Averroes and His Philosophy (review)

444 JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY 28:3 JULY t99 o because the Platonic view of being as above the world of sense is easily reinterpreted in terms of monotheism, but also because Platonist views of the intellectual life are easily transformed into Christian views of the spiritual life. In both pagan and Christian philosophies of Platonic inspiration, knowledge comes from above and outside the self (63); it leads to wisdom, which leads to spiritual perfection (17); the knower finally becomes like God, or deified (t61). This does not mean that God and man become the same being, but only that man becomes the image of God, the state in which he was originally created. This fine work contains a few slips, such as the use of the verb "control" in the French rather than the English sense (53). And the notorious thousand-year-old joke of King Charles the Bald--"Quid distat inter Scotum et sottum?'---does not come through quite right (214), since the last word means "fool" (cf. French sot), not "drunkard." Professor O'Meara has given us a most useful, accurate, learned introduction to John Eriugena; the publisher has given it a U.S. price far beyond most scholarly purses. P^ut. J. W. M~LLER Rome Oliver Leaman. Averroes and His Philosophy. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988. Pp. xii + ~o4. $49.95. Leaman's latest book has both the strengths and weaknesses of his previous book, An Introduction to Medieval Islamic Philosophy (Cambridge, 1985). The latter volume had no coherence as a book; it read like a collection of essays. Unfortunately, the same must be said for Averroes and His Philosophy. The book is divided into three main sections, "Metaphysics," "Practical Philosophy," and "Reason, Religion, and Language," and though Leaman attempts to connect the sections via a discussion of Averroes' theory of meaning, a species of pros hen equivocation which, according to Leaman, accounts for both the critique of Ghazali (and, indirectly, Avicenna) and the deep harmony between sharf 'a (revealed law) and philosophy, the fact remains that the book as a whole lacks internal coherence. At the very least, it would have been a good idea to present the overarching methodological thesis concerning Averroes' semantic theory at the beginnmg of the volume rather than at its conclusion (at 179ff.). This would have allowed the reader to have at the outset the framework in which to understand how Averroes could at one and the same time attack Ghazali's "orthodox" occasionalism and hold that "there is no way in which demonstrative reasoning can clash with the principles of religion" (150). This having been said, L~aman's book is an important contribution toward the philosophical understanding of Averroes. Leaman is a controversialist and sees himself as such. In this book, as in the previous one, he heaps scorn upon those who would separate Averroes from his arguments and, as a result, interpret him in a way contrary to his (Averroes') explicit intent. Leaman has no patience with those (Straussians) who (ultimately) refuse to take Averroes seriously, at face value, as both a Muslim and a BOOK REVIEWS 445 philosopher offering rigorous (and in no way disingenuous) demonstrative arguments and establishing antiorthodox (but theologically acceptable) conclusions on issues in cosmology, philosophical theology, and practical philosophy. For Leaman, it is only when we understand Averroes as a philosopher working within the religious tradition that we have any chance of overcoming the "dualism" between philosophy and (revealed ) law which the Straussian interpreters foist upon Averroes. For the Straussian, however, Averroes, qua philosopher, cannot hold that philosophy and revealed law (religion) are commensurable. And when Averroes argues just the opposite in his Fo4l al-maqfd (The Decisive Treatise on the Harmony of Religion and Philosophy), that there is a deep harmony between the two, and, even more, that the Qur'fm demands the study of philosophy, Averroes must be dissimulating in some manner, according to the Straussian interpretation. But Leaman will have none of this. He shows that reflection upon the Fa4ldoes not support the doctrine of "double truth," the (ultimately) fideistic position which entails a rigid compartmentalization of philosophy and religion. For Leaman, "[although] Averroes did emphasize the...