The idea of dual truth. Duality of truth
At the beginning of the Middle Ages there were strong doubts about the possibility of applying philosophy to religion; the mature Middle Ages were marked by the triumph of scholasticism, in which philosophizing became a means of strengthening faith; it is not surprising, therefore, that at the end of the era under consideration, doubts began to sound about the compatibility of philosophical knowledge and religious faith which gradually developed into a complete liberation of philosophy from the role of a servant of religion.
In scholasticism, contradictions were initially laid down, which eventually decomposed it from the inside and led to death. They were a time bomb that had to go off sooner or later. These contradictions consisted in the inconsistency of the provisions of faith and reason, in their incompatibility. Therefore, we can say that scholasticism in general was one grandiose contradiction, because it was an attempt to combine the incompatible, due to which it could not exist for a long time and had to decline on its own, without any external help.
In the XII century. Arab philosopher Ibn Roshd (Latin version - Averroes) developed the theory of dual truth. Medieval Eastern philosophy was theistic, just like Western philosophy, and was a servant of the Muslim religion, and therefore scholasticism is a phenomenon not only European, but also Eastern. The theory of dual truth says that religion and philosophy have completely different subjects and methods. So, the subject of religion is God, and the method is faith, while the subject of philosophy is nature, and its method is experience (practical activity, perhaps even experimental, to study the surrounding world). Religion and philosophy are engaged in completely different areas, having almost nothing in common with each other, and therefore it is not surprising that religion has its truths, and philosophy has its own. Moreover, these truths not only can, but must be different and even contradictory to each other. This is quite natural, normal and understandable. They should not join at all, as it seems to the supporters of the harmony of faith and reason, and these truths cannot but conflict, since they speak of opposite and actually incompatible things.
For example, is it true that water boils at 100°C on Earth? And is it true that high in the mountains it boils at a lower temperature? Both of these are true. Do they exclude one another? No. Should they be consistent with each other and merge into one single common truth? Should not. The first statement simply describes one situation, while for another, different situation, the second truth will be true, which contradicts the first, but does not exclude it, since it is absolutely necessary in this case that there are exactly two different truths.
Why not assume that faith and reason, as well as religion and philosophy, must also have different and incomparable truths? Let philosophy be concerned with the study of nature and not interfere with religious provisions, trying to substantiate them, and let religion not try to be knowledge about the world, and even more so a science about it, always remaining only faith, and do not force philosophy to serve its needs. Thus, the theory of dual truth was directed against the very essence of scholasticism - the desire to carry out a synthesis of religion and philosophy, saying that such a combination is fundamentally impossible, and emphasizing the need for all kinds of separation and isolation of the religious and philosophical spheres. This theory, as we see, freed, on the one hand, philosophy from the obligation to be a help to religion, and on the other hand, it freed the latter from the need to prove the positions of faith, to bring under them some logical basis. Philosophy, therefore, once again recognized the possibility of being a free and bold knowledge of the surrounding world.
At the beginning of the Middle Ages, there were strong doubts about the possibility of applying philosophy to religion. The mature Middle Ages were marked by the triumph of scholasticism, in which philosophizing became a means of strengthening faith. It is not surprising, therefore, that at the end of the era under consideration, doubts began to sound about the compatibility of philosophical knowledge and religious faith, which gradually grew into a complete liberation of philosophy from the role of a servant of religion.
In scholasticism, contradictions were initially laid down, which eventually decomposed it from the inside and led to death. They were a time bomb that had to go off sooner or later. These contradictions consisted in the inconsistency of the provisions of faith and reason, in their incompatibility. Therefore, we can say that scholasticism in general was one grandiose contradiction, because it was an attempt to combine the incompatible, due to which it could not exist for a long time and had to decline on its own, without any external help.
The Arab philosopher Ibn-Rushd (Latin version - Averroes) believed that religion can be considered as a belief containing philosophical truth in an allegorical form.
He proved the need to study the inextricable links between the functions of the body and those sensations, feelings, thoughts that a person experiences as processes inherent in his soul.
His main conclusion was that along with the disintegration of the body, the individual soul of a person is also destroyed. He put forward an unusual idea that the mind universal for all people is preserved after the disintegration of the body, and this testifies to the god-likeness of man. He emphasized that the possibilities of a person in comprehending the truth are unlimited, and it is only important to teach people to think correctly, to instill in them the desire to think. The general ability to think, to know the world and its laws, being innate, is inherent in every person. Thus, the immortal mind was separated from the mortal soul. This separation of mind and soul was one of the most important tenets of Rushd's theory. The universal mind, acting on potential abilities, causes thoughts in us. For their actualization, awareness, certain conditions are necessary, in particular, cognitive motivation, external impressions, and good teachers. philosophy rushd religion
Medieval Eastern philosophy was theistic, just like the Western one, and was a servant of the Muslim religion, and therefore scholasticism is a phenomenon not only European, but also Eastern. The theory of dual truth says that religion and philosophy have completely different subjects and methods. So, the subject of religion is God, and the method is faith, while the subject of philosophy is nature, and its method is experience (that is, practical activity, perhaps even experimental, to study the surrounding world). Religion and philosophy are engaged in completely different areas, having almost nothing in common with each other, and therefore it is not surprising that religion has its own truths, and philosophy has its own. Moreover, these truths not only can, but must be different and even contradictory to each other. This is quite natural, normal and understandable. They should not join at all, as it seems to the supporters of the harmony of faith and reason, and these truths cannot but conflict, since they speak of opposite and actually incompatible things. For example, is it true that water boils at 100°C on earth? And is it true that high in the mountains it boils at a lower temperature? Both of these are true. Do they exclude one another? No. Should they be consistent with each other and merge into one single common truth? Should not. It’s just that the first statement describes one situation, while for another, different situation, the second truth will be true, which contradicts the first, but does not exclude it, since it is absolutely necessary in this case that there are exactly two different truths.
Why not assume that faith and reason, as well as religion and philosophy, must also have different and incomparable truths? Let philosophy be engaged in the study of nature and not interfere with religious positions, trying to substantiate them, and let religion not try to be knowledge about the world, and even more so the science of it, always remaining only faith, and do not force philosophy to serve its needs. Thus, the theory of dual truth was directed against the very essence of scholasticism - the desire to carry out a synthesis of religion and philosophy, saying that such a combination is fundamentally impossible, and emphasizing the need for all kinds of separation and isolation of the religious and philosophical spheres.
This theory, as we see, released, on the one hand, philosophy from the obligation to be an aid to religion, and on the other hand, it relieved the latter of the need to prove the positions of faith, to bring them under some kind of logical basis. Philosophy, therefore, once again recognized the possibility of being a free and bold knowledge of the surrounding world.
List of used literature
- 1. Weimarn B., Kaptereva G., Podolsky A. Art Arab peoples. - M., 2014
- 2. Grigoryan S.N. Great thinkers of the Arab East. - M., 2013
- 3. Ibn Rushd // Selected works thinkers of the countries of the Near and Middle East of the IX-XIV centuries. - M., 2014
- 4. Natural philosophy of Ibn Sina. - M., 2013
- 5. Sagadeev A.V. Ibn Rushd (Averroes). - M., 2015
- 6. Stepanyants M.T. Arab philosophy // Man. Thinkers of the past and present about his life, death and immortality. - M., 2013
At the beginning of the Middle Ages there were strong doubts about the possibility of applying philosophy to religion; the mature Middle Ages were marked by the triumph of scholasticism, in which philosophizing became a means of strengthening faith; therefore, it is not surprising that at the end of the era under consideration, doubts began to sound about the compatibility of philosophical knowledge and religious faith, which gradually developed into a complete liberation of philosophy from the role of a servant of religion.
In scholasticism, contradictions were initially laid down, which eventually decomposed it from the inside and led to death. They were a time bomb that had to go off sooner or later. These contradictions consisted in the inconsistency of the provisions of faith and reason, in their incompatibility. Therefore, we can say that scholasticism in general was one grandiose contradiction, because it was an attempt to combine the incompatible, due to which it could not exist for a long time and had to decline on its own, without any external help.
In the XII century. Arab philosopher Ibn Roshd (Latin version - Averroes) developed the theory of dual truth. Medieval Eastern philosophy was theistic, just like Western philosophy, and was a servant of the Muslim religion, and therefore scholasticism is a phenomenon not only European, but also Eastern. The theory of dual truth says that religion and philosophy have completely different subjects and methods. So, the subject of religion is God, and the method is faith, while the subject of philosophy is nature, and its method is experience (practical activity, perhaps even experimental, to study the surrounding world). Religion and philosophy are engaged in completely different areas, having almost nothing in common with each other, and therefore it is not surprising that religion has its own truths, and philosophy has its own. Moreover, these truths not only can, but must be different and even contradictory to each other. This is quite natural, normal and understandable. They should not join at all, as it seems to the supporters of the harmony of faith and reason, and these truths cannot but conflict, since they speak of opposite and actually incompatible things.
For example, is it true that water boils at 100°C on earth? And is it true that high in the mountains it boils at a lower temperature? Both of these are true. Do they exclude one another? No. Should they be consistent with each other and merge into one single common truth? Should not. The first statement simply describes one situation, while for another, different situation, the second truth will be true, which contradicts the first, but does not exclude it, since it is absolutely necessary in this case that there are exactly two different truths.
Why not assume that faith and reason, as well as religion and philosophy, must also have different and incomparable truths? Let philosophy be engaged in the study of nature and not interfere with religious positions, trying to substantiate them, and let religion not try to be knowledge about the world, and even more so the science of it, always remaining only faith, and do not force philosophy to serve its needs. Thus, the theory of dual truth was directed against the very essence of scholasticism - the desire to carry out a synthesis of religion and philosophy, saying that such a combination is fundamentally impossible, and emphasizing the need for all kinds of separation and isolation of the religious and philosophical spheres. This theory, as we see, released, on the one hand, philosophy from the obligation to be an aid to religion, and on the other hand, it relieved the latter of the need to prove the positions of faith, to bring them under some kind of logical basis. Philosophy, therefore, once again recognized the possibility of being a free and bold knowledge of the surrounding world.
Ibn Rushd (Averroes) was faced with the fact that certain provisions of Aristotle contradicted the Muslim religion.
In modern terms, he proposed his own solution to this contradiction between 2 competing models, inventing the concept of two truths (the duality of truth).
Later, in the 13th century, this successful resolution of the contradiction between science and religion was borrowed in Christianity.
Followers Averroes“... they believed that the contradictions between theology and science were justified, because the theologian relies on the truths of revelation, and the scientist - on the data of science. Averroists […] sought to prove that, although the subject of science is diametrically opposed to the subject of theology, nevertheless each of them retains value in its own field.
The opposition between them does not exclude the truth of both.
Philosophy draws its knowledge from reason, while theology draws its knowledge from the truths of revelation and is therefore irrational. Because of this, they must contradict each other, and it is impossible to eliminate this contradiction, because they proceed from various prerequisites.
Although the views of the Latin Averroists on the problem of the relationship between science and theology are not completely unambiguous, they nonetheless postulate the development of scientific research. They try to prove that philosophy, speaking out against faith, is not erroneous, on the contrary, on the basis of rational knowledge, it is true. […]
The point of view of substantive distinction, which, in particular, found its expression in the views John of Salisbury(1110-1180). A common thread running through his reasoning is the tendency to distinguish between theology and science according to their subjects and purposes. There are various methods of proving truths; some come by way of reasoning, to others not by means of feelings, to others through faith.
Jozef Borgosh, Thomas Aquinas, M., "Thought", 1975, p. 31-32.
I note that even earlier Tertullian encountered the “science-religion” contradiction, but offered his “solution” by completely negating the values of science.
The predecessor of Ibn Rushd, Pierre Abelard, proposed another solution: to check the dogmas of faith with the assessment of reason ...
Dual truth theory(duplex veritas) - concept,according to which what is true from the point of view of theology may not be true from the point of view of philosophy, and vice versa. IN adherence to it, not without reason, was suspected by participants in the emerging in the 1260s at the Paris University of the so-called intellectual movement. "Latin Averroists" ( averroistae, Averrois sectatores) – philosophers from the Faculty of Arts who did not have a license to teach theological disciplines: Siger of Brabant, Boethius of Denmark, Bernier de Nivelle, etc.
In the interpretation of the "council of masters of theology and other wise people", which prepared materials for the condemnation of the Averroist theses carried out in 1277 by the Bishop of Paris, Stephen (Etienne) Tampier, the theory of dual truth teaches about the simultaneous coexistence of two opposite truths about the same things - the truth of reason and truths of faith: "For they call them true according to philosophy, but not according to the Catholic faith, as if they were two contrary truths (Dicunt enim ea esse vera secundum philosophiam sed non secundum fidem catholicam, quasi sint duae contrariae veritates) or as if, contrary to the truth of Holy Scripture, there could be another truth in the books of condemned pagans...” (“ Syllabus", Prologus).
Thus, from the alleged point of view of the “Latin Averroists”, the observed incompatibility of the data of natural reason and the data of Revelation (“If you believe Aristotle, then it is clear that you cannot believe Augustine, and vice versa”: “ Si ergo credatur Aristoteli, planum est quod non est credendum Augustino; si vero credatur Augustino, erit aequaliter ”) does not indicate the need to make an unambiguous choice in favor of one side or another or to try to create a harmonious worldview system that eliminates this contradiction. One can simultaneously consider as true the propositions affirmed “according to the truth that cannot lie” (i.e., the supernatural dogmas of the Christian faith revealed in Revelation), and not deny the irrefutable rational validity of those conclusions to which the “pure”, abstracting from the data of Revelation the natural intellect, if "we act as philosophers" - but the truths of the Christian faith are certainly higher than the truths of rational knowledge.
The theory of dual truth was criticized by Thomas Aquinas (from the point of view of which the situation when, “based on reason, I necessarily conclude” one thing, “but, based on faith, I strongly adhere to the opposite”, testifies to the deprivation of the word “truth” of any meaning), Raymond Lull, who reduced this theory to the formula: “I believe that faith is true, and I understand that it is not true ( Credo fidem esse veram, et intelligo quod non est vera)”, as well as Albert the Great, Bonaventure, Roger Bacon and many others. others
Lit.:Grabmann M.Der lateinische Averroismus des XIII. Jahrhunderts und seine Stellung zur christlichen Weltanschauung. Mü nchen, 1931; L'intelligenza alla fede: Filosofia e religion in Averroe e nell'averroismo. Bergamo, 1989; Mandonnet P. Siger de Brabant et l'averroisme latin au XIII e siècle. Vols. 1-2. Fribourg-Louvaine, 1908-11; Michaud-Quantin P. La double v e rit e des Averroistes: Un texte nouveau de Boèce de Dacie // Theoria (1956), 167-184;Renan E.Averroes and Averroism: Historical outline. M., 2010; Shevkina G.V. Seeger of Brabant and the Parisian Averroists 13th century M., 1972.
A.M. Shishkov