--- title: "Instrumental Reason and Its Limits: Between Human Autonomy and Submission to Divine Order" sousTitre: "Technical Hubris and Preestablished Harmony" description: "Human reason oscillates between alienation by the tools it creates and the quest for direct understanding of the divine. Illich highlights the perversion of institutions that turn means into ends, while Averroes outlines a reason capable of grasping divine order without mediation—but within precise limits. Though distinct in their approaches, these two perspectives converge on a single question: how can man use his reason without losing himself in the illusion of omnipotence?" date: 2026-07-31 lang: en tradition: transversal auteurs: ["Ivan Illich", "Averroes (Ibn Rushd)"] --- # Instrumental Reason and Its Limits: Between Human Autonomy and Submission to Divine Order Human reason unfolds between two pitfalls: the tool that outstrips it and the truth it claims to grasp. Two voices—one modern, the other medieval—sketch its contours without ever conflating them. The first denounces the hubris of a reason that believes itself liberating while it enslaves; the second explores its natural limits, where human autonomy meets divine order. To distinguish these perspectives before seeking their common ground is to avoid reducing one to the other or opposing them without nuance. ## Reason Alienated by Its Own Tools The tool, in itself, is neither good nor bad. It extends the hand, refines intention, serves a purpose. But when an institution seizes it to make it a monopoly, it changes in nature without ceasing to be what it is. Illich states this plainly: > The institution’s monopoly over such manageable tools is an abuse—it perverts their use, yet the tool itself is not denatured, any more than the murderer’s knife ceases to be a knife. > > — **Ivan Illich**, *La Convivialit*. éd. after the French edition. The tool remains a knife, but its use becomes murder. Instrumental reason, when it submits to the institution, does not lose its form—it remains a means—but it loses its end. It no longer serves man but the order that controls it. The knife does not change, but the hand that wields it is no longer free. Alienation does not stem from the tool itself but from the pretension to make it the sole path to freedom. Reason then turns against itself: it believes it liberates by multiplying means, yet it becomes the slave of those who govern them. This perversion is not inevitable. It is the result of a choice—or a submission. The manageable tool, diverted by the institution, becomes an instrument of power. Reason, which should use it discerningly, finds itself captive to its own creations. It no longer sees the abuse, having internalized the idea that more tools mean more freedom. Yet the knife remains a knife, even in the murderer’s hand. Reason remains reason, even when it serves ends that negate it. ## Reason Before Divine Order While Illich points to the hubris of a reason blind to its own limits, Averroes explores another dimension: that of a reason capable of grasping the divine, but within precise bounds. The *Decisive Treatise* does not speak of tools but of human reason’s place in the economy of knowledge. The numbers in the margin of the Arabic text, noted by the editor, remind us that this reflection unfolds within a rigorous framework, where every word counts: > — The numbers in the margin indicate the pages of the Arabic text edited by M. > > — **Averroes (Ibn Rushd)**, *Discours décisif — Accord de la religion et de la philosophie (Faṣl al-maqāl)*. éd. after the French translation by Léon Gauthier, Alger: Fontana, 1905. This seemingly technical note reveals something deeper: for Averroes, human reason is not an autonomous, limitless force. It operates within a framework—of a text, a tradition, an order that precedes and transcends it. The numbers in the margin are not arbitrary annotations; they refer to an original, to an authority that frames thought. Reason is not sovereign: it interprets, comments, seeks to understand, but always within the limits of a given that surpasses it. Yet this reason is not passive. It does not merely receive; it questions, distinguishes, strives to grasp divine order without mediation. But this quest is not without bounds. Human reason, however sharp, cannot claim to exhaust divine truth. It may approach it, discern its contours, but always within the limits of a preestablished harmony. The numbers in the margin remind us: thought is inscribed in a text, and the text in a vaster order. ## The Common Summit: Reason and Its Limits These two perspectives—Illich’s and Averroes’—may seem distant. One speaks of tools and institutions, the other of texts and the divine. Yet they converge on the same question: how can human reason use its faculties without losing itself in the illusion of omnipotence? For Illich, reason goes astray when it believes that multiplying means equates to liberation. The tool, diverted by the institution, becomes a trap. Reason is then no longer at man’s service but at the service of the order that controls it. It loses sight of its end, which is to serve, not to dominate. For Averroes, reason encounters natural limits. It may grasp the divine, but always within the bounds of an order that surpasses it. The numbers in the margin of the text remind us: thought unfolds within a framework, and that framework is not of its making. Reason is not sovereign; it interprets, but it does not create the order it seeks to understand. The common summit is not a synthesis but a tension maintained. Human reason, to remain true to itself, must recognize its limits. It is neither omnipotent nor impotent. It is a tool—in the noblest sense of the word—that must be wielded with discernment. Whether facing technical hubris or divine order, reason must keep its place: neither master nor slave, but servant of a truth that surpasses it. This tension is not a failure but a condition. Reason that ignores its limits becomes tyrannical; reason that absolutizes them becomes sterile. Between the two lies the space of wisdom: the wisdom that knows how to distinguish without separating, and which, in that very distinction, finds the path to a possible harmony. ## Sources - Ivan Illich, *La Convivialit* — - Averroès (Ibn Rushd), *Discours décisif — Accord de la religion et de la philosophie (Faṣl al-maqāl)* — Alger, Fontana, 1905 (texte arabe + trad. française), trans. Léon Gauthier Canonical source : https://viasophia.org/en/articles/2026-07-31-raison-instrumentale-ses-limites-entre/