‘controversy capable of demonstrative proof.’ Thus one finds that men disputed concerning the spherical form of the earth, or the circular revolution of the sphere, and the like. Such matters do not belong to this treatise). Now as to the subjects in which this confusion prevails, it is exceedingly frequent in metaphysical speculations, less so in matters relating to physics, and is entirely absent from the exact sciences. Alexander Aphrodisius says that there are three causes which bring about disputes on various subjects: firstly, love of authority and conquest which prevents a man from attaining to the exact truth; secondly, the subtlety, depth, and difficulty of the subject which is to be comprehended; thirdly, the ignorance of the investigator and the insufficiency of the power of his intellect to comprehend that which may be comprehended. That is what Alexander states. In our times there is a fourth cause which Alexander did not mention, because it did not exist at that time, namely, habit and training. For men naturally love and are attracted by that to which they have been accustomed. We thus see that villagers, although they seldom wash their heads and their bodies, and, missing all pleasures, lead a life of privation, nevertheless dislike the cities, and do not enjoy their pleasures; they prefer bad things to which they are accustomed to good things to which they are not accustomed. They derive no satisfaction from dwelling in palaces, from being clad in silk, and from indulging in baths, ointments, and perfumes. The same happens to a man with reference to his opinions to which he has been accustomed, and in which he has been brought up: he cherishes them, defends them, and shuns the opposite views. It is likewise through this cause that a man is prevented from attaining to truth, and clings to the things to which he has been accustomed. Such, for instance, is the case with the vulgar notions concerning God’s corporeality, and many other metaphysical questions, as we shall explain. This is due to long familiarity with scriptural verses, which, as a fixed dogma, were respected and believed in, and the literal sense of which implies corporeality of God and imageries in which there is no truth; these passages, however, were written as parables and allegories, for reasons which I shall mention below. Do not think that that which we have said of the insufficiency of the power of the human intellect and of the limit where it must stop is an assertion made only in accordance with the Torah; in truth it is a matter which the philosophers have likewise asserted, and which they have comprehended in a true manner, without inclining to any doctrine or opinion. It is an established fact that can only be doubted by one who is ignorant of things that have been proved. XXVII. JUDAH B. SOLOMON AL-HARIZI