Ibn Rushd: “truth does not oppose truth” — reason and law in the Decisive Treatise
Philosophy

Ibn Rushd: “truth does not oppose truth” — reason and law in the Decisive Treatise

Ibn Rushd was far more than “the Commentator”: a judge and physician who argued that demonstrative reason and true religious law do not conflict.

Life

Born in Cordova in 1126 into a family of Mālikī judges, he was asked by the Almohad ruler Abū Yaʿqūb Yūsuf to comment on Aristotle, later served as court physician in Marrakesh, fell from favour and was exiled to Lucena, and died in 1198.

Three kinds of commentary

Scholars traditionally sort his Aristotle commentaries into epitomes, middle paraphrases and long commentaries—though recent work questions whether that neat scheme captures his whole output.

The Decisive Treatise

His Faṣl al-maqāl argues that philosophy belongs inside religious reflection: “truth does not oppose truth, but rather agrees with and bears witness to it.” The Incoherence of the Incoherence answers al-Ghazālī.

Five kinds of argument

Demonstrative, dialectical, rhetorical, poetic and sophistical arguments differ by their premises. Demonstration gives certainty; good dialectic is a “communal enterprise” aimed at truth, not victory.

A weekly exercise

Take one heated online debate. Was it a shared search for truth or a contest to win? Which kind of argument did each side actually use?

Further reading

Reference links for verification. This article is original Vemetto wording and does not copy source text.

Continue in this track

▶️
Watch on YouTube

Short clips on events, arts and tech.

SubscribeAll videos