THE ROLE OF POLITICS IN IBN RUSHD’S CONCEPT OF TRUTH

ABSTRACT

Ibn Rushd (Averroes), one of the most prominent thinkers of the XIIth century, is a philosopher who made great contributions to both Eastern and Western civilization. Especially with his views, he changed the direction of Western philosophy and made important contributions. In this study, Averroes' views on politics are analyzed. The main purpose of our study is to bring together the views of Averroes, who expressed his political views in his commentary on Plato's State, in political philosophy and to determine how far his views on the field of politics are related to the concept of the ideal state he received from Plato and Aristotle. In politics, which appears as the practical reflection of justice, the necessity of social life, the effects of virtues on the formation of the ideal state, and morality-based actions are among the topics examined. Averroes did not rely solely on rational thought in his political philosophy. It is worth noting that religion, which is the biggest factor in Islamic civilization, is also decisive in this regard. For this reason, the philosopher draws attention to the cooperation between religion and reason. As he was influenced by the philosophers before him, he also influenced many philosophers after him with his political philosophy. In this context, the relations he established between politics, virtue, morality, moralities, education, justice and happiness are important enough to be taken as a basis in today's political developments and in the implementation phase of the types of governance. In our study, while analyzing individual, social and political issues on the basis of the formation of a virtuous state, Ibn Rushd's “Talhīṣ al-Siyāsa li-Eflātūn” is taken as a basis.

 АННОТАЦИЯ

Ибн Рушд (Аверроэс), один из важнейших мыслителей XII века, является философом, внесшим значительный вклад как в восточную, так и в западную цивилизацию. В данном исследовании анализируются политические взгляды Аверроэса. Основная цель нашей работы — собрать воедино политические воззрения Аверроэса, изложенные в его комментарии к «Государству» Платона, и определить, насколько его взгляды в области политики соотносятся с концепцией идеального государства, которую он унаследовал от Платона и Аристотеля. Среди рассматриваемых тем — политика как практическое воплощение справедливости, необходимость социальной жизни, влияние добродетелей на формирование идеального государства и действия, основанные на морали. В своей политической философии Аверроэс не опирался исключительно на рациональное мышление. Ибн Рушд полагал, что религия, являющаяся основным фактором исламской цивилизации, играет определяющую роль в политической плоскости. По этой причине философ освещает неразрывную связь между религией и разумом. Как он сам испытал влияние предшествующих философов, так и оказал влияние на многих последующих мыслителей своей политической философией. В этом контексте взаимоотношения, которые он устанавливает между политикой, добродетелью, моралью, воспитанием, справедливостью и счастьем, имеют достаточно важное значение, чтобы быть основой для современных политических процессов и применения различных форм правления. В нашем исследовании при анализе индивидуальных, социальных и политических аспектов, связанных с формированием добродетельного государства, в качестве основы используется труд Ибн Рушда «Talhīṣ al-Siyāsa li-Eflātūn».

Keywords: Averroes, Morality, Justice, Politics, Virtue.

Ключевые слова: Ибн Рушд, Мораль, Справедливость, Политика, Добродетель.

INTRODUCTION

In determining the role of the political sphere, Averroes placed moral practices at the center. Because, according to Averroes, all actions that occur within the political sphere constitute another aspect of the moral sphere. Politics, which is put forward on the basis of the moral sphere, is the establishment and management of the city in a virtuous way. For this reason, the moral sphere is defined as a relationship between thought and action. [19, pp. 60-61; 31, pp. 61-62]

According to Averroes, who reveals the connection between morality and politics, the source of the moral sphere is the soul. Because the issues belonging to the moral sphere consist of rational faculties and will. Anger, resentment, lust, and thought, which belong to the soul, are related to the body itself. The body, on the other hand, is characterized as a body and is considered as a subject of the field of nature. In this context, the moral sphere and the natural sphere are interrelated. This view put forward by Ibn Rushd forms the basis for the emergence of virtues related to thought. [ 3, pp. 62-63]

The ideas and virtues of the moral sphere constitute the basis of the political sphere. At this point, the state, which is characterized as politics, enables people to live together. The shaping of life and the will of the individual in life are based on morality. Politics, which is shaped on the basis of morality, according to Ibn Rushd, differs from the subjects of the theoretical field in terms of the content, subject, purpose, and essence of the field of politics, which he deals with in the practical field. Because the aim of theoretical science is to visualize and think in the mind. For this reason, Averroes associates the subjects and situations belonging to the field of politics with the human will, free choice, and moderation. In this context, Averroes' political, moral, natural and metaphysical fields are interrelated. [14, pp. 65]

The field of politics encompasses the free actions of human beings. In this context, society, which has a political basis, plays a role in the formation of good, qualified and measured individuals. The principles in the field of politics affect social groups according to the number of individuals in them. It is more effective in a small group than in a large group. For this reason, the first part of the political field is theoretical and the second part is practical. However, it is possible to speak of an equal relationship in this distinction made in the field of politics. The first of these two stages deals with the actions obtained as a result of repetitions, the actions realized as a result of will, the existence of these actions and their relations with each other. The second stage is concerned with the establishment and evolution of the soul's actions in the desired direction and the hierarchical order that emerges. [14, pp. 65-66; 10, pp. 129]

Averroes constantly establishes a connection between ethic and politics. He sees politics as a set of norms that prevent justice from emerging in the social sphere. And defines ethic as the ability of individuals with souls to achieve the best as a result of their will and to manage this goal for the benefit of society. As with Aristotle, in this context an action in itself precedes the appearance of another good action. Thus, the resulting action determines the value of the preceding action. [31, pp. 65] In Averroes’ thought this close relationship between politics and morality forms the basis of the political domain of morality. Therefore, it is important to define the moral domain before defining the political domain.

1. Relationship Between State, Society and Individual

According to Averroes the relationship between the social sphere and the individual should not be ignored. Understanding justice in society is similar to understanding of justice individually. Individuals are small parts of society. The state is only formed from the combination of these small parts. Through understanding social principles we can understan dindividuals better. [14, pp.115; 22, pp.123]

Averroes explain that for a state to be defined as virtuous, it must possess the virtues of wisdom, courage, justice, and temperance. [ 14, pp. 114-115;  22, pp. 128-129-130] Thefirst, the virtue of wisdom, is based on the idea that the small community in the administration of the state should be composed of philosophers. The knowledge of individuals in this group is different from the knowledge of other people. For the continuity, order and perfection of the state, the presence of individuals from this group in the administration is essential. Then he defines the virtue of courage as being free from fear, bodily pleasures, and emotions characterized as violence and weakness. Tendencies of individuals in this direction affect social order negatively. Music and physical education are important in order to prevent the actions of individuals in this direction. These two areas ensure the possession and permanence of the characteristics deemed necessary in both the individual and social spheres. The third virtue is moderation, which requires moderation in all areas. Moderation is achieved by forming the sensual soul on the axis of reason. The most perfect ones can only be achieved in this way. For this reason, moderation is important not for a single society but for all societies. This virtue strengthens the relationship between individuals. Thus, society becomes healthier. The fourth virtue, justice, should be considered in direct proportion to the virtues mentioned above. The virtue of justice is directly related to the management of the social sphere. Therefore, it ensures the continuity and order of the state. The virtue of justice emerges as a result of each individual doing the job that suits him/her. This feature, which must be applied, ensures the permanence of the state. [14, pp. 115-116-118]

Averroes defends the necessity of a society. Individuals learn the virtues of the moral realm within social values. They use these learned actions within the social realm. As a result, the formation of a good state is the preservation of the relationship established between the rulers and the ruled based on norms and the engagement of each individual in a single job that suits them. [31, pp. 67-68-86] These points depend on the presence of just people in the state.  The absence of justice is at the root of the conflicts and injustices that arise in states. This is because in such states individuals deal with many tasks at the same time.

According to Averroes, it is impossible for a single individual to embody all the virtues necessary for  a sustainable life. However, these virtues can be found and practiced within communities that form a collective. This limitation is a necessary cooperation among individuals in order to cultivate what is essential for their lives. People exist in society by nature, which is integral to the continuity of their lives. Averroes argues that this necessity highlights the socially embedded existence of the individual. Within the social sphere, individuals can attain the perfection and happiness they seek, in accordance with their inherent nature. [14, pp. 67-68; 2, pp. 60-61]

The cooperation that Averroes specifies in the social sphere includes the necessities of life and the acquisition of virtues. The individual is obliged to meet their needs for the continuity of life. This situation reveals the need for a political sphere that specifies the situations that must be done for the continuity of life, the attainment of happiness and the attainment of the most perfect, and the need for a state and a place for the implementation phase. [14, pp. 68-69-70; 4, pp. 11]

Averroes, who defended the necessity of individuals living in community, examined this concept within the context of the economic sphere. An individual is not self-sufficient; rather, a human being requires various people to fulfill different needs throughout life. This reality leads to the formation of communities based on mutual dependencies. In this context, cooperation among individuals is essential for establishing order. Within the framework of social order, each individual should contribute their skills or artistry at the appropriate time and to the appropriate degree for the benefit of others. [22, pp. 54-55]

According to Averroes, each individual within society should engage in work that aligns with their abilities to foster the developmentof an orderly political system. The realization of each individual’s appropriate work at the appropriate time and to the appropriate extent prioritizes justice. The cultivation of each aspect of the soul in accordance with its true nature corresponds to the existence of an  individual. Therefore, Averroes, if a person begins to learn the vocation that suits them from childhood, they become more adept at utilizing their skills effectively. Within this framework, Averroes posits that an individual cannot simultaneously be a warrior, a craftsman, and a philosopher; they can only pursue one of these fields. This situation reflects the necessity of a structured social formation. The goal of a society built on this principle is to achieve the most perfect and optimal state. [14, pp. 69-70; 10, pp. 130]

2.  Qualities a Administrator Should Have

The individuals who comprise society are differ from one another in terms of personality, character, thought processors and physical attributes. These differences highlight the diversity of desires and opinions among individuals. To address the problems, injustices, and harms that may arise from this diversity, a ruler possessing the virtue of justice is essential. The presence of a just ruler is one of the most critical criteria for establishing a state. According to Averroes, this ruler is also called philosopher, malik, or guardian of the law. [14, pp. 70-71-72-73-74; 31, pp. 94-95-96-182-184-185]  He posits that the ruler of an ideal state should be a philosopher (al-malik) and possess a strong education in philosophical principles. Such philosophical training enables the ruler to discern between good and evil, both within the state and among its citizens. Philosophical knowledge is a fundamental aspect of forming the foundation of the political sphere. [14, pp. 70-71-72; 29, pp. 11]

It is possible to discuss numerous characteristics that a manager should possess, with the most significant trait being the ability to philosophize. However, the foundation of all the qualities considered essential originates from the realm of philosophy. For this reason, Averroes initially focused on education within the philosophical domain, the inherent qualities of human beings, and the capabilities of philosophers in governance. In this context, Averroes posits that the philosopher’s objective is to engage with theoretical sciences and attain knowledge of the truth. [31, pp. 183-184]

According to Averroes, individuals defined as philosophers should possess four fundamental skills. The first skill, the ability to discern the truth, is held by only a select few. These individuals are capable of proposing, analyzing, and interpreting propositions based on *būrhan* (evidence or proof). Those who master these stages can effectively teach what they have learned. The second skill, the art of persuasion, is crucial for addressing and educating the members of society. The third skill, wisdom, is essential both for one's internal world and for interactions with other states. The fourth skill, the possession of moral virtues, is vital for effective governance and for determining the type of justice applied in that governance. Therefore, individuals in positions of government should strive to achieve the highest standards in thought, morality, theoretical knowledge, and practical sciences. [14, pp. 137-138]

According to Averroes, a ruler must embody certain essential characteristics.  These include an understanding of the nature of existence and the ability to distinguish between fundamental truths and incidental matters. Additionally, it is crucial for the ruler to possess knowledge of theoretical sciences, to comprehend the knowledge he acquires, to have a strong desire for learning, to be truthful, to consistently seek the truth, to resist sensual pleasures, to remain unattached to material possessions, to exhibit courage, to be a profound thinker, to practice justice, to communicate eloquently, and to demonstrate practical intelligence. In summary, the ruler is expected to be both physically and spiritually exemplary. [14, pp. 140-141-142; 30, pp. 118-119]  For this reason, individuals who wish to participate in state administration should begin their education early in life. This approach allows them to develop all the necessary skills and criteria through training initiated at a young age. [31, pp. 188]

According to Averroes, in addition to the above-mentioned characteristics, it is important for an individual to have wisdom, a perfect intellect, the ability to persuade, imagination, and the ability to wage jihad. Because the presence of these five qualities in an individual allows the individual to be characterized as a ruler. According to Ibn Rushd, at the point where these five characteristics are found in many individuals, individuals with these characteristics should act together for the continuation and peace of the state. In this case, rulers are defined as distinguished rulers depending on the form of government that emerges. [14, pp. 176-177; 28, pp. 321-322]

According to Averroes, in some situations and times, the individual in the position of ruler may not possess all of the above-mentioned characteristics. However, in this case, the ruler is someone who is familiar with the laws laid down by the first legislator. In cases that are not included in the laws laid down by the first legislator, the ruler can offer a solution based on an intellectual process. The knowledge possessed by the individual who acts as a ruler in this way is included in the science of fiqh. This ruler, who possesses the knowledge of fiqh, can perform jihad within the framework of the laws. [31, pp. 189-190] In the case of rulers who lack the power of jihād and the capacity for critical thinking, the state should be governed by two judges. The primary concern must always be the continuity and peace of the state. [14, pp. 177-178]

3. Types of States

According to Averroes, the foundation of social formations lies in the fact that humans cannot achieve self-sufficiency in isolation and require the company of others. This perspective aligns with that of Plato. Averroes also posits that the differences among individuals further necessitate social formations, as people with diverse abilities contribute uniquely to society. Within the framework of wisdom, valor, temperance, justice, unity, and integrity, two types of state formations can be identified: virtuous and non-virtuous. The virtuous state, which is paramount, embodies the virtues of temperance, valor, justice, unity, integrity, and wisdom. In contrast, the non-virtuous state is categorized into seven types based on the absence of these virtues. [35, pp. 43-44]

3. 1. Establishing the Characteristics of a Virtuous State

The possibility of establishing a virtuous state is a topic of ongoing debate. Some individuals argue that the existence of such a state is unattainable, while others believe it is indeed possible. Those who reject the notion of a virtuous state often cite the absence of a perfect human being in all aspects as their rationale. They contend that without the presence of a flawless individual, the concept of a virtuous state cannot be realized. [14, pp. 142]

According to Averroes, the possibility of an ideal state, which is examined through the lenses of politics and ethics, is a significant issue. He asserts that the existence of a virtuous and ideal state is feasible when these two aspects are considered. Averroes supports this notion by referencing the administrative systems during the periods of the Khulafā al-Rāshidun and Yūsuf ibn Tāshfin. He believes that it is possible to discuss the formation of an ideal state in these two historical contexts. Consequently, the concept of an ideal state can be revisited. Averroes aligns with Plato regarding the essential characteristics required for the establishment of an ideal state. However, he contends that multiple methods, rather than a singular approach, should be considered for constructing the ideal state. He argues that a state consistently governed by a corrupt administration can evolve into an ideal and virtuous state through the continuous leadership of virtuous rulers. [14, pp. 142-143-170-171-198-203]

According to Averroes, the individual or individuals involved in the administration of a virtuous state have an influence on other people through their actions and beliefs. The degree of difficulty of this influence of the ruler is determined according to the norms involved in governance and the relation of these norms to the ideal state. In this framework, the implementation stage is more important than the belief stage. However, this does not negate the importance of the belief stage. Because, according to Averroes, human virtue emerges as a result of the simultaneous consideration of theoretical and practical sciences. In this framework, due to the nature of human beings, practical knowledge is important for the purpose of knowledge, and theoretical knowledge is important for the emergence of good actions. At this point, the stages of wisdom in knowing and acting are inseparable from each other. Ibn Rushd's thoughts in the political field are different from many political thoughts. Because according to Ibn Rushd, theoretical and practical sciences are always considered together. They are characterized as complementary parts. Apart from these qualities, Averroes also reveals the importance of education in the formation of an ideal state. According to Ibn Rushd, the individual who should take part in the administration of the state should be raised by being subjected to certain trainings from the earliest times of his life. Because the existence of an ideal state is directly proportional to the existence of an ideal ruler. [36, pp. 179-180; 31, pp. 193]

On the question of the possibility of the ideal state, Averroes discusses the virtuous state in two ways. The first form of state is the Imāmiyya state, which is not virtuous in terms of belief but virtuous in terms of action. The second form of state is the state that is virtuous in terms of both belief and action. These two conceptions of the state were shaped as a result of the historical influences of the period in which Averroes lived. [14, pp. 170-171] Averroes holds a favorable view on the practice of philosophizing, which he deems essential for an ideal state to possess certain qualities. He noted that there were many individuals of this caliber in his own time. However, these thinkers, whose names Averroes did not mention, were not regarded as significant by the members of the state, leading to the neglect of their ideas. Such thoughts, which could illuminate positive aspects of the state's progress, require a conducive environment for their implementation. Averroes' perspectives are closely linked to the system of governance in the state during his era. [31, pp. 193-194-195]

3. 2. The Foundation and Characteristics of Vicious States

Averroes first discussed and explained the qualities of the virtuous state. After these definitions, he discussed the non-virtuous states, their qualities, and the transformation of states into each other. According to Averroes, rulers of a virtuous state may lack knowledge about the characteristics and structures of non-virtuous states. Nevertheless, they should be capable of understanding the issues that may arise from non-virtuous cities. [14, pp. 173-174]

According to Averroes, it is not possible to speak only of virtuous and non-virtuous forms of state. Because the existence of states in between these two forms of state is also possible. These in-between state forms resemble virtuous states in some aspects and non-virtuous states in others. At this point, which state is closer to which state is shaped according to its location and the characteristics it harbors. This shaping also determines which form of state it will transform into. This transformation is not instantaneous. It takes place over time depending on a certain process. Virtuous states, which rank second in state administration, are analyzed under seven headings within themselves. [14, pp.192-193; 22, pp. 268]

3. 2. 1. State of Honor (Timocracy)

The state of honor, which is one of the non-virtuous state administrations, has an administration based on glory and honor. It is possible to talk about different forms of governance in the form of a state shaped on these foundations. The first of these forms is the domination of a certain segment of society over the other segment. This situation enables the solidarity of those in the same segment among themselves and always allows some people to take a subordinate place. The second form of governance is based on mutual respect. However, the respect here is based on a relationship of interest rather than mutual assistance. Therefore, this respect is based on equality. Thus, this respect based on equality creates mutual expectations. The honor-based form of government is reminiscent of the ideal state in terms of appearance. However, in the ideal state understanding, honor is considered as a means, not an end. For this reason, while honor is handled on the basis of virtues in the ideal state understanding, honor in the state of honor is not related to virtues. Because honor is the highest point to be reached. [14, pp. 179; 31, pp. 203-204]

Individuals in honor-based governance care about earning praise, recognition and respect. For this reason, their cooperation and solidarity with each other is inevitable. The continuity of this cooperation, which is based on interests, is directly proportional to individual interests. Therefore, its continuity is not permanent. The concept of popularity is important for individuals in this administration. Because in order to gain prestige in this state administration, individuals turn to things that are considered popular at the moment, such as wealth, being noble, helping or having more property. Popularity is the most important criterion for gaining prestige. Popularity achieved in many fields helps to achieve prestige in this administration. This prestige gained through popularity leads individuals to beauty, contempt for death and robustness. However, these tendencies do not allow individuals to be free. Because these individuals are masters of everything in one aspect and slaves of respect in another. They resort to every means to obtain respect. [14, pp. 180-181]

In a state of honor, rulers wear the finest clothes, sit on the throne like kings and consume the finest food. Such behavior is characterized as the results of respectability and wisdom. The ruler's dignity and justice are directly proportional to the wealth he possesses, the way he preserves it, and the way he shares it equally. The state of honor, which consists of individuals who tend to do praiseworthy behaviors due to gaining prestige, is the most superior among the states without virtue. Therefore, according to Averroes, this form of government is the result of the formation of a non-virtuous state that prioritizes a rich life and whose only goal is prestige. [31, pp. 204-205-206]

3. 2. 2. Oligarchy

Oligarchy, which is characterized as the rule of the few in number in society, is shaped on the basis of concepts such as property, wealth and riches. In this form of state, cooperation is for gaining wealth. At this point, wealth is a goal to be achieved on its own rather than a means. Because wealth is not used to achieve another goal. The form of state created in this context allows the minority to be rich and the majority to be poor. [11, pp. 81]

In an oligarchy state, the rulers are chosen among the richest and most powerful individuals in that state. They utilize their power to ensure the continuity of their wealth. In this way, they continue to be the ruler of the city they are in and continue to be rich. In addition to power, they also have knowledge about trade, agriculture, hunting and shepherding. The essence of learning this knowledge is the acquisition and continuity of wealth. [14, pp. 184]

3. 2. 3. Democracy

The democracy-based form of government covers the society in general. Every individual involved in the formation of society has a say in this state. This situation allows individuals to act according to their desires and to be free in every aspect. With these aspects, it is possible to characterize it as the most beautiful form of state in terms of envy and appearance. [14, pp. 100] According to Averroes, this state administration, which incorporates many personalities and orders, incorporates all the societies found in other states. However, it is not possible to talk about the existence or formation of a virtuous state on the basis of this administration. [22, pp. 285-286]

For individuals in a democracy-based state, a virtuous ruler is someone who has a good opinion, respects the wishes of the people, cares about their desires, and takes the position of ruler with the approval of the society. For this reason, individuals who are truly virtuous cannot serve as administrators in this government and virtue-based laws cannot be mentioned. However, it is possible to talk about some laws and rules for certain situations due to the human tendency towards vice. These situations are related to shelter, nutrition, economy and personal desires. This form of government, which was created on the basis of necessity, was oriented towards individual desires and pleasures after meeting compulsory needs. Therefore, while necessity was effective in the beginning, free will became effective later. The first pillar of this freedom-based formation in the democratic state is within the family. Within the family, each individual has the space to realize their wishes and desires. This situation ensures its continuity in society as well. The democratic state, which offers a wide area of freedom, contradicts the ideal state administration in this respect. [14, pp. 186-187]

This form of governance, which is based on individual desires, has a coincidental formation as it does not gather around a specific goal. For this reason, the ruler in the administration did not come to power for a specific reason. It is possible to talk about many problems in the democratic state, which does not have a specific goal and where unlimited freedom is effective. These problems are that individuals are not in solidarity with each other, they do not gather around a certain goal, the property belonging to the society is collected in a certain segment and they do not have certain laws related to their own formation. As a result of these problems, after a while the democratic state evolves into tyranny, another corrupt form of government. The sole reason for this evolution is the over-indulgence in wealth. [31, pp. 209-210]

3. 2. 4. Tyranny

It is a form of state in which tyranny and oppression are effective.  It is the oppression and rule of society by a single ruler. All individuals within a state cooperate in order to concentrate the legislative, executive and judicial spheres of a state in a single person. This degree of sovereignty is in line with the wishes of the person in the position of ruler. The goal of progress and cooperation here is to realize the ruler's desires such as becoming rich, victory, glory, honor, and pursuing his pleasures. According to this situation, the social goal is shaped according to the ruler's wishes and pleasures. In this respect, the individuals who make up the society are also characterized as slaves. [14, pp. 188; 12, pp. 58]

In tyrannical rule, the ruler uses the society over which he has established superiority as a tool during the superiority he will establish over other communities or individuals. The superiority desired to be established here stems from the ruler's desire not to lose the power he has. This situation in tyranny is the most obvious difference with the ideal state formation.  Because in the ideal state, every individual who makes up the society aims to achieve happiness through the work that suits them. However, discussing such a goal and system within a context of tyranny is not feasible. In a tyrannical regime, the interests and desires of the ruler take precedence over all else. The ultimate objective is not the happiness of the populace; rather, individuals are compelled to engage in various fields of work simultaneously. Social cooperation is dictated by the ruler, and practical actions are exploited for the benefit of a single family. Furthermore, only the basic needs of the individuals within society are addressed. These factors contribute to the establishment of an unjust system. [2, pp. 412-413-416-417; 31, pp. 209-210]

Under tyranny, individuals do not have goals of their own. Because in this government, everything serves the wishes and interests of the ruler called tyrant. The fact that a single ruler is mentioned in the management of the state is the common aspect with the ideal state management. They differ from each other in all other aspects. Because in the ideal state administration, every individual strives for happiness, while in the tyrannical administration, the only situation in which the ruler and society cooperate is the realization of the ruler's wishes. Therefore, according to Averroes, corrupt, tyrannical states and the state of aristocracy are similar to each other. [14, pp. 190-191]

In this form of governance, the ruler, who holds a position of authority, dominates society with the assistance of subordinates. Despite this support, the subordinates and the general populace lack a voice in the administration. However, they do receive certain benefits in exchange for their contributions to governance. Systems characterized by these traits are classified as tyrannical governments. In such regimes, the ruler oppresses society, and individuals within that society often engage in bullying behavior towards themselves and other communities. It is the community within the tyrannical regime that facilitates the spread of this bullying to other groups. As a result of this situation, each individual holds an office according to the number of people over whom he/she exercises sovereignty.  In this framework, the person at the top of the administration is the most effective in bullying. [14, pp. 190-191]

3. 2. 5. Management of Those Who Aim for Pleasure

In the form of government that aims for pleasure, both the ruler and the individuals who make up the society use all their actions to achieve pleasure. In this form of government, bodily desires are prioritized above everything else. It is possible to talk about cooperation for games and entertainment. However, this cooperation is not for the benefit of the state but for pleasure. The state that aims for pleasure, which is considered on the basis of non-virtuous and uninformed governments, is envied because it is a happy type of government. The person who holds the highest position in this government is the one who has many resources for play, entertainment and physical pleasures. He is defined as the happiest person because he has these resources. [12, pp. 54-55; 31, pp. 213-214]

3. 2. 6. Management of Necessities

It is possible to talk about necessities and the resulting cooperation in the management of necessity. Necessity-based needs are met through farming, animal husbandry, robbery, theft and hunting. The most fundamental and natural of these methods is farming. In this necessity-driven form of governance, the continuity of physical life takes precedence over all other concerns. Consequently, individuals pursue various professions. However, this situation varies across different states. In some states, a focus on a single profession guarantees that physical needs are adequately met. In this form of government, the person in the position of manager is the one who best fulfills and protects bodily needs. [12, pp. 53-54; 31,pp. 214-215; 18, pp. 252-253]

3. 2. 7.  Defective and Corrupt Management

The wealth acquired in this form of governance is very important. For this reason, the rulers of imperfect governance take many actions to obtain wealth and to ensure the continuity of this wealth. As a result of the actions taken, the majority of the wealth obtained remains with the manager. Because the ruler has a personality that wants to get more of everything he needs. Since this wealth is not shared with other people, it is wasted. People in the flawed state administration, which is shaped on the basis of waste, cooperate for things like wealth, gold, silver and money. It is even possible to talk about accumulation beyond the essential needs due to the desire to be rich and the stinginess that arises due to this situation. It is not a problem for them to resort to any means for wealth. In order to obtain wealth, people under this rule are interested in trade, farming, animal husbandry, robbery and hunting. The person in the position of ruler in this wasteful and wealth-based administration is the most competent person in obtaining and protecting wealth. [12, pp. 54; 33, pp. 64-65-66]

Under imperfect governance, wealth is analyzed under two headings. The first of these forms of wealth is natural wealth. Natural wealth consists of the sum of needs such as nutrition, shelter and clothing that ensure the continuity of human life. The second form of wealth, wealth derived from tradition, is based on dirhams and dinars. Since this wealth is not associated with essential needs, it is not found in every society. However, it is used in some state administrations due to trade and money-based businesses. [ 31,pp. 215-216]

CONCLUSION

Human beings inherently have a free will. The actions that emerge in the context of free will are affected by external factors. An ideal state order is necessary for the environmental factors that will affect people's actions to include virtuous behaviors that will help people and to achieve the ultimate goal. The ideal state order represents individuals gathered around the same goal. On the basis of this common goal, virtuous individuals, virtuous laws and virtuous rulers are necessary. For this reason, rulers who play a role in the formation of the ideal state should have knowledge about the laws and the theoretical and practical parts of the science of politics.

Averroes based the formation of the ideal state in politics on the virtue of justice. The virtue of justice emerges as a result of the combination of all virtues. According to him virtues are divided into two as individual and social. Individual virtues form the basis of social virtues. The virtues at the individual level include having the soul and the power of anger under the control of reason, not deviating from justice in one's actions, not going to extremes, being moderate, and not going below the required measure in one's actions. The virtues at the social level, on the other hand, are that each person should be educated in the field appropriate to his or her nature, should perform his or her profession in that field in the best way possible, and should not be interested in any other profession. Understanding which profession people are suitable for is determined as a result of the education initiated in childhood. The main purpose of these trainings initiated in childhood is to develop virtues. The ultimate goal to be achieved through virtues is to reach the highest good. This highest good is eternal happiness.

Averroes, who commented and interpreted Aristotle's works, commented and interpreted Plato's State instead of Aristotle's Politics in the field of political philosophy. In his commentary, Averroes agreed with Plato at some points, while at others he discussed, criticized, refuted and rejected his ideas. He also mentions his own views in some parts. In the system he created based on Plato's views, he interpreted the political, social and economic developments of Islamic history. As a result, Averooes’s “Talhīṣ al-Siyāsa li-Eflātūn” is an example of the fusion of the systems and theories of Islamic and Greek political philosophy. Averroes, who has his own theories and teachings in the field of political thought, acts as a bridge between different ideas. For this reason, it is an important source for contemporary political developments.

References:

1. Akşit, M., (2018). “İbn Rüşd’ün Siyaset Felsefesinde Muhafızların (Koruyucular) Dururmu”. Ekev Akademi Dergisi (76), pp. 209-218. [ In Turkish]
2. Aristoteles (2014). Nikomakhos’a Etik. Trans. Zeki Özcan, Sentez, Ankara, pp. 536. [In Turkish]
3. Aşkit, M., (2018). “İbn Rüşd’de Siyaset ve Ahlak İlişkisi”. Iğdır Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi (26), pp. 47-65. [ In Turkish]
4. Aydın, M. S., (2000). İslam Felsefesi Yazıları. Ufuk Kitapları, İstanbul, pp.211. [In Turkish]
5. Bayrakdar, M., (2019). İslam Felsefesine Giriş. Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, Ankara, pp. 379. [ In Turkish]
6. Bircan, H. H., (2019). İslam Felsefesi Tarihine Giriş. Değerler Eğitimi Merkezi, İstanbul, pp.335. [ In Turkish]
7. Erdoğan, F., (2017). İbn-i  Rüşd. Maviçatı, İstanbul, pp.134. [ In Turkish]
8. Ernest, R., (2021). İbn Rüşd ve İbn Rüşdcülük. Trans. Ayşe Meral, Albaraka, İstanbul, pp.353. [ In Turkish]
9. Evren, M., (2022).“Platon’un Politika Felsefesindeki Sınıf Ayrımı ve Yönetim Biçimlerine Dair Bir Değerlendirme”. Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi SBE Dergisi, N.12(3), pp. 1735-1747. [ In Turkish]
10. Fahri, M., (2004). İslam Ahlak Teorileri. Trans. Muhammet İskenderoğlu, Atilla Arkan, Litera, İstanbul, pp. 330. [ In Turkish]
11. Fârâbî, (1990). El-Medînetül’l-Fâzıla. Trans. Ahmet Arslan, Kültür Bakanlığı, Ankara, pp. 320. [ In Turkish]
12. Fârâbî, (2012). Es-Siyâsetu’l-Medeniyye veya Mebâdi’ül-Mevcûdât. Trans. Mehmet S. Aydın, Abdulkadir Şener, M. Rami Ayas, Büyüyenay, İstanbul, pp. 136.
13. Gedikli, M. E., (2019). Platon’da Devlet-Adalet İlişkisi, Hukuk Felsefesi ve Sosyoloji Arkivi 28. Kitap. Ed. Saim Üye, Nadire Özdemir, Zeynep İspir, Funda Kaya, Elif Çağla Yıldız, İstanbul Barosu, İstanbul, pp. 192-196. [ In Turkish]
14. İbn Rüşd, (2005). Siyasete Dair Temel Bilgiler, Kurtubalı İbn Rüşd’ün Platon’un Devletin Düştüğü Şerh. Trans. Muharrem Hilmi Özev, Bordo-siyah, İstanbul, pp. 246.[ In Turkish ]
15. İbn Rüşd, (2011). Tehâfütü’t-Tehâfüt (Tutarsızlığın Tutarsızlığı). Ed. Sait Aykut, Trans.  Muharrem  Hilmi Özev, BS, İstanbul, pp. 568. [ In Turkish]
16. Karasan, M., (1964). Eflatu’un Devlet Görüşü. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı, İstanbul, 150. [ In Turkish]
17. Kılıç, C., (2014). “Platon’un Timaios’unda Tabiat Felsefesi, İnsan ve Biyolojisi”. Fırat Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, N.19(1), pp. 1-24. [ In Turkish]
18. Koloğlu, İ., (2024). “Batı Aydınlanmasının Öncüsü İbn Rüşd’ün Siyaset ve Yönetim Düşüncesi”. Ombudsman Akademi (19), pp. 243-266. [ In Turkish]
19. Pieper, A., (2012). Etiğe Giriş. Trans. Veysel Atayman, Gönül Sezer, Ayrıntı, İstanbul, pp. 288. [ In Turkish]
20. Platon, (1998). Yasalar. Trans. Candan Şentuna, Saffet Babür, Kabalcı, İstanbul, pp. 495. [ In Turkish]
21. Platon, (2014). Devlet Adamı. Trans. Furkan Akderin, Say, İstanbul, pp. 121.[ In Turkish ]
22. Platon, (2016). Devlet. Trans. Sabahattin Eyüpoğlu, M. Ali Cimcoz, Türkiye İş Bankası, İstanbul, pp. 372. [ In Turkish]
23. Sarıoğlu, H., (2003). İbn Rüşd Felsefesi. Klasik, İstanbul, pp. 319. [ In Turkish]
24. Sarıoğlu, H., (2012). İbn Rüşd. İslam FelsefeTarihi II. Ed. Bayram Ali Çetinkaya, Grafiker, Ankara, pp. 75-101. [ In Turkish]
25. Sarıoğlu, H., (2015), İbn Rüşd. Doğu’dan Batı’ya Düşüncenin Serüveni Endülüs ve Felsefenin İşrakili(leşmesi)ği N. 7, Ed. Eyüp Bekiryazıcı, İnsan, İstanbul, pp. 577-606. [ In Turkish]
26. Sarıoğlu, H., (2016). İbn Rüşd: Bir Denge Filozofu. İslam Felsefesi Tarih ve Problemler. Ed. Cüneyt Kaya, İsam, Ankara, pp. 365-395. [ In Turkish]
27. Sönmez, V., (2018). Bütün Yönleriyle İslam’da Adalet. Ed. Hüseyin Kahrama, Ensar, İstanbul, pp. 366. [ In Turkish]
28. Sünter, E.,“Ahlak Felsefesi Bağlamında Ebu Berk Razi’ye Göre Yöneticinin Özellikeri”, The Journal Of Academic Social Science Studies, N.73, 2018, pp.  315-325. [In Turkish]
29. Şeyzerî, (2003). Devlet Başkanının Nitelikleri. Trans. Osman Arpaçukuru, İlke, İstanbul, pp.148.
30. Şulul, C., (2009). “İbn Rüşd’e Göre İdeal Devlet’in Başkanında Bulunması Gereken Nitelikler”. Harran Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, N. 21(21),         pp. 111-124. [ In Turkish]
31. Şulul, C., (2009). İbn Rüşd’ün Siyaset Felsefesi “Eflatun’un Devlet’i ve İbn Rüşd’ün Yorumu”. İnsan, İstanbul, pp. 270.  [ In Turkish]
32. Şulul, C., (2015). İbn Rüşd’ün Siyaset Felsefesi. Doğu'dan Batı'ya Düşüncenin Serüveni Endülüs ve Felsefenin İşrakili(leşmesi)ği N.7. Ed. Eyüp Bekiryazıcı, İnsan, İstanbul, pp. 711-739. [ In Turkish]
33. Şulul, C., “İbn Rüşd’ün Siyaset Felsefesi”, Harran Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, N. 20(20), pp. 57-69. [ In Turkish]
34. Toksöz, H., (2018). Magrib/Endülüs’te Felsefe-II, İbn Rüşd ve Aristoculuğun Yeniden Canlanması İslam Felsefesi. Ed. İsmail Erdoğan, Enver Demirpolat, Lisans, İstanbul, pp. 278-308.  [ In Turkish]
35. Topdemir, H. G., (2011). İbn Rüşd. Say, İstanbul, pp. 198. [ In Turkish]
36. Turhan, K., (1992). Din-Felsefe Uzlaştırıcı Bir Düşünür: Âmiri ve Felsefesi. Marmara Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi, İstanbul, pp. 310. [ In Turkish]