{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5615","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5615,"authors_free":[{"id":6518,"entry_id":5615,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":903,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Peter Makhlouf","free_first_name":"Peter ","free_last_name":"Makhlouf","norm_person":{"id":903,"first_name":"","last_name":"","full_name":"","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]="}}],"entry_title":"Prophecy Between Poetics and Politics from Al-Farabi to Leo Strauss","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Prophecy Between Poetics and Politics from Al-Farabi to Leo Strauss"},"abstract":"Judaeo-Arabic prophetology, as developed in the wake of Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy, was highly attentive to the kind of representational modes produced by divine revelation and their political use\u2014but also their political precarity. By drawing on another corpus, less often discussed in this context, the Arabic commentaries on Aristotle's Poetics and Rhetoric, this study proposes to undertake a close analysis of how the medieval thinkers in question (Al-Farabi, Avicenna, Averroes, and Maimonides) understood the poetics of prophecy to function. What emerges is an account of how the political theo-logic of poetics and rhetoric\u2014as developed with respect to terms such as imitation, imagination and visualization\u2014came to play a central role in the theory of prophecy, and how that theory of prophecy in turn gave rise to an understanding of what Leo Strauss once termed the \u2018literary character\u2019 of these philosophers' \u2018art of writing\u2019.","btype":3,"date":"","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s12138-022-00632-8","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":28,"category_name":"al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b","link":"bib?categories[]=al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b"},{"id":10,"category_name":"Avicenna","link":"bib?categories[]=Avicenna"},{"id":9,"category_name":"Maimonides","link":"bib?categories[]=Maimonides"},{"id":21,"category_name":"Aristotle","link":"bib?categories[]=Aristotle"},{"id":44,"category_name":"Poetics","link":"bib?categories[]=Poetics"},{"id":48,"category_name":"Rhetoric","link":"bib?categories[]=Rhetoric"},{"id":4,"category_name":"Politics","link":"bib?categories[]=Politics"},{"id":43,"category_name":"Tradition and Reception","link":"bib?categories[]=Tradition and Reception"}],"authors":[{"id":903,"full_name":"","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5615,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"International Journal of the Classical Tradition","volume":"","issue":"","pages":"1-29"}},"sort":["Prophecy Between Poetics and Politics from Al-Farabi to Leo Strauss"]}

{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"837","_score":null,"_source":{"id":837,"authors_free":[{"id":1001,"entry_id":837,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":966,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Richard C. Taylor","free_first_name":"Richard C.","free_last_name":"Taylor","norm_person":{"id":966,"first_name":"Richard C.","last_name":"Taylor","full_name":"Richard C. Taylor","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139866353","viaf_url":"https:\/\/viaf.org\/viaf\/49247370","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]=Richard C. Taylor"}}],"entry_title":"The Agent Intellect as \"form for us\" and Averroes's Critique of al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b","title_transcript":null,"title_translation":null,"main_title":{"title":"The Agent Intellect as \"form for us\" and Averroes's Critique of al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b"},"abstract":"This article explicates Averroes's understanding of human knowing and abstraction in this three commentaries on Aristotle's De Anima. While Averroes's views on the nature of the human material intellect changes through the three commentaries until he reaches is famous view of the unity of the material intellect as one for all human beings, his view of the agent intellect as 'form for us' is sustained throughout these works. In his Long Commentary on the De Anima he reveals his dependence on al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b for this notion and provides a detailed critique of the Farabian notion that the agent intellect is 'form for us' only as agent cause, not as our true formal cause. Although Averroes argues that the agent intellect must somehow be intrinsic to us as our form since humans are per se rational and undertake acts of knowing by will, his view is shown to rest on an equivocal use of the notion of formal cause. The agent intellect cannot be properly our intrinsic formal principle while remaining ontologically separate.","btype":3,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":null,"doi_url":null,"ti_url":null,"categories":[{"id":12,"category_name":"Psychology","link":"bib?categories[]=Psychology"},{"id":28,"category_name":"al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b","link":"bib?categories[]=al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b"}],"authors":[{"id":966,"full_name":"Richard C. Taylor","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":837,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"T\u00f3picos. Revista de Filosof\u00eda","volume":"29","issue":null,"pages":"29\u201351"}},"sort":["The Agent Intellect as \"form for us\" and Averroes's Critique of al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b"]}