There is an objection to this, one that belongs more to transmitted reports than to rational inquiry; so let us examine it in detail.

I say:
His statement, “no one has opposed them in this,” reflects only the limits of his own knowledge and reading, or else he meant the famous philosophers who wrote in Aristotle’s fashion on logic, natural science, and metaphysics—such as Proclus, Alexander of Aphrodisias, Themistius, al-Fārābī, and Ibn Sīnā.
Yet the doxographical works report that earlier philosophers did, in fact, reject this doctrine, and several books record their dissent. Those earlier figures, however, did not compose treatises in the Aristotelian style. Aristotle’s school, in this respect, is comparable to the leading jurists among the legal scholars—Abū Ḥanīfah, al-Shāfiʿī, Mālik, and Aḥmad—although eminent authorities such as al-Awzāʿī, al-Layth ibn Saʿd, al-Thawrī, and Isḥāq ibn Rāhwayh disagreed with them on many issues. Thus, someone might say that “no one disagreed with those jurists,” meaning in the well-known books authored according to their schools.
The doxographical literature makes it plain that Aristotle is the one who became renowned for asserting the eternity of the world, whereas the leading philosophers before him did not hold this view. Both his admirers and his detractors relate this fact. Moreover, his remarks on theology are exceedingly scant and riddled with error; his broad learning lay in the natural sciences, and in that field he prided himself.

What matters here is that this group maintains that once the soul departs the body it possesses neither knowledge nor motion, acquires no further understanding, and harbors no love for anything it seeks to attain. Instead, they claim, it enjoys a perpetual, uniform pleasure in the knowledge it already has—just as they assert concerning the First Principle and the separate intellects.