Al-Ghazālī — Critiquing unproved necessity, not philosophy wholesale
The question that opens it
Does observed regularity prove necessary causation, or does that add a stronger metaphysical assumption?
- 1
The Incoherence argues that twenty teachings associated with al-Fārābī and Avicenna have not been demonstratively established, treating three as especially grave religious errors.
Check the evidence
This is an evidence-linked editorial account, not a direct quotation.
al-Ghazali
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Locator: §3 The Incoherence of the Philosophers
Open source
- 2
Al-Ghazālī does not reject logic, demonstration, or natural inquiry wholesale; the seventeenth discussion targets the inference from observed conjunction to necessary causation.
Check the evidence
This is an evidence-linked editorial account, not a direct quotation.
al-Ghazali
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Locator: §3, seventeenth discussion; §4 The Revival of the Religious Sciences
Open source