Types of Reasoning According to Averroes

People have different levels of ability, according to Averroes (d. 1198). They belong broadly to the demonstrative class, the dialectical class and the rhetorical class. These 3 classes correspond to the 3 types of reasoning, demonstrative, dialectical and rhetorical. 

 

 

 

Demonstrative reasoning involves using the syllogistic logical method from Aristotle. This produces true knowledge. Dialectical reasoning relies more on probability, and expert opinion, and it might or might not produce true knowledge. Rhetorical reasoning involves opinions and appeals to our emotions and imagination. This likewise might or might not produce true knowledge.

The question arises because scripture can seem to contradict with reason, in this case, Aristotle’s philosophy. However, given the unity of truth, where “truth does not oppose truth but accords with it and bears witness to it” (Classical Arabic Philosophy, p. 313, para 18), philosophy and the scriptures cannot contradict each other since both are sources of truth. If there are contradictions, this means that the scriptures must be interpreted allegorically. The scriptures are intentionally given like this by God to “stimulate the learned to deeper study”. (p. 314, para 21)

However, not everyone can understand the scriptures allegorically. Most people belong to the rhetorical class, who are not capable of high-level abstract thought. Next comes the dialectical class who are capable of some. Theologians belong in this class. The highest class is the demonstrative class, whose members are capable of high-level abstract thinking, and these are the philosophers.

Hence, even though understanding scripture is best done through demonstrative reasoning to get at the truth, it is not suitable for everyone. The scriptures contain an apparent and an inner meaning. When the lower classes are told that the apparent meaning is wrong and are exposed to allegorical interpretation, because of their lack of understanding, this can lead them to unbelief and hence sin. It is hence better for these groups to settle for the apparent meaning. The higher classes should not expose them to the inner meanings which require allegorical interpretation, but instead should tell them that “it is ambiguous and known by no one except God,” (p. 321 para 45) lest they fall into unbelief and sin.

Most of the scriptures in fact uses the rhetorical method since it can then appeal to more people. Hence the Law is wise in providing portions where each can understand according to his own ability.

As a theologian, I might find Averroes’s sociology condescending since he seems to place the philosophers above me. While I might agree that the hoi polloi might be best allowed only to understand the scriptures literally, I would, similar to al-Ghazali (d. 1111), object that it is not just knowledge that is important, but also we need to “taste” (The Rescuer from Error, p. 27, l. 8) the state of ecstasy, where religious experience, like how the mystic practices of the Sufis are the true path that leads to God. I would object to Averroes’s privileging of knowledge especially in matters of faith where he objects to conformism and put forward that experience supersedes knowledge. Hence Averroes’s sociology would fail since this apparent hierarchy would not have accounted for what is outside the realm of knowledge.