Acceso usuarios
Objectives: This study aims to compare the views of Averroes and Thomas Aquinas on the interpersonal mind, integrating them with ideas from contemporary philosophy.
Theoretical framework: In the centuries-old discussion among Aristotle's commentators on the nature of the intellect Averroes was the boldest supporter of the idea of an Interpersonal Mind. Against him, Aquinas wrote a book.
Method: The parallel points in the two authors are explained, their solutions evaluated, and the most convincing one is chosen when they conflict with each other.
Results and discussion: Averroes held that the principle of understanding, the intellect, is not a soul; rather, it is a separate substance. Against him, Aquinas maintains that, if then intellect is not something of this man, it would not be in man. And thus, a man would not have dominion over his acts. The discussion of this result is that Aquinas can be granted the point of individual responsibility if it is considered as a particle of collective responsibility.
Research Implications: For future research, the implication is that in the philosophy of mind, it will always be necessary to see how the individual point of view is completely insufficient to explain the act of thought.
Originality/Value: In this study for the first time, the ancient and medieval debate among Aristotle's commentators on the nature of the intellect is interpreted in the light of the contemporary philosophy of authors such as De Saussure and McCabe who have argued for the interpersonal nature of the human mind.
