History of Philosophy Workshop: Fouad Ben Ahmed (Harvard University, Cambridge/Qarawiyyin University, Rabat) and Robert Pasnau (University of Colorado, Boulder)

Ibn Rushd on Philosophical Dialectic: The Scientific-Humanistic Ethos and Its Political Limits

Fouad Ben Ahmed

Harvard University, Cambridge/Qarawiyyin University, Rabat

Abstract: This paper examines Ibn Rushd’s (Averroes, d. 1198) nuanced treatment of philosophical dialectic, highlighting both its scientific-humanistic ethos and its political limits. On one hand, Ibn Rushd regards dialectic as a rigorous tool for intellectual inquiry, stressing its universal values of cooperation and partnership to advance human civilization and scientific pursuits. On the other, he circumscribes its usefulness in public discourse—preferring rhetoric and legal argumentation for the masses—thereby reflecting his awareness of dialectic’s limited civic efficacy. By analyzing key components of dialectic and underscoring its communal ethos, the paper studies Ibn Rushd’s departure from the Aristotelian tradition and earlier Muslim philosophers in restricting dialectic to specialized philosophical and scientific domains. In so restricting dialectic, he seeks to safeguard its integrity from theological polemics and protect its primary function of cultivating knowledge. The paper concludes by emphasizing Ibn Rushd’s balanced stance: while dialectic cultivates critical thinking and shared human values, it should be applied judiciously, with attention to context, audience, and the ultimate aims of fostering truth and social harmony.

Ibn Rushd’s Not-So-Crazy Theory of Understanding

Robert Pasnau

University of Colorado Boulder

Abstract: Ibn Rushd thinks that the intellect we make use of is not a part of us. Although this is widely treated as a crazy view, I will try to show that it is not crazy at all, inasmuch as it is motivated by a set of plausible philosophical assumptions. Since not all of those assumptions have remained plausible, after 800 years, I will not try to make the case that this is how the human mind works. But I mean to argue that the mind could work like this, inasmuch as the idea of the Rushdian Mind is not incoherent. What’s more, looking to the future, I will suggest that it is quite possible, even likely, that our minds increasingly will work like this, as artificial intelligence advances. So even if Ibn Rushd’s theory was wrong when he died in 1198, and even if it remains wrong today, it may well be the theory of understanding of the future.