comparasion of Aristotle's and İbn Rushd's understandings of the universe

Throughout history, humanity has wondered where it came from and where it will go, and tried to find answers based on its current position. Humanity has developed both practical and theoretical ideas on this subject and has created the legacy that will later be known as philosophy and science. Aristotle, who is undoubtedly the thinker of Ancient Greek civilization, is among the biggest stakeholders of this heritage. He took his legacy, synthesized it and developed a systematic cosmology. This cosmology has been accepted for centuries and rejected even if proven otherwise. Although Ptolemy was based on his physics and determined the appearances of celestial bodies by conducting theoretical studies, giving close values, the models he put forward were not accepted on the grounds that they did not fully comply with Aristotle's physics. Later, with the transfer of philosophy and science heritage to Islamic civilization, the studies progressed further and both Aristotelian cosmology and Ptolemy astronomy were surpassed by synthesizing new theoretical studies. However, this is more valid for the East of Islamic civilization. Aristotle and Ptolemy debate continued in the West, namely Andalusia, and Ptolemy astronomy was rejected by defending Aristotelian physics. One of the leading figures of this defense is undoubtedly İbn Rushd. Because of the short summaries and great comments he wrote on Aristotle's works, he was known as the 'eş-şârih' in the Islamic civilization and the 'commentator', which means a great commentator in the Latin world. This led to the misconception that Ibn Rushd was only an Aristotelian commentator and that he had no original thoughts. This thesis has tried to eliminate this misconception. Aristotle's and İbn Rushd' research methods, motion, time, earth, formation and decay, celestial bodies, movements of celestial bodies, forms of motion, motion models and the reason for all these processes were discussed under separate headings, then a comparison was made and the universe was examined. It has been tried to determine the differences between the understandings. The claim did not remain unfounded either, and it was determined that İbn Rushd had a different understanding from Aristotle in the subjects of earth/space, illet (cause-reason), motion of celestial bodies, light, model, effect on earth and the principle of all this functioning.