Algazelo: Malsamoj inter versioj
| [kontrolita revizio] | [kontrolita revizio] |
Enhavo forigita Enhavo aldonita
Kani (diskuto | kontribuoj) |
Kani (diskuto | kontribuoj) |
||
Linio 74:
* '''Memrefuto''' aŭ '''[[Nekohereco de filozofoj]]''' (''Tahafut al-falasifa'', {{lang-ar|تهافت الفلاسفة}})
:En ĉi tiu verko, latine nomita ''destructio philosophorum'', li prezentas sian [[skeptikismo|skeptikisman]] krizon kaj atakas la filozofojn ĝenerale kaj [[Aviceno]]n speciale. La verko provokis [[Ibn-Ruŝd]]-on al repliko laŭlinia en sia verko ''Tahāfut al-tahāfut'' (la nekohereco de la nekohereco, aŭ, la detruo de la detruo; {{la}} ''destructio destructionum'').
{{redaktata}}▼
Tiu verko markis gravan mejloŝtonon en la Islama [[epistemologio]]. La renkonto kun [[skeptikismo]] kondukis Algazelon al akcepto de ia formo de teologia okazismo, aŭ al la kredo ke ĉiuj kaŭzaj aferoj kaj interagadoj estas ne la produkto de materiaj konjunkturoj sed anstataŭe la tuja kaj certa Volo de Dio. En la venonta jarcento ja [[Ibn-Ruŝd]] skizis longan malakcepton de la ''Nekohereco'' de Algazelo titolita ''la nekohereco de la nekohereco''; tamen, la epistemologia fluo de la Islama pensaro jam estis metita.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Craig|first1=William Lane|title=The cosmological argument from Plato to Leibniz|date=2001|publisher=Wipf and Stock|location=Eugene, OR.|isbn=978-1579107871|page=89}}</ref> Algazelo montris kiel ekzemplo de la iluzio de sendependaj leĝoj de kaŭzo la fakton ke kotono brulas kiam venas en kontakto kun fajro. While it might seem as though a natural law was at work, it happened each and every time only because God willed it to happen—the event was "a direct product of divine intervention as any more attention grabbing miracle". [[Averroes]], by contrast insisted while God created the natural law, humans "could more usefully say that fire caused cotton to burn—because creation had a pattern that they could discern."<ref name="Kadri-118">{{cite book|last1=Kadri|first1=Sadakat|title=Heaven on Earth: A Journey Through Shari'a Law from the Deserts of Ancient Arabia ..|date=2012|publisher=macmillan|isbn=9780099523277|pages=118–9|url=https://books.google.com/?id=ztCRZOhJ10wC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Heaven+on+Earth:+A+Journey+Through+Shari%27a+Law#v=onepage&q=Heaven%20on%20Earth%3A%20A%20Journey%20Through%20Shari'a%20Law&f=false}}</ref>▼
▲Tiu verko markis gravan mejloŝtonon en la Islama [[epistemologio]]. La renkonto kun [[skeptikismo]] kondukis Algazelon al akcepto de ia formo de teologia okazismo, aŭ al la kredo ke ĉiuj kaŭzaj aferoj kaj interagadoj estas ne la produkto de materiaj konjunkturoj sed anstataŭe la tuja kaj certa Volo de Dio. En la venonta jarcento ja [[Ibn-Ruŝd]] skizis longan malakcepton de la ''Nekohereco'' de Algazelo titolita ''la nekohereco de la nekohereco''; tamen, la epistemologia fluo de la Islama pensaro jam estis metita.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Craig|first1=William Lane|title=The cosmological argument from Plato to Leibniz|date=2001|publisher=Wipf and Stock|location=Eugene, OR.|isbn=978-1579107871|page=89}}</ref> Algazelo montris kiel ekzemplo de la iluzio de sendependaj leĝoj de kaŭzo la fakton ke [[kotono]] brulas kiam venas en kontakto kun [[fajro]].
The ''Incoherence'' also marked a turning point in Islamic philosophy in its vehement rejections of [[Aristotle]] and [[Plato]]. The book took aim at the ''falasifa'', a loosely defined group of Islamic philosophers from the 8th through the 11th centuries (most notable among them [[Avicenna]] and [[Al-Farabi]]) who drew intellectually upon the [[Ancient Greece|Ancient Greeks]].▼
▲{{redaktata}}
▲The ''Incoherence'' also marked a turning point in Islamic philosophy in its vehement rejections of [[
This long-held argument has been criticized. [[George Saliba]] in 2007 argued that the decline of science in the 11th century has been overstated, pointing to continuing advances, particularly in astronomy, as late as the 14th century.<ref name=Aydin_Saliba>"Many orientalists argue that Ghazali's Tahafut is responsible for the age of decline in [[science]] in the Muslim World. This is their key thesis as they attempt to explain the scientific and intellectual history of the Islamic world. It seems to be the most widely accepted view on the matter not only in the Western world but in the Muslim world as well. George Saliba, a Professor of Arabic and Islamic Science at Columbia University who specializes in the development of astronomy within Islamic civilization, calls this view the "classical narrative" (Saliba, 2007)." {{cite web|last=Aydin|first=Nuh|title=Did al-Ghazali kill the science in Islam?|url=http://www.fountainmagazine.com/Issue/detail/did-al-ghazali-kill-the-science-in-islam-may-june-2012|accessdate=23 February 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150430051445/http://www.fountainmagazine.com/Issue/detail/did-al-ghazali-kill-the-science-in-islam-may-june-2012|archive-date=2015-04-30|url-status=dead}}</ref>▼
▲[[George Saliba]] in 2007 argued that the decline of science in the 11th century has been overstated, pointing to continuing advances, particularly in astronomy, as late as the 14th century.<ref name=Aydin_Saliba>"Many orientalists argue that Ghazali's Tahafut is responsible for the age of decline in [[science]] in the Muslim World. This is their key thesis as they attempt to explain the scientific and intellectual history of the Islamic world. It seems to be the most widely accepted view on the matter not only in the Western world but in the Muslim world as well. George Saliba, a Professor of Arabic and Islamic Science at Columbia University who specializes in the development of astronomy within Islamic civilization, calls this view the "classical narrative" (Saliba, 2007)." {{cite web|last=Aydin|first=Nuh|title=Did al-Ghazali kill the science in Islam?|url=http://www.fountainmagazine.com/Issue/detail/did-al-ghazali-kill-the-science-in-islam-may-june-2012|accessdate=23 February 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150430051445/http://www.fountainmagazine.com/Issue/detail/did-al-ghazali-kill-the-science-in-islam-may-june-2012|archive-date=2015-04-30|url-status=dead}}</ref>
On the other hand, [[Hassan Hassan]] in 2012 argued that while indeed scientific thought in Islam was stifled in the 11th century, the person mostly to blame is not Al-Ghazali but [[Nizam al-Mulk]].<ref name="thenational.ae">Hasan Hasan, [http://www.thenational.ae/thenationalconversation/comment/how-the-decline-of-muslim-scientific-thought-still-haunts#full How the decline of Muslim scientific thought still haunts], ''The National'', 9 February 2012.</ref>
| |||