Talk:The Incoherence of the Incoherence

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Philosophy: Literature / Medieval High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophical literature
	Medieval philosophy

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject class rating

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 04:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Khwajazada attacks, critiques, does not defend Ghazzali and does not talk about Ibn Rush at all

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the current version of the article, the following is stated:

"In the 15th century, a strong refutation of Ibn Rushd's arguments was written by an Ottoman scholar, Mustafá ibn Yūsuf al-Bursawī (d. 1487, also known as Khwājazāda), defending al-Ghazali's views."

It is baseless, Khwajazada does not cite Ibn Rush, he does not even talk about him. even more, in the introduction section, Khwajazada explicitly states that he is gonna expose some of the wrongs of Al Ghazzali's Tehafitul Felasifa book. Why is this given as "strong refutation of Ibn Rush"? --81.213.215.83 (talk) 06:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sourcing

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There's only one source for this article, and it doesn't mention many of the topics brought up. For instance, the article states that in "The Incoherence of the Philosophers" al-Ghazali was narrowly focused on a critique of Neoplatonist metaphysics, and not on sub-disciplines like mathematics, astronomy, and physics. However, the sourced article makes no specific mention of metaphysics.

(I'm new to wikipedia editing so I apologize in advance if this isn't the best way to go about this. The article on tagging mentioned that many see it as poor form to tag as opposed to fixing, so I decided it might be best to bring this up in the talk section.) Gxvx (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Add topic