Las confesiones de Al-Ghazali
- Idioma:
- inglés
- Estado:
- Obra completa
- Autoría:
- Escrita por el autor
- Estado del texto:
- Sin ruido de escaneo detectado (medición automática sobre todo el texto, no revisada a mano)
- Extensión:
- ~13.300 palabras · 63 pasajes
Cita esta obra
- APAAl-Ghazali. (n.d.). The Confessions of Al Ghazzali [Las confesiones de Al-Ghazali]. Digital reproduction: SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/es/works/al-ghazali/the-confessions-of-al-ghazzali
- MLAAl-Ghazali. The Confessions of Al Ghazzali [Las confesiones de Al-Ghazali]. Digital reproduction, SigPhi, https://sigphiai.com/es/works/al-ghazali/the-confessions-of-al-ghazzali.
- ChicagoAl-Ghazali. The Confessions of Al Ghazzali [Las confesiones de Al-Ghazali]. Digital reproduction, SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/es/works/al-ghazali/the-confessions-of-al-ghazzali.
Referencia de la edición que reproduce SigPhi: SigPhi es su reproducción digital, no el editor. El año de la edición no consta en los metadatos (por eso «n.d.») y el traductor solo aparece cuando consta.
De qué trata
La autobiografía intelectual de al-Ghazali, conocida en árabe como «al-Munqidh min ad-dalal», «el que libra del error».
Contexto e historia
Al-Ghazali era el profesor mejor pagado de Bagdad cuando, hacia 1095, dejó de poder hablar: una crisis que él cuenta a la vez como enfermedad y como aviso. Abandonó la cátedra, la familia y la ciudad, y pasó años de vida retirada antes de volver a enseñar. El libro es el relato de ese camino y, al mismo tiempo, un examen ordenado de las cuatro vías que probó: la teología, la filosofía, el ismailismo y el sufismo. Concluye que sólo la última da lo que buscaba, porque las tres primeras se pueden aprender y ésta hay que vivirla —«hay diferencia entre saber qué es la embriaguez y estar ebrio». Se lo compara a menudo con las «Confesiones» de Agustín, y la comparación se sostiene, aunque al-Ghazali es mucho más seco y mucho menos confesional de lo que el título inglés hace esperar.
Contexto editorial, no una fuente citable: a diferencia de los pasajes de la obra, estos datos no se pueden comprobar contra el corpus.
with the avidity of brutes. These also ought to be called atheists, for the true faith depends not only on the acknowledgment of God, but of His Apostle and of the Day of Judgment. And although they acknowledge God and His attributes, they deny a judgment to come. (3) Next come the _Theists_. Among them should be reckoned Socrates, who was the teacher of Plato as Plato was of Aristotle. This latter drew up for his disciples the rules of logic, organised the sciences, elucidated what was formerly obscure, and expounded what had not been understood. This school refuted the systems of the two others, i.e. the Materialists and Naturalists; but in exposing their mistaken and perverse beliefs, they made use of arguments which they should not. “God suffices to protect the faithful in war” (_Koran_, xxxiii. 25). Aristotle also contended with success against the theories of Plato, Socrates, and the theists who had preceded him, and separated himself entirely from them; but he could not eliminate from his doctrine the stains of infidelity and heresy which disfigure the teaching of his predecessors. We should therefore consider them all as unbelievers, as well as the so-called Mussulman philosophers, such as Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and Farabi, who have adopted their systems. Let us, however, acknowledge that among Mussulman philosophers none have better interpreted the doctrine of Aristotle than the latter. What others have handed down as his teaching is full of error, confusion, and obscurity adapted to disconcert the reader. The unintelligible can neither be accepted nor rejected. The philosophy of Aristotle, all serious knowledge of which we owe to the translation of these two learned men, may be divided into three portions: the first contains matter justly chargeable with impiety, the second is tainted with heresy, and the third we are obliged to reject absolutely.…