In the 17th discussion of The Incoherence of the Philosophers, Al-Ghazali attempts to explain how a certain view of causality (which we can see is quite certainly intended to be that espoused by Avicenna) fails to meet his four requirements for an acceptable understanding of causality. However, both Avicenna and al-Ghazâlî seem, at least to me, to argue for different strengths of Occasionalism. It is not at all clear that Avicenna's view fails to meet the four requirements put forth.

I don't understand al-Ghazâlî's explanation why he rejects Avicenna's view. Can someone explain how the position is incompatible in a simpler manner?


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.