Bonaventure, Averroes, and Avicenna were all medieval philosophers who wrote extensively on the nature and status of the human soul. However, their views on this topic differed in several significant ways. For Bonaventure, according to Löwe (2021), the human soul was the highest form of being in the universe and was the source of all human knowledge and activity (p. 10). He believed that the soul was created directly by God and was not a product of the material world. This view differed from the Aristotelian notion, embraced by Averroes and Avicenna that the soul was a product of the body and was, therefore, subject to the laws of nature.
Avicenna was the person who arrived at a fresh approach to the Platonic-Aristotelian conflict. According to Dale (2019), the liberty of the soul is contrasted by the Aristotelian notion of the soul as the aspect of a physical human (p. 180). According to Smith’s (2021) viewpoint, Bonaventure states that Christians must grow from vigor to strength and not become complacent in their goodness, otherwise they will cease to be decent (p. 393). Hence their soul in Christ will not be virtuous. However, Avicenna stated that those two sides of the argument are not inherently mutually exclusive. Smith (2021) says they are two separate characteristics in the soul’s essence, reason and will (p. 50). The Aristotelian perspective is nonetheless subjected to the overall Neoplatonic system.
Bonaventure also believed that the soul had a hierarchical structure, with the rational soul being the most important part. According to Mian (2019), Islam ethics believed that the body and soul were relevant in embodying virtue (p. 1). Avicenna and Averroes were under Islamic philosophy, while Bonaventure was under Christian. Smith (2021) argued that this rational soul was the source of all human knowledge and was capable of attaining union with God (p. 204). In contrast, Zeidan (2019) states that the other Islamic philosophers held that the soul was a single, undivided entity not subject to any hierarchical structure (par. 21). Another significant difference between Bonaventure, Averroes, and Avicenna was their views on the afterlife. Bonaventure believed in an afterlife and held that the soul was immortal and would continue to exist after the body’s death. On the other hand, Averroes and Avicenna did not believe in an afterlife and held that the soul was destroyed along with the body at the time of death.
Despite these differences, Bonaventure, Averroes, and Avicenna believed in the human soul’s importance and its unique abilities. For all three philosophers, the soul was the source of human knowledge and the key to understanding the nature of reality. The soul is a metaphysical entity that exists independently of the body. The notion that it can be identified without recourse to its physical presence confirms its self-sufficiency. As per Avicenna, in the teachings of Avicenna, in a Neoplatonically formed depiction of the universe, the soul is the base of the individual parts of the rational realm (Zeidan, 2019). However, due to its epistemological frailty, it necessitates a physique to execute its acts.
In Bonaventure’s view, the human soul was the highest form of being in the universe and was created directly by God. Dale (2019) believed that the soul had a hierarchical structure, with the rational soul being the most important part (p. 171). This rational soul, he argued, was capable of attaining union with God and was the source of all human knowledge. On the other hand, Averroes and Avicenna held that the soul was a product of the body and was subject to the laws of nature (Zeidan, 2019). They believed that the soul was a single, undivided entity and did not recognize any hierarchical structure within the soul. Unlike Bonaventure, they did not believe in an afterlife and held that the soul was destroyed along with the body at the time of death.
Despite these differences, Bonaventure, Averroes, and Avicenna recognized the human soul’s importance in understanding the nature of reality. For Bonaventure, according to Dales (2019), the soul was the source of all human knowledge and could attain union with God (p. 171). This suggests that the soul requires the body as a medium and does not have a fundamental relationship with it. Bonaventure’s purpose is to compare the flesh and the soul as each comprising essence and structure. In this sense, Smith (2021) could assert the extrinsic evidence of the soul and the inherent relationship between body and soul (p. 89). And since they are built similarly, they have the predisposition to complement each other.
In conclusion, while Bonaventure, Averroes, and Avicenna wrote extensively on the nature and status of the human soul, their views on this topic differed in several significant ways. As mentioned earlier, Bonaventure believed that the soul was the highest form of being, which was created directly by God, and had a hierarchical structure. In contrast, Averroes and Avicenna held that the soul was a product of the body and was a single, undivided entity. Additionally, Bonaventure believed in an afterlife, while Averroes and Avicenna did not. Despite these differences, all three philosophers recognized the importance of the human soul in understanding the nature of reality.
References
Dales, D. (2019). Chapter 15: St Bonaventure. Way Back to God, pp. 171–190. Lutterworth Press. Web.
Löwe, C. L. (2021). Bonaventure on the Soul and Its Powers, Vivarium, 59(1-2), 10-32. Web.
Mian, A. A. (2019). The Polished Mirror: Storytelling and the pursuit of virtue in Islamic philosophy and Sufism, written by Cyrus Ali Zargar. Journal of Islamic Ethics, 1–5. Web.
Smith, R. B. (2021). Part three. Bonaventure: The scholastic with the soul of a poet. Aquinas, Bonaventure, and the Scholastic Culture of Medieval Paris, 231–426. Cambridge University Press. Web.
Zeidan, A. (2019). Islamic Thought. Encyclopædia Britannica. Web.