| Title | An Indecisive Truth: Divine Law and Philosophy in the Decisive Treatise and Commentary on Plato’s “Republic” |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2022 |
| Published in | Plato's Republic in the Islamic Context. New Perspectives on Averroes's Commentary |
| Pages | 182–200 |
| Categories | Theology, Relation between Philosophy and Theology, Law |
| Author(s) | Karen Taliaferro |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| “Of what use,” Ralph Lerner asks in his introduction to Averroes's Commentary on Plato's “Republic,” “is this pagan closet philosophy to men who already hold what they believe to be the inestimable gift of a divinely revealed Law, a sharīʿa?” In other words, once one has God's direct revelation concerning how to live, does one need philosophy? The answer to this question matters both for the standing of falsafa (Hellenistic philosophy) in Islamic intellectual history as well as for ongoing disputes in Islamic societies concerning the respective roles of sharīʿa and human wisdom. Does divinely revealed Law, sharīʿa, yield the same knowledge as philosophy, or ḥikma (literally “wisdom”), to use Averroes's terms in the Decisive Treatise? Or is there something necessary in each that the other cannot supply? This question conceals something of a dilemma. If the first formulation is correct, one or the other of sharīʿa or ḥikma would seem to be redundant—a charge Averroes himself addresses in the Commentary on Plato's “Republic,” as I discuss below. If, on the other hand, philosophy is needed in addition to sharīʿa, this can call into question the sufficiency of revelation. This returns us to Lerner's question above, for if the sharīʿa represents the fullness of divine revelation, to claim that it needs the merely human ḥikma may be blasphemous. This essay addresses the relationship between sharīʿa and human wisdom through a reading of Averroes's Decisive Treatise and his Commentary on Plato's “Republic.” I attempt to show that Averroes's firm reliance on teleology in the Commentary complements what would otherwise appear to be the primacy of sharīʿa in the Decisive Treatise. Together, I argue, these two texts paint a clearer picture of the interdependence of ḥikma and sharīʿa than either would alone suggest. Traditional interpretations of the two works suggest dramatically different messages of Averroes concerning the respective standings of sharīʿa and ḥikma. Ralph Lerner and E. I. J. Rosenthal, each a translator of Averroes's Commentary on Plato's “Republic” (hereafter Commentary), disagreed rather sharply on the status of human wisdom vis-à-vis sharīʿa in Averroes's thought. To Rosenthal, in both the Decisive Treatise and the Commentary, Averroes “establishes in unequivocal terms the supreme authority of the Sharīʿa.” |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5354","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5354,"authors_free":[{"id":6205,"entry_id":5354,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":1741,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Karen Taliaferro","free_first_name":"Karen","free_last_name":"Taliaferro","norm_person":{"id":1741,"first_name":"Karen","last_name":"Taliaferro","full_name":"Karen Taliaferro","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1021039934","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null,"link":"bib?authors[]=Karen Taliaferro"}}],"entry_title":"An Indecisive Truth: Divine Law and Philosophy in the Decisive Treatise and Commentary on Plato\u2019s \u201cRepublic\u201d","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"An Indecisive Truth: Divine Law and Philosophy in the Decisive Treatise and Commentary on Plato\u2019s \u201cRepublic\u201d"},"abstract":"\u201cOf what use,\u201d Ralph Lerner asks in his introduction to Averroes's Commentary on Plato's \u201cRepublic,\u201d \u201cis this pagan closet philosophy to men who already hold what they believe to be the inestimable gift of a divinely revealed Law, a shar\u012b\u02bfa?\u201d In other words, once one has God's direct revelation concerning how to live, does one need philosophy? The answer to this question matters both for the standing of falsafa (Hellenistic philosophy) in Islamic intellectual history as well as for ongoing disputes in Islamic societies concerning the respective roles of shar\u012b\u02bfa and human wisdom. Does divinely revealed Law, shar\u012b\u02bfa, yield the same knowledge as philosophy, or \u1e25ikma (literally \u201cwisdom\u201d), to use Averroes's terms in the Decisive Treatise? Or is there something necessary in each that the other cannot supply? This question conceals something of a dilemma. If the first formulation is correct, one or the other of shar\u012b\u02bfa or \u1e25ikma would seem to be redundant\u2014a charge Averroes himself addresses in the Commentary on Plato's \u201cRepublic,\u201d as I discuss below. If, on the other hand, philosophy is needed in addition to shar\u012b\u02bfa, this can call into question the sufficiency of revelation. This returns us to Lerner's question above, for if the shar\u012b\u02bfa represents the fullness of divine revelation, to claim that it needs the merely human \u1e25ikma may be blasphemous. This essay addresses the relationship between shar\u012b\u02bfa and human wisdom through a reading of Averroes's Decisive Treatise and his Commentary on Plato's \u201cRepublic.\u201d I attempt to show that Averroes's firm reliance on teleology in the Commentary complements what would otherwise appear to be the primacy of shar\u012b\u02bfa in the Decisive Treatise. Together, I argue, these two texts paint a clearer picture of the interdependence of \u1e25ikma and shar\u012b\u02bfa than either would alone suggest.\r\n\r\nTraditional interpretations of the two works suggest dramatically different messages of Averroes concerning the respective standings of shar\u012b\u02bfa and \u1e25ikma. Ralph Lerner and E. I. J. Rosenthal, each a translator of Averroes's Commentary on Plato's \u201cRepublic\u201d (hereafter Commentary), disagreed rather sharply on the status of human wisdom vis-\u00e0-vis shar\u012b\u02bfa in Averroes's thought. To Rosenthal, in both the Decisive Treatise and the Commentary, Averroes \u201cestablishes in unequivocal terms the supreme authority of the Shar\u012b\u02bfa.\u201d","btype":2,"date":"2022","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/9781800104983.009","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":39,"category_name":"Theology","link":"bib?categories[]=Theology"},{"id":47,"category_name":"Relation between Philosophy and Theology","link":"bib?categories[]=Relation between Philosophy and Theology"},{"id":26,"category_name":"Law","link":"bib?categories[]=Law"}],"authors":[{"id":1741,"full_name":"Karen Taliaferro","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":{"id":5354,"section_of":5346,"pages":"182\u2013200","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":5346,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Plato's Republic in the Islamic Context. New Perspectives on Averroes's Commentary","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2022","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":0,"online_url":"","online_resources":null,"translation_of":"0","new_edition_of":"0","is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"ti_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/9781800104983","book":{"id":5346,"pubplace":"","publisher":" Boydell & Brewer","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"persons":[{"id":6196,"entry_id":5346,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":" Alexander Orwin","free_first_name":" Alexander","free_last_name":" Orwin","norm_person":null}]}},"article":null},"sort":[2022]}
| Title | The Possibility of Religious Freedom: Early Natural Law and the Abrahamic Faiths |
| Type | Monograph |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2019 |
| Publication Place | Cambridge |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press |
| Series | Law and Christianity |
| Categories | Theology, Law |
| Author(s) | Karen Taliaferro |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Religious freedom is one of the most debated and controversial human rights in contemporary public discourse. At once a universally held human right and a flash point in the political sphere, religious freedom has resisted scholarly efforts to define its parameters. Taliaferro explores a different way of examining the tensions between the aims of religion and the needs of political communities, arguing that religious freedom is a uniquely difficult human right to uphold because it rests on two competing conceptions, human and divine. Drawing on classical natural law, Taliaferro expounds a new, practical theory of religious freedom for the modern world. By examining conceptions of law such as Sophocles' Antigone, Maimonides' Guide of the Perplexed, Ibn Rushd's Middle Commentary on Aristotle's Rhetoric, and Tertullian's writings, The Possibility of Religious Freedom explains how expanding our notion of law to incorporate such theories can mediate conflicts of human and divine law and provide a solid foundation for religious liberty in modernity's pluralism. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5365","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5365,"authors_free":[{"id":6216,"entry_id":5365,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":1741,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Karen Taliaferro","free_first_name":"Karen","free_last_name":"Taliaferro","norm_person":{"id":1741,"first_name":"Karen","last_name":"Taliaferro","full_name":"Karen Taliaferro","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1021039934","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null,"link":"bib?authors[]=Karen Taliaferro"}}],"entry_title":"The Possibility of Religious Freedom: Early Natural Law and the Abrahamic Faiths","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"The Possibility of Religious Freedom: Early Natural Law and the Abrahamic Faiths"},"abstract":"Religious freedom is one of the most debated and controversial human rights in contemporary public discourse. At once a universally held human right and a flash point in the political sphere, religious freedom has resisted scholarly efforts to define its parameters. Taliaferro explores a different way of examining the tensions between the aims of religion and the needs of political communities, arguing that religious freedom is a uniquely difficult human right to uphold because it rests on two competing conceptions, human and divine. Drawing on classical natural law, Taliaferro expounds a new, practical theory of religious freedom for the modern world. By examining conceptions of law such as Sophocles' Antigone, Maimonides' Guide of the Perplexed, Ibn Rushd's Middle Commentary on Aristotle's Rhetoric, and Tertullian's writings, The Possibility of Religious Freedom explains how expanding our notion of law to incorporate such theories can mediate conflicts of human and divine law and provide a solid foundation for religious liberty in modernity's pluralism.","btype":1,"date":"2019","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":" https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/9781108539319","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":39,"category_name":"Theology","link":"bib?categories[]=Theology"},{"id":26,"category_name":"Law","link":"bib?categories[]=Law"}],"authors":[{"id":1741,"full_name":"Karen Taliaferro","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":{"id":5365,"pubplace":"Cambridge","publisher":"Cambridge University Press","series":"Law and Christianity","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2019]}
| Title | An Indecisive Truth: Divine Law and Philosophy in the Decisive Treatise and Commentary on Plato’s “Republic” |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2022 |
| Published in | Plato's Republic in the Islamic Context. New Perspectives on Averroes's Commentary |
| Pages | 182–200 |
| Categories | Theology, Relation between Philosophy and Theology, Law |
| Author(s) | Karen Taliaferro |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| “Of what use,” Ralph Lerner asks in his introduction to Averroes's Commentary on Plato's “Republic,” “is this pagan closet philosophy to men who already hold what they believe to be the inestimable gift of a divinely revealed Law, a sharīʿa?” In other words, once one has God's direct revelation concerning how to live, does one need philosophy? The answer to this question matters both for the standing of falsafa (Hellenistic philosophy) in Islamic intellectual history as well as for ongoing disputes in Islamic societies concerning the respective roles of sharīʿa and human wisdom. Does divinely revealed Law, sharīʿa, yield the same knowledge as philosophy, or ḥikma (literally “wisdom”), to use Averroes's terms in the Decisive Treatise? Or is there something necessary in each that the other cannot supply? This question conceals something of a dilemma. If the first formulation is correct, one or the other of sharīʿa or ḥikma would seem to be redundant—a charge Averroes himself addresses in the Commentary on Plato's “Republic,” as I discuss below. If, on the other hand, philosophy is needed in addition to sharīʿa, this can call into question the sufficiency of revelation. This returns us to Lerner's question above, for if the sharīʿa represents the fullness of divine revelation, to claim that it needs the merely human ḥikma may be blasphemous. This essay addresses the relationship between sharīʿa and human wisdom through a reading of Averroes's Decisive Treatise and his Commentary on Plato's “Republic.” I attempt to show that Averroes's firm reliance on teleology in the Commentary complements what would otherwise appear to be the primacy of sharīʿa in the Decisive Treatise. Together, I argue, these two texts paint a clearer picture of the interdependence of ḥikma and sharīʿa than either would alone suggest. Traditional interpretations of the two works suggest dramatically different messages of Averroes concerning the respective standings of sharīʿa and ḥikma. Ralph Lerner and E. I. J. Rosenthal, each a translator of Averroes's Commentary on Plato's “Republic” (hereafter Commentary), disagreed rather sharply on the status of human wisdom vis-à-vis sharīʿa in Averroes's thought. To Rosenthal, in both the Decisive Treatise and the Commentary, Averroes “establishes in unequivocal terms the supreme authority of the Sharīʿa.” |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5354","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5354,"authors_free":[{"id":6205,"entry_id":5354,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":1741,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Karen Taliaferro","free_first_name":"Karen","free_last_name":"Taliaferro","norm_person":{"id":1741,"first_name":"Karen","last_name":"Taliaferro","full_name":"Karen Taliaferro","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1021039934","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null,"link":"bib?authors[]=Karen Taliaferro"}}],"entry_title":"An Indecisive Truth: Divine Law and Philosophy in the Decisive Treatise and Commentary on Plato\u2019s \u201cRepublic\u201d","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"An Indecisive Truth: Divine Law and Philosophy in the Decisive Treatise and Commentary on Plato\u2019s \u201cRepublic\u201d"},"abstract":"\u201cOf what use,\u201d Ralph Lerner asks in his introduction to Averroes's Commentary on Plato's \u201cRepublic,\u201d \u201cis this pagan closet philosophy to men who already hold what they believe to be the inestimable gift of a divinely revealed Law, a shar\u012b\u02bfa?\u201d In other words, once one has God's direct revelation concerning how to live, does one need philosophy? The answer to this question matters both for the standing of falsafa (Hellenistic philosophy) in Islamic intellectual history as well as for ongoing disputes in Islamic societies concerning the respective roles of shar\u012b\u02bfa and human wisdom. Does divinely revealed Law, shar\u012b\u02bfa, yield the same knowledge as philosophy, or \u1e25ikma (literally \u201cwisdom\u201d), to use Averroes's terms in the Decisive Treatise? Or is there something necessary in each that the other cannot supply? This question conceals something of a dilemma. If the first formulation is correct, one or the other of shar\u012b\u02bfa or \u1e25ikma would seem to be redundant\u2014a charge Averroes himself addresses in the Commentary on Plato's \u201cRepublic,\u201d as I discuss below. If, on the other hand, philosophy is needed in addition to shar\u012b\u02bfa, this can call into question the sufficiency of revelation. This returns us to Lerner's question above, for if the shar\u012b\u02bfa represents the fullness of divine revelation, to claim that it needs the merely human \u1e25ikma may be blasphemous. This essay addresses the relationship between shar\u012b\u02bfa and human wisdom through a reading of Averroes's Decisive Treatise and his Commentary on Plato's \u201cRepublic.\u201d I attempt to show that Averroes's firm reliance on teleology in the Commentary complements what would otherwise appear to be the primacy of shar\u012b\u02bfa in the Decisive Treatise. Together, I argue, these two texts paint a clearer picture of the interdependence of \u1e25ikma and shar\u012b\u02bfa than either would alone suggest.\r\n\r\nTraditional interpretations of the two works suggest dramatically different messages of Averroes concerning the respective standings of shar\u012b\u02bfa and \u1e25ikma. Ralph Lerner and E. I. J. Rosenthal, each a translator of Averroes's Commentary on Plato's \u201cRepublic\u201d (hereafter Commentary), disagreed rather sharply on the status of human wisdom vis-\u00e0-vis shar\u012b\u02bfa in Averroes's thought. To Rosenthal, in both the Decisive Treatise and the Commentary, Averroes \u201cestablishes in unequivocal terms the supreme authority of the Shar\u012b\u02bfa.\u201d","btype":2,"date":"2022","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/9781800104983.009","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":39,"category_name":"Theology","link":"bib?categories[]=Theology"},{"id":47,"category_name":"Relation between Philosophy and Theology","link":"bib?categories[]=Relation between Philosophy and Theology"},{"id":26,"category_name":"Law","link":"bib?categories[]=Law"}],"authors":[{"id":1741,"full_name":"Karen Taliaferro","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":{"id":5354,"section_of":5346,"pages":"182\u2013200","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":5346,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Plato's Republic in the Islamic Context. New Perspectives on Averroes's Commentary","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2022","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":0,"online_url":"","online_resources":null,"translation_of":"0","new_edition_of":"0","is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"ti_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/9781800104983","book":{"id":5346,"pubplace":"","publisher":" Boydell & Brewer","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"persons":[{"id":6196,"entry_id":5346,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":" Alexander Orwin","free_first_name":" Alexander","free_last_name":" Orwin","norm_person":null}]}},"article":null},"sort":["An Indecisive Truth: Divine Law and Philosophy in the Decisive Treatise and Commentary on Plato\u2019s \u201cRepublic\u201d"]}
| Title | The Possibility of Religious Freedom: Early Natural Law and the Abrahamic Faiths |
| Type | Monograph |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2019 |
| Publication Place | Cambridge |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press |
| Series | Law and Christianity |
| Categories | Theology, Law |
| Author(s) | Karen Taliaferro |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Religious freedom is one of the most debated and controversial human rights in contemporary public discourse. At once a universally held human right and a flash point in the political sphere, religious freedom has resisted scholarly efforts to define its parameters. Taliaferro explores a different way of examining the tensions between the aims of religion and the needs of political communities, arguing that religious freedom is a uniquely difficult human right to uphold because it rests on two competing conceptions, human and divine. Drawing on classical natural law, Taliaferro expounds a new, practical theory of religious freedom for the modern world. By examining conceptions of law such as Sophocles' Antigone, Maimonides' Guide of the Perplexed, Ibn Rushd's Middle Commentary on Aristotle's Rhetoric, and Tertullian's writings, The Possibility of Religious Freedom explains how expanding our notion of law to incorporate such theories can mediate conflicts of human and divine law and provide a solid foundation for religious liberty in modernity's pluralism. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5365","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5365,"authors_free":[{"id":6216,"entry_id":5365,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":1741,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Karen Taliaferro","free_first_name":"Karen","free_last_name":"Taliaferro","norm_person":{"id":1741,"first_name":"Karen","last_name":"Taliaferro","full_name":"Karen Taliaferro","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1021039934","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null,"link":"bib?authors[]=Karen Taliaferro"}}],"entry_title":"The Possibility of Religious Freedom: Early Natural Law and the Abrahamic Faiths","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"The Possibility of Religious Freedom: Early Natural Law and the Abrahamic Faiths"},"abstract":"Religious freedom is one of the most debated and controversial human rights in contemporary public discourse. At once a universally held human right and a flash point in the political sphere, religious freedom has resisted scholarly efforts to define its parameters. Taliaferro explores a different way of examining the tensions between the aims of religion and the needs of political communities, arguing that religious freedom is a uniquely difficult human right to uphold because it rests on two competing conceptions, human and divine. Drawing on classical natural law, Taliaferro expounds a new, practical theory of religious freedom for the modern world. By examining conceptions of law such as Sophocles' Antigone, Maimonides' Guide of the Perplexed, Ibn Rushd's Middle Commentary on Aristotle's Rhetoric, and Tertullian's writings, The Possibility of Religious Freedom explains how expanding our notion of law to incorporate such theories can mediate conflicts of human and divine law and provide a solid foundation for religious liberty in modernity's pluralism.","btype":1,"date":"2019","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":" https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/9781108539319","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":39,"category_name":"Theology","link":"bib?categories[]=Theology"},{"id":26,"category_name":"Law","link":"bib?categories[]=Law"}],"authors":[{"id":1741,"full_name":"Karen Taliaferro","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":{"id":5365,"pubplace":"Cambridge","publisher":"Cambridge University Press","series":"Law and Christianity","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["The Possibility of Religious Freedom: Early Natural Law and the Abrahamic Faiths"]}