| Title | Rereading Metaphysics Ε2-3: Aristotle's argument against determinism, and how Averroes twisted it in his Long Commentary |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2022 |
| Journal | Arabic Sciences and Philosophy |
| Volume | 32 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 109–135 |
| Categories | Metaphysics, Commentary, Providence |
| Author(s) | Dustin Klinger |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| In the fresh reading proposed here of the still not satisfactorily interpreted passages in Metaphysics Ε2-3, Aristotle emerges as making a case against determinism based on a robust notion of the accident. Accidental beings are uncaused causes and have their rightful place in Aristotle's ontology. The resulting physical indeterminism is here used as a litmus test for the exegetical practice of the great Commentator, Averroes, whose self-proclaimed, and later proverbial, loyalty to Aristotle's text will be shown to give way to idiosyncratic interpretations at times. His explanations of Metaphysics Ε2-3 are sparse and no less obscure than Aristotle's text. It is only when read together with his commentaries on the Physics, to which he explicitly refers twice in his Long commentary on Metaphysics Ε2-3, that a surprising picture emerges. Averroes recycles the notion of the accident, now reconceptualised in cosmological terms, and – putting it to the opposite use of Aristotle's – weaves it into an original theory of motion that integrates both supra- and sublunar realms into a deterministic framework of uninterrupted causal chains, thus safeguarding the principle of Divine providence. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5362","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5362,"authors_free":[{"id":6213,"entry_id":5362,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Dustin Klinger","free_first_name":"Dustin ","free_last_name":"Klinger","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Rereading Metaphysics \u03952-3: Aristotle's argument against determinism, and how Averroes twisted it in his Long Commentary","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Rereading Metaphysics \u03952-3: Aristotle's argument against determinism, and how Averroes twisted it in his Long Commentary"},"abstract":"In the fresh reading proposed here of the still not satisfactorily interpreted passages in Metaphysics \u03952-3, Aristotle emerges as making a case against determinism based on a robust notion of the accident. Accidental beings are uncaused causes and have their rightful place in Aristotle's ontology. The resulting physical indeterminism is here used as a litmus test for the exegetical practice of the great Commentator, Averroes, whose self-proclaimed, and later proverbial, loyalty to Aristotle's text will be shown to give way to idiosyncratic interpretations at times. His explanations of Metaphysics \u03952-3 are sparse and no less obscure than Aristotle's text. It is only when read together with his commentaries on the Physics, to which he explicitly refers twice in his Long commentary on Metaphysics \u03952-3, that a surprising picture emerges. Averroes recycles the notion of the accident, now reconceptualised in cosmological terms, and \u2013 putting it to the opposite use of Aristotle's \u2013 weaves it into an original theory of motion that integrates both supra- and sublunar realms into a deterministic framework of uninterrupted causal chains, thus safeguarding the principle of Divine providence.","btype":3,"date":"2022","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/S0957423921000138","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":31,"category_name":"Metaphysics","link":"bib?categories[]=Metaphysics"},{"id":23,"category_name":"Commentary","link":"bib?categories[]=Commentary"},{"id":68,"category_name":"Providence","link":"bib?categories[]=Providence"}],"authors":[],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5362,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Arabic Sciences and Philosophy ","volume":"32 ","issue":"1","pages":"109\u2013135 "}},"sort":[2022]}
| Title | Does Each of Us Think Our Own Universal? An Averroean Challenge for (Aquinas and) Hervaeus Natalis |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2022 |
| Journal | History of Philosophy Quarterly |
| Volume | 39 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 339-354 |
| Categories | Metaphysics, Psychology |
| Author(s) | Hamid Taieb |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| This paper aims to address a problem faced by any philosopher who treats universals as intentional objects: in defending this thesis, aren't they committed to the view that each of us thinks an individuated universal, since each of us, when thinking of a universal, must have our own intentional object? This problem, which is mentioned by Brentano at the turn of the twentieth century, originated in the Middle Ages in debates initiated by Averroes about the nature of the intellect. It shows up in the later Aquinas, due to his theory of the verbum, which might be interpreted as a sort of intentional object, but it is solved without too much difficulty. It is later found in Hervaeus Natalis, who does accept intentional objects; in contrast to Aquinas, it is not clear that Hervaeus has a good solution to the problem. After first presenting the problem, this paper then turns to its medieval origins by analyzing its occurrence in Aquinas's criticism of Averroes. It then explains why Hervaeus has more difficulties than Aquinas in solving the problem. It concludes with a systematic reflection on the various possible solutions to the problem. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5805","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5805,"authors_free":[{"id":6726,"entry_id":5805,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":1902,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hamid Taieb","free_first_name":"Hamid ","free_last_name":"Taieb","norm_person":{"id":1902,"first_name":"Hamid ","last_name":"Taieb","full_name":"Hamid Taieb","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1077921705","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null,"link":"bib?authors[]=Hamid Taieb"}}],"entry_title":"Does Each of Us Think Our Own Universal? An Averroean Challenge for (Aquinas and) Hervaeus Natalis","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Does Each of Us Think Our Own Universal? An Averroean Challenge for (Aquinas and) Hervaeus Natalis"},"abstract":"This paper aims to address a problem faced by any philosopher who treats universals as intentional objects: in defending this thesis, aren't they committed to the view that each of us thinks an individuated universal, since each of us, when thinking of a universal, must have our own intentional object? This problem, which is mentioned by Brentano at the turn of the twentieth century, originated in the Middle Ages in debates initiated by Averroes about the nature of the intellect. It shows up in the later Aquinas, due to his theory of the verbum, which might be interpreted as a sort of intentional object, but it is solved without too much difficulty. It is later found in Hervaeus Natalis, who does accept intentional objects; in contrast to Aquinas, it is not clear that Hervaeus has a good solution to the problem. After first presenting the problem, this paper then turns to its medieval origins by analyzing its occurrence in Aquinas's criticism of Averroes. It then explains why Hervaeus has more difficulties than Aquinas in solving the problem. It concludes with a systematic reflection on the various possible solutions to the problem.","btype":3,"date":"2022","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"10.5406\/21521026.39.4.03","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":31,"category_name":"Metaphysics","link":"bib?categories[]=Metaphysics"},{"id":12,"category_name":"Psychology","link":"bib?categories[]=Psychology"}],"authors":[{"id":1902,"full_name":"Hamid Taieb","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5805,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"History of Philosophy Quarterly","volume":"39","issue":"4","pages":"339-354"}},"sort":[2022]}
| Title | Dialectical views on metaphysics in Islam: Thoughts of Ibn Rushd and theologians |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2022 |
| Journal | HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies |
| Volume | 78 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 1-6 |
| Categories | Theology, Metaphysics |
| Author(s) | Aminullah Elhady |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| This paper discusses the dialectical thoughts of Ibn Rushd and theologians on divine metaphysics. The discussion is based on the study of criticisms and dialogues on the theologians’ view on metaphysics. Three important points emerge: firstly, how Ibn Rushd presented the basis of his critical arguments; secondly, the process of Ibn Rushd’s methods of criticism on the theologians’ metaphysical reasons and lastly, the content of Ibn Rushd’s criticisms of the theologians’ metaphysical reason. This paper provides a detailed description of the themes as accurate and comprehensive ways to provide a basis of Ibn Rushd’s criticism. Contribution: This study contributes to encouraging and changing the views of scholars of Islamic theology that Ibn Rushd, apart from being a philosopher, is also a critical thinker in the field of Islamic theology. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5768","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5768,"authors_free":[{"id":6681,"entry_id":5768,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Aminullah Elhady","free_first_name":"Aminullah ","free_last_name":"Elhady","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Dialectical views on metaphysics in Islam: Thoughts of Ibn Rushd and theologians","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Dialectical views on metaphysics in Islam: Thoughts of Ibn Rushd and theologians"},"abstract":"This paper discusses the dialectical thoughts of Ibn Rushd and theologians on divine metaphysics. The discussion is based on the study of criticisms and dialogues on the theologians\u2019 view on metaphysics. Three important points emerge: firstly, how Ibn Rushd presented the basis of his critical arguments; secondly, the process of Ibn Rushd\u2019s methods of criticism on the theologians\u2019 metaphysical reasons and lastly, the content of Ibn Rushd\u2019s criticisms of the theologians\u2019 metaphysical reason. This paper provides a detailed description of the themes as accurate and comprehensive ways to provide a basis of Ibn Rushd\u2019s criticism.\r\n\r\nContribution: This study contributes to encouraging and changing the views of scholars of Islamic theology that Ibn Rushd, apart from being a philosopher, is also a critical thinker in the field of Islamic theology.","btype":3,"date":"2022","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.4102\/hts.v78i4.7531","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":39,"category_name":"Theology","link":"bib?categories[]=Theology"},{"id":31,"category_name":"Metaphysics","link":"bib?categories[]=Metaphysics"}],"authors":[],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5768,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"HTS Teologiese Studies \/ Theological Studies","volume":"78","issue":"4","pages":"1-6"}},"sort":[2022]}
| Title | Substances in Subjects: Instantiation and Existence in Avicenna |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2022 |
| Journal | American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, Journal of the American Catholic Philosophical Association |
| Volume | 96 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 453-471 |
| Categories | Avicenna, Tradition and Reception, Metaphysics |
| Author(s) | Nathaniel B. Taylor |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| In an effort to refute Avicenna’s real distinction between essence and existence, Averroes argues for an Instantiation Analysis of existence which thinks of existence not as an accidental addition to an essence, but rather as the recognition that there is an instance in extramental reality which matches a concept in the mind of a knower. In this study, I argue that Averroes’s Instantiation Analysis fails to refute Avicenna’s real distinction by showing that Avicenna himself endorses the Instantiation Analysis and, in fact, makes use of it to motivate his real distinction. To show this, I review several texts where Avicenna makes the puzzling claim that substances are found to be in subjects. These texts reveal how Avicenna discovers the real distinction with Aristotle’s help—not, as Averroes relates, against the view of Aristotle. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5588","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5588,"authors_free":[{"id":6485,"entry_id":5588,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":903,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Nathaniel B. Taylor","free_first_name":"Nathaniel B.","free_last_name":"Taylor","norm_person":{"id":903,"first_name":"","last_name":"","full_name":"","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]="}}],"entry_title":"Substances in Subjects: Instantiation and Existence in Avicenna","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Substances in Subjects: Instantiation and Existence in Avicenna"},"abstract":"In an effort to refute Avicenna\u2019s real distinction between essence and existence, Averroes argues for an Instantiation Analysis of existence which thinks of existence not as an accidental addition to an essence, but rather as the recognition that there is an instance in extramental reality which matches a concept in the mind of a knower. In this study, I argue that Averroes\u2019s Instantiation Analysis fails to refute Avicenna\u2019s real distinction by showing that Avicenna himself endorses the Instantiation Analysis and, in fact, makes use of it to motivate his real distinction. To show this, I review several texts where Avicenna makes the puzzling claim that substances are found to be in subjects. These texts reveal how Avicenna discovers the real distinction with Aristotle\u2019s help\u2014not, as Averroes relates, against the view of Aristotle.","btype":3,"date":"2022","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.5840\/acpq2022519255","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":10,"category_name":"Avicenna","link":"bib?categories[]=Avicenna"},{"id":43,"category_name":"Tradition and Reception","link":"bib?categories[]=Tradition and Reception"},{"id":31,"category_name":"Metaphysics","link":"bib?categories[]=Metaphysics"}],"authors":[{"id":903,"full_name":"","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5588,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, Journal of the American Catholic Philosophical Association","volume":"96","issue":"3","pages":"453-471"}},"sort":[2022]}
| Title | Ibn Rushd on Knowledge, Pleasures, and Analogy |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2021 |
| Journal | Philosophy and Scienes in Muslim Contexts |
| Categories | Logic, Psychology, Metaphysics, Poetics, Rhetoric |
| Author(s) | Fouad Ben Ahmed |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Online Access | https://philosmus.org/en/archives/894 |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5458","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5458,"authors_free":[{"id":6322,"entry_id":5458,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":1440,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Fouad Ben Ahmed","free_first_name":"Fouad","free_last_name":"Ben Ahmed","norm_person":{"id":1440,"first_name":"Fouad","last_name":"Ben Ahmed","full_name":"Fouad Ben Ahmed","short_ident":"FouBen","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1204161321","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]=Fouad Ben Ahmed"}}],"entry_title":"Ibn Rushd on Knowledge, Pleasures, and Analogy","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Ibn Rushd on Knowledge, Pleasures, and Analogy"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"2021","language":"English","online_url":"https:\/\/philosmus.org\/en\/archives\/894","doi_url":"","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":27,"category_name":"Logic","link":"bib?categories[]=Logic"},{"id":12,"category_name":"Psychology","link":"bib?categories[]=Psychology"},{"id":31,"category_name":"Metaphysics","link":"bib?categories[]=Metaphysics"},{"id":44,"category_name":"Poetics","link":"bib?categories[]=Poetics"},{"id":48,"category_name":"Rhetoric","link":"bib?categories[]=Rhetoric"}],"authors":[{"id":1440,"full_name":"Fouad Ben Ahmed","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5458,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Philosophy and Scienes in Muslim Contexts","volume":"","issue":"","pages":""}},"sort":[2021]}
| Title | İbn Rüşd’ün Tanrı’ya cevher demesinin neden ve sonuçları |
| Translation | The reasons for and the consequences of Averroes’ saying essence to God |
| Type | Article |
| Language | Turkish |
| Date | 2021 |
| Journal | Turkish Academic Research Review |
| Volume | 6 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 1035-1052 |
| Categories | Metaphysics, Relation between Philosophy and Theology, Cosmology |
| Author(s) | Fevzi Yiğit |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Bu makalede, İbn Rüşd’ün Tanrı’ya cevher demesinin görece neden ve sonuçları konu edilmektedir. Böylece İbn Rüşd örneğinden hareketle, filozofların Tanrı telakkilerinin aslında metafiziğin konusuyla doğrudan bağlantılı olduğu gösterilmek istenmektedir. Makalede bilkuvve-bilfiil, cevher-araz, varlık-mâhiyet, madde-sûret ve teşkîk gibi güçlü felsefî ayrımlara ihtiyaç duyuldukça başvurulacaktır. İbn Rüşd’e göre mevcut/var olan araştırması temelde bir cevher araştırmasıdır. Mevcut kavramı cevherin üstünde yer alan daha üst bir varlık seviyesini temsil etmese de kapsamının genişliği yüzünden cevherden daha üst bir kavramdır. Oysaki İbn Sînâ’ya göre mevcut, cevherden daha üst bir varlık seviyesini karşılar ve bu yüzden mevcut araştırması sadece cevher araştırmasına hasredilemez. Dolayısıyla ona göre metafiziğin konusu cevher olması açısından cevher değildir. İbn Rüşd’ün Tanrı’ya cevher demesinin muhtemel nedenleri şunlardır: Birincisi, Tanrı bütün mevcudat içerisinde cevher tanımına en uygun olandır. İkincisi onun mevcut kavramını -diğer anlamlarını akılda tutmak kaydıyla- dış dünyada gerçekliği olmayan zihinsel bir kavram yani cins olarak kabul etmesi dolayısıyla sadece cevhere gerçeklik tanımış olmasıdır. Üçüncüsü, göksel cisimlerin sonsuz bir biçimde hareket ettiği düşüncesidir. Dördüncüsü tümeller ve ayrık mevcutlar ile hissedilir ferdi cevherler arasındaki ilişkiye dair görüşüdür. İbn Rüşd Aristoteles’i takiben tümellerin ve ideaların ferdi cevherlerin varoluşunda katkısı olmadığını düşünür. İbn Rüşd’ün Tanrı’ya cevher demesinin muhtemel sonuçlarıysa şunlardır: Birincisi onun din felsefe ilişkisine dair yazdığı Faslü’l-makâl ve el-Keşf an menâhicü’ledille kitaplarında Tanrı hakkında takındığı Hanbeli tavırdır. İkincisi aslında yukarıda sebep olarak zikredilen burada ise sonuç olarak dile getirilebilecek döngüsel bir şeydir. Yani gök cisimleri ve âlemi ezeli olarak kabul etmek Tanrı’ya cevher denmesine sebep olurken Tanrı’ya cevher denmesi de âlemin Tanrı’nın etkisiyle ancak O’ndan ayrı ve kopuk olarak mevcut olması fikrini sonuç vermektedir. Üçüncüsü sudûr ve yoktan yaratma doktrinlerini reddetmesidir. Yoktan yaratmayı reddi ise -antik filozofların da açıkça dile getirdiği üzere- “salt yokluğun varlığın kaynağı olamayacağı “şeklindeki genel bir ontolojik ilkeye dayanmaktadır. This article deals with the relative reasons and consequences of Averroes’ saying God the essence. Thus, based on the example of Averroes, it is desired to show that the philosophers’ conception of God is actually directly related to the subject of metaphysics. The distinctions between potential and actual, being-essence and matter-form, which are thought to have strong forms of explanation, will be applied when needed. According to Averroes, his research of being is basically an investigation of essence. Although the concept of being/existence does not represent a higher level of being above the substance, it takes place in metaphysics as a higher concept with different meanings. However, according to Ibn Avicenna, the existing meets a higher level of being than the substance, and therefore its inquiry cannot be only the one for substance. Therefore, according to him, the subject of metaphysics is not a substance qua substance. In short, the possible reasons for Averroes to call God essence are as follows: First, God is the most suitable for the definition of essence in all existence. The second is that, keeping other meanings of being in mind, he accepted the concept of “mawjūd” as a mental concept that has no reality in the external world, that is, as a genus, and therefore only recognized the substance as reality. The third is the idea that the celestial bodies move endlessly. The fourth is his view on the relationship between universals and discrete entities and tangible individual essences. Following Aristotle, Averroes thinks that universals and ideas do not contribute to the existence of individual essences. The possible consequences of Averroes’ calling God a substance are as follows: The first is his Hanbalī attitude towards God in his books Fasl al-maqāl and al-Kashf an manāhij al-adilla, which he wrote on the relationship between religion and philosophy. Secondly, what was mentioned above as a cause, is a cyclical thing that can be expressed as a result here. In other words, while accepting the celestial bodies and the universe as eternal, causes God to be called essence, calling God essence results in the idea that the universe exists only apart and disconnected from him under the influence of God. The third is his rejection of the doctrines of creation out of nothing and sudūr (emanation). The refusal to create out of nothing is based on a general ontological principle -as the ancient philosophers openly expressed- “absolute absence cannot be the source of existence”. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5582","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5582,"authors_free":[{"id":6480,"entry_id":5582,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":903,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Fevzi Yi\u011fit","free_first_name":"Fevzi","free_last_name":"Yi\u011fit","norm_person":{"id":903,"first_name":"","last_name":"","full_name":"","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]="}}],"entry_title":"\u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd\u2019\u00fcn Tanr\u0131\u2019ya cevher demesinin neden ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"The reasons for and the consequences of Averroes\u2019 saying essence to God","main_title":{"title":"\u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd\u2019\u00fcn Tanr\u0131\u2019ya cevher demesinin neden ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131"},"abstract":"Bu makalede, \u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd\u2019\u00fcn Tanr\u0131\u2019ya cevher demesinin g\u00f6rece neden ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131 konu edilmektedir. B\u00f6ylece \u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd \u00f6rne\u011finden hareketle, filozoflar\u0131n Tanr\u0131 telakkilerinin asl\u0131nda metafizi\u011fin konusuyla do\u011frudan ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 oldu\u011fu g\u00f6sterilmek istenmektedir. Makalede bilkuvve-bilfiil, cevher-araz, varl\u0131k-m\u00e2hiyet, madde-s\u00fbret ve te\u015fk\u00eek gibi g\u00fc\u00e7l\u00fc felsef\u00ee ayr\u0131mlara ihtiya\u00e7 duyulduk\u00e7a ba\u015fvurulacakt\u0131r. \u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd\u2019e g\u00f6re mevcut\/var olan ara\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131 temelde bir cevher ara\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131d\u0131r. Mevcut kavram\u0131 cevherin \u00fcst\u00fcnde yer alan daha \u00fcst bir varl\u0131k seviyesini temsil etmese de kapsam\u0131n\u0131n geni\u015fli\u011fi y\u00fcz\u00fcnden cevherden daha \u00fcst bir kavramd\u0131r. Oysaki \u0130bn S\u00een\u00e2\u2019ya g\u00f6re mevcut, cevherden daha \u00fcst bir varl\u0131k seviyesini kar\u015f\u0131lar ve bu y\u00fczden mevcut ara\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131 sadece cevher ara\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131na hasredilemez. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ona g\u00f6re metafizi\u011fin konusu cevher olmas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan cevher de\u011fildir. \u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd\u2019\u00fcn Tanr\u0131\u2019ya cevher demesinin muhtemel nedenleri \u015funlard\u0131r: Birincisi, Tanr\u0131 b\u00fct\u00fcn mevcudat i\u00e7erisinde cevher tan\u0131m\u0131na en uygun oland\u0131r. \u0130kincisi onun mevcut kavram\u0131n\u0131 -di\u011fer anlamlar\u0131n\u0131 ak\u0131lda tutmak kayd\u0131yla- d\u0131\u015f d\u00fcnyada ger\u00e7ekli\u011fi olmayan zihinsel bir kavram yani cins olarak kabul etmesi dolay\u0131s\u0131yla sadece cevhere ger\u00e7eklik tan\u0131m\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131d\u0131r. \u00dc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fcs\u00fc, g\u00f6ksel cisimlerin sonsuz bir bi\u00e7imde hareket etti\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesidir. D\u00f6rd\u00fcnc\u00fcs\u00fc t\u00fcmeller ve ayr\u0131k mevcutlar ile hissedilir ferdi cevherler aras\u0131ndaki ili\u015fkiye dair g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcd\u00fcr. \u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd Aristoteles\u2019i takiben t\u00fcmellerin ve idealar\u0131n ferdi cevherlerin varolu\u015funda katk\u0131s\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcr. \u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd\u2019\u00fcn Tanr\u0131\u2019ya cevher demesinin muhtemel sonu\u00e7lar\u0131ysa \u015funlard\u0131r: Birincisi onun din felsefe ili\u015fkisine dair yazd\u0131\u011f\u0131 Fasl\u00fc\u2019l-mak\u00e2l ve el-Ke\u015ff an men\u00e2hic\u00fc\u2019ledille kitaplar\u0131nda Tanr\u0131 hakk\u0131nda tak\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 Hanbeli tav\u0131rd\u0131r. \u0130kincisi asl\u0131nda yukar\u0131da sebep olarak zikredilen burada ise sonu\u00e7 olarak dile getirilebilecek d\u00f6ng\u00fcsel bir \u015feydir. Yani g\u00f6k cisimleri ve \u00e2lemi ezeli olarak kabul etmek Tanr\u0131\u2019ya cevher denmesine sebep olurken Tanr\u0131\u2019ya cevher denmesi de \u00e2lemin Tanr\u0131\u2019n\u0131n etkisiyle ancak O\u2019ndan ayr\u0131 ve kopuk olarak mevcut olmas\u0131 fikrini sonu\u00e7 vermektedir. \u00dc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fcs\u00fc sud\u00fbr ve yoktan yaratma doktrinlerini reddetmesidir. Yoktan yaratmay\u0131 reddi ise -antik filozoflar\u0131n da a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dile getirdi\u011fi \u00fczere- \u201csalt yoklu\u011fun varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n kayna\u011f\u0131 olamayaca\u011f\u0131 \u201c\u015feklindeki genel bir ontolojik ilkeye dayanmaktad\u0131r.\r\n \r\nThis article deals with the relative reasons and consequences of Averroes\u2019 saying God the essence. Thus, based on the example of Averroes, it is desired to show that the philosophers\u2019 conception of God is actually directly related to the subject of metaphysics. The distinctions between potential and actual, being-essence and matter-form, which are thought to have strong forms of explanation, will be applied when needed. According to Averroes, his research of being is basically an investigation of essence. Although the concept of being\/existence does not represent a higher level of being above the substance, it takes place in metaphysics as a higher concept with different meanings. However, according to Ibn Avicenna, the existing meets a higher level of being than the substance, and therefore its inquiry cannot be only the one for substance. Therefore, according to him, the subject of metaphysics is not a substance qua substance. In short, the possible reasons for Averroes to call God essence are as follows: First, God is the most suitable for the definition of essence in all existence. The second is that, keeping other meanings of being in mind, he accepted the concept of \u201cmawj\u016bd\u201d as a mental concept that has no reality in the external world, that is, as a genus, and therefore only recognized the substance as reality. The third is the idea that the celestial bodies move endlessly. The fourth is his view on the relationship between universals and discrete entities and tangible individual essences. Following Aristotle, Averroes thinks that universals and ideas do not contribute to the existence of individual essences. The possible consequences of Averroes\u2019 calling God a substance are as follows: The first is his Hanbal\u012b attitude towards God in his books Fasl al-maq\u0101l and al-Kashf an man\u0101hij al-adilla, which he wrote on the relationship between religion and philosophy. Secondly, what was mentioned above as a cause, is a cyclical thing that can be expressed as a result here. In other words, while accepting the celestial bodies and the universe as eternal, causes God to be called essence, calling God essence results in the idea that the universe exists only apart and disconnected from him under the influence of God. The third is his rejection of the doctrines of creation out of nothing and sud\u016br (emanation). The refusal to create out of nothing is based on a general ontological principle -as the ancient philosophers openly expressed- \u201cabsolute absence cannot be the source of existence\u201d.","btype":3,"date":"2021","language":"Turkish","online_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/20.500.11787\/6522","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":31,"category_name":"Metaphysics","link":"bib?categories[]=Metaphysics"},{"id":47,"category_name":"Relation between Philosophy and Theology","link":"bib?categories[]=Relation between Philosophy and Theology"},{"id":19,"category_name":"Cosmology","link":"bib?categories[]=Cosmology"}],"authors":[{"id":903,"full_name":"","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5582,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Turkish Academic Research Review","volume":"6","issue":"3","pages":"1035-1052"}},"sort":[2021]}
| Title | The Reasons for and the Consequences of Averroes’ Saying Essence to God Abstract |
| Type | Article |
| Language | undefined |
| Date | 2021 |
| Journal | Turkish Academic Research Review - Türk Akademik Araştırmalar Dergisi [TARR] |
| Volume | 6 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Categories | Theology, Metaphysics |
| Author(s) | Fevzi Yiğit |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| This article deals with the relative reasons and consequences of Averroes’ saying God the essence. Thus, based on the example of Averroes, it is desired to show that the philosophers’ conception of God is actually directly related to the subject of metaphysics. The distinctions between potential and actual, being-essence and matter-form, which are thought to have strong forms of explanation, will be applied when needed. According to Averroes, his research of being is basically an investigation of essence. Although the concept of being/existence does not represent a higher level of being above the substance, it takes place in metaphysics as a higher concept with different meanings. However, according to Ibn Avicenna, the existing meets a higher level of being than the substance, and therefore its inquiry cannot be only the one for substance. Therefore, according to him, the subject of metaphysics is not a substance qua substance. In short, the possible reasons for Averroes to call God essence are as follows: First, God is the most suitable for the definition of essence in all existence. The second is that, keeping other meanings of being in mind, he accepted the concept of “mawjūd” as a mental concept that has no reality in the external world, that is, as a genus, and therefore only recognized the substance as reality. The third is the idea that the celestial bodies move endlessly. The fourth is his view on the relationship between universals and discrete entities and tangible individual essences. Following Aristotle, Averroes thinks that universals and ideas do not contribute to the existence of individual essences. The possible consequences of Averroes’ calling God a substance are as follows: The first is his Hanbalī attitude towards God in his books Fasl al-maqāl and al-Kashf an manāhij al-adilla, which he wrote on the relationship between religion and philosophy. Secondly, what was mentioned above as a cause, is a cyclical thing that can be expressed as a result here. In other words, while accepting the celestial bodies and the universe as eternal, causes God to be called essence, calling God essence results in the idea that the universe exists only apart and disconnected from him under the influence of God. The third is his rejection of the doctrines of creation out of nothing and sudūr (emanation). The refusal to create out of nothing is based on a general ontological principle -as the ancient philosophers openly expressed- “absolute absence cannot be the source of existence”. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5809","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5809,"authors_free":[{"id":6730,"entry_id":5809,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Fevzi Yi\u011fit","free_first_name":"Fevzi ","free_last_name":"Yi\u011fit","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":" The Reasons for and the Consequences of Averroes\u2019 Saying Essence to God Abstract","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":" The Reasons for and the Consequences of Averroes\u2019 Saying Essence to God Abstract"},"abstract":"This article deals with the relative reasons and consequences of Averroes\u2019 saying God the essence. Thus, based on the example of Averroes, it is desired to show that the philosophers\u2019 conception of God is actually directly related to the subject of metaphysics. The distinctions between potential and actual, being-essence and matter-form, which are thought to have strong forms of explanation, will be applied when needed. According to Averroes, his research of being is basically an investigation of essence. Although the concept of being\/existence does not represent a higher level of being above the substance, it takes place in metaphysics as a higher concept with different meanings. However, according to Ibn Avicenna, the existing meets a higher level of being than the substance, and therefore its inquiry cannot be only the one for substance. Therefore, according to him, the subject of metaphysics is not a substance qua substance. In short, the possible reasons for Averroes to call God essence are as follows: First, God is the most suitable for the definition of essence in all existence. The second is that, keeping other meanings of being in mind, he accepted the concept of \u201cmawj\u016bd\u201d as a mental concept that has no reality in the external world, that is, as a genus, and therefore only recognized the substance as reality. The third is the idea that the celestial bodies move endlessly. The fourth is his view on the relationship between universals and discrete entities and tangible individual essences. Following Aristotle, Averroes thinks that universals and ideas do not contribute to the existence of individual essences. The possible consequences of Averroes\u2019 calling God a substance are as follows: The first is his Hanbal\u012b attitude towards God in his books Fasl al-maq\u0101l and al-Kashf an man\u0101hij al-adilla, which he wrote on the relationship between religion and philosophy. Secondly, what was mentioned above as a cause, is a cyclical thing that can be expressed as a result here. In other words, while accepting the celestial bodies and the universe as eternal, causes God to be called essence, calling God essence results in the idea that the universe exists only apart and disconnected from him under the influence of God. The third is his rejection of the doctrines of creation out of nothing and sud\u016br (emanation). The refusal to create out of nothing is based on a general ontological principle -as the ancient philosophers openly expressed- \u201cabsolute absence cannot be the source of existence\u201d.","btype":3,"date":"2021","language":null,"online_url":"","doi_url":"10.30622\/tarr.982738","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":39,"category_name":"Theology","link":"bib?categories[]=Theology"},{"id":31,"category_name":"Metaphysics","link":"bib?categories[]=Metaphysics"}],"authors":[],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5809,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":" Turkish Academic Research Review - T\u00fcrk Akademik Ara\u015ft\u0131rmalar Dergisi [TARR]","volume":"6","issue":"3","pages":""}},"sort":[2021]}
| Title | In One Sense Easy, in Another Difficult: Reverberations of the Opening of Aristotle’s Metaphysics ά έλλάτον in Medieval and Renaissance Hebrew Literature |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2020 |
| Journal | Revue des études juives |
| Volume | 179 |
| Issue | 1–2 |
| Pages | 133–160 |
| Categories | Aristotle, Metaphysics, Renaissance |
| Author(s) | Yehuda Halper |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5021","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5021,"authors_free":[{"id":5757,"entry_id":5021,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":1500,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Yehuda Halper","free_first_name":"Yehuda","free_last_name":"Halper","norm_person":{"id":1500,"first_name":"Yehuda","last_name":"Halper","full_name":"Yehuda Halper","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/142969923","viaf_url":"http:\/\/viaf.org\/viaf\/177995327","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]=Yehuda Halper"}}],"entry_title":"In One Sense Easy, in Another Difficult: Reverberations of the Opening of Aristotle\u2019s Metaphysics \u03ac \u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd in Medieval and Renaissance Hebrew Literature","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"In One Sense Easy, in Another Difficult: Reverberations of the Opening of Aristotle\u2019s Metaphysics \u03ac \u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd in Medieval and Renaissance Hebrew Literature"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"2020","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":21,"category_name":"Aristotle","link":"bib?categories[]=Aristotle"},{"id":31,"category_name":"Metaphysics","link":"bib?categories[]=Metaphysics"},{"id":5,"category_name":"Renaissance","link":"bib?categories[]=Renaissance"}],"authors":[{"id":1500,"full_name":"Yehuda Halper","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5021,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue des \u00e9tudes juives","volume":"179","issue":"1\u20132","pages":"133\u2013160"}},"sort":[2020]}
| Title | Atributos divinos y el problema de la unicidad en Averroes |
| Type | Article |
| Language | Spanish |
| Date | 2020 |
| Journal | Praxis Filosófica |
| Volume | 50 |
| Pages | 65-88 |
| Categories | Metaphysics, Theology |
| Author(s) | Joen Laureth Delgado Gómez , Diego Giovanni Castellanos |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| El artículo aborda la discusión acerca de la unicidad divina y la existencia de atributos, tanto en la filosofía como en la teología islámica medieval, haciendo énfasis en la obra de Averroes. Se analiza cómo en el pensamiento Islámico, al tiempo que se afirma el dogma de la unicidad divina se sostiene la existencia de atributos reales, apuntando directamente a conceptos dialecticos como unidad y multiplicidad, identidad y diferencia, o igualdad y alteridad. Así mismo, partiendo del análisis de su obra, se busca mostrar la manera en la que el pensador cordobés legitimó el uso de la razón filosófica como camino optimo y recomendado para el abordaje de las verdades religiosas. Se considera que Averroes avanzó en una doctrina teológico-filosófica particular diferente del asharismo que se estaba imponiendo en la época, resistiéndose a Al Ghazali, y reivindicando el valor la perspectiva peripatética para enriquecer el debate en el Islam. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5577","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5577,"authors_free":[{"id":6472,"entry_id":5577,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":903,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Joen Laureth Delgado G\u00f3mez","free_first_name":"Joen Laureth Delgado ","free_last_name":" G\u00f3mez","norm_person":{"id":903,"first_name":"","last_name":"","full_name":"","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]="}},{"id":6473,"entry_id":5577,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":903,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Diego Giovanni Castellanos","free_first_name":"Diego Giovanni ","free_last_name":"Castellanos","norm_person":{"id":903,"first_name":"","last_name":"","full_name":"","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]="}}],"entry_title":"Atributos divinos y el problema de la unicidad en Averroes","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Atributos divinos y el problema de la unicidad en Averroes"},"abstract":"El art\u00edculo aborda la discusi\u00f3n acerca de la unicidad divina y la existencia de atributos, tanto en la filosof\u00eda como en la teolog\u00eda isl\u00e1mica medieval, haciendo \u00e9nfasis en la obra de Averroes. Se analiza c\u00f3mo en el pensamiento Isl\u00e1mico, al tiempo que se afirma el dogma de la unicidad divina se sostiene la existencia de atributos reales, apuntando directamente a conceptos dialecticos como unidad y multiplicidad, identidad y diferencia, o igualdad y alteridad. As\u00ed mismo, partiendo del an\u00e1lisis de su obra, se busca mostrar la manera en la que el pensador cordob\u00e9s legitim\u00f3 el uso de la raz\u00f3n filos\u00f3fica como camino optimo y recomendado para el abordaje de las verdades religiosas. Se considera que Averroes avanz\u00f3 en una doctrina teol\u00f3gico-filos\u00f3fica particular diferente del asharismo que se estaba imponiendo en la \u00e9poca, resisti\u00e9ndose a Al Ghazali, y reivindicando el valor la perspectiva peripat\u00e9tica para enriquecer el debate en el Islam. ","btype":3,"date":"2020","language":"Spanish","online_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.25100\/pfilosofica.v0i50.8838","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":31,"category_name":"Metaphysics","link":"bib?categories[]=Metaphysics"},{"id":39,"category_name":"Theology","link":"bib?categories[]=Theology"}],"authors":[{"id":903,"full_name":"","role":1},{"id":903,"full_name":"","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5577,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Praxis Filos\u00f3fica","volume":"50","issue":"","pages":"65-88"}},"sort":[2020]}
| Title | Grek Şârihlerden İbn Rüşd'e Değin Aristoteles'in Theta (Θ) Kitabı'nın Hâricî Tarihi |
| Type | Article |
| Language | Turkish |
| Date | 2019 |
| Journal | Sirnak University Journal of Divinity Faculty / Sirnak Üniversitesi Ilahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi |
| Volume | 10 |
| Issue | 23 |
| Pages | 469-486 |
| Categories | Aristotle, Commentary, Metaphysics, Alexander of Aphrodisias |
| Author(s) | Abdürrezzak Sevindik |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| The purpose of the article is to discuss the external history of the Book of Theta (Metaphysics IX) in the context of Ibn Rushd's commentaries on Metaphysics. Ibn Rushd interpreted the Book of Theta in Talkhīs mā ba'da al-ṭabī'ah based on its meaning and content. Ibn Rushd did not pursue the original composition of Metaphysics in Talkhīs mā ba'da al-ṭabī'ah. However, Ibn Rushd interpreted the Book of Theta in Tafsīr mā ba'da al-ṭabī'ah focusing on the expression and based on the original text. Ibn Rushd pursued the original composition of Metaphysics in Tafsīr mā ba'da al-ṭabī'ah. Thus, Ibn Rushd took advantage of Astat and Isḥāq b. Hunain's arabic translations of the Book of Theta in this interpretation process. Astat and Isḥāq b. Hunain are experts in the translation of Aristotle's works from Greek into Arabic. When Astat and Isḥāq b. Hunain's translation styles are looked at, it is understood that they adhered to the text word by word. In this respect, those translations supported the literary interpretation of Ibn Rushd. On the other hand, Ibn Rushd was influenced by the Greek commentator/Alexander of Aphrodisias in the interpretation of Theta. Alexander of Aphrodisias and Ibn Rushd's interpretation methods based on utterance are similar. In this respect, Ibn Rushd's Commentary of Theta reveals his Aristotelian approach. Makalenin gâyesi, Aristoteles'in Θ/Theta (Metafizik IX.) Kitabı'nın hâricî tarihini İbn Rüşd'ün Metafizik şerhleri bağlamında ortaya koymaktır. İbn Rüşd, Telhîsu Mâ ba'de't-tabî'a'da Theta Kitabı'nı mana ve mahiyetini temel alarak yorumlamış, Metafizik'i oluşturan kitapların özgün dizilimini takip etmemiştir. Buna karşın Tefsîru Mâ ba'de't-tabî'a'da Metafizik'in özgün dizilimini takip etmiş, Θ/Theta Kitabı'nı da orijinal metnini temel alarak ibâre odaklı yorumlamıştır. İbn Rüşd ibâre odaklı yaklaşımı dolayısıyla bu yorum sürecinde Θ/Theta Kitabı'nın Astat/Ustâz/Eustathius-İshak b. Huneyn (ö. M.S. 910) tarafından yapılmış Arapça çevirilerinden yararlanmıştır. Astat ve İshak b. Huneyn, Aristoteles'in eserlerinin doğrudan doğruya Grekçe'den Arapça'ya çevirilerinde ihtisaslaşmış mütercimlerdir. Astat'ın ve İshak b. Huneyn'in çeviri tavırlarına bakıldığında Grekçe metne kelime kelime bağlı kaldıkları görülür. Bu yönden söz konusu çeviriler, İbn Rüşd'ün lafzî yorumunu desteklemiştir. Diğer yandan İbn Rüşd, Θ/Theta Kitabı yorumunda Grek şârih İskender Afrodisî'den etkilenmiştir. İskender Afrodisî ile İbn Rüşd'ün lafzı temel alan şerh etme yöntemleri benzerdir. Bu bakımdan İbn Rüşd'ün Theta Kitabı Şerhi, onun saf Aristotelesçi yaklaşımını ortaya koyar |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5563","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5563,"authors_free":[{"id":6457,"entry_id":5563,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Abd\u00fcrrezzak Sevindik","free_first_name":"Abd\u00fcrrezzak","free_last_name":"Sevindik","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Grek \u015e\u00e2rihlerden \u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd'e De\u011fin Aristoteles'in Theta (\u0398) Kitab\u0131'n\u0131n H\u00e2ric\u00ee Tarihi","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Grek \u015e\u00e2rihlerden \u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd'e De\u011fin Aristoteles'in Theta (\u0398) Kitab\u0131'n\u0131n H\u00e2ric\u00ee Tarihi"},"abstract":"The purpose of the article is to discuss the external history of the Book of Theta (Metaphysics IX) in the context of Ibn Rushd's commentaries on Metaphysics. Ibn Rushd interpreted the Book of Theta in Talkh\u012bs m\u0101 ba'da al-\u1e6dab\u012b'ah based on its meaning and content. Ibn Rushd did not pursue the original composition of Metaphysics in Talkh\u012bs m\u0101 ba'da al-\u1e6dab\u012b'ah. However, Ibn Rushd interpreted the Book of Theta in Tafs\u012br m\u0101 ba'da al-\u1e6dab\u012b'ah focusing on the expression and based on the original text. Ibn Rushd pursued the original composition of Metaphysics in Tafs\u012br m\u0101 ba'da al-\u1e6dab\u012b'ah. Thus, Ibn Rushd took advantage of Astat and Is\u1e25\u0101q b. Hunain's arabic translations of the Book of Theta in this interpretation process. Astat and Is\u1e25\u0101q b. Hunain are experts in the translation of Aristotle's works from Greek into Arabic. When Astat and Is\u1e25\u0101q b. Hunain's translation styles are looked at, it is understood that they adhered to the text word by word. In this respect, those translations supported the literary interpretation of Ibn Rushd. On the other hand, Ibn Rushd was influenced by the Greek commentator\/Alexander of Aphrodisias in the interpretation of Theta. Alexander of Aphrodisias and Ibn Rushd's interpretation methods based on utterance are similar. In this respect, Ibn Rushd's Commentary of Theta reveals his Aristotelian approach.\r\n\r\nMakalenin g\u00e2yesi, Aristoteles'in \u0398\/Theta (Metafizik IX.) Kitab\u0131'n\u0131n h\u00e2ric\u00ee tarihini \u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd'\u00fcn Metafizik \u015ferhleri ba\u011flam\u0131nda ortaya koymakt\u0131r. \u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd, Telh\u00eesu M\u00e2 ba'de't-tab\u00ee'a'da Theta Kitab\u0131'n\u0131 mana ve mahiyetini temel alarak yorumlam\u0131\u015f, Metafizik'i olu\u015fturan kitaplar\u0131n \u00f6zg\u00fcn dizilimini takip etmemi\u015ftir. Buna kar\u015f\u0131n Tefs\u00eeru M\u00e2 ba'de't-tab\u00ee'a'da Metafizik'in \u00f6zg\u00fcn dizilimini takip etmi\u015f, \u0398\/Theta Kitab\u0131'n\u0131 da orijinal metnini temel alarak ib\u00e2re odakl\u0131 yorumlam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd ib\u00e2re odakl\u0131 yakla\u015f\u0131m\u0131 dolay\u0131s\u0131yla bu yorum s\u00fcrecinde \u0398\/Theta Kitab\u0131'n\u0131n Astat\/Ust\u00e2z\/Eustathius-\u0130shak b. Huneyn (\u00f6. M.S. 910) taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f Arap\u00e7a \u00e7evirilerinden yararlanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Astat ve \u0130shak b. Huneyn, Aristoteles'in eserlerinin do\u011frudan do\u011fruya Grek\u00e7e'den Arap\u00e7a'ya \u00e7evirilerinde ihtisasla\u015fm\u0131\u015f m\u00fctercimlerdir. Astat'\u0131n ve \u0130shak b. Huneyn'in \u00e7eviri tav\u0131rlar\u0131na bak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda Grek\u00e7e metne kelime kelime ba\u011fl\u0131 kald\u0131klar\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fcl\u00fcr. Bu y\u00f6nden s\u00f6z konusu \u00e7eviriler, \u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd'\u00fcn lafz\u00ee yorumunu desteklemi\u015ftir. Di\u011fer yandan \u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd, \u0398\/Theta Kitab\u0131 yorumunda Grek \u015f\u00e2rih \u0130skender Afrodis\u00ee'den etkilenmi\u015ftir. \u0130skender Afrodis\u00ee ile \u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd'\u00fcn lafz\u0131 temel alan \u015ferh etme y\u00f6ntemleri benzerdir. Bu bak\u0131mdan \u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd'\u00fcn Theta Kitab\u0131 \u015eerhi, onun saf Aristoteles\u00e7i yakla\u015f\u0131m\u0131n\u0131 ortaya koyar","btype":3,"date":"2019","language":"Turkish","online_url":"","doi_url":"","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":21,"category_name":"Aristotle","link":"bib?categories[]=Aristotle"},{"id":23,"category_name":"Commentary","link":"bib?categories[]=Commentary"},{"id":31,"category_name":"Metaphysics","link":"bib?categories[]=Metaphysics"},{"id":15,"category_name":"Alexander of Aphrodisias","link":"bib?categories[]=Alexander of Aphrodisias"}],"authors":[],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5563,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Sirnak University Journal of Divinity Faculty \/ Sirnak \u00dcniversitesi Ilahiyat Fak\u00fcltesi Dergisi","volume":"10","issue":"23","pages":"469-486"}},"sort":[2019]}
| Title | The Reasons for and the Consequences of Averroes’ Saying Essence to God Abstract |
| Type | Article |
| Language | undefined |
| Date | 2021 |
| Journal | Turkish Academic Research Review - Türk Akademik Araştırmalar Dergisi [TARR] |
| Volume | 6 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Categories | Theology, Metaphysics |
| Author(s) | Fevzi Yiğit |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| This article deals with the relative reasons and consequences of Averroes’ saying God the essence. Thus, based on the example of Averroes, it is desired to show that the philosophers’ conception of God is actually directly related to the subject of metaphysics. The distinctions between potential and actual, being-essence and matter-form, which are thought to have strong forms of explanation, will be applied when needed. According to Averroes, his research of being is basically an investigation of essence. Although the concept of being/existence does not represent a higher level of being above the substance, it takes place in metaphysics as a higher concept with different meanings. However, according to Ibn Avicenna, the existing meets a higher level of being than the substance, and therefore its inquiry cannot be only the one for substance. Therefore, according to him, the subject of metaphysics is not a substance qua substance. In short, the possible reasons for Averroes to call God essence are as follows: First, God is the most suitable for the definition of essence in all existence. The second is that, keeping other meanings of being in mind, he accepted the concept of “mawjūd” as a mental concept that has no reality in the external world, that is, as a genus, and therefore only recognized the substance as reality. The third is the idea that the celestial bodies move endlessly. The fourth is his view on the relationship between universals and discrete entities and tangible individual essences. Following Aristotle, Averroes thinks that universals and ideas do not contribute to the existence of individual essences. The possible consequences of Averroes’ calling God a substance are as follows: The first is his Hanbalī attitude towards God in his books Fasl al-maqāl and al-Kashf an manāhij al-adilla, which he wrote on the relationship between religion and philosophy. Secondly, what was mentioned above as a cause, is a cyclical thing that can be expressed as a result here. In other words, while accepting the celestial bodies and the universe as eternal, causes God to be called essence, calling God essence results in the idea that the universe exists only apart and disconnected from him under the influence of God. The third is his rejection of the doctrines of creation out of nothing and sudūr (emanation). The refusal to create out of nothing is based on a general ontological principle -as the ancient philosophers openly expressed- “absolute absence cannot be the source of existence”. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5809","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5809,"authors_free":[{"id":6730,"entry_id":5809,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Fevzi Yi\u011fit","free_first_name":"Fevzi ","free_last_name":"Yi\u011fit","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":" The Reasons for and the Consequences of Averroes\u2019 Saying Essence to God Abstract","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":" The Reasons for and the Consequences of Averroes\u2019 Saying Essence to God Abstract"},"abstract":"This article deals with the relative reasons and consequences of Averroes\u2019 saying God the essence. Thus, based on the example of Averroes, it is desired to show that the philosophers\u2019 conception of God is actually directly related to the subject of metaphysics. The distinctions between potential and actual, being-essence and matter-form, which are thought to have strong forms of explanation, will be applied when needed. According to Averroes, his research of being is basically an investigation of essence. Although the concept of being\/existence does not represent a higher level of being above the substance, it takes place in metaphysics as a higher concept with different meanings. However, according to Ibn Avicenna, the existing meets a higher level of being than the substance, and therefore its inquiry cannot be only the one for substance. Therefore, according to him, the subject of metaphysics is not a substance qua substance. In short, the possible reasons for Averroes to call God essence are as follows: First, God is the most suitable for the definition of essence in all existence. The second is that, keeping other meanings of being in mind, he accepted the concept of \u201cmawj\u016bd\u201d as a mental concept that has no reality in the external world, that is, as a genus, and therefore only recognized the substance as reality. The third is the idea that the celestial bodies move endlessly. The fourth is his view on the relationship between universals and discrete entities and tangible individual essences. Following Aristotle, Averroes thinks that universals and ideas do not contribute to the existence of individual essences. The possible consequences of Averroes\u2019 calling God a substance are as follows: The first is his Hanbal\u012b attitude towards God in his books Fasl al-maq\u0101l and al-Kashf an man\u0101hij al-adilla, which he wrote on the relationship between religion and philosophy. Secondly, what was mentioned above as a cause, is a cyclical thing that can be expressed as a result here. In other words, while accepting the celestial bodies and the universe as eternal, causes God to be called essence, calling God essence results in the idea that the universe exists only apart and disconnected from him under the influence of God. The third is his rejection of the doctrines of creation out of nothing and sud\u016br (emanation). The refusal to create out of nothing is based on a general ontological principle -as the ancient philosophers openly expressed- \u201cabsolute absence cannot be the source of existence\u201d.","btype":3,"date":"2021","language":null,"online_url":"","doi_url":"10.30622\/tarr.982738","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":39,"category_name":"Theology","link":"bib?categories[]=Theology"},{"id":31,"category_name":"Metaphysics","link":"bib?categories[]=Metaphysics"}],"authors":[],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5809,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":" Turkish Academic Research Review - T\u00fcrk Akademik Ara\u015ft\u0131rmalar Dergisi [TARR]","volume":"6","issue":"3","pages":""}},"sort":[" The Reasons for and the Consequences of Averroes\u2019 Saying Essence to God Abstract"]}
| Title | A Comparative Study of Some Aspects of the Metaphysics of Aristotle and Ibn Rushd |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1995 |
| Journal | Dhaka University Studies: Journal of the Faculty of Arts |
| Volume | 51 |
| Pages | 113–126 |
| Categories | Metaphysics |
| Author(s) | A. Q. Fazlul Wahid |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"604","_score":null,"_source":{"id":604,"authors_free":[{"id":755,"entry_id":604,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":850,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"A. Q. Fazlul Wahid","free_first_name":"A. Q. Fazlul","free_last_name":"Wahid","norm_person":{"id":850,"first_name":"A. Q. Fazlul","last_name":"Wahid","full_name":"A. Q. Fazlul Wahid","short_ident":"AQFWah","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]=A. Q. Fazlul Wahid"}}],"entry_title":"A Comparative Study of Some Aspects of the Metaphysics of Aristotle and Ibn Rushd","title_transcript":null,"title_translation":null,"main_title":{"title":"A Comparative Study of Some Aspects of the Metaphysics of Aristotle and Ibn Rushd"},"abstract":null,"btype":3,"date":"1995","language":"English","online_url":null,"doi_url":null,"ti_url":null,"categories":[{"id":31,"category_name":"Metaphysics","link":"bib?categories[]=Metaphysics"}],"authors":[{"id":850,"full_name":"A. Q. Fazlul Wahid","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":604,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Dhaka University Studies: Journal of the Faculty of Arts","volume":"51","issue":null,"pages":"113\u2013126"}},"sort":["A Comparative Study of Some Aspects of the Metaphysics of Aristotle and Ibn Rushd"]}
| Title | A Comparative study of the theory of dual reality from the perspective of Averroes, followers of Averroes and the church of the thirteenth century |
| Type | Article |
| Language | Persian |
| Date | 2015 |
| Journal | Comparative Theology |
| Volume | 5 |
| Issue | 12 |
| Pages | 69-84 |
| Categories | Epistemology, Averroism, Theology, Metaphysics |
| Author(s) | Ali Ghorbani , Fath ali Akbari |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| In the thirteenth century, along with the return of the European thinkers and philosophers to Aristotelian philosophy and the emergence of the contradiction between Aristotle's philosophy and Christian teachings and religious beliefs, the church put forward a theory known as dual reality. According to this theory everything that is true in theology, its opposite can also be true in philosophy. With this theory, the church accused the philosophers of heresy, while the followers of Averroes considered themselves free of this charge. In his book Faṣl al-maqāl, Averroes appeared to be in favor of the above mentioned theory in a different form. By a precise analysis of the theory through reviewing the now available sources and considering the events followed by attributing this view to the philosophers, one can infer different implications from the theory from the perspective of each of the three sides involved (i.e. Averroes, followers of Averroes and church) and the following division can be sketched: 1- ontological implications: that is to believe in the existence of two types of realities in the universe which can be described in two ways: A) two contradictory scopes in the universe B) two distinct scopes in the universe. 2- Epistemological implications of the dual reality: A) Two ways to reach one reality. B) Two dictions to narrate one reality. C) Duality of the reality in practice. D) Two levels of one single reality. By analyzing each of these implications of the dual reality, one can be led to some consequences according to which based on different works of Averroes he cannot be accused of believing in a kind of duality which makes him deserve heresy. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5579","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5579,"authors_free":[{"id":6476,"entry_id":5579,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":903,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Ali Ghorbani","free_first_name":"Ali ","free_last_name":"Ghorbani","norm_person":{"id":903,"first_name":"","last_name":"","full_name":"","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]="}},{"id":6477,"entry_id":5579,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":903,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Fath ali Akbari","free_first_name":"Fath ali ","free_last_name":"Akbari","norm_person":{"id":903,"first_name":"","last_name":"","full_name":"","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]="}}],"entry_title":"A Comparative study of the theory of dual reality from the perspective of Averroes, followers of Averroes and the church of the thirteenth century","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"A Comparative study of the theory of dual reality from the perspective of Averroes, followers of Averroes and the church of the thirteenth century"},"abstract":"In the thirteenth century, along with the return of the European thinkers and philosophers to Aristotelian philosophy and the emergence of the contradiction between Aristotle's philosophy and Christian teachings and religious beliefs, the church put forward a theory known as dual reality. According to this theory everything that is true in theology, its opposite can also be true in philosophy. With this theory, the church accused the philosophers of heresy, while the followers of Averroes considered themselves free of this charge. In his book Fa\u1e63l al-maq\u0101l, Averroes appeared to be in favor of the above mentioned theory in a different form. By a precise analysis of the theory through reviewing the now available sources and considering the events followed by attributing this view to the philosophers, one can infer different implications from the theory from the perspective of each of the three sides involved (i.e. Averroes, followers of Averroes and church) and the following division can be sketched: 1- ontological implications: that is to believe in the existence of two types of realities in the universe which can be described in two ways: A) two contradictory scopes in the universe B) two distinct scopes in the universe. 2- Epistemological implications of the dual reality: A) Two ways to reach one reality. B) Two dictions to narrate one reality. C) Duality of the reality in practice. D) Two levels of one single reality. By analyzing each of these implications of the dual reality, one can be led to some consequences according to which based on different works of Averroes he cannot be accused of believing in a kind of duality which makes him deserve heresy.","btype":3,"date":"2015","language":"Persian","online_url":"","doi_url":"","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":73,"category_name":"Epistemology","link":"bib?categories[]=Epistemology"},{"id":1,"category_name":"Averroism","link":"bib?categories[]=Averroism"},{"id":39,"category_name":"Theology","link":"bib?categories[]=Theology"},{"id":31,"category_name":"Metaphysics","link":"bib?categories[]=Metaphysics"}],"authors":[{"id":903,"full_name":"","role":1},{"id":903,"full_name":"","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5579,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Comparative Theology","volume":"5","issue":"12","pages":"69-84"}},"sort":["A Comparative study of the theory of dual reality from the perspective of Averroes, followers of Averroes and the church of the thirteenth century"]}
| Title | A essência da matéria prima em Averróis Latino (con una referência a Henrique de Gand) |
| Type | Article |
| Language | Portuguese |
| Date | 1996 |
| Journal | Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia |
| Volume | 52 |
| Issue | 1/4 |
| Pages | 197–221 |
| Categories | Metaphysics, Latin Averroism |
| Author(s) | Mário A. Santiago de Carvalho |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Online Access | https://www.jstor.org/stable/40419416 |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"600","_score":null,"_source":{"id":600,"authors_free":[{"id":751,"entry_id":600,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":846,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"M\u00e1rio A. Santiago de Carvalho","free_first_name":"M\u00e1rio A.","free_last_name":"Santiago de Carvalho","norm_person":{"id":846,"first_name":"M\u00e1rio A.","last_name":"Santiago de Carvalho","full_name":"M\u00e1rio A. Santiago de Carvalho","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/103289122X","viaf_url":"https:\/\/viaf.org\/viaf\/6944877","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]=M\u00e1rio A. Santiago de Carvalho"}}],"entry_title":"A ess\u00eancia da mat\u00e9ria prima em Averr\u00f3is Latino (con una refer\u00eancia a Henrique de Gand)","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"A ess\u00eancia da mat\u00e9ria prima em Averr\u00f3is Latino (con una refer\u00eancia a Henrique de Gand)"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"1996","language":"Portuguese","online_url":"https:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/40419416","doi_url":"","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":31,"category_name":"Metaphysics","link":"bib?categories[]=Metaphysics"},{"id":7,"category_name":"Latin Averroism","link":"bib?categories[]=Latin Averroism"}],"authors":[{"id":846,"full_name":"M\u00e1rio A. Santiago de Carvalho","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":600,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia","volume":"52","issue":"1\/4","pages":"197\u2013221"}},"sort":["A ess\u00eancia da mat\u00e9ria prima em Averr\u00f3is Latino (con una refer\u00eancia a Henrique de Gand)"]}
| Title | A propos de fondamental et de l'essentiel dans le commentaire d'Averroès sur la Métaphysique d'Aristote |
| Type | Article |
| Language | French |
| Date | 1995 |
| Journal | Revue de philosophie ancienne |
| Volume | 13 |
| Pages | 225–238 |
| Categories | Metaphysics, Aristotle |
| Author(s) | Laurence Bauloye |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"545","_score":null,"_source":{"id":545,"authors_free":[{"id":692,"entry_id":545,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":814,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Laurence Bauloye","free_first_name":"Laurence","free_last_name":"Bauloye","norm_person":{"id":814,"first_name":"Laurence","last_name":"Bauloye","full_name":"Laurence Bauloye","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/152664165","viaf_url":"https:\/\/viaf.org\/viaf\/59337898","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]=Laurence Bauloye"}}],"entry_title":"A propos de fondamental et de l'essentiel dans le commentaire d'Averro\u00e8s sur la M\u00e9taphysique d'Aristote","title_transcript":null,"title_translation":null,"main_title":{"title":"A propos de fondamental et de l'essentiel dans le commentaire d'Averro\u00e8s sur la M\u00e9taphysique d'Aristote"},"abstract":null,"btype":3,"date":"1995","language":"French","online_url":null,"doi_url":null,"ti_url":null,"categories":[{"id":31,"category_name":"Metaphysics","link":"bib?categories[]=Metaphysics"},{"id":21,"category_name":"Aristotle","link":"bib?categories[]=Aristotle"}],"authors":[{"id":814,"full_name":"Laurence Bauloye","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":545,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue de philosophie ancienne","volume":"13","issue":null,"pages":"225\u2013238"}},"sort":["A propos de fondamental et de l'essentiel dans le commentaire d'Averro\u00e8s sur la M\u00e9taphysique d'Aristote"]}
| Title | A reference to al-Fârâbî’s Kitâb al-hurûf in Averroes’ critique of Avicenna (Tahâfut al-Tahâfut, 371,5-372,12 Bouyges) |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2014 |
| Journal | Studi Magrebini |
| Volume | 12-13 |
| Pages | 433-452 |
| Categories | al-Fārābī, Avicenna, Commentary, Metaphysics |
| Author(s) | Cecilia Martini Bonadeo |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Al-Fārābī’s Book of Letters (Kitāb al-ḥurūf) and the analyses devoted in this text to the terminology of “being” are authoritative references for Averroes from the epitomes of his youth to his mature treatises. Also the Farabian doctrine of the conventionality of the natural language plays a role in Averroes’ thought. This paper discusses the Tahāfut al-Tahāfut, (pp.371,5-372.12 Bouyges), where Averroes has recourse to the Book of Letters in criticizing Avicenna’s distinction between essence and existence. Averroes explicitly mentions the title of the work and recalls a passage from the fifteenth chapter. This passage had already inspired him in the Epitome on Metaphysics, where Averroes did not mention explicitly his source, but followed in al-Fārābī’s footsteps as for the analysis of the uses of “being”. Averroes uses tacitly the same passage also in his Commentary on Metaphysics Delta 7. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5196","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5196,"authors_free":[{"id":5987,"entry_id":5196,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":831,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Cecilia Martini Bonadeo","free_first_name":"Cecilia","free_last_name":"Martini Bonadeo","norm_person":{"id":831,"first_name":"Cecilia","last_name":"Martini Bonadeo","full_name":"Cecilia Martini Bonadeo","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1047649543","viaf_url":"https:\/\/viaf.org\/viaf\/305196685","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]=Cecilia Martini Bonadeo"}}],"entry_title":"A reference to al-F\u00e2r\u00e2b\u00ee\u2019s Kit\u00e2b al-hur\u00fbf in Averroes\u2019 critique of Avicenna (Tah\u00e2fut al-Tah\u00e2fut, 371,5-372,12 Bouyges)","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"A reference to al-F\u00e2r\u00e2b\u00ee\u2019s Kit\u00e2b al-hur\u00fbf in Averroes\u2019 critique of Avicenna (Tah\u00e2fut al-Tah\u00e2fut, 371,5-372,12 Bouyges)"},"abstract":"Al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b\u2019s Book of Letters (Kit\u0101b al-\u1e25ur\u016bf) and the analyses devoted in this text to the terminology of \u201cbeing\u201d are authoritative references for Averroes from the epitomes of his youth to his mature treatises. Also the Farabian doctrine of the conventionality of the natural language plays a role in Averroes\u2019 thought. This paper discusses the Tah\u0101fut al-Tah\u0101fut, (pp.371,5-372.12 Bouyges), where Averroes has recourse to the Book of Letters in criticizing Avicenna\u2019s distinction between essence and existence. Averroes explicitly mentions the title of the work and recalls a passage from the fifteenth chapter. This passage had already inspired him in the Epitome on Metaphysics, where Averroes did not mention explicitly his source, but followed in al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b\u2019s footsteps as for the analysis of the uses of \u201cbeing\u201d. Averroes uses tacitly the same passage also in his Commentary on Metaphysics Delta 7.","btype":3,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":28,"category_name":"al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b","link":"bib?categories[]=al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b"},{"id":10,"category_name":"Avicenna","link":"bib?categories[]=Avicenna"},{"id":23,"category_name":"Commentary","link":"bib?categories[]=Commentary"},{"id":31,"category_name":"Metaphysics","link":"bib?categories[]=Metaphysics"}],"authors":[{"id":831,"full_name":"Cecilia Martini Bonadeo","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5196,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Studi Magrebini","volume":"12-13 ","issue":"","pages":"433-452"}},"sort":["A reference to al-F\u00e2r\u00e2b\u00ee\u2019s Kit\u00e2b al-hur\u00fbf in Averroes\u2019 critique of Avicenna (Tah\u00e2fut al-Tah\u00e2fut, 371,5-372,12 Bouyges)"]}
| Title | Abraham Bibago on Intellectual Conjunction and Human Happiness, Faith and Metaphysics according to a 15th century Jewish Averroist |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2015 |
| Journal | Quaestio |
| Volume | 15 |
| Pages | 309–318 |
| Categories | Averroism, Jewish Averroism, Commentary, Metaphysics |
| Author(s) | Yehuda Halper |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| The 15th century Jewish Aragonian thinker, Abraham Bibago treats conjunction in his two main works, Derekh Emunah (“The Way of Faith”) and Commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics. In the former, which explicitly interprets Biblical and Talmudic stories along philosophical lines, Bibago promotes a neo-Platonic intellectual emanation schema and boldly asserts that human happiness is attained through conjunction with higher intellects. In the Commentary, which primarily treats Aristotle’s Metaphysics and Averroes’ commentaries on it, Bibago gives an account of conjunction that does not necessarily fit with the intellectual conjunction of Derekh Emunah. Indeed, his remarks in the Commentary are much less decisive about human happiness, suggesting that Bibago qua philosopher is more open minded about the summum bonum than he is qua religious thinker. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5247","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5247,"authors_free":[{"id":6056,"entry_id":5247,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":1500,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Yehuda Halper","free_first_name":"Yehuda","free_last_name":"Halper","norm_person":{"id":1500,"first_name":"Yehuda","last_name":"Halper","full_name":"Yehuda Halper","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/142969923","viaf_url":"http:\/\/viaf.org\/viaf\/177995327","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]=Yehuda Halper"}}],"entry_title":"Abraham Bibago on Intellectual Conjunction and Human Happiness, Faith and Metaphysics according to a 15th century Jewish Averroist","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Abraham Bibago on Intellectual Conjunction and Human Happiness, Faith and Metaphysics according to a 15th century Jewish Averroist"},"abstract":"The 15th century Jewish Aragonian thinker, Abraham Bibago treats conjunction in his two main works, Derekh Emunah (\u201cThe Way of Faith\u201d) and Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Metaphysics. In the former, which explicitly interprets Biblical and Talmudic stories along philosophical lines, Bibago promotes a neo-Platonic intellectual emanation schema and boldly asserts that human happiness is attained through conjunction with higher intellects. In the Commentary, which primarily treats Aristotle\u2019s Metaphysics and Averroes\u2019 commentaries on it, Bibago gives an account of conjunction that does not necessarily fit with the intellectual conjunction of Derekh Emunah. Indeed, his remarks in the Commentary are much less decisive about human happiness, suggesting that Bibago qua philosopher is more open minded about the summum bonum than he is qua religious thinker.","btype":3,"date":"2015","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1484\/J.QUAESTIO.5.108606","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":1,"category_name":"Averroism","link":"bib?categories[]=Averroism"},{"id":8,"category_name":"Jewish Averroism","link":"bib?categories[]=Jewish Averroism"},{"id":23,"category_name":"Commentary","link":"bib?categories[]=Commentary"},{"id":31,"category_name":"Metaphysics","link":"bib?categories[]=Metaphysics"}],"authors":[{"id":1500,"full_name":"Yehuda Halper","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5247,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Quaestio","volume":"15","issue":"","pages":"309\u2013318"}},"sort":["Abraham Bibago on Intellectual Conjunction and Human Happiness, Faith and Metaphysics according to a 15th century Jewish Averroist"]}
| Title | Albert the Great as a Reader of Averroes: A Study of His Notion of the Celestial Soul in De caelo et mundo and Metaphysica |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2019 |
| Journal | Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale |
| Volume | 30 |
| Pages | 625–654 |
| Categories | Albert, Tradition and Reception, Cosmology, Metaphysics |
| Author(s) | Adam Takahashi |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5104","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5104,"authors_free":[{"id":5878,"entry_id":5104,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Adam Takahashi","free_first_name":"Adam","free_last_name":"Takahashi","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Albert the Great as a Reader of Averroes: A Study of His Notion of the Celestial Soul in De caelo et mundo and Metaphysica","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Albert the Great as a Reader of Averroes: A Study of His Notion of the Celestial Soul in De caelo et mundo and Metaphysica"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"2019","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":6,"category_name":"Albert","link":"bib?categories[]=Albert"},{"id":43,"category_name":"Tradition and Reception","link":"bib?categories[]=Tradition and Reception"},{"id":19,"category_name":"Cosmology","link":"bib?categories[]=Cosmology"},{"id":31,"category_name":"Metaphysics","link":"bib?categories[]=Metaphysics"}],"authors":[],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5104,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale","volume":"30","issue":"","pages":"625\u2013654"}},"sort":["Albert the Great as a Reader of Averroes: A Study of His Notion of the Celestial Soul in De caelo et mundo and Metaphysica"]}
| Title | Albert the Great on the Subject of Metaphysics and Demonstrating the Existence of God |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1992 |
| Journal | Medieval Philosophy and Theology |
| Volume | 2 |
| Pages | 31–52 |
| Categories | Metaphysics |
| Author(s) | Timothy B. Noone |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"581","_score":null,"_source":{"id":581,"authors_free":[{"id":732,"entry_id":581,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":837,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Timothy B. Noone","free_first_name":"Timothy B.","free_last_name":"Noone","norm_person":{"id":837,"first_name":"Timothy B.","last_name":"Noone","full_name":"Timothy B. Noone","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1066361339","viaf_url":"https:\/\/viaf.org\/viaf\/39602250","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]=Timothy B. Noone"}}],"entry_title":"Albert the Great on the Subject of Metaphysics and Demonstrating the Existence of God","title_transcript":null,"title_translation":null,"main_title":{"title":"Albert the Great on the Subject of Metaphysics and Demonstrating the Existence of God"},"abstract":null,"btype":3,"date":"1992","language":"English","online_url":null,"doi_url":null,"ti_url":null,"categories":[{"id":31,"category_name":"Metaphysics","link":"bib?categories[]=Metaphysics"}],"authors":[{"id":837,"full_name":"Timothy B. Noone","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":581,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Medieval Philosophy and Theology","volume":"2","issue":null,"pages":"31\u201352"}},"sort":["Albert the Great on the Subject of Metaphysics and Demonstrating the Existence of God"]}
| Title | Arabic/Islamic Philosophy in Thomas Aquinas’s Conception of the Beatific Vision in IV Sent., D. 49, Q. 2, A.1 |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2012 |
| Journal | The Thomist |
| Volume | 76 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 509–550 |
| Categories | Metaphysics, al-Fārābī, Ibn Bāǧǧa, Avicenna, Alexander of Aphrodisias |
| Author(s) | Richard C. Taylor |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5321","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5321,"authors_free":[{"id":6153,"entry_id":5321,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":966,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Richard C. Taylor","free_first_name":"Richard C.","free_last_name":"Taylor","norm_person":{"id":966,"first_name":"Richard C.","last_name":"Taylor","full_name":"Richard C. Taylor","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139866353","viaf_url":"https:\/\/viaf.org\/viaf\/49247370","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]=Richard C. Taylor"}}],"entry_title":"Arabic\/Islamic Philosophy in Thomas Aquinas\u2019s Conception of the Beatific Vision in IV Sent., D. 49, Q. 2, A.1","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Arabic\/Islamic Philosophy in Thomas Aquinas\u2019s Conception of the Beatific Vision in IV Sent., D. 49, Q. 2, A.1"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1353\/tho.2012.0000","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":31,"category_name":"Metaphysics","link":"bib?categories[]=Metaphysics"},{"id":28,"category_name":"al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b","link":"bib?categories[]=al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b"},{"id":17,"category_name":"Ibn B\u0101\u01e7\u01e7a","link":"bib?categories[]=Ibn B\u0101\u01e7\u01e7a"},{"id":10,"category_name":"Avicenna","link":"bib?categories[]=Avicenna"},{"id":15,"category_name":"Alexander of Aphrodisias","link":"bib?categories[]=Alexander of Aphrodisias"}],"authors":[{"id":966,"full_name":"Richard C. Taylor","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5321,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Thomist","volume":"76","issue":"4","pages":"509\u2013550"}},"sort":["Arabic\/Islamic Philosophy in Thomas Aquinas\u2019s Conception of the Beatific Vision in IV Sent., D. 49, Q. 2, A.1"]}