What is Latin Avicenna?

What is Latin Avicenna?

December 22, 2019 0 By Felso

The thirteenth century is not a century in which only great and important philosophers emerged. Of course, many names have achieved significant successes in this century. Thomas Aquinas is undoubtedly one of the greatest philosophers of this period. However, there is another name with it, one of the important problems in the thirteenth century owes its existence to it. This famous name is none other than Ibn Rushd. The Middle Ages considered him the best interpreter of Aristotle and awarded him the title “Commentator Yorumcu. This influence of Ibn Rushd is of course not accidental. The thirteenth century was a period when Aristotle’s works were largely translated into Latin. As a natural reflection of this great translation movement, the translation of important philosophical works written in Ancient Greek into Latin had a great impact.

After the works translated by Guilelmus de Moerbeka, who was called Pr Prince of Translators da in Greek in Latin in the thirteenth century, it was inevitable that the thoughts of Ibn Rushd, who was thought to interpret these works in the best way, would enter the Latin world. Ibn Rushd, with his interpretations and his own original works, fell like a bomb to medieval universities. Immediately after this influence, the Catholic authorities began to express the concern that the thoughts of a Muslim philosopher might harm their own beliefs; Many philosophers, especially Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas, wrote against Ibn Rushd and tried to refute those who did not conform to Christian faith among his interpretations of Aristotle.

Latin Ibn Rushdism is a movement of thought put forward by some Latin philosophers under the influence of Ibn Rushd, as can be easily understood from the aforementioned. This effect came from both Ibn Rushd’s comments on Aristotle’s works and Aristotle’s own works. The followers of Ibn Rushd’s philosophy were mostly based at the University of Paris. “The University of Paris has always preferred to approach Aristotle’s works from a distance. This stems from the fact that he (Aristotle) ​​was a pagan and his cosmology was parallel to this pagan understanding. In 1210, Aristotle’s teaching of Physics and Metaphysics at the university in Paris was strictly forbidden, and this ban was reinforced by the Papal orders of 1215 and 1228. However, this was not only the case with the philosopher (Aristotle’s) followed by the Christian world, now also his commentator (ie Ibn Rushd) with another name, had to deal with a Muslim on top ”(Akyol, 2005: 25).

At that time there were people in Paris who gave more importance and value to Ibn Rushd’s interpretations than anything else. These were people who, like other teachers, were not only interested in divinity and were trying to make philosophy. Following Aristotle and Ibn Rushd, they were only trying to follow the path of reason, far from the doctrine of religion. Sigerus de Brabant, one of the most famous, said at the time: “We cannot deal with the miracles of God today; because we are searching for objects of nature in a natural way ”(Maurer, 1982: 192). This was actually his teacher Albertus Magnus; but it is important that it shows a certain school understanding and thought. This thought meant the end of the association of philosophy with theology that had been going on for almost a thousand years. In other words,

The Ibn Rushdists were actually taking Aristotle as their model. Ibn Rushd was also well-known as his interpreter. Therefore, in Aristotle’s lectures at the University of Paris, predominantly Ibn Rushd interpretations came to the fore. However, the philosophers of these philosophers were of course influenced by other philosophers. It is precisely for this reason that instead of calling it a school, it would be right to see it as a development that prepares later periods (Maurer, 1982: 193). Their joint effort was to prevent as far as possible the religious influences in the interpretation of Aristotle’s philosophy. They were careful in doing this. Whenever they try to teach something that is opposed to religious content, it can be said that it occurs through reason and philosophy; therefore, they said that there was no truth against religion. Two names came to the forefront among Ibn Rushdists and their thoughts were taken seriously by their opponents. These are Sigerus de Brabant and Boethius Dacus.