Rushd

Rushd’s “The Incoherence of The Incoherence” deals with one of the, if not the, most complex and paradoxical arguments of all time: By what means was the universe created? In defense of Aristotle, Rushd describes the concept of the unmoved mover as one whose, “capacity must be proportionate to His power and His power proportionate to His will and His will proportionate to His wisdom”. If this were not the case, then our power, will, and wisdom would be as his, creating an imperfect mover. From the first cause came existence because of his essence, his very being. Logically, this seems to contradict our knowledge of reason, for reason teaches that every effect must have a cause. Rushd presents an interesting argument that the unmoved mover (God as he calls him) possesses knowledge beyond our own, which accounts for the existence of the first cause. In other words, the first cause cannot be completely understood or else it would be like any other and therefore cease to exist. Rushd also claims that a, “single power emanates [from God] through which all beings exist”. Upon hearing this, I am reminded of evolution where life began as primordial goop; however, even this organism has a beginning that according to Rushd contains everything in existence. Rushd claims that even the cosmic forces like gravity obey the first cause so life can carry on. Wrapping one’s mind around such an idea seems easy to understand but difficult to accept, yet perhaps Rushd’s comment says it all: “He who tries to compare heavenly with earthly existence, and believes that the Agent of the divine world acts in the way in which an agent in this sublunary world works, is utterly thoughtless, profoundly mistaken, and in complete error.” There are many more philosophical inquiries in “The Incoherence of The Incoherence”; however, Rushd’s work reminds us of our mortality and limited abilities. Because the first cause has no preceding cause, it must be that this cause exists by reason of itself; otherwise, every cause, which comes from previous causes would be the same. In this sense, it seems logical that other causes cannot be congruous with the first cause by their very nature. Rushd also uses the example of a spiritual potency that permeates all the parts of a single animal allowing every part to function according to its purpose. Again, I am reminded of Emerson’s oversoul that he describes as existing in and connecting everything. As with this transcendental notion, Rushd maintains that man first thinks of metaphysics as absurd because there are “no plausible premises which satisfy the superficial understanding”. It appears from his statement that he believes sciences, to a certain extent, can only explain the “how” of the first cause, but it takes metaphysics to explain the “why”.

Leave a Reply