| Title | Averroes on intellect: from Aristotelian origins to Aquinas' critique |
| Type | Monograph |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2022 |
| Publication Place | Oxford |
| Publisher | Oxford University Press |
| Categories | Aristotle, Thomas, Avicenna, De anima, Metaphysics |
| Author(s) | Stephen R. Ogden |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| This book on the Muslim philosopher Averroes (Ibn Rushd) provides a detailed analysis of his (in)famous unicity thesis—the view that there is only one separate and eternal intellect for all human beings. It focuses directly on Averroes’ arguments, both from the text of Aristotle’s De Anima and, more importantly, his own philosophical arguments in the Long Commentary on the De Anima. Ogden defends Averroes’ interpretation of Aristotle’s DA III.4–5 (using Greek, Arabic, Latin, and contemporary sources). Yet, the author insists that Averroes is not merely a “commentator” but also an incisive philosopher in his own right. Ogden thus reconstructs and analyzes Averroes’ two most significant independent philosophical arguments, the Determinate Particular Argument and the Unity Argument. Alternative ancient and medieval views are considered throughout, especially from two important foils before and after Averroes, namely Avicenna (Ibn Sīnā) and Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas’s most famous and penetrating arguments against the unicity thesis are also addressed. Finally, Ogden considers Averroes’ own objections to broader metaphysical views of the soul such as Avicenna’s and Aquinas’s, which agree with him on several key points (e.g., the immateriality of the intellect and the individuation of human souls by matter), while still diverging on the number and substantial nature of the intellect. The central aim of the book is to provide readers a single study of Averroes’ most pivotal arguments on intellect, consolidating and building on recent scholarship and offering a comprehensive case for his unicity thesis in the wider context of Aristotelian epistemology and metaphysics. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5293","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5293,"authors_free":[{"id":6112,"entry_id":5293,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":1681,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Stephen R. Ogden","free_first_name":"Stephen R.","free_last_name":"Ogden","norm_person":{"id":1681,"first_name":"Stephen R. ","last_name":"Ogden","full_name":"Stephen R. Ogden","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null,"link":"bib?authors[]=Stephen R. Ogden"}}],"entry_title":"Averroes on intellect: from Aristotelian origins to Aquinas' critique","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Averroes on intellect: from Aristotelian origins to Aquinas' critique"},"abstract":"This book on the Muslim philosopher Averroes (Ibn Rushd) provides a detailed analysis of his (in)famous unicity thesis\u2014the view that there is only one separate and eternal intellect for all human beings. It focuses directly on Averroes\u2019 arguments, both from the text of Aristotle\u2019s De Anima and, more importantly, his own philosophical arguments in the Long Commentary on the De Anima. Ogden defends Averroes\u2019 interpretation of Aristotle\u2019s DA III.4\u20135 (using Greek, Arabic, Latin, and contemporary sources). Yet, the author insists that Averroes is not merely a \u201ccommentator\u201d but also an incisive philosopher in his own right. Ogden thus reconstructs and analyzes Averroes\u2019 two most significant independent philosophical arguments, the Determinate Particular Argument and the Unity Argument. Alternative ancient and medieval views are considered throughout, especially from two important foils before and after Averroes, namely Avicenna (Ibn S\u012bn\u0101) and Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas\u2019s most famous and penetrating arguments against the unicity thesis are also addressed. Finally, Ogden considers Averroes\u2019 own objections to broader metaphysical views of the soul such as Avicenna\u2019s and Aquinas\u2019s, which agree with him on several key points (e.g., the immateriality of the intellect and the individuation of human souls by matter), while still diverging on the number and substantial nature of the intellect. The central aim of the book is to provide readers a single study of Averroes\u2019 most pivotal arguments on intellect, consolidating and building on recent scholarship and offering a comprehensive case for his unicity thesis in the wider context of Aristotelian epistemology and metaphysics.","btype":1,"date":"2022","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"10.1093\/oso\/9780192896117.001.0001","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":21,"category_name":"Aristotle","link":"bib?categories[]=Aristotle"},{"id":51,"category_name":"Thomas","link":"bib?categories[]=Thomas"},{"id":10,"category_name":"Avicenna","link":"bib?categories[]=Avicenna"},{"id":46,"category_name":"De anima","link":"bib?categories[]=De anima"},{"id":31,"category_name":"Metaphysics","link":"bib?categories[]=Metaphysics"}],"authors":[{"id":1681,"full_name":"Stephen R. Ogden","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":{"id":5293,"pubplace":"Oxford ","publisher":"Oxford University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2022]}
| Title | La doctrina general de los trascendentales en Dietrich von Freiberg, y su filiación aristotélico-averroísta |
| Type | Article |
| Language | Spanish |
| Date | 2019 |
| Journal | Anales del Seminario de Historia de la Filosofía |
| Volume | 36 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 659–681 |
| Categories | Aristotle, Metaphysics, Avicenna, Tradition and Reception, Latin Averroism, Thomas |
| Author(s) | Fernanda Ocampo |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| The Aristotelian text Metaphysics IV, 2, and the interpretations carried out by the Muslim philosophers, i.e., Avicenna and Averroes, constitute the theoretical framework in which several Latin authors of the second half of the 13th century from the University of Paris, who have taken a stance around the question of the ‘real distinction’ between esse and essentia, elaborated their doctrines about transcendentals. According to this, our work seeks to trace the dependence of Dietrich’s general doctrine of the transcendentals, with respect to the theses established by Aristotle in the mentioned text, and in particular, with regard to the Averroist reading – critical of that of Avicenna’s –, which “has made school” in the Parisian environment, especially among the teachers and students of the Faculty of Arts, but also, first, in Thomas Aquinas. Thus, in light of this scenario of readings and interpretations, we will seek to delimit the central features of the Theodorian conception of the communia, pointing out the possible differences or coincidences with respect to the doctrines of these preceding authors. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5060","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5060,"authors_free":[{"id":5813,"entry_id":5060,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Fernanda Ocampo","free_first_name":"Fernanda ","free_last_name":"Ocampo","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"La doctrina general de los trascendentales en Dietrich von Freiberg, y su filiaci\u00f3n aristot\u00e9lico-averro\u00edsta","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"La doctrina general de los trascendentales en Dietrich von Freiberg, y su filiaci\u00f3n aristot\u00e9lico-averro\u00edsta"},"abstract":"The Aristotelian text Metaphysics IV, 2, and the interpretations carried out by the Muslim philosophers, i.e., Avicenna and Averroes, constitute the theoretical framework in which several Latin authors of the second half of the 13th century from the University of Paris, who have taken a stance around the question of the \u2018real distinction\u2019 between esse and essentia, elaborated their doctrines about transcendentals. According to this, our work seeks to trace the dependence of Dietrich\u2019s general doctrine of the transcendentals, with respect to the theses established by Aristotle in the mentioned text, and in particular, with regard to the Averroist reading \u2013 critical of that of Avicenna\u2019s \u2013, which \u201chas made school\u201d in the Parisian environment, especially among the teachers and students of the Faculty of Arts, but also, first, in Thomas Aquinas. Thus, in light of this scenario of readings and interpretations, we will seek to delimit the central features of the Theodorian conception of the communia, pointing out the possible differences or coincidences with respect to the doctrines of these preceding authors.","btype":3,"date":"2019","language":"Spanish","online_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.5209\/ashf.63089","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":21,"category_name":"Aristotle","link":"bib?categories[]=Aristotle"},{"id":31,"category_name":"Metaphysics","link":"bib?categories[]=Metaphysics"},{"id":10,"category_name":"Avicenna","link":"bib?categories[]=Avicenna"},{"id":43,"category_name":"Tradition and Reception","link":"bib?categories[]=Tradition and Reception"},{"id":7,"category_name":"Latin Averroism","link":"bib?categories[]=Latin Averroism"},{"id":51,"category_name":"Thomas","link":"bib?categories[]=Thomas"}],"authors":[],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5060,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Anales del Seminario de Historia de la Filosof\u00eda","volume":"36","issue":"3","pages":"659\u2013681"}},"sort":[2019]}
| Title | Ibn Rushd and Aquinas on God’s Causal Omniscience |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2019 |
| Journal | The Muslim World |
| Volume | 109 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 595–614 |
| Categories | Thomas, Metaphysics, Aristotle, Commentary, Theology |
| Author(s) | Stephen Ogden |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5100","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5100,"authors_free":[{"id":5874,"entry_id":5100,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":1681,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Stephen Ogden","free_first_name":"Stephen","free_last_name":"Ogden","norm_person":{"id":1681,"first_name":"Stephen R. ","last_name":"Ogden","full_name":"Stephen R. Ogden","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null,"link":"bib?authors[]=Stephen R. Ogden"}}],"entry_title":"Ibn Rushd and Aquinas on God\u2019s Causal Omniscience","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Ibn Rushd and Aquinas on God\u2019s Causal Omniscience"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"2019","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":" https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/muwo.12312","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":51,"category_name":"Thomas","link":"bib?categories[]=Thomas"},{"id":31,"category_name":"Metaphysics","link":"bib?categories[]=Metaphysics"},{"id":21,"category_name":"Aristotle","link":"bib?categories[]=Aristotle"},{"id":23,"category_name":"Commentary","link":"bib?categories[]=Commentary"},{"id":39,"category_name":"Theology","link":"bib?categories[]=Theology"}],"authors":[{"id":1681,"full_name":"Stephen R. Ogden","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5100,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Muslim World","volume":"109","issue":"4","pages":"595\u2013614"}},"sort":[2019]}
| Title | Averroes on intellect: from Aristotelian origins to Aquinas' critique |
| Type | Monograph |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2022 |
| Publication Place | Oxford |
| Publisher | Oxford University Press |
| Categories | Aristotle, Thomas, Avicenna, De anima, Metaphysics |
| Author(s) | Stephen R. Ogden |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| This book on the Muslim philosopher Averroes (Ibn Rushd) provides a detailed analysis of his (in)famous unicity thesis—the view that there is only one separate and eternal intellect for all human beings. It focuses directly on Averroes’ arguments, both from the text of Aristotle’s De Anima and, more importantly, his own philosophical arguments in the Long Commentary on the De Anima. Ogden defends Averroes’ interpretation of Aristotle’s DA III.4–5 (using Greek, Arabic, Latin, and contemporary sources). Yet, the author insists that Averroes is not merely a “commentator” but also an incisive philosopher in his own right. Ogden thus reconstructs and analyzes Averroes’ two most significant independent philosophical arguments, the Determinate Particular Argument and the Unity Argument. Alternative ancient and medieval views are considered throughout, especially from two important foils before and after Averroes, namely Avicenna (Ibn Sīnā) and Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas’s most famous and penetrating arguments against the unicity thesis are also addressed. Finally, Ogden considers Averroes’ own objections to broader metaphysical views of the soul such as Avicenna’s and Aquinas’s, which agree with him on several key points (e.g., the immateriality of the intellect and the individuation of human souls by matter), while still diverging on the number and substantial nature of the intellect. The central aim of the book is to provide readers a single study of Averroes’ most pivotal arguments on intellect, consolidating and building on recent scholarship and offering a comprehensive case for his unicity thesis in the wider context of Aristotelian epistemology and metaphysics. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5293","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5293,"authors_free":[{"id":6112,"entry_id":5293,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":1681,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Stephen R. Ogden","free_first_name":"Stephen R.","free_last_name":"Ogden","norm_person":{"id":1681,"first_name":"Stephen R. ","last_name":"Ogden","full_name":"Stephen R. Ogden","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null,"link":"bib?authors[]=Stephen R. Ogden"}}],"entry_title":"Averroes on intellect: from Aristotelian origins to Aquinas' critique","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Averroes on intellect: from Aristotelian origins to Aquinas' critique"},"abstract":"This book on the Muslim philosopher Averroes (Ibn Rushd) provides a detailed analysis of his (in)famous unicity thesis\u2014the view that there is only one separate and eternal intellect for all human beings. It focuses directly on Averroes\u2019 arguments, both from the text of Aristotle\u2019s De Anima and, more importantly, his own philosophical arguments in the Long Commentary on the De Anima. Ogden defends Averroes\u2019 interpretation of Aristotle\u2019s DA III.4\u20135 (using Greek, Arabic, Latin, and contemporary sources). Yet, the author insists that Averroes is not merely a \u201ccommentator\u201d but also an incisive philosopher in his own right. Ogden thus reconstructs and analyzes Averroes\u2019 two most significant independent philosophical arguments, the Determinate Particular Argument and the Unity Argument. Alternative ancient and medieval views are considered throughout, especially from two important foils before and after Averroes, namely Avicenna (Ibn S\u012bn\u0101) and Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas\u2019s most famous and penetrating arguments against the unicity thesis are also addressed. Finally, Ogden considers Averroes\u2019 own objections to broader metaphysical views of the soul such as Avicenna\u2019s and Aquinas\u2019s, which agree with him on several key points (e.g., the immateriality of the intellect and the individuation of human souls by matter), while still diverging on the number and substantial nature of the intellect. The central aim of the book is to provide readers a single study of Averroes\u2019 most pivotal arguments on intellect, consolidating and building on recent scholarship and offering a comprehensive case for his unicity thesis in the wider context of Aristotelian epistemology and metaphysics.","btype":1,"date":"2022","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"10.1093\/oso\/9780192896117.001.0001","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":21,"category_name":"Aristotle","link":"bib?categories[]=Aristotle"},{"id":51,"category_name":"Thomas","link":"bib?categories[]=Thomas"},{"id":10,"category_name":"Avicenna","link":"bib?categories[]=Avicenna"},{"id":46,"category_name":"De anima","link":"bib?categories[]=De anima"},{"id":31,"category_name":"Metaphysics","link":"bib?categories[]=Metaphysics"}],"authors":[{"id":1681,"full_name":"Stephen R. Ogden","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":{"id":5293,"pubplace":"Oxford ","publisher":"Oxford University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Averroes on intellect: from Aristotelian origins to Aquinas' critique"]}
| Title | Ibn Rushd and Aquinas on God’s Causal Omniscience |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2019 |
| Journal | The Muslim World |
| Volume | 109 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 595–614 |
| Categories | Thomas, Metaphysics, Aristotle, Commentary, Theology |
| Author(s) | Stephen Ogden |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5100","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5100,"authors_free":[{"id":5874,"entry_id":5100,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":1681,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Stephen Ogden","free_first_name":"Stephen","free_last_name":"Ogden","norm_person":{"id":1681,"first_name":"Stephen R. ","last_name":"Ogden","full_name":"Stephen R. Ogden","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null,"link":"bib?authors[]=Stephen R. Ogden"}}],"entry_title":"Ibn Rushd and Aquinas on God\u2019s Causal Omniscience","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Ibn Rushd and Aquinas on God\u2019s Causal Omniscience"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"2019","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":" https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/muwo.12312","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":51,"category_name":"Thomas","link":"bib?categories[]=Thomas"},{"id":31,"category_name":"Metaphysics","link":"bib?categories[]=Metaphysics"},{"id":21,"category_name":"Aristotle","link":"bib?categories[]=Aristotle"},{"id":23,"category_name":"Commentary","link":"bib?categories[]=Commentary"},{"id":39,"category_name":"Theology","link":"bib?categories[]=Theology"}],"authors":[{"id":1681,"full_name":"Stephen R. Ogden","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5100,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Muslim World","volume":"109","issue":"4","pages":"595\u2013614"}},"sort":["Ibn Rushd and Aquinas on God\u2019s Causal Omniscience"]}
| Title | La doctrina general de los trascendentales en Dietrich von Freiberg, y su filiación aristotélico-averroísta |
| Type | Article |
| Language | Spanish |
| Date | 2019 |
| Journal | Anales del Seminario de Historia de la Filosofía |
| Volume | 36 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 659–681 |
| Categories | Aristotle, Metaphysics, Avicenna, Tradition and Reception, Latin Averroism, Thomas |
| Author(s) | Fernanda Ocampo |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| The Aristotelian text Metaphysics IV, 2, and the interpretations carried out by the Muslim philosophers, i.e., Avicenna and Averroes, constitute the theoretical framework in which several Latin authors of the second half of the 13th century from the University of Paris, who have taken a stance around the question of the ‘real distinction’ between esse and essentia, elaborated their doctrines about transcendentals. According to this, our work seeks to trace the dependence of Dietrich’s general doctrine of the transcendentals, with respect to the theses established by Aristotle in the mentioned text, and in particular, with regard to the Averroist reading – critical of that of Avicenna’s –, which “has made school” in the Parisian environment, especially among the teachers and students of the Faculty of Arts, but also, first, in Thomas Aquinas. Thus, in light of this scenario of readings and interpretations, we will seek to delimit the central features of the Theodorian conception of the communia, pointing out the possible differences or coincidences with respect to the doctrines of these preceding authors. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5060","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5060,"authors_free":[{"id":5813,"entry_id":5060,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Fernanda Ocampo","free_first_name":"Fernanda ","free_last_name":"Ocampo","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"La doctrina general de los trascendentales en Dietrich von Freiberg, y su filiaci\u00f3n aristot\u00e9lico-averro\u00edsta","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"La doctrina general de los trascendentales en Dietrich von Freiberg, y su filiaci\u00f3n aristot\u00e9lico-averro\u00edsta"},"abstract":"The Aristotelian text Metaphysics IV, 2, and the interpretations carried out by the Muslim philosophers, i.e., Avicenna and Averroes, constitute the theoretical framework in which several Latin authors of the second half of the 13th century from the University of Paris, who have taken a stance around the question of the \u2018real distinction\u2019 between esse and essentia, elaborated their doctrines about transcendentals. According to this, our work seeks to trace the dependence of Dietrich\u2019s general doctrine of the transcendentals, with respect to the theses established by Aristotle in the mentioned text, and in particular, with regard to the Averroist reading \u2013 critical of that of Avicenna\u2019s \u2013, which \u201chas made school\u201d in the Parisian environment, especially among the teachers and students of the Faculty of Arts, but also, first, in Thomas Aquinas. Thus, in light of this scenario of readings and interpretations, we will seek to delimit the central features of the Theodorian conception of the communia, pointing out the possible differences or coincidences with respect to the doctrines of these preceding authors.","btype":3,"date":"2019","language":"Spanish","online_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.5209\/ashf.63089","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":21,"category_name":"Aristotle","link":"bib?categories[]=Aristotle"},{"id":31,"category_name":"Metaphysics","link":"bib?categories[]=Metaphysics"},{"id":10,"category_name":"Avicenna","link":"bib?categories[]=Avicenna"},{"id":43,"category_name":"Tradition and Reception","link":"bib?categories[]=Tradition and Reception"},{"id":7,"category_name":"Latin Averroism","link":"bib?categories[]=Latin Averroism"},{"id":51,"category_name":"Thomas","link":"bib?categories[]=Thomas"}],"authors":[],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5060,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Anales del Seminario de Historia de la Filosof\u00eda","volume":"36","issue":"3","pages":"659\u2013681"}},"sort":["La doctrina general de los trascendentales en Dietrich von Freiberg, y su filiaci\u00f3n aristot\u00e9lico-averro\u00edsta"]}