Averroes begins his Commentary onPlato's “Republic” with the assertionthat the intention of his treatise is “to abstractfrom the statements that are attributed to Platoabout political governance that which is included inscientific statements, and to eliminate thedialectical statements from it.” This assertionwould seem to find its full expression in the formof Averroes's Commentary: Plato's dialogue in tenbooks has become three treatises in Averroes'sCommentary, whichexplicitly omit books 1 and 10. Moreover, Glaucon,Adeimantus, Thrasymachus, Polemarchus, and Cephalusare not mentioned at all in Averroes's Commentary; even Socrates isonly mentioned once and then merely with referenceto his choosing to die rather than live in a corruptcity—that is, with reference to events not literallyreferred to in Plato's Republic. Rather, the one who speaks inAverroes's Commentarywould seem to be Plato himself. Even if his wordsoccasionally intermingle with those of Averroes, theresulting text takes the form of a monologue ratherthan a dialogue. Furthermore, Averroes dedicates thefirst argument of his Commentary to explaining the place ofthe science of governance, the purported topic ofthe Republic, in theAristotelian hierarchy of the sciences. According toAverroes, the science of governance, which is thepractical science dealing with volition and will,has two parts: a theoretical part, which treats“volitional actions and habits in general” (haqinyanim wehapeʿulothareṣoniyyim) and which he associateswith Aristotle's NicomacheanEthics; and a practical part, which dealswith the establishment and ordering of those habitsin order to achieve perfect actions and which heassociates with Plato's Republic, since Aristotle's Politics was not availableto him. As the practical part of practical science,Averroes's Republicfits into an Aristotelian division of thesciences—even if it is not exactly Aristotle's owndivision—as a treatise, or series of treatises,dealing with political science. In adopting thisAristotelian form, Averroes's Commentary dispenses with the dialogueform of Plato's writing.

It appears from the rest of Averroes's Commentary that he hasthrown out the dialecticians along with thedialogues. Perhaps as a consequence of this, Plato'saccount of the culmination of human reason indialectic in connection with the divided line(Republic 509d–511e)is, in Averroes's Commentary, a culmination of humanreason in Aristotelian metaphysics (hafilosofiah harišonah).