (ell' His ong Co11entary on the ,hysics to2ches on the s2bGect in passing and see1s to reflect the sa1e position as the ong Co11entary on the Metaphysics' Averroes there 1entions Mthe for1ative po(ers that Aristotle called so2l8po(ers in %e ani1alib2s Qin other (ords, in %e generatione ani1ali21]M and that Mare bro2ght into e*istence ''' by the heavenly bodies'M-;. AverroesI Tahaf2t al8Tahaf2t 9%estr2ctio destr2ction21: has 1ore to say' The Tahaf2t al8Tahaf2t is AverroesI ans(er to !haEaliIs Tahaf2t al8"alasifa 9%estr2ctio philosophor21:' !haEaliIs obGect had been to ref2te the central theses of AvicennaIs philosophic syste1, (hich he regarded as the 1ost a2thoritative 1otion in the se1en act2aliEes the fe1ale 1enstr2al blood' See ,eck 9n' >; above: >A;' In plants, Aristotle e*plains that the 1ale and fe1ale factors are co1bined in the seedH %e generatione ani1ali21 -'/;'?;la, -8-@' 02t it is 2nclear (hat active agency initiates develop1ent in a dor1ant seed' It is still 1ore 2nclear (hat Aristotle 1ight have seen as the factor, already having the for1 of an act2al ani1al or plant, (hich prod2ces a ne( ani1al in instances of spontaneo2s generationH see ,eck >A@8A>, and 0al1e 9n' ?7 above: -6-8/' 0al1e senses a drift to(ard 1aterialis1 in AristotleIs treat1ent of spontaneo2s generation in %e generatione ani1ali21' -;A Above, p' /;?' -;. Averroes, ong Co11entary on the ,hysics A, co11' @?'
/>-
version of Aristotelian philosophy' In response, the Tahaf2t al8Tahaf2t dis1isses so1e of !haEaliIs arg21ents as sophisticalH reGects others as cogent only in reference to an Avicennan b2t not a gen2ineBCDthat is to say AristotelianBCD philosophic syste1H defends the Aristotelian syste1 as the 1ost acc2rate description of the 2niverseH and insists on the har1ony, indeed identity, of AristotleIs philosophy (ith an enlightened reading of Script2re' Since the Tahdf2t al8Tahaf2t envisages a broader, and hence less scientific as (ell as 1ore conservative, readership than AverroesI co11entaries on Aristotle, the book so1eti1es e*presses itself nontechnically and circ21spectly' At several G2nct2res (here the iss2e of s2bl2nar for1s arises, the Tahaf2t alTahaf2t lists possible theories' In one passage, Averroes re1arks that so1e philosophers Mconstr2edM the so2rce of nat2ral for1s as Man intellectMH Mso1e,''' as a so2lMH Mso1e,''' as the body of the heavensMH and Mso1e, ''' as the "irst QCa2seR'M-@6 In another passage, he contrasts G2st t(o positions' Certain philosophers, he (rites, (ere Mof the opinion that the giver of the for1s of inani1ate bodies and the giver of so2ls is an incorporeal s2bstance, Qthat is,R either an intelligence or an incorporeal so2l'M 0y intelligence, Averroes is all2ding to AvicennaIs active intellect, and by incorporeal so2l, to The1isti2sI (orld so2l'-@- Other philosophers, he goes on, (ere Mof the contrary opinion and 1aintained that for1s are prod2ced in bodies by bodies possessing si1ilar for1s'M MAvicenna and additional Isla1ic philosophersMBCDb2t Mnone of the early philosophersM-@/BCDheld the for1er position, Mand their arg21ent (as that a body can prod2ce in a body only heat or cold, (etness or dryness'M Altho2gh Averroes told 2s ho( it sho2ld go< If bodies can prod2ce only J2alities, if fire for instance can prod2ce only heat, (hereas lightness and not heat is the for1 of fire, then one portion of 1atter cannot be (hat prod2ces the for1 of fire in a second portion of 1atter'-@; Avicenna and those of a si1ilar 1ind accordingly concl2ded that Man incorporeal being ' ' ' prod2ces s2bstantial for1s Qthat is, the for1s of nonani1ate nat2ral s2bstancesR and, a fortiori, ani1ate for1s'M-@@ ,hilosophers taking the contrary line 1aintained that Mliving bodies prod2ce living bodiesM and Mone ani1al'' ' gives birth to another,M as Msense perception Qin factR testifies'M Khere spontaneo2s generation occ2rs, Mthe celestial bodies are, in their opinion, (hat give lifeM to plants and ani1als' The philosophers in J2estion Mhave arg21ents going beyond sense perceptionM to s2pport their position, b2t the arg21ents Mare not appropriate for the present conte*t'M-@> The reference to does not spell o2t the arg21ent, his ong Co11entary on the Metaphysics has
V4aTahaf2t al8Tahaf2t 9n' ;; above: /-/' 0y the philosopher (ho constr2ed the so2rce of nat2ral for1s as a so2l, Averroes pres21ably 1eans The1isti2sH see i11ediately belo(' -@- See above, p' ;/' &/ Tahaf2t al8Tahaf2t >?.' -@; Above, p' /@7' -@@ Tahaf2t al8Tahaf2t @6?8A' -@> Ibid' @6A'
/>/
the celestial bodiesI giving life to plants and ani1als that are generated spontaneo2sly recalls the proposition, in the ong Co11entary on the Metaphysics, that the celestial bodies prod2ce the s2rrogate of so2l8heat (hich, in t2rn, engenders spontaneo2sly generated organis1s' Averroes does not e*pressly adG2dicate bet(een the positions of Avicenna and the earlier philosophers, beca2se Mthis is not the proper place to investigateM the iss2e, and anyone (ho does desire to kno( the tr2th sho2ld Mapproach the topic thro2gh its QproperR gate,M-@7 in other (ords, thro2gh a syste1atic st2dy of 1etaphysics' $evertheless, if sense perception testifies that one ani1al gives birth to another, as Averroes (as G2st seen to (rite, it is fairly clear that an incorporeal giver of for1s is not (hat brings ani1als into e*istence-@?H and Averroes has inti1ated that so2l8heat generated by the parent in seed is (hat does' reveal Averroes espo2sing a totally different line and even ind2lging in occ2ltis1' He see1s to envisage 1yriads of dise1bodied so2ls floating abo2t in the (orld and interacting (ith bodies'-@A The section at iss2e takes 2p !haEaliIs contention that the MphilosophersM cannot de1onstrate the i11ortality of the so2l' In the co2rse of his reb2ttal, Averroes (rites< $o gen2ine philosopher Mdisp2tesM the e*istence, (ithin the s2bl2nar (orld, of Mso2ls that create every species ''' of ani1al, plant, and 1ineral'M Again< M$o philosopher disp2tesM the e*istence (ithin the lo(er (orld of a Mcelestial heat bearing po(ers that generate ani1als and plants'M The Mso2lsM of the first sentence 12st be identical (ith the Mpo(ersM borne by celestial heat of the second sentence, beca2se, Averroes also (rites, the MheatM e1anated by the heavens contains Mso2ls that create both s2bl2nar bodies and the so2ls inhering in those bodies'M Averroes goes on< The e*istence of Mthis ' '' creative ' ' ' so2lM or po(er is M1ost apparent''' in ani1als that do not reprod2ce,M altho2gh it can be inferred as (ell for Mani1als that do reprod2ce'M The creative so2ls or po(ers borne by celestial heat 1ay be conceived in t(o possible (ays' They 1ight be tho2ght of Mas the1selves beco1ing Goined to the bodies they generate,M in other (ords, as (orking (ithin 1atter to transfor1 it into ani1ate bodies' On s2ch a constr2ction, (hen Mbodies Qof organis1sR are destroyedM the so2ls or po(ers Ibid' >/@' Averroes sho(s his respect for sense perception, ibid' /--, (here he contrasts the MphilosophersM (ith those (ho p2t for(ard their vie(s M(itho2t de1onstration and indeed often even contradict things perceived by the senses'M 9#an den 0erghIs translation is 1isleading': -@A Scholars (ho have had diffic2lty (ith the section in J2estion are< #an den 0ergh 9n' ;; above: /'/6/8/6;H R' ArnaldeE, M a pensee religie2se dIAverroes< III,M St2dio isla1ica -6 9-.>.: ;?8;AH A' Tallon, M,ersonal I11ortality in AverroesI Tahaf2t al8Tahaf2t,M $e( Scholasticis1 ;A 9-.7@: ;>>8>7H !' Ho2rani, MAverroes M2s2l1an,M in M2ltiple Averroes, cd' L' Lolivet 9,aris -.?A: /.8;6H C' To2ati, M es proble1es de la generation et le role de -Iintellect agent cheE Averroes,M in M2ltiple Averroes -7;87@' -@? -@7
On a s2perficial reading, one section in the Tahaf2t al8Tahaf2t 1ight see1 to
/>;
associated (ith the1 (o2ld Mret2rn to their spirit2al 1atters and to their s2btle 2nperceivable bodies'M Alternatively, creative so2ls 1ight be tho2ght of as not the1selves Goining bodies in the s2bl2nar (orld' They (o2ld then Mocc2py an inter1ediate rank bet(een the so2ls of the celestial bodies and the s2bl2nar so2ls in physical bodies,M and they (o2ld act on bodies fro1 (itho2t' Since they (o2ld on that conception Mhold ' ' ' s(ay QtaslitR over s2bl2nar so2ls and bodies,M there in dise1bodied so2ls' Therefore anyone M(ho 1aintains the s2rvival of the so2l' ' ' sho2ld locate it in a s2btle QlatifaR 1atter, in the so2l8heat e1anating fro1 the celestial bodies'M-@. The references to celestial heat, creative so2ls or po(ers borne by celestial heat, spirit2al 1atter, s2btle nonperceivable bodies, and s2btle 1atter are certainly be(ildering, and 2ndo2btedly deliberately so, considering that another section of the book dis1isses individ2al h21an i11ortality as co1pletely i1possible'->6 AverroesI intent can hardly be 1isread, ho(ever, once he eJ2ates the s2btle, 2nperceivable 1atter (ith the so2l8heat e1anating fro1 the celestial bodies' In an all2sive fashion, he is saying again, as he did straightfor(ardly in the ong forth organis1s, (hether they reprod2ce or are generated spontaneo2sly' Khere organis1s reprod2ce, the s2n and stars share the bringing forth of so2l8heat (ith the 1ale parent or parent plantH (here they are generated spontaneo2sly, a s2rrogate of so2l8heat is prod2ced e*cl2sively by the s2n and stars' So2l8heat carries (ithin itself po(ers that can, if one likes, be called so2ls, ->- b2t anyone (ith a -@.
Marose the belief in spirits QGinnR'M Either of the t(o conceptions (ill per1it a belief
Co11entary on the Metaphysics, that a physical factor called so2l8heat brings
Tahaf2t al8Tahaf2t >??8?.' Thabit ibn P2rra reportedly held that at death, a h21an so2l attaches itself to a Ms2btle bodyMH see Avicenna, al8Risala al8Adha(iyya, ed' and trans' "' 2cchetta, as Epistola s2lla vita f2t2ra 9,ad2a -.7.:, --@8->, //@8/>' To a certain e*tent, Averroes 1ay have chosen lang2age echoing the $eoplatonic notionBCD (hich he (o2ld not have drea1t of accepting literallyBCDof a MvehicleM or MbodyM acJ2ired by the so2l as it descends fro1 its s2pernal ho1e to earthly e*ile' See ,lato, Ti1ae2s @ IE, 7.C 9(hich $eoplatonic interpretation distorted:H ,lotin2s, Enneads @';'->H ,rocl2s, Ele1ents of Theology, ed' E' %odds 9O*ford -.7;: 4T/6.H %oddsI e*c2rs2s, ibid' ;->8/-H H' e(y, Chaldean Oracles and The2rgy 9Cairo -.>7: -A;8A>H H' 0l21enthal, M$eoplatonic Ele1ents in the %e Ani1a Co11entaries,M ,hronesis /- 9-.?7: ?68?-' L' 0ideE, #ie de ,orphyre 9 eipEig -.-;: A.8.6, finds in ,orphyry the additional notion that de1ons s2bsist in a vehicle si1ilar to that carrying
the h21an so2l' l>6 Tahaf2t al8Tahaf2t /?8/.' ->- C2rio2sly, Averroes did have a precedent, altho2gh he 1ost likely did not realiEe it' In %e generatione ani1ali21 ;'--'?7/a, /-8//, Aristotle (rote that since Mso2l8heatM pervades (ater and earth, Mall things are in a (ay f2ll of so2lMH the passage echoes Thales, (ho, as Aristotle reports, Mtho2ght that all things are f2ll of godsM 9Aristotle, %e ani1a -'>'@- la, ?8A:' AristotleIs intent (as that spontaneo2s generation can occ2r beca2se pne21a is present in (ater, (hich in t2rn is present in the earthH and so2l8heat pervades pne21a' The preserved Arabic translation of the %e generatione ani1ali21 does not ho(ever keep the phrase Mf2ll of so2l,M stating instead that everything is Mf2ll of so2l po(er'M See Aristotle, The !eneration of Ani1alsH The Arabic Translation 9n' >. above: -/.' AverroesI paraphrase of the passage in his Co11entary on %e
/>@
philosophic training (ill i11ediately realiEe that those so8called so2ls are physical and 2nconscio2s po(ers'->/ Of the t(o hypotheses for constr2ing the so2ls or po(ers in so2l8heatBCDaccording to one of (hich, the so2ls or po(ers the1selves enter bodies, (hile according to the other, so2ls or po(ers in so2l8heat occ2py an inter1ediate rank bet(een celestial so2ls and the so2ls of plants and ani1alsBCDthe for1er hypothesis (o2ld see1 to be s2pported by AverroesI ong Co11entary on the Metaphysics' ->; The Tahaf2t al8Tahaf2t, (ith all its 1ystifying lang2age, has si1ply reaffir1ed the theory of so2l8heat, (hich bears po(ers or, if one sho2ld prefer, so2ls, and (hich (orks (ithin 1atter' The po(ers, or so2ls, lead potential for1s of plants and ani1als to a state of act2ality' Khen a plant or ani1al dies so1e of its so2lheat, carrying the afore1entioned po(ers or so2ls, s2rvivesBCD2ndo2btedly for no 1ore than a li1ited ti1e, seeing that it is an obGect co1posed of 1atter and for1 and all s2ch obGects decay' Anyone (ho so (ishes 1ay co1fort hi1self in the tho2ght that the s2btle 2nperceivable s2bstance called so2l8heat, together (ith the 2nconscio2s po(ers in so2l8heat (hich bro2ght forth his h21an for1, (ill o2tlive his body' Scientists and philosophers (ill, ho(ever, seek their ass2rance of i11ortality else(here' The Tahaf2t al8Tahaf2t closes its disc2ssion of h21an
i11ortality (ith the co11ent that Ma1ong the strongestM gro2nds for the belief is the ability of the M1aterial Qh21anR intellectM to 1ake a M2niversal G2dg1ent'M A Ms2bstance of that description,M a s2bstance capable of 1aking 2niversal G2dg1ents, is Mco1pletely non1aterialM and conseJ2ently indestr2ctible' ,hilosophers and scientists (ill, in other (ords, take no co1fort in the s2rvival of so2l8heat' They 2nderstand that the only gen2ine s2rvivor of the body is the h21an 1aterial intellectBCD(hich despite its na1e is, according to the last stage of AverroesI philosophy, a non1aterial s2bstance e*isting independently of the so2l'->@ S211ary syste1 si1ilar to the syste1s of Alfarabi and Avicenna' Averroes does depart fro1 Alfarabi and Avicenna in reGecting an o2ter1ost di2rnal sphere e1pty of all stars, and in reGecting the e1anation of the bodies of the celestial spheres' $evertheless, the core of the e1anation theory that (ent back at least to Alfarabi re1ains' Averroes still 2nderstands that the "irst Ca2se of the 2niverse eternally e1anates fro1 itself an incorporeal being consisting in p2re tho2ghtH the e1anated being, the The original version of AverroesI Epito1e of the Metaphysics o2tlines a cos1ic
generatione ani1ali21 9n' 7/ above: -?@a, renders the passage as follo(s< Since earth and (ater are per1eated (ith Mso2l8heat,M they are Mf2ll of generating so2l po(er'M ->/ See above, p' /@.' ->; Sec above, p' /@A8@.' ->@ Tahaf2t al8Tahaf2t >?.' See belo(, p' /A.'
/>>
first intelligence, contains 12ltiple aspects and thro2gh the1 eternally e1anates t(o things, the for1, or so2l, of the first sphere and a f2rther incorporeal being consisting in p2re tho2ghtH the second incorporeal intelligence e1anates t(o si1ilar effectsH and so on' As for the place of the "irst Ca2se of the 2niverse (ithin the sche1e, Averroes agrees (ith his predecessors that the "irst Ca2se 12st transcend the incorporeal intelligences associated (ith celestial spheres' 0eca2se of the r2le that Mfro1 one only one can proceed,M the (holly 2nitary being at the head of the ca2sal chain can have no 1ore than a single effect' Since each of the intelligences governing celestial spheres has at least t(o effects, and hence is not (holly 2nitary, the 2lti1ate ca2se of the 2niverse, (hich 12st be (holly 2nitary, resides beyond the 1overs of the spheres' The process of e1anation 2nfolds eternally step8by8step thro2gh the series of celestial intelligences' The intelligence governing the sphere of the 1oon eternally brings forth the for1 or so2l of its sphere and the final intelligence in the incorporeal hierarchy' That final intelligence is, once again, the active intellect, the entity Aristotle posited on the gro2nds that an intellect 12st e*ist (hich is (hat it is Mby virt2e of 1aking all thingsMBCDby virt2e of 1aking all tho2ghts' AverroesI Epito1e of the ,arva nat2ralia and the original version of his Epito1e of the Metaphysics vie( the active intellect as the ca2se of a considerable seg1ent of s2bl2nar e*istence' Averroes does not go as far as Avicenna had gone' L2st as he recogniEed no ca2se of the e*istence of the bodies of the celestial region, so too he 1aintains, and 2ndertakes to prove, that s2bl2nar 1atter can have no ca2se of its e*istence' He 1oreover states that fro1 the perspective of physical science, the for1s of the fo2r ele1ents and the for1s of blends of the fo2r ele1entsBCDho1oeo1eric co1po2ndsBCDcan be acco2nted for by nat2ral forces' 02t the for1s of ani1als and plants, those capable of reprod2cing as (ell as those generated spontaneo2sly, cannot, according to his early (orks, arise fro1 the interplay of nat2ral forces' They 12st be prod2ced by an agent e*isting o2tside the physical real1' AverroesI original position th2s is that in se*2al reprod2ction, plant seed or 1ale sper1 prepares a portion of 1atter for a plant or ani1al for1H in spontaneo2s generation, the action of the heavenly bodies prepares 1atter for a for1H and in each instance, the portion of 1atter so disposed a2to1atically selects the appropriate for1 o2t of the ever8present e1anation of the active intellect' Having delineated the role of the active intellect fro1 the standpoint of physical science, Averroes adds in the early version of his Epito1e of the Metaphysics that fro1 the 1etaphysicalBCDor episte1ologicalBCDperspective, physical forces cannot, after all, acco2nt even for the for1s of the fo2r ele1ents or the for1s of nat2ral co1po2nds' Since the h21an 1ind e*tracts intelligible for1s fro1 nat2ral s2bstances belo( the ani1al and plant level, those for1s too 12st, fro1 the 1etaphysical perspective, be ascribed to a so2rce consisting in intelligible tho2ght' In other (ords, the for1s of all nat2ral s2bstances 12st be attrib2ted to the active intellect' S2ch (as AverroesI early position on the e1anation of intelligences and celestial so2ls, and on the f2nctions of the active intellect in the s2bl2nar (orld'
/>7
His later position on the e1anation of intelligences and spheres is set forth in annotations incorporated into his Epito1e of the Metaphysics and in the ong Co11entary on the sa1e book and all2ded to in the Tahdf2t al8Tahaf2t' Averroes no( abandons the e1anation thesis' He contends that, in general, beings do not proceed or e1anate fro1 one another' And even if e1anation (ere a gen2ine s2bcategory of efficient ca2sation, the incorporeal real1 co2ld not be e1anated, beca2se efficient ca2sation is foreign to incorporeal beings'->> Since the r2le that fro1 one only one proceeds applies solely to efficient ca2ses, and the "irst Ca2se is not an efficient ca2se, the r2le does not apply to it' In AverroesI final pict2re of the 2niverse, each intelligence possesses a strat21 of e*istence in its o(n right, the 2nderlying strat21 eternally t2rns its 1ental gaEe 2pon the 2nitary "irst Ca2se, and the conception of the "irst Ca2se (hich each thereby receives endo(s it (ith the 1eas2re of perfection befitting its rank in the cos1ic hierarchy' Inas12ch as a 2nitary ca2se can have 1ore than one effect in the fashion Averroes has described, the obGection to taking the intelligence governing the o2ter1ost sphere as the "irst Ca2se of the 2niverse vanishes' Averroes therefore concl2des that the "irst Ca2se is identical (ith the intelligence 1oving the o2ter1ost sphere' He still identifies the active intellect as the last in the series of incorporeal intelligences, altho2gh the active intellect is no longer the o2tgro(th of a process of e1anation' Averroes also retreats fro1 his original position on the active intellectIs role as a ca2se of s2bl2nar nat2ral for1s' He does so in a n21ber of (orks, notably in annotations to the Epito1e of the Metaphysics, in the Co11entary on %e generatione ani1ali21, in the ong Co11entary on the Metaphysics, and in Tahdf2t al8Tahaf2t' An inter1ediate and a final position can be discerned' His 1ost caref2lly tho2ght8o2t arg21ent against taking the active intellect as the so2rce of s2bl2nar for1s, an arg21ent given in t(o (orks, reasons that the s2bstrat21 of a ne( s2bstance e*ists as s2ch only fro1 the 1o1ent (hen it receives its ne( for1' 0eca2se the s2bstrat21, in that sense, and the for1 constit2te a single obGect, a single agent 12st bring the s2bstrat21 and for1 into e*istence together and thro2gh a single act' The s2bstrat21 of any given s2bl2nar for1 is bro2ght into e*istenceBCDthat is to say, is rendered a s2bstrat21BCDby an agent that operates on the physical plane and is hence physical' Since the nat2ral for1, (hether of an inani1ate obGect, a plant, or an ani1al, is bro2ght into e*istence by the sa1e agent that brings the s2bstrat21 into e*istence, it too is bro2ght into e*istence by a physical agent' Co11entary on the Metaphysics, as (ell as being 1entioned in the Middle
Lohn of Land2n and Ale*ander Achillini follo(ed Averroes in e*cl2ding efficient ca2sation fro1 the incorporeal real1' 0y contrast, Marcantonio Fi1ara, (ho had AverroesI Epito1e of the Metaphysics in a si*teenth8cent2ry translation fro1 the Hebre(, interpreted Averroes as having traced the e*istence of the transl2nar region to an efficient ca2sation initiated by !od' See A' Ma2rer, MLohn of Land2n and the
%ivine Ca2sality,M Mediaeval St2dies -? 9-.>>: -A., -.>8.7'
->>
/>?
Averroes concl2des that all nat2ral for1s e*ist potentially in pri1e 1atter' "or1s of the fo2r ele1ents and for1s of ho1oeo1eric co1po2nds are elicited fro1 1atter by physical forces' "or1s of plants and ani1als are bro2ght to act2ality by so2l8heat or a s2rrogate of so2l8heat, (hich in instances of organic reprod2ction is borne by plant seed or 1ale se1en, and in instances of spontaneo2s generation appears in decaying 1aterial' AverroesI inter1ediate and final positions regarding the appearance of s2bl2nar for1s relate to so2l8heat' His inter1ediate position, advanced in the Co11entary on %e generatione ani1ali21, is that so2l8heat is engendered in seed or se1en and decaying 1aterial by an incorporeal s2bstance s2bordinate to the "irst Ca2seBCDpres21ably, the active intellect' His final position is that (here organis1s reprod2ce, so2l8heat is engendered in seed or se1en by the parent in conG2nction (ith the heat of the s2n, blended (ith the heat of the other starsH and (here they do not reprod2ce, a s2rrogate of so2l8heat is instilled in decaying 1aterial e*cl2sively by the s2n and the stars' The active intellect plays no role, and its f2nction accordingly shrinks back to (hat Aristotle established in the %e ani1a, to the act2aliEation of the potential h21an intellect' On the s2bGects disc2ssed in the present chapter, as else(here, Averroes strove to liberate hi1self fro1 1istaken interpretations of Aristotle and 1istaken philosophic theories, especially those propo2nded by his Isla1ic predecessors' In banishing e1anation and efficient ca2sation fro1 the incorporeal real1 and in denying that the nat2ral for1s of the s2bl2nar (orld e1anate fro1 the active intellect, AverroesI later (orks 2ndo2btedly do capt2re AristotleIs intent better than the earlier (orks' Khether Averroes sho2ld also have revised his 2nderstanding of the type of entity the active intellect is, (hether he sho2ld, in other (ords, have read Aristotle as recogniEing no active intellect o2tside the individ2al h21an person, is one of a class of J2estions that scholars (ill debate into the indefinite f2t2re' Altho2gh paring a(ay accretions and recovering the gen2ine Aristotle (as the leit1otif in all of AverroesI later philosophic activity, and altho2gh he s2cceeded to a considerable degree in the s2bGects considered here, one sho2ld not generaliEe and s2ppose that his 1at2rer (orks consistently attain a 1ore acc2rate 2nderstanding of Aristotle' On the iss2e of the potential, or 1aterial, h21an intellect, (hich is the s2bGect of the ne*t chapter, AverroesI efforts led hi1 not to(ard a 1ore acc2rate interpretation of Aristotle, b2t in (hat the consens2s of 1odern scholars (o2ld consider to be the very opposite direction'
? A#ERROES O$ THE MATERIA I$TE ECT
Introd2ction Aristotle, as (e have seen, posited an intellect in 1an (hich is MpotentialM-H (hich Mis (hat it is by virt2e of beco1ing all things,M/ that is, by virt2e of learning all tho2ghtsH and (hich is a kind of M1atter'M; 02t nothing Aristotle said abo2t (hat ca1e to be kno(n as the potential or 1aterial intellect reveals the kind of entity he s2pposed it to be, and one can only g2ess (hether the J2estion concerned hi1 at all' The J2estion of the nat2re of the potential h21an intellect did capt2re the attention of Ale*ander of Aphrodisias and The1isti2s, and they reached opposite concl2sions' Ale*ander constr2ed the h21an potential or 1aterial intellect as a 1ere disposition in the h21an organis1, and The1isti2s constr2ed it as a s2bstance' The iss2e did not, ho(ever, carry any special i1port for AverroesI Arabic predecessors' Alfarabi described the potential intellect as both a MdispositionM and a Ms2bstance,M@ and G2stified neither description' Avicenna took 2p the nat2re of the h21an 1aterial intellect only indirectly, in the co2rse of treating a different iss2e that pree1pted the J2estion of the 1aterial intellectIs nat2re' He 1aintained that the h21an so2l, and not 1erely the intellect, is Man incorporeal s2bstance,M (hich is bro2ght into e*istence together (ith the generation of each h21an body'> The p2blished (orks of Ibn 0aGGa 9Ave1pace: also evince little interest in the nat2re of the potential intellect, altho2gh he plays a significant role in AverroesI treat1ent of the s2bGect' A co11ent in one of Ibn 0aGGaIs (orks, (hich is corroborated by AverroesI report of Ibn 0aGGaIs position, places hi1 close to Ale*ander' In contrast to his Isla1ic predecessors, Averroes (as ha2nted by the iss2e, and s2ccessive (orks find hi1 str2ggling (ith it and 1oving restlessly fro1 one position to another' The differing positions regarding the potential h21an intellect (hich Averroes espo2sed at different ti1es not only disclose a good deal abo2t his o(n philosophic develop1ent and styleH they (ere of great conseJ2ence for the Aristotle, %e ani1a ;'@'@/.a, -7' Ibid' >'@;6a, -@8->' ; Ibld', -68--' @ Above, pp' @., 7?' > Above, pp' A;, -6?' /-
/>A
Averroes on the Material Intellect />.
history of philosophy' AverroesI (ritings la2nched t(o 1ove1ents reaching into the fifteenth and si*teenth cent2ries, not in the Isla1ic (orld, (here he (as ignored, b2t in the Le(ish and Christian philosophic co112nities' The nat2re of the h21an intellect (as a pri1e concern of both 1ove1ents, and J2irks of history delivered different co1positions, representing different stages of his tho2ght, to the Hebre( and atin readers' T(o Averroistic traditions res2lted, each gro(ing 2p aro2nd a partial reading of Averroes and his position on the h21an potential or 1aterial intellect' Averroes invariably poses the J2estion of the potential h21an intellect against the backgro2nd of Aristotle, Ale*ander of Aphrodisias, The1isti2s, and Ibn 0aGGa' Aristotle and the others, and indeed all (riters in the Aristotelian tradition, (orked fro1 the 2nJ2estioned pres2pposition that the h21an intellect reflects obGective reality (ith no distortion' Aristotle reasoned that sho2ld the intellect 1an is born (ith have Mso1e J2alityM before it begins to think, the J2ality already present there (o2ld Mprevent and blockM the intellectIs operationH the ingrained coloring (o2ld prevent the intellect fro1 e*actly 1irroring reality' Since, as he pres2pposed, the h21an intellect does 1irror reality e*actly and hence can have no J2ality at the o2tset, he concl2ded that the part Mof the so2l called intellect''' is no e*istent thing before it thinksM and again that, being free of J2alities, it is Mnot 1i*ed '' ' (ith the bodyM b2t is MseparateM therefro1'7 The phrase MseparateM fro1 the body or fro1 1atter is an Aristotelian (ay of saying Mincorporeal'M A reader (ho fi*es on the characteriEation of the h21an potential intellect as not 1i*ed (ith the body and as separate, or incorporeal, (ill obtain a very different notion of it fro1 one (ho fi*es on the characteriEation of the potential intellect as Mno e*istent thing'M To help e*plain ho( the h21an intellect is at the o2tset Mpotentially QeverythingR thinkable b2t act2ally nothing at all,M Aristotle co1pared it to a Mtablet,M (hich is receptive of (riting and Mon (hich nothing is so far act2ally (ritten'M? The intellect, like the (riting tablet, is receptive of tho2ght yet at the beginning of its career has no intellect2al tho2ght inscribed 2pon it' In one f2rther state1ent, (hich (as to be J2oted and reJ2oted thro2gh the cent2ries, Aristotle posited that the h21an intellect is Mi1passible,M that it does not s2ffer MaffectionM or alteration as it perfor1s its f2nction' Even nonintellect2al levels of h21an perception, Aristotle had deter1ined, perfor1 their tasks (itho2t 2ndergoing affection and alteration' Seeing that the lo(er fac2lties of the so2l do not s2ffer affection, the intellect, (hich is M2n1i*edM (ith the body, certainly cannot'A Ale*ander of Aphrodisias gave heed to AristotleIs description of the initial stage of h21an intellect as being no e*istent thing before it thinks' He reasoned as follo(s< MKhatever is receptive of for1s of a certain sort cannot have any of the1 Aristotle, %e ani1a ;'@'@/.a, -A8@/.b, >' Ibid' @/.b, ;68@;6a, /' A Ibid' @/.a, ->, /.8 ;6' See !' RodierIs co11entary on @/.a, ->, in his edition 9,aris -.66:' ?7
/76
in its o(n nat2reH for the copresence of its o(n for1 (o2ld prevent its receiving the other for1' ' '' $o(, all things are kno(n by the intellect'' ' ' Therefore, the 1aterial intellectM can originally contain no for1 in itself and M12st be no thing act2ally, b2t everything potentially'M 0eing nothing in act2ality, nothing s2bstantial or even real, the 1aterial intellect can be Monly a disposition ' '' for receiving QintelligibleR for1s'M Having co1e this far, Ale*ander sa( that AristotleIs analogy of the (riting tablet needed e1endation' Aristotle had co1pared the 1aterial intellect to a tabletH yet a tablet is Malready an e*istent beingM before it is (ritten on, (hereas the 1aterial intellect, as G2st seen, is not describable as act2ally e*istent before it begins to think' To resc2e the analogy, Ale*ander added a distinction bet(een the M2n(ritten tablet itself and Mthe 2n(ritten character of the tablet'M The tr2e analog2e of the tablet itself, he s2b1itted, is the Mso2lM or, if one prefers, the entire h21an Ms2bGect'M The M1aterial intellectM corresponds not to the tablet b2t Mrather to the 2n(ritten aspect of the tablet,M that is, to the Mdisposition for being (ritten on'M MKhen (ritten 2pon,'' ' the (riting tabletM does M2ndergo affection'M The MdispositionM that the tablet has for receiving (riting, by contrast, M2ndergoes no affection (hen it is bro2ght to act2alityH for it is not so1e Qact2alR s2bGect Qor s2bstrat21R,M and only so1ething act2al, only a s2bGect or s2bstrat21, can be described as being affected' M0y the sa1e token the Q1aterialR intellect,M (hich parallels the disposition the tablet has for receiving (riting, M2ndergoes no affection Q(hen it thinksR, inas12ch as it does not belong to the class of act2al beings'M. Ale*ander, then, 2nderstood the 1aterial intellect to be 1erely a disposition in the h21an so2l, and nothing (hatsoever act2al in itselfH for G2st that reason, it 2ndergoes no affection' Since the 1aterial intellect is a Mpo(erM in the so2l, it is, in Ale*anderIs vie(, Mdestroyed together (ith the so2l Q(hen the so2l is destroyedR'M As (as seen in an earlier chapter, Ale*ander did acco11odate a certain atten2ated type of h21an intellect2al i11ortality' He co2ld, ho(ever, attrib2te no s2rvival to the potentiality for tho2ght (ith (hich 1an is born'-6 The1isti2s like(ise rehearsed AristotleIs phrases, b2t instead of fi*ing on the characteriEation of the intellect as Mno e*istent thing,M he paid heed to the characteriEation of it as Mnot 1i*edM (ith the body and Mseparate'M The Mpotential intellect,M The1isti2s 2nderstood, does Mnot e1ploy a bodily organ for its activityMH it is M(holly 2n1i*ed (ith the body, i1passive, and separate Qfro1 1atterR'M "ro1 the potential intellectIs being 2n1i*ed (ith the body and separate fro1 1atter, he inferred that it is not Mdestr2ctible'M-- And he dre( s2pport for his interpretation
fro1 Theophrast2s' As reported by The1isti2s, Theophrast2s had also repeated . -6 --
Ale*ander, %e ani1a, in Scripta 1inora /'-, ed' I' 0r2ns 90erlin -AA?: A@8A>' Ibid'
.6H above, p' ;?'
>';, ed' R' HeinEe 90erlin -A..: -6>' Medieval Arabic translation, (ith the pagination of the !reek indicated< An Arabic Translation of The1isti2s ' ' ' on Arisloteles I%e ani1aI, ed' M' yons 9Col21bia, S'C' -.?;:'
The1isti2s, ,araphrase of AristotleIs %e ani1a, in Co11entaria in Aristotele1 !raeca
Averroes on the Material Intellect
/7-
the Aristotelian description of the potential intellect as MseparateM fro1 1atter'-/ He had, 1oreover, tried to e*plain ho( the potential intellect 1ight Mco1e fro1 (itho2t and be s2peradded, as it (ere, and nonetheless be nat2rally linkedM to 1an' His proposal (as that the intellect does not in fact co1e Mfro1 (itho2t''' by (ay of being s2peradded, b2t rather by (ay of being incl2ded together (ith the original generationM of a 1an'-; In other (ords, for Theophrast2s as reported by The1isti2s, so1ething fro1 (itho2t Goins 1an at birth and constit2tes the h21an intellect' Since an indestr2ctible entity separate fro1 1atter co2ld be nothing other than an incorporeal s2bstance, Averroes consistently (rites that The1isti2s and those of a si1ilar 1ind constr2ed the potential intellect as an incorporeal s2bstance or, alternatively, as a disposition inhering in s2ch a s2bstance'-@ "inally, there (as Ibn 0aGGa' Aristotle had established a connection bet(een the h21an so2lIs intellect2al fac2lty and i1aginative fac2lty, on the gro2nds that the h21an intellect can operate only if the i1aginative fac2lty of the so2l presents it (ith i1ages'-> Ibn 0aGGaBCDin the only pertinent state1ent that I (as able to find in his p2blished (ritingsBCDaccordingly stated that the ter1 Mrational fac2ltyM denotes Min the first instance, spirit2al for1s insofar as they are able to receive intellect'M-7 0y Mspirit2al for1s,M Ibn 0aGGa 1eant for1s, or i1ages, in the i1aginative fac2lty of the so2l'-? Either by reading o2t the i1plications of that state1ent and si1ilar state1ents in Ibn 0aGGa or by dra(ing on so2rces no longer e*tant or still 2ndiscoveredBCDas, for e*a1ple, Ibn 0aGGaIs %e ani1a, the p2blished te*t of (hich breaks off tantaliEingly in the 1iddle of the disc2ssion of intellect-ABCDAverroes reports that Ibn 0aGGa constr2ed the 1aterial intellect as a disposition located in the i1aginative fac2lty of the so2l' Averroes th2s fo2nd hi1self before t(o poles, both of (hich are gro2nded in Aristotle' At the one e*tre1e stood Ale*ander and Ibn 0aGGa, (ho constr2ed the potential h21an intellect as a 1ere disposition either in the h21an s2bGect, in the h21an so2l, or specifically in the i1aginative fac2lty of the so2l' At the other e*tre1e stood The1isti2s, (ho constr2ed the potential intellect as a non1aterial s2bstance, (hich e*ists independently of the physical 1an and Goins hi1 at birth' Ibid' -6A' Ibid' -6?H "rench translation in E' 0arbotin, a theorie aristotelicienne de IIintellect dIapres Theophraste 9 o2vain -.>@: /@.' Cf' E' Feller, %ie ,hilosophie der !riechen /'/, @th ed' 9 eipEig -./-: A@A8>6H 0arbotin -A?8.6' The (ord linked is fro1 the Arabic translation' -@ A si1ilar interpretation of The1isti2s is offered by O' Ha1elin, a theorie de IIintellect dIapres Aristote et ses co11entate2rs 9,aris -.>;: @6' -> Aristotle, %e ani1a ;';'@/?b, -7H A'@;/a, A8.H %e 1e1oria -'@@.b, ;-' -7 Ibn 0aGGa, "t Ittisdl al8cAJl biIl8Insdn, ed' and Spanish trans' M' AsiIn ,alacios, AlAndal2s - 9-.@/:, Arabic te*t -;8-@H Spanish translation ;-' -? Ibn 0aGGa, Tadbir al8M2ta(ahhid, ed' and Span, trans' M' As1 ,alacios, as El regi1en del solitario 9Madrid -.@7:, Arabic te*t -.8/-H Spanish translation >68>/' -A Cf' A' Alt1ann, MIbn 0aGGa on ManIs &lti1ate "elicity,M reprinted in his St2dies in Religio2s ,hilosophy and Mysticis1 9Ithaca -.7.: ?7, n' ?' -; -/
/7/
AverroesI repeated atte1pts to resolve the e*egetic and philosophic iss2esBCDto deter1ine AristotleIs intent and to satisfy hi1self on the tr2e nat2re of the 1aterial intellectBCDled hi1 fro1 the first of the t(o poles to an inter1ediate position and then to the other pole' $o less than seven of AverroesI co1positions treat the s2bGect of h21an intellect for1allyBCD(hile others do so incidentallyBCDand the nat2re of the 1aterial intellect co1es 2p in all seven' (ell kno(n, (rote co11entaries on AristotleIs (orks in three 1odes, in (hat are called Epito1es, Middle Co11entaries, and ong Co11entaries' The %e ani1a (as one of the handf2l of Aristotelian (orks significant eno2gh to elicit all three, and they had their several fates' 9-: The Epito1e of the %e ani1a is preserved in the Arabic original and in a 1edieval Hebre( translation' T(o editions of the Arabic te*t (ere at 1y disposal, one of (hich has an apparat2s recording the variant readings of t(o Arabic 1an2scripts'-. The Hebre( is still 2np2blished'/6 There are seven passages, ranging in length fro1 a fe( lines to a paragraph, that appear in so1e of the Arabic 1an2scripts and the 2np2blished Hebre( translation b2t not in other 1an2scriptsH and 1an2scripts that agree regarding a given passage do not necessarily do so regarding the re1aining' In all, a total of fo2r config2rations or versions of the Epito1e can be disting2ished' 9/: The Middle Co11entary on the %e ani1a e*ists only in 1an2script' The Arabic original has s2rvived in t(o 1an2scripts (ritten in Hebre( characters,/- and t(o separate 1edieval Hebre( translations have been preserved in a n21ber of Three of the seven are co11entaries on AristotleIs %e ani1a' Averroes, as is
-. The edition containing the apparat2s (as p2blished as Talkhlf 3itab al8$afs, ed' A' AlAh(ani 9Cairo -.>6:' The other edition that I 2sed is printed in the collection called RasaIil Ibn R2shd 9Hyderabad -.@?:' 0ibliographies list a f2rther edition by $' Morata 9Madrid -.;@:, b2t I co2ld find no trace of its act2ally having been p2blished' The edition of S' !o1eE $ogales 9Madrid -.A>: (as not available to 1e, b2t L' Alao2i, Al8Matn al8R2shdl 9Casablanca -.A7: >;, n' A, describes it as inadeJ2ate' Spanish translation< a psicologia de Averroes, trans' S' !o1eE $ogales 9Madrid -.A?:' The ter1 talkhis properly designates the Middle Co11entary and is therefore not the correct ter1 for the present ite1H and Alao2i contends that the (ork is not strictly an epito1e either' Ah(aniIs version is based on 1an2scripts fo2nd in Cairo and Madrid, and I relied on his apparat2s to recreate the character of the t(o 1an2scripts' The Hyderabad edition does not have a scientific apparat2s, b2t the notes indicate that it too is based on t(o 1an2scripts' Chester 0eatty collection, Arabic MS @>/;, fol' lllb ff', has the sa1e readings as the Hyderabad te*t' /6 "or the 1an2scripts, see M' Steinschneider, %ie hebraischen &ebersetE2ngen des Mittelalters 2nd die L2den als %ol1etscher 90erlin -A.;: -@?' I e*a1ined three 1an2scripts in 1icrofil1 and fo2nd that they all have the sa1e te*t' /- ,aris, 0ibliotheJ2e nationale, Hebre( MS -66.H Modena, Hebre( MS @-' Regarding the latter, see C' 0ernhei1er, Catalogo dei 1anoscritti orientali della 0iblioteca Estense 9Ro1e -.76: >>' I shall
cite the Arabic te*t fro1 the ,aris 1an2script, and the Hebre( te*t fro1 ,aris, 0ibliotheJ2e nationale, Hebre( MS .@?'
/7;
e*e1plars'// In addition, a atin 1an2script has been identified (hich contains a late translation into that lang2age, 1ade fro1 the Hebre( and not fro1 the Arabic' /; I cons2lted both 1an2scripts of the Arabic original, as (ell as 1an2scripts of both Hebre( translations b2t did not 2se the derivative atin translation' 9;: The ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a is not kno(n to have s2rvived in the original Arabic, altho2gh e*cerpts have been discovered' It (as translated into atin in the Middle Ages, and an ad1irable edition of the atin translation has been p2blished'/@ A Hebre( translation of the ong Co11entary circ2lated at the end of the fifteenth cent2ry, and a single 1an2script of a Hebre( translation has been preserved (hich, scholars have sho(n, is derivative, 1ade not directly fro1 the Arabic, b2t fro1 the atin'/> Khether the Hebre( translation circ2lating in the fifteenth cent2ry (as identical (ith the pres21ably late translation fro1 the atin (hich has been preserved is a 1atter of conGect2re' It is clear, ho(ever, that Le(ish philosophers prior to the fifteenth cent2ry (ho (ere restricted to Hebre( te*ts kne( nothing of a ong Co11entary'/7 They relied for their 2nderstanding of AverroesI theory of intellect on the Epito1e, the Middle Co11entary, and the co1positions that re1ain to be described' AverroesI co11entaries on AristotleIs %e ani1a nat2rally enco1pass the entire Aristotelian (ork and deal (ith intellect only (hen they reach the point (here Aristotle does so, in %e ani1a ;'@ and ;'>' 0esides his co11entaries on the %e ani1a, Averroes co1posed briefer pieces that do not treat the s2bGect of the so2l in general b2t are devoted e*cl2sively to specific proble1s regarding intellect' Khile none of the briefer co1positions have been preserved in Arabic, they all can be Steinschneider -@A8@.' See L' #enneb2sch, MF2r 0ibliographic des psychologischen Schriftt21s des Averroes,M 02lletin de philosophic 1edievale 7 9-.7@: .@' /@ Averroes, Co11entari21 1agn21 in Aristotelis de Ani1a libros, ed' "' Cra(ford 9Ca1bridge, Mass' -.>;: 9henceforth cited as< ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a:' The translation probably (as done by Michael Scot' Si*teenth8cent2ry editions of Averroes add an alternate and clearer rendering of t(o critical sectionsBCD0ook ;, co11s' > and ;7BCDby Lacob Mantino' MantinoIs translations into atin (ere generally done fro1 the Hebre(, b2t the so2rce fro1 (hich he translated these t(o sections into atin is p2EEling' The s2ggestion has been 1ade that a 1edieval Hebre( translation of G2st the t(o sections 1ay have e*istedH see H' Kolfson, M,lan for the ,2blication of a Corp2s co11entarior21 Averrois in Aristotele1,M reprinted in his St2dies in the History of ,hilosophy and Religion - 9Ca1bridge, Mass' -.?;: @@7' Another possibility is that a Hebre( translation fro1 the Arabic of %e ani1a, 0ook ;, did e*ist in the fifteenth cent2ryH see Kolfson @@?' A third possibility is that Mantino (as retranslating into atin fro1 the late Hebre( translation, (hich had itself been 1ade, shortly before, fro1 the atin versionH Kolfson contests that possibility' Still another possibility is that Mantino si1ply rephrased and fleshed o2t the t(o critical sections in Michael ScotIs translation in order to render the1 1ore readable' /> Kolfson @@A8@.H Cra(ford *i8*ii' /7 She1 Tob "alaJ2era, (ho kne( Arabic (ell, translates a passage fro1 the Arabic te*t' See "alaJ2era, Moreh ha8Moreh 9,ressb2rg
-A;?: -@>' /; //
/7@
1atched (ith ite1s in the lists of AverroesI (orks dra(n 2p by 1edieval Arabic 9@: A piece entitled Epistle on the ,ossibility of ConG2nction 9Hebre(< Iggeret Efshar2t ha8 %ebeJ2t: that is to say, on the possibility of the h21an intellectIs conGoining (ith the active intellect' The Epistle has s2rvived only in a 1edieval Hebre( translation, (hich has been p2blished'/A 9>: and 97: T(o other short pieces, again on the the1e of conG2nction (ith the active intellect' ike the previo2s ite1, they are not kno(n to e*ist in the original Arabic and have been preserved thanks to a 1edieval Hebre( translation, (hich Hebre( version into atin in the si*teenth cent2ry';6 And there also e*ists a c2rio2s co1position in atin, kno(n as Averrois Tractat2s de ani1ae beatit2dine 9AverroesI Treatise on the Kell8being of the So2l:, (hich re(orks the t(o pieces into a single treatise and atte1pts to pal1 the prod2ct off as a gen2ine (ork of Averroes';- 9?: A co11entary on sections of Ale*anderIs %e intellect2, (hich once again is kno(n only in Hebre( translation' It too has been p2blished';/ has been p2blished'/. The first of the t(o (as translated fro1 the 1edieval bibliographers'/? These co1positions are<
Regarding ite1s @, >, and 7, see S' M2nk, Melanges de philosophie G2ive el arabe 9,aris -A>.: @;>, @;?H E' Renan, Averroes et IIAverrois1e 9,aris -A77: 7787?' Regarding ite1 ?, see Renan ?6, @7/87;' /A See Steinschneider 9n' /6 above: -.-8.?' $one of the 1an2scripts has the co1position by itselfH t(o 1edieval Le(ish philosophers, Moses $arboni and Loseph Ibn She1 Tob, (rote co11entaries on it, and the 1an2scripts inter(eave the te*t of Averroes (ith either one or the other co11entary' Ibn She1 Tob 2ndo2btedly took his te*t fro1 $arboni' Half of the te*t (as p2blished in the last cent2ry as< Averroes, &eber die Moglichkeit der ConG2nktion, ed' ' Hannes 9Halle -A./:' The entire te*t (as p2blished recently as< The Epistle on the ,ossibility of ConG2nction, ed' and trans' 3' 0land 9$e( )ork -.A/:' To correct the editions, (hich are poor, I have 2sed ,aris, 0ibliotheJ2e $ationale, Hebre( MS .@?, the readings of (hich are recorded in 0landIs apparat2s' /. ,2blished as the first and second ite1s in Averroes, %rei Abhandl2ngen 2ber die ConG2nction, ed' and !er1an trans' L' HercE 90erlin -A7.:' The a2thor of the third of the ite1s in HercE (as not Averroes, b2t his son, and of the three, the third, (hich is the least original of the co1positions, is alone kno(n to e*ist in the original ArabicH it is p2blished in Ah(ani 9n' -. above: --.8/@' The three co1positions (ere translated into Hebre( by Sa12el Ibn Tibbon as part of his still 2np2blished co11entary on the 0ook of Ecclesiastes' ;6 Steinschneider 9n' /6 above: /66' The 1ost convenient edition is fo2nd in vol' . of Aristotelis opera c21 Averrois co11entariis 9#enice ->7/8->?@:, reprinted in "rankf2rt -.7/' ;- See H' %avidson, MAverrois Tractat2s de Ani1ae 0eatit2dine,M in A Straight ,ath 9Hy1an "estschrift:, ed' R' ink8Salinger 9Kashington -.AA: >?8?;' ;/ MAverroesI Co11entary on the %e intellect2 attrib2ted to Ale*ander,M ed' H' %avidson, Shlo1o ,ines L2bilee #ol21e - 9Ler2sale1 -.AA: /6>8-?' ike the Epistle on the ,ossibility of ConG2nction 9ite1 @:, the co11entary
on the %e intellect2 never appears by itself in the 1an2scripts' It al(ays is inter(oven (ith one of t(o 1edieval Hebre( co11entaries, co1posed by the sa1e t(o thinkers (ho (rote the t(o co11entaries on the Epistle'
/?
/7>
The three co11entaries on the %e ani1a are typically Averroistic in tone and style, and their gen2ineness can hardly be do2bted' The gen2ineness of the other co1positions is corroborated, as already 1entioned, by lists of AverroesI (orks in the 1edieval Arabic bibliographers' I take all seven co1positions, (ith the possible e*ception of the Epistle on the ,ossibility of ConG2nction, to be gen2ine';; The concl2sions to be dra(n here (ill not, ho(ever, be affected s2bstantially if the gen2ineness of any of the co1positions, apart fro1 the three co11entaries on the %e ani1a, sho2ld be challenged'
The Epito1e of the %e ani1a and the Epistle on the ,ossibility of ConG2nction The te*t2al sit2ation of the Epito1e of the %e ani1a is co1ple*' In seven places (ithin the section on intellect, certain 1an2scripts have passages that are absent in other 1an2scripts, and so1e of the passages are plainly co11ents (ritten at a later date and incorporated into the original te*t' One Arabic 1an2script, no( in Madrid, has all the passages that can be considered additions';@ The 1edieval Hebre( translation agrees (ith the Madrid 1an2script, e*cept that it lacks a single passage fo2nd thereH the passage in J2estion is, ho(ever, not strictly an interpolation (ithin the section on intellect b2t an appendi*' An Arabic version of the Epito1e, (hich (as printed in Hyderabad and is based, it see1s, on t(o 1an2scripts, lacks t(o of the added passages fo2nd in the Madrid 1an2script and in the Hebre(, and also lacks the appendi*' "inally, a f2rther Arabic 1an2script, no( in Cairo, lacks all b2t one of the additions in the Madrid 1an2script and in the Hebre(, has a passage of its o(n (hich is 1issing in all the other versions, andBCD if the apparat2s of the printed edition is correct;>BCDdoes have the afore1entioned appendi*' %espite the co1ple*ity, the 2nderlying sit2ation is clear' The te*t (itho2t the additionsBCDor at least (itho2t the significant onesBCDand incl2ding the passage preserved only in the Cairo 1an2script, represents the Epito1e as Averroes originally (rote itH and at least so1e;7 of the additions fo2nd in the Madrid 1an2script of the Arabic te*t and in the Hebre( translation are corrections that Averroes 1ade s2bseJ2ently, after having retho2ght the s2bGect' Khether the %o2bts 1ay be raised abo2t the Epistle, beca2se it defines its proble1 very differently fro1 the (ay other (orks of Averroes define the sa1e proble1, and beca2se it deploys a highly dialectical arg21entation, (hich is 2ntypical of Averroes' See belo(, p' ;/@, n' ;A, and p' ;/A, n' @.' ;@ The sa1e 1an2script also contains the version of AverroesI Epito1e of the Metaphysics (hich has the latter additionsH see above, p' //-' ;> See Ah(ani 9n' -. above:' ;7 Ah(ani A/8A;, see1s to be a 1ere variant and not a later addition' An appendi* to the Epito1e of the %e ani1a, ibid' .68 .>, does not appear in all versions, b2t also does not see1 to be a later correction' ;;
/77
appendi* is also a later addition or belongs to the original Epito1e is of no conseJ2ence for 2s' In a (ord, the Cairo 1an2script 1ore or less represents the original Epito1e, (hereas the Madrid 1an2script and the Hebre( translation incorporate AverroesI later corrections' The G2dg1ent that Averroes 2nder(ent a change of heart is not conGect2ral, for one of the added passages e*plicitly states that he co1pletely revised his position so1eti1e after having (ritten the Epito1e' Kith the e*plicit state1ent as a g2ide, the character of the other additions cannot be 1issed' The Epito1e as originally (ritten p2ts for(ard an arg21ent in several steps, leading to the concl2sion that the 1aterial h21an intellect is a disposition residing in the h21an organis1' The arg21ent begins by e*a1ining the characteristics of Mtheoretical intelligible tho2ghts,M a ter1 covering, for Averroes, both concepts 9tasa((2r: and propositions 9tasdiJ:' Averroes takes as granted that an intelligible tho2ght has the ontological stat2s of neither a physical obGect nor an accident, in the Aristotelian sense' Once those alternatives are p2t aside, the only re1aining possibility is that an intelligible tho2ght is a Mfor1'M Averroes proceeds< Intelligible tho2ghts are 2ndeniably different fro1 t(o other kinds of for1, for1s of physical obGects and Mso2l8for1sM 9s2(ar nafsaniyya:, the latter being the for1s
constit2ting the nonintellect2al levels of perception in the so2l';? $evertheless, 2nless one (ere to accept the ,latonic theory of ideal "or1s, a theory (hose
12st be ackno(ledged to share t(o cr2cial traits (ith for1s of physical obGects and for1s in the so2l at s2bintellect2al levels of perception, both of (hich Averroes ter1s M1aterialM for1s' "irst, like 1aterial for1s, intelligible tho2ghts Mfollo( 2pon change'M They are the o2tgro(th of a series of processes, na1ely, Msensation,M the refining of sense perceptions in the Mi1aginative fac2lty,M and the MrepeatedM reporting of percepts to the M1e1orative fac2lty'M The dependence of intelligible tho2ghts on process and change is 2n1istakable in the case of concepts openly tied to e*perience' Ke acJ2ire a M2niversal,M s2ch as the concept color or the concept of a given ani1al species, only after perceiving appropriate individ2al obGects (ith o2r e*ternal senses and refining the perceptions (ithin the so2l' That is the reason (hy the Mblind 1anM never acJ2ires the concept McolorM and inhabitants of the northern ;? Averroes lists the follo(ing differences, ibid' ?>8?AH Spanish translation -.A8/6-< 9a: Intelligible tho2ghts see1 to enGoy no e*istence apart fro1 their intelligible e*istenceH that is to say, they do not e*ist as obGects in the e*ternal (orld, 9b: An intelligible tho2ght has an infinite denotation, 9c: In the act of intelligible tho2ght, the perceiving s2bGect is identical (ith the perceived obGect, 9d: $o affection occ2rs in intelligible tho2ght 9see, ho(ever, above, p' />.:' 9e: The perceiving s2bGect, the intellect, beco1es stronger (ith age' AverroesI e*pression so2lfor1s probably derives
fro1 the ter1 spirit2al for1s, (hich Ibn 0aGGa 2ses for all levels of abstraction (ithin the so2l belo( the level of intellect' See the reference to Ibn 0aGGa, above, n' -?' ;A Ah(ani A-H Spanish translation /6@' Cf' Aristotle, Metaphysics -'.H ?'AH -;'@8>'
Mabs2rdities' ' ' Aristotle set forth in the Metaphysics,M;A intelligible tho2ghts
/7?
regions never acJ2ire the concept MelephantMH they lack the perceptions (ith (hich to start' 02t even the first principles of tho2ght, the pri1ary propositions M(hereof (e have no inkling (hen and ho( they arriveMBCDs2ch as the proposition that a (hole is greater than any of its partsBCDoriginate in the sa1e (ay' Altho2gh an ad2lt no longer, perhaps, recalls the Mindivid2alM events fro1 (hich he derived the first principles of tho2ght, those principles belong to the sa1e Mgen2sM as the other Mintelligible tho2ghtsM and therefore 12st like(ise have their origin in sense arg2ed;.BCDgro( o2t of the processes of sensation, i1agination, and 1e1ory, and they too are conseJ2ently dependent on change'@6 The second trait intelligible tho2ghts share (ith 1aterial for1s is that the concepts possessed by different 1en are Mrendered pl2ral by the pl2rality of their s2bstrataM and are accordingly s2bGect to Men21eration'M The s2bstrata to (hich they are MessentiallyM linked are the i1aginative fac2lties of individ2al h21an so2ls, as evidenced by the circ21stance that (hen so1eoneIs Mi1aginative fac2lty is destroyedM his Mco1prehension is defective,M and again that the Mloss of i1aginative for1sM entails the MforgettingM of intelligible tho2ghts'@Inas12ch as the concept of a given species possessed by one 1an is Mlinked to i1ages of individ2als distinct fro1 the Qi1ages ofR individ2alsM to (hich the tho2ght of the sa1e species is linked in anotherBCDinas12ch as it is linked to i1ages in the i1aginative fac2lty of a different so2lBCDthe intelligible tho2ghts possessed by the one 1an are plainly not identical (ith those of the other'@/ Since intelligible tho2ghts are contingent 2pon change and are linked to 1atter'M They conseJ2ently Mco1e into e*istence and are destroyed'M@; 02t (hen so1ething co1es into e*istence, a MdispositionM for its e*istence precedes its act2al e*istence' A disposition for tho2ght 12st accordingly e*ist in 1an prior to act2al h21an tho2ght' %ispositions do not e*ist in a Mdise1bodiedM state, and the h21an disposition for tho2ght 12st therefore be present in a Ms2bGect'M MThat s2bGect cannot be a body,M beca2se intellect2al tho2ghts (ere seen Mnot to be 1aterialM in the f2ll sense, Min the respect (herein corporeal for1s are 1aterial'M $or can the s2bGect be Man intellect'M An intellect consists in act2al tho2ght, (hereas the h21an disposition for thinking is intelligible tho2ght only potentiallyH and M(hatever is so1e thing potentially cannot contain any of the sa1e thing act2ally'M 0eing neither a body nor an intellect, the s2bGect of the h21an disposition for tho2ght 12st be the Aristotle, ,osterior Analytics /'-.' Ah(ani ?.H Spanish translation /6/' @- Ibid' A68 A-H Spanish translation /6;8@' @/ Ibid' A-H Spanish translation /6@' The arg21ent derives fro1 Ibn 0aGGa, "l Ittisal al8cAJl biIl8Insan 9n' -7 above:, Arabic te*t ->, -?H Spanish translation ;;, ;?' To take an e*a1ple, the @6 ;.
perception' They too, 12stBCDas Aristotle, (ho1 Averroes does not 1ention, had
individ2al h21an s2bGects, they are, after all, in a sense Mnecessarily possessed of
elephant is linked in another 1an' @; Ibid' A6, A/H Spanish translation /6;, /6>'
concept elephant in one 1an is linked to i1ages distinct fro1 the i1ages to (hich the concept
/7A
only entity re1aining, na1ely, Ma so2l'M M$one of the fac2lties of the so2l can 1ore pla2sibly be taken as the s2bGect of intelligible tho2ght than for1s Qi1agesR in the i1aginative fac2ltyH for intelligible tho2ghts have G2st been sho(n to be linked to those for1s, to e*ist (hen they are present, and not to e*ist (hen they are absent'M The analysis of h21an tho2ght, p2rs2ed, Averroes is confident, (itho2t prepossession, th2s reveals the precise nat2re of the h21an 1aterial intellect' The intellect2al tho2ghts'M@@ The disposition for tho2ght does differ fro1 other dispositions in the so2l in one i1portant respect< It is not M1i*ed (ith the i1aginative for1sM serving as its s2bstrat21'@> As a concl2ding note, preserved only in the 1an2script that on the (hole gives the original te*t of the Epito1e (itho2t the interpolations, Averroes cites AristotleIs analogy of the (riting tablet, and since he is constr2ing the 1aterial intellect as a disposition, not a s2bstance, he for12lates the analogy (ith Ale*anderIs e1endation'@7 He does not state that Aristotle had co1pared the h21an potentiality for tho2ght to a (riting tablet, as Aristotle had in tr2th done, b2t rather that MAristotle co1pared the disposition in the i1aginative fac2lty for receiving intelligible Mh21an 1aterial intellectM is Mthe disposition (ithin i1aginative for1s for receiving
s2bstrat21 of the disposition Qfor tho2ght, is (hatR parallels the tablet'M As for AristotleIs state1ent that the potential intellect is i1passive and does not 2ndergo affection, Averroes, again like Ale*ander, takes the i1passivity and freedo1 fro1 affection to be d2e si1ply to the potential intellectIs being a 1ere disposition< MInas12ch as the disposition Qfor tho2ghtR is nothing in act2ality and does not e*ist in a body, it 2ndergoes no affection Qor alterationR (hatsoever (hen QintelligibleR for1s are generated in it'M@? The original te*t of the Epito1e identifies the theory that the h21an intellect is not a s2bstance b2t a disposition as MAle*anderIs ' '' vie(,M@A and Ale*ander is the so2rce of AverroesI version of the (riting tablet analogy as (ell as of his e*planation of the sense in (hich the potential h21an intellect is i1passive' Ibn 0aGGa, ho(ever, (as the philosopher (ho located the h21an disposition for tho2ght specifically in the i1aginative fac2lty, and, as (ill appear presently, one of the annotations incorporated into the Epito1e does na1e Ibn 0aGGa as the inspiration of the position taken in the original Epito1e' A different (ork of AverroesI also reports that Ibn 0aGGa (as the philosopher (ho constr2ed the 1aterial intellect as a disposition specifically in the i1aginative fac2lty of the so2l, in contrast to Ale*ander, (ho constr2ed the 1aterial intellect, 1ore generally, as a disposition in
tho2ghts to the disposition in the (riting tablet' The so2l, (hich serves as the
VIbid' A7H Spanish translation /6.' @> Ibid' A?H Spanish translation /-6' @7 See above, p' /76' @? Ah(ani AAH Spanish translation /--' @A Ibid' A7H Spanish translation /6.'
/7.
the h21an so2l or in 1an'@. Strands of arg21entation in the Epito1e can, 1oreover, be traced to Ibn 0aGGa'>6 As for MThe1isti2s and other earlier co11entatorsMBCDpres21ably, Theophrast2sBCDas (ell as MAvicenna and othersM (ho 1aintained that the 1aterial intellect is Meternal,M>- the original Epito1e e*pressly reGects their conception' On their approach, the s2bGect in (hich the h21an disposition for tho2ght resides co2ld be neither a MbodyM nor a Mso2l,M beca2se both bodies and so2ls are generateddestr2ctible and not eternal'>/ The s2bGect (o2ld have to be an Mintellect'M 02t if the s2bGect in (hich the disposition for tho2ght resides (ere an intellect fro1 the o2tset, the s2bGect (o2ld already Mhave in act2ality the character it Qin factR has potentiallyH and that is i1possible, since potentiality and act2ality are contraries'M>; In brief, the Epito1e establishes thro2gh an analysis of h21an tho2ght that the potential or 1aterial h21an intellect can be nothing other than a generateddestr2ctible disposition residing in the i1aginative fac2lty of the so2l, or, as Averroes p2ts it, in the for1s, or i1ages, 1aking 2p the contents of the i1aginative fac2lty' To take the potential h21an intellect as an eternal s2bstance (o2ld entail the abs2rdity of a thingIs being potential and act2al at the sa1e ti1e' After the Epito1e e*a1ines additional topics relating to h21an intellect, Averroes closes the disc2ssion (ith the (ords< MThe disco2rse on the rational fac2lty is here co1plete'M>@ 02t the versions of the Epito1e 1ost consistently incorporating AverroesI later corrections there2pon add a paragraph in (hich Averroes confesses< MKhat I have (ritten abo2t the 1aterial intellect,M constr2ing it as a disposition in the i1aginative fac2lty of the so2l, Mis (hat previo2sly appeared to 1e correct'M That (as the position MIbn 0aGGa (as first to advocate,M and Ibn 0aGGa M1isled 1e'M Khen I s2bseJ2ently Mpressed 1y investigation of AristotleIs (ords, I realiEed that the 1aterial intellect cannot be the s2bstance containing the fac2lty Qfor tho2ghtR in (hich anything act2al (hatsoever, that is, any for1 (hatsoever, is present'M The antecedent of the prono2n (hich in the last sentence is 2nclear, and the sentence is a(k(ard' 02t Averroes is plainly saying that the h21an disposition for tho2ght cannot after all reside (ithin so1ething s2ch as the h21an so2l, or the i1aginative fac2lty of the so2l, (hich has its o(n act2al for1' The reason is AristotleIs old arg21ent< MIf s2ch (ere the case,M if the disposition for tho2ght resided in a s2bstrat21 that has its o(n for1, the act2al for1 present there (o2ld interfere (ith the intellectIs operation, and the intellect M(o2ld not be able to receive all for1sM Ale*ander, %e ani1a 9n' . above: A;, does state that intellect 2ses i1ages presented to it by the i1aginative fac2lty, b2t he does not e*pressly locate the intellect in the i1aginative fac2lty' >6 Ah(ani 9n' -. above: A-, A;' See n' @/ above' >- Ah(ani A;8 A@H Spanish translation /678?' In fact, Avicenna 1aintained that the h21an so2l (ith its 1aterial intellect is generatedH above, p' -6?' >/ There is an e*ception, since the celestial sphere is an eternal body' >; Ibid' A>H si1ilarly on A7' Spanish translation /6A8.' >@ Ibid' .6H Spanish translation /-;' @.
/?6
(itho2t distortion' Contrary to (hat M(e stated earlier in the book,''' percepts Qor< notions 91acani:R in the i1aginative fac2ltyM are not therefore Mthe s2bGect Qof the h21an disposition for tho2ghtR'M The i1aginative fac2ltyIs role in tho2ght is 1erely that of a repository fro1 (hich i1ages are dra(n for presentation to a 1aterial intellect e*isting independently of itH the i1aginative fac2lty is not analogo2s to an MeyeM that seesBCDto a percipient s2bGectBCDb2t to the MvisibleM obGect presented to the eye' Aristotle, it no( t2rns o2t, not only had no tho2ght of constr2ing the 1aterial intellect as a disposition residing in a part of the so2l b2t Me*plicitly affir1ed that the 1aterial intellect is eternal'M>> The p2rported e*plicit state1ent is 2ndo2btedly AristotleIs characteriEation of the intellect that 1an is born (ith as not M1i*edM (ith 1atter and Mseparate'M>7 Averroes here reads AristotleIs (ordIs as affir1ing that the 1aterial intellect is a separate, that is, incorporeal, and hence eternal, s2bstance' Averroes, then, rep2diates his original position beca2se of the old Aristotelian consideration that the h21an intellect cannot at the o2tset contain any act2al J2ality or any for1 of its o(n and also beca2se of AristotleIs p2rportedly e*plicit characteriEation of the 1aterial intellect as eternal' Altho2gh Averroes no longer accepts the position originally stated in the Epito1e, he e*plains that he refrained fro1 re(riting the book for t(o reasons< MOne is that scholars have already 1ade copies of itH the second is that the Epito1e Qas originally (rittenR is a good acco2nt of do2bts that can be directed against AristotleIs treat1entM of the 1aterial intellect and therefore retains he2ristic val2e' MAnyone (ishing to ascertainM AverroesI Mtr2e opinion on the J2estionM is invited to cons2lt his MQ ongR Co11entary Qshark] on AristotleIs %e ani1a,M (here he Me*po2nds Qthe s2bGectR in f2ll'M>? Khereas the original Epito1e deter1ined that the 1aterial intellect cannot possibly be an eternal s2bstance and 12st be a disposition in the i1aginative fac2lty of the so2l, the interpolated note at the concl2sion of the disc2ssion of intellect th2s rep2diates AverroesI original position on both scores' Of the other interpolations in the Epito1e, t(o in partic2lar e*pand on AverroesI change of heart' The first of the t(o is incorporated into the te*t i11ediately after the original version of the Epito1e decides that the 1aterial intellect can be nothing other than a disposition residing in the i1aginative fac2lty of the so2l'>A Averroes reverses hi1self there, as he does in the passage G2st e*a1ined, b2t on so1e(hat different gro2nds' He reasons that in tho2ght, Mthe notion perceived by the i1aginative 1acna al81acJ2lR'M He 1eans that (hat is digested at each level in the process of abstraction is presented to the s2bseJ2ent level for f2rther refine1entH hence >> >7 >?
fac2lty Qal81acna al812takhayyal] is identical (ith the notion intellected Qal8
Above, p' />.' Ah(ani .6H Spanish translation /-@' > VThe passage is 1issing in the Hyderabad edition and in the Chester 0eatty 1an2script' If Ah(aniIs apparat2s is acc2rate, this is the only one of the later corrections appearing in the Cairo 1an2script'
Ibid'
/?-
percepts refined by the i1aginative fac2lty are (hat it in t2rn presents before the intellect2al fac2lty to be t2rned into an obGect of tho2ght' If the intellect2al fac2lty (ere a disposition (ithin the i1aginative fac2lty, (henever the i1aginative fac2lty places an i1age before the intellect, it (o2ld be presenting part of itself to be refined and digested by a fac2lty that inheres in itself' MSo1ething (o2ld be receiving itself,M (hich is i1possible' M,erhaps,M the passage contin2es, the 1aterial intellect is Mas Aristotle states, a s2bstance that is all intelligible tho2ghts in potentialityM b2t nothing in act2ality' MIntelligible tho2ghtsM (o2ld accordingly Mbe linked to t(o s2bGects'M One of the t(o, the s2bGect in the strict sense, is Meternal and bears the sa1e relation to intelligible tho2ghts that pri1e 1atter bears to physical for1sMH it is an eternal s2bstance, (holly potential at the start, and receptive of ne( tho2ghts 12ch as pri1e 1atter is receptive of for1s' The MsecondM s2bGect is so1ething Mgenerateddestr2ctible, to (it, the i1aginative for1s' "or in a certain sense they are a s2bGect Qof h21an intelligible tho2ghts, intelligible tho2ghts being linked to the so2l thro2gh the1R, altho2gh in another sense they are a 1overM setting the h21an tho2ght process in 1otion'>. The 1aterial intellect, Averroes is s2ggesting, 1ay (ell be an entity of a sort that the original te*t of the Epito1e, directly prior to the interpolation, ref2sed to conte1plate, na1ely, an eternal s2bstance (hich is nonetheless not an act2al intellect' That (ill be the position of AverroesI ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a' The ong Co11entary (ill also develop the notion that h21an intelligible tho2ght has t(o s2bGects' A fe( lines later, the 1an2scripts preserving AverroesI corrections have the second of the 1ore significant interpolations into the body of the Epito1e' MIndeed,M the interpolated passage states, Mit (o2ld be betterM to regard Mi1ages Qin the i1aginative fac2ltyR as 1otive, rather than as receptive'M It (o2ld, in other (ords, be better to regard the1 as the factor 1oving the intellect to think rather than as the recipient of intelligible tho2ght or as the s2bstrat21 of the h21an disposition for tho2ght' 0eca2se the Mco11entatorsM G2dged the constr2ction of the 1aterial intellect as a disposition residing in the so2l or in the i1aginative fac2lty to be Mproble1atic,' '' they constr2ed the 1aterial intellect as an eternal s2bstance of an intellect2al nat2re ' ' ' (hose e*istence ''' is potential,' ' ' QandR (hose relation to intelligible tho2ghts is like that of physical 1atter to for1s'M Their sol2tion, ho(ever, is also proble1aticBCDaltho2gh not for the reason the Epito1e originally gave, not beca2se the 1aterial intellect is p2re potentiality, (hereas an eternal s2bstance (o2ld perforce be an act2al intellect, and therefore an eternal 1aterial intellect is a self8 contradictory notion' The co11entatorsI position that the h21an 1aterial intellect is an eternal s2bstance is proble1atic beca2se it (o2ld have 1an, a destr2ctible being, MperfectedM thro2gh the presence in hi1 of an eternal s2bstance, an entity co1pletely different fro1 hi1self' The iss2es, Averroes goes on, are so s2btle that MadG2dication bet(een the t(o positions de1ands a broader >.
Ah(ani A78A?H Spanish translation /6.8-6'
/?/
disc2ssion than ''' the present epito1e (ill allo(' et 2s ret2rn to the place (here (e (ere'M76 In s21, (hen co1posing the Epito1e of the %e ani1a, Averroes analyEed h21an intelligible tho2ghts, fo2nd the1 to be generated8destr2ctible, inferred that they 12st co1e into e*istence in a disposition, and identified the s2bGect in (hich the disposition resides as the i1aginative fac2lty of the so2l' Sy1pto1atic of the line he took is the (ay in (hich he p2t the analogy of the (riting tablet' He for12lated the analogy (ith Ale*anderIs e1endation, e*plaining that Aristotle had not co1pared the h21an 1aterial intellect to the (riting tablet itself, the h21an intellect not being a s2bstance, b2t rather to the tabletIs disposition for receiving (riting' The Epito1e as originally (ritten flatly e*cl2ded the possibility of the 1aterial intellectIs being an eternal s2bstanceH if it (ere an eternal s2bstance, it (o2ld, in the vie( of the original Epito1e, perforce be an act2al intellect, consisting in act2al tho2ght, (hereas the h21an 1aterial or potential intellect is a potentiality for tho2ght, not act2al tho2ght' That (as (hat the Epito1e of the %e ani1a originally said' At one or 1ore7s2bseJ2ent dates, Averroes ret2rned to the Epito1e' In a note attached to the end of the disc2ssion of intellect, he bla1ed Ibn 0aGGa for having 1isled hi1' There and in notes attached to the body of the te*t, he offered t(o gro2nds for not constr2ing the 1aterial intellect as a disposition in the i1aginative fac2lty< "or1s already present in the i1aginative fac2lty (o2ld prevent the 1aterial intellect fro1 thinking intelligible tho2ghts (itho2t distortion' And (ere it tr2e that the i1aginative fac2lty presents i1ages to an intellect2al fac2lty inhering in itself, so1ething (o2ld MreceiveM itself, (hich is i1possible' Averroes no( constr2ed the 1aterial intellectBCDand 2nderstood Aristotle to have done the sa1eBCDas an 2n2s2al sort of eternal s2bstance, a s2bstance of a sort that the original Epito1e dis1issed o2t of hand' He constr2ed it as an incorporeal s2bstance in a state of total potentiality, independent of the h21an organis1, and receptive of intelligible tho2ghts in the 1anner that pri1e 1atter is receptive of physical for1s' The notes that Averroes attached to the original te*t of the Epito1e or (rote in the 1argins of his copy (ere incorporated by scribes into so1e 1an2scripts of the Epito1e b2t not into others' AverroesI Epistle on the ,ossibility of ConG2nction (ith the active intellect takes the sa1e line as the original Epito1e of the %e ani1a' Averroes asserts there that the M1aterial intellect has been proved in QAristotleIsR %e ani1a ''' to be a 1ere disposition, not perfected by any for1 (hatsoever,M rather than a s2bstance' The s2pposed proof rests on the Aristotelian consideration that the prior presence of a for1 (o2ld prevent the 1aterial intellect fro1 perfor1ing its f2nction of 1irroring Ibid' A?H Spanish translation /-68--' The passage G2st cited in n' 76 is 1ore ca2tio2s than both the ong Co11entary and the interpolation at the end of the Epito1e, and it 1ight conceivably represent a tentative stage' 7- 76
/?;
the e*ternal (orld (itho2t distortionBCDthe very consideration add2ced by one of the additions to the Epito1e for the p2rpose of proving the contrary thesis that the 1aterial intellect is an eternal s2bstance in a state of p2re potentiality'7/ Khat Aristotle had contended (as si1ply that the 1aterial intellect can contain no for1' His contention 1ight help to define the 1aterial intellect as a 1ere disposition only (ith the added pre1ise that intellect2al s2bstances in a state of p2re for1less potentiality do not e*istH the Epistle on the ,ossibility of ConG2nction 12st therefore be pres2pposing the added pre1ise' At all events, AristotleIs s2pposed proof, as reported by the Epistle, r2ns< If the 1aterial intellect already had a for1 of its o(n, the presence of the Mfor1 (o2ld either prevent the 1aterial intellect fro1 receiving the for1s of QallR obGects or else (o2ld alter Qand distortR the for1sM of obGects (hich the intellect Mreceives'M7; Since the 1aterial intellect cannot have a for1 of its o(n, it 12st be a blank disposition' The Epistle on the ,ossibility of ConG2nction goes on to ascertain the location of the 1aterial intellect (ithin 1an fro1 the circ21stance that Mintellect in habit2,M the level at (hich 1an can think at (ill, is Mperfected thro2gh i1aginative notions lect acJ2ires its store of intelligible tho2ghts thro2gh conte1plating i1ages presented by the i1aginative fac2lty' Inas12ch as Mi1aginative for1s Qi1agesR are the s2bstrat21 of intelligible tho2ghts, the potentiality for receiving intelligible tho2ghts or so8called 1aterial intellect 12st be connectedM (ith those for1s, or i1ages'7@ The 1aterial intellect 12st be a disposition Mconnected''' to the i1aginative so2l'M7> S2ch being the nat2re of the 1aterial intellect, Averroes cites the analogy of the (riting tablet (ith Ale*anderIs e1endation' The h21an disposition for tho2ght, he (rites, is MGoined to i1aginative for1s as the disposition in the (riting tablet is connected (ith the tablet'M77 Kriters in the Aristotelian tradition kne( that the h21an intellect cannot be M1i*edM (ith the h21an organis1, for the oft8repeated reason that (ere it 1i*ed, the 1i*t2re (o2ld prevent it fro1 perceiving intelligible tho2ghts (itho2t distortion'7? AverroesI Epistle on the ,ossibility of ConG2nction coins a pair of ter1s to e*press the relationship precisely' The Epistle styles the link bet(een the intellect2al fac2lty and the i1aginative fac2lty a Mconnection of e*istenceM 9heJsher 1esiI2t:, as distinct fro1 a Mconnection of ad1i*t2reM 9heJsher cer2b:'7A Altho2gh MGoinedM to the i1aginative fac2lty solely in a Mconnection of e*istenceM and 7/ 7;
Qcinyani1 1ed211i1X1acani 12takhayyalaR'M That is to say, the h21an intel8
/;'
Above, pp' /7.8?6' Epistle on the ,ossibility of ConG2nction 9n' /A above:, Hebre( te*t @H English translation
7@ Ibid', Hebre( te*t -/8-;' The English translation incorrectly renders intellect in habit2 as MacJ2ired intellect'M 7> Ibid', Hebre( te*t -6/' 77 Ibid', Hebre( te*t -6A' 7? Above, p' />.' VEpistle on the ,ossibility of ConG2nction, Hebre( te*t -;H English translation' /A'
/?@
not Mof ad1i*t2re,M the h21an potentiality for tho2ght re1ains dependent on the i1aginative fac2lty of the so2l not G2st in one b2t in Mt(oM respects< I1aginative for1s Mare as it (ere the s2bstrat21M of the fac2lty of tho2ght, beca2se the 1aterial intellect is present in 1an thro2gh the1' They are, 1oreover, the 1otive factor setting the tho2ght process in 1otionH for the fac2lty of tho2ght 12st, in order to perfor1 its operation, Mconte1plateM and Mlook atM i1ages presented by the i1agination, the intellect being activated by i1ages in the i1aginative fac2lty Mas sensationM is activated by Msensata'M Averroes concl2des that since Mspec2lative intelligible tho2ghtsMBCDact2al h21an intelligible tho2ghtsBCDare dependent 2pon i1aginative for1s, and the latter are Mgenerated8destr2ctible, spec2lative intelligible tho2ghts are like(ise generated8destr2ctible'M He do2btless 1eans as (ell that the disposition for tho2ght, or 1aterial intellect, (hich is eJ2ally dependent on the i1aginative fac2lty, is also generated8destr2ctible'7. The Epistle on the ,ossibility of ConG2nction, in fine, constr2es the 1aterial intellect as a generated8destr2ctible, blank disposition linked to the i1aginative fac2lty of the h21an so2l' The Epistle accordingly belongs to the sa1e stage of AverroesI tho2ght as the original Epito1e of the %e ani1a' A Minor Co1position on ConG2nction and the Middle Co11entary on the %e ani1a $either the Epito1e of the %e ani1a in its original for1 nor the Epistle on the ,ossibility of ConG2nction identifies Ibn 0aGGa as the proponent of the position it endorses' As already seen, an annotation added to the Epito1e does na1e Ibn 0aGGa as the philosopher (ho inspired Averroes (hen he originally (rote that (ork, and else(here Averroes na1es Ibn 0aGGa as the philosopher (ho constr2ed the 1aterial intellect as a disposition located specifically in the i1aginative fac2lty, in contradistinction to Ale*ander, (ho constr2ed it, 1ore generally, as a disposition residing in the h21an s2bGect or the h21an so2l' One of the 1inor treatises of AverroesI (hich disc2sses the s2bGect of conG2nction (ith the active intellectBCDa treatise that beca1e part of the atin co1position kno(n as Tractat2s de ani1ae beatit2dineBCDconstr2es the 1aterial intellect as a disposition in the h21an so2l (itho2t specifying that the disposition is located in the i1aginative fac2lty' And there Averroes na1es Ale*ander as the philosopher (ho1 he is follo(ing' The treatise in J2estion sets forth the constr2ctions placed by The1isti2s and Ale*ander on the 1aterial intellect and s21s 2p Ale*anderIs vie( (ith the sentence< MThe nat2re of this part of the so2l is nothing b2t the disposition Qfor tho2ghtR present in the so2l'M?6 Ale*ander arrived at his conception beca2se Aristotle had Mco1paredM the 1aterial intellect Mto the disposition in a (riting tablet, (hich is
7. -6
%rei Abhandl2ngen 9n' /. above:, Hebre( te*t >H !er1an translation -?8-A'
ibid'
/?>
receptive of (ritingM 9the antecedent of the prono2n (hich is 2nclear:'?- Taking the h21an so2l to be the analog2e of the (riting tablet, Ale*ander nat2rally eno2gh constr2ed the fac2lty of tho2ght as a disposition in the so2l' Once he did so, he f2rther Mdeter1ined '' ' that this h21an disposition is, like other dispositions, generated together (ith the generation of the so2lM?/ and hence 1ortal, 2ndergoing destr2ction (hen the so2l does' S2ch, according to the treatise (e are considering, (as Ale*anderIs reading of Aristotle' Aristotle hi1self, Averroes here observes, M1ade no e*plicit state1entM on the iss2e' The observation is acc2rate, altho2gh it conflicts (ith AverroesI o(n report, in one place, that Aristotle had proved the 1aterial intellect to be a 1ere disposition, ?; and his contrary report, in another place, that Aristotle had Me*plicitlyM characteriEed it as an eternal s2bstance'?@ Aristotle, the present treatise ackno(ledges, did describe the 1aterial intellect as Mseparate Qfro1 the bodyR,M and the description co2ld be taken to 1ean that the 1aterial intellect Mis absol2tely separate Qfro1 1atterR,M or incorporeal' 02t the description of the 1aterial intellect as separate can also easily be har1oniEed (ith Ale*anderIs position, since Aristotle 1ay 1erely have 1eant that the 1aterial intellect is Mnot a po(er e*isting (ithin Qand distrib2ted thro2ghR the body and QtherebyR divisible by virt2e of the bodyIs being divided'M?> $othing e*plicit, then, is forthco1ing fro1 Aristotle' )et Mit does appear fro1 AristotleIs principles,M Averroes here (rites, that Ale*anderIs position is correct and Mthe 1aterial intellect is a 1ere disposition'M "or if the 1aterial intellect (ere a Ms2bstance receptive of the for1s of e*istent obGects, intelligible tho2ghts (o2ldMBCD and the reasoning is 2nclear?7BCDt2rn o2t to be Mself8s2bsistent e*istent beings,M (here2pon all the obGections Aristotle dre( 2p against ,latoIs theory of selfs2bsistent intelligible "or1s (o2ld ens2e'?? Khereas the original Epito1e of the %e ani1a and the Epistle on the ,ossibility of ConG2nction took the 1aterial intellect to be a disposition located in the i1aginative fac2lty, the present treatise on conG2nction Goins Ale*ander in defining it as a disposition in the h21an so2l, (itho2t specifying the i1aginative fac2lty as the dispositionIs loc2s'
,ossibly, the 2nstated arg21ent is the sa1e as that given in the ong Co11entary, belo(, p' /A?' ?? %rei Abhandl2ngen, Hebre( te*t >87H !er1an translation /68/-' AverroesI second 1inor treatise on conG2nctionBCDthe second of the three Abhandl2ngenBCDtakes no clear stand on the 1aterial intellect'
/>'
"or the (riting tablet analogy, see above, pp' /76, /7A' %rei Abhandl2ngen, Hebre( te*t >H !er1an translation -A8-.' ?; Above, p' /?;' ?@ Above, p' /?6' ?> %rei Abhandl2ngen, Hebre( te*t 7, follo(ing the reading of 1s' AH !er1an translation
/@?/ ?7
?-
/?7
AverroesI Middle Co11entary on the %e ani1a is another proble1atic te*t' Averroes there disc2sses the h21an intellect at length, and in the center of the disc2ssion stand t(o pages that caref2lly analyEe the positions of Ale*ander and The1isti2s and reach an 2n2s2al concl2sion' The t(o8page section decides that the 1aterial intellect is a hybrid entity, a 1ere disposition (ithin the h21an organis1 in one respect, yet an eternal s2bstance in another' Ke can vis2aliEe Averroes thro(ing 2p his hands in fr2stration and, 2nable to (ithstand the arg21ents on either side, accepting both as at least partly right' Medieval Le(ish philosophers generally sa( nothing in the Middle Co11entary on the %e ani1a beyond the hybrid or, as one of the1 p2ts it, Minter1ediateM?A position, and they took the hybrid position to represent AverroesI considered opinion on the 1aterial intellect' &nlike the Epito1e on the %e ani1a, the Middle Co11entary has not, as far as I co2ld discover, been preserved in variant versions that 1ight reveal evidence of interpolation' $or do the 1an2scripts contain an ad1ission, like that in so1e 1an2scripts of the Epito1e, of a change of heart by Averroes' $evertheless, (hen the Middle Co11entary is read (itho2t the t(o8page e*c2rs2s, it ass21es a very different visage' The disparity bet(een the te*t (hen read (itho2t the e*c2rs2s and the conception that the e*c2rs2s artic2lates testifies, I believe, to interpolation here as (ell' Khen (e consider the te*t (itho2t the e*c2rs2s, (e find Averroes p2tting for(ard the standard arg21ent for the 1aterial intellectIs being Mco1pletely 2n1i*ed (ith any 1aterial for1,M that is, M2n1i*ed (ith the s2bGect in (hich it e*istsM< If the 1aterial intellect M(ere 1i*ed (ith any for1,''' the for1 of the s2bGect (ith (hich it is 1i*ed (o2ld either block the for1s that the fac2lty receives, or else ' '' (o2ld alter the for1s being receivedH and in that case the for1s of things (o2ld not be present in the intellect acc2rately' Seeing that intellect by its nat2re receives the for1s of things (itho2t distortion, it 12st itself be a inference that (e have seen hi1 dra( fro1 the sa1e arg21ent in another (ork'A6 MS2ch being the character of the intellect 2nder consideration, it has no nat2re other than that of a 1ere dispositionQisti c dad faJatR'M The h21an disposition for tho2ght resides, of co2rse, (ithin the h21an organis1 or h21an so2l and hence is Min a s2bGect'M Still, Msince the disposition for tho2ght is not 1i*ed (ithM the s2bGect to (hich it is linked, Mthat s2bGect is not potential intellect'M Material or potential intellect is not Mso1e thing in (hich the disposition Qfor tho2ghtR inheres,M not a s2bGect or s2bstrat21 bearing the disposition b2t solely the disposition 2n1i*ed (ith anything else'A?A evi !ersonides, Co11entary on AverroesI Epito1e of the %e ani1a, O*ford, 0odleian ibrary, Hebre( MS Opp' add' @4O ;A, /@>b' ?. Averroes, Middle Co11entary on the %e ani1a 9n' /- above:, Arabic te*t, -@;b8-@@aH Hebre( translation, /-Ab8/-.a' A6 Above, p' /?;' A- Middle Co11entary on the%e ani1a, Arabic te*t -@@aH Hebre( translation /-.a'
fac2lty 2n1i*ed (ith any for1 (hatsoever'M?. Averroes here2pon dra(s the
/--
Having concl2ded that the 1aterial intellect is a 1ere disposition, the 1an2scripts of the Middle Co11entary (hich I e*a1ined contain the afore1entioned e*c2rs2s, (hich deter1ines that the 1aterial intellect is a hybrid entity and not a 1ere disposition after all' Then the 1an2scripts ret2rn to AverroesI line8by8line paraphrase of AristotleIs %e ani1a, (ith the (ords< MInas12ch as its nat2re is (hat has been stated, na1ely ''' a 1ere disposition' ' ' ,MA/ The te*t
follo(ing the e*c2rs2s th2s betrays no kno(ledge of the 2n2s2al concl2sion that i11ediately precedes in the 1an2scripts' A later passage in the Middle Co11entary also kno(s nothing of the e*c2rs2s' As AverroesI paraphrase proceeds, it arrives at the point (here Aristotle posed and solved a certain diffic2lty' The diffic2lty, in AverroesI restate1ent, is that h21an tho2ght (ill apparently be i1possible sho2ld t(o propositions 1aintained by Aristotle be accepted' Aristotle had, on the one hand, affir1ed that receiving ne( tho2ghts is a e*periencing affection e*ists (ithin, and is part of, a 1aterial s2bstrat21' )et Aristotle had, on the other hand, deter1ined that the 1aterial intellect is Msi1ple,M or incorporeal, and Mnot s2bGect to affection'MA@ Ho( 1ight a h21an intellect2al fac2lty that is incorporeal and i112ne fro1 affection think, if tho2ght is a kind of affection, and every affection occ2rs (ithin a 1aterial s2bstrat21N AristotleIs o(n sol2tion to the apparent contradiction is opaJ2e,A> and Averroes refor12lates it' He e*plains< Khen intellect2al tho2ght is described as a kind of affection, the ter1 MaffectionM is not 2sed in a strict sense b2t in the Mbroader senseM of Mreception'MA7 The description si1ply 1eans that the intellect2al process consists in the MreceptionM of intelligible tho2ghts' Since the h21an disposition for tho2ght is not 1i*ed (ith a 1aterial s2bstrat21, since the recipient of intelligible tho2ght is a M1ere dispositionM and not any 2nderlying Mthing (hatsoeverM besides the disposition, no 1aterial s2bstrat21 is, in tr2th, involved in tho2ght, and no Malteration at allM occ2rs' The h21an disposition for tho2ght Mis, as Aristotle said, there, no alteration of the disposition takes place' And MG2st as the disposition in the s2rface of the tablet is not 1i*ed (ith the tablet,M and the MtabletIs receiving (ritingM hence involves no MaffectionM in the disposition, so too the h21an
kind of Maffection,MA; andBCDas Averroes e*plicates AristotleIs intentBCDeverything
analogo2s to the disposition in the (riting tablet for receiving (riting'M Even
A VIbid', Arabic te*t -@>aH Hebre( translation //6a' I have given the reading of the Hebre( translation' The Arabic 1an2script I 2sed has< MInas12ch as the nat2re of the
intellect is (hat has been stated, na1ely ''' a 1ere disposition'M The prono2n MitsM in the Hebre( is a lectio difficilior since there is no antecedent in the i11ediately preceding e*c2rs2s' There is, ho(ever, an antecedent in the i11ediately preceding te*t (hen the e*c2rs2s is ignored' I conGect2re that so1e ti1e after the e*c2rs2s (as added to the te*t, an Arabic scribe changed Mits nat2reM to Mthe nat2re of the intellectM in order to re1ove the a(k(ardness' A; Aristotle, %e ani1a ;'@'@/.b, />' A@ Ibid' //' A> See, e'g', RodierIs co11entary' A7 Aristotle, %e ani1a /'>'@-?b, /8-7, does in fact disting2ish t(o senses of affection'
/?A
disposition for tho2ght is 2n1i*ed (ith the h21an organis1 and 2ndergoes no affection or alteration in the process of tho2ght'A? All the passages J2oted th2s far fro1 the Middle %e ani1a 2nJ2alifiedly constr2e the h21an 1aterial intellect as a 1ere disposition residing in the h21an organis1 or h21an so2l' Averroes has again given the 1etaphor of the (riting tablet (ith Ale*anderIs e1endation, co1paring the 1aterial intellect to the disposition in the tablet for receiving (riting rather than to the tablet itself' And he has e1ployed the analogy of the disposition in the (riting tablet to e*plain (hy the 1aterial intellect does not 2ndergo affection, 1aintainingBCDstrangely perhaps, b2t e*actly as Ale*ander had done and as he too had done in another (orkBCDthat the disposition in the (riting tablet is 2n1i*ed (ith the tablet and conseJ2ently also does not s2ffer affection' Khen the e*c2rs2s in the center of the disc2ssion of intellect is ignored, AverroesI Middle Co11entary on the %e ani1a th2s consistently constr2es the 1aterial intellect as a M1ere dispositionM in 1an'AA The Middle Co11entary does recogniEe that the h21an intellect operates on for1s presented by the i1aginationA.H it does not, ho(ever, connect the disposition for tho2ght specifically to the i1aginative fac2lty' The Middle Co11entary on the %e ani1a thereby aligns itself, in the passages J2oted so far, (ith the 1inor treatise on the s2bGect of conG2nction disc2ssed G2st previo2sly and not J2ite (ith AverroesI Epito1e in its original for1 and his Epistle on the ,ossibility of ConG2nction' Altho2gh those t(o co1positions constr2ed the 1aterial intellect as a disposition, they located the disposition, (ith Ibn 0aGGa, specifically in the i1aginative fac2lty of the so2l' As for the e*c2rs2s, it appears i11ediately after the Middle Co11entary on the %e ani1a first concl2des that the 1aterial intellect is a 1ere disposition' The e*c2rs2s reads< MS2ch is AristotleIs conception of the passive intellect.6 on Ale*anderIs
e*egesis' The re1aining co11entators, by contrast Qthat is, The1isti2s and his partyR, 2nderstood AristotleIs state1ent to the effect that the 1aterial intellect 12st A? Middle Co11entary on the %e ani1a 9n' /- above:, Arabic te*t -@>b8-@7aH Hebre( translation //6b8//-a' AA Ibid', Arabic te*t -@AaH Hebre( translation ///b, (hich appears after the e*c2rs2s, 1ay ho(ever be a reference to the hybrid position' A. Ibid', Arabic te*t -@7bH Hebre( translation //-b' .6 The ter1 passive intellect co1es fro1 Aristotle, %e ani1a ;'>'@;6a, /@8/>' See Alfarabi, above, pp' @., 7-' 0elo(, p' /.@, Averroes again 2ses the ter1 passive intellect as eJ2ivalent to potential intellect' 02t his ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a, (hich advocates a different conception of the potential intellect fro1 that given here, disting2ishes potential intellect fro1 passive intellect' 0y passive intellect, Averroes (rites there, Aristotle 1eant Mi1aginative for1s insofar as the cogitative fac2lty operates on the1'M See ong Co11entary 9n' /@ above: @@.H and cf' ibid' A., and n' -@6 belo(' A si1ilar constr2ction of the ter1 passive intellect, as distinct fro1 potential intellect,
is fo2nd in The1isti2s, (ith (ho1 Averroes 1ore or less aligns hi1self in the ong Co11entary' See The1isti2s, ,araphrase of%e ani1a 9n' -- above: -6-, -6>, -6?H Arabic translation -A;, -.-, -.>H and Averroes, ong Co11entary on the%e ani1a @@7'
/?.
be 2n1i*ed Q(ith 1atterRM differently' On their reading, the state1ent, far fro1 indicating that the 1aterial intellect is a 1ere disposition, e*cl2des its being so' A disposition has to e*ist so1e(here and Ale*anderIs 1ere disposition in the so2l co2ldBCDsince the so2l is, in its t2rn, the for1 of the bodyBCDbe nothing other than If Aristotle established that the 1aterial intellect is notBCDdespite its being called 1aterialBCD1i*ed (ith 1atter, (hereas Ale*anderIs 1ere disposition co2ld inhere in nothing other than 1atter, the 1aterial intellect cannot be a 1ere disposition' MAnd in general,''' (hat is disposed to receive an intelligible tho2ght 12st be intellectM and belong to the incorporeal and not the physical do1ain' The co11entators (ho reGected Ale*anderIs position accordingly took the 1aterial h21an intellect to be a Mdisposition e*isting (ithin an incorporeal s2bstanceM distinct fro1 1an, rather than a disposition residing in the h21an organis1'.- Their vie(, ho(ever, Malso has odio2sM i1plications, i1plications in the spirit of obGections Averroes has been seen to raise else(here against The1isti2s' "irst, constr2ing the 1aterial intellect as a disposition (ithin an incorporeal s2bstance s2pposes Man incorporeal s2bstanceM e*isting not in a state of p2re act2ality b2t Min Qa state ofR disposition and potentialityMH yet every st2dent of AristotleIs philosophy s2bstances in a state of potentiality do not e*ist'./ Secondly, to constr2e the potential intellect as Ale*anderIs opponents do entails an ano1aly' "or if the 1aterial intellect is, or inheres in, an incorporeal and hence eternal s2bstance, Mthe first entelechy of the intellect,M the 2ndeveloped intellect (ith (hich 1an is born, (o2ld be Meternal'M The MfinalM entelechy, the realiEation of the first entelechy, (o2ld be Mgenerated8destr2ctible,M since the intelligible tho2ghts 1an acJ2ires as he perfects his intellect co1e into e*istence and later disappear at death' An eternal being (o2ld attain its realiEation as so1ething destr2ctible, and that is an ano1alo2s, if not self8contradictory, proposition'.; MAfter assigning the d2e share of do2bts to each position,M Averroes arrives at a Mco1binationM 9Arabic< GanfH Hebre(< Jibb2s:' His sol2tion he proposes recalls Theophrast2sI re1arks on the 1aterial intellect, as reported by The1isti2s'.@ Even 1ore distinctly, it echoes a section in Ale*anderIs %e intellect2, (here a theory is recorded in the na1e of MAristotleM and is also attrib2ted to Mthe 1en of the StoaM.>H the Arabic translation of the %e intellect2 renders the latter phrase enig1atically Middle Co11entary on the4b\e ani1a, Arabic te*t -@@aH Hebre( translation /-.a' Cf' above, p' /7.' .; Middle Co11entary on the %e ani1a, Arabic te*t -@@a8bH Hebre( translation /-.a' .@ Above, p' /7-' .> Ale*ander 9N:, %e intellect2, in Scripta 1inora /'-, --6' Arabic translation< Te*te arabe d2 )O& dIAle*andre dIAphrodise, ed' L' "innegan 90eir2t -.>7:, (ith pagination of the !reek givenH and Co11entaires s2r Aristote perd2s en grec, ed' A' 0ada(i 90eir2t -.7A: ;7 9for an adeJ2ate te*t, both editions have to be 2sed:' Regarding the na1e of Aristotle, sec belo(, n' -6>' ./ .-
Man attendant characteristic QIdhiJR of 1atterM and hence Mpart of a 1aterial obGect'M
kno(s that Mpotentiality is a property QIdEi1R of 1aterial obGects,M and incorporeal
/A6
and calls the theory in J2estion the vie( Mof so1e 1e1bers of the shaded area Qal1iEallaR,M shaded area not being the standard Arabic ter1 for the Stoa' The theory recorded there took the h21an intellect to be Mco1po2ndedM of t(o parts< first, a Mpotentiality,M (hich gro(s o2t of the M1i*t2reM of ele1ents constit2ting a h21an organis1 and (hich serves as an Minstr21entM for the Mdivine intellectMH and secondly, the 2biJ2ito2s divine intellect, (hich is Mpresent in all bodiesM and e1ploys any properly blended portion of 1atter as its instr21ent'.7 %espite the precedents, (hich Averroes 12st have kno(n, the e*c2rs2s in his Middle Co11entary on the %e ani1a 1entions neither Theophrast2s nor the %e intellects'' MThe Q1aterialR intellect,M according to the e*c2rs2s, Mis in one respect a respect an incorporeal s2bstance clad in the disposition'M As Averroes e*pands 2pon the initial state1ent, (hich is hardly crystal clear, he e1ploys t(o slightly different for12lations' One for12lation refers to no disposition already e*istent in the h21an recipient and states that the Mh21an disposition Qfor tho2ghtRM is engendered Min the incorporeal intellect by virt2e of its conGoining (ith 1an'M The alternative, and 2ndo2btedly 1ore precise, for12lation does speak of a disposition for tho2ght already present (ithin the h21an so2l (hich a(aits the entrance of the incorporeal intellect fro1 (itho2t< MThe 1aterial intellect is so1ething co1po2nded of the disposition fo2nd in 1an, and an QincorporealR intellect conGoined (ith the disposition'M.? Averroes has no diffic2lty identifying the incorporeal intellect that Goins 1an and brings hi1 the fac2lty for tho2ght' It is the being i11ediately above 1an in the hierarchy of e*istence, the very entity that also brings abo2t the act2aliEation of the h21an intellect, in other (ords, the Mactive intellect'M That is to say, the active intellect has a transcendent and an i11anent g2ise, the latter being the active intellect (hen Goined to a disposition for tho2ght rooted in the ne(ly born h21an so2l' Insofar as the active intellect Mis conGoinedM (ith the innate h21an Mdisposition, it perforce beco1es potential intellect, (hich cannot have itself as a direct obGect of tho2ght, b2t can think (hat is other than itself, na1ely, 1aterial obGects' Insofar as it is not conGoined (ith the h21an disposition, it perforce re1ains act2al intellect, having itself, and nothing in the physical (orld, as an obGect of tho2ght'M Intellect2al develop1ent takes place as the active intellect in its transcendent g2ise brings a given h21an potentiality for tho2ght, (hich is the sa1e active intellect in its i11anent g2ise, to act2ality'.A The ne( conception, (hich co1bines the positions of The1isti2s and Ale*ander, reco11ends itself to Averroes beca2se it sidesteps the diffic2lties that each of those positions involved (hen standing by itself' MKe escape QThe1isti2sI %e intellect2 --/H Arabic translation< "innegan -.>, 0ada(i @6' Middle Co11entary on the %e ani1a, Arabic te*t -@@bH Hebre( translation /-.b' .A Ibid' .? .7
disposition Q(ithin 1an, (hich isR free of all 1aterial for1s ' '' and in another
/A-
error ofR positing an incorporeal being that contains a disposition in its s2bstanceM and hence does not e*ist in a state of p2re act2ality' "or the h21an capacity for tho2ght, as no( conceived, inheres in the incorporeal s2bstance not by virt2e of the latterIs Mnat2reM b2t by virt2e of the incorporeal s2bstanceIs MconGoining (ith aQnotherR s2bstance that does contain the disposition essentially, na1ely, 1an'M MKe also escape Qthe error ofR the potential intellectIs being a 1ere disposition,M (ith the attendant inevitability of locating the h21an intellect in a physical s2bstrat21H for (e Mass21e ''' an QincorporealR being in (hich the disposition is, in an accidental fashion, engendered'M.. The 2nto(ard i1plications of locating the h21an disposition for tho2ght in an incorporeal being are th2s re1oved by locating the disposition, essentially, (ithin the h21an organis1, and the 2nto(ard i1plications of locating the h21an disposition for tho2ght in the h21an organis1 are re1oved by locating the disposition for tho2ght, in an accidental fashion, in the incorporeal active intellect' As (ill appear in the ne*t section, AverroesI ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a solves the proble1s s2rro2nding the 1aterial intellect in a different b2t analogo2s fashion' The ong Co11entary recogniEes t(o s2bGects of h21an tho2ghts, one incorporeal and one located (ithin the h21an organis1, and it distrib2tes inco1patible characteristics of the h21an 1aterial intellect bet(een the t(o s2bGects' One 1ore position on the 1aterial intellect has here been added to the spectr21 of positions espo2sed by Averroes at different ti1es' The original te*t of AverroesI Epito1e of the %e ani1a and his Epistle on the ,ossibility of ConG2nction s2bscribed to Ale*anderIs theory (ith Ibn 0aGGaIs n2ance' They constr2ed the h21an 1aterial intellect as the disposition for tho2ght inhering in the h21an i1aginative fac2ltyH and The1isti2sI theory that the h21an disposition for tho2ght is an eternal incorporeal s2bstance, or that it e*ists (ithin an eternal s2bstance, (as r2led o2t, on the gro2nds that s2ch a s2bstance (o2ld already be act2al intellect and co2ld not possibly possess a potentiality for tho2ght' A brief tract of AverroesI on the s2bGect of conG2nction (ith the active intellect s2bscribed to Ale*anderIs theory (itho2t Ibn 0aGGaIs n2anceH it constr2ed the 1aterial intellect as a M1ere dispositionM attached to the h21an so2l (itho2t linking it specifically to the i1aginative fac2lty' The original te*t of AverroesI Middle Co11entary on the %e ani1a, if I have read it correctly, took the sa1e stand' $o( the e*c2rs2s in the center of the Middle Co11entaryIs disc2ssion of intellect contends that the 1aterial intellect cannot, after all, be a 1ere disposition, since a 1ere disposition co2ld be nothing other than an attrib2te of 1atter' $or can the h21an disposition for tho2ght inhere in an incorporeal s2bstance' "or incorporeal s2bstances do not e*ist in a state of disposition and potentiality, and locating the h21an disposition for tho2ght in an incorporeal s2bstance (o2ld, 1oreover, involve the ano1aly of an eternal Mfirst entelechyM that is cro(ned by a generated8destr2ctible MfinalM entelechy' The e*c2rs2s concl2des that each personIs 1aterial intellect is in so1e accidental Mibid', Arabic te*t -@@b8-@>aH Hebre( translation /-.b8//6a'
/A/
fashion engendered in the incorporeal active intellect (hen the active intellect Goins a disposition already present in the h21an s2bGect' 0esides these three positions, the interpolations in the te*t of AverroesI Epito1e of the %e ani1a (ere seen to reco11end a fo2rth' They constr2ed the 1aterial intellect as an incorporeal s2bstance, (itho2t any J2alification' AverroesI ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a and His Co11entary on Ale*anderIs %e intellects' AverroesI ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a ref2tes the positions of Ale*ander and Ibn 0aGGa, does not 1ention the co1pro1ise position of the Middle Co11entary, and arrives at (hat is in effect The1isti2sI position' In the conte*ts (here Averroes e1braced Ale*anderIs vie(, he reported that Ale*ander constr2ed the 1aterial intellect as a 1ere disposition e*isting in, yet 2n1i*ed (ith, the h21an organis1, and he e1phasiEed that constr2ing the 1aterial intellect as a disposition in 1an does not conflict (ith AristotleIs characteriEation of the h21an intellect as MseparateM fro1 1atter'-66 The e*c2rs2s in AverroesI Middle Co11entary on the %e ani1a, (hich departed fro1 Ale*anderIs vie( (itho2t reGecting it co1pletely, shifted so1e(hat in eval2ating Ale*anderH for the e*c2rs2s contended that the 1ere disposition Ale*ander spoke of (o2ld perforce inhere in a 1aterial s2bstrat21 as an Mattendant characteristicM and hence be Mpart of a 1aterial obGect'M AverroesI ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a not only contends that Ale*anderIs 1ere disposition cannot be conceived in any other fashion than as inhering in a 1aterial s2bstrat21' It goes a step f2rther and prepares the gro2nd for its ref2tation of Ale*ander by reporting that Ale*ander hi1self e*pressly constr2ed the 1aterial intellect as a Mgenerated fac2lty,M (hich Mlike other fac2lties of the so2lM is prod2ced Min the body ''' by the 1i*t2re Qof the bodyIs co1ponentsR'M-6- The ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a discovers a nat2ralistic and 1aterialist conception of the 1aterial intellect in t(o (orks of Ale*ander' It discovers s2ch a applied the Aristotelian definition of so2l as Mthe first entelechy of a nat2ral body f2rnished (ith organsM to so2l in general, incl2ding so2l endo(ed (ith the MreasoningM fac2ltyH Ale*ander concl2ded that so2l in general is Minseparable fro1 body'M-6; And the ong Co11entary discovers the sa1e conception of the 1aterial intellect in a passage of Ale*anderIs %e intellect2 referred to a little earlier, See above, pp' /?;, /?>' ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a 9n' /@ above: ;.@' %iffering interpretations of Ale*anderIs theory of intellect e*tend into 1odern scholarshipH see ,' Thillet, MMateIrialis1e et theorie de lIa1e et de lIintellect cheE Ale*andre dIAphrodise,M Rev2e philosophiJ2e de la "rance et de IIetranger -?9-.A-: -;8-@' -6/ ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a ;.@' -6; Ibid' ;.78.?H Ale*ander, %e ani1a 9n' . above: -78-?' Cf' Aristotle, %e ani1a /'-' -6- -66
conception at the Mbeginning of QAle*anderIsR %e ani1a,M-6/ (here Ale*ander
/A;
the passage recording a theory in the na1e of both MAristotleM and, according to the !reek, the M1en of the Stoa'M As Averroes here reports, the %e intellect2 affir1ed< MKhen ' ' ' body is 1i*ed in a certain fashion, so1ething ' ' ' disposed to serve as the instr21ent of the intellect that per1eates the 1i*t2re ' ' ' Qand that indeed per1eatesR all body is generated' '' ' The instr21ent Qthat is generatedR ''' is called potential intellect'M-6@ The !reek te*t of the %e intellect2 1akes clear that the a2thor of the (ork does not accept the theory, b2t Averroes, (ith only an inadeJ2ate Arabic translation at his disposal, can hardly be bla1ed for taking the theory to be one that Ale*ander ascribed to Aristotle and hi1self endorsed'-6> AverroesI ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a cites the passage to clinch its 1aterialist and nat2ralistic reading of Ale*ander, a reading in (hich Ale*ander took the 1aterial intellect to be an epipheno1enon of the physical h21an organis1'-67 Averroes s2pposes that Ale*ander (as led to his conception of the 1aterial intellect beca2se he took note of AristotleIs definition of so2l as the Mfirst entelechy of a nat2ral body f2rnished (ith organs,M and ass21ed that the definition covers the rational so2l, and also beca2se he sa( certain Mproble1sM in constr2ing the h21an intellect as an incorporeal s2bstance'-6? On earlier occasions, the diffic2lties in constr2ing the h21an intellect as an incorporeal s2bstance had convinced Averroes too that the h21an intellect 12st in fact be of a different nat2re' The ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a (ill, ho(ever, 2ndertake to solve the diffic2lties' the iss2e, since Aristotle had added the J2alification that the definition does not apply to all fac2lties of the so2l'-6A The considerations that led Ale*ander to vie( the 1aterial intellect as a generated fac2lty in the body are therefore, Averroes no( believes, s2r1o2ntable' Other considerations, pri1arily of an Aristotelian character, ref2te Ale*ander' MO Ale*ander,M Averroes apostrophiEes, ho( co2ld yo2 have i1agined that Cf' %e intellect2 9n' .> above: --/H Arabic translation< "innegan -.>, 0ada(i @6' The preserved !reek te*t of the %e intellect2 is itself proble1atic, for it has MAristotleM agreeing (ith the M1en of the StoaM on the co1pletely 2n8Aristotelian thesis that a divine intellect per1eates all 1atter' To re1ove the incongr2ity, Feller proposed the ingenio2s correction to MAristokles,M (hich (as the na1e of Ale*anderIs teacher' ,' Mora2* disp2ted the correction and s2ggested instead that the reference is to a teacher of Ale*anderIs (ho (as na1ed Aristotle' See above, p, //, n' AA' Readers of the 1edieval Arabic translation had, of co2rse, neither the infor1ation nor te1pera1ent to 1ake either conGect2re' The Arabic translation, 1oreover, bl2rs the reference to the Stoa' And to 1ake 1atters (orse, the Arabic garbles a sentence in (hich the a2thor of the %e intellect2, be it Ale*ander or so1eone else, asserted that basic philosophic considerations Msee1 to 1e to clashM (ith the theoryH see %e intellect2 --;H Arabic translation< "innegan -.A, 0ada(i @-' -67 ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a ;.@' -6? Ibid' ;.78.?' -6A Ibid' ;.?' Cf' Aristotle, %e ani1a /'-'@-;a, ;8?' -6> -6@
As for the Aristotelian definition of so2l, it sho2ld not, Averroes (rites, preG2dge
/A@
Aristotle took the 1aterial intellect to be Ma 1ere dispositionMN-6. 0y 1aintaining that 1anIs Mdiscri1inating, perceptive fac2lty,M his intellect, can arise spontaneo2sly o2t of the Ms2bstance of the ele1entsM and M(itho2t an e*ternal 1overM to bring it forth, Ale*ander approached the ranks of the 2n8Aristotelian and 2nenlightened M(ho deny Qthe operation ofR efficient ca2sesM and e*plain events in the physical 2niverse solely thro2gh M1aterial ca2ses'M--6 His conception, 1oreover, r2ns co2nter to MAristotleIs (ords'M "or Aristotle characteriEed the 1aterial intellect as Mseparate Qfro1 1atterR, ''' not s2bGect to affection,'' ' and not 1i*ed (ith the body,M--(hereas the 1aterial intellect, as Ale*ander conceives it, gro(s o2t of the 1aterial side of 1an and (o2ld necessarily be s2bGect to affection like other 1odifications of 1atter' Most decisively, Ale*anderIs position is precl2ded by AristotleIs Mde1onstrationM of the nat2re of the 1aterial intellect'--/ The de1onstration Averroes has in 1ind is the protean arg21ent that begins by sho(ing the 1aterial intellect to be free of any for1 of its o(n' In one of AverroesI earlier (orks, the arg21ent concl2ded by finding the 1aterial intellect to be a disposition and nothing else,--; b2t an interpolation into the Epito1e of the %e ani1a carried the arg21ent to the opposite concl2sion'--@ In the ong Co11entary, the arg21ent no( reaches the concl2sion at (hich it arrived in the interpolation in the Epito1e' Averroes reasons< Since the 1aterial intellect is MreceptiveM of Mall 1aterial for1s,M it cannot contain Mthe nat2re of those 1aterial for1s in itself'M ConseJ2ently, it cannot be a Mbody,M a Mfor1 in a body,M or Mat all 1i*ed (ith 1atter'M--> Averroes contin2es< Ale*ander atte1pted to har1oniEe his vie( of the 1aterial intellect (ith AristotleIs deter1ination that the 1aterial intellect is Mneither s2bGect to affection, nor an individ2al obGect, nor a body or fac2lty in a body'M He did so by dra(ing a distinction bet(een the MdispositionM for tho2ght and the Ms2bstrat21 of the disposition'M--7 Khereas the s2bstrat21, the h21an organis1, is indeed corporeal and s2bGect to affection, Ale*anderBCDand Averroes as (ell in earlier (orks, altho2gh he is silent here abo2t that chapter of his philosophic develop1entBCDe*plained that the disposition for tho2ght, taken by itself and distinct fro1 the s2bstrat21, is neither of those things' To reinforce the distinction bet(een the h21an disposition for tho2ght and its s2bstrat21, Ale*anderBCDand Averroes in his early (orks as (ell--?BCDe1ended AristotleIs analogy of the (riting tablet' The h21an M1aterial intellect,M (ith Ale*anderIs e1endation, Mrese1bles -6.
ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a @@;' Ibid' ;.A' --- lbid' ;.>' Cf' Aristotle, %e ani1a ;'@'@/.a, ->8/>, and above, p' />.' --/ Ibid' --; Above, p' /?;' --@ Above, pp' /7.8?6' --> ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a ;A>8A7, ;.7' --7 Ibid' ;.>' --? Above, pp' /7A, /?;, /?@8?>, /??' --6
/A>
the disposition in a tablet not yet (ritten 2pon, rather than the tablet disposed Qfor (ritingR'M--A Ale*ander contended that only the tablet, as distinct fro1 the disposition for receiving (riting, is s2bGect to affectionH si1ilarly, the s2bstrat21 2nderlying the disposition for tho2ght is s2bGect to affection, b2t the disposition itself is not' AverroesI ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a dis1isses the distinction bet(een disposition and s2bstrat21, and the e1endation of the (riting tablet analogy, as J2ibbles< MKhat Ale*ander says is nothing'M--. If Aristotle had 1eant that the disposition for tho2ght is not 1aterial and not s2bGect to affection 1erely inas12ch as dispositions in 1aterial s2bstrata are not strictly 1aterial, then he co2ld have 1ade the sa1e point abo2t Many disposition (hatsoever'M Any disposition in the physical (orld and any disposition in the so2l 1ight be described Mas neither a body, nor an individ2al for1 e*isting in a body,M on the gro2nds that, strictly speaking, only its s2bstrat21 and not it, in itself, is corporeal' Since Aristotle 1ade his point e*cl2sively in regard to the disposition for tho2ght, he s2rely had so1ething 1ore significant in 1ind' He (as s2rely speaking abo2t Mthe s2bGect of the disposition,M and not the Mdisposition itself taken in isolation' He 1eant that the s2bGect, the s2bstance containing the disposition for tho2ght, is neither a body nor 1i*ed (ith 1atter' And indeed, the de1onstration (hereby Aristotle sho(ed the disposition for tho2ght to be 2n1i*ed (ith 1atter reveals as 12ch' Aristotle reasoned that M(hatever receives so1ething cannot act2ally contain anything of the nat2re of the thing received,M and that Mproposition '' ' 1anifestlyM has in vie( the s2bstrat21 itself, not the disposition inhering in it' If the recipient of tho2ght 12st be free of 1aterial for1s, it is the s2bstrat21 of the fac2lty for tho2ght, not the disposition inhering in the s2bstrat21, (hich 12st be free of for1s and 2n1i*ed (ith 1atter' Ale*anderIs version of the (riting tablet analogy is therefore eJ2ally Mfalse'M AristotleIs intent (as to co1pare the 1aterial intellect to a Mtablet insofar as it is disposedM for receiving (riting, not to the Mdisposition in the tablet'M-/6 In brief, Ale*ander, according to AverroesI ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a, constr2ed the 1aterial intellect as an epipheno1enon of the h21an body' Averroes had once accepted a constr2ction of that kind, altho2gh (ith the 1aterialis1 softened' The ong Co11entary reGects the constr2ction of the 1aterial intellect as a disposition in the h21an organis1 beca2se, Averroes finds, it clashes both (ith AristotleIs state1ents concerning the 1aterial intellect and AristotleIs de1onstration of the 1aterial intellectIs 2n1i*ed character' As a corollary of his ref2tation of Ale*anderIs position on the 1aterial intellect, Averroes in the ong Co11entary also reGects Ale*anderIs distinction bet(een the disposition for tho2ght and the s2bGect of the disposition for tho2ght, and Ale*anderIs e1endation of the (riting tablet analogy' ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a ;.>' MIIbid' -/6 ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a @;68;-' --A
/A7
Regarding Ibn 0aGGa, the ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a reports< MHe see1s, fro1 the plain sense of his (ords, to believe that the 1aterial intellect is Qnothing other thanR the i1aginative fac2lty insofar as it is disposedM for the Mnotions it contains to beco1e act2al intelligible tho2ghtsH ''' no other fac2lty ''' is the s2bstrat21 of intellect2al tho2ghtsM in 1an'-/- 0y locating the disposition for tho2ght in a fac2lty of the so2l, Averroes 2nderstands, Ibn 0aGGa (ished to Mescape the abs2rdities attaching the1selves to Ale*ander'M Ale*ander, in the (ords of the present passage of the ong Co11entary, constr2ed the Ms2bstrat21 receiving intelligible for1sM as either a Mbody fashioned fro1 the ele1ents or a fac2lty in the bodyM-//H that is to say, he constr2ed the 1aterial intellect as a part of the h21an body or as a fac2lty inhering in it' And Averroes conGect2res that in locating the 1aterial intellect in a fac2lty of the so2l rather than in the body, Ibn 0aGGa (as conscio2sly fleeing Ale*anderIs e*tre1e 1aterialis1' %espite the s1all i1prove1ent, Ibn 0aGGa fares no better at the hands of the ong Co11entary than Ale*ander did' His position is dis1issed as Mplainly abs2rd,M for three reasons' It is r2led o2t by the do2ble8edged arg21ent that Averroes deployed, at different ti1es, on both sides of the J2estion, and that the ong Co11entary has been seen to add2ce against Ale*ander' As the ong Co11entary p2ts the arg21ent one 1ore ti1e, Mthe 1aterial intellect cannot have any act2al for1, beca2se its ''' nat2re is to receive QallR for1s'M Since the i1aginative fac2lty is a for1 in the so2l, if the 1aterial intellect e*isted in, or (as identical (ith, the i1aginative fac2lty, the 1aterial intellect (o2ld possess a 1aterial for1 before it began to think and it co2ld not perfor1 its f2nction (itho2t distortion' A second reason given by the ong Co11entary for reGecting Ibn 0aGGaIs position (as 1et in one of the interpolations in AverroesI Epito1e of the %e ani1a' The ong Co11entary contends, as the interpolation in the Epito1e did, that inas12ch as the intellect2al fac2lty operates on i1ages presented by the i1aginative fac2lty, if the intellect2al fac2lty (ere nothing other than a g2ise of the i1aginative fac2lty, a fac2lty (o2ld be operating on i1ages presented to it by itself' MA thing (o2ld receive itself and the 1over (o2ld be the sa1e as (hat is 1oved,M (hich is i1possible'-/; The third reason for reGecting Ibn 0aGGaIs position is that i1ages presented by the i1aginative fac2lty (ere sho(n by Aristotle to stand to the rational fac2lty as Man obGect of sensation QstandsR to the s2bGect of sensation'M-/@ On Ibn 0aGGaIs constr2ction, the i1aginative fac2lty and the i1ages it contains (o2ld correspond not to the obGect b2t to the s2bGect of sensation' Ibn 0aGGaIs identification of the 1aterial intellect (ith the i1aginative fac2lty is conseJ2ently 2ntenable'-/> Cf' above, p' /7-' ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a ;.?' -/; Cf' above, pp' /?68 ?-' -/@ Cf' Aristotle, %e ani1a ;'?'@;-a, -@8->' -/> ong Co11entary on the %e' ani1a ;.A' -// -/-
/A?
Seeing that the positions of Ale*ander and Ibn 0aGGa entail s2ch abs2rdities, ho( co2ld Averroes have s2bscribed to the1 in earlier (orksN He confesses that he (as Mfor a long ti1eM 1isled, and that Ibn 0aGGa had like(ise been 1isled, by the 1anner in (hich philosophy (as p2rs2ed in their ti1e' MModernM philosophers Mdisregard AristotleIs (orks'' ' and especially Qhis bookR on the so2l, believing the book to be 2nintelligible,M and they Mst2dy the (orks of the co11entatorsM instead'-/7 0eca2se he had at first i1itated the philosophers of his day, abandoning the fo2nt of science and st2dying not AristotleIs %e ani1a b2t secondhand (orks on the h21an so2l and intellect, Averroes had been sed2ced into accepting either Ale*anderIs constr2ction of the 1aterial intellect as a 1ere disposition in 1an or Ibn 0aGGaIs constr2ction of it as a disposition specifically in the h21an i1aginative fac2lty' Only after decades of reflection did Averroes realiEe the 2ntenability of both positions' The1isti2s is left' MTheophrast2s, The1isti2s, and 1any co11entators,M Averroes (rites, accepted at face val2e AristotleIs arg21ent sho(ing the 1aterial intellect to be separate fro1 1atter and 2n1i*ed (ith the body' They constr2ed the 1aterial intellect as a Ms2bstanceM that is Mneither generated nor destr2ctible,M in other (ords, as an eternal, incorporeal s2bstance' )et their position also occasions Mno fe( J2estions'M-/? There is, to begin, the follo(ing obGection< The factor leading the h21an intellect fro1 potentiality to act2ality, na1ely, the active intellect, is an eternal being' If the 1aterial intellect too is eternal, the prod2ct of the active intellectIs operation on the 1aterial intellect 12st like(ise be so' M"or (hen the agent is eternal, and (hat is acted on is eternal, the prod2ct 12st be eternal'M $o( the 1aterial intellectBCDas revealed by philosophic analysis and established by AristotleBCDconte1plates i1ages that the i1aginative fac2lty presents, and thro2gh the action of the active intellect it raises the1 to the level of intelligible tho2ghts' Those i1ages, for their part, are previo2sly generated in the i1aginative fac2lty thro2gh a process of abstraction starting (ith sense perception' Sho2ld the eternal active intellect act 2pon the eternal 1aterial intellect thro2gh all eternity, the 1aterial intellect 12st transfor1 the i1ages it conte1plates into intelligible tho2ghts ti1elessly' The i1ages presented by the i1aginative fac2lty and conte1plated by the 1aterial intellect (o2ld, therefore, fro1 ti1e i11e1orial have been transfor1ed into tho2ghts' The sense perceptions in (hich the i1ages are gro2nded (o2ld also have to be eternal' And the physical obGects in the e*ternal (orld (hich the sense perceptions 1irror (o2ld have to be so as (ell' The1isti2sI position (o2ld have the (holly parado*ical 2pshot that the physical obGects 2nderlying sense perception are not generateddestr2ctible, as they are seen to be, b2t eternal'-/A Ibid' @?6' Ibid' ;A., ;.-' -/A Ibid' ;.-8./' The diffic2lty is raised again on p' ;.., as a possible obGection to (hat Averroes there finds to be AristotleIs position' -/? -/7
/AA
A f2rther obGection to The1isti2sBCD(hich (as already 1et in AverroesI Middle Co11entary on the %e ani1a and (hich is not co1pletely consistent (ith the foregoingBCDis Mvery diffic2ltM to ans(er' If the 1aterial intellect is an incorporeal being and does not e*ist in 1atter, and if 1atter is the principle (hereby things of the sa1e character are disting2ished fro1 each other, there can be only one 1aterial intellect for the entire h21an species' The 1aterial intellect is, by definition, the Mfirst perfection Qor< entelechyR of 1an,M and the Mtheoretical intellect,M the h21an intellect after it has acJ2ired a co1ple1ent of intelligible tho2ghts, Mis the final perfection'M Each 1an plainly has his o(n personal theoretical intellect, and his theoretical intellect co1es into e*istence and is destroyed' In Mhis final perfection,M each 1an is therefore Man individ2alM and Mgenerated8destr2ctible'M If 1anIs final perfection is individ2al and generated8destr2ctible, his first perfection 12st pres21ably be the sa1e' Hence Mit (o2ld see1M that 1anIs first perfection, the 1aterial h21an intellect, cannot be a single, eternal incorporeal s2bstance'-/. Averroes poses yet another obGection< If the 1aterial intellect is incorporeal, there can, as G2st seen, be only one for the entire h21an species' 02t h21an intellects 12st be individ2al, for other(ise (hatever intelligible tho2ght any given person thinks, all 1ankind (o2ld think, and (hatever tho2ght one person forgets, all 1ankind (o2ld forgetH and s2ch obvio2sly is not the case' Since each 1an has his o(n individ2al intellect, the 1aterial intellect cannot, it (o2ld see1, be a single incorporeal s2bstance'-;6 The positions of Ale*ander and Ibn 0aGGa being co1pletely 2nacceptable and the position of The1isti2s and his party having s2ch 2nhappy i1plications, (here does the tr2th lieN Altho2gh Averroes had (restled (ith the iss2e thro2gho2t his philosophic career, his ong Co11entary still s2b1its its concl2sions tentatively and apologetically< MIf 1y thesis is not the co1plete Qtr2thR, it (ill be a beginning' Therefore I bid colleag2es (ho see (hat is (ritten here to set do(n their do2bts'M-;- Averroes takes Aristotle as his lodestar, Msince everything that can be said abo2t the nat2re of the 1aterial intellect appears abs2rd e*cept (hat Aristotle saidBCDand even (hat he said raises '' ' J2estionsSM-;/ Ret2rning to Aristotle, Averroes credits the arg21ent that since the h21an potentiality for tho2ght Mreceives all 1aterial for1s,M and Mevery recipient' ' ' 12st be free of the nat2re of (hat it receives,M the s2bstrat21 receiving 1aterial for1s in the g2ise of intelligible tho2ghts cannot Mhave any 1aterial for1 in its o(n nat2re'M "ro1 the standpoint of Ibid' ;./8.;' Cf' above, p' /?.' This diffic2lty too is raised again on p' ;.., as a possible obGection to (hat Averroes finds to be AristotleIs position' MantinoIs translation 9n' /@ above: has pri12s act2s and 2lti12s act2s instead of the pri1a perfectio and postre1a perfectio of the Scot translation' -;6 ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a ;.;' The arg21ent derives fro1 Ibn 0aGGa, "i Ittisal c al8 AJl biIl8Insan 9n' -7 above:, Arabic te*t ->H Spanish translation ;;' -;- ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a ;..' -;/ Ibid' -/.
/A.
the ong Co11entary the arg21ent leads to the concl2sion that the aspect of 1an receiving intelligible tho2ghts can be Mneither a body nor a for1 in a bodyM nor Min any respect 1i*ed (ith 1atter'M-;; Inas12ch as it is not a body, it is 2ngenerated 1atter, the principle (hereby obGects of the sa1e character are individ2ated and s2bGect to en21eration, the 1aterial intellect cannotBCDcontrary to (hat AverroesI original Epito1e of the %e ani1a e*pressly affir1ed-;>BCDbe Men21erated thro2gh the en21eration of individ2al 1en'M-;7 Individ2al 1en do not, in other (ords, shared by all 1ankind'-;? The interpretation of Aristotle accepted here by Averroes isBCDe*cept for a s2bsidiary iss2e to be taken 2p presentlyBCDidentical (ith The1isti2sI position on the nat2re of the h21an 1aterial intellect, as Averroes read The1isti2s' The diffic2lties that Averroes noted in The1isti2sI position therefore also affect AristotleIs position as Averroes no( interprets it,-;A and they de1and a sol2tion' AverroesI sol2tion t2rns on the distinction bet(een t(o Ms2bGectsM of h21an tho2ght' He e*plains that i1ages in the i1aginative fac2lty constit2te one s2bGectH they are the M1overM-;. in the tho2ght process and also the referent for intelligible tho2ghts, intelligible tho2ghts being Mtr2e,M by virt2e of corresponding to i1ages in the i1aginative fac2lty'-@6 The eternal 1aterial intellect is the other s2bGect' It is the MrecipientM in the tho2ght process, the factor per1itting intelligible tho2ghts to enter the real1 of real e*istence and beco1e Me*istent things'M-@- The second of these factors, Averroes assertsBCDin stark contradiction to a point he 1ade in the original Epito1e of the %e ani1a-@/BCDnever attaches itself to 1an Messentially and pri1arily, b2t GoinsM hi1 only thro2gh its partner, Monly by ''' Goining (ith possess individ2al 1aterial intellects' Rather, MoneM 1aterial intellect is so1eho( and indestr2ctible, that is to say, eternal'-;@ Inas12ch as it is not 1i*ed (ith
Ibid' ;A>8A7' Ibid' ;A., @67H cf' A?' -;> Above, p' /7?' -;7 ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a @6/' -;? Ibid' ;..' -;A Averroes, ibid', repeats the first t(o of the possible obGections to The1isti2sI position as proble1s alsoI affecting AristotleIs position' -;. 02t they are not to be conf2sed (ith the active intellect, (hich also 1oves the h21an intellect' An i1age acts as a 1over as color does in the vis2al process, (hereas the active intellect does so as light does in the vis2al process' Cf' Aristotle, %e ani1a ;'>'@;6a, -78-?, and belo(, p' ;-7' -@6 ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a @66, @67' On @@., Averroes states that the f2nction is perfor1ed not G2st by one, b2t by three fac2lties, na1ely, My1aginativa et cogitativa et re1e1orativa,M and he connects the ter1 passive intellect (ith those fac2ltiesH cf' above, pp' .>.7' In Avicenna, the cogitative fac2lty (as central to the tho2ght processH see above, p' .A' -@- ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a @66' -@/ Above, p' /7?' -;@
-;;
/.6
for1s in the i1aginative fac2lty'M-@; To solve the diffic2lties he posed, Averroes distrib2tes ostensibly inco1patible characteristics of the h21an potentiality for tho2ght bet(een the eternal 1aterial intellect and the noneternal h21an i1aginative fac2lty' The J2estion ho( a te1poral process of abstraction can take place, seeing that the transcendent ca2se effecting tho2ght and the 1aterial intellect receiving it are eternal, is ans(ered as follo(s< H21an tho2ght is indeed eternal in a certain respect, b2t it is generated8destr2ctible in another' It is eternal Min respect t o ' ' ' the 1aterial intellect,M since 1aterial intellect al(ays possesses act2al h21an tho2ght' It is nonetheless generated8destr2ctible Min respect to the s2bGect by virt2e of (hichM it is Mtr2e,M that is, in respect to i1ages in the i1aginative fac2lty, as seen fro1 the fact that (henever a 1an and his i1aginative fac2lty perish, the 1anIs conscio2sness of intellect2al tho2ghts ceases'-@@ The eternal active intellectIs operation on the eternal 1aterial intellect therefore does in a sense give rise to an eternal prod2ct, (hile a gen2ine, noneternal process of abstraction takes place as (ell' The J2estion ho( a single eternal 1aterial intellect can serve the entire species, (hile each 1anIs final perfection, his theoretical intellect, is individ2al and generated8destr2ctible, and the f2rther J2estion ho( a single 1aterial intellect can be posited for all 1ankind (itho2t entailing all 1ankindIs possessing identical tho2ghts, are handled in a si1ilar fashion' In ans(er to the latter J2estion, Averroes (rites that (hat links act2al tho2ght to individ2al 1en and renders it a1enable to en21eration is plainly not Mthe part playing the role of 1atter, as it (ere Qin the tho2ght processR, that is to say, the 1aterial intellectMH the co11on 1aterial intellect serving the entire h21an species is not (hat 1akes possible the private tho2ghts of individ2al 1en' Act2al tho2ght does, ho(ever, link itself to individ2al 1en and beco1e s2bGect to en21eration thro2gh Mthe part'' ' playing, in so1e fashion, the role ofBCDas it (ereBCDfor1,M that is to say, by virt2e of Mi1agesM in the i1aginative fac2lty'-@> Thro2gh i1ages in the i1aginative fac2lty, the so2l beco1es conscio2s of intelligible tho2ghts' ConseJ2ently, altho2gh 1en share a co11on 1aterial intellect, each still o(ns his personal, individ2al act2al tho2ghts, and tho2ghts are not shared' As for the J2estion ho( 1anIs final perfection can be individ2al and destr2ctible, if 1anIs first perfection is co11on to the entire h21an species and eternal, Averroes e*plains that the Mgeneration and destr2ctionM of h21an tho2ghts-@7 occ2rs Min respect to the pl2rality affecting the1MBCDinsofar as each set of tho2ghts belongs to a h21an Mindivid2alM possessing an individ2al i1aginative fac2lty' ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a @A7' Ibid' @6-' On p' @??, Averroes also e*plains, (ith an all2sion to Aristotle, %e ani1a ;'>'@;6a, /;8/>, (hy h21an 1e1ory ceases at death' -@> Ibid' @6@86>' -@7 Here Averroes speaks specifically of the first propositions of tho2ght, b2t on p' @6A, he e*tends the proposition to all scientific8 philosophic kno(ledge' -@@ -@;
Averroes on the Material Intellect /.- H21an tho2ghts are nonetheless not M2nJ2alifiedlyM generated8destr2ctible, beca2se they are e*e1pt fro1 generation and destr2ction Mfro1 the side of their being 2nifiedMH they are e*e1pt fro1 generation and destr2ction insofar as they are present to the 1aterial intellect' Each individ2al 1anIs final perfection, his theoretical intellect, is conseJ2ently individ2al and does perish in one sense, (hile in another sense, in the sense that a 1aterial intellect co11on to all 1ankind receives the totality of h21an tho2ght, M(e can say that the theoretical intellect is co11on to all Q2n2s in o1nib2s<RM and Meternal'M-@? Averroes has not yet told 2s (hat sort of entity the h21an 1aterial intellect is' He does so (hen addressing still another philosophic proble1 attendant 2pon his present interpretation of Aristotle' The proble1 is a version of an obGection that his earlier (orks raised against The1isti2sI constr2ction of the h21an 1aterial intellect as an incorporeal s2bstance' The h21an 1aterial intellect is disting2ished in having, or being, a potentiality for tho2ght, and AverroesI early (orks had asked ho( it can be conceivable, as The1isti2s (o2ld have 2s believe, that an incorporeal s2bstance e*ists in a state of potentiality' Khat is at heart virt2ally the sa1e J2estion is p2t by the ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a th2s< The 1aterial intellect M12st be ass21ed to be so1e thingM in possession of the capacity for tho2ght' It does not itself contain a for1, for if it did, the for1 (o2ld interfere (ith, or distort, its receiving ne( for1s, that is, ne( tho2ghts' $o(, anything that is an e*istent being (itho2t possessing a for1 has Mthe nat2re of pri1e 1atter'M )et, for the 1aterial intellect to have the nat2re of pri1e 1atter is M2ni1aginable,M since pri1e 1atter plainly does not have the po(er to think' MHo(, 1oreover, can anything of s2ch a character be described as incorporeal Qatoracta1RNM-@A Averroes solves this last proble1 by 2ncovering a class of e*istence (hich he had overlooked in his earlier (orks' ,hilosophers, he (rites, generally recogniEe three classes of e*istence< the 1atter of physical obGects, the for1 of physical obGects, and incorporeal s2bstance' 02t a Mfo2rth gen2sM of e*istence Mescaped 1any 1odernM philosophers, for MG2st as sensible e*istence is divided into for1 and 1atter, so too 12st intelligible QincorporealR e*istence be divided into analog2esM of for1 and 1atter' The e*istence of a J2asi 1atter in the non1aterial real1 can be learned fro1 the Mincorporeal for1s,M or intelligences, that M1ove the celestial bodies'M AristotleIs book on M"irst ,hilosophy,M his Metaphysics, established that the incorporeal 1overs of the spheres 12st be Mof the sa1e n21berM as the spheresH-@. and a pl2rality of incorporeal intelligences is, Averroes reasons, tenable only if they are individ2ated and s2bGect to en21eration thanks to the presence in the1BCDor, to be precise, in all b2t the 1over of the first, o2ter1ost sphereBCDof a J2asi81aterial constit2ent' Khereas the celestial intelligences are co1po2nds of -@?
ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a @6?' Ibid' ;..' -@. Cf' Aristotle, Metaphysics -/'A' -@A
/./
intelligible for1 and this J2asi 1atter, the eternal h21an 1aterial intellect consists solely in the sa1e J2asi 1atter'->6 Kithin the hierarchy of incorporeal e*istence, (hich is cro(ned by the "irst Ca2se and descends r2ng by r2ng thro2gh the incorporeal 1overs of the spheres to the entity kno(n as the active intellect, the 1aterial intellect is the very lo(est r2ng, less MnobleM than, and located i11ediately belo( Mthe active intellect'M The M1aterial intellect''' is the last of the incorporeal intelligences'M->- The h21an 1aterial intellect is, then, an eternal s2bstance, the lo(est r2ng in the incorporeal hierarchy' It attaches itself to the h21an organis1 in a nonessential fashion by Goining (ith the h21an i1aginative fac2lty, and it plays the role of recipient in the intellect2al processH the 1anner in (hich it f2nctions as recipient (ill be e*a1ined in the follo(ing chapter'->/ I1ages in the i1aginative fac2lty have, by contrast, the role of 1over in the processBCD12ch as colors are the 1over in the vis2al process'->; And those i1ages are (hat intellect2al tho2ghts refer to, an intellect2al tho2ght being dee1ed Mtr2eM beca2se it is abstracted fro1, and corresponds to, the1' Arg21ents sho(ing h21an tho2ght to be eternal have in vie( h21an tho2ght belonging to the 1aterial intellect, (hereas arg21ents sho(ing it to be generated8destr2ctible and individ2al have in vie( h21an tho2ght insofar as it belongs to the i1aginative fac2lty of an individ2al 1an' Khen Averroes states that the act2al tho2ghts 1en think te1porally are present to the 1aterial intellect eternally, he does not 1ean that the 1aterial intellect possesses h21an tho2ghts thro2gh itself' Tho2ghts pertaining to the physical real1BCDas distinct fro1 tho2ght of incorporeal entities->@BCDreach the 1aterial intellect only (ith the help of the i1aginative fac2lties of individ2al 1en' The eternity of tho2ght of the 1aterial intellect signifies that since the h21an species is eternal, since at every 1o1ent individ2al 1en e*ist (ho possess the basic propositions of h21an tho2ght, and since 1oreover 1en pres21ably also al(ays e*ist (ho think philosophic tho2ghts, the 1aterial intellect at every 1o1ent contains a f2ll range of act2al h21an tho2ghts' The eternity of the 1aterial intellectIs tho2ght of the physical (orld is, accordingly, not a single contin2o2s fiber, nor does it spring fro1 the 1aterial intellect' It is (holly dependent on the ratiocination and conscio2sness of individ2al 1en, the co1plete body of possible tho2ghts of the physical (orld being s2pplied at any given 1o1ent by individ2als living at that 1o1ent, and the contin2ity of the 1aterial intellectIs tho2ght thro2gh infinite ti1e ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a @6.8-6' The notion of a J2asi 1atter in the intelligences recalls the cos1ology of Ibn !abirol 9Avicebron:' ->- ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a @@/H see te*t2al apparat2s there' ->/ 0elo(, p' ;-A' ->; Cf' Aristotle, %e ani1a ;'>'@;6a -78-?' ->@ ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a @A7 appears to say that the 1aterial intellect, in its o(n right 9Min nat2ra isti2s intellect2s 1aterialisM:, al(ays possesses tho2ght of the incorporeal beings' I do not see ho( that proposition can be har1oniEed (ith AverroesI insistence, above, p' /AA, that the incorporeal 1aterial intellect can have no for1 of its o(n' ->6
/.;
being sp2n fro1 the tho2ghts of individ2als alive at vario2s 1o1ents'->> Averroes never e*plains (hen and ho( the 1aterial intellect beco1es associated (ith the individ2al h21an organis1H ho( h21an effort can 1ove the 1aterial intellect to do its bidding, seeing that the 1aterial intellect is an eternal s2bstance only ten2o2sly associated (ith 1anH nor ho( the 1aterial intellect, the recipient of act2al h21an tho2ghts, reciprocates and endo(s individ2al 1an (ith an intellect2al conscio2sness'->7 The position on the 1aterial intellect (hich Averroes adopts in the ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a is The1isti2sI position, as Averroes 2nderstands it, (ith a correction and an addition' The1isti2s, Averroes (rites in the ong Co11entary, constr2ed the 1aterial intellect rightly b2t 1issed a critical detailH he did not realiEe that act2al h21an tho2ght, or h21an Mtheoretical intellect,M altho2gh in one respect eternal, is in another respect generated8destr2ctible'->? Averroes also does so1ething that The1isti2s did not do, in constr2ing the 1aterial intellect as a J2asi81aterial incorporeal s2bstance and assigning it a precise place in the incorporeal hierarchy' He identifies it as the last of the incorporeal intelligences, standing directly belo( the active intellect in the hierarchy of e*istence' The position Averroes arrives at in the ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a is precisely the position he sketched in passages interpolated into the Epito1e' There too he constr2ed the 1aterial intellect as an eternal s2bstance in a state of potentialityH he described it as one of t(o s2bGects in the tho2ght process, playing the role of recipient, (hereas i1ages in the i1aginative fac2lty perfor1 the role of 1overH and he referred readers to the ong Co11entary for a f2ller e*position'->A Averroes also reco11ends (hat see1s to be the sa1e theory in his Co11entary on Ale*anderIs %e intellect2' After Mlong st2dy and rigoro2s application,M he (rites there, he arrived at a conception of the 1aterial intellect (hich he had never Mseen''' in anyone else'M In the ne( conception, the 1aterial intellect is a Msingle po(er co11on to QallR individ2al' ' ' h21an ' ' ' so2ls'M In an atte1pt to clarify his 1eaning, Averroes co1pares and contrasts 1aterial intellect to Ibid' @6?8A, @@A' "or a so1e(hat si1ilar notion, see Lohn ,hilopon2s, Co11entaire s2r le %e ani1a dIAristote, ed' !' #erbeke 9 o2vain -.77: >/' ->7 The last point is pressed by Tho1as AJ2inas, S211a contra gentiles /'>.' It see1s to be recogniEed by Averroes hi1self in Ah(ani 9n' -. above: A? 9botto1:H Spanish translation /--' The translatorIs note records several 1an2script readings, the second of (hich s2pports 1y s2ggestion' I find the interpretation offered by the translator in the note and in his introd2ction to be farfetched' ->? ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a @67' In the Arabic te*t of his ong Co11entary on the Metaphysics, Averroes (rites that he Mproved ''' in the %e ani1a ''' that the 1aterial intellect is generated8destr2ctible'M If the reading is correct, Averroes cannot be referring to the ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a' #ery possibly, ho(ever, the (ord not has dropped o2t' The printed 1edieval atin te*t has< Mnon est generabilis et corr2ptibilisMH and the (ord not has plainly dropped o2t a fe( lines later 9line --: in the Arabic' See Tafsir 1a bacda al8 Tabi c a 9 ong Co11entary on the Metaphysics:, ed' M' 0o2yges 90eir2t -.;A8-.@A:
-@A. and apparat2s' ->A Above, pp' /7.8?-' ->>
/.@
nat2ral species' A nat2ral species, he (rites, co1prises Mindivid2als Qe*istingR in act2alityM b2t does not, in the Aristotelian sche1e of things, have independent e*istence' Since it e*ists solely thro2gh the individ2als, the nat2ral species in itself e*ists only Mpotentially'M The reverse, Averroes s2b1its, is tr2e of 1aterial intellect, for the 1aterial intellect Mis species in act2ality and individ2al QonlyR potentially'M This t(o8part notion by (hich Averroes characteriEes 1aterial intellectBCDspecies in act2ality, and individ2al potentiallyBCDis strange' Averroes e*plains the first half as 1eaning that a Msingle,M co11on 1aterial intellect serves all 1ankind, and in attaching itself to Mindivid2al 1enM does not beco1e individ2aliEedH it re1ains (hat it (as before, na1ely, Mspecies in act2ality'M The second half is perhaps eJ2ivalent to saying, as Averroes did in the ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a, that the 1aterial intellect does not Goin 1an in an essential and pri1ary sense'->. Khen a 1an is born, the Co11entary on the %e intellect2 goes on, the 1aterial intellect is Mgenerated in respect to hi1, (itho2t being generated in itself,M and (hen a 1an dies, the 1aterial intellect Mis destroyed in respect to hi1 b2t not in itself'M The 1aterial intellect is th2s so1ethingBCDnot called s2bstance in the present te*tBCDMco11onM to all 1ankind, M2n1i*ed (ith the body, '' ' separate therefro1 Qthat is, incorporealR,M not Ms2bGect to en21eration,M and Min itself not generated and destr2ctible'M-76 AverroesI Co11entary on the %e intellect2 has little 1ore to say on the s2bGect, apart fro1 a fe( sentences that 1ight have been helpf2l (ere they not patently corr2pt'-7- A position along the sa1e lines is inti1ated as (ell in AverroesI Tahaf2t alTahdf2t 9%estr2ctio destr2ction21:' The Tahaf2t al8Tahaf2t states that Maccording to 1ostM philosophers, the h21an Mpotential intellect''' is eternal'M Again< Aristotle, reasoning fro1 the potential intellectIs Mhaving everything as an obGect of tho2ght,M proved that the MpassiveM-7/ or potential intellect is M2ngenerated and indestr2ctible'M-7; The Aristotelian proof all2ded to is 2ndo2btedly the fa1iliar arg21ent that since the potential intellect can think the for1 of every obGect in the physical (orld, it contains no 1aterial for1 in itselfH containing no s2ch for1 in itself, it is separate fro1 1atter, or incorporeal, and hence i112ne to generation and destr2ction' Another possibly pertinent passage in the Tahaf2t al8Tahaf2t affir1s that the Mproof for the 2nity of all h21an intellect is Mstrong'M-7@ "ro1 the Above, p' /A.' Co11entary on %e intellect2 9n' ;/ above: /--8-/' -7- On /-/, Averroes co2ld be saying that the 1aterial intellect e*ists only as long as h21an individ2als e*ist' If s2ch is the 1eaning, the te*t takes a different position fro1 the ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a, b2t the passage is 2ndo2btedly corr2pt' -7/ See above, n' .6' -7; Averroes, Tahaf2t al8Tahaf2t, ed' M' 0o2yges 90eir2t -.;6: 7, -A6H English translation, (ith pagination of the original Arabic indicated< AverroesI Tahaf2t al8Tahaf2t, trans' S' #an den 0ergh 9 ondon -.>@:' -7@ Ibid' >?@' -76 ->.
/.>
conte*t, Averroes co2ld be saying that a single identical active intellect serves all 1ankind'-7> If, ho(ever, he is speaking of a single potential or 1aterial intellect serving 1ankind, he has in the Tahdf2t al8Tahdf2t all2ded to the 1ain points he laid do(n in his ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a' He has indicated that the 1aterial or potential intellect is a single, incorporeal, eternal s2bstance shared by the entire h21an species' S211ary At vario2s ti1es, Averroes e1braced at least fo2r positions on the h21an 1aterial intellect' His Epito1e of the %e anitna and his Epistle on the ,ossibility of ConG2nction endorse (hat Averroes kne( as Ibn 0aGGaIs position, the theory that the 1aterial intellect is a disposition for tho2ght Goined to, b2t not 1i*ed (ith, the i1aginative fac2lty of the h21an so2l' A brief piece on the possibility of conG2nction (ith the active intellect andBCDif 1y reading of the te*t is correctBCDthe original version of the Middle Co11entary on the %e ani1a endorse Ale*anderIs conception of the h21an intellect as a 1ere disposition for tho2ght not 1i*ed (ith the h21an body or linked to any specific part of the body or so2l' An e*c2rs2s in the Middle Co11entary states that Mafter assigning the d2e share of do2btsM to the positions of Ale*ander and The1isti2s, Averroes settled on a Mco1binationM of the t(o' He decided that a 1aterial intellect is engendered for each individ2al 1an (hen the transcendent active intellect Goins an inborn h21an disposition for tho2ghtH the ability to think h21an tho2ghts is thereby, in so1e accidental fashion, generated in the active intellect' In the ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a, Averroes confesses that (hen he (as yo2nger he had been 1isled by relying inordinately on Aristotelian co11entators instead of Aristotle hi1self' The ong Co11entary ref2tes both Ale*ander, (ho is no( painted in 1ore 1aterialist h2es than previo2sly, and Ibn 0aGGa' It does not 1ention the co1pro1ise position of the Middle Co11entary, altho2gh the distinction bet(een the t(o s2bGects of h21an tho2ght in the ong Co11entary does have a certain rese1blance to the co1pro1ise position advanced there' In effect, the ong Co11entary endorses The1isti2sI position, as Averroes 2nderstands it, constr2ing the h21an 1aterial intellect as a single incorporeal, eternal s2bstance that beco1es attached to the i1aginative fac2lties of individ2al 1en in so1e nonessential fashion' Averroes adds that the 1aterial intellect stands directly belo( the active intellect in the hierarchy of e*istence, as the last of the incorporeal intelligences' The position of the ong Co11entary reappears in glosses incorporated into AverroesI Epito1e of the %e ani1a and is all2ded to in his Tahaf2t al8Tahaf2t' His Co11entary on the %e Intellect2 propo2nds the sa1e conception or a related one' -7>
Ibid' /?8/., lends itself to that interpretation'
/.7
Arg21ents that a given (ork add2ces to establish its conception of the 1aterial intellect are so1eti1es e1ployed to the sa1e end in other (orks-77H so1eti1es, the sa1e arg21ent is e1ployed to contrary ends-7?H and so1eti1es an identical conception (ill rest on different arg21ents in different (orks'-7A Three strands of arg21entation in partic2lar 1erit attention beca2se of their persistence' 9-: Aristotle had reasoned that any prior coloring in the potential h21an intellect (o2ld prevent it fro1 thinking all tho2ghts (itho2t distortion' In AverroesI early disc2ssions of the nat2re of the 1aterial intellect, AristotleIs reasoning helps prove that the 1aterial intellect can be nothing other than a 1ere disposition-7.H in later stages the sa1e reasoning leads to the contrary concl2sion that the 1aterial intellect cannot possibly be a 1ere disposition and 12st be nothing other than an incorporeal s2bstance'-?6 9/: In early (orks, the contention that a (holly intellect2al s2bstance cannot e*ist in a state of potentiality s2pports the constr2ction of the 1aterial intellect as a 1ere disposition, and the contention is cited as (ell to s2pport the inter1ediate position of the Middle Co11entary'-?- Averroes does not forget the contention (hen concl2ding in the ong Co11entary that the 1aterial intellect is an eternal intellect2al s2bstance' There, ho(ever, he co2nters it by 2ncovering a hitherto overlooked class of e*istence' He finds that the incorporeal real1 contains a J2asi 1atter, so that an incorporeal s2bstance, and the 1aterial intellect in partic2lar, can after all e*ist in a state of potentiality'-?/ 9;: Khen constr2ing the 1aterial intellect as a disposition, Averroes invariably add2ces AristotleIs analogy of the (riting tablet (ith Ale*anderIs e1endationH he co1pares the 1aterial intellect not to a (riting tablet b2t to the disposition that the tablet has for (riting'-?; Khen in the ong Co11entary he finally decides that the 1aterial intellect is an eternal s2bstance rather than a disposition, he reconsiders the analogy' He insists no( that Aristotle co1pared the 1aterial intellect to the s2bstance of the (riting tablet and not to the disposition in the tablet' Since it is the s2bstance receiving h21an tho2ghtsBCDthe analog2e of the tablet itselfBCD(hich 12st be 2n1i*ed (ith 1atter, the 1aterial intellect 12st be an incorporeal s2bstance'-?@ Khere e*act dates can be assigned to AverroesI co11entaries, his Epito1es have been fo2nd to be early and his ong Co11entaries late'-?> In the case of the co11entaries on AristotleIs %e ani1a, an annotation incorporated into the Epito1e See above, pp' /7., /A7' See i11ediately belo(' -7A See arg21ents taking the 1aterial intellect to be a 1ere disposition, above, pp' /7?, /?;' -7. See above, pp' /?; and /?7' -?6 See above, pp' /7., /A7' -?- See above, pp' /7., /?.' -?/ Above, p' /.-' -?; See above, pp' /7A, /?;, /?@8?>, /??' -?@ Above, p' /A>' -?> See M2nk 9n' /? above: @;-8;/H Renan 9n' /? above: 7687-H Alao2i, Al8Matn al8R2shdi 9n' -. above: @.8>A' -7? -77
/.?
e*pressly states that Averroes retho2ght the s2bGect of the 1aterial intellect after (riting the Epito1e, and that the ong Co11entary offers his revised position'-?7 The ong Co11entary for its partBCDand also the Co11entary on Ale*anderIs %e intellect2, (hich is related to the ong Co11entaryBCDinfor1s 2s that it is the fr2it of lengthy st2dy'-?? The Epito1e of the %e ani1a is th2s plainly earlier than the ong Co11entary' The relative date of the e*c2rs2s in the Middle Co11entary vis8a8vis the ong Co11entary can only be conGect2red' It is highly te1pting to s2ppose that Averroes started at one e*tre1e, progressed to the inter1ediate, co1pro1ise position of the Middle Co11entary, and s2bseJ2ently (ent on to the other e*tre1eH in presenting AverroesI theories, I have observed that seJ2ence' Several considerations s2ggest that here te1ptation is safely s2cc21bed to' Khereas the body of the Middle Co11entary s2bscribes to Ale*anderIs position, the e*c2rs2s criticiEes Ale*ander and by i1plication Ibn 0aGGa as (ell' The e*c2rs2s is therefore pres21ably later than all the (orks in (hich Averroes follo(s Ale*ander or Ibn 0aGGa' The e*c2rs2s kno(s nothing, ho(ever, of a fo2rth class of e*istence, eternal intellect2al s2bstance in a state of potentiality, (hich Averroes 2ncovered in the ong Co11entary and (hich enabled hi1 to constr2e the 1aterial, or potential, intellect as an incorporeal s2bstance' Moreover, it offers a 12ch scantier treat1ent of the h21an intellect than the ong Co11entary, (hich e1bodies AverroesI 1ost e*ha2stive and caref2lly reasoned treat1ent' At an early state of his tho2ght, (e can concl2de (ith a fair degree of confidence, Averroes follo(ed Ibn 0aGGa and constr2ed the 1aterial intellect as a disposition in the i1aginative fac2lty of the so2l' So1e(hat laterBCDif (e rely on the general ass21ption that he (rote the Middle Co11entaries after the Epito1esBCD he constr2ed the 1aterial intellect, (ith Ale*ander, as a disposition in the so2l (itho2t specifically locating it in the i1aginative fac2lty'-?A Still later, he arrived at the inter1ediate theory that an individ2al 1aterial intellect is engendered (henever the active intellect Goins the inborn disposition a(aiting it in an individ2al h21an so2l' At (hat (e can pres21e (as the cro(ning stage of his tho2ght, he constr2ed the h21an 1aterial intellect as a single eternal s2bstance shared by all 1en, consisting in the J2asi 1atter that analysis can discover in other incorporeal beings and standing i11ediately belo( the active intellect in the hierarchy of e*istence' A c2rio2s t(ist 1ay be noted' Averroes str2ggled thro2gho2t his career to recapt2re AristotleIs intent, and the previo2s chapter sa( hi1 s2cceeding' After repeatedly (restling (ith the pertinent iss2es, he finally did a(ay (ith the e1anation of incorporeal beings fro1 one another, the e*istence of a "irst Ca2se beyond the incorporeal 1overs of the spheres, and the e1anation of s2bl2nar Above, p' /?6' Above, pp' /A?, /.@' -?A Averroes accepted Ale*anderIs position in the original version of the Middle Co11entary on the %e ani1a, if 1y analysis (as correct, and he is generally tho2ght to have (ritten his Middle Co11entaries after the Epito1es' -?? -?7
/.A
nat2ral for1s fro1 the active intellect' Those are plainly non8Aristotelian conceptions, and by eli1inating the1 Averroes liberated hi1self fro1 a n21ber of 1isreadings of Aristotle' The present chapter has sho(n that in seeking to recapt2re AristotleIs intent concerning the potential, or 1aterial, h21an intellect, and in heeding, as he (rites, the (ords of Aristotle hi1self rather than the co11entators, Averroes 1oved not to(ard (hat the consens2s of 1odern scholarship (o2ld take to be the historically correct interpretation of Aristotle b2t in the opposite direction' He started (ith a 1aterial intellect that is a fac2lty of the so2l and concl2ded (ith so1ething foreign to Aristotle, a single eternal, incorporeal 1aterial intellect that Goins each 1an fro1 (itho2t' As a conseJ2ence, AverroesI final pict2re of the s2bl2nar (orld, (hile 1ore nat2ralistic than his early pict2re in one respect, is less so in another' In his early career, Averroes 2nderstood that s2bl2nar for1s, incl2ding the h21an so2l, e1anate fro1 the transcendent active intellect, b2t he gave a nat2ralistic e*planation of h21an 1aterial intellect' In his final vie( of things, he eli1inates the e1anation of s2bl2nar for1s, 1aintaining that the for1s of inani1ate and ani1ate beings are dra(n o2t of s2bl2nar 1atter by the action of nat2ral forces' The 1aterial intellect, (hich he before e*plained nat2ralistically, has no(, ho(ever, t2rned into a single incorporeal being that contin2ally irr2pts into the physical (orld to serve individ2al 1en' The ne*t chapter (ill sho( that at all stages of his career, Averroes credited the transcendent active intellect (ith the act2aliEation of the h21an intellect, and that al1ost all his (orks recogniEe the possibility of so1e kind of conG2nction of the h21an intellect (ith the active intellect'
AverroesI Theories of Material Intellect as Reflected in S2bseJ2ent Le(ish and Christian Tho2ght As far as is kno(n, AverroesI ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a (as not available in Hebre( before the fifteenth cent2ry, and the Hebre( translation (as even then not (idely disse1inated' Scholastic philosophy, by contrast, had no (ork of AverroesI on intellect e*cept for the ong Co11entary'-?. Le(ish philosophers (ho co2ld not read the ong Co11entary in the original Arabic or in the atin translationBCDand it (as they (ho constit2ted the 1ainstrea1 of 1edieval Le(ish philosophyBCDconseJ2ently received a pict2re of Averroes (holly at variance (ith the pict2re prevalent in Scholastic circles and accessible to the fe( Le(ish -?. The Middle Co11entary on the %e ani1a (as translated fro1 Hebre( into atin, b2t only at a late periodH see n' /; above' T(o s1all co1positions on the the1e of conG2nction (ith the active intellect (ere translated into atin, probably fro1 the Hebre(H see %avidson, Averrois Tractat2s de Ani1ae 0eatit2dine 9n' ;- above:' $o evidence has been discovered of Scholastic (ritersI 2sing the1, ho(ever, and I ass21e that they (ere not translated before the fifteenth cent2ry'
/..
philosophers (ho co2ld read the Arabic or atin versions' Th2s Moses $arboni 9fo2rteenth cent2ry:, evi !ersonides 9-/AA8-;@@:, and She1 Tob Ibn She1 Tob 9late fifteenth cent2ry:, all caref2l st2dents of Averroes, ass21e that the co1pro1ise theory set forth in the Middle Co11entary is AverroesI considered position on the 1aterial intellect'-A6 Averroes, each of the1 reports, 2nderstood that a 1aterial intellect is engendered (hen the transcendent active intellect attaches itself to the inborn disposition of an individ2al 1an' $arboni accepts AverroesI position as he records it'-A- !ersonides reGects it and instead endorses (hat he calls Ale*anderIs position,-A/ altho2gh as he p2rs2es the s2bGect, his conception t2rns o2t not to be precisely Ale*anderIs position either b2t the position Averroes attrib2ted to Ibn 0aGGa< !ersonides deter1ines that the h21an disposition for tho2ght is linked specifically to the i1aginative fac2lty of the so2l'-A; She1 Tob Ibn She1 Tob like(ise endorses Ale*anderIs position'-A@ He, ho(ever, interprets Ale*ander and AverroesI Middle Co11entary in a fashion that bl2rs the difference bet(een the1'-A> Of the Le(ish philosophers (ho 2sed atin te*ts, Hillel b' Sa12el of #erona 9ca' -//68-/.>: did not go directly to AverroesI ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a' He relied instead on a 1ore readable, secondary acco2nt, Tho1as AJ2inasI %e i1itate intellect2s contra Averroistas' 0esides AJ2inas, Hillel also e1ployed the Hebre( version of AverroesI t(o s1all co1positions on the conG2nction of the h21an intellect (ith the active intellect'-A7 02t altho2gh one of the t(o co1positions describes the 1aterial intellect in a (holly different (ay fro1 AJ2inasI acco2nt of Averroes, (hich is based on the ong Co11entary, Hillel ignored the disparity and read the conception recorded by AJ2inas into the Hebre( pieces' He accordingly reports (itho2t J2alification that Averroes constr2ed the 1aterial intellectBCDor as he also p2ts it, the h21an so2l-A?BCDas a single incorporeal These (riters 2nderstand the reference to AverroesI MCo11entaryM in one of the Interpolations to AverroesI Epito1e 9above, p' /?6: as a reference to his Middle Co11entary on the %e ani1a, rather than to his ong Co11entary, (hich (as not kno(n in Hebre(' -A- Moses $arboni, MaIa1ar be8Shele12t ha8$efesh, ed' A' Ivry 9Ler2sale1 -.??: -/;8/>' See H' %avidson, MAverroes and $arboni on the Material Intellect,M ALS Revie(, . 9-.A@: -A/A@' -A/ evi !ersonides, Co11entary on AverroesI Epito1e of the %e ani1a 9n' ?A above: /@?bH Milha1ot ha8She1 9%ie 3a1pfe !ottes: 9 eipEig -A77: -';, p' /6' English translation of Milha1ot -8@< evi ben !ersho1, The Kars of the ord, trans' S' "eld1an 9,hiladelphia -.A@8-.A?:' -A; vMilha1ot ha8She1 -'>' -A@ She1 Tob Ibn She1 Tob, Co11entary on Mai1onidesI !2ide 9Karsa( -.;6: -'7A, lOOaH 0eI2r ha83oah ha8%ibberi, ,aris, 0ibliotheJ2e nationale, Hebre( MS A.A, -@@a' -A> She1 Tob Ibn She1 Tob, 0eI2r ha83oah ha8 %ibberi -@@a, -@7b' -A7 See above, p' /7@, nos' > and 7H Hillel b' Sa12el, Sefer Tag12le ha8$efesh, ed' L' Ser1oneta 9Ler2sale1 -.A-: -'7, notesH %avidson, Averrois Tractat2s de Ani1ae 0eatit2dine 9n' ;- above: 7A8?6' -A? Hillel b' Sa12el -'>, p' 76' -A6
;66
s2bstance co11on to all 1ankind'-AA 0orro(ing arg21ents fro1 AJ2inas, Hillel ref2tes the doctrine of the 2nity of the h21an intellect or h21an so2l' The fifteenth cent2ry, at last, sa( a Le(ish philosopher, EliGah %el1edigo, (ho co2ld navigate thro2gh the atin version of AverroesI ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a' %el1edigo bases his disc2ssion of intellect al1ost e*cl2sively on the ong Co11entary'-A. He records AverroesI constr2ction of the h21an 1aterial intellect as a single eternal s2bstance co11on to all 1ankind, and (ith arg21ents dra(n fro1 the ong Co11entary, he defends Averroes in detail'-.6 The ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a (as translated into atin aro2nd -/;6, and in the second half of the cent2ry, the theory of 1aterial intellect propo2nded in the ong Co11entary achieved notoriety' Albert the !reat read the Co11entary b2t for so1e reason did not at first realiEe that Averroes (as positing a single potential, or 1aterial, intellect for all 1ankind'-.- Others did 2nderstand f2lly' AJ2inas disc2ssed AverroesI theory in several (orks, and his S211a contra gentiles, doing so1ething that not all the other (orks do, na1es Averroes as the protagonist' MAverroes,M the S211a contra gentiles states, took the Mpossible intellect by (hich the so2l thinksM to be a Mseparate QincorporealRM s2bstance, a s2bstance not Goined to the h21an body as its Mfor1'M-./ The first part of the report is, e*cept for the change of ter1inology to possible intellect, precisely (hat (e enco2ntered in the ong Co11entary, and the second part is probably i1plied there, since it is hard to see ho( a single 1aterial intellect serving all 1ankind 1ight be the for1 of each individ2al 1an' $evertheless, Averroes did not e*plicitly say that the 1aterial intellect is not 1anIs for1' He did (rite that the 1aterial intellect is not Ma bodyM or a Mfor1 in a body,M-.; b2t those e*pressions do not necessarily e*cl2de the 1aterial intellectIs being the h21an for1, the organiEing principle constit2ting 1anIs essence and 1aking hi1 (hat he is'-.@ AJ2inas, after all,
Ibid' -'?, p' -6-' He also cites Lohn of Land2n' -.6 EliGah %el1edigo, ,aris, 0ibliotheJ2e rationale, Hebre( MS .7A,-/6a, -;>b' -.- Albert2s Magn2s, %e ani1a, ;'--, in Opera o1nia >, ed' A' 0orgnet 9,aris -A.6: ;A7a' R' Miller, MAn Aspect of AverroesI Infl2ence on Albert2s Magn2s,M Mediaeval St2dies -7 9-.>@: 7687- 9Miller 7>, does not for12late AverroesI position correctly:H %' Sal1an, M$ote s2r la pre1iere infl2ence dIAverroes,M Rev2e neoscolastiJ2e de philosophie @6 9-.;?: /6A' Sal1an /6>8A, /6.8--, infers fro1 the (ritings of Roger 0acon and Ada1 of 02ckfield that they too read Averroes (itho2t realiEing that he envisaged a single 1aterial intellect for the entire h21an species' -./ Tho1as AJ2inas, S211a contra gentiles /'>.H cf' S211a theologiae -'?7, art' -' -.; See above, p' /A@' -.@ Other pertinent passages are< ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a -76, (here, co11enting on AristotleIs state1ent, %e ani1a /'/'@-;b, /7, that the intellect is Manother gen2s of so2l,M Averroes (rites that the intellect is Manother gen2s of so2l, and if called so2l, it (ill be by eJ2ivocationMH and the passages J2oted above, p' /A;, at note -6A, and p' /.6, at n' -@;'
-A.
-AA
;6-
like(ise insisted that the h21an intellect is not a M1aterial for1'M-.> In any event, the proposition that the 1aterial, or potential, intellect is not the tr2e for1 of 1an, and is at 1ost 1anIs for1 in so1e loose, e*tended sense, ca1e to be one of the to2chstones of atin Averrois1' ,laying devilIs advocate, the S2tn1a contra gentiles lists five considerations that Averroes and philosophers of the sa1e 1ind 1ight add2ce to s2pport their positionH and the list incl2des arg21ents that Averroes in fact p2t for(ard, alongside others that he did not' The first of the five considerations is MAristotleIs (ordsM to the effect that intellect is Mseparate, 2n1i*ed (ith the body, si1ple, and not s2bGect to affection'M S2ch descriptions 1ight see1 to i1ply that the possible or potential h21an intellect is not the MbodyIs for1'M The second is that if Mpossible intellect had any for1 or nat2re of sensible things in itself,M it (o2ld be prevented fro1 thinking all tho2ghts (itho2t distortionH (hence it 1ight see1 to follo( that possible intellect cannot Mbe 1i*ed (ith the body or be the act2ality or for1 of any body'M-.7 0oth considerations (ere advanced by Averroes to establish that the potential intellect is an incorporeal s2bstance,-.? altho2gh not to prove that the 1aterial intellect cannot be the h21an for1' The re1aining three considerations listed by AJ2inas are not fro1 Averroes and 12st be either arg21ents c2rrent in atin circles or arg21ents that AJ2inas hi1self fra1ed as hypothetical s2pport for his adversaries' AJ2inas dis1isses the arg21ents and G2dges the Averroist position to be Mfoolish and i1possible,M beca2seBCDp2t brieflyBCD(hat e*periences h21an intellect2al tho2ght (o2ld, on AverroesI conception, be an entity distinct fro1 1an and not the h21an s2bGectH and beca2se, so1e(hat si1ilarly, intelligible tho2ght is the distinctively essential 1o1ent in 1an, the 1o1ent 1aking hi1 (hat he is, and conseJ2ently the possible or potential intellect, (hich enables 1an to achieve intelligible tho2ght, 12st be 1anIsfor1'-.A Averroes, AJ2inas f2rther reports, identified the link bet(een 1an and the potential intellect e*isting apart fro1 hi1 as the Mi1ageM 9phantas1a: in the i1aginative fac2ltyH he characteriEed i1ages in the i1aginative fac2lty as a Mkind of s2bGectM of h21an tho2ght-..H the Mcogitative fac2lty,M (hich operates in concert (ith the Mi1aginative fac2ltyM and M1e1ory,M (as d2bbed by hi1 the h21an Mpassive intellectMH and he identified passive intellect as the part of 1an endo(ing the child (ith its Mh21an species'M/66 All b2t the last of the state1ents reflect vie(s e*pressed by Averroes in the ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a' All are d2ly ref2ted by AJ2inas' Tho1as AJ2inas, S211a contra gentiles /'7.H Tractat2s de 2nitate intellect2s contra Averroistas, ed' ' 3eeler 9Ro1e -.;7: 4TA;H English translation, (ith the sa1e section divisions< On the &nity of the Intellect against the Averroists, trans' 0' Fedler 9Mil(a2kee -.7A:' -.7 AJ2inas, S211a contra gentiles /'>.' -.? Above, pp' /A@, /AA' -.A AJ2inas, S211a contra gentiles /'>.H S211a theologiae -'?7'-, resp' -.. Ibid' See above, pp' /A.8.6' /66 AJ2inas, S211a contra gentiles /'76' See above, nn' .6 and -@6' -.>
;6/
The Averroes that AJ2inasI S211a contra gentiles depicts is, 2n1istakably, closely akin to the gen2ine Averroes of the ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a' 02t AverroesI visage has been altered, 1ost notably in being b2rdened (ith the proposition that the potential intellect does not constit2te 1anIs for1, a proposition perhaps i1plied, yet never e*pressed, in the ong Co11entary' A certain Killia1 of 0aglione, (riting in ,aris abo2t the sa1e ti1e as AJ2inas, devoted a J2aestio to the proposition that Mintellect is one in n21ber for all 1enM as the MCo11entator QAverroesR laid do(n'M Killia1 too dra(s 2p a list of possible arg21ents that 1ight s2pport the propositionH they are borro(ed fro1 thinkers as strangely diverse as Aristotle, A2g2stine, and Ansel1, b2t incl2de as (ell a re(ording of considerations taken fro1 Averroes hi1self' Killia1 reGects AverroesI position both on theoretical gro2nds and beca2se of its Mpernicio2snessM for religion'/6- Altho2gh the reno(ned %o1inican, Tho1as AJ2inas, and the obsc2re "ranciscan, Killia1 of 0aglione, gave short shrift to AverroesI theories, Averroes (on adherents in ,aris' Ecclesiastical a2thorities (ere not in the least pleased, beca2se of the ra1ifications that his theories had for individ2al i11ortality and for the s211oning of individ2al h21an so2ls to the last assiEe' In -/7? and -/7A, 0onavent2re re1onstrated against errors gro(ing o2t of an i1proper 2se of philosophy, and a1ong the1 (as the proposition that Mone intellectM serves Mall Q1enR'M 0onavent2reIs tone s2ggests that he (as attacking doctrines act2ally espo2sed by Christian thinkers'/6/ In -/?6, Stephen Te1pier, bishop of ,aris, for1ally Mconde1ned and bannedM thirteen errors Mtogether (ith all (ho 1ight teach ''' or 1aintain the1'M The first of the errors (as that Mthe intellect of all 1en is one and n21erically identical'M/6; At appro*i1ately the sa1e ti1e, a 1e1ber of the %o1inican order sent Albert the !reat, (ho (as then residing in !er1any, a list of fifteen theses, already Mopposed in 1any asse1blies,M and he asked for AlbertIs co11ents' The first of the fifteen (as once again the proposition Mthat the intellect of all 1en is one and identical in n21berMH and AlbertIs response sho(s that he no( 2nderstood the 2nity of the h21an potential intellect to be at iss2e'/6@ The year -/?6 also sa( the p2blication of AJ2inasI 1onograph, %e 2nitate intellect2s contra Averroistas' There AJ2inas speaks of an MerrorM recently e1braced by M1anyM and Mtaking its so2rce in the (ords of Averroes,M to (it, the proposition that Mthe intellect that Aristotle called possibleM b2t that Averroes Mcalled by the inappropriate na1e 1aterialM is a Ms2bstance ' ' ' separate fro1 "ranciscan St2dies ;6 9-.?6: ;>8@>' /6/ "' #an Steenberghen, Maitre Siger de 0rabant 9 o2vain -.??: ;7, @/8@;' /6; p' Manck1net, Siger de 0rabant et IIAverrolIs1e atin - 9 o2vain -.--: ---H H, %enifle and A' Chatelain, Chart2lari21 2niversilalis ,arisiensis - 9,aris -A..: @A78A?' /6@ Mandonnet -'-6>H / 9 o2vain -.6A: /.ff' Mandonnet -'-67, dates the list of theses sent to Albert2s in -/?6, b2t others date it a fe( years laterH see #an Steenberghen -//8/@'
I' 0rady, M0ackgro2nd to the Conde1nation of -/?6< Master Killia1 of 0aglione,M
;6;
the body,M Mone for all 1en,M and not MGoined to the body as its for1'M/6> In -/??, 0ishop Te1pier, apparently acting at the popeIs behest, for1ally conde1ned a 12ch longer list of theses than the list of -/?6'/67 The theses no( at iss2e (ere, in the lang2age of the conde1nation, M1anifest and e*ecrable errors'M They (ere ta2ght by scholars Min the Q"ac2lty ofR Arts at ,aris (ho overstep the borders of their "ac2lty,M by dealing (ith s2bGects belonging to theology, and (ho dare, 1oreover, to 1aintain that things can be Mtr2e according to philosophy b2t not so according to the Catholic faithBCDas if there (ere t(o contrary tr2thsSM Incl2ded a1ong the theses conde1ned (as the proposition that the Ms2bstance of the so2lM as (ell as the Mactive and possible intellects are eternalM 9no' -6.:, and the f2rther proposition that Mthe intellect is n21erically one for all 1enM 9no' ;/:'/6? Solid infor1ation is available abo2t only a single fig2re (ho (as a 1e1ber of the "ac2lty of Arts and (hose teachings rese1ble the e*ecrable errors cens2red by Te1pier and ref2ted by AJ2inas' He is Siger of 0rabant' A 1an2script listing the theses conde1ned in -/?? bears the heading MAgainst the heretics Siger and 0oeti2s Qof %aciaR'M/6A An early 1an2script of AJ2inasI %e 2nitate intellect2s contra Averroistas na1es Siger as AJ2inasI antagonist' And another 1an2script of the %e 2nitate contains the re1ark that AJ2inas (rote the treatise Min -/?6, against Siger of 0rabant and ' ' ' others'M/6. T(o co1positions dealing specifically (ith the h21an intellect carry SigerIs na1e, and e*cerpts fro1 a third co1position of his (hich deals (ith the h21an intellect are provided by a later a2thor' A fo2rth co1position of SigerIs, altho2gh not taking the h21an intellect as its pri1ary s2bGect, also treats the h21an intellect at so1e length' A considerable scholarly literat2re has developed aro2nd Siger, offering divergent G2dg1ents on the dates of his (ritings, their relation to AJ2inasI %e 2nitate intellect2s contra Averroistas, and their Averroistic character' Khatever one 1akes of the 1an, he clearly follo(ed Averroes at certain stages of his career, altho2gh never blindly' A (ork of his entitled P2aestiones in terti21 de Ani1a, perhaps the protocol of a co2rse of lect2res, treats J2estions regarding the h21an intellect in a typically Scholastic for1at'/-6 Siger sets do(n arg21ents for and against given theses, states his o(n stand, dra(s distinctions, and reb2ts the considerations see1ingly in Tho1as AJ2inas, %e 2nitate intellect2s 9n' -.> above: 4T-' The1isti2s, (ho1 Averroes had cited to s2pport his position, is cited by AJ2inas in 4T4T>-8>;, in s2pport of his o(n position that the potential intellect Mis part of the h21an so2l'M /67 Mandonnet -'/-/8/-;H #an Steenberghen -@7,-@A8@.' /6? Mandonnet /'-?>, -A@8A> 9nos' --?, -/.:H %enifle and Chatelain >@;, >@>, >@.' English translation< Medieval ,olitical ,hilosophy, ed' R' erner and M' Mahdi 9$e( )ork -.7;: ;;?>@' /6A Mandonnet -'//6' See #an Steenberghen ->>, for other 1an2scripts 1entioning Siger and 0oeti2s' /6. Fedler 9n' -.> above: 7' /-6 #an Steenberghen ;;.8@?' /6>
;6@
opposition' On the nat2re of the h21an MintellectMBCDglossed 1ore precisely as the MpotentialityM for tho2ght/-- and J2alified as MpossibleM/-/BCDthe P2aestiones repeats the 1aterialist and nat2ralistic acco2nt of Ale*ander (hich AverroesI ong Co11entary gave' Ale*ander, Siger (rites, constr2ed the h21an intellect as Mthe highest 1aterial for1,M a for1 that e1erges spontaneo2sly fro1 the Mfinest degree of 1i*t2re Qof the physical ele1entsR'M He Malone ' ' ' a1ong all the co11entators on Aristotle '' ' took the QpotentialR intellect to be generated'M/-; Aristotle and Averroes, by contrast, deter1ined that MoneM potential h21an intellect, not s2bGect to en21eration, serves all 1ankind'/-@ It Goins individ2al 1en thro2gh the h21an i1aginative fac2lty, (itho2t entering into the h21an organis1 and e1ploying a h21an organ'/-> Khat has been said th2s far co1es directly fro1 Averroes' The h21an Mintellect,M Siger f2rther contends (itho2t reference to Averroes, can contain no 1atter, for 2nlike 1aterial obGects, (hich are Mpotentially intelligible,M the h21an intellect is Min itself act2ally intelligible and, 1oreover, capable of having itself as an act2al obGect of tho2ght Qse ips21 act2 intelligensR'M/-7 The concl2sion that the potential h21an intellect is free of 1atter is (holly in the spirit of AverroesI ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a, b2t the arg21ent fro1 the Mact2ally intelligibleM character of the potential intellect (hich leads to the concl2sion is not' Ostensibly J2oting Averroes, Siger goes on to dra( a distinction that also (o2ld have str2ck Averroes as strange' Siger s2b1its that Mintellect perfects the body ' '' thro2gh its Qthe intellectIsR po(erM and not Mthro2gh its Qthe intellectIsR s2bstance,M the reason being that the h21an intellect does not co1e into contact (ith, and M2se,M the body'/-? Averroes had, (ith little ado, inferred the eternal e*istence of the potential h21an intellect fro1 its incorporeality'/-A Siger divides the iss2e of the intellectIs eternal e*istence into t(o for1al J2estions, the J2estion (hether the h21an intellect (as Siger de 0rabant, P2aestiones in terti21 de ani1aH %e ani1a intellectivaH %e aeternitate 12ndi, ed' 0' 0aEan 9 o2vain -.?/: >' /-/ /--
Ibid' --8-/' /-@ Ibid' /, /78/?' /-> Ibid' /;, />, >7' Intellect Goins 1an thro2gh the circ21stance MJ2od intelligit e* intentionlb2s i1aginatis'M /-7 Ibld' /6' /-? Ibid' /;8 /@' The editor refers to Averroes, ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a -76, (here, ho(ever, Averroes by no 1eans says all that Siger represents hi1 as saying' 0oth the arg21ent that the Mrational so2lM 12st be incorporeal since Mit kno(s itself and the notion that the Mrational so2l perfects the Qh21anR ani1al not thro2gh s2bstance b2t thro2gh act QevgpyeiaR,M are to be fo2nd in Lohn ,hilopon2s, Co11entary on the %e ani1a, ed' M' Hayd2ck, Co11entaria in Aristotele1 !raeca -> 90erlin -A.?: -@, /67' ,arts of ,hilopon2sI Co11entary (ere translated into atin in the thirteenth cent2ry, b2t these sections are not kno(n to have been translated' /-A Above, p' /A.'
/-;
Ibid' ;6'
;6>
M1adeM fro1 all eternity or Mat a certain 1o1entM 9nov21, de novo: in the past, and the additional J2estion (hether the h21an intellect is Mdestr2ctibleM in the f2t2re' In ans(er to the first J2estion, he represents Aristotle as having 1aintained that the h21an potential intellect is, like the (orld, an Mi11ediate prod2ctM of Mthe "irst Ca2seMH that every i11ediate prod2ct of the eternal 2nchangeable "irst Ca2se is an Meternal prod2ctMH and that, conseJ2ently, Mthe h21an intellect is, like the (orld, an eternal prod2ctM of the "irst Ca2se'/-. A2g2stineIs position, by contrast, (as that the entire h21an so2l, incl2ding the intellect, (as Mcreated at a certain 1o1entM and is Mnot eternal'M After so1e scholastic give8and8take, Siger concl2des a bit gingerly that MAristotleIs position is 1ore probable than A2g2stineIs'M//6 In ans(er to the other J2estion, Siger deter1ines that the h21an intellect receives f2t2re eternal e*istence and gains i11ortality Msolely fro1 the "irst Ca2se'M//- As for the h21an Mspec2lative intellect,M or theoretical intellect, that is to say, act2al tho2ghts acJ2ired by the potential intellect, it, Mas Averroes states, is destr2ctible in respect to a given 1an, and yet eternal in respect to itself and in an 2nJ2alified sense'M/// In e*ploring one 1ore iss2e, Siger dis1isses the notion that beings consisting in intellect contain a 1aterial side' A1ong his reasons is the consideration that if intellect contained M1atter it (o2ld not be act2ally intelligible, b2t only potentially so'M Siger probably has in vie( Scholastic thinkers (ho disting2ished a for1 and 1atter (ithin the h21an rational so2l'//; He co2ld conceivably, tho2gh, also be distancing hi1self fro1 Averroes, (ho had 1aintained in the ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a that all incorporeal beings e*cept the "irst Ca2se contain a J2asi1aterial side, and the h21an 1aterial intellect consists in that J2asi 1atter'//@ In short, Siger reports that Averroes recogniEed a single incorporeal potential intellect for all 1ankind, that the potential intellect Goins 1en thro2gh i1ages in their i1aginative fac2lty, that the h21an spec2lative, or theoretical, intellect is destr2ctible insofar as it is connected (ith individ2al 1en b2t other(ise eternal' Those positions co1e fro1 AverroesI ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a' SigerIs reasoning in s2pport of the past and f2t2re eternity of the h21an potential intellect does not, by coniast, derive fro1 Averroes, nor does his affir1ation of the Mact2ally intelligibleM character of the potential h21an intellect' SigerIs P2aestiones in terti21 de Ani1a, the te*t (e have been e*a1ining, is dated by scholars before -/?6, the year in (hich AJ2inas (rote his %e 2nitate intellect2s contra Averroistas' As already 1entioned, AJ2inasI %e 2nitate intellect2s 2ndertakes to ans(er Averroes and certain atin MAverroistsM (ho Siger, P2aestiones in terti21 de Ani1a 9n' /-- above: >87' ,erhaps Siger (as taking a (ork s2ch as the Theology of Aristotle as a gen2ine Aristotelian (ork' //6 Ibid' >, A' //- Ibid' -?' /// Ibid' /.' Cf' above, p' /.6' //; 'g', Roger 0acon' See E' !ilson, History of Christian ,hilosophy in the Middle Ages 9$e( )ork -.>>: ;6/' //@ Ibid' /6' See above, p' /.-' /-.
;67
affir1ed that the MpossibleM or M1aterialM intellect is a Ms2bstance '' ' separate fro1 the body,M Mone in all 1en,M and not MGoined to the body as its for1'M The thesis that the potential intellect is not Goined to the body as its for1, (hich is no(here artic2lated in AverroesI ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a, is not stated in so 1any (ords by Siger in the (ork G2st e*a1ined either, altho2gh Siger probably i1plies the thesis (hen he (rites that the h21an intellect does not MperfectM 1an Mthro2gh its Qthe intellectIsR s2bstance'M//> On the iss2e of the potential intellect as the h21an for1, AJ2inasI %e 2nitate intellect2s therefore at 1ost addresses the i1plications of AverroesI ong Co11entary and SigerIs P2aestiones in terti21 de Ani1a' Even apart fro1 the iss2e of the potential intellect as the h21an for1, the %e 2nitate intellect2s does not stand as a direct critiJ2e of the positions taken by Siger in the P2aestiones or, for that 1atter, in any of SigerIs kno(n (orks' Conceivably, AJ2inas (as ref2ting a lost (ork of SigerIs s2ch as one that an early fo2rteenth8cent2ry (riter, Lohn 0aconthorpe, refers to'//7 AlternativelyBCDthe s2ggestion has been 1ade//?BCDAJ2inas 1ay have had in vie( listenersI acco2nts of lect2res cond2cted by Siger or other adherents of Averroes' Khoever AJ2inasI ,arisian adversary (as in the%e 2nitate intellect2s, Siger reportedly co1posed a s2rreGoinder' Agostino $ifo, (riting in -@./, J2otes fro1 a (ork entitled %e intellect2, (hich, he says, Siger sent to AJ2inas in MresponseM to the latterIs %e 2nitate intellect2s',//A Siger in the %e intellect2, as (ell as other philosophersBCDso $ifo infor1s 2sBCDtook, Mas it (ere,''' an inter1ediate stance Q1ediareR bet(een the atins QScholasticsR and the Averroists'M The ter1 Averroists, the conte*t sho(s, designates those (ho, like AJ2inasI Averroists, 1aintained both that a single potential intellect serves all 1en, and that the potential intellect is not the h21an for1' In $ifoIs acco2nt, SigerIs %e intellect2 accepted the Mindivisibility, i11ateriality, and 2nity of the intellectM fro1 the Averroists' "ro1 the atin scholastics, Siger accepted the proposition that the 1aterial intellect is Mthe for1 f2rnishing e*istence Qconstit2ensR to 1an Qin generalR and also to this Qpartic2larR 1an '' ' th2s giving e*istence Qdare esseR to QbothR individ2al and species'M//. Khere2pon $ifo 2nder1ines his analysis (ith a J2alification' Siger, he (rites, did not s2ppose that the potential intellect by itself f2rnishes e*istence to an individ2al 1anH the potential intellect does so only in concert (ith 1anIs McogitativeM fac2lty, Monly by Goining (ith i1ages in the i1aginative fac2lty'M The h21an potential intellect is, hence, Mpri1arily and essentiallyM the Mfirst perfection of 1an Qin generalR'M Merely Maccidentally, and in respect to their final perfection, See above, p' ;6@' M' Chossat, MSt' Tho1as dIAJ2in et Siger de 0rabant,M Rev2e de philosophie /@ 9-.-@: >>78>AH L' EtE(iler, M0aconthorpe and atin Averrois1,M Car1el2s -A 9-.?-: /@-8@@' //? #an Steenberghen 9n' /6/ above: >.' //A The te*t is J2oted in 0' $ardi, Sigieri di 0rabante nel pensiero del Rinasci1ento italiano 9Ro1e -.@>: -A' //. Ibid' -A8-.' //7 //>
;6?
is it the act2ality and perfection of Socrates, ,lato, and other Qindivid2alsR'M/;6 $ifo is trying to s(eeten the proposition that the eternal potential intellect is not 1anIs for1, (hile in effect ackno(ledging that for Siger, the potential intellect is in the strict sense the for1 solely of the species as a (hole' Only in cooperation (ith the i1aginative fac2lty and in an accidental sense is the potential intellect also the for1 of the individ2al' Still a third te*t of SigerIs, entitled %e ani1a intellectiva, deals (ith the nat2re of the 1aterial intellect, and this te*t has been preserved'/;- Scholarly consens2s dates it after both the P2aestiones in terti21 de Ani1a and the %e intellects,,/;/ and Siger 1ay (ell have been 2nder attack at the ti1e, since he e*presses hi1self (ith e*tre1e circ21spection and barely 1entions Averroes' The %e ani1a intellectiva speaks of Mintellective so2l,M the MintellectiveM part of the so2l, and Mintellect,M apparently 2sing the ter1s interchangeably' Siger establishes that the intellective so2l is Mnot co1posed of 1atter and for1, is not a 1aterial for1, b2t is free of 1atter, and,M altho2gh it has a ca2se of its e*istence, Ms2bsists thro2gh itself 9per se s2bsistens:/;; It is conseJ2ently eternal'/;@ Concerning the critical J2estion (hether the Mintellective so2l is the perfection Qor< entelechyR and for1 of the Qh21anR body,M Siger offers another of his distinctions' He represents Aristotle as having 1aintained that the Mact of intelligible tho2ght,M and hence Mthe intellective so2l, is in one respect 2nited to the body and in another respect separate therefro1'M/;> In the strict sense, the h21an intellective so2l, being incorporeal and having no Mcorporeal organ,M is plainly not so1ething M2nited to the body as a for1, giving e*istence Qdans esseR to the bodyM and act2ally present therein Mlike shape in (a*'M/;7 And yet, altho2gh Mthe intellective so2l is, in its being, separate fro1 the body, ''' in its operation Qin operando] ''' it is 2nited Q(ith the bodyR, beca2se it thinks nothing (itho2t a body and (itho2t an i1age Qin the i1aginative fac2ltyR'M/;? In the sense, then, that it operates thro2gh the body, b2t in that restricted sense alone, the intellective so2l 1ayBCDaccording to SigerIs acco2nt of the vie( of AristotleBCDbe McalledM the bodyIs Mfor1M or Mentelechy'M/;A Ibid' /6' "inal perfection apparently 1eans perfection accr2ing to an individ2al, thanks to its belonging to a class' Above, pp' /?., /AA, Averroes 2ses the ter1s final perfection end final entelechy in the 1ore nor1al sense of the realiEation of the potentiality represented by tiie first perfection or entelechy' /;- #an Steenberghen ;7@8?@' /;/ #an Steenberghen ..H $ardi, Sigieri di 0rabante nel pensiero del Rinasci1ento italiano ;;' Mandonnet - 9n' /6; above: -?>, on the contrary, takes it to be the target of AJ2inasI %e 2nitate intellect2s and hence prior to -/?6' /;; Siger, %e ani1a intellectiva 9n' /-- above: A.8.6' See ibid' .;< M$othing prevents (hat is necessary and eternal fro1 having a ca2se of its necessity and eternity'M /;@ Ibid' A.8 .>' /;> Ibid' A6' /;7 Ibid' ?A' /;? Ibid' A@' /;A Ibid' A?' /;6
;6A
Concerning a second critical J2estion, M(hether the intellective so2l is rendered 12ltiple by virt2e of the 12ltiplicity of h21an bodiesM or (hether a single s2ch so2l serves all 1ankind, SigerIs %e ani1a intellectiva professes 2ncertainty' Siger is 2ncertain (hat the M,hilosopher QAristotleR tho2ghtMH and he is eJ2ally 2ncertain in (hich direction Mnat2ral reasonM points, since arg21ents can be 12stered on each side' On one side stands the convincing arg21ent that nothing (hose nat2re is Mseparate fro1 1atterM and Me*istent thro2gh itself can be en21erated, (hence it (o2ld follo( that the Mintellective so2lM is not s2bGect to en21eration' )et co2ntervailing arg21ents can also be add2cedBCDfor e*a1ple, the arg21ent that if all 1en had the sa1e intellect they (o2ld have identical kno(ledge'/;. SigerIs %e ani1a intellectiva th2s treats both J2estions, the J2estion of the intellective so2l as the bodyIs for1 and the J2estion of the 2nity of all s2ch so2ls, ca2tio2slyH he states only AristotleIs position, and not his o(n, on the first and does not even vent2re to decide (hat AristotleIs position (as on the second' He, 1oreover, offers his obeisance to the Ch2rch on both' If the Mposition of the holy Catholic faithM opposes the Mposition of the ,hilosopherM on the iss2e of the intellective so2l as the h21an for1, he M(illinglyM bo(s to faith'/@6 And he si1ilarly defers to the Ch2rch on the 2nity of the h21an intellective so2l' His philosophic treat1ent of this J2estion is prefaced (ith the (ords< MAccording to the QCatholicR tr2th, (hich cannot be false, intellective so2ls are 2ndo2btedly rendered 12ltiple thro2gh the 12ltiplicity of h21an bodies'M/@- The disc2ssion ends (ith the 1ilder declaration that since rational arg21ents can be add2ced on both sides of the iss2e and since AristotleIs vie( is 2nclear, Madherence o2ght to be given to faith, (hich s2rpasses all h21an reason'M/@/ Modern scholars have differed, and (ill s2rely contin2e to differ, in assessing the sincerity or disingen2o2sness of SigerIs s2b1ission to orthodo* belief'/@; One f2rther (ork carrying SigerIs na1e, the P2aestiones s2per libr21 de Ca2sis, is not pri1arily concerned (ith the h21an intellect b2t does devote a section to it'/@@ Siger there finds that the Mintellective so2lM is the Mperfection Qor< entelechyR and for1 of the body,M (itho2t any reservation to the effect that the intellect is the h21an for1 solely in so1e loose sense'/@> More startling, the present te*t sets forth arg21ents in favor of, and opposed to, the thesis that there Mis one intellectM for Mall 1enMH observes that the MCo11entator QAverroesR ' ' ' took intellect to be one in n21berM for Mall 1enMH professes 2ncertainty as to AristotleIs vie(H observes that in any event, M(hatever he Ibid' -6-8/, -6?8A' Ibid' AA' /@- Ibid' -6-' /@/ Ibid' -6A' /@; See #an Steenberghen 9n' /6/ above: /@;8>/' /@@ Ibid' ;??8A;' /@> Siger, P2aestiones s2per libr21 de ca2sis, ed' A' Marlasca 9 o2vain -.?/: -67' /@6 /;.
;6.
QAristotleR tho2ght, he (as a 1an and co2ld errMH and then concl2des flatly that the 2nity of the h21an intellect is Mheretical in o2r faith and irrationalM to boot' All Catholic Christians therefore Msho2ld steadfastly believe that it Qthe potential h21an intellectR is rendered 12ltiple thro2gh the 12ltiplicity of 1en'M/@7 To recapit2late< CritiJ2es and conde1nations disclose the presence in thirteenthcent2ry ,aris of philosophers (ho follo(ed AverroesI ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a and constr2ed the h21an 1aterial, or potential, intellect as a separateBCD that is to say, incorporealBCDs2bstance co11on to all 1ankind' The philosophic and ecclesiastical critiJ2es reveal that AverroesI atin adherents (ent beyond the e*press (ords of the ong Co11entary' Most notably, the thesis that the potential intellect is not properly the h21an for1, at best an i1plication to be dra(n fro1 Averroes, (as pro1inent fro1 the start' Siger of 0rabant, the only certifiable target of the anti8Averroistic f2l1inations, propo2nded the theory of a single, co11on incorporeal 1aterial intellect in t(o (orksH in a third (ork, he attrib2ted the theory to Aristotle, (hile deferring, for his o(n part, to the Catholic faithH and finally in a fo2rth (ork, he recanted co1pletely, prono2ncing the 2nity of the h21an potential intellect to be 2nacceptable on rational and theological gro2nds' As for the iss2e of 1anIs proper for1, each of SigerIs fo2r (orks handles it differently' The first of the fo2r affir1s that the potential intellect Mperfects the bodyM thro2gh the intellectIs Mpo(erM b2t not thro2gh its Ms2bstance,M thereby i1plying that the potential h21an intellect is not tr2ly 1anIs for1' The second, (hich is lost, reportedly 1aintained that potential intellect is Mpri1arily and essentiallyM the for1 of the h21an species inas12ch as it f2rnishes e*istence to 1ankind as a (holeH nevertheless, inas12ch as the potential intellect f2rnishes e*istence to individ2als in cooperation (ith the h21an cogitative fac2lty, it is MaccidentallyM the act2ality, perfection, and for1, of individ2al 1en' The third (ork attrib2tes to Aristotle, (itho2t itself endorsing, the proposition that the potential intellect can be called the h21an for1 in the atten2ated sense of operating thro2gh the body, altho2gh it is not tr2ly the bodyIs for1' The fo2rth (ork, in (hich Siger recants his Averrois1, declares the potential intellect to be 1anIs for1, (itho2t reservation' 0et(een -/A- and -/A@, Siger (as assassinated in Italy by a Mso1e(hat e*istence to individ2als in cooperation (ith the h21an cogitative fac2lty, it is* doctrines of AverroesI ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a (ere borne on high by a line of Christian thinkers e*tending into the si*teenth cent2ry' The tradition s2rvived so long and so st2bbornly in the face of repeated atte1pts to s2ppress it that its perd2rability is no less a sociological than a philosophic pheno1enon' Kriters belonging to the tradition reason that the possible or potential intellectBCDor intellective part of the so2l, or intellective so2lBCDis separate fro1 1atter, that is to say, incorporeal, and eternalH that one potential intellect serves all 1ankindH that the /@7 /@?
Ibid' -6A8->' Mandonnet -'/A68/A7H #an Sieenbcrghen ->.'
;-6
potential intellect Goins an individ2al 1an thro2gh his cogitative fac2lty and thro2gh i1ages in his i1aginative fac2ltyH and that, as an incorporeal entity serving all 1ankind, it is the for1 of an individ2al 1an solely in so1e atten2ated sense' 02ilding on those pre1ises, AverroesI adherents (restle (ith a private cycle of J2estions, s2ch as the precise sense in (hich the potential intellect can be taken as the for1 of an individ2al 1an, the J2estion (hether the potential intellect alone constit2tes h21an intellect or (hether it does so in partnership (ith the active intellect, and the J2estion (hether the potential intellect is identical (ith, or related to, a J2asi81aterial 1o1ent in the celestial intelligences' Metic2lo2s philosophic investigations are often p2nct2ated (ith cheerf2l s2b1ission to the Catholic faith' The philosophers involved, so their co11on protestation goes, have dra(n their concl2sions as a 1ere acade1ic e*ercise and (itho2t endorsing the1' The constr2ction of the 1aterial intellect as a single incorporeal being shared by all 1ankind, together (ith the notion of t(o possibly inco1patible tr2ths, one philosophic and the other religio2s, are the 1ost distinctive doctrines, indeed the defining doctrines, of the 1ove1ent co11only called atin Averrois1' The end of the thirteenth cent2ry and first J2arter of the fo2rteenth cent2ry fo2nd the Averroist theory of intellect espo2sed by the follo(ing philosophers, all of (ho1 are kno(n to have been, or can be pres21ed to have been, active in ,aris< the a2thors of anony1o2s co11entaries on the%e ani1a,/@A !iles of Orleans,/@. Lohn of !oettingen,/>6 Anthony of ,ar1a,/>- Tho1as Kilton,/>/ Marsili2s of ,ad2a 9in very general ter1s:,/>; Lohn of Land2n,/>@ and, in so1e conte*ts, Kalter 02rley'/>> %2ring the years -;/68-;>6, the tradition (as transplanted to 0ologna, (here it fo2nd a ne(, congenial ho1e' The central Averroist positions (ere repeated, and the cycle of iss2es (as debated, by Angelo of AreEEo,/>7 Trois co11entaires anony1es s2r le Traite de IIante dIAristote, ed' M' !lele et al' 9 o2vain -.?-: ?>, >-;8-@ 9the preceding section in the latter co1position arg2es the opposite, anti8Averroist position:H F' 32kse(icE, %e Siger de 0rabant a LacJ2es de ,laisance 9Krocla( -.7A: -6/8@' 32kse(icE provides e*tensive and highly val2able e*tracts fro1 the original te*ts' /@. 32kse(icE -668-6-' />6 Ibid' -/-8/@, -/.8;6, -;A, -@6' />- Ibid' -@.8>>, -7/, -7?, -?6' />/ Ibid' -A/, -A7' />; Ibid' /6-' />@ See i11ediately belo(' />> A' Maier, A2sgehendes Mittelalter - 9Ro1e -.7@: -6?8/6H 32kse(icE /@>8@?' A' &na L2areE, MAristotles y Averroes en el siglo *iv,M Antonian21 >/ 9-.??: 7A.8.@,cites passages (here 02rley apparently reGects,MSt2di s2l *iv secolo in 1e1oria di Anneliese Maier 9Ro1e -.A-: Kalter 02rleyIs Averrois1,M St2di s2l *iv secolo in 1e1oria di Anneliese Maier 9Ro1e -.A-: ;@-8 ;??, cites passages to sho( that 02rley took different stances on the h21an 1aterial intellect in different conte*ts, and one stance (as 2na1big2o2sly Averroistic' 02rley (as reportedly tn 0ologna in -;@-H see Maier -/6' />7 M' !rab1ann, Mittelalterliches !eistesleben / 9M2nich -.;7: /7?H 32kse(icE 9n' /@A above: ;-A' /@A
;--
Thadde2s of ,ar1a,/>? and Lacob of ,lacentia'/>A As already seen, the Averroist theory of intellect elicited opposition al1ost fro1 its first appearance in a atin setting' Apart fro1 0onavent2re, AJ2inas, and Killia1 of 0aglione, the thirteenthand fo2rteenth8cent2ry critics incl2ded Albert,/>. !iles of Ro1e,/76 Killia1 of la Mare, /7- Lohn ,eckha1,/7/ ,eter of Trabes,/7; Ray1ond 2ll,/7@ %2ns Scot2s,/7> Si1on of "aversha1 9early fo2rteenth8cent2ry O*ford:,/77 and Killia1 of Aln(ick 9early fo2rteenth8cent2ry 0ologna:'/7? The ch2rch added its for1al conde1nation at the Co2ncil of #ienne in -;--' The 1ost infl2ential and best kno(n of the thirteenth8 and fo2rteenth8cent2ry Averroists (as Lohn of Land2n' He (as the pri1ary link in the trans1ission of Averroist tho2ght fro1 ,aris to the 0olognese and s2bseJ2ent schools,/7A and cent2ries later (as still st2died, his co11entary on AristotleIs %e ani1a being p2blished several ti1es in the si*teenth cent2ry' And he (as the J2intessential atin Averroist' He e*plores the characteristic iss2es, adopts the characteristic attit2des, and defends the characteristic positions, often echoing the lang2age of SigerIs Averroist phase and, on one of the central J2estions,/7. e*plicitly na1ing Siger as an a2thority' Land2n kno(s Ale*ander of Aphrodisias thro2gh the MCo11entator AverroesM and, follo(ing AverroesI ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a as (ell as Siger, he p2ts an e*tre1e 1aterialist interpretation on that ancient philosopher' Ale*ander, he reports, held that the finely 1od2lated Mco1position and 1i*t2re of QphysicalR />? Thadde2s, P2aestiones de ani1a, ed' S' #anni Rovighi 9Milan -.>-: J' @, /.H J' >, >;7;H 32kse(icE 9n' /@A above: ;-.8/-, ;;A' />A 32kse(icE 9n' /@A above: ;>;8 >7, ;>A, ;76, ;7/87;, ;?6, ;.;8.@' />. Mandonnet / 9n' /6@ above: ;68;>' /76 !iles of Ro1e, Errores philosophor21, ed' L' 3och and trans' L' Riedl 9Mil(a2kee -.@@: //8/;H %e pl2rificatione intellect2s possibilis 9not available to 1e:' /7- C' 3rEanic, M!randi lottatori contro -IAverrois1o,M Rivista difilosofia neo8scolastica // 9-.;6: -?/8?;' /7/ Lohn ,eckha1, P2aestiones tractantes de ani1a, in 0eitrage E2r !eschichte der ,hilosophie des Mittelalters -.'>87, ed' H' Spett1ann 9M2nster -.-A: ;A8@6, @.H 3rEanic -?.A6' /7; 3rEanic /6;8>' /7@ O' 3eicher, MRay12nd2s 2ll2s 2nd seine Stell2ng E2r arablschen ,hilosophie,M in itrage E2r !eschichte der ,hilosophie des Mittelalters ?'@8> 9M2nster -.6.: >;, -;6, -;;;>' /7> %2ns Scot2s, Op2s o*oniense @'@;'/H in %2ns Scot2s, ,hilosophical Kritings, ed' A' Kolter 9Edinb2rgh -.7/: -;?8;A' /77 %' Sharp, MSi1onis de "aversha1< P2aestiones s2per terti21 de ani1a,M Archives dIhistoire doctrinale et litteraire . 9-.;@: ;/-8//, ;/?8/.' /7? Maier 9n' />>: -8//' /7Avanni Rovighi 9n' />? above: *iiiH S' MacClintock, ,erversity and Error 90loo1ington -.>7: A8.' /7. Lohn of Land2n, S2per libros Aristotelis de ani1a 9#enice ->A?: ;, J' >, col' /@>' Lohn J2otes fro1 the %e ani1a intellectiva, b2t calls it %e intellect2'
;-/
ele1ents in the h21an bodyM brings forth fro1 itself Mthis 1arvelo2s and noble Q1aterialR for1, na1ely, the intellect'M Hand in hand there(ith goes the proposition that the h21an intellect is 1anIs s2bstantial for1< MAle*anderIs opinionM (as that Mthe intellective so2l is the s2bstantial for1 giving e*istence ''' to the h21an body, and it is Goined to the body in respect to e*istence, like the shape in (a*'M/?6 MAristotle and the Co11entator QAverroesR,M by contrast, concl2ded that since the h21an intellective so2l is MseparateM fro1 the body, it is not the factor Mgiving specific s2bstantial e*istence QesseRM to 1an and hence not the Ms2bstantial for1 of the h21an body'M "ro1 the philosophically correct standpoint, the potential h21an intellect can accordingly be ter1ed h21an for1 only in a loose sense, insofar as the potential intellect is a factor Moperating (ithinM 1an thro2gh Mi1agesM in the Mi1aginativeM or McogitativeM fac2lty of the so2l'/?- S2ch, according to Lohn of Land2n, (ere the concl2sions of Aristotle and Averroes on the J2estion of the potential intellect as h21an for1' On the other perennial J2estion, the 2nity of the h21an potential intellect, those t(o pree1inent philosophersBCDLohn reportsBCDestablished that Mone intellectM serves all 1en, that it is Mnot rendered 12ltiple or n21erable thro2gh the 12ltiplicity of bodies,M and that Mall 1en think thro2ghM the sa1e, single potential intellect'/?/ Opponents had of co2rse arg2ed the contrary thesis, b2t after e*a1ining the co2nterarg21ents 1etic2lo2sly, Land2n deter1ines that the Averroist position Mcannot be shaken by de1onstrative reasoning'M/?; Khere2pon, having 1ade an 2nco1pro1ising case for both the 2nity of the h21an intellect and its not being the h21an for1, Land2n pays, conventional obeisance to the MCatholic position'M On the gro2nds of M1ere faith,M he declares that the h21an intellect is not after all Mone in n21ber for the (hole of 1ankind,M that it is after all Men21erated ''' by virt2e of h21an bodiesI being en21erated,M that it is Mthe perfection Qand for1R giving e*istenceM to the h21an body' Khatever one 1ay think abo2t other AverroistsI sincerity, Lohn of Land2nIs tong2e is set 2n1istakably in cheek' $othing co2ld be 1ore bitingly sarcastic than his re1ark< MI cannot proveM the Catholic belief Mthro2gh any de1onstrative arg21ent, beca2se I do not kno( that s2ch is possible' Sho2ld anyone kno( that proving it is possible, let hi1 reGoiceSM/?@ The 0olognese tradition (as by no 1eans the s(an song of AverroesI theory of h21an intellect in the atin (orld' At Erf2rt in the fo2rteenth cent2ry, t(o philosophers are kno(n to have 2pheld the ong Co11entaryIs theory of h21an intellectBCDa single incorporeal potential intellect serving all 1ankindH and in the s2bseJ2ent cent2ry, a professor at the &niversity of 3rako( added his Ibid' cols' /;@8;>H MacClintock >78>AH above, p' ;6?' Lohn of Land2n cols' /;.8@-H above, p' ;6?' /?/ Ibid' J' ?, col' />A' /?; Ibid' col' /7.' /?@ Ibid' cols' /7.8?6H cf' J' >, col' /@7' /?- /?6
Averroes on the Material Intellect ;-; endorse1ent'/?> 02t in the fifteenth and si*teenth cent2ries, the hotbed of atin Averrois1 (as northern Italy and especially ,ad2a' "resh h21anist Eephyrs (ere s2pposed to be blo(ing a(ay the 1edieval cob(ebs, yet an i1pressive series of fifteenth8 and si*teenth8cent2ry Italian philosophers contin2ed to analyEe and defend an Averroist theory of intellect' They incl2de ,a2l of #enice,/?7 $icoletto #ernias 9at least in his early career:,/?? Ale*ander Achillini,/?A Tiberio 0acielieri,/?. Agostino $ifo 9in his early career:,/A6 !eroni1o Taiapietra,/A- Marcantonio Fi1ara,/A/ Marcantonio !en2a,/A; and Antonio 0ernardi della Mirandola'/A@ ,hilosophic and ecclesiastical opposition nat2rally eno2gh also contin2ed'/A> And at the t2rn of the si*teenth cent2ry, ,ietro ,o1ponaEEi str2ck o2t 2pon a ne( tackH he reGected AverroesI position and arg2ed for a 1aterialist conception of the h21an intellect in the spirit of Ale*ander of Aphrodisias'/A7 He and his follo(ers (ere, appropriately, styled Ale*andrians'/A? F' 32kse(lcE, MCo11entari21 s2per ibros %e ani1a by an Anony1o2s Averroist,M St2dia 1edie(istycEne -? 9-.??: 7.8?6H 32kse(icE, M Iinfl2ence dIAverroes s2r les 2niversites en E2rope centrale,M in M2ltiple Averroes, ed' L' Lolivet 9,aris -.?A: /?78 ??, /?.8A6H 32kse(icE 9n' /@A above: @7787?' /?7 $ardi, Sigieri di 0rabante nel pensiero del Rinasci1ento italiano 9n' //A above: -/>8/?H repr' in $ardi, Saggi s2llI Aristotelis1o ,adova'no 9"lorence -.>A: A78AA' /?? $ardi, Saggi .., -6A8.H E' Mahoney, M$icoletto #ernia on the So2l and I11ortality,M in ,hilosophy and H21anis1 93risteller "estschrift:, ed' E' Mahoney 9 eiden -.?7: -@>8@.' /?A $ardi, Sigieri di 0rabante nel pensiero del Rinasci1ento italiano ?-8?7H repr' in Saggi /6>8 -6H also Saggi /;6' /?. $ardi, Sigieri di 0rabante nel pensiero del Rinasci1ento italiano -@-8@@' /A6 Ibid' /-' E' Mahoney, MAgostino $ifoIs Early #ie(s on I11ortality,M Lo2rnal of the History of ,hilosophy A 9-.?6: @>;8>>, 2nderstands that $ifo 1erely credited AverroesI interpretation of Aristotle as an acc2rate interpretation, (itho2t co11itting hi1self to it as a correct acco2nt of the h21an intellect' /A- $ardi, Saggi ;6/8>H "' 2cchetta, MRecenti st2di s2llI Averrois1o padovano,M in IAverrois1o in Italia 9Ro1e -.?.: --7' /A/ $ardi, Saggi ;@.8>/' /A; Ibid' @>/' /A@ $ardi, Sigieri di 0rabante nel pensiero del Rinasci1ento italiano ->?8 >A' /A> Renan 9n' /? above: ;7@877, ;.68.-, @;68;-H $ardi, Sigieri di 0rabante nel pensiero del Rinasci1ento italiano @>, and Saggi .A, -6-,-6., ;>?H 2cchetta --;, --.' /A7 ,' ,o1ponaEEi, %e i11ortalitate ani1ae, ed' !' Morra 90ologna -.>@: @A8 7., -@@8@>H English translation in E' Cassirer, ,' 3risteller, and L' Randall, Renaissance ,hilosophy of Man 9Chicago -.@A: /A78.?, ;;@' ,o1ponaEEi dealt (ith the J2estion of the nat2re of the h21an intellect in several (orks, (ritten over a n21ber of years' On one reading, he took ever 1ore 1aterialist vie(s of the h21an intellectH see Randall /?7H 0' $ardi, St2di s2 ,ietro ,o1ponaEEi 9"lorence -.7>: /-8 /;,-@.8?6,-A/8..' 02t a 1ore recent st2dy of his tho2ght finds that he (as a follo(er of Ale*ander at an early dateH see A' ,oppi, Saggi s2l pensiero di ,ietro ,o1ponaEEi 9,ad2a -.?6: @>8@7, .68.-' ,oppi >6, J2otes fro1 a conte1porary of ,o1ponaEEi (ho had senti1ents si1ilar to his regarding Ale*ander' /A? "or the ter1 Ale*andrians, see Renan 9n' /? above: @6/8;, and Randall, Renaissance ,hilosophy of Man /77' /?>
;-@
The positions at (hich Averroes arrived in the last stage of his tho2ght and (hich he p2t for(ard tentatively and hesitatingly in his ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a, positions co1pletely ignored in the Arabic (orld and virt2ally 2nkno(n in Le(ish circles, th2s helped 1old E2ropean philosophy for an astonishing stretch of three cent2ries'
A#ERROES O$ THE ACTI#E I$TE THO&!HT
ECT AS THE CA&SE O" H&MA$
The ,assage of the H21an Intellect to Act2ality Altho2gh he repeatedly revised his position on the active intellectIs role as a ca2se of s2bl2nar e*istence,- Averroes re1ained fir1 thro2gho2t his career regarding the active intellectIs nat2re' ike his predecessors a1ong the Arabic Aristotelians, he consistently constr2ed it as an incorporeal s2bstance transcending the h21an so2lH and he took for granted that it is the last linkBCDor, in his ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a, (hich raises the 1aterial intellect to the stat2s of the last of the eternal incorporeal s2bstances, the pen2lti1ate linkBCDin the hierarchy of incorporeal intelligences' To establish the transcendent character of the active intellect, AverroesI vario2s (orks add2ce (hat (as already a co11onplace arg21ent' As Averroes p2ts the reasoning in one passage, anything passing to a state of act2ality cannot do so Mby itself and therefore needs an agent or M1over that (ill lead it fro1 potentiality to act2ality'M Since the h21an 1aterial intellect does beco1e act2al, the 1aterial intellect needs s2ch an agent' Since, 1oreover, any agent, or M1over, gives to that (hich is 1oved only the likes of (hat it has in its o(n s2bstance,M the agent leading the h21an potentiality for tho2ght to act2ality 12st have act2al intelligible tho2ght in its s2bstance' It 12st be Man Qact2alR intellect'M/ The conte*t of this Above, chap' 7' Averroes, Epito1e of the %e ani1a, p2blished as Talkhls 3itab al8 $afs, ed' A' Ah(ani 9Cairo -.>6: AAH Spanish translation< a psicologia de Averroes, trans' S' !o1eE $ogales 9Madrid -.A?: /-/' 9I have si1plified the reasoning for the incorporeal character of the active intellect': Si1ilarly in< Averroes, %rei Abhandl2ngen fiber die ConG2nction, ed' and !er1an trans' L' HercE 90erlin -A7.:, Hebre( te*t ;, --H !er1an translation ;, >-' atin re(orking of the sa1e te*t 9see above, p' /7@:< Averrois Tractat2s de ani1ae beatit2dine, printed in vol' . of Aristotelis opera c21 Averrois co11entariis 9#enice ->7/8->?@, reprinted in "rankf2rt -.7/:' Averroes, Middle Co11entary on the %e ani1a, Arabic te*t in Hebre( characters, ,aris, 0ibliotheJ2e $ationale, Hebre( MS -66., -@7bH 1edieval Hebre( translation< ,aris, 0ibliotheJ2e $ationale MS .@?, //-b' Averroes, Co11entary on Ale*anderIs %e intellect2 91edieval Hebre( translation fro1 the Arabic, (hich is lost:, ed' H' %avidson, Shlo1o ,ines L2bilee #ol21e - 9Ler2sale1 -.AA: /-@ 9the arg21ent is p2t in Ale*anderIs 1o2th:' /-
;->
;-7
partic2lar passage does not reJ2ire Averroes to identify the active intellectIs place (ithin the incorporeal hierarchy, b2t he does so else(here'; As for the 1anner in (hich the active intellect leads the h21an 1aterial intellect to act2ality, t(o 1odels (ere available fro1 (hich Averroes co2ld choose' Alfarabi, deploying an analogy that had been s2ggested by Aristotle and developed by his follo(ers, portrayed the active intellect as e1itting a kind of light, (hich affects both i1ages in the i1aginative fac2lty and the h21an 1aterial intellect itself' Khen the analog2e of light ill21ines the potentially intelligible i1ages as (ell as the potentially thinking 1aterial intellect, it renders the1 act2alH the intellect discerns intelligible tho2ghtsBCDbasic principles of tho2ght according to so1e of AlfarabiIs (ritings, and concepts according to his Risalafi al8cAJlBCD(hich are latent in the i1ages'@ Avicenna fo2nd, by contrast, that i1ages in the i1aginative fac2lty 1erely prepare the h21an intellect for receiving intelligible tho2ghts, (hereas the tho2ghts the1selvesBCD(hich incl2de abstract concepts of all nat2ral obGects and at least so1e propositionsBCDare e1anated directly by the active intellect 2pon properly disposed h21an intellects'> Averroes, in all stages of his career, follo(s the lines of AlfarabiIs e*planation, altho2gh (itho2t tro2bling hi1self (ith the distinction bet(een the so2rce of light and light e1itted by the so2rce' He (rites, for e*a1ple< MThe active intellectM f2nctions, Min a certain sense,M as MlightM does' $at2ral light Mtransfor1s QpotentialR colors Qin the s2rface of a physical obGectR into act2al colorsM and also Mi1parts to the p2pil of the eyeM the J2ality of MtransparencyM 9ishfaf:,7 (hich allo(s it to see the1' MSi1ilarly,M the active intellect renders Mindivid2al i1pressions in the i1aginative fac2lty '' ' act2ally intelligibleM and also Mi1parts to the 1aterial intellect so1ething analogo2s to transparency,M (hich enables the 1aterial intellect to Mreceive intelligible tho2ghts'M? 0y ill21inating both the 1aterial intellect and the intelligible tho2ghts latent in i1ages, the active intellect enables the 1aterial intellect to behold the intelligible tho2ghts and think the1' The intelligible tho2ghts spoken of here are pres21ably concepts, rather than propositions, since they are co1pared to colors and not to G2dg1ents abo2t colors' Other co1positions of Averroes represent the active intellect either as a light that ill21inates i1ages in the i1aginative fac2lty,A or as a light that ill21inates the h21an intellect itself'. ;Co1pendio de Metafisica, ed' and Spanish trans' C' P2irds Rodrig2eE 9Madrid -.-.: 9henceforth cited as< Epito1e of the Metaphysics: @, 4T7/H !er1an translation< %ie Epito1e der Metaphysik des Averroes, trans' S' van den 0ergh 9 eiden -./@: -;7' @ Above, pp' >-, 7.' > Above, pp' AA, .6, .;' 7 Regarding transparency in the eye as a condition for vision, see Aristotle, %e sens2 /H L' 0eare, !reek Theories of Ele1entary Cognition 9O*ford -.67: A>8A7H above, p' 7A' VMiddle Co11entary on the %e ani1a, Arabic te*t -@7bH Hebre( translation //-a8b' s %rei Abhandl2ngen 9n' / above:, Hebre( te*t --8-/H !er1an translation >-8>/' . Ibid', Hebre( te*t ;H !er1an translation ;H Averroes, Co11entary on %e intellect2 9n' / above: /-;, /-@'
Averroes on the Active Intellect as the Ca2se of H21an Tho2ght
;-?
intellect as Mlight to the transparent Qdiaffon21RMH and M1aterial for1s Qin the
AverroesI f2llest acco2nt of the active intellectIs effect on the 1aterial intellect is nat2rally eno2gh fo2nd in the (ork containing his f2llest overall treat1ent of so2l and intellectBCDthe ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a' As (as seen in the previo2s chapter, the ong Co11entary is the co1position that constr2es the 1aterial intellect as a single incorporeal s2bstance serving all 1ankind' "ro1 the circ21stance that 1an passes fro1 the potentiality for thinking intelligible tho2ghts to act2ally thinking the1, the ong Co11entary dra(s the fa1iliar inference and ded2ces the e*istence of an Mactive intellect,M (hich M1akes (hat is potentially intelligible, act2ally intelligible'M-6 Since every agent prod2cing so1ething has in itself the act2al character it prod2ces, since the active intellect Mprod2ces all intelligible for1s Qintelligible tho2ghtsR,M and since intelligible tho2ghts are free of 1atter, the active intellect 12st like(ise be MseparateM fro1 1atter, that is to say, incorporeal'-- The 1anner (hereby the active intellect enables the h21an intellect to think intelligible tho2ghts rese1bles the process (hereby light renders colors visible' ML2st as vision is not 1oved by colors 2ntil they have beco1e act2al, a sit2ation occ2rring only (hen light is present, light being that (hich leads colors fro1 potentiality to act2ality, so too notions QintentionesX1acaniR in the i1aginative fac2lty do not 1ove the 1aterial intellect 2ntil they have beco1e act2ally intelligible'M I1ages in the i1aginative fac2lty are rendered act2ally intelligible thro2gh the presence of so1ething Mthat is act2al intellect,M in other (ords, thro2gh an active intellect that ill21inates the i1ages'-/ Khat the ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a has said so far is ro2tine' Khen that (ork e*pands on the analogy of light, it introd2ces a ne( t(ist' MThe active intellect,M Averroes (rites, stands to the potential, or 1aterial,
i1aginative fac2ltyRM stand to the 1aterial intellect
as color to the transparent' "or G2st as light is the entelechy UperfectioR of the transparent, so the active intellect is the entelechy of the 1aterial QintellectR' L2st as the transparent is not 1oved by color nor receives it 2nless ill21inated, so the 1aterial intellect does not receive intelligible tho2ghts of obGects in the physical (orld e*cept (hen it Qthe 1aterial intellectR is perfected and ill21inated by the active intellect' And G2st as light renders potential color act2al and capable of 1oving the transparent, so the active intellect renders notions Qin the i1aginative fac2ltyR (hich -6
Averroes, Co11entari21 1agn21 in Aristotelis de Ani1a libros, ed' "' Cra(ford 9Ca1bridge, Mass' -.>;: 9henceforth cited as< ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a: @;A' The Arabic translation of AristotleIs %e ani1a ;'>'@;6a, -68->, on (hich Averroes is co11enting here, gives a do2ble translation of the (ords< MQan intellectR by virt2e of 1aking all things, a sort of habit2s, like light'M Averroes accordingly reads the passage in Aristotle as referring to three, and not t(o, aspects of intellect, na1ely, 1aterial intellect, intellect in habit2, and active intellect' -- ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a @@-' -/ Ibid' @;.'
;-A
are potentially intelligible, act2al and capable of being received by the 1aterial intellect'-; ight, Averroes is stating, prepares the gro2nd for vision by doing t(o things' It ill21inates potential colors, thereby transfor1ing the1 into act2al colors and 1aking the1 act2ally visibleH and it attaches itself to, and ill21inates the Mtransparent,M thereby per1itting the transparent to receive act2ally visible colors' The active intellect e*ercises an analogo2s effect on i1ages in the i1aginative fac2lty of the so2l and on the 1aterial intellect' At first reading, one 1ight s2ppose that Averroes is again co1paring the 1aterial intellect to the eye and saying that the active intellect ill21inates the 1aterial intellect in the (ay light ill21inates the eye, renders it transparent, and enables it to see' The passage does not, ho(ever, 1ention the eye, and, as far as I co2ld discover, no co1parison of the 1aterial intellect to an eye is dra(n in the ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a' The key to the passage lies in the cla2se< Mlight is the entelechy of the transparent'M In analyEing the pheno1enon of vision, AristotleIs %e ani1a deter1ined that both the eye itself and the 1edi21 e*tending fro1 the eye to the obGect seen 12st be ill21inatedH and he e*plained that (hen the 1edi21 is ill21inated it beco1es Mreceptive of color'M Those observations helped hi1 for12late a definition of light' M ight,M on the definition, is the Mact2ality o f ' ' ' the transparent Q1edi21R insofar as Qit is aR transparent Q1edi21RM-@ "or e*a1ple, if air is the 1edi21, light is the entelechy of the air insofar as it is a transparent 1edi21, altho2gh not insofar as it is air' Khen AverroesI ong Co11entary co1es 2pon the definition of light in the co2rse of interpreting AristotleIs %e ani1a, Averroes rephrases it slightly, (riting< MThe essence of light is the entelechy QperfectioR of the transparent Q1edi21R, insofar as Qit is aR transparent Q1edi21R'M-> The ong Co11entaryIs state1ent that MG2st as light is the entelechy of the transparent, so the active intellect is the entelechy of the 1aterial QintellectRM accordingly affir1s that the active intellect stands to the 1aterial intellect as light stands to the 1edi21, not as light stands to the eye' After he constr2ed the 1aterial intellect as an incorporeal s2bstance that does not attach itself to 1an Messentially and pri1arily,M-7 Averroes apparently co2ld no longer accept the co1parison of the 1aterial intellect to an ani1al organ' He therefore co1pares the 1aterial intellect not to the eye, b2t instead to the 1edi21, (hich is distinct fro1 the seeing s2bGect' The ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a (as, in the previo2s chapter, seen to describe the 1aterial intellect as the Mrecipient in the tho2ght process'M-? Averroes Ibid' @-68- lHcf' also @..' Aristotle, %e ani1a /'?'@-Ab, .8-6, /78/?' Alfarabi 1entioned the transparent vis2al 1edi21 in one of his analogies bet(een a so2rce of light and the active intellectH see above, p' 7A' -> ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a /;7' -7 Above, p' /A.' -? Above, p' /./' -;
;-.
is no( telling 2s that the 1aterial intellect is the recipient in the (ay the 1edi21 in the vis2al process receives color' The 1aterial intellect th2s receives intelligible tho2ghts as the transparent vis2al 1edi21 receives colors, and the 1aterial intellect enables the individ2al h21an so2l to beco1e conscio2s of intelligible tho2ghts as the transparent vis2al 1edi21 presents colors to the eye and enables the eye to see the1' Co1paring the 1aterial intellect to the vis2al 1edi21, rather than to the eye, does not, as (ill appear, e*cl2de the 1aterial intellectIs having its o(n tho2ghts of the physical (orld'-A Aristotle had located both aspects of intellect, the potential and the active, MinM the so2l,-. (hile AverroesI ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a constr2es both the active and 1aterial, or potential, intellects as eternal s2bstances e*isting independently of h21an so2ls' To resolve the apparent discrepancy bet(een its position and AristotleIs, the ong Co11entary locates the f2nctions perfor1ed (ith the aid of the t(o intellects, and not the t(o intellects the1selves, in the h21an so2l' Act2al tho2ght, Averroes (rites, co1es abo2t thanks to an act of abstraction perfor1ed thro2gh the active intellect, and an act of reception perfor1ed thro2gh the 1aterial intellect' 0oth the Moperations,''' QofR abstracting intelligible tho2ghts and Qof receiving andR thinking the1,M are Ms2bGect to o2r (ill'M/6 "alling as they do 2nder the control of the h21an (ill, both operations therefore occ2r M(ithin 2s, ' ' ' even tho2gh the agent and recipient are eternal s2bstances'M/- The J2estion that cries o2t for an ans(er, na1ely, ho( a transient h21an so2l can ind2ce the eternal active intellect and eternal 1aterial intellect to do its bidding, is never addressed' The ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a 1aintains, then, 12ch as other (orks of Averroes did, that the active intellect ill21inates both the 1aterial intellect and i1ages in the i1aginative fac2lty of the so2lH and the res2lt is act2al h21an abstract tho2ghts, that is, concepts' The 1aterial intellect is no( co1pared, ho(ever, to the 0elo(, p' ;;;' Also above, p' /./' Aristotle, %e ani1a ;'>'@;6a, -;' Above, p' -/' /6 Cf' Aristotle, %e ani1a /'>'@-?b, /;8/@' /- ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a 9n' -6 above: @;. and also @67' In Iggeret Efshar2t ha%ebeJ2t 9Arabic original lost:, ed' and trans' 3' 0land 9$e( )ork -.A/: as Epistle on the ,ossibility of ConG2nction (ith the Active Intellect, 4T7, Averroes states that the active intellect penetrates the 1aterial intellect and (orks fro1 (ithin, its Mstat2s over against the 1aterial intellectM rese1bling that of a Mpotter ''' penetrating into clay, as The1isti2s (roteM or that of Mthe for1 of fire in the b2rning obGect, as Ale*ander dre( the analogy'M "or The1isti2s, see above, p' /?' The reference to Ale*ander 1ay be an interpretation of the passage J2oted above, p' /;' Averroes, ong Co11entary on the Metaphysics -/, co11' -?H Arabic te*t< Tafsir 1a bacda al8Tabi c a, ed' M' 0o2yges 90eir2t -.;A8 -.@A: -@A.8.6, describes the interaction of the active intellect and 1aterial intellect, b2t both the te*t and description are proble1atic' English translation of ong Co11entary on Metaphysics 0ook -/, (ith pagination of Arabic indicated< C' !eneJ2and, Ibn R2shdIs Metaphysics 9 eiden -.A@:' "rench translation of sa1e, (ith pagination of the Arabic indicated< A' Martin, Averroes, !rand co11entaire de la MetaphysiJ2e dIAristote 9,aris -.A@:'
-. -A
;/6
1edi21 in vision rather than to the sense organH it is thro2gh the 1edi21 of the 1aterial intellect that the h21an so2l gains intelligible tho2ghts of obGects in the physical (orld' Altho2gh the active intellect and the 1aterial intellect are, in the constr2ctions placed on the1 by the ong Co11entary, eternal s2bstances e*isting independently of the h21an so2l, the processes of abstracting, receiving, and thinking h21an tho2ghts are initiated by the h21an (ill and can therefore be described as taking place (ithin the so2l' A final passage deserving attention adds a fe( 1ore br2sh strokes to the pict2re' The passage states that Mintelligible tho2ghts co1e abo2t in 1an in t(o (ays'M One of the t(o (ays gives rise to the Mfirst principles of tho2ght, of (hich (e kno( neither (hen, (hence, nor ho( they co1e abo2t'M// The other gives rise to the Mintelligible tho2ghtsM that are derived Mfro1 already kno(n principles Qof tho2ghtR'M Averroes e*pressly calls tho2ghts of the for1er sort MpropositionsM 9propositiones:H and tho2ghts of the latter sort, being derived fro1 the first principles, are 2ndo2btedly propositions as (ell' He therefore appears to be s2pple1enting his previo2s acco2nt of the origin of abstract concepts (ith an acco2nt of the origin of propositions'/; The first principles of tho2ght, he goes on, co1e abo2t Mnat2rally,M that is, (ith no e*ercise of (ill, and they are given Mby ''' an incorporeal intelligence, the active intellect'M Intelligible tho2ghts belonging to the other class co1e abo2t by Man e*ercise of (ill,M and are Mprod2ced fro1 already kno(n principles Qof tho2ghtR and the active intellect'M/@ Averroes f2rther notes, as he had (hen treating abstract concepts, that these Mtheoretical tho2ghtsMBCDthe t(o sorts of propositionBCDMare Goined to 2s thro2gh for1s in the i1aginative fac2lty'M/> The overall pict2re painted by the ong Co11entary is, in s21, that the active intellect besto(s the first principles of tho2ght 2pon 1an (itho2t any h21an effort or e*ercise of (ill' Thro2gh an e*ercise of (ill, the h21an so2l can ind2ce the eternal transcendent active intellect to ill21inate both i1ages in the i1aginative fac2lty and also the eternal 1aterial intellect, (hich is Goined to 1an in a nonessential fashion' The 1aterial intellect thereby receives act2al concepts, in the (ay that the 1edi21 in the vis2al process receives act2al colors, and concepts are 1ade available for the so2l to conte1plate' The h21an so2l can in addition e*ercise its (ill and ind2ce the active intellect to help it derive secondary propositions fro1 the first principles' 0oth concepts and propositions are linked to the so2l thro2gh i1ages in the i1aginative fac2lty, and it is thro2gh those i1ages that the so2l beco1es conscio2s of both concepts and propositions' $one of (hat the ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a has said abo2t the active intellectIs role in h21an tho2ght is especially original' The ong Co11entary has See above, pp' >-, A@, /7?' ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a @>>, co11enting on Aristotle, %e ani1a ;'7'@;6a, /7, refers to the M(ell8kno(nM dichoto1y of concept and proposition' /@ Ibid' @.7' On @.78@.?, Averroes calls the first principles of tho2ght Mintellect in habit2'M /> Ibid' >66' /; //
Averroes on the Active Intellect as the Cas2se of H21an Tho2ght ;/- taken co11onplaces abo2t the active intellect, (hich AverroesI earlier (orks also add2ced, elaborated the1 a bit, and adapted the1 to acco11odate an eternal 1aterial intellect'
The ,ossibility of ConG2nction (ith the Active IntellectH I11ortality ConG2nction' Earlier chapters 2ncovered several iss2es that dogged Averroes thro2gho2t his philosophic career' One f2rther iss2e (ith (hich he str2ggled contin2ally (as the possibility of the h21an intellectIs having the active intellect as a direct obGect of tho2ght and thereby entering into conG2nction 9ittisal: (ith the active intellect' 0esides taking the iss2e 2p in his co11entaries on Aristotle and his co11entary on Ale*anderIs %e intellect2, Averroes devoted three op2sc2lesBCD ass21ing hi1 to be, in fact, the a2thor of all threeBCDspecifically to conG2nction'/7 The only peg in Aristotle to (hich the t(in pheno1enaBCDthe h21an intellectIs having the active intellect as an obGect of tho2ght, and its conGoining (ith the active intellectBCDco2ld attach the1selves (as hardly st2rdy' AristotleIs %e ani1a 1ade the pro1ise< MKhether or not' ' ' intellect' '' can, (hen not itself separate fro1 QspatialR 1agnit2de Qthat is, (hen linked to a h21an bodyR, think anything separate Qthat is, incorporealR has to be considered later'M/? $one of AristotleIs preserved (orks consider the 1atter again'/A To e*tract fro1 AristotleIs (ords the doctrines (e are concerned (ith here, one 12st ass21e that the i1plied ans(er to the J2estion he posed is affir1ative, that the h21an intellect can accordingly have an incorporeal intellect, and the active intellect in partic2lar, as a direct obGect of tho2ght, and that the h21an intellect can, by virt2e of being identical (ith (hatever it thinks, beco1e identical (ith, or perhaps to so1e lesser degree conGoin (ith, the active intellect' Averroes, for his part, (as not al(ays s2re (hat AristotleIs pro1ise even 1eant,/. and he learned abo2t the s2bGect not fro1 Aristotle b2t fro1 AristotleIs s2ccessors' A n21ber of post8Aristotelian voices affir1ed the possibility of the h21an intellectIs having the active intellect as an obGect of tho2ght and the possibility of its conGoining (ith the active intellect' Ale*anderIs %e ani1a ta2ght that the h21an "or the bibliographical infor1ation, see above, p' /7@' Aristotle, %e ani1a ;'?' @;-b, -?8-.' /A Aristotle, %e 1e1oria @>6a, ?8., ho(ever, i1plies a negative ans(er to the J2estion posed in%e ani1a ;'?' /. ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a @A68A-' Khen co1posing the ong Co11entary, Averroes 2sed t(o translations of AristotleIs %e ani1a, (hich did not agree on the passage in J2estion' In %rei Abhandl2ngen 9n' / above:, Hebre( te*t ?H !er1an translation ;6, Averroes all2des to the passage in Aristotle, (ith the state1ent< MIn the %e ani1aM Aristotle Mpro1ised to investigate the J2estion Qof conG2nctionR,' ' ' b2t his disc2ssion has not been preserved'M Epistle on the ,ossibility of ConG2nction 9n' /- above: 4T-;, -6-8/, also lakes the Aristotelian passage to be a pro1ise of a later disc2ssion of conG2nction' /? /7
;//
intellect 1ay have the active intellect as a direct obGect of tho2ght at so1e point in its develop1ent and Min a senseM thereby beco1e identical (ith the active intellect';6 The %e intellect2 attrib2ted to Ale*ander indicated in certain passages that the active intellect beco1es an obGect of h21an tho2ght as a condition of h21an intellect2al activity, and in one passage 1aintained that the h21an intellect has Mthings intelligible by their nat2re as an obGect of tho2ghtM at the c2l1ination of its develop1ent';- The1isti2s posited an intert(ining of the active intellect (ith the h21an 1aterial intellect as a prereJ2isite of all h21an tho2ghtH and (hen disc2ssing the possibility of 1anIs having incorporeal s2bstances as an obGect of tho2ght, he p2t for(ard the follo(ing a fortiori arg21ent< Since the h21an intellect Mcan think for1s 1i*ed (ith 1atter Qthat is, for1s of physical obGects, (hich have to be abstracted fro1 their 1aterial s2bstrataR, it plainly is 1ore likely to be s2ch as to think incorporeal things,M (hich are intelligible by their nat2re and are ready to be tho2ght (itho2t having to be abstracted';/ Alfarabi and Ibn 0aGGa held that at the c2l1ination of its develop1ent, the h21an intellect has the active intellect as an obGect of tho2ght and conGoins (ith the active intellect';; Avicenna 2nderstood conG2nction (ith the active intellect to be a prereJ2isite for all h21an tho2ght, b2t in addition he too recogniEed a c2l1inating state in (hich the h21an intellect enters into a MperfectM and Mper1anent conG2nctionM (ith the active intellect' And he also recogniEed the possibility of the h21an intellectIs having the active intellect as an obGect of tho2ght';@ The positions taken by these philosophers (ere not in co1plete har1ony' Alfarabi and Avicenna, for e*a1ple, did not vie( conG2nction as a conseJ2ence of having the active intellect as an obGect of tho2ght, and they stressed that h21an intellects in conG2nction (ith the active intellect re1ain distinct fro1 it' Ibn 0aGGa did take conG2nction to be a conseJ2ence of having the active intellect as an obGect of tho2ght' And he held fast to the r2le that intellect is identical (ith (hatever tho2ght it thinks, and therefore concl2ded that a h21an intellect having the active intellect as an obGect of tho2ght and hence conGoined (ith the active intellect is rendered identical (ith the active intellect' $ot(ithstanding the differences, Averroes heard a choir of s2pport for the possibility of both of the pheno1ena (e are considering' AlfarabiIs Co11entary on the $ico1achean Ethics (as the only dissenting philosophic voice kno(n to Averroes' Ibn 0aGGa reported that certain scholars had read AlfarabiIs Co11entary on the $ico1achean Ethics as reGecting the i11ortality of the h21an so2l;>H Ibn T2fail e*pressly stated that the Co11entary on the $ico1achean Ethics dis1issed i11ortality as an old (ivesI tale;7H and Averroes Above, pp' ;78;?' Above, pp' ;A8;.' ;/ See above, pp' ;.8@6' ;; Above, pp' >@, 7., -@>' ;@ Above, pp' -6;8>' ;> Above, p' ?-' ;7 Above, p' ?-' ;- ;6
;/;
reports that the Co11entary on the $ico1achean Ethics reGected not G2st i11ortality b2t also the pheno1enon that, he 2nderstood, brings it abo2tBCDthe conG2nction of the h21an intellect (ith the active intellect' Averroes 1ay at first have been 2ns2re abo2t the possibility of the h21an intellectIs having the active intellect as an obGect of tho2ght and conGoining (ith it' His Epito1e of AristotleIs Metaphysics e*hibits skepticis1 abo2t the possibility, and the body of his Epito1e of AristotleIs %e ani1a broaches the s2bGect (itho2t co11itting itself to one side or the other' 0y contrast, an appendi* to the Epito1e of the %e ani1a, AverroesI ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a, his ong Co11entary on the Metaphysics, and his three op2sc2les on conG2nction all affir1 the possibility of the t(in pheno1ena' His Co11entary on the %e intellect2 presents the case in favor of the possibility, and tacitly conc2rs' In each instance, having the active intellect as an obGect of tho2ght is the 1eans to conG2nction, and conG2nction is, as in Ibn 0aGGa, the goal' The 1eaning Averroes attaches to conG2nction variesH and the ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a in partic2lar, since it constr2es the h21an 1aterial intellect not as an aspect of the h21an organis1 b2t as a single eternal s2bstance serving all 1ankind, has to rethink the (hole s2bGect' The arg21ents Averroes advances also vary fro1 (ork to (ork, and the (ays in (hich he handles the challenge of AlfarabiIs Co11entary on the $ico1achean Ethics do so as (ell' )et once his initial hesitation passes, he tenacio2sly 2pholds the possibility of conG2nction in so1e for1 or other' If it (ere legiti1ate to speak of dog1as in Averroes, the possibility of conG2nction (ith the active intellect (o2ld rank high on the list' To define the iss2e, Averroes add2ces the Aristotelian distinction bet(een different senses of ca2se' Three of the fo2r Aristotelian ca2ses;? co1e into play' The iss2e of MconG2nction,M Averroes (rites, co1es do(n to the J2estion (hether the active intellect is the ca2se of the h21an M1aterial intellectIs beco1ing an act2al intellect' ' ' 1erely as an efficient Qca2seR and 1over,' '' like the light of the s2n, (hich ' ' ' leads Qthe potential po(er of visionR to act2ality' ''' Or (hether perhaps it QalsoR is a ca2se as for1 and end Qthat is, as ^ for1al and final ca2se of the h21an 1aterial intellectR, in the (ay that the incorporeal intelligences stand to the so2ls of the celestial spheres'M The intelligences are the for1al ca2ses of the so2ls of the spheres Minas12ch as ''' the concept Qof the intelligence possessed by the so2l of each sphereR ' ' ' perfectsM the sphereIs so2lH and they are the final ca2ses of the so2ls of the spheres inas12ch as the MdesireM that the so2l of each sphere has Mto i1itateM the acco1panying intelligence 1otivates the sphereIs so2l to perfor1 its proper act';A The iss2e of conG2nction th2s red2ces itself to the Aristotle, ,hysics /';' %rei Abhandl2ngen 9n' / above:, Hebre( te*t ;8@H !er1an translation ;8>' I have corrected the Hebre( te*t (ith the aid of the version in Ibn TibbonIs Co11entary on Ecclesiastes, ,ar1a, Hebre( MS /?/ 9/-A/:' The second of the three Abhandl2ngen defines the iss2e in si1ilar ter1sH see%rei Abhandl2ngen, Hebre( te*t --H !er1an translation >-' AverroesI ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a 9n' -6 above: >6/, does so as (ell' And the sa1e (ay of p2tting the iss2e is
;A ;?
;/@
J2estion (hether the h21an 1aterial intellect can ever enter into a relationship (ith the active intellect (herein the latter beco1es the 1aterial intellectIs for1al ca2se, by virt2e of the 1aterial intellectIs acJ2iring a concept of the active intellect (hich beco1es its 2lti1ate for1, and (hether the t(o can enter into a relationship (herein the active intellect serves as the 1aterial intellectIs final ca2se, by inspiring in the 1aterial intellect a desire to rese1ble the active intellect';. Khat is pivotal for Averroes is the first half of the J2estionBCD(hether the active intellect can beco1e the 1aterial intellectIs for1al ca2se by virt2e of the 1aterial intellectIs acJ2iring a concept of it' If s2ch sho2ld occ2r, the 1aterial intellect (o2ld be conGoined (ith the active intellect' As already 1entioned, Averroes evinces hesitation in his Epito1e of the Metaphysics' That (as a (ork containing AverroesI early acceptance of the e1anation of the incorporeal intelligences fro1 one another and the e1anation of a range of s2bl2nar for1s fro1 the active intellect' In the Epito1e of the Metaphysics, Averroes (rites that h21an concepts have M1aterial things''' as QtheirR 2nderlying s2bstrat21MH in other (ords, h21an concepts are rooted in perceptions of obGects belonging to the 1aterial real1'@6 Even the Mintelligible tho2ght that 1an has of the principles Qthat is, of incorporeal s2bstancesR, he has (ith referenceM to things in the 1aterial (orldH h21an intelligible tho2ghts regarding the incorporeal s2bstances gro( o2t of concepts that are rooted in sense perceptions and therefore they too are 2lti1ately rooted in sense perceptions' MSo1e philosophers QJa(1R did believe that 1anIs intellect can have a conception of the essence of the active intellect as it tr2ly is, (ith the res2lt that (e (o2ld beco1e identical (ith the active intellect'M Sho2ld that occ2r, ho(ever, Mthe effect (o2ld beco1e identical (ith the ca2se'M Averroes is i1plying the follo(ing reasoning< Since intellect is identical (ith (hatever tho2ght it thinks, the h21an all2ded to in AverroesI ong Co11entary on the Metaphysics -/, co11' ;AH Arabic te*t 9n' /- above: -7-/' ;. The Epistle on the ,ossibility of ConG2nction 9n' /above:, (hich breathes a different spirit fro1 AverroesI other (orks, also plays on the notion that the active intellect can serve as the h21an intellectIs final ca2seH see ibid' 4T-@, pp' --68--' Epistle 4T@, and 4T>, pp' ;>8;7, defines the iss2e (ith the aid of a distinction bet(een perfection of e*istence or conG2nction of e*istence, on the one hand, and perfection of cognition or conG2nction of cognition 9hassagaXidrak:, on the other' AverroesBCDif (e accept the Epistle as a gen2ine (ork of hisBCDreasons that (hen one considers any t(o s2ccessive levels in the so2l, s2ch as the fac2lty of sensation and the i1aginative fac2lty, one finds that the lo(er is perfected by the higher and conGoins (ith it in respect to e*istence, inas12ch as the lo(er serves as 1atter for the higher, (hich is its for1' And the higher is perfected by the lo(er and conGoins (ith it in respect to cognition, inas12ch as the higher has the lo(er as an obGect of perceptionH the i1aginative fac2lty, for e*a1ple, has sense perceptions as the obGect of its perception' The iss2e of conG2nction (ith the active intellect is red2ced to the J2estion (hether the h21an intellect can enGoy conG2nction (ith the active intellect not only in respect to e*istence b2t also, despite standing at a level
belo( the active intellect, by having cognition of it' @6 Cf' above, pp' /7787?'
;/>
intellect (o2ld, if it had the active intellect as the obGect of its tho2ght, beco1e identical (ith the active intellectBCDand s2ch in fact (as Ibn 0aGGaIs stanceH b2t the active intellect is the h21an intellectIs ca2se, both inas12ch as it e1anates h21an so2ls endo(ed (ith h21an intellects and as it leads h21an intellects to act2alityH if the h21an intellect had the active intellect as an obGect of tho2ght it (o2ld conseJ2ently beco1e identical (ith its ca2se' A fe( lines later, Averroes treats the possibility of an effectIs beco1ing identical (ith its ca2se as abs2rd'@- The present co1position th2s appears to reGect the possibility of the h21an intellectIs having the active intellect as an obGect of tho2ght and thereby conGoining (ith the active intellectBCDat least in the sense of beco1ing identical (ith the active intellect, (hich is the only sense Averroes here takes notice of' I did not see (hy Averroes failed to conte1plate the possibility of the h21an intellectIs gaining a concept of the active intellect in the (ay that the so2l of each celestial sphere gains a concept of the corresponding intelligence, (hile re1aining distinct fro1 the intelligence' In the series of (orks (here Averroes 2pholds the other side of the iss2e and does affir1 the possibility of conG2nction (ith the active intellect, he borro(s arg21ents fro1 Ale*anderIs %e intellect2, fro1 The1isti2s, and fro1 Ibn 0aGGa' AverroesI version of the %e intellect2Is arg21ent@/ begins by ass21ing three 1o1ents in sense perception< Ma recipient, that is, the sense fac2ltyH (hat is received, that is, the perceptionH and a 1over, that is, the act2al obGect of sensation Qe*istingR o2tside the so2l'M In the 1ost pertinent instance, vision, the 1over and act2al obGect of sensation is light' MThere 12st,M by analogy, Mbe three Q1o1entsR of the sa1e sort in intellect< a receptive intellect,''' that is, the 1aterial Qh21an intellectRH an intelligible tho2ght, that is, the theoretical Qintellect, to (it, the act2al tho2ght present in the h21an intellectRH and an agent, that is, the incorporeal intellect'M The arg21ent, as Averroes fleshes it o2t, needs t(o f2rther pre1ises' A pre1ise Mentailed byM the analogy bet(een intellect and sense perception M12st be added,''' na1ely, that since the sense fac2lty can receive the act2al obGect of sensation Qas (hen the sense of vision perceives lightR, the potential intellect sho2ld be able to receive the act2al intellect, that is, the incorporeal QintellectR'M And another Mpre1ise, to the tr2th of (hich everyone assents, 12st also be added, na1ely, that everything potential and capable of being so1ething (ill at so1e ti1e or other necessarily pass to act2ality and beco1e the thing act2allyMH every Epito1e of the Metaphysics 9n' ; above: @, 4T@AH !er1an translation -/?8/A' #an den 0ergh, n' @ to p' -/? of the translation, ass21es that Averroes is here reGecting conG2nction' In the body of the Epito1e of the %e ani1a 9n' / above: A., Spanish translation /-;, Averroes (rites< MIt is believed that having the active intellect as an obGect of tho2ght is possible for 2s at the c2l1ination Qof o2r intellect2al develop1entRH''' (e (o2ld thereby necessarily receive an eternal intelligible tho2ght '''''This state is (hat is kno(n as 2nion or conG2nction'M The te*t does not take a definite stand on the iss2e' @/ "or the arg21ent, see above, p' //' The intent of the original %e intellect2 (as al1ost s2rely that the h21an 1aterial intellect has (hat
is intelligible by its very nat2re as an obGect of tho2ght fro1 the o2tset, G2st as light beco1es an obGect of sight as soon as the eye sees' @-
;/7
potentiality is event2ally act2aliEed'@; "ro1 the three pre1isesBCDone of the 1o1ents in h21an tho2ght is an act2al incorporeal intellect e*isting independently of the h21an intellect and serving as the agent in the tho2ght process, the h21an intellect has the potentiality of receiving that incorporeal intellect as an obGect of its tho2ght, and every potentiality is event2ally act2aliEedBCDMthe concl2sion necessarily follo(s that at so1e ti1e a potential Qh21anR intellect (ill beco1e identical (ith the act2al intellect'M Khereas the arg21ent in Ale*anderIs %e intellect2 established that the h21an 1aterial intellect has an act2al intellect and, specifically, the active intellect as an obGect of tho2ght as soon as 1an begins to think, Averroes 2nderstands the arg21ent to establish that the h21an intellect has the active intellect as an obGect of tho2ght at its c2l1ination' MThe active intellect conseJ2ently is ca2se of the Qact2aliEation of theR 1aterial intellect not solely as an agent, b2t also by (ay of being the 1aterial intellectIs final perfection, as its for1 and end Qthat is, as a for1al and final ca2seR'M@@ The 1aterial intellect can develop to a point (here it gains the active intellect as an obGect of tho2ght, receives the active intellect as its for1, and beco1es one (ith the active intellect' Averroes offers (hat he calls MThe1isti2sM ' ' ' tr2e '' ' de1onstrationM of the possibility of conG2nction (ith the active intellect in t(o versions'@> The version 1ore faithf2l to The1isti2s r2ns< MIf o2r intellect can think (hat is not in itself intellect, it sho2ld a fortiori be able to think (hat is in itself intellect'M That is, if it can have for1s that are not intrinsically intelligible and only beco1e so (hen abstracted fro1 1atter as an obGect of tho2ght, it sho2ld a fortiori be able to have the active intellect, (hich is intrinsically intelligible, as an obGect of tho2ght' The other version foc2ses on the obGect, rather than the s2bGect, of h21an tho2ght and goes< M,hysical beingsM are rendered Mintelligible Qto the h21an intellectR by the incorporeal intellectMH an agent Mgives only (hat is si1ilar to that (hich it has in its o(n s2bstanceMH hence the incorporeal intellect that is the ca2se of the intelligibility of other things, Mis 1ore likely to be intelligible Qto the h21an intellectR than (hat is rendered intelligible thro2gh it'M@7 To be 1ore precise, every potentiality in a species (ill co1e to act2ality in so1e 1e1ber, b2t not necessarily in all 1e1bers, of the species' @@ %rei Abhandl2ngen 9n' / above:, Hebre( te*t ?8AH !er1an translation ;-8;7' The arg21ent is also given in the co1panion op2sc2le, %rei Abhandl2ngen, Hebre( te*t -68--H !er1an translation @A8>-' There, ho(ever, Averroes s2pple1ents the arg21ent (ith additional considerations' AverroesI Co11entary on the %e intellect2 9n' / above: /->8-7, presents the arg21ent, e*plains (hy the analogy bet(een sensation and intelligible tho2ght does not sho( that the h21an intellect Mhas the QactiveR intellect as an obGect of tho2ght fro1 the o2tsetM b2t only at the c2l1ination of its develop1ent, and tacitly conc2rs in the arg21ent' @> "or The1isti2sI arg21ent, see above, p' @6' @7 %rei Abhandl2ngen, Hebre( te*t ?8AH !er1an translation /., ;?8;A' The second version of the arg21ent is also given in the co1panion op2sc2le, %rei Abhandl2ngen, Hebre( te*t -/H !er1an translation >/, (here Averroes 2ses it to ans(er a possible obGection to the proof borro(ed fro1 the %e intellect2' Averroes also records the arg21ent, in
its original version, in his Epito1e of the %e ani1a 9n' / above: A.' In his ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a @A?@;
;/?
Averroes infor1s 2s that Ibn 0aGGa had t(o arg21ents for the possibility of the h21an intellectIs conGoining (ith the active intellect'@? The p2blished (orks of Ibn 0aGGa preserve only one of the t(o arg21ents, and it happens to be the one that attracted 1ost of AverroesI attention' Averroes cites it several ti1es, so1eti1es, b2t not al(ays, na1ing Ibn 0aGGa as the a2thor, and he once characteriEes it as, Mby 1y life, apodictic'M@A The co1position of AverroesI giving the arg21ent 1ost straightfor(ardly, a co1position that happens not to na1e Ibn 0aGGa as the so2rce, starts (ith the proposition< MThe proper f2nction of intellect is to render (hat is accidentally 1any, essentially one'M That is to say, fro1 physical obGects belonging to a single species, the h21an intellect abstracts the co11on for1, (hich (hile accidentally 1any (hen 1anifested in the individ2al 1e1bers of the species, is essentially and in itself one' Altho2gh it recovers the 2nity latent in pl2rality, ordinary Mintelligible tho2ght''' is obvio2sly still'' ' affected by accidental pl2ralityMH for h21an concepts are linked to i1ages presented by individ2al i1aginative fac2lties, M1yM concept, Mfor e*a1ple, Qbeing linkedR to different i1ages fro1M those to (hich yo2r concept is linked' After the initial act of abstraction, s2ccessively 1ore 2nified levels of abstraction are, ho(ever, possible, and Ma ti1e 12st arrive (hen the 1aterial intellect strips a(ay the QfinalR aspect of pl2rality,M (hen it transcends its link to i1ages in a partic2lar i1aginative fac2lty' Individ2ality then disappears fro1 h21an tho2ght, and all h21an intellects think the identical tho2ght that other intellects at the sa1e level think' They all 2nite in a single tho2ght, (hich, since it has no link (hatsoever to any i1age, Averroes ass21es to be nothing other than an i11ediate concept of the active intellect'@. The rationale for this last ass21ption co2ld be that the active intellect co1prises in itself, indeed consists in, a single concept representing the str2ct2re of the s2bl2nar (orld, and the tho2ght 1an attains at the highest level of abstraction 12st be e*actly the sa1e, allco1prehensive concept'
AA, Averroes (rites that The1isti2sI arg21ent is de1onstrative only (hen the 1aterial intellect is taken to be an incorporeal being' @? Averroes, Epito1e of the %e ani1a .-H Spanish translation /->8-7 9i1precise:H ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a 9n' -6 above: @.-' @A "or Ibn 0aGGaIs state1ent of the arg21ent, see above, p' -@>, n' -6@' VEpistle on the ,ossibility of ConG2nction 9n' /- above: 4T--, p' ?., (itho2t 1ention of Ibn 0aGGa' The arg21ent is also given in AverroesI Epito1e of the %e ani1a .-8.@, Spanish translation /-78-., (hich is an appendi* to the body of the Epito1e' There Averroes na1es Ibn 0aGGa as the a2thor of the arg21ent and characteriEes it as Mby 1y life, apodictic,M b2t the preserved te*ts do not bring the arg21ent to a clear8c2t concl2sion' The t(o versions disclose identical secondary 1otifs, 1ost notably, a reference to the error of the S2fis, (ho tho2ght that they co2ld attain conG2nction (itho2t 2ndergoing the reJ2isite scientific preparation' The arg21ent is also recorded in the ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a @.-8./, again in Ibn 0aGGaIs na1e, b2t the ong Co11entary does not find it to be cogent'
;/A
The foregoing arg21ents, borro(ed fro1 Ale*anderIs %e intellect2, fro1 The1isti2s, and fro1 Ibn 0aGGa, are the pri1ary gro2nds>6 that AverroesI (orks give for the possibility of the h21an intellectIs having the active intellect as an obGect of tho2ght and thereby conGoining (ith the active intellect' Averroes also responds to the challenge thro(n do(n by AlfarabiIs Co11entary on the $ico1achean Ethics, and he does so 1ost f2lly in the three co1positions that he devoted specifically to the s2bGect of conG2nction' T(o of the three co1positions agree on (hat AlfarabiIs obGection (as, altho2gh disagreeing in their responses, (hile the third credits Alfarabi (ith a co1pletely different obGection' The t(o for1er co1positions report that AlfarabiIs Co11entary on the $ico1achean Ethics r2led o2t conG2nction (ith the active intellect beca2se of the Aristotelian principle that nothing generated can beco1e eternal'>- Alfarabi, according to the t(o co1positions, ass21ed that the h21an 1aterial intellect co1es into e*istence' If the 1aterial intellect sho2ld have the active intellect as the obGect of its tho2ght, it (o2ld perforce beco1e MidenticalM (ith the active intellect, and thereby be rendered Meternal'M The s2pposition that so1ething generated beco1es eternal is, ho(ever, e*cl2ded by the Aristotelian principle' Alfarabi, Averroes reports, therefore reGected the possibility of the h21an intellectIs having the active intellect as an obGect of tho2ght and conGoining (ith it'>/ In one of the t(o co1positions crediting Alfarabi (ith the foregoing reasoning, Averroes responds that the h21an 1aterial intellect is not in fact a generated obGect and is hence e*e1pt fro1 the r2le abo2t generated obGectsI not beco1ing eternal' And, he contends, it 1akes no difference (hich constr2ction of the 1aterial intellect one accepts' On the thesis that the 1aterial intellect is an incorporeal s2bstance, the 1aterial intellect obvio2sly is not generated' 02t even on the contrary thesis, according to (hich the 1aterial intellect is a disposition in the h21an organis1BCD Ale*anderIs vie( and a vie( endorsed by Averroes in his early careerBCDthe 1aterial intellect is still not generated' On the latter thesis, the h21an 1aterial intellect Mhas no nat2re e*cept that of possibility and disposition'M It conseJ2ently is not an act2ally Me*istentM obGect and, not being act2ally e*istent, cannot properly be described as Mhaving co1e into e*istence,M despite its happening to e1erge at a given point in ti1e' Since the 1aterial intellect, ho(ever constr2ed, is not a generated obGect, it does not fall 2nder the Aristotelian r2le abo2t generated obGectsI
> MThe Epistle on the ,ossibility of ConG2nction has si* arg21ents' One of the1 is Ibn 0aGGaIs arg21ent, and the others are dialectical arg21ents 2niJ2e to the Epistle' >- Aristotle, %e caelo -'-/' >/ %rei Abhandl2ngen 9n' / above: 78A, -;H !er1an translation /?8/A, ;?, >;8>@' Averroes also conGect2resBCDHebre( te*t .H !er1an translation @7BCDthat in his old age, Alfarabi beca1e skeptical abo2t the possibility of conG2nction, beca2se he had failed to achieve it' The (orks of Alfarabi (hich espo2sed a theory of conG2nction (ith the active intellect did not, in fact, hold that conG2nction entails the identity of the h21an intellect (ith the active intellect' See above, pp' >@, 7.'
;/.
not beco1ing eternalH and AlfarabiIs charge that conG2nction (o2ld lead to the abs2rdity of a generated obGectIs beco1ing eternal loses its cogency'>; In the second co1position crediting Alfarabi (ith the sa1e gro2nds for reGecting conG2nction, Averroes takes another tack' He ackno(ledges that the 1aterial intellect is indeed Mgenerated,M b2t no( he co2nters that the generated 1aterial intellect does not beco1e eternal in its o(n right' It beco1es eternal by Minter1i*ingM (ith, and receiving, so1ething Mintrinsically 2ngenerated and indestr2ctible,M that is, by co1bining (ith the 2ngenerated active intellect' Averroes goes no f2rther, leaving 2s (ith the 1ere assertion that since the 1aterial intellect gains eternity thro2gh the eternal being (ith (hich it co1bines, rather than thro2gh itself, it so1eho( avoids the i1possibility of generated obGectsI beco1ing eternal'>@ The third of AverroesI co1positions dealing specifically (ith the s2bGect of conG2nction is kno(n as the Epistle on the ,ossibility of ConG2nction' Here Averroes 1entions the Aristotelian r2le abo2t generated thingsI not beco1ing eternal and that r2leIs bearing on conG2nction,>> b2t he credits AlfarabiIs Co11entary on the $ico1achean Ethics (ith a different reason for reGecting conG2nction of the h21an intellect (ith the active intellect' The reason he no( reports is that if the h21an intellect co2ld receive both Mintelligible tho2ghts derived fro1 1aterial obGectsM as (ell as MQdirect tho2ghts ofR incorporeal intelligences,M it (o2ld be a disposition receptive of dia1etrically opposite kinds of tho2ght' )et Ma single disposition cannot, by its nat2re, receive t(o different things, nay dia1etrically opposite things'M ConseJ2ently, the h21an intellect cannot have the for1s of both physical and incorporeal beings as the obGect of its tho2ght' The passage in the Epistle recording the obGection calls it Mthe strongest that can be raisedM against conG2nction'>7 Once again Averroes is not at a loss for an ans(er' He accepts the pre1ise that a single disposition for tho2ght can receive tho2ghts of only one kind' He s2b1its, ho(ever, that 1en possess t(o separate h21an dispositions for tho2ght, a disposition for receiving intelligible tho2ghts of physical obGects, and a disposition for having incorporeal beings as an obGect of tho2ght' The first disposition 1akes its deb2t at infancy, (hereas the second appears at the c2l1ination of h21an intellect2al develop1ent, as an acco1pani1ent of a 1anIs 1astery of all the philosophic sciences' Since not one b2t t(o separate dispositions are operative, >;%rei Abhandl2ngen, Hebre( te*t 7, follo(ing the reading of MS AH !er1an translation //8
/?' Averroes 1ay havein 1ind AristotleIs re1arks abo2t things that, altho2gh not generated, e*ist after not e*istingH see Aristotle, Metaphysics A'>' 90ro2ght to 1y attention by Michael 0la2steinIs Harvard doctoral dissertation, Averroes on the I1agination and the Intellect /@@': >@ %rei Abhandl2ngen, Hebre( te*t -;8-@H !er1an translation >>' The f2ll arg21ent Is longer and ra1bles so1e(hat, b2t I co2ld not see that it says anything 1ore than (hat I have given in the te*t' >>Epistle on the ,ossibility of ConG2nction 9n' /- above: 4TA, pp' >68>-' >7 Ibid' 4T-@, p' -6A'
;;6
each receptive of its o(n class of intelligible tho2ght, the ne( obGection to the h21an 1aterial intellectIs having the active intellect as an obGect of tho2ght, and thereby conGoining (ith the active intellect, also 1isses the 1ark'>? The concl2sion Averroes dra(s in at least seven co1positions, on divers gro2nds and (ith divers reb2ttals of the de12rring vie(, is that the h21an intellect can attain a cro(ning state in (hich it has the active intellect as the obGect of its tho2ght and conGoins (ith the active intellect' So1eti1es, Averroes represents conG2nction as a condition (herein the h21an intellect beco1es identical (ith the active intellect'>A So1eti1es, he indicates that it is a condition (herein the h21an intellect has the active intellect as the obGect of its tho2ght, b2t that the tho2ght entering into the h21an intellect is not identical (ith the active intellect, and therefore the 1aterial intellect re1ains distinct'>. And so1eti1es he does not indicate e*actly (hat he 2nderstands by conG2nction'76 He gives t(o e*planations of the 1anner (hereby conG2nction is achieved< an e*planation borro(ed fro1 Ibn 0aGGa and disc2ssed earlier in this section (hich i1plies that the state of conG2nction renders the h21an intellect identical (ith the active intellect, and another offered in the ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a and to be disc2ssed belo( (hich does not carry that i1plication' ConG2nction (ith the active intellect occ2rs, in AverroesI several acco2nts, d2ring the life of the body and not in the hereafter' $one of the acco2nts envisions anything ecstatic or properly 1ystical in the conG2nction of the h21an intellect (ith the active intellect' The ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a, (hich belongs to the last stage of AverroesI tho2ght, is one of the (orks espo2sing a doctrine of conG2nction' There Averroes falls into a predica1ent fro1 (hich he has tro2ble e*tricating hi1self' ike other (orks of Averroes, the ong Co11entary defines the iss2e as the J2estion (hether the active intellect is Mrelated to 1an as QbothR for1 and efficient ca2se, not as efficient ca2se alone'M7- AlfarabiIs MCo11entary on the $ico1achean EthicsM Averroes reports one 1ore ti1e, Mappears to have reGected conG2nction (ith incorporeal beingsM and to have denied Mthat the h21an end is anything other than theoretical perfection Qin this lifeR'M>/ Altho2gh Alfarabi had hi1self once e1braced the belief in conG2nction, he (as, (hen (riting the Co11entary on the $ico1achean Ethics, led to rep2diate the belief by an Ibid' -6A8-6' %rei Abhandl2ngen 9n' / above:, Hebre( te*t ?H !er1an translation ;> 9p' ;>, line -, 1isses the point, (hich is that the 1aterial intellect beco1es the active intellect:H Epito1e of the %e ani1a, appendi* .- taken together (ith .>H Spanish translation /->, //6' VEpistle on the ,ossibility of ConG2nction 4T>, p' ;> 9in the state of MconG2nction,M the h21an intellect Min a certain respect beco1es one of the eternal incorporeal beingsM:H Co11entary on %e intellect2 9n' / above: /-@H ong Co11entary on the Metaphysics 9n' /- above: -7-/8-;' 76 %rei Abhandl2ngen, Hebre( te*t -@H !er1an translation >>' 7- ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a >6/' 7/ Ibid' @;;' >s >?
;;-
arg21ent (ith (hich (e are fa1iliar' He reasonedBCDaccording to the acco2nt in AverroesI ong Co11entary on the %e ani1aBCDthat the h21an 1aterial intellect is generated, that if it Msho2ld '' ' have incorporeal for1s as an obGect of tho2ght and beco1e one (ith the1,M it (o2ld be rendered eternal, (hereas Ma generateddestr2ctible s2bstanceM cannot be transfor1ed into so1ething eternal'7; Alfarabi therefore MfinallyM arrived at the Mopinion ''' that the active intellect is solely the efficient ca2se Qof h21an tho2ghtRM b2t never its for1al ca2se, that the h21an intellect cannot have the active intellect as an obGect of tho2ght and enter into conG2nction (ith the active intellect'7@ Khereas AverroesI earlier (orks devised stratage1s to evade AlfarabiIs challenge, the ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a concedes that AlfarabiIs reasoning (as (atertight after all< MAnyone (ho ass21es the 1aterial intellect to be generated8destr2ctible can, it see1s to 1e, discover no nat2ral (ay for 1an to conGoin (ith the incorporeal intelligences'M7> ,hilosophers (ho, like Ale*ander and Ibn 0aGGa, constr2ed the h21an 1aterial intellect as a disposition generated together (ith the h21an organis1, (ere th2s g2ilty of inconsistency (hen they also affir1ed the possibility of conG2nction'77 Averroes neglects to 1ention that his o(n earlier (orks like(ise constr2ed the 1aterial intellect as a disposition generated together (ith the individ2al 1an, and hence they too (ere, fro1 the vantage point of the ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a, g2ilty of inconsistency (hen they affir1ed the possibility of conG2nction (ith the active intellect' 0y constr2ing the 1aterial intellect as a s2bstance eternal and incorporeal by its very nat2re, the ong Co11entary obvio2sly sidesteps the obGection that conG2nction of the 1aterial intellect (ith the active intellect (o2ld entail a generated 1aterial intellectIs beco1ing eternal' 02t it re1ains to be sho(n ho( the conG2nction of an eternal 1aterial intellect (ith an eternal active intellect can profit individ2al 1en (ho play o2t their lives on the te1poral stage' The ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a str2ggles to f2rnish an e*planation' Adapting an arg21ent of The1isti2sI (hich (e have already 1et, Averroes contends that the eternal 1aterial intellect has the active intellect as an obGect of its tho2ghtH and his intent, if I 2nderstood hi1 correctly, is that the 1aterial intellect enGoys s2ch cognition in its o(n right, on the eternal and transcendent plane'7? AverroesI present version of The1isti2sI arg21ent goes< Inas12ch as the 1aterial intellect is Meternal a n d ' ' ' able to be perfected by 1aterial for1s, it is all the 1ore likely to be perfected by non1aterial for1s, for1s that are in the1selves intelligible'M The 1aterial intellect conseJ2ently Mhas the active intellect, (hich 7; 7@
Ibid' @A-' Si1ilarly on >6/' Ibid' @A-8A>, @AA8A., ref2tes the arg21ents for the possibility of conG2nction given by Ale*ander and by the %e intellect2 attrib2ted to Ale*ander' Ibid' @.@8.>, ref2tes Ibn 0aGGaIs arg21ents' 7? See above, p' /./, n' ->@'
77
7>
Ibid' @A-' Ibid' @A>'
;;/
stands to i t ' ' ' in the (ay light stands to the transparent Q1edi21R, as an QeternalR obGect of tho2ght'M And (hen it does so, the 1aterial intellect and active intellect are Mone'M7A Averroes, if he is being consistent, can hardly 1ean that having the active intellect as an obGect of tho2ght renders the 1aterial intellect tr2ly identical (ith the active intellect' "or if the 1aterial intellect (ere rendered identical (ith the active intellect, it (o2ld have been rendered so fro1 all eternity, and there (o2ld in fact be not t(o eternal intellects, the 1aterial and active, b2t only one' Since, as (as seen in the previo2s chapter,7. the single 1aterial intellect co11on to all 1ankind is linked to individ2al 1en thro2gh their i1aginative fac2lties, individ2al 1en can, thro2gh their i1aginative fac2lties, participate in the 1aterial intellectIs i11ediate tho2ght of the active intellect' MAt the o2tset,M the 1aterial intellect is Mnot Goined to 1an in the respectM (e are considering, that is, insofar as the 1aterial intellect has the active intellect as an obGect of tho2ght' The 1aterial intellect does, ho(ever, beco1e Goined to 1an in the critical respect, insofar as it has the active intellect as an obGect of tho2ght, M(hen the develop1ent of the Qh21anR intellect in habit2 is co1plete,M that is to say, 2pon 1anIs 1astering a f2ll corp2s of theoretical tho2ght'?6 MKhen the 1aterial intellect is Goined Q(ith 1anR in the respect (herein it is perfected thro2gh the active intellect, 1an is Goined (ith the active intellectH and the condition is called ''' acJ2ired intellect'M?- In a (ord, individ2al 1en tap into the 1aterial intellectIs tho2ght of the active intellect by developing their o(n intellects in habit2, by acJ2iring a co1plete corp2s of intelligible tho2ghts' It still re1ains to be sho(n ho( the link bet(een the 1aterial intellect and the h21an so2l allo(s the latter to participate in the tho2ght that the eternal 1aterial intellect has of the eternal active intellect, and (hy the link allo(s the h21an so2l to do so only after 1an develops his intellect, and not fro1 the o2tset' Averroes pro1ises to provide an e*planation Mlater,M?/ and a later section of the ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a does 2ndertake to f2lfill the pro1ise' I fo2nd the e*planation to be far fro1 crystal clear, b2t Averroes see1s to be saying the follo(ing' In all instances M(here a single act is perfor1ed by the co1po2nd of t(o distinct beings, one of the t(o 12st be a sort of 1atter or instr21ent QJ2asi 1ateria et instr21ent21], and the other a sort of for1 or agent QJ2asi for1a a2t agensR'M Since ne( h21an tho2ght co1es abo2t thro2gh an interaction of intellect in Ibid' @>68>-' On pp' @A?8AA, Averroes (rites that The1isti2sI a fortiori arg21ent is de1onstrative only (hen the 1aterial intellect is taken to be an incorporeal being, (hile if the 1aterial intellect is taken to be a destr2ctible obGect, the arg21ent is 1erely rhetorical and Mpers2asive'M 7. Above, pp' /A.8/.6' ?6 Ibid' @>6' A definition of intellect in habit2 as an individ2al 1anIs corp2s of theoretical tho2ghts co1es o2t of ong Co11entary @.78..' On the ter1 intellect in habit2, see above, p' -6' ?Ibid' @--' ?/ Ibid' @--,@>6' 7A
;;;
habit2BCDthe corp2s of h21an intelligible tho2ghts already e*isting at a given 1o1entBCDand the active intellect, those t(o intellects 12st play the roles of 1atter and for1' MIntellect in habit2M 12st be the M1atterM or, if one prefer, the Minstr21entM in disc2rsive tho2ght of the (orld, (hile the Mactive intellectM is the Mfor1M or, if one prefer, the Magent'M?; $o(, Averroes contin2es, if the eternal active intellect and tho2ghts constit2ting intellect in habit2 (ere related as for1 to 1atterBCDor as agent to instr21entBCDin the strict sense, so1ething generated8destr2ctible (o2ld serve as the 1atter, or instr21ent, of so1ething eternal' And a sit2ation of s2ch a sort is Mi1possible'M Intellect in habit2 cannot therefore be a Mtr2e 1atter,M or Mtr2e instr21ent'M Intellect in habit2 and active intellect 12st stand to each other 1erely in the MrelationM of 1atter to for1, not as a gen2ine 1atter to a gen2ine for1' The one 12st be 1atter, and the other for1, in no 1ore than a loose sense' %eter1ining Mthe respectM in (hich they are related as 1atter and for1 (ill 1ake it Measy to 2nderstand the respect in (hich the h21an intellect in habit2 conGoins (ith the incorporeal intelligences'M?@ Intellect in habit2, the corp2s of already acJ2ired theoretical tho2ghts, and the active intellect 1eet thanks to the eternal 1aterial intellect, (hich acts as their co11on Ms2bGect'M The 1aterial intellect Mhas as an obGect of tho2ght QintellegitR both ''' the for1s of 1aterial QthingsR and incorporeal for1s,M both the Mtheoretical intelligible tho2ghts Qconstit2ting intellect in habit2] and the active intellect,M in a 1anner analogo2s to that in (hich Mthe transparent Qvis2al 1edi21R ' ' ' receives color and light at the sa1e ti1e'M And (henever t(o things present in the sa1e s2bGect are so related that one of the t(o is the MperfectionM of the other, Mthe relation of the 1ore perfect to the less perfect is like Qsic2tR that of for1 to 1atter'M Here then is the sense in (hich the active intellect is the for1 of the corp2s of tho2ghts constit2ting intellect in habit2< The active intellect and theoretical tho2ght abstracted fro1 the physical (orld 1eet in a co11on s2bGect, inas12ch as the 1aterial intellect has both as an obGect of tho2ghtH (ithin the 1aterial intellect, the active intellect is the 1ore perfect, and the corp2s of abstracted theoretical tho2ghts, the less perfectH and (hen one thing is 1ore perfect than another that is present in the sa1e s2bGect, it is in a sense its for1' The link, obtaining (ithin the 1aterial intellect, bet(een the active intellect and the 1aterial intellectIs corp2s of theoretical tho2ght is then tapped into by individ2al i1aginative fac2lties< MInas12ch as theoretical intelligible tho2ghts Goin (ith 1an thro2gh for1s Qthat is, i1agesR in the i1aginative fac2lty, and the active intellect is Goined (ith theoretical intelligible tho2ghtsBCDthe sa1e thing, na1ely, the 1aterial intellect, having both Qtheoretical tho2ghts and the active intellectR as an obGect of Ibid' @.?, @..' The analysis appears in the passage (here Averroes spoke of secondary propositions that are Mprod2ced fro1 already kno(n principles Qof tho2ghtR and the active intellectMH above, p' ;/6' ?@ Ibid' @.?8..' ?;
;;@
tho2ght Qco1prehendit eaRBCDthe active intellect necessarily Goins (ith 1an by reason of QitsR conG2nction (ith those intelligible tho2ghts'M In (hat see1s to be an aftertho2ght, Averroes also (rites that the factor M(hereby so1ething perfor1s the act proper to it is its for1,M 1an Mperfor1s the act proper to hi1 thro2gh the active intellect,M and therefore in this sense too, the active intellect 1ay be considered 1anIs for1' Averroes concl2des that the active intellect beco1es Ma for1 in 1an in no other respect thanM the sense or senses G2st given'?> S2ch is the acco2nt of conG2nction of the h21an so2l (ith the active intellect, set forth in AverroesI ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a' The ong Co11entary (as seen in the preceding chapter to posit t(o s2bGects for h21an theoretical tho2ght' It located theoretical tho2ght both in the h21an i1aginative fac2lty, characteriEing that g2ise of theoretical tho2ght as generateddestr2ctible, and in the eternal 1aterial intellect, characteriEing that g2ise as eternal'?7 To 1ake sense of (hat Averroes has no( said abo2t conG2nction, his intent, it (o2ld see1, 12st be as follo(s< The eternal 1aterial intellect has the eternal side of h21an theoretical tho2ght as (ell as the eternal active intellect as obGects of tho2ghtH in a certain sense, the active intellect hence conGoins (ith the eternal g2ise of h21an theoretical tho2ghtH the individ2al h21an i1aginative fac2lty receives its side of theoretical tho2ght, the generated8destr2ctible side, thro2gh the 1edi21 of the eternal 1aterial intellectH and the i1aginative fac2lty thereby participates in the active intellectIs conG2nction (ith the other g2ise of theoretical tho2ght, (ith theoretical tho2ght insofar as it is present to the 1aterial intellect' At all events, if conG2nction (ith the active intellect is defined as the Goining of the active intellect (ith the h21an so2l, or a fac2lty of the h21an so2l, as its for1, (hereas the active intellect can beco1e the for1 of the h21an so2l only in the very atten2ated sense, or senses, that have been o2tlined, AverroesI ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a has salvaged only a very atten2ated conG2nction of the active intellect (ith the h21an so2l'?? Averroes nevertheless goes on< Since Mtheoretical intelligible tho2ghts Goin (ith 1an thro2gh for1s Qi1agesR in the i1aginative fac2lty, and the active intellect is Goined (ith theoretical intelligible tho2ghts,M the active intellectIs conG2nction (ith an individ2al h21an i1aginative fac2lty and, thro2gh it, (ith an individ2al so2l is proportional to the 1anIs store of theoretical tho2ghts' The greater the store of tho2ghts, the greater the degree of conG2nction' M,lainly, (hen theoretical intelligible tho2ghts are all potential in a 1an, the active intellect is Goined to hi1 potentially' Khen all theoretical tho2ghts e*ist in the 1an act2ally, the active intellect (ill be Goined to hi1 act2ally' Khen so1e theoretical tho2ghts are present Ibid' @..8>66' Above, p' /.6' ?? Ibid' >6/, Averroes (rites that if he had not constr2ed the 1aterial intellect as an eternal s2bstance, he (o2ld not have been able to sho( ho( Mthe active intellect conGoins (ith the intellect in habit2 in a proper QpropriaR conG2nction, na1ely, in a conG2nction si1ilar to that of for1 (ith 1atter'M ?7 ?>
;;>
potentially and so1e act2ally, the active intellect (ill be partly Goined and partly notH the 1an is said to be 1oving to(ard conG2nction'M At the ape*, (here Mthe process is co1plete,' '' the active intellect at once conGoins (ith the person in every respect,M and the individ2al 1an M(ill, thro2gh the intellect then belonging to hi1, think all beings'M He (ill, Mas The1isti2s said, be like 2nto !od, inas12ch as he too has beco1e all things in a certain 1anner and kno(s the1 in a certain 1anner' ' ' ' Ho( 1arvelo2s is that state, ho( e*traordinary that 1ode of e*istingSM?A %espite the rhapsodic tone, the ong Co11entary, as far as I co2ld see, does not, and co2ld not, ever e*pressly say that the active intellect beco1es the direct obGect of h21an conscio2sness' The foregoing acco2nt of conG2nction is, Averroes concl2des in the ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a, M(hat appears to 1e'M He ass2res readers that Msho2ld anything 1ore occ2r to 1e later, I shall (rite it'M?. I11ortality' Khile for other philosophers, l2c2brations on conG2nction (ere a preface to the eJ2ally or 1ore i1portant iss2e of h21an i11ortality, Averroes treats conG2nction as by far the pri1ary iss2e, and i11ortality as a 1inor corollary' Aristotle had asserted that Mit is pres21ably i1possible for the entire Qso2lR ''' to s2rvive,M yet Mnothing (ill prevent''' the intellect' ' ' fro1 s2rviving'MA6 ,hilosophers taking Aristotle as their g2ide accordingly affir1ed the i11ortality of the h21an intellect in so1e for1, (hile e*cl2ding the i11ortality of all other aspects of the h21an so2l'A- Averroes follo(s in the sa1e track' On occasions (hen he addresses a 1i*ed readership of philosophers and nonphilosophers he does allo( hi1self to speak of an i11ortality of the Mso2l,MA/ b2t in those Ibid' >668>6-' Cf' The1isti2s, In Aristotelis Metaphysicor21 libr21 A paraphrasis, ed' S' anda2er 91edieval Hebre( translation fro1 the ArabicH the !reek original and the 1edieval Arabic translation are lost: in Co11entaria in Aristotele1 graeca >'> 90erlin -.6;:, /68/-' The The1isti2s passage is an e*pansion on Aristotle, Metaphysics -/'?'-6?/b, -A8/7' ?. Ibid' >6/' A6 Aristotle, Metaphysics -/';'-6?6a, /@8/7' See above, pp' ;@8;>' A- See above, pp' ;?, @6, >?, -@>' AvicennaIs position (as that the s2bstance of the h21an so2l is intrinsically i11ortal, b2t even he held that the nonintellect2al fac2lties of the so2l perish' Above, p' .7' 3' al83ashf can MandhiG al8Adilla, in ,hilosophie 2nd Theologie von Averroes, ed' M' Miiller 9M2nich -A>.: -/6, -//8/;H !er1an translation, (ith pagination of the Arabic indicated, in ,hilosophie 2nd Theologie von Averroes, trans' M' M2ller 9M2nich -A?>:H Tahaf2t alTahaf2t, ed' M' 0o2yges 90eir2t -.;6: >>?, >A7H English translation, (ith pages of the original Arabic indicated< AverroesI Tahaf2t al8Tahaf2t, trans' S' #an den 0ergh 9 ondon -.>@:' Tahaf2t al8Tahaf2t >>? J2otes 3oran ;.<@/< M!od receives so2ls at their death as (ell as that Qso2lR (hich does not die in its sleep'M In e*planation of the verse, Averroes (rites as follo(s concerning the link bet(een sleep and death< MThe analogy of death to sleepM provides a Mproof''' of the s2rvival of the so2l,M a proof that is Mco11on to all,M since it both is Mappropriate to ordinary folkM and also Mpoints o2t to scientists the (ay thro2gh (hich the s2rvival of the so2l can be grasped'M The proof, according to Averroes, is that Mthe action of the so2l
co1es to a halt in sleep by reason of the inoperability of the so2lIs organ, yet the so2l itself does ?A
;;7
instances, he 2ndo2btedly e*pected the enlightened reader to take so2l as a code (ord for intellect' His strictly philosophic (ritings are 2na1big2o2s abo2t the 1ortality of the nonintellect2al so2l' His Epito1e of the %e ani1a states that the MsensesM and Mi1aginative fac2ltyM are s2bGect to Mdestr2ction'MA; The Middle Co11entary on the %e ani1a paraphrases a passage fro1 Aristotle (ith the state1ent< Since so2l is defined as Mthe for1 or entelechyM of the body, Mit''' as (ell as its parts,M or, to be 1ore precise, M1ost of its parts,M are Minseparable fro1 the body'MA@ The ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a, (hen co11enting on the sa1e passage in Aristotle, says virt2ally the sa1e< The Aristotelian MdefinitionM of so2lBCDMfirst entelechy of an organic nat2ral bodyMA>BCDentails that Mthe so2l is 2nable to separate itself fro1 the body either in respect to all of its Qthe so2lIsR parts or in respect to so1e'M M"ac2ltiesM of the so2l (hich Mare entelechies of parts of the bodyMBCDthe nonintellect2al fac2ltiesBCDMcannot separate the1selvesM fro1 the parts of the body of (hich they are entelechies'A7 $ot only are the nonintellect2al fac2lties 1ortal' M,ractical intelligible tho2ghtsM like(ise do not s2rviveH they are tied to the Mi1aginative fac2ltyM and perish together (ith it'A? H21an theoretical tho2ghts that gro( o2t of i1ages presented by the i1aginative fac2lty s2ffer an identical fate' As e*plained 1ost f2lly in the ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a, the M1aterial intellect thinks nothing Qrelated to the physical 2niverseR (itho2t the QcogitativeR fac2lty and i1aginative fac2lty,M (hich present i1ages for per2sal' Those fac2lties operate thro2gh ventricles of the brains of individ2al 1en, the cogitative fac2lty having the M1iddle ventricle of the brainM as its Minstr21ent,M and the i1aginative fac2lty being located in the Mfront of the brain'M The t(o fac2lties are, like the brain in (hich they reside, Mgenerateddestr2ctible,MAA and individ2al h21an conscio2sness of theoretical tho2ghts not cease Qto e*istR' And the so2lIs sit2ation in death 12st be like its sit2ation in sleep'M I take hi1 to be inti1ating that scientists and philosophers, (ho are alone J2alified to G2dge, (ill reason< Intellect, not being dependent on physical organs, is not affected by their absence, (hile the nonintellect2al f2nctions of the so2l, (hich are dependent on physical organs, disappear (hen their organs disappear' Therefore the only part of the so2l (hich can s2rvive the death of bodily organs is the intellect' "or the s2rvival of so2l8heat, see above, p' />;' A; Epito1e of the %e ani1a 9n' / above: ?6H Spanish translation -A.' A@ Middle Co11entary on the %e ani1a 9n' / above:, Arabic te*t --.bH Hebre( translation -.?a' Averroes is paraphrasing Aristotle, %e ani1a /'-'@-;a, ;8>' A> Aristotle, %e ani1a /'-'@-/b >87' A7 ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a -@?' A? Epito1e of the %e ani1a 7.8?6H Spanish translation -A.' AA ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a @->, @?7' Averroes (rites that the location of the Mi1aginative fac2lty ''' in the front of the brain, the cogitative fac2lty in the 1iddle, and the 1e1ory in the backM is the MorderM given by AristotleIs ,arva nat2ralia' The section of AverroesI Epito1e of the ,arva nat2ralia (hich parallels AristotleIs %e 1e1oria offers an arg21ent for locating those three fac2lties in the three parts of the brain, b2t the arg21ent does
;;?
perishes together (ith the fac2lties on (hich conscio2sness of s2ch tho2ghts depends' Hence M(e do not re1e1ber Qtheoretical tho2ghtsR after death'MA. The ong Co11entary, fro1 (hich the last J2otations are taken, has a 2niJ2e conception of the 1aterial intellect and its relation to the h21an so2l' 02t co1positions belonging to other stages of AverroesI career 1ake eJ2ally plain that Mtheoretical intelligible tho2ghts,M.6 that is to say, h21an scientific kno(ledge at the M1athe1atical,M Mphysical,M and even the M1etaphysicalM levels, all MperishM together (ith the h21an i1aginative fac2lty' Metaphysical kno(ledge, no less than physical kno(ledge, is rooted in i1ages f2rnished by the i1aginative fac2lty, since it consists in abstractions 1ade fro1 propositions presented by the science of physics'.- The nonintellect2al fac2lties of the so2l are, then, 1ortal, and h21an tho2ghts of both a practical and theoretical sort, incl2ding even tho2ghts at the 1etaphysical level, are 1ortal as (ell' ,2t in another (ay, the act2aliEed h21an intellect, (hich Averroes often calls intellect in habit2, perishes (ith the body'./ The sole re1aining candidate for h21an i11ortality is the 1aterial intellect' Ke sa( in the previo2s chapter that (orks belonging to AverroesI earlier period constr2e the 1aterial intellect as a disposition residing in, b2t 2n1i*ed (ith, the h21an organis1 or, specifically, as a disposition residing in the h21an i1aginative fac2lty' Khen Averroes also recogniEes the possibility of conG2nction (ith the active intellect, (hether or not he takes conG2nction to be a co1plete 2nion of the 1aterial intellect (ith the active intellect, he 1aintains that conG2nction g2arantees the s2rvival of the 1aterial intellect'.; The s2rviving 1aterial intellect (ill be void of all scientific tho2ghts acJ2ired d2ring the h21an lifeti1e, seeing that those tho2ghts are s2ccessive levels of abstraction, all of the1 2lti1ately rooted in i1ages
not co1e fro1 Aristotle' See Averroes, Epito1e of the ,arva nat2ralia, Arabic te*t, ed' H' 0l21berg 9Ca1bridge, Mass' -.?/: @/H 1edieval atin translation, ed' A' Shields 9Ca1bridge, Mass' -.@.: >?8>AH 1edieval Hebre( translation, ed' H' 0l21berg 9Ca1bridge, Mass' -.>@: /AH English translation, trans' H' 0l21berg 9Ca1bridge, Mass' -.7-: /7, and 0l21bergIs note' A. ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a @?78??' .6 Epistle on the ,ossibility of ConG2nction 9n' /- above: 4T/, p' -;H cf' ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a @7.' .- Epito1e of the %e ani1a 9n' / above:, appendi* .-8.@H Spanish translation /-78-.' The section is dependent on Ibn 0aGrGa' ./ Epito1e of the Metaphysics 9n' ; above: @, 4T@7H !er1an translation -/7H Epistle on the ,ossibility of ConG2nction 4TA, p' >6H 4T-6, p' 7>H ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a @.7, @.?, @..' The ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a does recogniEe a collective and nonpersonal intellect in habit2BCDh21an scientific kno(ledge present to the 1aterial intellectBCD(hich e*ists as long as the h21an species e*ists' See ong Co11entary @6?, and above, p' /./' .; %rei Abhandl2ngen 9n' / above:, Hebre( te*t ?, -;8-@H !er1an translation ;@8;>, >@8>>H Epito1e of the %e ani1a .>H Spanish translation //6H Epistle on the ,ossibility of ConG2nction 4T>, p' ;>H 4TA, pp' >68>-H 4T-/, p' .6H 4T-7, p' -@>H appendi* ->/' Epistle 4T., p' >> 9end: has to be
har1oniEed (ith the other passages'
;;A
presented by the i1aginative fac2lty'.@ The state of conG2nction (ith the active intellect, Averroes (ants 2s to 2nderstand, is not G2st one f2rther level of abstraction, b2t a leap beyond' In conG2nction, the 1aterial intellect transcends disc2rsive science' It catap2lts itself beyond tho2ght rooted in the i1per1anent i1ages presented by the i1aginative fac2lty, to a condition (herein the active intellect, an eternal being consisting in p2re tho2ght, is the direct obGect of its tho2ght' Since at this stage of AverroesI philosophy, the 1aterial intellect is a 1ere disposition and not a s2bstance, (hat conGoins per1anently (ith the active intellect and s2rvives apparently is, as Ale*ander of Aphrodisias had held,.> nothing 1ore than a dise1bodied tho2ght (ith the active intellect as obGect' Obvio2sly, no shred of anything rese1bling a h21an personality re1ains' The i11ortality of the 1aterial intellect is also recogniEed by the ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a' 02t since the ong Co11entary has given 2p the str2ggle to e*e1pt the 1aterial intellect fro1 the r2le abo2t generated obGectsI being destroyed, it acco11odates the i11ortality of the 1aterial intellect only by doing a(ay (ith the 1aterial intellectIs generated and individ2al character' The 1aterial intellect is i11ortal only beca2se it is an eternal incorporeal s2bstance, e*isting independently of individ2al 1en' $o roo1 is left for the s2rvival of anything (hatsoever originating in, and belonging to, the individ2al 1an'.7 Res21e' At least eight (orks of Averroes, belonging to vario2s periods in his philosophic career, take 2p the J2estion (hether the h21an intellect can have the active intellect as an obGect of tho2ght and thereby conGoin (ith it' One of the eight, AverroesI Epito1e of the Metaphysics, e*hibits do2bt abo2t the possibility of conG2nction in the sense of a total 2nification of the h21an intellect (ith the active intellect, and that is the only sense Averroes conte1plates there' The other seven affir1 the possibility of conG2nction' So1eti1es conG2nction designates for Averroes a condition in (hich the h21an intellect has the active intellect as a direct obGect of tho2ght and beco1es identical (ith the active intellectH so1eti1es conG2nction is a condition (herein the h21an intellect has the active intellect as a direct obGect of tho2ght (hile re1aining distinctH so1eti1es Averroes leaves 2nclear (hich of the t(o he 1ight 1ean' In defending the possibility of conG2nction (ith the active intellect, Averroes repeatedly add2ces arg21ents fro1 the %e intellect2 attrib2ted to Ale*ander, fro1 The1isti2s, and fro1 Ibn 0aGGa' He also ans(ers the obGections to conG2nction (hich he reports in the na1e of AlfarabiIs Co11entary on the $ico1achean Ethics' The sole e*planation that the earlier (orks give of the Stated e*plicitly in Epistle on the ,ossibility of ConG2nction 4TA, p' >6H 4T-6, p' 7>' See above, p' ;?' .7 The state1ents on intellect 1ade by AverroesI ong Co11entary on the Metaphysics are proble1atic' 02t the ong Co11entary on the Metaphysics -/, co11' ;AH Arabic te*t 9n' /- above: -7-/8-;, docs see1 to reflect the position of the ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a (hen it states< MH21an e2dae1onia ''' consists in conG2nction (ith the QactiveR intellectMH 1an can MconGoin (ith that incorporeal intellect at the ape*M at least for Ma short ti1e'M .> .@
;;.
1anner (hereby 1an achieves conG2nction is borro(ed fro1 Ibn 0aGGa' It is the contention that the h21an intellect is capable of higher and higher levels of abstraction, that the h21an intellect 12st therefore be able 2lti1ately to attain a single, s2pre1ely abstract tho2ght, that the 2lti1ate abstract tho2ght is co11on to all 1en, and that the tho2ght co11on to all 1en and having no link to any i1age can be nothing other than a direct concept of the active intellect' The ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a offers AverroesI final vie(s on the s2bGect' Averroes e*plains in the ong Co11entary that the eternal active intellect and the corp2s of h21an theoretical tho2ghts 1eet on the co11on gro2nd of the 1aterial intellectH they 1eet thanks to the 1aterial intellectIs having both as an obGect of tho2ght' In the sense that the active intellect is the 1ore perfect of the 1aterial intellectIs t(o obGects of tho2ght, it is the for1 of the other obGect of tho2ght, that is, of h21an theoretical tho2ghts' H21an theoretical tho2ghts have not only the 1aterial intellect b2t also the h21an i1aginative fac2lty as a s2bGect, and as an individ2al 1anIs corp2s of theoretical tho2ghts gro(s, the connection of the active intellect (ith the 1anIs i1aginative fac2lty like(ise gro(s' At the c2l1ination, the active intellect MconGoinsM (ith the 1an Mact2ally,M and the 1an beco1es Mlike 2nto !od inas12ch as he too has beco1e all things in a certain 1anner and kno(s the1 in a certain 1anner'M Since, ho(ever, the active intellect beco1es the h21an intellectIs for1 only in a highly atten2ated senseBCDthe active intellect is the for1 of h21an theoretical tho2ght only in the loose sense of being the 1ore perfect of the obGects tho2ght by the 1aterial intellect, and, besides, the h21an i1aginative fac2lty possesses a different g2ise of theoretical tho2ght fro1 the g2ise present to the 1aterial intellectBCDthe ong Co11entary apparently s2rrenders all b2t a very atten2ated sense of conG2nction' The ong Co11entary accordingly does not, as far as I co2ld discover, ever hint at a direct h21an tho2ght of the active intellect' AverroesI ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a th2s ensnarls itself in one 1ore diffic2lty gro(ing o2t of its hypothesis of a single 1aterial intellect serving all 1ankind' The ong Co11entary never e*plained (hen and ho( the eternal 1aterial intellect beco1es linked to individ2al h21an i1aginative fac2ltiesH ho( h21an effort can ind2ce the 1aterial intellect to do its bidding, seeing that the 1aterial intellect is an eternal being only ten2o2sly linked to 1anH nor ho( the eternal 1aterial intellect can reciprocate and endo( individ2al 1en (ith an intellect2al conscio2sness' $o( the hypothesis of an eternal 1aterial intellect prevents the ong Co11entary fro1 p2tting any content in the doctrine long dear to Averroes, the conG2nction of the active intellect (ith the h21an intellect' ike Aristotle and philosophers standing in the Aristotelian tradition, Averroes r2les o2t the i11ortality of the nonintellect2al parts of the h21an so2l' He f2rther reGects the i11ortality of theoretical h21an tho2ght linked in any (ay to perceptions of the physical (orld, his gro2nds being that s2ch tho2ght depends 2pon nonintellect2al parts of the so2l, (hich perish (ith the brain' The only aspect of 1an capable of i11ortality, in AverroesI vie(, is therefore the 1aterial intellect' In (orks (here he constr2es the 1aterial intellect as a disposition for tho2ght in the
;@6
h21an organis1, and (here he defends the possibility of the 1aterial intellectIs conGoining (ith the active intellect, he recogniEes the i11ortality of 1aterial intellects that achieve conG2nction' Khat he is in effect defending is dise1bodied tho2ght (ith the active intellect as its obGect, and nothing that can properly be called a h21an personality s2rvives' In his final position, spelled o2t in the ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a, the 1aterial intellect is i11ortal 1erely beca2se it is an eternal s2bstance e*isting independently of individ2al 1en' Here, in the ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a, nothing (hatsoever belonging to the individ2al 1an is capable of s2rviving the body'
,rophecy Alfarabi recogniEed t(o levels of prophecy, both attained (hen the analog2e of light (hich every h21an rational fac2lty receives fro1 the active intellect affects the i1aginative fac2lty 912takhayyila:' The lo(er of the t(o levels, to (hich Alfarabi attached the specific na1e of prophecy, is enGoyed by 1en (ho have not perfected their intellect, (hereas the higher, (hich he so1eti1es called revelation 9(8h8y:, is the e*cl2sive province of those (hose intellects are perfected' At both levels, the e1anation fro1 the active intellect f2rnishes kno(ledge of f2t2re events and of present events occ2rring at a distanceH at the lo(er level, and perhaps at the higher as (ell, the e1anation fro1 the active intellect also f2rnishes Mclairvoyance QkahdndtR in divine 1atters,M that is to say, a fig2rative depiction of theoretical tr2ths'.? Avicenna like(ise recogniEed, and attached the na1e prophecy to, kno(ledge prod2ced (hen an e1anation fro1 aboveBCDfro1 the active intellect and probably fro1 the so2ls of the celestial spheresBCDacts on the h21an i1aginative fac2lty 912takhayyila, (hich in Avicenna is, 1ore precisely< the co1positive i1aginative fac2lty:' A fig2rative depiction of theoretical tr2ths and kno(ledge of the f2t2re again res2lt' 02t Avicenna departed fro1 Alfarabi by crediting, and na1ing as prophecy, an additional sort of kno(ledge, na1ely, gen2ine theoretical kno(ledge received effortlessly by the h21an rational fac2lty fro1 the e1anation of the active intellect'.A A passage in Ibn 0aGGa is also pertinent here' In the co2rse of analyEing nontheoretical tr2e beliefs, Ibn 0aGGa called attention to a type of tr2e belief (hich co1es Mfro1 the active intellect thro2gh the inter1ediacy of the rational fac2ltyM and is concerned Mespecially (ith f2t2re affairs'M S2ch tr2e belief regarding the f2t2re is arrived at M(itho2t cogitation or syllogistic reasoning,M and it takes the for1 Mof tr2e drea1 Qor< vision 9r2Iya:R and clairvoyance QkahanatR'M Ibn 0aGGa adds that
.? .A
Above, pp' >.87-' Above, pp' --?8//'
;@-
the MtopicM (as disc2ssed by Aristotle Mat the end of ,art / of the ,arva nat2raliaM that is, in AristotleIs %e divinatione'M Khat the (ord topic refers to in the last re1ark J2oted fro1 Ibn 0aGGa is 2nclear' Ibn 0aGGa 1ay be saying 1erely that AristotleIs %e divinatione disc2ssed the topic of tr2e drea1s, as it in fact did' He can, ho(ever, be interpreted as saying 1ore, as saying that AristotleIs %e divinatione disc2ssed the role of the active intellect in tr2e drea1s' On that interpretation, he read a good deal into Aristotle' AristotleIs %e divinatione never 1entioned the active intellect, and it labeled as Mabs2rdM the notion that drea1s Mare sent by !odM and are MdivineMBCDaltho2gh (ith the J2alification that drea1s have Mso1ething divine8like M abo2t the1, inas12ch as all Mnat2re has so1ething divine8like abo2t it'M-66 The second interpretation, albeit 2nG2stified by the te*t of Aristotle, does find s2pport in another so2rce, in an eclectic Arabic co1position of 2ncertain date (hich treats of drea1s' The co1position in J2estion evinces a 1ediocre level of arg21entation, and altho2gh it represents itself as a (ork of Avicenna, its contents betray little of an Aristotelian or Isla1ic Aristotelian character' Khat is significant for 2s is that (e find there an isolated co11ent to the effect that in the M,arva nat2raliaM Aristotle called the divine force responsible for tr2e drea1s Mthe active intellect'M-6- AverroesI Epito1e of the ,arva nat2ralia, as (ill appear, ascribes a role to the active intellect in drea1s, thereby i1plying that AristotleIs ,arva nat2ralia had done so as (ell' The available preserved (orks of Ibn 0aGGa do not, as far as I co2ld discover, ever recogniEe an e1anation fro1 the active intellect (hich circ21vents the ordinary processes of ratiocination to provide 1an scientific kno(ledge, as distinct fro1 kno(ledge of the f2t2re' $or does Ibn 0aGGa speak of the active intellectIs giving 1an a fig2rative representation of theoretical tr2ths' As for Averroes, he refers to prophecy in a n21ber of his (ritings, b2t the only preserved f2ll acco2nt is fo2nd in the section of his Epito1e of the ,arva nat2ralia (hich re(orks AristotleIs %e divinatione' The position set forth there is closest to that of Ibn 0aGGa'-6/ Tadbir al8M2ta(ahhid, ed' and Spanish trans' M' Asin ,alacios, as El regi1en del solitario 9Madrid -.@7:, Arabic te*t /;8/@, Spanish translation >@8>>H cf' M' MaIs21i, MIbn 0aGGa on the H21an Intellect,M Isla1ic' St2dies @ 9-.7>: -/?, -;-' The str2ct2re of AverroesI Epito1e of the ,arva nat2ralia s2ggests that the 1edieval Arabic version of the Aristotelian collection kno(n as the ,arva nat2ralia rearranged the parts' AverroesI Epito1e regards the first si* of the nine co1positions in the ,arva nat2ralia as three treatises, and it regards the %e divinatione as the third chapter of the second of the three' See Averroes, Epito1e of the ,arva nat2ralia, English translation 9n' AA above: *i8*iiH H' !atGe, %ie Epito1e der ,arva $at2ralia des Averroes 9Kiesbaden -.7-: vii' -66 AristotIe, %e divinatione @7/b, /68/-H @7;b, -;8->' -6- Attention (as called to the te*t, (hich is entitled al8Risdla al8Mana1iyya, MEpistle concerning %rea1s,M by S' ,ines, MThe Arabic Recension of ,arva nat2ralia,M Israel Oriental St2dies @ 9-.?@: -/6' -6/ Echoes of the eclectic co1position on drea1s referred to in the previo2s note are also discernible' Most distinctive is the appearance of an anecdote abo2t Mking Herc2lesM in both the
;@/
MThe co11on people,M Averroes (rites, MbelieveM that MQtr2eR drea1M 9r2Iya:, MclairvoyanceM 9kahana:, and MrevelationM 9(ahy:, are distinct and separate pheno1ena having different ca2ses, tr2e drea1s being the (ork of Mangels,M clairvoyance of Mthe Ginn,M and revelation of M!od, (ith or (itho2t an ''' inter1ediary'M-6; ,eople f2rther believe that tr2e drea1 and clairvoyance differ fro1 revelation inas12ch as the first t(o provide kno(ledge MonlyM abo2t Mtransient 1atters,M (hile revelation provides kno(ledge MonlyM of Mscientific 1atters s2ch as ''' the essence of Qh21anR e2dae1oniaM and the (ay Me2dae1onia is achieved'M-6@ As he proceeds, Averroes introd2ces the ter1 prophecy 9n2b2((a: into the disc2ssion, stating that MprophecyM is Mascribed to !od and the divine entities, or angels'M-6> He 12st 1ean either that the first and third of the s2pposedly distinct pheno1enaBCDtr2e drea1s, (hich are tho2ght to be prod2ced by angels, and revelation, (hich is tho2ght to be prod2ced by !odBCDare also called prophecyH or else that all three are called prophecy' He reGects o2t of hand the belief that the ter1s denote three separate pheno1ena' Tr2e drea1s, clairvoyance, and revelation are, he insists, essentially the sa1e, the difference bet(een the1 being M1erely '' ' Qone ofR degree'M All three are prod2ced by an Mact2al intellectM that is (holly MincorporealMH and as (e shall see, this incorporeal act2al intellect is none other than Mthe active intellect'M-67 Khen the appropriate fac2lty of the h21an so2l receives the ever8present action of the active intellect (ith higher than ordinary intensity, people stop calling the effect tr2e drea1, and rena1e it clairvoyance' Khen the effect is still 1ore intense, people coin a still 1ore flattering ter1 and na1e it revelation' Averroes also reGects the s2pposition that revelation can parallel reason as an alternate so2rce of scientific kno(ledge' He (rites< Altho2gh a Mtheoretical tho2ghtM 1ight co1e to a 1an Moccasionally and rarelyM thro2gh the pheno1ena (e are considering,-6? 1an cannot receive
eclectic co1position and in Averroes' See ,ines, MThe Arabic Recension of ,arva nat2ralia M -;68;;H Averroes, Epito1e of the ,arva nat2ralia 9n' AA above:, Arabic te*t A7H 1edieval atin translation --AH 1edieval Hebre( translation >7H English translation >6' Averroes reports the anecdote in the na1e of Aristotle, b2t (itho2t na1ing the (ork of Aristotle fro1 (hich it s2pposedly co1es' The MEpistle on %rea1sM records the anecdote in the conte*t (here it 1akes the co11ent that AristotleIs ,arva nat2ralia traced tr2e drea1s to a divine force called Mthe active intellect'M -6; Epito1e of the ,arva nat2ralia, Arabic te*t 7787?H atin te*t .@8.>H Hebre( te*t @;8@@H English translation 9inadeJ2ate in this (hole section: ;.8@6' -6@ Ibid', Arabic te*t 7?H Hebre( te*t @@H English translation @6' -6> Ibid', Arabic te*t ?;H atin te*t -6/H Hebre( te*t @AH English translation @;' -67 Ibid', Arabic te*t 7?, ?/8?@H atin te*t .>, -6-8;H Hebre( te*t @@, @?8@AH English translation @6, @/8@@' -6? Averroes 1ay, in part, be echoing state1ents Aristotle 1ade abo2t predictions that do Mnot occ2r invariably or on the (holeM and hence are 1erely Mcoincidental'M See Aristotle, %e divinatione @7;a, /8;H @7;b, .8--' Averroes does not e*plain ho( the occasional and rare
;@;
f2lly developed Mtheoretical scienceM thro2gh a tr2e drea1 or the like, M2nless, by !od, (e s2ppose a portion of 1ankind (ho have cognition of the theoretical sciences (itho2t st2dy' That portionBCD(ere they to e*istSBCD(o2ld be 1en in an eJ2ivocal sense, and it (o2ld be 1ore reasonable to call the1 angels than 1en'M After the rhetorical prea1ble, Averroes offers a caref2lly artic2lated arg21ent to sho( that the e*istence of an angelic class of 1en (ho possess scientific kno(ledge (itho2t st2dy is indeed Mi1possible'M Ass21e, he s2b1its, that Mtheoretical kno(ledgeM (ere accessible to 1an both Mthro2gh st2dy,M that is, thro2gh the dra(ing of concl2sions fro1 properly fra1ed syllogis1s, and also M(itho2t st2dy'M The ass21ption (o2ld lead to one of t(o 2nacceptable res2lts' Either 9-: the ter1 theoretical kno(ledge (o2ld be predicated MeJ2ivocallyM of kno(ledge acJ2ired by 1an thro2gh st2dy and kno(ledge revealed to hi1 (itho2t it' The revealed kind (o2ld, in other (ords, be so1ething co1pletely different fro1 the reasoned kind and conseJ2ently not theoretical kno(ledge at all' Or alternatively, 9/: Ma single thing (o2ld e*ist thro2gh different ca2ses,'' ' and the relation of a thing to the ca2ses (hereby it e*ists (o2ld not be necessary, (hich is an abs2rd o2tco1e'M That is to say, sho2ld theoretical kno(ledge co1e abo2t in the for1 of concl2sions flo(ing fro1 syllogistic reasoningBCDthe syllogis1Is pre1ises being the ca2se, of (hich the concl2sion is the effectBCDand also in so1e other fashion, then theoretical kno(ledge (o2ld e*ist thro2gh different sets of ca2sesH b2t, Averroes takes for granted, every class of thing e*ists solely thro2gh its o(n 2niJ2e kind of ca2se' Since both (ays of constr2ing the ass21ption that theoretical kno(ledge co1es to 1an in t(o for1s, (ith and (itho2t st2dy, are 2ntenable, 1an plainly attains theoretical kno(ledge thro2gh only a single 1ethod, thro2gh scientific and philosophic reasoning' The pheno1ena (e are disc2ssingBCDtr2e drea1, clairvoyance, and revelationBCD cannot, Averroes goes on, even have the f2nction of f2rnishing a Mseg1ent of 1ankindM (ith an Mi1aginativeM and fig2rative representation of Mtheoretical 1atters'M S2ch a f2nction (o2ld be Ms2perfl2o2s, since 1an also attains theoretical kno(ledge thro2gh his Q1entalR tools'M $at2re does not, in other (ords, act red2ndantly, and (here it provides s2perior and (ell8adapted 1eans to an end, it does not d2plicate the1 (ith other, inferior 1eans' Sho2ld Mso1eoneM press on and propose that the fig2rative representation of scientific tr2ths MperhapsM 1inisters to those (ho are Mby nat2re or for so1e other reason incapable of learning the theoretical sciences,M Averroes responds 12ch as he began' The hypothetical classBCDMif they e*istedM8BCD(o2ld not in fact be 1en b2t another species of creat2re (hich is called M1an eJ2ivocally'M 0y virt2e of the definition of 1an, nor1al 1e1bers of the h21an species all have the ability to learn science in the proper 1anner'-6A theoretical tho2ght co1es to 1an thro2gh a drea1, and hence does not e*plain (hy his arg21ent against theoretical kno(ledge thro2gh a tr2e drea1 does not apply to the occasional, rare instance, -6A Epito1e of the ,arva nat2ralia, Arabic te*t A.8.-H atin te*t -/-8/;H Hebre( te*t >A8>.H English translation >/' Averroes does not J2ite 1ean that tr2e drea1 and related pheno1ena never
;@@
Averroes is 1aking an e*tre1ely radical state1ent for a 1edieval philosopher, a state1ent fro1 (hich he appears to retreat else(here' He is asserting that the pheno1ena (e are considering, incl2ding revelation and prophecy, give no reliable infor1ation abo2t 1atters belonging to the do1ain of science, not even by f2rnishing the 2ned2cated (ith a fig2rative representation of theoretical tr2ths' Revelation and prophecy do not, either e*pressly or all2sively, instr2ct 1ankind abo2t !od, the 2niverse, creation, the h21an so2l' They pro12lgate no r2les of h21an behavior leading to e2dae1onia' Revelation as (ell as the (ritten record of revealed kno(ledge th2s contrib2te nothing to the so2lIs (ell8being' Averroes has stated that tr2e drea1, clairvoyance, and revelation are essentially the sa1e pheno1enon, and he has told 2s (hat they cannot do' His e*planation of (hat they can do b2ildsBCDlike the e*planations of Alfarabi and Avicenna-6.BCDon a general description of drea1s' Aristotle had identified the i1aginative fac2lty as the fac2lty of the so2l (hich is operative in all drea1s, both the 2s2al, false drea1s and tr2e drea1s'--6 Averroes, for his part, e*plains that in the M(aking state,M perceptions enter fro1 the o2tside and ascend thro2gh the hierarchy of internal fac2lties, or internal senses, of the so2l' At the top, they are processed by the i1aginative fac2lty 912takhayyila: and trans1itted to the 1e1ory' In the drea1 state, a 1an see1s to Mperceive (ith his five senses, altho2gh no sense obGects are present o2tside Qthe so2lR'M Since the percepts do not originate fro1 (itho2t, they 12st originate fro1 (ithin and travel Min the opposite direction'M Me1ory is not the initiator, since 1e1ory is J2iescent in sleep' The inner sense that re1ains a(ake and Min constant 1otionM (hen the other fac2lties are asleep is Mthe i1aginative fac2lty,M and it 12st be the fac2lty responsible for drea1s' The i1aginative fac2lty recovers i1pressions fro1 Mthe 1e1ory,M reco1bines the1, and proGects the1 o2t thro2gh the sense fac2lties, so that the drea1er see1s Mto perceive sense obGects, altho2gh none are Qin act2alityR present o2tside the so2l'M---
to2ch on scientific topics' Khen he takes 2p drea1 interpretation, he notes that the interpreter 12st be fa1iliar (ith the pres2ppositions of the drea1erIs c2lt2re as, for e*a1ple, the c2lt2reIs opinions on the Mfirst ca2se, angels, and the character of h21an e2dae1oniaMH by i1plication, those topics are all2ded to in drea1s' See ibid', Arabic te*t A>H atin te*t --?H Hebre( te*t >7H English translation >6' -6. Above, pp' >A, 7-, --A8-.' --6 Aristotle, %e inso1niis -'@>.a, A8//' In Aristotle the i1aginative fac2lty is a g2ise of sensationH see %e inso1niis -'@>.a, ->8-?H %e ani1a ;';' @/.a, -8/' The ter1s internal senses and internal fac2lties are post8AristotelianH see H' Kolfson, MThe Internal Senses in atin, Arabic, and Hebre( ,hilosophic Te*ts,M reprinted in his St2dies in the History of ,hilosophy and Religion - 9Ca1bridge, Mass' -.?;: />68>-' --- Epito1e of the ,arva nat2ralia, Arabic te*t 7.8?6H atin te*t .78..H Hebre( te*t @>8@7H English translation @68@-' In ordinary drea1s, the rando1 scenes that the i1aginative fac2lty depicts are s2ggested by the s2bGectIs preocc2pationsH ibid', Arabic .-H atin -/@H Hebre( >.876H English >;H Aristotle, %e inso1niis ;'
;@>
The foregoing covers all drea1s' In tr2e drea1s, Averroes goes on, M1ostM infor1ation co1ing to 1an Mplainly ''' concerns f2t2re affairs, the kno(ledge of (hich QordinarilyR belongs to partic2lar applications of the cogitative fac2lty QalJ2(a' al8fikriyya al8G2EIiyyaRMH and the partic2lar applications of the cogitative fac2lty (hich tr2e drea1s replace are those having as their obGect a Mkno(ledge of (hat is beneficial and har1f2l in f2t2re affairs'M In other (ords, one f2nction of the h21an cogitative fac2lty is to reason for(ard fro1 present events, in order to 1ake G2dg1ents regarding beneficial and har1f2l events in the f2t2re' Tr2e drea1s co112nicate G2dg1ents of the sa1e sort (itho2t calling 2pon the cogitative fac2ltyIs services'--/ The J2alification that M1ost,M and therefore not all, infor1ation co112nicated in tr2e drea1s concerns f2t2re events recalls Ibn 0aGGaIs re1ark that the tr2e beliefs co112nicated in drea1s are concerned Mespecially (ith f2t2re affairs'M In Averroes, the J2alification is intended to acco11odate< the rare instances (here bits of theoretical kno(ledge happen to appear in a drea1H an opinion held by so1e that M1attersM pertaining to the Mpractical sciences,M s2ch as the details of the art of M1edicine,M can be learned in drea1sH and the possibility that drea1s 1ay f2rnish infor1ation not only of the Mf2t2re,M b2t also of the Mpast and present'M--; That tr2e drea1s are a s2bstit2te for the operation of the cogitative Aristotle, %e ani1a ;'?,@;-a, -@8-7, states< Khen the Mdianoetic so2lM G2dges things to be Mgood or bad,M it Mp2rs2esM or MfleesM the1' In 1edieval Arabic psychology, the dianoetic so2l beco1es the cogitative fac2lty 912fakkira,fikr, etc':H see H' Kolfson, MThe Internal SensesM />.' --; Epito1e of the ,arva nat2ralia, Arabic te*t AA8A.H atin te*t -/68/-H Hebre( te*t >?8>AH English translation >-8>/' In a note, the English translator J2otes !ersonidesI co11entary, (hich in t2rn J2otes !alen to the effect that the latter discovered 1edical kno(ledge in drea1s' That tr2e drea1s provide infor1ation abo2t abo2t f2t2re events, (as !ersonidesI positionH see !ersonides, Milha1ot ha8She1 9%ie 3a1pfe !ottes: 9 eipEig -A77: /'-8@H English translation< evi ben !ersho1, The Kars of the ord, trans' S' "eld1an 9,hiladelphia -.A?:' AverroesI evidence that tr2e drea1s act2ally occ2r is, in an echo of AristotleIs %e divinatione, e1pirical' Tr2e drea1s, he (rites, are so (ell attested that Mto deny their occ2rrence is to deny the evidence of sense perception'''H for no one e*ists (ho has not had a drea1 fore(arning hi1 of (hat (o2ld happen to hi1 in the f2t2re'M See Epito1e of the ,arva nat2ralia, Arabic te*t 77H atin te*t .@H Hebre( te*t @;H English translation ;.H and Aristotle, %e divinatione @7/b, ->8-7' Kithin the econo1y of nat2re, or, if one (ish, (ithin the plan of divine Mprovidence,M tr2e drea1s serve a p2rpose' MThe intellect2al cogitative fac2lty, the fac2lty (hereby 1an has QpriorR kno(ledge ''' of beneficial and har1f2l 1atters in the f2t2re, in order to prepare hi1self for f2t2re event2alities, is not s2fficient to its task' $at2re and providence therefore s2pple1ent the efforts of the cogitative fac2lty by f2rnishing infor1ation abo2t the f2t2re thro2gh tr2e drea1s' See Epito1e of the ,arva nat2ralia, Arabic te*t A@H atin te*t --7H Hebre( te*t >>H English translation @.' Averroes has already been seen to deny that nat2re 1ight s2pple1ent the intellectIs activity (ith an alternative
ro2te to theoretical kno(ledge, on the gro2nds that all theoretical kno(ledge accessible to 1an can be learned thro2gh the scientific 1ethod, and the alternative ro2te (o2ld be s2perfl2o2s' Here, in connection (ith tr2e drea1s, he is 1aintaining that since the cogitative fac2lty is ins2fficient to its task of fore(arning 1an regarding f2t2re events, nat2re does s2pple1ent the cogitative fac2ltyIs activity (ith an alternative ro2te to kno(ledge of the f2t2re' --/
;@7
fac2lty (as s2ggested by Ibn 0aGGa, (hen he (rote that those drea1s f2rnish kno(ledge abo2t the f2t2re M(itho2t cogitationM--@H the i1plication (as that cogitation is the 2s2al 1eans for attaining kno(ledge of the f2t2re' Alfarabi had si1ilarly stated that prophecy f2rnishes infor1ation of a kind 2s2ally attained thro2gh deliberation,--> deliberation having been classified by hi1 as an operation of the cogitative fac2lty'--7 An agent 12st lead the i1aginative fac2lty fro1 its potential possession of kno(ledge of the f2t2re to the act2al kno(ledge of the f2t2re (hich is disclosed in the tr2e drea1' To help identify the agent, Averroes notes that predictions of the f2t2re in drea1s are pec2liar in a critical respect< The pre1ises MeffectingM the prediction are not kno(n to the h21an s2bGect prior to his drea1' There is one other instance (here pre1ises do not precede h21an kno(ledge of a proposition, and that is kno(ledge of the Mfirst principlesM of theoretical tho2ght' The agent MeffectingM act2al h21an kno(ledge of the first principles of tho2ght is perforce a being that itself possesses the kno(ledge in act2ality, hence Man act2al Qand incorporealR intellect,M the transcendent active intellect' Averroes accordingly infers that predictions thro2gh tr2e drea1s, (here kno(ledge like(ise co1es (itho2t previo2sly kno(n pre1ises, 12st be the (ork of the sa1e (holly MincorporealM intellect, Mthe active intellect'M--? 02t a diffic2lty raises its head' MIncorporeal intelligences Qor< intellectsR have been sho(n in the 1etaphysical sciences to have 2niversals as the sole obGect of their tho2ghtH and they are able to give only the likes of (hat they have in their o(n s2bstance'M They Mcannot give anything (hatsoever that is individ2alH for their nat2re does not contain kno(ledge of the ' ' ' partic2lar,M seeing that the partic2lar or individ2al is tied to M1atter,M (hereas they are Mfree of 1atter'M MHo(, thenBCDI (ish I kne(BCDcan the active intellect f2rnish the individ2al for1 Qconstit2ting the content of a tr2e drea1R, a for1 partic2lar in respect to ti1e, place, and ''' the individ2al 1anNM--A AverroesI sol2tion is that (hile the active intellect does not kno( events in their partic2lar aspect, it does kno( the1 in their general aspect' Every Mindivid2al Qnat2ralR s2bstanceM in the s2bl2nar (orld is Mdeter1inate in respect to its efficient ca2ses,M and so1e, tho2gh not all, accidents are so as (ell' MIndivid2al accidentsM of the type that Me*ist by chance ''' do not have deter1inate ca2ses,M b2t other individ2al accidents are Mdeter1inate in respect to their ca2sesMH they Mhave a 2niversal, intelligible nat2re, (hich is the pri1ary ca2se of their e*istence'M The physical la(s governing the co1ing into e*istence of individ2al s2bstances and Above, p' ;@-' Above, p' >.' --7 Alfarabi, "2s2l al8Madani, ed' %' %2nlop 9Ca1bridge -.7-: 4T7< One action of the Mcogitative fac2lty QfikriRM is MdeliberatingM abo2t Mho(M to do things that (e M(ish to do'M --? Epito1e of the ,arva nat2ralia, Arabic te*t ?-8?/, ?@H atin te*t -668-6-, -6;H Hebre( te*t @78@AH English translation @/8@@' --A Ibid', Arabic te*t ?@H atin te*t -6;H Hebre( te*t @AH English translation @;8@@' --> --@
;@?
deter1inate individ2al accidents are so intricate that 1an cannot ascertain MsyllogisticallyM anything abo2t s2bstances and accidents Mstanding at a distance fro1 hi1 in ti1e'M H21an kno(ledge does not penetrate beyond the Mhighest and 1ost 2niversalM of the (orldIs ca2ses to the 1yriad secondary ca2ses deter1ining the e*istence of individ2al obGectsBCD(ith the e*ception of obGects lying (ithin a 1anIs i11ediate ken' Most of the ca2ses deter1ining events are therefore, Mfro1 the h21an point of vie(, not circ21scribedM and kno(able' $evertheless, since the ca2ses of individ2al s2bstances and of the deter1inate individ2al accidents are Mcirc21scribed in the1selves,M the 1anner in (hich those s2bstances and accidents are deter1ined is in principle kno(able' MTheir QgeneralR nat2re, (hich stands to the1 as the for1 Qin the 1indR of the artisan stands to the artifact 1ade Qby the artisanR, is necessarily an obGect of intelligible tho2ght for the incorporeal for1 Qi'e', for the active intellectR'M The active intellect contains, indeed consists in, a single 2nified tho2ght e1bracing the general nat2re of the deter1inate part of the (orld' Tr2e drea1s co1e abo2t (hen the active intellect Me1anatesM and Mgives to the i1aginative Qfac2lty of theR so2l, the 2niversal nat2re pertinent to an individ2al Qs2bstance or individ2al deter1inate accidentR that is abo2t to co1e into e*istenceBCDin other (ords, the intelligible tho2ght of its ca2ses'M The Mi1aginative Qfac2lty of theR so2l, residing as it does in 1atter, receives the intelligible tho2ght in a partic2lariEed 1ode'M ML2st as a skilled physicianM 1akes a prognosis by co1bining a M2niversal intelligible '' ' pre1iseM and a Mpartic2lar, sense8derived Qpre1iseR, so tooM the inspired i1aginative fac2lty spontaneo2sly and 2nconscio2sly applies the M2niversal Qpre1iseRM received fro1 the active intellect, to its o(n kno(ledge of partic2lar circ21stances' The i1aginative fac2lty either sees an Me*actM pict2re of (hat the f2t2re holdsH or, alternatively, it 2nconscio2sly recasts the infor1ation received, and it sees a MrepresentationM 1erely sy1boliEing f2t2re events'--. In short, AverroesI Epito1e of the ,arva nat2ralia denies that tr2e drea1, clairvoyance, revelation, and prophecy are distinct pheno1ena, that any of the1 provides syste1atic theoretical kno(ledge, or that any of the1 even provides a fig2rative representation of theoretical tr2th' The f2nction of tr2e drea1 and its variations is to predict the f2t2re' Khen Averroes e*plored the active intellectIs role in h21an intelligible tho2ght, he ignored AvicennaIs theory that the active intellect e1anates tho2ghts directly'-/6 In the present conte*t, heBCDlike Alfarabi and Ibn 0aGGa, both of (ho1 also recogniEed no direct e1anation of intelligible tho2ghtsBCD traces predictions of the f2t2re to an e1anation of the active intellect affecting the i1aginative fac2lty' The active intellectIs 2nitary tho2ght e1bodies the 2niversal Ibid', Arabic te*t ?78A-H atin te*t -6>8-/H Hebre( te*t @.8>;H English translation @@8 @?' The MEpistle on %rea1s,M as cited by ,ines, MThe Arabic Recension of ,arva nat2ralia M 9n' -6- above: ---, also disting2ishes bet(een tr2e drea1s in (hich 1atters are presented e*plicitly and tr2e drea1s in (hich they are presented in a fig2rative g2ise' -/6 Above, p' ;/6, he did (rite that the active intellect i1parts the first principles of tho2ght'
--.
;@A
la(s governing the physical (orld, and an e1anation fro1 the active intellect can co112nicate those la(s' The i1aginative fac2lty receives the 2niversal la(s in a partic2lariEed 1ode, bringing the 2niversal to bear on its o(n concerns' "2t2re eventsBCDthe f2t2re e1ergence of nat2ral s2bstances and of those accidents that are s2bGect to nat2ral la(BCDappear to the inspired drea1er' T(o co1positions of Averroes belonging, like the Epito1e of the ,arva nat2ralia, to the early period of his tho2ght 1ake brief passing co11ents that are consistent (ith the Epito1eIs position' One of the t(o, (hich is preserved only in Hebre(, states that Mthe i1aginative fac2lty perfor1s its f2nctions best (hen the senses are J2iescentM and do not distract itH conseJ2ently Mvisions and revelation Qor< prophecy 9pilIe ha8neb2Ia:R generally occ2r in drea1s'M-/- The other co1position states that the active intellect kno(s the order of nat2re in a M1ore noble 1odeM than 1an does, that it co1prehends Mthings, the ca2ses of (hich cannot be kno(nM to 1an, and that it therefore can Mgive drea1s and other fore(arnings of the f2t2re'M-// AverroesI Tahaf2t al8Tahaf2t 9%estr2ctio destr2ction21:, (hich addresses a 1i*ed a2dience of philosophers and nonphilosophers, also to2ches on prophecy' Tahaf2t al8Tahaf2t, as (ill be recalled, is a point8by8point ref2tation of !haEaliIs Tahaf2t al8"alasifa 9%estr2ctio philosophor21:' Khen Averroes reaches the section (here !haEali takes 2p 1iracles and prophecy, he declares his ad1iration for the Mearly philosophers,M (ho refrained fro1 disc2ssing sensitive s2bGects p2blicly' He indicates that he too (o2ld have preferred Mto re1ain silent'M-/; Since the indiscretion of his adversary has, ho(ever, prevented hi1 fro1 doing so, Averroes per1its hi1self a fe( re1arks regarding prophecy' He (rites< 9-: MThe early QphilosophersR held that' ' ' revelation Q(ahyR and Qtr2eR drea1 ' ' ' co1e fro1 !od thro2gh the 1ediacy of a spirit2al and incorporeal being,''' the active intellect, (hich is called an angel in the religio2s te*ts QsharicaR'M 9/: In the vie( of Mthe enlightened,''' the attrib2te thanks to (hich a prophet is called a prophetM e*presses itself in M1aking hidden things kno(n, and in pro12lgating religio2s la(s that har1oniEe (ith the tr2th and teach behavior leading to the e2dae1onia of all 1ankind'M-/@ The first state1ent stays (ithin the spirit of (hat Epistle on the ,ossibility of ConG2nction 9n' /- above: 4T/, p' --H English translation /?' Ibid' 4T->, p' -;., speaks of Mprophecy of (hat is abo2t to co1e into e*istence'M -// Epito1e of the Metaphysics 9n' ; above: @'@7H !er1an translation -/?' Tahaf2t al8Tahaf2t 9n' A/ above: >-@, >-7' In another co1position intended for a 1i*ed readership, Averroes disc2sses the allegorical interpretation of sensitive religio2s dog1as, asserts that that is a s2bGect properly p2rs2ed only in (orks reserved for philosophers, and apologiEes for having had to deal (ith it in a (ork accessible to nonphilosophers' See "asl al MaJal, ed !' Ho2rani 9 eiden -.>.: /.H English translation< Averroes on the Har1ony of Religion and ,hilosophy, trans' !' Ho2rani 9 ondon -.7-: 7/' Tahaf2t al8Tahdf2t >-7' The passage is c21berso1e' It reads in f2ll< MThe (ay Q2sedR by the enlightened in establishing the gen2ineness QtasdiJR of prophets is a different one, one that !haEali all2des to in several places' It Qthe proper criterion for eval2ating a prophetR is Qthe
l/-
;@.
(e have fo2nd in AverroesI Epito1e of the ,arva nat2raliaH and the (ords M1aking hidden things kno(nM in the second state1ent co2ld (ell refer to the predictions of the f2t2re (hich, according to the Epito1e of the ,arva nat2ralia, are the sole content of tr2e drea1s and prophecy'-/> 02t the co11ent abo2t prophetsI pro12lgating religio2s la(s Mthat har1oniEe (ith the tr2th and teach behavior leading to ''' e2dae1oniaM appears to contradict the Epito1e of the ,arva nat2ralia' There, as G2st seen, Averroes contended that revelation cannot possibly provide theoretical kno(ledge or g2ide 1an to h21an e2dae1onia, that it cannot even recast philosophic kno(ledge in fig2rative i1ages' The Tahaf2tIs co11ent affir1s, in apparent contrast, that the prophet does g2ide 1ankind on J2estions of h21an e2dae1onia, that the ability to offer s2ch g2idance is in fact the criterion for G2dging (hether a 1an is a gen2ine prophet or not' In still another passage, AverroesI Tahah2t asserts that Mevery religion co1es abo2t thro2gh revelation (ith (hich intellect is 1i*edM and that a Mreligion thro2gh intellect alone (o2ld necessarily be inferior to religions derived fro1 intellect and revelation'M-/7 Here revelation is plainly 2nderstood to (ork hand in hand (ith reason, (ith the s2ggestion that revelation perfor1s for certain 1e1bers of the h21an species (hat reason perfor1s for others' Additional state1ents in the sa1e vein can be cited fro1 AverroesI se1ipop2lar (orks' He (rites, for e*a1ple< presence ofR the act that flo(s fro1 the attrib2te thanks to (hich a prophet is called a prophetH that act consists in 1aking hidden things kno(n, and in pro12lgating religio2s la(s''''M #an den 0ergh 9n' A/ above: does not translate the present passage (ith precisionH and his translation of the previo2s page of the Tahaf2t contains a 1isleading sentence that gives an erroneo2s pict2re of Averroes' #an den 0erghIs translation of the earlier passage reads< Mand (hat is tr2e of the prophet, that he can interr2pt the ordinary co2rse of nat2re, is i1possible for 1an, b2t possible in itselfH see #an den 0ergh ;->' The translation sho2ld read< MQin the vie( of AvicennaR (hat establishes the gen2ineness QtasdiJR of the prophet (o2ld then be that he prod2ces so1ething e*traordinary, so1ething i1possible for the QordinaryR 1an, altho2gh possible in itself'M Averroes is there contrasting t(o opinions on (hat Mestablishes the gen2inenessM of a prophet< an opinion attrib2ted by Averroes to Avicenna and considered by Averroes to be philosophically incorrect, na1ely, the opinion that the criterion for G2dging (hether so1eone is a prophet is the perfor1ing of 1iracles 9not, in fact, a fair acco2nt of Avicenna:H and the enlightened opinion, according to (hich the criterion for G2dging (hether so1eone is a prophet is the 1anIs 1essage' -/> It sho2ld be noted that the Epito1e of the ,arva nat2ralia recogniEes the e1anation of s2bl2nar nat2ral for1s by the active intellectH and Averroes there co1pares the active intellectIs e1anation 2pon the i1aginative fac2lty to its e1anation of nat2ral for1s' See above, p' /;@, and Epito1e of the ,arva nat2ralia, Arabic te*t ?.H atin te*t -6.8 -6, -6;H Hebre( te*t >/H English translation @7' The Tahaf2t al8Tahaf2t belongs, by contrast, to the later period of AverroesI tho2ght, (hen he reGected the proposition that the active intellect e1anates nat2ral for1sH see above, p' />/'
Tahaf2t al8Tahaf2t >A@' Ibid', />>8>7, Averroes (rites< M3no(ledge Qor< science 9cil1:R received fro1 revelation co1es to perfect the branches of kno(ledge Qor< to perfect the sciencesR of the intellect,M and one area in (hich the s2pple1ent occ2rs is (here intellect has Mabsol2te inability, that is, (here intellect insofar as it is intellect is nat2rally 2nable to kno('M ,redictions of the f2t2re are pres21ably the area (here the h21an intellect is nat2rally 2nable to operate'
;>6
M%e1onstrationM is beyond so1e 1en Meither beca2se of inborn nat2re, habit, or lack of the 1eans for st2dyMH M!odM has, for the 2se of those 1en, Mcoined i1ages and likenessesM of Mthings ''' that can Qin their proper g2iseR only be learned by de1onstrationMH and the fig2rative i1ages are recorded in Script2re'-/? MRevelationM establishes a regi1en g2iding 1an to his perfectionH MreligionsM teach that regi1en together (ith Mthe theoretical 1atters, kno(ledge of (hich is indispensable for all 1ankindMH the indispensable s2bGects ta2ght by religion are Mkno(ledge of !od, of the angels, of the s2perior beings, and of Qh21anR e2dae1onia'M-/A The finest of all Script2res is the 3oran, for it contains the best fig2rative representation of philosophic tr2ths'-/. The 3oran teaches tr2thBCDfor instance, the e*istence of !odBCDat different levels and for different gro2psH for (hile on the s2rface the 3oran speaks a nontechnical lang2age appropriate for the 2ned2cated, by s2btle hints it also directs the enlightened to(ard philosophic de1onstration'-;6 The discrepancy is harsh' The Epito1e of the ,arva nat2ralia advanced caref2lly reasoned arg21ents to sho( that the pheno1enon of revelation cannot conceivably provide kno(ledge abo2t s2bGects belonging to the do1ain of science and philosophy, that revelation cannot even recast theoretical kno(ledge in fig2rative i1ages for the 2se of co11on people' AverroesI Tahaf2t al8Tahaf2t and se1ipop2lar (orks affir1, on the contrary, that the prophet and the pheno1enon of revelation do teach theoretical 1atters to the 2nenlightened in a fig2rative lang2age co1prehensible to the1, and that revelation hints to potential philosophers (here the p2rer e*pression of tr2th lies' T(o (ays of handling the discrepancy s2ggest the1selves' After (riting the Epito1e of the ,arva nat2ralia, Averroes 1ay have changed his 1ind and accepted the topos that prophecy and revelation recast scientific tr2ths for the 2se of the 2nenlightened' Alternatively, in conte*ts that are not p2rely philosophic he 1ay be 2sing the ter1s revelation and prophet in a pec2liar sense' The inner intent of Tahaf2t al8Tahaf2t and the se1ipop2lar (orks (o2ld then not be that a prophetic i1aginative fac2lty fashioned the fig2rative representations of scientific tr2ths e1bodied in Script2re' The intent (o2ld be instead that the h21an a2thor of Script2re first acJ2ired theoretical kno(ledge thro2gh proper scientific 1ethods and then coolly and deliberatelyBCDnot thro2gh an inspired i1aginative fac2ltyBCDrecast his hard8(on philosophic kno(ledge into lang2age appropriate for his less enlightened brethren' The ter1 prophet (o2ld, on this reading, 1ean nothing 1ore than the h21an a2thor of Script2reH and the ter1 revelation (o2ld 1ean a '"asl al8MaJal /;H English translation >.' Khen Averroes speaks here of M!od,M he of co2rse has no divine intervention in vie(, since he 2nderstood the "irst Ca2se to be i1personal and 2nchanging' He 1erely 1eans that the eternal str2ct2re of the 2niverse is s2ch that so1e people for12late i1ages and likenesses to help ed2cate others' 3'3' al83ashf9n' A/ above: --.8/6' al83ashf9n' A/ above: --.8/6' Ibid' -//, and cf' .A' Tahaf2t al8Tahaf2t >A>' -/.Ibid' -//, and cf' .A' Tahaf2t al8Tahaf2t >A>' -;63' al83ashf/?, @7H cf' "asl al8MaJal /;8/@, ;6H English translation >., 7;87@' -/?
;>-
high level of philosophic kno(ledge' S2pport for s2ch a reading 1ay perhaps be fo2nd in the circ21stance that Averroes generally calls the a2thor of Script2re a Mla( giverM 9sharic: rather than a prophet'-;- There are other significant instances (here AverroesI se1ipop2lar (orks e1ploy e*pressions not in their obvio2s sense b2t as code (ords for so1ething else'-;/
AverroesI Shifting ,ict2re of the &niverse and of ManIs ,lace in It &p to a point, AverroesI pict2re of the 2niverse re1ains constant thro2gho2t his preserved (ritings' It is a deistic pict2re, one that Averroes shared (ith Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Ibn 0aGGa, and one that he ass21ed to be the correct reading of Aristotle' Altho2gh he (as J2ite capable of changing his o(n 1ind on philosophic iss2es, Averroes never drea1t that Aristotle had done the sa1e, and he treated the Aristotelian canon as the repository of a single, consistent body of doctrine' Khat Averroes held fast to thro2gho2t is the location of an eternal stationary earth at the center of the physical 2niverse, the rotation of celestial spheresBCDin (hich the s2n, 1oon, and stars are e1beddedBCDaro2nd the earth, and the 1aintaining of the spheres in eternal 1otion by incorporeal intelligences' An i1personal, 2nchanging incorporeal being presides over the (hole, serving, in so1e sense, as the "irst Ca2se of the e*istence of everything o2tside itself' At the lo(er end of the hierarchy of incorporeal intelligences stands an intelligence that, 2nlike those above it, is not associated (ith a celestial sphere' This is precisely the active intellect posited by Aristotle on the gro2nds that an intellect 12st e*ist (hich is (hat it is Mby virt2e of 1aking all things,M that is, by virt2e of 1aking all tho2ghts' Khile Averroes re1ained faithf2l thro2gho2t his career to the skeleton G2st o2tlined, he (as seen, in the t(o preceding chapters, to change his 1ind radically on certain iss2esH and the present chapter has 2ncovered additional, altho2gh less E'g', 3' al83ashf /A, 7?H "asl al8MaJdl ;@H English translation 77' Those instances are ad1ittedly 1ore transparent than the state1ents in the se1ipop2lar (orks regarding the scope of revelation and prophecy' Averroes (rites, for e*a1ple, that Script2re (as G2dicio2s in describing !od anthropo1orphically, that the 1an in the street sho2ld not be disab2sed of his belief in an anthropo1orphic deity, b2t that the best (ay of representing !od is as MlightMH 3' al83ashf 7687;' Averroes is apparently 2sing the ter1 light as a 1etaphor for incorporeality' See !haEaliIs 2se of the 1etaphor of light, above, p' -;/' 3' al83ashf 7>877, states that !od d(ells in the o2ter heaven' The state1ent, (hen deciphered, 1eans that !odIs action 1anifests itself in the 1ove1ent of the o2ter1ost sphere, altho2gh !od hi1self does not d(ell in any place' See Aristotle, Metaphysics -/' Averroes speaks of the i11ortality of the so2l, 2sing so2l as a transparent code (ord for intellectH above, pp' ;;>8;7' He caref2lly avoids casting any do2bt on the res2rrection of the body, b2t adds that (hat is res2rrected is Mi1agesM of bodies, and not the identical bodies that diedH see Tahaf2t al8Tahdf2t >A7,
and cf' 3' al83ashf -//' He 1eans that (hen bodies die and disintegrate, they are replaced by ne(, different bodies, or possibly that bodies do not the1selves s2rvive, b2t that intellect s2rvives' -;/ -;-
;>/
(eighty, changes of 1ind on other iss2es' His earlier and later positions fit together into distinct syste1s (ithin the co11on fra1e(ork' His early (orks are i1b2ed (ith an e1anationis1 close to that of Alfarabi and Avicenna'-;; "ro1 the "irst Ca2se of the 2niverse, the early Averroes conc2rs (ith his t(o predecessors, there eternally e1anates an incorporeal being consisting in p2re tho2ght' That e1anated being, the first intelligence, contains 12ltiple aspects, and fro1 the 12ltiplicity, t(o f2rther things eternally e1anate< another incorporeal being consisting in p2re tho2ght, and the for1, or so2lBCDb2t not the bodyBCDof the first sphere' The second incorporeal intelligence eternally gives rise to si1ilar effects' And the process replicates itself over and over again, 2ntil the intelligence governing the sphere of the 1oon eternally prod2ces the for1, or so2l, of its sphere and the concl2ding link in the incorporeal hierarchy, the active intellect' On the J2estion (hether or not the "irst Ca2se governs a sphere, Averroes contin2es to follo( Alfarabi and Avicenna' He repeats AvicennaIs r2le that Mfro1 one only one can proceedM and infers that the "irst Ca2se, being (holly 2nitary, can have no 1ore than a single effect' Since each of the intelligences governing a sphere has at least t(o effects, none of the1 is (holly 2nitary' $one therefore can be the 2lti1ate ca2se of the 2niverse' The 2lti1ate ca2se resides beyond the 1overs of the spheres and has no sphere of its o(n' Averroes does not, even in his early (ritings, recogniEe a ca2se of the e*istence of s2bl2nar 1atter, G2st as he does not recogniEe a ca2se of the bodies of the spheres' "ollo(ing the e*a1ple of one (ork of Alfarabi as (ell as the e*a1ples of Avicenna and Ibn 0aGGa, he does, ho(ever, trace the for1s of ani1als and plants to the active intellect' In organic reprod2ction, plant seed or 1ale sper1 renders a portion of 1atter receptive of a plant or ani1al for1H in spontaneo2s generation, a heat e1itted by the heavenly bodies prepares 1atter for a given for1H and in each instance, the properly prepared portion of 1atter a2to1atically selects the for1 appropriate to it o2t of the ever8present e1anation of the active intellect' A passage in one of AverroesI early (orks goes f2rther and adds that since the h21an 1ind abstracts intelligible for1s fro1 nat2ral s2bstances belo( the ani1al and plant level, the for1s of nonorganic s2bstances too 12st, fro1 the 1etaphysicalBCDor episte1ologicalBCDperspective, derive fro1 a so2rce consisting in p2re intelligible tho2ght' Here, the active intellect is the so2rce of the for1s of all nat2ral s2bstances, inani1ate as (ell as ani1ate' AverroesI early (orks th2s follo( Alfarabi and Avicenna in decking AristotleIs cos1ology o2t in $eoplatonic trappings' The transl2nar region and at least the ani1ate seg1ent of the s2bl2nar region are, in their for1al aspect, bro2ght forth thro2gh processes of e1anation' A1ong the for1s e1anating fro1 the active intellect 2pon properly prepared portions of 1atter is the h21an so2l (ith its potential, or 1aterial, intellect' The -;;
"or the divergences fro1 Alfarabi and Avicenna, see above, pp' //;8/>'
;>;
1aterial intellect hence has its origin in the transcendent real1' As regards the essence of the 1aterial intellect (ithin its h21an p2rlie2, Averroes had sharply divergent constr2ctions to choose fro1' His early (orks, despite their e1anationis1 and despite their tracing of the 1aterial intellect to a transcendent e1anating so2rce, elect the nat2ralistic option' Averroes dis1isses the possibility that the h21an 1aterial intellect 1ight be a s2bstance si1ilar in nat2re to the incorporeal intelligences, and his reasoning cond2cts hi1 no( to one, and no( to another, version of the 1aterial intellectIs being a disposition for tho2ght present in, altho2gh not 1i*ed (ith, the h21an organis1' 0esides perfor1ing the f2nction never conte1plated by Aristotle and e1anating a range of nat2ral for1s, the active intellect perfor1s the f2nction for (hich Aristotle had devised it' It is the agent that leads the 1aterial h21an intellect fro1 potentiality to act2ality and that enables the 1aterial intellect to think intelligible tho2ghts' Averroes ignores AvicennaIs thesis that G2st as nat2ral for1s are e1anated 2pon properly prepared portions of physical 1atter, so too are intelligible tho2ghts e1anated directly on properly prepared 1aterial intellects' Instead, he follo(s Alfarabi as (ell as the !reek co11entators Ale*ander and The1isti2s in representing the active intellect as a sort of light that ill21inates i1ages in the i1aginative fac2lty as (ell as the 1aterial intellect itself' Khen the 1aterial intellect and i1ages in the i1aginative fac2lty are ill21inated, the 1aterial intellect beco1es capable of beholding the intelligible tho2ghts latent in the i1ages' The active intellect does send forth an e1anation that brings infor1ation to one part of the h21an so2l' It e1anates the general la(s of nat2re 2pon the i1aginative fac2lty, and h21an i1aginative fac2lties capable of receiving the active intellectIs e1anation in a partic2lariEed 1ode 1ake predictions of the f2t2re' Korks fro1 AverroesI early period arg2e repeatedly that the 1aterial intellect can develop to the point (here it has the active intellect as a direct obGect of tho2ght and conGoins (ith itBCDbeco1ing identical (ith the active intellect in the version of conG2nction espo2sed by so1e of AverroesI (orks, re1aining distinct in the version espo2sed by others' ConG2nction is achievable d2ring the lifeti1e of the body' And it is the (arrant for h21an i11ortality' The h21an so2lIs nonintellect2al parts and theoretical h21an tho2ght tied in any (ay to perceptions of the physical (orld inel2ctably perish (ith the death of the body, and the sole aspect of 1an attaining i11ortality is the 1aterial intellect (hen in a state of conG2nction (ith the active intellect' ManIs goal in life is to develop his 1aterial intellect to the level (here it conGoins (ith the active intellect, the re(ard therefor being the i11ortality of the individ2al 1anIs 1aterial intellect' S2ch (as AverroesI early syste1' It plainly 1isreads Aristotle (hen it follo(s the earlier Isla1ic philosophers and propo2nds an e1anationist cos1ogony, it capt2res AristotleIs spirit (hen it opts for the nat2ralistic acco2nt of the h21an 1aterial intellect, and it adds to Aristotle (hen it affir1s the possibility of conG2nction (ith the active intellect'
;>@
A pair of (orks belonging to an inter1ediate period of AverroesI career reveal hi1 rethinking t(o critical points and in both instances striking a co1pro1ise' One (ork contends that nat2ral s2bl2nar for1s do not after all e1anate directly fro1 the active intellect, b2t are prod2ced, as AristotleIs biological (ritings e*plained, by a physical s2bstance called so2l8heat' The (ork in J2estion nevertheless traces so2lheat itself to the active intellect or, perhaps, to another of the incorporeal beings s2bordinate to the "irst Ca2se' An e*c2rs2s in a second (ork that al1ost s2rely belongs to AverroesI inter1ediate period arrives at a co1pro1ise position regarding the nat2re of the 1aterial intellect' After Massigning the d2e share of do2btsM to the theory of Ale*ander, according to (hich the 1aterial intellect is a disposition in the h21an organis1, and to the theory of The1isti2s, according to (hich the 1aterial intellect is an incorporeal s2bstance, the e*c2rs2s settles on a Mco1binationM of the t(o' A 1aterial intellect is, Averroes deter1ines, engendered for each individ2al 1an (hen the transcendent active intellect Goins an individ2al inborn h21an disposition for tho2ght' Here AverroesI efforts to do f2ll G2stice to the te*t of AristotleIs %e ani1aBCDindeed, one 1ay vent2re, to inconsistent lang2age in the te*t of the %e ani1aBCDlead hi1 to a hybrid entity that his 1aster (o2ld have fo2nd e*tre1ely odd' In the final stage of his tho2ght, Averroes Gettisons e1anation' He still takes the "irst Ca2se to be, in a certain sense, the ca2se of the intelligencesI e*istence' Each incorporeal intelligence, he no( 2nderstands, possesses a strat21 of e*istence in its o(n right, the 2nderlying strat21 eternally t2rns its 1ental gaEe 2pon the 2nitary "irst Ca2se, and the conception of the "irst Ca2se (hich each receives gives it the MperfectionM befitting its rank in the cos1ic hierarchy' The intelligence th2s receives its for1 and its f2ll 1eas2re of e*istence thro2gh its concept of the "irst Ca2se' Inas12ch as the "irst Ca2se no longer e1anates anything and, altho2gh 2nitary, can have 1ore than one effect in the 1anner described, the principle that fro1 one only one can proceed no longer applies' The obGection to taking the intelligence coordinated (ith the o2ter1ost celestial sphere as the "irst Ca2se of the 2niverse has vanished, and Averroes accordingly concl2des that the "irst Ca2se is identical (ith the intelligence 1oving the o2ter1ost sphere' He contin2es to identify the active intellect as the last link, or, to be 1ore preciseBCDbeca2se of the ne( stat2s to be assigned to the 1aterial intellectBCDas the last link b2t one in the incorporeal hierarchy' Since e1anation has been r2led o2t, the active intellect is no longer the prod2ct of a process of e1anation' ike the other intelligences, it possesses a strat21 of e*istence that eternally t2rns its 1ental gaEe 2pon the 2nitary "irst Ca2se, and the conception of the "irst Ca2se (hich it thereby gains gives it its f2ll 1eas2re of perfection' $or does the active intellect e1anate nat2ral for1s or even so2l8heat' In AverroesI final vie( of things, so2lheat is engendered by the heat of the s2n blended (ith the heat of the other starsH and physically engendered so2l8heat brings potential ani1ate for1s, (hich are latent in 1atter, to act2ality' The active intellectIs operation in the s2bl2nar (orld recedes to (hat it had been in AristotleBCDthe act2aliEation of the potential h21an
;>>
intellect' Khen a h21an so2l is dra(n forth fro1 1atter by so2l8heat, the active intellect, acting as a J2asi light, stands ready to help the so2l acJ2ire intelligible tho2ght' AverroesI 1otive in rethinking his early philosophic positions (as the selfi1posed pio2s task of restoring the gen2ine Aristotle' $ot everyone (ill agree that he s2cceeded co1pletely' It is highly do2btf2l (hether Aristotle considered the incorporeal 1over of the o2ter1ost sphere to be an indirect ca2se of the f2ll 1eas2re of e*istence of the other incorporeal 1oversH and still 1ore do2btf2l (hether he considered the active intellect to be a final link in the hierarchy of incorporeal intelligencesBCDeven on the ass21ption that his active intellect is a transcendent s2bstance' $evertheless, by stripping a(ay the $eoplatonic trappings (ith (hich Alfarabi, Avicenna, and AverroesI o(n early (orks had e1bellished Aristotle, Averroes clearly has 1ade s2bstantial progress in his task' &nfort2nately, he did not leave (ell eno2gh alone' His early (orks had espo2sed a nat2ralistic constr2ction of the h21an 1aterial intellect, and an inter1ediate (ork e*peri1ented (ith the constr2ction of the 1aterial intellect as a hybrid entity' In order to reapproach Aristotle, Averroes sho2ld have dropped the e*peri1ental position, ret2rned to his original nat2ralistic constr2ction of the 1aterial intellect, and incorporated the original constr2ction into his ne(, hard8(on nat2ralistic acco2nt of biological processes' He sho2ld have 1aintained that h21an so2ls (ith their disposition for tho2ght, called 1aterial intellect, are latent in the 1atter of the s2bl2nar (orld and are dra(n forth fro1 1atter by so2l8heat' 02t as Averroes st2died AristotleIs state1ents concerning the 1aterial intellect, he beca1e 1ore and 1ore convinced that he had originally been 1isled, that the nat2ralistic acco2nt of the 1aterial intellect fits neither the Aristotelian te*t nor the facts' He (as very likely also s(ayed by his long8 standing attach1ent to the possibility of conG2nction (ith the active intellectH for in his late period he beca1e pers2aded that a generated8destr2ctible 1aterial intellect co2ld not conceivably conGoin (ith an eternal active intellect' Instead of ret2rning to his original conception of the h21an 1aterial intellect, the late Averroes 1oves still f2rther a(ay fro1 it than the inter1ediate e*peri1ent did' The cro(ning achieve1ent of his restoration of gen2ine Aristotelianis1 is the discovery that a single eternal and transcendent 1aterial intellect serves all 1ankind' His final 1odel of the 2niverse yokes a transcendent 1aterial intellect to a nat2ralistic acco2nt of biological processes' In AverroesI final vie( of things, the single eternal 1aterial intellect shared by 1ankind links itself to individ2al 1en thro2gh their i1aginative fac2lties' The active intellect is still represented as a kind of light that ill21inates both i1ages in the i1aginative fac2lty and the 1aterial intellect itself' To acco11odate the active intellectIs role in h21an tho2ght (ith the conception of a single eternal 1aterial intellect, Averroes e*plains that the 1aterial intellect receives the light of the active intellect and gains act2al concepts not as the eye receives light and colors, b2t as the
;>7
1edi21 in the vis2al process does' The 1aterial intellect, acting as a 1edi21, per1its individ2al i1aginative fac2lties to acJ2ire individ2al intelligible tho2ghts' Averroes still str2ggles to 2phold the possibility of conG2nction of the h21an so2l (ith the active intellect' A ne( proble1 raises its head, ho(ever, for nothing (o2ld see1 to redo2nd to an individ2al 1an fro1 the 1aterial intellectIs conGoining (ith the eternal active intellect, if the 1aterial intellect is, as Averroes has taken it to be, like(ise an eternal s2bstance and not a part of the h21an individ2al' Kithin the constraints of his final conception of the 1aterial intellect, Averroes salvages a conG2nction of the h21an so2l (ith the eternal active intellect only in the loosest of senses' He accordingly no longer speaks of 1anIs having the active intellect as a direct obGect of tho2ght' And no( that the 1aterial intellect is i11ortal 1erely beca2se it is an incorporeal s2bstance fro1 the start, no shred (hatsoever of the individ2al 1an (ill be able to s2rvive the bodyIs de1ise' In s21, AverroesI early 1odel of the 2niverse is shot thro2gh (ith an e1anationis1 (holly foreign to Aristotle, yet at the sa1e ti1e it endorses a nat2ralistic constr2ction of the h21an 1aterial intellect' It also insists on the possibility of the 1aterial intellectIs having the active intellect as a direct obGect of tho2ght and conGoining (ith the active intellect, notions never e*pressed in the Aristotelian canon' AverroesI final 1odel of the 2niverse dis1isses e1anationis1 and e*plains the generation of living beings in the s2bl2nar (orld nat2ralistically, all in the na1e of a 1ore gen2ine Aristotelianis1' )et it abandons the earlier nat2ralistic conception of the h21an 1aterial intellect and transfor1s the 1aterial intellect into so1ething (holly 2n8Aristotelian, a single transcendent entity serving all 1ankind' It no1inally salvages h21an conG2nction (ith the active intellect, b2t in (ords that have little content' Medieval Hebre( readers had the early, inter1ediate, and later (orks of Averroes that bear 2pon the s2bGects (e have disc2ssed, (ith the cr2cial e*ception of the ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a' atin readers, altho2gh they did possess the ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a, (orked (ith a 1ore li1ited corp2s' $evertheless, they too had te*ts-;@ in (hich the develop1ent of AverroesI tho2ght can be discerned' The 1e1bers of both gro2ps (ere, ho(ever, 2nacc2sto1ed to e*pect radical shifts on the part of a2thoritative philosophers, and they conseJ2ently did not realiEe that AverroesI earlier vie(s differed e*tensively fro1 his later vie(s' 0eca2se the t(o gro2ps (orked (ith different bodies of te*ts, they obtained different perceptions of Averroes' The 1ost significant difference concerned AverroesI position on the nat2re of the 1aterial intellect, Hebre( readers s2pposing his considered vie( to be the hybrid conception proposed by the e*c2rs2s in the Middle Co11entary on the %e ani1a, and atin readers s2pposing it to be the single eternal s2bstance serving all 1ankind, as set forth in the ong Co11entary on the %e ani1a' $otably, the Epito1e of the ,arva nat2ralia, fro1 (hich the ong Co11entaries on the %e ani1a and the Metaphysics diverge' -;@
I$%E+
Ab2lafia, /6.n Ab2 al80arakat, -/A, -;>, ->@87-, -7A, -?6,-?@,-?.8A6,/-A Achillini, />7n, ;-; AcJ2ired intellect, --8-/, />,/A8/.,@;, -77, -A@8A>, -.7,/6-8;,/67, /-/,/-7' See also acJ2ired intellect 2nder< Ale*ander, Ale*ander 9N:, Alfarabi, Averroes, Avicenna, Ibn 0aGGa, ,lotin2s Active intellect, ;,-/8;@, ;7, ;A8@;,-/A-/., -;?8@6, -@/,-@@8@., ->>>A,-7-87A,-?-,-?;8?>, -?AA6,-A/8A?,-A.,-.-8./, -.@/-., /.., ;6;, ;-6' See also active intellect 2nder< Ale*ander, Ale*ander 9N:, Alfarabi, Aristotle, Averroes, Avicenna, Ibn 0aGGa, ,lotin2s Ada1 of Marsh, /->,/-? Albert the !reat, /-;8-?,/-.,;66, ;6/, ;-- Albo, /6An Ale*ander of Aphrodisias, ?8-/,-.,/>/7, ;78;., @/8@;, @>, >@, 7>, ?-, ?;, A@8A7, ;/- acJ2ired intellect, --8-/,;A,>6, A> active intellect, -68-/, -@8->, /68/-, /.8;-, ;@, ;7, ;., >-, >>, ;>; i11ortality, ;?8 ;.,@-,>?8>A, ;;A intellect fro1 (itho2t, --8-/, ;?8;A, A> 1ateri intellect, ., ;?,@., 7?, />A7-, /7A, /?/8?7, /?A8AA, /.>/.?, /.., ;/A, ;;-, ;>@ 1aterialistic conception of h21an intellect, /A/8A;, /A7, ;6@, ;---; ;>?
Ale*ander 9N: 9a2thor of %e intellect2:, -., ;@,@/8@;, /7@, /?.8A6, /A/A;, /.;, ;//, ;/>8/7, ;/A, ;;A acJ2ired intellect, --8-/,/-8/;, ;A;.,A> active intellect, -68-/,/-8 /@,/.8;-, ;A8;.,@;,>68>-,>>,7?,/-@ i11ortality, ;.,@/ intellect fro1 (itho2t, --8 -/,/-8/;, ;A8;., A> Ale*ander of Hales, /->,/-? Alfarabi, @87,?8.,@@8?;,?@8??, A/8 A7, AA,.;, -6;87, -6., ---, -->8-A, -/-8/@, -/A, -;@, -;., -@@, -@A>6, -768-7-, -7;8 7@,-7A,-?/?@, -?A, -A68A?, -.6, -./, -.@.?, -..8/66, /6/8;, /6>8?, /6.-6, /-;8-., ///8/?, /;6, /;/, /;>8;7, />@, />A, ;-7, ;@@, ;>->;, ;>> acJ2ired intellect, --8 -/,@.8>6,>;>., 7-87>, 7?, 7.8?6 active intellect, -;, -A,/6,/., ;@,@7@?, @.8>7, >A87>, 7?, 7.8?6, --A,;-7,;@6 celestial spheres, @@8@A, 7/,7@ chronology of (orks, @@ conG2nction, >@8>7, 7/87@, 77, 7., ?-8?;,;//8/;,;/A8;-,;;A e1anation, @>8@?, >;8 >@,>A8>., 7-, 7;, 7>8?6 e2dae1onia, >7, 7/,?68?- "irst Ca2se, @>8@7, >-, 7687/, 7> i1aginative fac2lty, >-,>;, >A87;, --A i11ortality, >78>A, 7/,?68?;,-6. intelligences, @>8@?, 7/87>,?-8?/ philosophic style, >87, ?;
;>A 1aterial intellect, -6,@.,>-, >;, >?, 7-87/, 7@87>, 7?87A,/>A prophecy, >A87;, 7>,--78 -?, ;@6, ;@@, ;@78@? stages of intellect, @., 7/, 7A,-@@, -.7 A1idi, ->;n, ->@n A1rilahi, -.68.-,-.;n Angelo of AreEEo, ;-6 Ansel1, ;6/ Anthony of ,ar1a, ;-6 AJ2inas, /-;n, /-?, /..8;6;, ;6>87, ;-- Aristotle, 7, ?8-/,-.8//, /@8 /?, /.8;@, ;78 @6,@/,>;, >>, 76, 7/87;, 7>877, 7A, ?-8?/, ?78?A, A;8A@, A?,.., -678., ---, -/A, -@A, ->@, ->A, -7-, -7@, -?/, -A@, -A?, -.., /678?, /-A, //6, //>, /;-8;7, /;A8@>,/@?8>-, />>, />?, /778?;,/??8?.,/A/8A., /.-, /.@8.?, ;6/, ;6>, ;6?8., ;--8;-/, ;-7, ;/-, ;/;, ;/A8/., ;;>8;7, ;;., ;@-, ;>-8>7 active intellect, ;8@, -;8-@,-A8/6, ;-. cos1ology, @@8@A,/;/8;; definition of light, 7A, ;-A i1aginative fac2lty, .>,/7-,;@@ i11ortality, ;>,>?,-6A8. 1ateri intellect, ;,.,/>A87/,/?@? /A/8A.,;-. optics, >6, ;-A so2l8heat, /;; A2g2stine, /--, /->, /-?, ;6/, ;6> A2g2stinis1e avicennisant, /-?n Averroes, @87, ?8-6, -/,/6, /;,/.8;6, ;@, 7?, ?-8?;, -/;, -;6, -;>, -@/, -A68A-, /6?, /-@, /-A, //6>?,/>A8;-@,;->8>7 acJ2ired intellect, ;;/ active intellect, -;, //6, ///,//>, /;68@A,/>68>-,/>>8>?,/A6A/, /A?, /.6, /./8.;, /.>, /.?.A,;->8>7 anthropo1orphis1s, ;>-n
Inde* celestial spheres, //;8;-,/;>8@>, />-8>/, />@8>7,/.-, ;/;, ;>->/ co11entaries on Aristotle, //68//, /7/,/.78.? co1positions on intellect, /7/87>, ;/@n conG2nction, /.A,;/-8;>, ;;?8@6, ;>;, ;>>8>7 e1anation, //;8/>,//A8;-,/;>, /;?8;.,/>@8>?,/.?8 .A, ;-7, ;/@8/>,;@68@-, ;@?8@A, ;>/8>7 e2dae1onia, ;@/,;@@,;@A8>6 "irst Ca2se, //@8;-,/@@,/>-,/>@>?, /.-, /.?, ;;>, ;;., ;@-8@@, ;@A, ;>68>/, ;>@ i1aginative fac2lty, /778?>,/?A,/A-, /A78A?,/A.8.6, /./8.;,/.>, /.?, ;-78/6, ;/?, ;;/8;@, ;;7;.,;>6, ;>;, ;>>8>7 i11ortality, />/8>@, ;;>8@6, ;>-n, ;>;, ;>7 intellect in habit2, /?;, ;-?n, ;/6n, ;;/8;;,;;? intelligences, //6, //;8;-,/;>,/@@, />-, />>8>7, /.-8.;, /.>, ;->, ;/;8/>, ;/., ;@7, ;>-8>> 1aterial intellect, />@,/>?,/>A8;-@, ;->8 ;@6,;>-8>7 philosophic style, 7, ;>-8>7 prophecy, ;@68>- J2asi 1atter, //?,/;-,/.-8 .;,/.7.? religion, ;@.8>6 so2l8heat, /@;8@>,/@A8>6,/>/8>@, />?, ;>@8>> theoretical intellect, /AA, /.68.-,/.;, ;/>, ;;; Averroists, />., ;6-, ;6>87, ;-6, ;-/ Avicenna, @87,?8-;,/6,/>8 /7,/A8;6, ;@, ?@8-/7,-/?8/-.,///8/>, /;6, /;/, /;7, /@>8@7, />6, />@>>, ;-7, ;//, ;@68@-, ;@@, ;@?, ;>-8>;, ;>> acJ2ired intellect, --8-/, A>8A.,./, .@, .?, -6;8@, -67, -->, -/@8/>
Inde* active intellect, >,?78--/,-->8/7, -/? a2thenticity of (orks, ?@n, A-n, .-n, -//n, -@A celestial spheres, ?@8?A, A-8A/,--6, --;8-@,--.,-/- cogitative fac2lty and cogitation, ./, .78-6>,---,--?8-/6,-/> conG2nction, AA8.@,.78-6>,--68-/, -->8--?, --.,-//n, -/;, -/>-/7, -;. e1anation, ?@8A6, A/8A;, A78-6>, -6?,-6.,-->8-?,--.8/7 e2dae1onia, -6.8-/,--> "irst Ca2se, ?>8??, A-8A/, --6,--.-/-, -/@ giver of for1s, ?A8?.,-/@ h21an so2l as an incorporeal s2bstance, A;, .@, -67 i1aginative fac2lty, A.,.;,.>8.7,.., -6@,--;8-@,--78/;,-/>8/7 i11ortality, -678-7,-/> insight 9hads:, ..8-6;,-6>,--?8/6, -/;,-/>8/7,-;. intellect in habit2, A@, A?, .6,./,.@, .?, ..8-6/, -/@ intelligences, ?@8??,A68A/,.-,--6, -/-8//,-/@ internal senses, A.,.> 1aterial intellect, A@, A78A?,.6,.@, .?, -668-6/, -/@, />A, /7. 1ysticis1, -6>n philosophic style, 7, A; prophecy, --78/;,-/7,-;. stages of intellect, A@8A?,.6,.@, trans1igration, -6.,--@ 0acielieri, ;-; 0acon, /->8-? 0aconthorpe, ;67 0ah1anyar, -/? 0akr al8 Ma(sili, A,->,-?8-A 0atlay2si, ->@n 0lend of 1atter 91iEdG, i1tiEaG, 1eEeg, hi11aEeg, hi11aEeg2i:, >7, ?.A6 -6?, -/@, -@?, -7>877, -7A,
;>. -?@, -A;, -.-, -.@, -.7, -.A, /6@, /6A, /;;, /;78;?, /@/8@;, /@78@? 0l2nd, Lohn, /-;, /-. 0oethi2s, /-/ 0onavent2re, ;6/, ;-- 02rley, Kalter, ;-6 Cabala, /6.,/-. Ca2se, fo2r senses of, -6?, ;/; Celestial spheres, -/.,-;;8 ;7,-@/,-@@, -@78@?,->68>/,->>8>?,-767>,-7A,-?-8?A,-A-8A;,-A?AA,-.6,-.@8.>,-.?8 /66,/6/, /6A,/-68--,/-A' See also celestial spheres 2nder' Alfarabi, Averroes, Avicenna' See also %i2rnal sphere, Eccentric and epicyclical spheres Clairvoyance 9kahana:, >.,/6;,;@68@@, ;@? Cogitation' See cogitative fac2lty Cogitative fac2lty, -;A8@6,-@/,-@A,-77, -A7, -.;, ;6-, ;67, ;6.8-6, ;-/, ;;7,;@6,;@>8@7' See also Avicenna< cogitative fac2lty ConG2nction (ith active intellect or other s2pernal beings, ;@8@;,-;.8@6, -@>, -@7n, -@?8@., ->-, ->., -7787?, -?>,-?A,-A>8A7,-./.>, /6-8/, /67, /6A8-6, /-/, /-7' See also conG2nction 2nder' Alfarabi, Averroes, Avicenna, Ibn 0aGGa Crescas, Hasdai, /6An %e pri1is et sec2ndis s2bstantiis, /-6--,/-. della Mirandola, Antonio 0ernardi, ;-; %el1edigo, EliGah, ;66 %escartes, A;n %irect e*perience 9dha(J, 12shahada:, -;68;-,-@6, -@/, -@A8@., -7., -?78 A6,/-;,/-A %i2rnal sphere, @>, ?@, ->-, -7;87@, -A;, //;, //An, /;-, />@
;76 %rea1s, >A, 7-, 7>, --A, -/-, -@-, ->-, -76, -7A, -??, -A7, /6;8>, /6A, ;@68@. %2nash b' Ta1i1, -.;n Eccentric and epicycllcal spheres, @>, ?@n, -;>, -7@, //> E1anation, @, -@, /.8;6, ;/, ;@, -/A, -;>8;.,-@-8@/,-@78@?,-@.>-,->;, ->A8>.,-7/8 7>, -?-8?@, -?A,-A6, -A/8AA, -.68/--, /-;-@, /-7, /-A8-.' See also e1anation 2nder' Alfarabi, Averroes, Avicenna E1pedocles, -?6 Erlgena, /-- Eternity of (orld, -;;, -;A, -@/, ->7, -76, -7>, -?;, -A/, /66, /67 E2dae1onia 9sacada:, -/.,-@7,->.876, -77, -?>' -?A, -A@, -.;8.>, /6A., See also e2dae1onia 2nder' Alfarabi, Averroes, Avicenna "alaJ2era, /6An "irst Ca2se, @87, -@8-7, -A, ;6, ;78;?, -/A, -;68;A, -@68 @/,-@78>;, ->>8>7, -7687-,-7;87@, -7A, -?68?@, -?A8?.,-A/,-AA8.7, -.A8/6-, /6;87, /6A8-., ;6>, ;@- See also "irst Ca2se 2nder< Alfarabi, Averroes, Avicenna "ro1 one only one can proceed, ?>, ->6, ->>, -76, -7@, -7>n, -?-, -A/A;, -..8/66, //@, //A !alen, /@; !en2a, ;-; !ersonides, /6?n, /6An, /.. !haEali, ?.,-/?8@@,-@?, -@.8 ->>, -7@, -7.8?6, -?/, -??8A-, -A?, -.., /67, /6.8-6, /-A, ///, />68>/, ;@A a2thenticity of (orks, -;-n, -;;n, -;@n, -@;, -@@n critiJ2e of AvicennaIs philosophy, ->68>;
Inde* s211ary of AvicennaIs philosophy, ?.,-/? veiled endorse1ent of AvicennaIs philosophy, -;68@; !iles of Orleans, ;-6 !iles of Ro1e, ;-- !iver of for1s, -/., ->-,-7>, -?@, -A;, -.-8./,-.@, -.7, -.A,/67,/6A, /-;, /-@, /-A8-., /@>8@A, />->/' See also Avicenna< giver of for1s !od' See "irst Ca2se !regory of $yssa, /-!rossteste, /->, /-? !2ndissalin2s 9N:, /--8-;,/-. Heavens' See Celestial spheres Her1es Tris1egistos, -7. Hillel ben Sa12el, /..8;66 Ibn 0aGGa 9Ave1pace:, ?-8 ?;,-/A,-@@@7, -@A, -A6, -A@8A?, /66, /6;, /67, /-A, ///, /;;8;>, /@6, /@/, /@A, />A8 >., /7-, /7A87., /?/, /?@, /?A, /A-8A/, /A78AA, /.>, /.?, /.., ;//8/;, ;/>, ;/?8/A, ;;68;-, ;;A8@-, ;@>8@?, ;>-8>/ acJ2ired intellect, -@> active intellect, -@@8@7, conG2nction, -@>8@7, ;/? 1aterial intellect, -@@,/7- prophecy, ;@68@- spirit2al for1s, /7-,/77n Ibn %a2d, Abraha1,-A-,-.>8.?, /6?, /-A8-. Ibn EEra, -.;n Ibn !abirol, -7, -.;n, /6An, /-@ Ibn ,aJ2da, 0ahya, -.;n, /6An Ibn Sabcin, ->;n Ibn She1 Tob, /.. IbnT2fail, ?-8?;, -/A, -;?, -@78@., -7., -??, -A6, /-A, ;// IGl, ->@n I1aginative fac2lty, -@-8@/, -@>,-7?87A, -?>8?A, -A>8A7, -.;, -.?, /6;7,/6A,/7-,/..,;6-,;6@8?,
Inde* ;-6, ;-/, ;;78@6' See also i1aginative fac2lty 2nder' Alfarabi, Aristotle, Averroes, Avicenna I11ortality, ;@8@;,-/.,-@>,-@?,-@., ->/8>;, ->.876, -?>, -?A, -A>, -A?, -A., -.@, -.7, /6/8;, /6?, /--,/76,;//8/;' See also i11ortality 2nder' Ale*ander, Ale*ander 9N:, Alfarabi, Aristotle, Averroes, Avicenna, The1isti2s Insight 9hads:, -;.8@/, ->A,-778A7 /6@7,/-/' See also Avicenna< insight Intellect' See acJ2ired intellect, active intellect, intellect in habit2, intelligences, 1aterial 9potential: intellect, passive intellect, stages of intellect, theoretical intellect Intellect in habit2, -68-/, /?,@., A@, -/.,-77, /--' See also intellect in habit2 2nder' Averroes, Avicenna Intelligences, @, 7,-/A8/.,-;;8;.,-@/, -@@8@A,->68>-,->>8>?,-7/7>,-?-8?@,-?A, -A-8 A;,-A?AA,-.68.-,-.@8.>,-.?8/66, /6/, /6@, /6A, /-6, /-/8-@, /-A' See also intelligences 2nder< Alfarabi, Avicenna, Averroes Internal senses, -;?n' See also Avicenna< internal senses Isaac Israeli, -78-A Isserles, /6An IshaJ ibn H2nain, A,->,-A Lacob ben Sheshet, /6.n Lacob of ,lacentia, ;-- Land2n, />7n, ;-68-/ Lohn of !oettingen, ;-6 Lohn ,hilopon2s, A, -@, -A, @? L2dah Hallevi, -A-8.>,/6?,/-A8-. 3ay 3hosra(, -7. 3indi, A, ->8-A, /?8/., ;;8;@,@-8@;, @A,AA
;7eone Ebreo, /6?n iber de ca2sis, /-- ight, as 1etaphor, -@,-.8/-,/;8/@ /7/?,/., ;;, ;A8;.,>68>-, >;8>@, >.,7-87/,7A,?6,.-8.@,-;-;A,-@-8@/,->A,-7;87@,-7.?., -./, -.7, /-/, /->8-?, ;-7-A, ;>-n in vision, /-, /;, >68>-, 7A,./8.;, ;-78-A,;/>,;;/8;; 2ll, ;-- Mai1onides, -A-,-.?8/6?,/-A8-. Marin2s, -> Marsili2s of ,ad2a, ;-6 Marston, /-? Material intellect, ;, >,-/.,-;A,-@>, ->A, -77, -A;8A@, -.>8.7, /66, /6;,/67,/-68--,/>A8;-@' See also 1aterial intellect 2nder' Ale*ander, Alfarabi, Aristotle, Averroes, Avicenna, Ibn 0aGGa, The1isti2s Miracles, -//8/;,-/7,-7A,;@A Mirror, 1etaphor of, />, .@, -;An, -@A, ->A, -77 Miska(ayh, ->@n Moses ben $ah1an, /6An, /6.n M2lla Sadra, -?. M2sa al8 a(i, /6An $arboni, /.. $eoplatonic hypostases, -/8-;,-78-A, /@8/>, /A, ;-8;/, @-, @;, @7, A/, ->@n $ifo, ;678?, ;-; Oil la1p, i1agery of, -;6,-;. Oriental philosophy, 7,?@n, -@A ,artic2lariEation, ?A,->; ,arva nat2ralia in Arabic translation, ;@-n ,assive intellect, ;>, @., 7-, -A;8A@, /?A, /.@, ;6- ,a2l of #enice, ;-;
;7/ ,eckha1, /-78-?, ;-- ,eter of Trabes, ;-- ,hilo, -;- ,hilosopher8king, 7/87; ,lato, -@8->, -?8-A, /6, ;/, 7@, A., -;-, -7., -?>, //7, /;6, /;An, /@/, /@7, /77, /?> ,lotin2s, ?8.,-/,-@8-7, /@8/7,/., ;-;/, ;@, @-8@;, @7, >68>-, 77, A/, A7,AA,.-,.;, -;acJ2ired intellect, -/,/> active intellect, -@,-A,/@,/., ;- ,o1panaEEi, ,ietro, ;-; ,otential intellect' See Material intellect ,ractical intellect, 76, 7@, 7., AA,.@, ;;78;?, ;@> ,ri1e 1atter, @?8@A, 7;, 7787?,?78A6, -/@, -7;, -7>, -?-' -A;, -.>, -.A, /6A, /;>8;?, /@A, />?, ;>/ ,rocl2s, 76n, -7@,/-- ,rophecy, -;.8@/,-@A8@.,->-8 >;,->.76,-7?87., -?78?A,-A>8A7, -.;8.>, -.?, /6;8A, /-/, /-.' See also prophecy 2nder< Alfarabi, Averroes, Avicenna, Ibn 0aGGa ,se2do80ahya, /6An ,se2do8 %ionysi2s, /-- ,se2do8,orphyry, ., -7, -A, /?8/.,@/@;,AA P2asi 1atter, ;6>' See also Averroes< J2asi 1atter Recanati, /6.n Revelation 9(8h8y:, >.,--7, -/6, -@6, -7A, -A7, ;@6, ;@/8@@, ;@?8>6 R2ah Hen, /6An RaEi, "akhr al8%in, ->@n Scot2s, ;-Shahrasta1, -/A,->@n Shalo1, Abraha1, /6?n, /6An Siger of 0rabant, ;6;8., ;-Si1on of "aversha1, ;--
Inde* So2l8heat' See so2l8heat 2nder< Aristotle, Averroes Spirit2al for1s' See Ibn 0aGGa< spirit2al for1s Spontaneo2s generation, ;/8;;, /;;8;>, /;., /@/, /@@8@A, />68>;, />>, />?, ;>/ Stages of intellect, -/, -/A, -77, -7A, -A@, -.7, /668-, /67, /--' See also stages of intellect 2nder' Alfarabi, Avicenna Stoicis1, ;68;-,/?.8A6 S2hra(ardi, -/A, -;>, ->@, -7-8A6, /-A S2pernal region 91alak2t:, --.,-;;8;@ Taiapietra, ;-; talkhls, // In, /7/n Te1pier, ;6/8; Thadde2s of ,ar1a, ;-- The1isti2s, ?8A, ->,@/8 @;,>68>-, >@, >?8>A, 7?87A, /-@8->, //7, /;6, />-, ;//, ;/>8/7, ;/A, ;;-, ;;>, ;;A, ;>;8>@ active intellect, -@,-A,/78/?,/.,;/;@, ;A8@6 i11ortality, ;.8@- 1aterial 9potential: intellect, .,@6, />A87-, /7., /?@, /?7, /?A8A/, /A?8.-, /.;, /.> Theology of Aristotle, A, /@, >>, 77, -;-;;, -7@ ong version, ->@n Theophrast2s, /7687-,/7., /?.8A6, /A? Theoretical intellect, ;6>' See also Averroes< theoretical intellect Tho2ght, first principles of, /7,>-8>/, 7/, 7@, 7A8?6, A@, A?8AA, ./, .@, .?, -66, -/@, -;A, -77, -A., -.78.?,/6-,/7?,;/6,;@7 Trans1igration, -77, -?>, -?A,-.7 T2sl, -/A c&y2nal8MasaIil, -/A8/. &y2n al8MasaIil, -/A8/.
#ernias, $icolleto, ;-;
Inde* Killia1 of Aln(ick, ;-- Killia1 of A2vergne, /-;n, /->,/-? Killia1 of 0aglione, ;6/,;-- Killia1 of la Mare, ;-- Kilton, Tho1as, ;-6 Farath2stra, -7. Fi1ara, Marcanatonio, />7n, ;-;
;7;

Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes, On Intellect

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes, On Intellect

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alfarabi, Avicenna, andAverroes, on Intellect

This page intentionally left blank

Herbert A' %avidson

$e( )ork O*ford O+"OR% &$I#ERSIT) ,RESS -../

-;>?.A7@/ ,rinted in the &nited States of A1erica on acid8free paper

Mark, EliEabeth, and Abigail

This page intentionally left blank

This page intentionally left blank

Contents Reverberations in Scholastic ,hilosophy, /6. S211ary, /-A

Alfarabi, Avicenna, andAverroes, on Intellect

This page intentionally left blank

Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes, on Intellect

Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes, on Intellect

!REE3 A$% ARA0IC A$TECE%E$TS

Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes, on Intellect

fro1 The1isti2sI ,araphrase of Metaphysics -/'-- ,lotin2s and his Enneads

!reek and Arabic Antecedents

Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes, on Intellect

!reek and Arabic Antecedents

Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes, on Intellect

Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes, on Intellect

!reek and Arabic Antecedents

,robably identical (ith a st2dent of ,rocl2s by that na1e'

Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes, on Intellect

!reek and Arabic Antecedents

Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes, on Intellect

Aristotle, %e ani1a ;'>'@;6a, -68->'

!reek and Arabic Antecedents

Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes, on Intellect

,lato, Rep2blic @A@CH E2thryphro 7E' ??

!reek and Arabic Antecedents

A@ %e intellect2 -6?' A> Aristotle, %e generatione ani1ali21 /';'?;7b, /A'

See Mora2*, Ale*andre dIAphrodise 9n' ; above: -/78/?'

Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes, on Intellect

!reek and Arabic Antecedents

Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes, on Intellect

!reek and Arabic Antecedents

.?Theology of Aristotle -6>87, paralleling Enneads >'-';'

Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes, on Intellect

!reek and Arabic Antecedents

RasaIil al83indl 9n' // above: ;>7H cf' ibid' ->>'

Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes, on Intellect

!reek and Arabic Antecedents

Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes, on Intellect

!reek and Arabic Antecedents

76;Vt' -/- l/6

Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes, on Intellect

say' The occasion is a passage in AristotleIs Metaphysics (hich reGects the

!reek and Arabic Antecedents

Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes, on Intellect

Above, p' -7'

!reek and Arabic Antecedents

Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes, on Intellect

Cf' %e intellect 9n' / above: -6A' Above, p' -;'

!reek and Arabic Antecedents

Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes, on Intellect

!reek and Arabic Antecedents

Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes, on Intellect

!reek and Arabic Antecedents

Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes, on Intellect

!reek and Arabic Antecedents

A "ARA0I O$ EMA$ATIO$, THE ACTI#E I$TE I$TE ECT

ECT, A$% H&MA$

See Mora2, Aleandre dIAphrodise 9n' ; above: -/78/?'