{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"770","_score":null,"_source":{"id":770,"authors_free":[{"id":932,"entry_id":770,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":249,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Herbert A. Davidson","free_first_name":"Herbert A.","free_last_name":"Davidson","norm_person":{"id":249,"first_name":"Herbert","last_name":"Davidson","full_name":"Herbert Davidson","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/15814743X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"NULL","from_claudius":0,"link":"bib?authors[]=Herbert Davidson"}}],"entry_title":"The Relation between Averroes' Middle and Long Commentaries on the De anima","title_transcript":null,"title_translation":null,"main_title":{"title":"The Relation between Averroes' Middle and Long Commentaries on the De anima"},"abstract":"Where Averroes' commentaries on Aristotle can be dated, the Middle Commentary on a given work can be seen to predate the Long Commentary. As an accompaniment to his fine edition of Averroes' Middle Commentary on the De anima, A. Ivry has maintained that in this instance matters are reversed and the Middle Commentary on the De anima is \"an abridged and revised version\" of the Long Commentary on the same work. Ivry develops his thesis most fully in Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 5. There he argues that two passages in the Middle Commentary on the De anima refer to the Long Commentary by name, that a third passage alludes to the Long Commentary, and that in other passages the Middle and Long Commentaries use similar phraseology and the former can be seen to have abridged the latter. The present article replies as follows: The pair of passages in the Middle Commentary which Ivry reads as referring explicitly to the Long Commentary can plausibly be read as cross-references within the Middle Commentary itself. The passage that he takes as alluding to the Long Commentary does not in fact allude to that work, but is an unambiguous reference to a later section of the Middle Commentary. And there is no justification for regarding the passages in the Middle Commentary cited by Ivry which use phraseology similar to that of the Long Commentary as borrowings from the latter. In the course of his arguments, Ivry refers to Averroes' position on the nature of the human material intellect, the issue that gave Averroes the most trouble in his commentaries on Aristotle's De anima and that has most intrigued students of Averroes ever since. The present article points out that on the subject of the human material intellect, neither the Middle nor the Long Commentary on the De anima borrows from the other, for the conceptions of the material intellect which they espouse are different and incompatible","btype":3,"date":"1997","language":"English","online_url":null,"doi_url":null,"ti_url":null,"categories":[{"id":12,"category_name":"Psychology","link":"bib?categories[]=Psychology"},{"id":46,"category_name":"De anima","link":"bib?categories[]=De anima"}],"authors":[{"id":249,"full_name":"Herbert Davidson","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":770,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Arabic Sciences and Philosophy","volume":"7","issue":null,"pages":"139\u2013151"}},"sort":["The Relation between Averroes' Middle and Long Commentaries on the De anima"]}

{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5140","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5140,"authors_free":[{"id":5919,"entry_id":5140,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":625,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Daniel Bu\u010dan","free_first_name":"Daniel ","free_last_name":"Bu\u010dan","norm_person":{"id":625,"first_name":"Daniel","last_name":"Bu\u010dan","full_name":"Daniel Bu\u010dan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"https:\/\/viaf.org\/viaf\/73420981","db_url":"NULL","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]=Daniel Bu\u010dan"}}],"entry_title":"\u2019Active Intellect\u2019 in Avempace and Averro\u00ebs: An Interpretative Issue","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"\u2019Active Intellect\u2019 in Avempace and Averro\u00ebs: An Interpretative Issue"},"abstract":"This essay is about the understanding of the notion of active intellect in Ibn B\u0101\u01e7\u01e7a (Avempace) and Ibn Rushd (Averro\u00ebs). The traditional interpretation of both Avempace\u2019s and Averro\u00ebs\u2019 concept of active intellect is that they both understand it as the lowest celestial intelligence which is dator formarum, and that man thinks and cognizes intelligibles only by \u201cconnecting\u201d with it in a quasi-mystic way; cognition being the active intellect\u2019s granting ideas (formae or concepts) to man\u2019s intellect. The author believes that both in Avempace\u2019s and Averro\u00ebs\u2019 theory of cognition the notion of active intellect is only the highest function of human intellect, not a celestial entity. Based on such a presumption, as well as on the analysis of his theory, Avempace\u2019s notion of i\u1e6d\u1e6di\u1e63\u0101l bi-\u2019aql fa\u2019\u0101l is interpreted not as a kind of mystic \u201cconjunction\u201d or \u201cunion\u201d with a separate celestial entity, but as reaching the highest level of man\u2019s intellect function in the continuity of the process of thinking. The same goes for Averro\u00ebs\u2019 theory, which is quite clearly presented in his Epistle on the Possibility of Conjunction with the Active Intellect, where one can find practically direct confirmation for such an interpretation, because Averro\u00ebs says that \u201cconjunction with it seems to resemble more the conjunction of form in matter than it does the conjunction of agent with effect. The well-known difference between agent and effect is that the agent is external, but here there is no external agent\u201d, or that active intellect \u201cconjoins with us from the outset by conjunction of in-existence\u201d. The author concludes that the issue of the active intellect in Islamic philosophy is not disambiguous \u2013 for different thinkers it was a different concept \u2013 only the function of the active intellect is always one and the same: producing ideas.","btype":3,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.21464\/sp31208","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":17,"category_name":"Ibn B\u0101\u01e7\u01e7a","link":"bib?categories[]=Ibn B\u0101\u01e7\u01e7a"},{"id":46,"category_name":"De anima","link":"bib?categories[]=De anima"},{"id":12,"category_name":"Psychology","link":"bib?categories[]=Psychology"}],"authors":[{"id":625,"full_name":"Daniel Bu\u010dan","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5140,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Synthesis Philosophica","volume":"62","issue":"2","pages":"345\u2013358"}},"sort":["\u2019Active Intellect\u2019 in Avempace and Averro\u00ebs: An Interpretative Issue"]}