perhaps not every question finds its final answer in dharma… because dharma itself may not be the final layer of truth…dharma is about how we ought to live… how we understand our responsibilities…how we distinguish right from wrong… and how we conduct ourselves in relation to others and to the world around us…
but behind dharma lies something deeper…
ritam…if dharma is the path we try to walk… ritam is the order within which every path exists…dharma belongs to the realm of human understanding… and therefore its expression may change with time… place… circumstance… and consciousness…ritam does not change with our understanding of it…it is the deeper order of existence itself…the sun does not rise because we have declared it righteous to rise… the river does not flow towards the sea because a scripture has instructed it to do so…

the seed does not become a tree because society has agreed upon a moral principle…they simply participate in an order greater than themselves…

that order… that balance… that natural relationship between cause and consequence… between becoming and dissolving… between receiving and returning… is perhaps the simplest way to understand ritam…and once we understand this difference… perhaps many of our questions begin to look different…
when we speak of education… books are important… knowledge is important… reason is important…but education cannot end with knowing what has already been written…a truly educated mind must also learn how to observe… how to question… how to remain silent before something it does not yet understand…because information can tell us how the world works…but wisdom teaches us how to live within it…
and perhaps the purpose of education is not merely to fill the mind with answers… but to make the mind spacious enough to encounter questions without fear…the same is true when we speak of the constitution…

rights are essential… because without rights human dignity can easily become vulnerable to power…but rights cannot exist meaningfully without responsibility…if i demand my freedom while remaining indifferent to the consequences of my freedom upon others… i may possess a right… but perhaps i have not yet understood its dharma…

a healthy society therefore cannot survive merely by asking…what am i entitled to…it must also quietly ask…what do i owe to the world in which i wish to live freely…

the two questions are not enemies…they complete each other…and when we speak of nature… perhaps our first mistake is in imagining that nature is something outside us…we speak of protecting rivers… saving forests… conserving the earth…but the river is not separate from us…the water moving through the river will one day move through our bodies… the air passing through the forest will enter our lungs… the soil into which one life disappears will eventually nourish another…we are not standing outside nature trying to save it…we are nature becoming conscious of itself…and perhaps this is one of the clearest places where ritam can still be felt…
everything receives…everything gives…everything arises…everything passes…nothing exists entirely for itself…

democracy too must be understood with the same clarity…the voice of every person deserves to be heard…but hearing every voice does not mean that every voice becomes truth…numbers can decide who governs…numbers cannot decide what is true…a majority can make a decision… but truth does not become true because many people agree with it… nor does truth become false because only one person is willing to stand beside it…perhaps the deeper purpose of democracy is therefore not merely to count voices…it is also to cultivate minds capable of using those voices with wisdom…
and this brings us again to the difference between dharma and ritam…dharma is our attempt to live rightly within existence…ritam is the order through which existence moves whether or not we understand it…dharma asks something from us…ritam simply reveals something to us…dharma asks…how should i act…ritam quietly reminds us…

every action enters the larger movement of existence… and nothing remains without consequence…perhaps that is why we should be careful about looking at every question through the same coloured lens…

religion is one lens…science is another…law is another…politics is another…tradition is another…modernity is another…each may allow us to see something…but no single lens allows us to see everything…and wisdom may begin when we become capable of putting the lens down for a moment…and simply looking…then perhaps we begin to understand that not everything old is superstition…and not everything new is progress…not every desire automatically becomes a right…not every tradition automatically becomes wisdom…not every majority possesses truth…and not every disagreement requires an enemy…perhaps our greatest difficulty is not that truth has disappeared…perhaps we have simply become too noisy to notice the order in which truth quietly lives…

we keep asking which side is right…which ideology is right…which religion is right…which generation is right…but ritam does not belong to a side…the river does not argue with the mountain…the night does not defeat the day…autumn does not accuse spring of being different…each arrives…each performs its nature…each gives way when its time is complete…perhaps there is something profoundly peaceful in understanding this…we do not have to control everything in order to belong to existence…we do not have to possess every answer in order to live meaningfully…we do not even have to resolve every contradiction before we can find peace…

perhaps we only need to become quiet enough to recognise the larger order within which all our questions arise…dharma can then become our sincere attempt to walk consciously…and ritam can become the humility of knowing that the ground beneath our feet was here long before we began walking…

perhaps that is the relationship between the two…dharma is the lamp we carry…ritam is the dawn that does not depend upon our lamp…we may protect the flame… we may walk carefully by its light… we may even disagree about the direction in which it should guide us…but eventually… when the sun rises…we understand that the light was always larger than what we could hold in our hands…and perhaps this understanding does not leave us with another argument to win…perhaps it leaves us with something quieter…

the humility to listen…the wisdom to act…the courage to question…and the peace to know that we are not separate from the order we have spent so long trying to understand…

we are already within it…we have always been within it…and perhaps… for a moment… that is enough…

I'm sure many of you assume that you understand zero (0), however, after you read my posts in the link (which are all talking about the same thing), you will realize that no, you don't actually understand zero. Which is why I have decided to post this here, because of how Aristotle taught people to think critically, instead of just accept what many assumed was just common sense.

Why “Zero Plus Zero” (0+0) Is Fiction | by Benjamin Allen | Jul, 2026 | Medium

I’ve been exploring a philosophical framework called Incorporealism, which emphasizes consciousness, information, and patterns of organization as central to understanding reality. It got me wondering how Aristotle might respond to such a view.
Aristotle saw form as essential to what a thing is and emphasized actuality, potentiality, and causation over purely material explanations. Do you think his metaphysics leaves room for a philosophy that gives greater explanatory weight to consciousness and informational organization, or would he reject that as departing too far from his hylomorphic framework?
I’m interested in hearing from those familiar with Aristotle’s works—are there concepts in his philosophy that you think resonate with this idea, or are the differences fundamentally irreconcilable?

it seems there are a few entrenched perspectives on Aristotle in modern historical philosophy.

there is the side that thinks Aristotle is a sort of anti-Platonist who doesn't believe in forms, and then there is the side of Gerson/Perl that sees Aristotle in close continuity with Plato.

most of the intros to Aristotle's philosophy ive come across are from the former perspective, but I can't seem to find any that see Aristotle as an expositor of Platonism.

does anyone happen to have any suggestions? currently reading Thinking Being by Perl which is great but I was hoping for a work solely focused on Aristotle.

How did Plato and Aristotle know Buddhism?

The Greek elites in Athens exchanged knowledge and language with the Persians and Indians for many decades before Lords Plato and Aristotle were born:

The Greeks first learned only fragments of Buddhism at a time from Indian Gymnosophists who traversed the Persian empire to its western edge! The Gymnosophists were multi-lingual traveling spiritual teachers!

Lords Plátōn and Aristotelēs were also both multi-lingual spiritual teachers!

These Buddhist teachings were kept secret by the Pythagoreans. They were first revealed to the public in full by Lord Plato: This is because Lord Plato was the first Greek to piece together all of these fragments and practice the true Dhanna.

Callisthenes was Aristotles' nephew; he was with King Alexander in the East during his conquests! They directly sent back unaltered Buddhist writings to Lord Aristotle in Athens. This is when the Greeks perfected and expanded the teachings on The Middle Way (Virtue as a Mean).

The Five Great Buddhas:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Dharmapalism3/s/TL22Sky0Ly

hello, how are you all? I’m a student of linguistics and Latin, and I’m having so so much difficulty on understanding unity of action on Iliad acccording to horace and Aristotle. I have a classics subject about it that I already failed once, and I’m afraid to fail again. on my exam I put that the unity of action of the Iliad was Achilles wrath that unites and makes all of the Iliad, even tho, it was considered wrong by the professor. what did I did wrong? how does it connect to Horace and Aristotle? I really love linguistics and Latin language, but I have an awful time with classic literature analysis. I’m sorry about misspelling, English isn’t my first language and I’m also nervous. thanks

I've been researching schools of philosophy and I think I realized I'm really a Neo-Aristotelian. Since my early 20s I've thought people were hardwired to value certain common things, like creative expression and meaningful relationships. I took a couple ethics classes in college, but that's about the extent of my formal philosophy education, so I've pieced this together from reading. I was never fully comfortable with the existentialists or Epicureans, even though I like them to an extent. In the past I would basically say I agreed with the existentialists that we find our own meaning, but that I think humans are hardwired to find meaning in certain common things, even though that's basically a rejection of the seeming existential assumption that we're blank slates, which we clearly are not. I've always appreciated the Epicurean recognition that humans need a sense of well-being to really flourish, but of course, even the way I said that belies the Aristotelian recognition that hedonic pleasures simply provide the nourishment for more meaningful fulfillment (eudaimonia). My discomfort with Epicureanism comes from the fact that while I think they did a pretty good job at laying out a pleasant life, it seems somewhat empty and disappointing, especially considering the internal drive I've always had to want to achieve things.

Politically, I'm economically progressive and socially libertarian. That combination isn't represented perfectly in American politics, but to be honest I've never really minded that, and I believe in doing what's actionable rather than ideal. Because of that I support the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, and groups like the Working Families Party. It seems much more actionable to be a progressive who's particularly for personal freedoms than the inverse. I bring this up because, being relatively new to Neo-Aristotelianism, I'm still getting comfortable with its political and social implications and presence. I know there are conservatives who promote Aristotelianism, but I've also heard there are Aristotelian progressives like Nussbaum, and even Marx used Aristotelian assumptions about human nature as a foundation.

I've always had an appreciation for avant-garde art, and notably for noise in music. There are certain groups in popular music that found great beauty in noise, notably The Jesus and Mary Chain, Mizmor, The Gerogerigegege, and DNA, among others. However, I don't see this as a rejection of human nature. Rather, I think these artists find particularly novel beauty by breaking from conventionality. So, while they may throw out the rules of rock music, the realities of beauty in sound persist.

I'm posting all this because this is what's been stewing in my brain, and I wanted to get your perspectives.

Aristotle understood actuality (energeia) as the fulfillment of potentiality (dynamis), with substances achieving their ends through the realization of their essential forms. But could this framework be extended to consciousness itself?
If consciousness were treated as an activity rather than merely a property of a substance, would Aristotle regard its perfection as the highest expression of actuality, or would he insist that actuality always belongs to a concrete substance rather than existing as a primary principle?
How would an Aristotelian distinguish between the actuality of living organisms and the actuality of conscious experience? Does Aristotle’s metaphysics leave room for consciousness to be considered an irreducible mode of actuality, or would that depart too far from his hylomorphic framework?

help, i need to make a debate in favour that the movie, The platform follows Aristotle’s :
Tragedy
Catharsis
Hamartia (Tragic Flaw)
Peripeteia (Reversal of Fortune)
Anagnorisis (Recognition)
Hubris
Nemesis
Pathos
Mimesis
Unity of Action
Unity of Time
Unity of Place
Plot (Mythos)
Character (Ethos)
Thought (Dianoia)
Diction (Lexis)
Melody (Melos)
Spectacle (Opsis)
Complication (Desis)
Resolution/Denouement (Lusis)
Probability and Necessity

and its for an assignment, i have read multiple blogs, seen many videos on aristotle’s poetics but since im not good in literary criticism…my points look bleak and honestly not much and in the current time where something that sounds too generic not actually specific looks ai , i dont want to lose marks

please help me

I am considering either the Hackett or Penguin edition for De Anima. Penguin tends to be somewhat heavy on in-text notes as well as copious footnotes, which can be nice for a first read. However, Hackett, in my mind, is largely the standard for philosophy.

Does anyone have strong opinions on this? Possibly this is a trivial matter. Any suggestions are welcomed.

Hi All,

I have recently discovered Aristotle's Virtue Theory and have begun doing some reading into it. From what I have read, I quite like this theory as it maps pretty well onto areas of my life I would like to improve. The thing that I am struggling with is putting it into practice. I realise how stupid this sounds because you need to practice being virtuous to develop the habits and so on. Where I am really struggling is with courage. I really struggle to act bravely in situations with high emotions.

For example, recently, my now ex partner and I broke up. This is something that should have occurred a while ago. But I could never get the courage to have the difficult conversation. When it did arise, I'd back track or go mute.

I suppose what I am asking is how I practice courage. I know what I need to do or say, but my body seems to block me from speaking or acting. I'd really appreciate any tips or advice for acting more virtuously for any of the virtues, but Courage is probably the one I need to start with first.

Thanks in advance to anyone who responds, and sorry if this isn't well written.

For Aristotle, an acorn becomes an oak tree because the oak is already present as a potential within the acorn. More broadly, all change involves the movement from potentiality to actuality. This raises a profound metaphysical problem: if every development is guided by an intrinsic purpose, is novelty an illusion? Are creativity, innovation, and self-transformation simply the actualization of preexisting possibilities, or can reality produce forms of being that transcend their original essence? The question probes the tension between teleology and genuine emergence at the heart of Aristotelian metaphysics.

Throughout Aristotle’s philosophy, substance (ousia) appears to occupy a uniquely privileged ontological status. Individual substances are primary beings, serving as the ultimate subjects of predication and the foundation of knowledge. Yet Aristotle also maintains that substances are intelligible through their forms, and forms themselves exhibit a universality that transcends any particular individual.
This raises a deeper metaphysical question:
If every individual substance is a composite of form and matter, and if forms are what make substances intelligible as the kinds of things they are, does Aristotle ultimately commit us to a fundamentally pluralistic reality composed of irreducibly distinct substances, or does his account of form point toward a deeper unity underlying all being?
On one hand, Aristotle rejects Plato’s separate Forms and emphasizes the individuality of concrete substances. On the other hand, his notions of actuality, teleology, the hierarchy of causes, and the culmination of reality in the Unmoved Mover seem to suggest an ordered metaphysical unity in which all beings participate.
How should we reconcile:
The primacy of individual substances with the universality of form?
The multiplicity of beings with the unity implied by teleological order?
Aristotle’s claim that “being is said in many ways” with his search for a science of being qua being?
More radically, is Aristotle best interpreted as defending a metaphysics of irreducible plurality, or does his system contain the seeds of a deeper ontological monism that later thinkers merely made explicit?
I’m interested in answers drawing from the Metaphysics, Categories, Physics, and Aristotle’s doctrine of act and potency.

A central feature of Aristotle’s philosophy is the idea that individual substances are primary realities, understood through the unity of matter and form, and that natural beings possess intrinsic ends (teloi) that help explain what they are and how they develop. This framework is deeply connected to his broader metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and philosophy of nature.
However, many aspects of modern science seem to challenge key Aristotelian assumptions. Contemporary physics often describes reality in terms of fields, particles, and mathematical structures rather than substances. Evolutionary biology explains the development of organisms through natural selection rather than by appealing to intrinsic purposes. Cognitive science frequently analyzes thought and behavior in mechanistic terms.
Given these developments, can Aristotle’s concepts of substance, form, potentiality and actuality, and final causation still provide a coherent and defensible metaphysical framework? Or do modern scientific explanations render these concepts obsolete?
More specifically:
Are Aristotle’s four causes still philosophically useful, or have efficient causes largely replaced the others in explanatory power?
Can final causation be reformulated in a way that is compatible with evolutionary biology and contemporary science?
Is the distinction between potentiality and actuality still necessary for explaining change, persistence, and identity over time?
Does Aristotle’s conception of substance offer resources for addressing contemporary debates about emergence, reductionism, and the nature of persons?
If Aristotle were alive today and fully informed by modern science, which elements of his metaphysical system would he likely preserve, revise, or abandon?
More broadly, is Aristotle best understood as offering an outdated scientific worldview, or as providing a philosophical framework whose deepest insights remain relevant regardless of changes in empirical science? Here I am especially interested in answers that connect Aristotle’s metaphysics, philosophy of nature, and ethics rather than treating them as separate areas of inquiry.

Ifk where to put this but philosophically how does one come to this conclusion

I could never quite grasp the Aristotelian concept of immanent form until I read Abraham P. Bos's book on Aristotelian pneuma as the carrier of form. That was when I realized this very idea could help solve a classic puzzle: what exactly is quantum reality, and what kind of existence are we actually dealing with?

I want to share a way of looking at this that fixes a major blank spot in the classic Copenhagen model, without getting stuck in the traps of modern realism. While the Copenhagen model is great because it doesn't treat quantum states like everyday classical objects, it doesn't really explain what is actually there. This lack of a solid philosophical foundation often makes it feel like a shallow tool, just a set of math equations for predicting things rather than a description of real life. Because of this, physicists and philosophers usually default to realist interpretations.

Rather than adopting such realist views, I suggest we look back to an old idea from Aristotle called hylomorphism (the pairing of matter and form), but complemented with the concept of pneuma. Think of pneuma as an active, subtle, and formative energy. In this pneumatic view, a quantum state isn't a physical particle or a wave travelling through space; it is pure, objective potential. Before we measure it, the quantum object is identical to the laws of physics themselves, existing as an un-incarnated, pneumatic logos. It only takes on classical, thing-like properties when it physically "incarnates" during measurement.

This pneumatic approach completely rules out the realist assumption that there is a pre-existing, definite classical past. Take John Wheeler's famous cosmic delayed-choice experiment. Realist thinking leads to the bizarre conclusion of retrocausality, making it seem like a measurement we make today can reach back billions of years to rewrite a photon's history. The pneumatic framework dissolves this paradox completely. The photon never needed to travel as a classical wave or particle in the first place; it was always an irreducibly quantum, pneumatic entity. Measurement is simply an "incarnation event" that makes things concrete in the present, meaning we don't need any time-traveling magic to explain it. Pneumatic quantum reality is primary, while wave and particle are merely secondary manifestations.

To see how we lost the ability to think this way, we have to look at how Western philosophy changed over time. Thinkers like Maximus Confessor (c. 580-662) understood the logoi as active, organizing principles existing right inside natural things. But when later medieval philosophy stripped these forms of their pneumatic carrier, nominalism took over, flattening everything into mere surface-level form. Eventually, this led to the modern view that order is just something our minds project onto the world. However, quantum physics has retroactively challenged this modern bias, proving that there is indeed a real, non-classical organizing principle operating inside nature, completely independent of our minds.

Ultimately, I see quantum measurement as a two-way street, a participatory event where pneumatic quantum reality and our human concepts meet. On a cosmic scale, this process is happening everywhere, all the time, through environmental and gravitational decoherence. Cosmic history is an ongoing, irreversible process of physical incarnation, moving from a unified, low-entropy quantum beginning to the highly differentiated classical world we see today. Read more about this on my retro nineties homepage: Pneumatic Hylomorphism and Quantum Philosophy: Retrieving the Logoi in the Copenhagen Model.

Apologies if this question is common, I couldn't find a discussion of this in other threads!

How is it determined whether a kind is the lowest species? It seems things can always be further specified. I think Aristotle's "man" vs. "pale man" is his example of where speciation stops, because a pale man could stop being pale but still be a man? But if a man is a "rational animal," if he stops being rational, he is still an animal. Why is "rational animal" a species, but "pale man" is not a lower species?

As another example, in the genus "stone" we might differentiate the species "solid stone" from "liquid stone." Then if we examine "liquid stone" as a genus, we might differentiate the species "magma (underground liquid stone)" and "lava (above-ground liquid stone)." Now English doesn't further differentiate lava, but I am informed that in Hawaiian, lava is differentiated into ʻaʻā, which is rough lava, and pāhoehoe, which is smooth lava. This seems to indicate that in English, lava is a lowest species, but in Hawaiian, lava is not a lowest species, which to me does not appear to be an objective demarcation, but rather one depending on thought and language. What is the lowest species here? Pāhoehoe? Lava? Liquid stone? Stone? Whichever it is, what makes that the lowest species?

Is there an objective line below a lowest species and above a non-species? If so, what must we do to find this line?

They do agree on many things :

Friendship as one of the highest good

The goal of life is Human Flourishing

Moderation is important

Reason should guide life

A good life is stable

Ethics is a way of life not one time actions

I want to merge both the ethics of Epicurus and Aristole into one ethical way of life. Not their other philosophical ideas but just human Flourishing.

I will remove harmful goods that bring more annoyance than plesure. I will follow the Golden mean and my rationality when im trying to be virtuous. I will turn these virtues into habits. I will accept pain that brings more plesure into my life. I will also try to remove harmful thoughts and ideas ( Accepting death as an example ) .

But that being said I will still do some things my own way and read other thinkers such as engaging with the political and social life. My own theological views and other philosophical views that come up in my life.

To summarize i do believe that the both of them can compliment eachother very well and lead to human flourishing and happiness

Was Averroes Faithful to Aristotelian Thought on the Intellect?

In his own mind, absolutely and ferociously so. Averroes saw himself not as an innovator but as the purifier of Aristotle, stripping away the Neoplatonic distortions he believed had been introduced by Avicenna and others. His project was to return to the pure, unadulterated doctrine of the Philosopher. However, this very project led him to a radical systematization that many scholars argue goes far beyond anything explicit in the De Anima.

The crucial point of "fidelity" concerns the two most obscure and famous passages in the De Anima, Book III, chapters 4 and 5.

· The Separation of the Intellect (De Anima 3.4, 429a24): Aristotle states that the intellect (nous) "cannot reasonably be regarded as blended with the body" and must be "unmixed" and "separable" (chōristos). Averroes took this with absolute metaphysical seriousness. For him, "unmixed" meant utterly transcendent and ontologically distinct from the material, individual soul. This was his primary weapon against Avicenna and Alexander of Aphrodisias, who he felt had compromised this pure separation.

· The Agent and Potential Intellects (De Anima 3.5, 430a10-25): This is the crux. Aristotle famously introduces a distinction:

· An intellect that "becomes all things" (the potential/material intellect).

· An intellect that "makes all things" (the agent/active intellect), which is "separable, impassible, and unmixed, being essentially an activity." This alone, Aristotle says, is "immortal and eternal."

Averroes’s interpretation is a direct, hyper-literal reading of these passages, drawn to their most extreme logical conclusions:

· Unity of the Material Intellect: Aristotle never explicitly says the potential intellect is one for all humanity, but Averroes reasoned that if it is truly "unmixed" with the body and purely potential, it cannot be individuated by matter or by being the form of a particular body. Since the principle of individuation in Aristotelian physics is matter, a completely immaterial potential intellect can only be a single, shared entity for all mankind. This is his famous doctrine of the unicity of the intellect. He believed this was a necessary consequence of taking Aristotle’s premises seriously.

· The Agent Intellect as Separate Substance: Averroes, like most commentators, identified the Agent Intellect as an entirely separate, eternal substance—the last celestial intelligence, a kind of divine intermediary. He saw this directly in Aristotle's description of it as "essentially an activity" and "immortal and eternal."

So, Averroes was "faithful" in the sense of a strict constructionist who believes they are logically deriving the only coherent system possible from the master's first principles, even if the master never stated the conclusions so boldly.

Is My Interpretation the Most Coherent, or an Extrapolation?

This is where I must be intellectually honest. Any "orthodox Averroist" interpretation, including the one I would articulate, is both the most internally coherent reading of Averroes's own system AND a massive extrapolation from the original text of De Anima. It is not the only possible reading of Aristotle, and it creates serious philosophical problems.

Here’s why it’s an extrapolation:

1. The Unicity of the Intellect is a Radical Thesis Absent in the Text: The idea that all individual humans share a single, eternal, potential intellect is nowhere stated or even strongly implied by Aristotle. It solves the puzzle of how an immaterial entity can be individuated, but by doing so, it creates the catastrophic problem of personal immortality. If my thinking part is a single, shared, eternal substance, what survives death? Not me as an individual person. Averroes was forced into a theory of "conjunction" where, at best, an individual achieves a fleeting mystical unity with the Agent Intellect in life. This is a huge "extrapolation" into Neoplatonic mysticism, the very thing he sought to avoid.

2. Systematizing a "Cryptogram": Alexander of Aphrodisias famously called De Anima 3.5 a "cryptogram." It’s a few dense, aphoristic paragraphs. Aristotle was trying to solve a specific problem—how does thinking begin?—and gestured towards a solution with this distinction. Averroes elevated a cryptic distinction into a comprehensive, cosmic noetic hierarchy. The "patient" or potential intellect in Aristotle is perhaps just the human mind's capacity to receive intelligible forms. Averroes turns it into a single, eternal hypostasis.

3. The Problem of the "Passible" Intellect: Aristotle talks fleetingly about an intellect that is "perishable." Averroes, to preserve his system, identifies this with the internal senses, specifically the imaginative faculty (the cogitative power). He says this is the only truly "perishing" part, and it serves as the materially-individuated substrate that provides images (phantasmata) to the single, immaterial Material Intellect. This is a brilliant and perfectly coherent move within his own system, but it is a philosophical construction designed to reconcile Aristotle's fleeting remark with the strict separation doctrine of 3.4. It is, by definition, an extrapolation.

In my view, despite the controversy and problems regarding the theory of the Unity of the Intellect, Averroes was the more systematically Aristotelian and naturalist commentator than Thomas Aquinas, who did have substantial modifications to adapt Aristotelian Philosophy to Christian Theology, while Averroes was more philosophically rigorous and faithful to Aristotle.