Title | La distinción nombre-verbo en los comentarios al perihermeneias de Alfarabi y Averroes |
Type | Article |
Language | Spanish |
Date | 2003 |
Journal | Revista española de filosofía medieval |
Volume | 10 |
Pages | 157–169 |
Categories | al-Fārābī, Logic, Commentary |
Author(s) | José Angel García Cuadrado |
Publisher(s) | |
Translator(s) |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"1562","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1562,"authors_free":[{"id":1793,"entry_id":1562,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":1111,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Jos\u00e9 Angel Garc\u00eda Cuadrado","free_first_name":"Jos\u00e9 Angel","free_last_name":"Garc\u00eda Cuadrado","norm_person":{"id":1111,"first_name":"Jos\u00e9 Angel","last_name":"Garc\u00eda Cuadrado","full_name":"Jos\u00e9 Angel Garc\u00eda Cuadrado","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1032888369","viaf_url":"https:\/\/viaf.org\/viaf\/178348","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]=Jos\u00e9 Angel Garc\u00eda Cuadrado"}}],"entry_title":"La distinci\u00f3n nombre-verbo en los comentarios al perihermeneias de Alfarabi y Averroes","title_transcript":null,"title_translation":null,"main_title":{"title":"La distinci\u00f3n nombre-verbo en los comentarios al perihermeneias de Alfarabi y Averroes"},"abstract":null,"btype":3,"date":"2003","language":"Spanish","online_url":null,"doi_url":null,"ti_url":null,"categories":[{"id":28,"category_name":"al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b","link":"bib?categories[]=al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b"},{"id":27,"category_name":"Logic","link":"bib?categories[]=Logic"},{"id":23,"category_name":"Commentary","link":"bib?categories[]=Commentary"}],"authors":[{"id":1111,"full_name":"Jos\u00e9 Angel Garc\u00eda Cuadrado","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1562,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revista espa\u00f1ola de filosof\u00eda medieval","volume":"10","issue":null,"pages":"157\u2013169"}},"sort":[2003]}
Title | Ibn Rušd et les Premiers Analytiques d'Aristote. Aperçu sur un problème de syllogistique modale |
Type | Article |
Language | French |
Date | 1995 |
Journal | Arabic Sciences and Philosophy |
Volume | 5 |
Pages | 51–74 |
Categories | Logic, Alexander of Aphrodisias, al-Fārābī, Aristotle, Commentary |
Author(s) | Abdelali Elamrani-Jamal |
Publisher(s) | |
Translator(s) |
Ibn Rušd devoted a certain number of works to Aristotle's Prior Analytics. In a series of opuscules written over a period of twenty years and following upon his Middle Commentary on Aristotle's Prior Analytics, he faced a problem particular to the modal syllogism - that of the mood of the conclusion in mixed syllogisms. The problem can be stated as follows: At the beginning of the Prior Analytics, Aristotle established a formal deductive principle - that of universal attribution (Pr. An. I.1.24b26–30). Applied to the modal syllogism, this principle is inadequate as stated. It is too general to be applied in a univocal manner in all modal syllogisms. To preserve a sense of coherence in Aristotle's declarations, the commentators had to interpret it. Presenting the interpretations of the commentators, primarily al-Fārābī and Alexander, on the basis of al-Fārābī's Large Commentary on Aristotle's Prior Analytics, Averroes criticizes them. Applied according to Alexander's interpretation, the principle of universal attribution is valid only for modal syllogisms one of whose premises is necessary and the other assertoric; according to al-Fārābī's interpretation, it is verified only when the minor premise is possible. Averroes proposes two preliminary solutions. Either this formal deductive principle must be applied differently according to the modal differences of the minor premises in mixed syllogisms (first solution) or would be used in two ways, generally or in keeping with each mood (second solution). These solutions are not satisfactory, for they call into question the unity and universality of the principle of universal attribution as established by Aristotle. What is the utility, Averroes asks, of a principle which does not hold for all modalities or does not apply to all the premises when the Prior Analytics ought to furnish formal and universal principles of deduction? And why did Aristotle define the principle of universal attribution without distinguishing its application according to each of the three modal premises? Returning at the end of his career to a literal exegesis of Aristotle's propositions and without harkening back to the earlier solutions, he proposes a theory of making the terms modal (fourth solution) in order to save Aristotle's declarations with respect to the principle of universal attribution and the mood of the conclusion of mixed syllogisms (Prior Analytics I. 9.30al5–20). Though formally inadequate, this solution, which had a continued history, proposes a new way of looking at the classification of modal propositions. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"479","_score":null,"_source":{"id":479,"authors_free":[{"id":623,"entry_id":479,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":779,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Abdelali Elamrani-Jamal","free_first_name":"Abdelali","free_last_name":"Elamrani-Jamal","norm_person":{"id":779,"first_name":"Abdelali","last_name":"Elamrani-Jamal","full_name":"Abdelali Elamrani-Jamal","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/154697621","viaf_url":"https:\/\/viaf.org\/viaf\/7526121","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]=Abdelali Elamrani-Jamal"}}],"entry_title":"Ibn Ru\u0161d et les Premiers Analytiques d'Aristote. Aper\u00e7u sur un probl\u00e8me de syllogistique modale","title_transcript":null,"title_translation":null,"main_title":{"title":"Ibn Ru\u0161d et les Premiers Analytiques d'Aristote. Aper\u00e7u sur un probl\u00e8me de syllogistique modale"},"abstract":"Ibn Ru\u0161d devoted a certain number of works to Aristotle's Prior Analytics. In a series of opuscules written over a period of twenty years and following upon his Middle Commentary on Aristotle's Prior Analytics, he faced a problem particular to the modal syllogism - that of the mood of the conclusion in mixed syllogisms. The problem can be stated as follows: At the beginning of the Prior Analytics, Aristotle established a formal deductive principle - that of universal attribution (Pr. An. I.1.24b26\u201330). Applied to the modal syllogism, this principle is inadequate as stated. It is too general to be applied in a univocal manner in all modal syllogisms. To preserve a sense of coherence in Aristotle's declarations, the commentators had to interpret it. Presenting the interpretations of the commentators, primarily al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b and Alexander, on the basis of al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b's Large Commentary on Aristotle's Prior Analytics, Averroes criticizes them. Applied according to Alexander's interpretation, the principle of universal attribution is valid only for modal syllogisms one of whose premises is necessary and the other assertoric; according to al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b's interpretation, it is verified only when the minor premise is possible. Averroes proposes two preliminary solutions. Either this formal deductive principle must be applied differently according to the modal differences of the minor premises in mixed syllogisms (first solution) or would be used in two ways, generally or in keeping with each mood (second solution). These solutions are not satisfactory, for they call into question the unity and universality of the principle of universal attribution as established by Aristotle. What is the utility, Averroes asks, of a principle which does not hold for all modalities or does not apply to all the premises when the Prior Analytics ought to furnish formal and universal principles of deduction? And why did Aristotle define the principle of universal attribution without distinguishing its application according to each of the three modal premises? Returning at the end of his career to a literal exegesis of Aristotle's propositions and without harkening back to the earlier solutions, he proposes a theory of making the terms modal (fourth solution) in order to save Aristotle's declarations with respect to the principle of universal attribution and the mood of the conclusion of mixed syllogisms (Prior Analytics I. 9.30al5\u201320). Though formally inadequate, this solution, which had a continued history, proposes a new way of looking at the classification of modal propositions.","btype":3,"date":"1995","language":"French","online_url":null,"doi_url":null,"ti_url":null,"categories":[{"id":27,"category_name":"Logic","link":"bib?categories[]=Logic"},{"id":15,"category_name":"Alexander of Aphrodisias","link":"bib?categories[]=Alexander of Aphrodisias"},{"id":28,"category_name":"al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b","link":"bib?categories[]=al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b"},{"id":21,"category_name":"Aristotle","link":"bib?categories[]=Aristotle"},{"id":23,"category_name":"Commentary","link":"bib?categories[]=Commentary"}],"authors":[{"id":779,"full_name":"Abdelali Elamrani-Jamal","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":479,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Arabic Sciences and Philosophy","volume":"5","issue":null,"pages":"51\u201374"}},"sort":[1995]}
Title | Ibn Rušd et les Premiers Analytiques d'Aristote. Aperçu sur un problème de syllogistique modale |
Type | Article |
Language | French |
Date | 1995 |
Journal | Arabic Sciences and Philosophy |
Volume | 5 |
Pages | 51–74 |
Categories | Logic, Alexander of Aphrodisias, al-Fārābī, Aristotle, Commentary |
Author(s) | Abdelali Elamrani-Jamal |
Publisher(s) | |
Translator(s) |
Ibn Rušd devoted a certain number of works to Aristotle's Prior Analytics. In a series of opuscules written over a period of twenty years and following upon his Middle Commentary on Aristotle's Prior Analytics, he faced a problem particular to the modal syllogism - that of the mood of the conclusion in mixed syllogisms. The problem can be stated as follows: At the beginning of the Prior Analytics, Aristotle established a formal deductive principle - that of universal attribution (Pr. An. I.1.24b26–30). Applied to the modal syllogism, this principle is inadequate as stated. It is too general to be applied in a univocal manner in all modal syllogisms. To preserve a sense of coherence in Aristotle's declarations, the commentators had to interpret it. Presenting the interpretations of the commentators, primarily al-Fārābī and Alexander, on the basis of al-Fārābī's Large Commentary on Aristotle's Prior Analytics, Averroes criticizes them. Applied according to Alexander's interpretation, the principle of universal attribution is valid only for modal syllogisms one of whose premises is necessary and the other assertoric; according to al-Fārābī's interpretation, it is verified only when the minor premise is possible. Averroes proposes two preliminary solutions. Either this formal deductive principle must be applied differently according to the modal differences of the minor premises in mixed syllogisms (first solution) or would be used in two ways, generally or in keeping with each mood (second solution). These solutions are not satisfactory, for they call into question the unity and universality of the principle of universal attribution as established by Aristotle. What is the utility, Averroes asks, of a principle which does not hold for all modalities or does not apply to all the premises when the Prior Analytics ought to furnish formal and universal principles of deduction? And why did Aristotle define the principle of universal attribution without distinguishing its application according to each of the three modal premises? Returning at the end of his career to a literal exegesis of Aristotle's propositions and without harkening back to the earlier solutions, he proposes a theory of making the terms modal (fourth solution) in order to save Aristotle's declarations with respect to the principle of universal attribution and the mood of the conclusion of mixed syllogisms (Prior Analytics I. 9.30al5–20). Though formally inadequate, this solution, which had a continued history, proposes a new way of looking at the classification of modal propositions. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"479","_score":null,"_source":{"id":479,"authors_free":[{"id":623,"entry_id":479,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":779,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Abdelali Elamrani-Jamal","free_first_name":"Abdelali","free_last_name":"Elamrani-Jamal","norm_person":{"id":779,"first_name":"Abdelali","last_name":"Elamrani-Jamal","full_name":"Abdelali Elamrani-Jamal","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/154697621","viaf_url":"https:\/\/viaf.org\/viaf\/7526121","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]=Abdelali Elamrani-Jamal"}}],"entry_title":"Ibn Ru\u0161d et les Premiers Analytiques d'Aristote. Aper\u00e7u sur un probl\u00e8me de syllogistique modale","title_transcript":null,"title_translation":null,"main_title":{"title":"Ibn Ru\u0161d et les Premiers Analytiques d'Aristote. Aper\u00e7u sur un probl\u00e8me de syllogistique modale"},"abstract":"Ibn Ru\u0161d devoted a certain number of works to Aristotle's Prior Analytics. In a series of opuscules written over a period of twenty years and following upon his Middle Commentary on Aristotle's Prior Analytics, he faced a problem particular to the modal syllogism - that of the mood of the conclusion in mixed syllogisms. The problem can be stated as follows: At the beginning of the Prior Analytics, Aristotle established a formal deductive principle - that of universal attribution (Pr. An. I.1.24b26\u201330). Applied to the modal syllogism, this principle is inadequate as stated. It is too general to be applied in a univocal manner in all modal syllogisms. To preserve a sense of coherence in Aristotle's declarations, the commentators had to interpret it. Presenting the interpretations of the commentators, primarily al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b and Alexander, on the basis of al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b's Large Commentary on Aristotle's Prior Analytics, Averroes criticizes them. Applied according to Alexander's interpretation, the principle of universal attribution is valid only for modal syllogisms one of whose premises is necessary and the other assertoric; according to al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b's interpretation, it is verified only when the minor premise is possible. Averroes proposes two preliminary solutions. Either this formal deductive principle must be applied differently according to the modal differences of the minor premises in mixed syllogisms (first solution) or would be used in two ways, generally or in keeping with each mood (second solution). These solutions are not satisfactory, for they call into question the unity and universality of the principle of universal attribution as established by Aristotle. What is the utility, Averroes asks, of a principle which does not hold for all modalities or does not apply to all the premises when the Prior Analytics ought to furnish formal and universal principles of deduction? And why did Aristotle define the principle of universal attribution without distinguishing its application according to each of the three modal premises? Returning at the end of his career to a literal exegesis of Aristotle's propositions and without harkening back to the earlier solutions, he proposes a theory of making the terms modal (fourth solution) in order to save Aristotle's declarations with respect to the principle of universal attribution and the mood of the conclusion of mixed syllogisms (Prior Analytics I. 9.30al5\u201320). Though formally inadequate, this solution, which had a continued history, proposes a new way of looking at the classification of modal propositions.","btype":3,"date":"1995","language":"French","online_url":null,"doi_url":null,"ti_url":null,"categories":[{"id":27,"category_name":"Logic","link":"bib?categories[]=Logic"},{"id":15,"category_name":"Alexander of Aphrodisias","link":"bib?categories[]=Alexander of Aphrodisias"},{"id":28,"category_name":"al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b","link":"bib?categories[]=al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b"},{"id":21,"category_name":"Aristotle","link":"bib?categories[]=Aristotle"},{"id":23,"category_name":"Commentary","link":"bib?categories[]=Commentary"}],"authors":[{"id":779,"full_name":"Abdelali Elamrani-Jamal","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":479,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Arabic Sciences and Philosophy","volume":"5","issue":null,"pages":"51\u201374"}},"sort":["Ibn Ru\u0161d et les Premiers Analytiques d'Aristote. Aper\u00e7u sur un probl\u00e8me de syllogistique modale"]}
Title | La distinción nombre-verbo en los comentarios al perihermeneias de Alfarabi y Averroes |
Type | Article |
Language | Spanish |
Date | 2003 |
Journal | Revista española de filosofía medieval |
Volume | 10 |
Pages | 157–169 |
Categories | al-Fārābī, Logic, Commentary |
Author(s) | José Angel García Cuadrado |
Publisher(s) | |
Translator(s) |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"1562","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1562,"authors_free":[{"id":1793,"entry_id":1562,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":1111,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Jos\u00e9 Angel Garc\u00eda Cuadrado","free_first_name":"Jos\u00e9 Angel","free_last_name":"Garc\u00eda Cuadrado","norm_person":{"id":1111,"first_name":"Jos\u00e9 Angel","last_name":"Garc\u00eda Cuadrado","full_name":"Jos\u00e9 Angel Garc\u00eda Cuadrado","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1032888369","viaf_url":"https:\/\/viaf.org\/viaf\/178348","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]=Jos\u00e9 Angel Garc\u00eda Cuadrado"}}],"entry_title":"La distinci\u00f3n nombre-verbo en los comentarios al perihermeneias de Alfarabi y Averroes","title_transcript":null,"title_translation":null,"main_title":{"title":"La distinci\u00f3n nombre-verbo en los comentarios al perihermeneias de Alfarabi y Averroes"},"abstract":null,"btype":3,"date":"2003","language":"Spanish","online_url":null,"doi_url":null,"ti_url":null,"categories":[{"id":28,"category_name":"al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b","link":"bib?categories[]=al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b"},{"id":27,"category_name":"Logic","link":"bib?categories[]=Logic"},{"id":23,"category_name":"Commentary","link":"bib?categories[]=Commentary"}],"authors":[{"id":1111,"full_name":"Jos\u00e9 Angel Garc\u00eda Cuadrado","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1562,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revista espa\u00f1ola de filosof\u00eda medieval","volume":"10","issue":null,"pages":"157\u2013169"}},"sort":["La distinci\u00f3n nombre-verbo en los comentarios al perihermeneias de Alfarabi y Averroes"]}