Al-Farabi's famous treatise, known as "The Reconciliation between the
Opinions of the Two Sages" (al-Jam' bayn Ra'yay al-Hakimayn), seeks
to demonstrate that, contrary to the objections raised by people in his era
regarding fundamental differences between Plato and Aristotle-as two
prominent figures of philosophy-and the resulting invalidity of the
philosophical method, no such conflict existed between them, and the
perception of differences was the result of superficial interpretations.
While responding to those who have cast doubt on the attribution of the
a
al-Jam' treatise to Al-Farabi, we will examine why the early
philosophers in the Islamic world felt compelled to write such
"reconciliation" and pursue such an idea. Focusing on this "why" is the
missing link and a response to critics who, disregarding its function in
that specific period, consider al-Jam' to be the product of a historical
error concerning the Theology of Aristotle. Al-Farabi's focus on
Aristotle, and his preference for some of his views over Plato's, itself
confirms that even Al-Farabi, contrary to the overall spirit of the al-Jam'
treatise, acknowledged differences between Aristotle and Plato. This
article aims to delineate the prevailing spirit of Al-Farabi's era, showing
a that al-Jam' was a treatise intended to save philosophy during
particular juncture. Its author was likely well aware that the treatise's
function was confined to that specific time. Today, it is clear that, unlike
in Al-Farabi's time, there is no need to prove that Plato and Aristotle had
no differences. On the contrary, the existence of fundamental
differences between them has become self-evident and an accepted fact
among experts in Greek philosophy. The present study investigates this
issue by taking into account the historical factors.