| Title | Philosopher-Kings and Counselors: How Should Philosophers Participate in Politics? |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2022 |
| Published in | Plato's Republic in the Islamic Context. New Perspectives on Averroes's Commentary |
| Pages | 253–274 |
| Categories | Politics, Tradition and Reception |
| Author(s) | Alexander Orwin |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| The most famous, or infamous, proposal in Plato's Republic concerns the rule of philosopher-kings. Throughout the long history of the philosophical reception of Plato, this theme has been explored, restated, and rejected in countless ways. One of the most original treatments of it comes from the Andalusian philosopher Averroes, in his Commentary on Plato's “Republic.” The title of this inventive work must not be construed too narrowly. On every major theme in the Republic, Averroes deviates, either by omission, addition, or editorial commentary, from Plato. His treatment of the philosopher-kings will make use of all these techniques. Before turning to this topic, I wish to make some general remarks about the work as a whole. Averroes announces his departure from Plato in the first sentence of the work, with the somewhat cryptic promise to remove all dialectical arguments from the Republic while preserving the demonstrative arguments (CR 21.4). Dialectic is associated, etymologically and semantically, with dialogue. Sure enough, Averroes expunges not only the dialogue form of the original but also its principal characters. This choice should not simply be attributed to ignorance: even if we were to assume that Averroes had only a summary of the original, he would surely have known of the existence of the characters Socrates and Thrasymachus through Alfarabi. In fact, Averroes himself mentions Thrasymachus and his arguments about justice in his Middle Commentary on the Topics. The form with which Averroes replaces the dialogue can hardly be described as a straightforward treatise. Averroes attributes the arguments he presents to a variety of sources, as indicated by expressions such as “we said,” and “Plato said.” In addition, Alfarabi and Aristotle are often cited, paraphrased, or even plagiarized, in what is ostensibly a commentary on Plato. This implies a dialogue of sorts between not only Averroes and Plato, but Aristotle and Alfarabi as well. One is tempted to say that the discussions between Socrates, an aged father, a sophist, and several young Greeks is replaced by a discussion between four great political philosophers across the ages, orchestrated by the latest representative of this august group. On this point, it is useful to recall Leo Strauss's observation, that no Platonic dialogue relates a discussion among equals. If dialectic involves a superior person such as Socrates leading less accomplished interlocutors by the hand, then Averroes's new, demonstrative form consists of a dialogue between equals to whom historical accident never granted the opportunity for a face-to-face meeting. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5358","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5358,"authors_free":[{"id":6209,"entry_id":5358,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":1790,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Alexander Orwin","free_first_name":"Alexander ","free_last_name":"Orwin","norm_person":{"id":1790,"first_name":" Alexander","last_name":" Orwin","full_name":" Alexander Orwin","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/1153328348","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null,"link":"bib?authors[]= Alexander Orwin"}}],"entry_title":"Philosopher-Kings and Counselors: How Should Philosophers Participate in Politics?","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Philosopher-Kings and Counselors: How Should Philosophers Participate in Politics?"},"abstract":"The most famous, or infamous, proposal in Plato's Republic concerns the rule of philosopher-kings. Throughout the long history of the philosophical reception of Plato, this theme has been explored, restated, and rejected in countless ways. One of the most original treatments of it comes from the Andalusian philosopher Averroes, in his Commentary on Plato's \u201cRepublic.\u201d The title of this inventive work must not be construed too narrowly. On every major theme in the Republic, Averroes deviates, either by omission, addition, or editorial commentary, from Plato. His treatment of the philosopher-kings will make use of all these techniques. Before turning to this topic, I wish to make some general remarks about the work as a whole.\r\n\r\nAverroes announces his departure from Plato in the first sentence of the work, with the somewhat cryptic promise to remove all dialectical arguments from the Republic while preserving the demonstrative arguments (CR 21.4). Dialectic is associated, etymologically and semantically, with dialogue. Sure enough, Averroes expunges not only the dialogue form of the original but also its principal characters. This choice should not simply be attributed to ignorance: even if we were to assume that Averroes had only a summary of the original, he would surely have known of the existence of the characters Socrates and Thrasymachus through Alfarabi. In fact, Averroes himself mentions Thrasymachus and his arguments about justice in his Middle Commentary on the Topics.\r\n\r\nThe form with which Averroes replaces the dialogue can hardly be described as a straightforward treatise. Averroes attributes the arguments he presents to a variety of sources, as indicated by expressions such as \u201cwe said,\u201d and \u201cPlato said.\u201d In addition, Alfarabi and Aristotle are often cited, paraphrased, or even plagiarized, in what is ostensibly a commentary on Plato. This implies a dialogue of sorts between not only Averroes and Plato, but Aristotle and Alfarabi as well. One is tempted to say that the discussions between Socrates, an aged father, a sophist, and several young Greeks is replaced by a discussion between four great political philosophers across the ages, orchestrated by the latest representative of this august group. On this point, it is useful to recall Leo Strauss's observation, that no Platonic dialogue relates a discussion among equals. If dialectic involves a superior person such as Socrates leading less accomplished interlocutors by the hand, then Averroes's new, demonstrative form consists of a dialogue between equals to whom historical accident never granted the opportunity for a face-to-face meeting.","btype":2,"date":"2022","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/9781800104983.013","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":4,"category_name":"Politics","link":"bib?categories[]=Politics"},{"id":43,"category_name":"Tradition and Reception","link":"bib?categories[]=Tradition and Reception"}],"authors":[{"id":1790,"full_name":" Alexander Orwin","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":{"id":5358,"section_of":5346,"pages":"253\u2013274","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 | Natural Perfection or Divine Fiat |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2022 |
| Published in | Plato's Republic in the Islamic Context. New Perspectives on Averroes's Commentary |
| Pages | 233–252 |
| Categories | Nicomachean ethics, Politics, Tradition and Reception |
| Author(s) | Joshua Parens |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| As a reader of Averroes's Commentary on Plato's “Republic,” one is struck from the beginning by how much he omits from his commentary. Typically, this would be taken to indicate that Averroes does not comprehend Plato's intention. Indeed, the author can seem at times to confirm what many readers assume—namely, that he would rather have commented on a work by Aristotle. We will try to show that his major omissions—that is, of books 1, (most of ) 6, and 10, and especially what he substitutes for these omissions—form a coherent pattern and ultimately reveal a profound commentary on the omitted passages. That coherent pattern is already set within the first few pages of the work. From the beginning he seems to focus on the place of the Republic in relation to practical science and theoretical science. This comes as little surprise in a commentary on a work devoted to what I would like to call the philosopher-king conceit. The Republic is at least in part Plato's consideration of the relation between theoretical and practical science, as encapsulated in the person of the philosopher-king. Although Socrates does not get around to the centrality of this theme until Republic book 5, Averroes is on it from the beginning. He does so in part in order to place his discussion of the Republic in relation to his commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics—putatively the more theoretical of the two works. Be that as it may, we are most interested in what ties together the omissions of books 1, 6, and 10—and especially what Averroes substitutes for those omissions. We hope to show that the golden thread running through what Averroes substitutes is the theme of human perfection, in at least two senses: the philosopher-king and immortality. In each case, there is some element in Plato's original that Averroes needs to take into another register (from conventionalism in book 1 to fiat transplanted into the Second Treatise; from separate forms in book 6 to the active intellect in the Second Treatise; and from immortality of the soul in book 10 to conjunction with the active intellect in the Second Treatise). In effect, all these omissions are drawn together in the Second Treatise. For that reason, eventually, we will comment more closely on the most relevant section of the Second Treatise (60.17–74.12). |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5357","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5357,"authors_free":[{"id":6208,"entry_id":5357,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":1783,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Joshua Parens","free_first_name":"Joshua","free_last_name":" Parens","norm_person":{"id":1783,"first_name":"Joshua","last_name":"Parens","full_name":"Joshua Parens","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172958881","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null,"link":"bib?authors[]=Joshua Parens"}}],"entry_title":"Natural Perfection or Divine Fiat","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Natural Perfection or Divine Fiat"},"abstract":"As a reader of Averroes's Commentary on Plato's \u201cRepublic,\u201d one is struck from the beginning by how much he omits from his commentary. Typically, this would be taken to indicate that Averroes does not comprehend Plato's intention. Indeed, the author can seem at times to confirm what many readers assume\u2014namely, that he would rather have commented on a work by Aristotle. We will try to show that his major omissions\u2014that is, of books 1, (most of ) 6, and 10, and especially what he substitutes for these omissions\u2014form a coherent pattern and ultimately reveal a profound commentary on the omitted passages. That coherent pattern is already set within the first few pages of the work. From the beginning he seems to focus on the place of the Republic in relation to practical science and theoretical science. This comes as little surprise in a commentary on a work devoted to what I would like to call the philosopher-king conceit. The Republic is at least in part Plato's consideration of the relation between theoretical and practical science, as encapsulated in the person of the philosopher-king. Although Socrates does not get around to the centrality of this theme until Republic book 5, Averroes is on it from the beginning. He does so in part in order to place his discussion of the Republic in relation to his commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics\u2014putatively the more theoretical of the two works. Be that as it may, we are most interested in what ties together the omissions of books 1, 6, and 10\u2014and especially what Averroes substitutes for those omissions. We hope to show that the golden thread running through what Averroes substitutes is the theme of human perfection, in at least two senses: the philosopher-king and immortality. In each case, there is some element in Plato's original that Averroes needs to take into another register (from conventionalism in book 1 to fiat transplanted into the Second Treatise; from separate forms in book 6 to the active intellect in the Second Treatise; and from immortality of the soul in book 10 to conjunction with the active intellect in the Second Treatise). In effect, all these omissions are drawn together in the Second Treatise. For that reason, eventually, we will comment more closely on the most relevant section of the Second Treatise (60.17\u201374.12).","btype":2,"date":"2022","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/9781800104983.012","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":70,"category_name":"Nicomachean ethics","link":"bib?categories[]=Nicomachean ethics"},{"id":4,"category_name":"Politics","link":"bib?categories[]=Politics"},{"id":43,"category_name":"Tradition and Reception","link":"bib?categories[]=Tradition and Reception"}],"authors":[{"id":1783,"full_name":"Joshua Parens","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":{"id":5357,"section_of":5346,"pages":"233\u2013252","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 | Averroes between Platonic Philosophy and the Sharīʻa |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2022 |
| Published in | Leo Strauss and Islamic Political Thought |
| Pages | 46-83 |
| Categories | Relation between Philosophy and Theology, Tradition and Reception, Plato, Politics, Modern Readings |
| Author(s) | Rasoul Namazi |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Chapter 1 is dedicated to the interpretation of a recently discovered, unpublished typescript by Strauss on Averroes’s commentary on Plato’s Republic. In this transcript, available as Appendix A and composed sometime after 1956, Strauss underscores the conflict between philosophy and Islam in Averroes’s commentary on Plato’s Republic. The transcript consists only of short notes and therefore, to reveal its message, it needs to be interpreted in the context of Strauss’s other writings. Strauss’s interpretation of Averroes is based on the idea that Averroes must have been aware of the incompatibility of Islamic revelation with the best regime of Plato. Unlike other scholars, who are mainly preoccupied with Averroes’s access or lack thereof to a reliable translation of Plato’s Republic, Strauss argues that the deficiencies of Averroes’s commentary do not mean that Averroes did not have access to Plato’s Republic; he claims that such apparent deficiencies might be intentional and significant for understanding Averroes’s views. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5618","_score":null,"_ignored":["booksection.book.abstract.keyword"],"_source":{"id":5618,"authors_free":[{"id":6521,"entry_id":5618,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":1792,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rasoul Namazi","free_first_name":"Rasoul ","free_last_name":"Namazi","norm_person":{"id":1792,"first_name":"Rasoul","last_name":"Namazi","full_name":"Rasoul Namazi","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1218634294","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null,"link":"bib?authors[]=Rasoul Namazi"}}],"entry_title":"Averroes between Platonic Philosophy and the Shar\u012b\u02bba","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Averroes between Platonic Philosophy and the Shar\u012b\u02bba"},"abstract":"Chapter 1 is dedicated to the interpretation of a recently discovered, unpublished typescript by Strauss on Averroes\u2019s commentary on Plato\u2019s Republic. In this transcript, available as Appendix A and composed sometime after 1956, Strauss underscores the conflict between philosophy and Islam in Averroes\u2019s commentary on Plato\u2019s Republic. The transcript consists only of short notes and therefore, to reveal its message, it needs to be interpreted in the context of Strauss\u2019s other writings. Strauss\u2019s interpretation of Averroes is based on the idea that Averroes must have been aware of the incompatibility of Islamic revelation with the best regime of Plato. Unlike other scholars, who are mainly preoccupied with Averroes\u2019s access or lack thereof to a reliable translation of Plato\u2019s Republic, Strauss argues that the deficiencies of Averroes\u2019s commentary do not mean that Averroes did not have access to Plato\u2019s Republic; he claims that such apparent deficiencies might be intentional and significant for understanding Averroes\u2019s views.","btype":2,"date":"2022","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/9781009105118.003","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":47,"category_name":"Relation between Philosophy and Theology","link":"bib?categories[]=Relation between Philosophy and Theology"},{"id":43,"category_name":"Tradition and Reception","link":"bib?categories[]=Tradition and Reception"},{"id":20,"category_name":"Plato","link":"bib?categories[]=Plato"},{"id":4,"category_name":"Politics","link":"bib?categories[]=Politics"},{"id":35,"category_name":"Modern Readings","link":"bib?categories[]=Modern Readings"}],"authors":[{"id":1792,"full_name":"Rasoul Namazi","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":{"id":5618,"section_of":5361,"pages":"46-83","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":5361,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":1,"language":"en","title":"Leo Strauss and Islamic Political Thought","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2022","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"In this book, Rasoul Namazi offers the first in-depth study of Leo Strauss' writings on Islamic political thought, a topic that interested Strauss over the course of his career. Namazi's volume focuses on several important studies by Strauss on Islamic thought. He critically analyzes Strauss's notes on Averroes' commentary on Plato's Republic and also proposes an interpretation of Strauss' theologico-political notes on the Arabian Nights. Namazi also interprets Strauss' essay on Alfarabi's enigmatic treatise, The Philosophy of Plato and provides a detailed commentary on his complex essay devoted to Alfarabi's summary of Plato's Laws. Based on previously unpublished material from Strauss' papers, Namazi's volume provides new insights into Strauss' reflections on religion, philosophy, and politics, and their relationship to wisdom, persecution, divine law, and unbelief in the works of key Muslim thinkers. His work presents Strauss as one of the most innovative historians and scholars of Islamic thought of all time.","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":"","book":{"id":5361,"pubplace":"Cambridge","publisher":"Cambridge University Press.","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"persons":[{"id":6212,"entry_id":5361,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":1792,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rasoul Namazi","free_first_name":"Rasoul","free_last_name":"Namazi","norm_person":{"id":1792,"first_name":"Rasoul","last_name":"Namazi","full_name":"Rasoul Namazi","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1218634294","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}]}},"article":null},"sort":[2022]}
| Title | Democracy, Islam and the tradition of Ibn Rushd |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2003 |
| Published in | |
| Pages | 385-394 |
| Categories | Politics, Tradition and Reception |
| Author(s) | Noah Feldman |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5550","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5550,"authors_free":[{"id":6445,"entry_id":5550,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":1328,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Noah Feldman","free_first_name":"Noah","free_last_name":"Feldman","norm_person":{"id":1328,"first_name":"Noah","last_name":"Feldman","full_name":"Noah Feldman","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131876627","viaf_url":"http:\/\/viaf.org\/viaf\/54442695","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]=Noah Feldman"}}],"entry_title":"Democracy, Islam and the tradition of Ibn Rushd","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Democracy, Islam and the tradition of Ibn Rushd"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"2003","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":4,"category_name":"Politics","link":"bib?categories[]=Politics"},{"id":43,"category_name":"Tradition and Reception","link":"bib?categories[]=Tradition and Reception"}],"authors":[{"id":1328,"full_name":"Noah Feldman","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":{"id":5550,"section_of":null,"pages":"385-394","is_catalog":null,"book":null},"article":null},"sort":[2003]}
| Title | Averroes between Platonic Philosophy and the Sharīʻa |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2022 |
| Published in | Leo Strauss and Islamic Political Thought |
| Pages | 46-83 |
| Categories | Relation between Philosophy and Theology, Tradition and Reception, Plato, Politics, Modern Readings |
| Author(s) | Rasoul Namazi |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Chapter 1 is dedicated to the interpretation of a recently discovered, unpublished typescript by Strauss on Averroes’s commentary on Plato’s Republic. In this transcript, available as Appendix A and composed sometime after 1956, Strauss underscores the conflict between philosophy and Islam in Averroes’s commentary on Plato’s Republic. The transcript consists only of short notes and therefore, to reveal its message, it needs to be interpreted in the context of Strauss’s other writings. Strauss’s interpretation of Averroes is based on the idea that Averroes must have been aware of the incompatibility of Islamic revelation with the best regime of Plato. Unlike other scholars, who are mainly preoccupied with Averroes’s access or lack thereof to a reliable translation of Plato’s Republic, Strauss argues that the deficiencies of Averroes’s commentary do not mean that Averroes did not have access to Plato’s Republic; he claims that such apparent deficiencies might be intentional and significant for understanding Averroes’s views. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5618","_score":null,"_ignored":["booksection.book.abstract.keyword"],"_source":{"id":5618,"authors_free":[{"id":6521,"entry_id":5618,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":1792,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rasoul Namazi","free_first_name":"Rasoul ","free_last_name":"Namazi","norm_person":{"id":1792,"first_name":"Rasoul","last_name":"Namazi","full_name":"Rasoul Namazi","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1218634294","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null,"link":"bib?authors[]=Rasoul Namazi"}}],"entry_title":"Averroes between Platonic Philosophy and the Shar\u012b\u02bba","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Averroes between Platonic Philosophy and the Shar\u012b\u02bba"},"abstract":"Chapter 1 is dedicated to the interpretation of a recently discovered, unpublished typescript by Strauss on Averroes\u2019s commentary on Plato\u2019s Republic. In this transcript, available as Appendix A and composed sometime after 1956, Strauss underscores the conflict between philosophy and Islam in Averroes\u2019s commentary on Plato\u2019s Republic. The transcript consists only of short notes and therefore, to reveal its message, it needs to be interpreted in the context of Strauss\u2019s other writings. Strauss\u2019s interpretation of Averroes is based on the idea that Averroes must have been aware of the incompatibility of Islamic revelation with the best regime of Plato. Unlike other scholars, who are mainly preoccupied with Averroes\u2019s access or lack thereof to a reliable translation of Plato\u2019s Republic, Strauss argues that the deficiencies of Averroes\u2019s commentary do not mean that Averroes did not have access to Plato\u2019s Republic; he claims that such apparent deficiencies might be intentional and significant for understanding Averroes\u2019s views.","btype":2,"date":"2022","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/9781009105118.003","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":47,"category_name":"Relation between Philosophy and Theology","link":"bib?categories[]=Relation between Philosophy and Theology"},{"id":43,"category_name":"Tradition and Reception","link":"bib?categories[]=Tradition and Reception"},{"id":20,"category_name":"Plato","link":"bib?categories[]=Plato"},{"id":4,"category_name":"Politics","link":"bib?categories[]=Politics"},{"id":35,"category_name":"Modern Readings","link":"bib?categories[]=Modern Readings"}],"authors":[{"id":1792,"full_name":"Rasoul Namazi","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":{"id":5618,"section_of":5361,"pages":"46-83","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":5361,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":1,"language":"en","title":"Leo Strauss and Islamic Political Thought","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2022","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"In this book, Rasoul Namazi offers the first in-depth study of Leo Strauss' writings on Islamic political thought, a topic that interested Strauss over the course of his career. Namazi's volume focuses on several important studies by Strauss on Islamic thought. He critically analyzes Strauss's notes on Averroes' commentary on Plato's Republic and also proposes an interpretation of Strauss' theologico-political notes on the Arabian Nights. Namazi also interprets Strauss' essay on Alfarabi's enigmatic treatise, The Philosophy of Plato and provides a detailed commentary on his complex essay devoted to Alfarabi's summary of Plato's Laws. Based on previously unpublished material from Strauss' papers, Namazi's volume provides new insights into Strauss' reflections on religion, philosophy, and politics, and their relationship to wisdom, persecution, divine law, and unbelief in the works of key Muslim thinkers. His work presents Strauss as one of the most innovative historians and scholars of Islamic thought of all time.","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":"","book":{"id":5361,"pubplace":"Cambridge","publisher":"Cambridge University Press.","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"persons":[{"id":6212,"entry_id":5361,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":1792,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rasoul Namazi","free_first_name":"Rasoul","free_last_name":"Namazi","norm_person":{"id":1792,"first_name":"Rasoul","last_name":"Namazi","full_name":"Rasoul Namazi","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1218634294","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}]}},"article":null},"sort":["Averroes between Platonic Philosophy and the Shar\u012b\u02bba"]}
| Title | Democracy, Islam and the tradition of Ibn Rushd |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2003 |
| Published in | |
| Pages | 385-394 |
| Categories | Politics, Tradition and Reception |
| Author(s) | Noah Feldman |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5550","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5550,"authors_free":[{"id":6445,"entry_id":5550,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":1328,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Noah Feldman","free_first_name":"Noah","free_last_name":"Feldman","norm_person":{"id":1328,"first_name":"Noah","last_name":"Feldman","full_name":"Noah Feldman","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131876627","viaf_url":"http:\/\/viaf.org\/viaf\/54442695","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]=Noah Feldman"}}],"entry_title":"Democracy, Islam and the tradition of Ibn Rushd","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Democracy, Islam and the tradition of Ibn Rushd"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"2003","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":4,"category_name":"Politics","link":"bib?categories[]=Politics"},{"id":43,"category_name":"Tradition and Reception","link":"bib?categories[]=Tradition and Reception"}],"authors":[{"id":1328,"full_name":"Noah Feldman","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":{"id":5550,"section_of":null,"pages":"385-394","is_catalog":null,"book":null},"article":null},"sort":["Democracy, Islam and the tradition of Ibn Rushd"]}
| Title | Natural Perfection or Divine Fiat |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2022 |
| Published in | Plato's Republic in the Islamic Context. New Perspectives on Averroes's Commentary |
| Pages | 233–252 |
| Categories | Nicomachean ethics, Politics, Tradition and Reception |
| Author(s) | Joshua Parens |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| As a reader of Averroes's Commentary on Plato's “Republic,” one is struck from the beginning by how much he omits from his commentary. Typically, this would be taken to indicate that Averroes does not comprehend Plato's intention. Indeed, the author can seem at times to confirm what many readers assume—namely, that he would rather have commented on a work by Aristotle. We will try to show that his major omissions—that is, of books 1, (most of ) 6, and 10, and especially what he substitutes for these omissions—form a coherent pattern and ultimately reveal a profound commentary on the omitted passages. That coherent pattern is already set within the first few pages of the work. From the beginning he seems to focus on the place of the Republic in relation to practical science and theoretical science. This comes as little surprise in a commentary on a work devoted to what I would like to call the philosopher-king conceit. The Republic is at least in part Plato's consideration of the relation between theoretical and practical science, as encapsulated in the person of the philosopher-king. Although Socrates does not get around to the centrality of this theme until Republic book 5, Averroes is on it from the beginning. He does so in part in order to place his discussion of the Republic in relation to his commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics—putatively the more theoretical of the two works. Be that as it may, we are most interested in what ties together the omissions of books 1, 6, and 10—and especially what Averroes substitutes for those omissions. We hope to show that the golden thread running through what Averroes substitutes is the theme of human perfection, in at least two senses: the philosopher-king and immortality. In each case, there is some element in Plato's original that Averroes needs to take into another register (from conventionalism in book 1 to fiat transplanted into the Second Treatise; from separate forms in book 6 to the active intellect in the Second Treatise; and from immortality of the soul in book 10 to conjunction with the active intellect in the Second Treatise). In effect, all these omissions are drawn together in the Second Treatise. For that reason, eventually, we will comment more closely on the most relevant section of the Second Treatise (60.17–74.12). |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5357","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5357,"authors_free":[{"id":6208,"entry_id":5357,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":1783,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Joshua Parens","free_first_name":"Joshua","free_last_name":" Parens","norm_person":{"id":1783,"first_name":"Joshua","last_name":"Parens","full_name":"Joshua Parens","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172958881","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null,"link":"bib?authors[]=Joshua Parens"}}],"entry_title":"Natural Perfection or Divine Fiat","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Natural Perfection or Divine Fiat"},"abstract":"As a reader of Averroes's Commentary on Plato's \u201cRepublic,\u201d one is struck from the beginning by how much he omits from his commentary. Typically, this would be taken to indicate that Averroes does not comprehend Plato's intention. Indeed, the author can seem at times to confirm what many readers assume\u2014namely, that he would rather have commented on a work by Aristotle. We will try to show that his major omissions\u2014that is, of books 1, (most of ) 6, and 10, and especially what he substitutes for these omissions\u2014form a coherent pattern and ultimately reveal a profound commentary on the omitted passages. That coherent pattern is already set within the first few pages of the work. From the beginning he seems to focus on the place of the Republic in relation to practical science and theoretical science. This comes as little surprise in a commentary on a work devoted to what I would like to call the philosopher-king conceit. The Republic is at least in part Plato's consideration of the relation between theoretical and practical science, as encapsulated in the person of the philosopher-king. Although Socrates does not get around to the centrality of this theme until Republic book 5, Averroes is on it from the beginning. He does so in part in order to place his discussion of the Republic in relation to his commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics\u2014putatively the more theoretical of the two works. Be that as it may, we are most interested in what ties together the omissions of books 1, 6, and 10\u2014and especially what Averroes substitutes for those omissions. We hope to show that the golden thread running through what Averroes substitutes is the theme of human perfection, in at least two senses: the philosopher-king and immortality. In each case, there is some element in Plato's original that Averroes needs to take into another register (from conventionalism in book 1 to fiat transplanted into the Second Treatise; from separate forms in book 6 to the active intellect in the Second Treatise; and from immortality of the soul in book 10 to conjunction with the active intellect in the Second Treatise). In effect, all these omissions are drawn together in the Second Treatise. For that reason, eventually, we will comment more closely on the most relevant section of the Second Treatise (60.17\u201374.12).","btype":2,"date":"2022","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/9781800104983.012","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":70,"category_name":"Nicomachean ethics","link":"bib?categories[]=Nicomachean ethics"},{"id":4,"category_name":"Politics","link":"bib?categories[]=Politics"},{"id":43,"category_name":"Tradition and Reception","link":"bib?categories[]=Tradition and Reception"}],"authors":[{"id":1783,"full_name":"Joshua Parens","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":{"id":5357,"section_of":5346,"pages":"233\u2013252","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":["Natural Perfection or Divine Fiat"]}
| Title | Philosopher-Kings and Counselors: How Should Philosophers Participate in Politics? |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2022 |
| Published in | Plato's Republic in the Islamic Context. New Perspectives on Averroes's Commentary |
| Pages | 253–274 |
| Categories | Politics, Tradition and Reception |
| Author(s) | Alexander Orwin |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| The most famous, or infamous, proposal in Plato's Republic concerns the rule of philosopher-kings. Throughout the long history of the philosophical reception of Plato, this theme has been explored, restated, and rejected in countless ways. One of the most original treatments of it comes from the Andalusian philosopher Averroes, in his Commentary on Plato's “Republic.” The title of this inventive work must not be construed too narrowly. On every major theme in the Republic, Averroes deviates, either by omission, addition, or editorial commentary, from Plato. His treatment of the philosopher-kings will make use of all these techniques. Before turning to this topic, I wish to make some general remarks about the work as a whole. Averroes announces his departure from Plato in the first sentence of the work, with the somewhat cryptic promise to remove all dialectical arguments from the Republic while preserving the demonstrative arguments (CR 21.4). Dialectic is associated, etymologically and semantically, with dialogue. Sure enough, Averroes expunges not only the dialogue form of the original but also its principal characters. This choice should not simply be attributed to ignorance: even if we were to assume that Averroes had only a summary of the original, he would surely have known of the existence of the characters Socrates and Thrasymachus through Alfarabi. In fact, Averroes himself mentions Thrasymachus and his arguments about justice in his Middle Commentary on the Topics. The form with which Averroes replaces the dialogue can hardly be described as a straightforward treatise. Averroes attributes the arguments he presents to a variety of sources, as indicated by expressions such as “we said,” and “Plato said.” In addition, Alfarabi and Aristotle are often cited, paraphrased, or even plagiarized, in what is ostensibly a commentary on Plato. This implies a dialogue of sorts between not only Averroes and Plato, but Aristotle and Alfarabi as well. One is tempted to say that the discussions between Socrates, an aged father, a sophist, and several young Greeks is replaced by a discussion between four great political philosophers across the ages, orchestrated by the latest representative of this august group. On this point, it is useful to recall Leo Strauss's observation, that no Platonic dialogue relates a discussion among equals. If dialectic involves a superior person such as Socrates leading less accomplished interlocutors by the hand, then Averroes's new, demonstrative form consists of a dialogue between equals to whom historical accident never granted the opportunity for a face-to-face meeting. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5358","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5358,"authors_free":[{"id":6209,"entry_id":5358,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":1790,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Alexander Orwin","free_first_name":"Alexander ","free_last_name":"Orwin","norm_person":{"id":1790,"first_name":" Alexander","last_name":" Orwin","full_name":" Alexander Orwin","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/1153328348","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null,"link":"bib?authors[]= Alexander Orwin"}}],"entry_title":"Philosopher-Kings and Counselors: How Should Philosophers Participate in Politics?","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Philosopher-Kings and Counselors: How Should Philosophers Participate in Politics?"},"abstract":"The most famous, or infamous, proposal in Plato's Republic concerns the rule of philosopher-kings. Throughout the long history of the philosophical reception of Plato, this theme has been explored, restated, and rejected in countless ways. One of the most original treatments of it comes from the Andalusian philosopher Averroes, in his Commentary on Plato's \u201cRepublic.\u201d The title of this inventive work must not be construed too narrowly. On every major theme in the Republic, Averroes deviates, either by omission, addition, or editorial commentary, from Plato. His treatment of the philosopher-kings will make use of all these techniques. Before turning to this topic, I wish to make some general remarks about the work as a whole.\r\n\r\nAverroes announces his departure from Plato in the first sentence of the work, with the somewhat cryptic promise to remove all dialectical arguments from the Republic while preserving the demonstrative arguments (CR 21.4). Dialectic is associated, etymologically and semantically, with dialogue. Sure enough, Averroes expunges not only the dialogue form of the original but also its principal characters. This choice should not simply be attributed to ignorance: even if we were to assume that Averroes had only a summary of the original, he would surely have known of the existence of the characters Socrates and Thrasymachus through Alfarabi. In fact, Averroes himself mentions Thrasymachus and his arguments about justice in his Middle Commentary on the Topics.\r\n\r\nThe form with which Averroes replaces the dialogue can hardly be described as a straightforward treatise. Averroes attributes the arguments he presents to a variety of sources, as indicated by expressions such as \u201cwe said,\u201d and \u201cPlato said.\u201d In addition, Alfarabi and Aristotle are often cited, paraphrased, or even plagiarized, in what is ostensibly a commentary on Plato. This implies a dialogue of sorts between not only Averroes and Plato, but Aristotle and Alfarabi as well. One is tempted to say that the discussions between Socrates, an aged father, a sophist, and several young Greeks is replaced by a discussion between four great political philosophers across the ages, orchestrated by the latest representative of this august group. On this point, it is useful to recall Leo Strauss's observation, that no Platonic dialogue relates a discussion among equals. If dialectic involves a superior person such as Socrates leading less accomplished interlocutors by the hand, then Averroes's new, demonstrative form consists of a dialogue between equals to whom historical accident never granted the opportunity for a face-to-face meeting.","btype":2,"date":"2022","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/9781800104983.013","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":4,"category_name":"Politics","link":"bib?categories[]=Politics"},{"id":43,"category_name":"Tradition and Reception","link":"bib?categories[]=Tradition and Reception"}],"authors":[{"id":1790,"full_name":" Alexander Orwin","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":{"id":5358,"section_of":5346,"pages":"253\u2013274","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":["Philosopher-Kings and Counselors: How Should Philosophers Participate in Politics?"]}