{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5800","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5800,"authors_free":[{"id":6721,"entry_id":5800,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Ishraq Ali","free_first_name":"Ishraq ","free_last_name":"Ali","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Philosophy and Religion in the Political Thought of Alfarabi","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Philosophy and Religion in the Political Thought of Alfarabi"},"abstract":"Philosophy and religion were the two important sources of knowledge for medieval Arab\r\nMuslim polymaths. Owing to the difference between the nature of philosophy and religion, the interplay between philosophy and religion often takes the form of conflict in medieval Muslim thought as exemplified by the Al-Ghazali versus Averroes (Ibn Rusd) polemic. Unlike the Al-Ghazali versus Averroes (Ibn Rushd) polemic, the interplay between philosophy and religion in the political philosophy of Abu Nasr Alfarabi takes the form of harmonious co-existence. Although, for Alfarabi, religion is an inferior form of knowledge as compared to philosophy, the present article will show that philosophy and religion play equally significant roles in Alfarabi\u2019s virtuous city and that in the absence of either philosophy or religion, the political system proposed by Alfarabi cannot exist.","btype":3,"date":"2023","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":" https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/rel14070908","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":47,"category_name":"Relation between Philosophy and Theology","link":"bib?categories[]=Relation between Philosophy and Theology"},{"id":28,"category_name":"al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b","link":"bib?categories[]=al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b"},{"id":4,"category_name":"Politics","link":"bib?categories[]=Politics"}],"authors":[],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5800,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Religions","volume":"14","issue":"7","pages":"908-917"}},"sort":["Philosophy and Religion in the Political Thought of Alfarabi"]}

{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"837","_score":null,"_source":{"id":837,"authors_free":[{"id":1001,"entry_id":837,"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":"The Agent Intellect as \"form for us\" and Averroes's Critique of al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b","title_transcript":null,"title_translation":null,"main_title":{"title":"The Agent Intellect as \"form for us\" and Averroes's Critique of al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b"},"abstract":"This article explicates Averroes's understanding of human knowing and abstraction in this three commentaries on Aristotle's De Anima. While Averroes's views on the nature of the human material intellect changes through the three commentaries until he reaches is famous view of the unity of the material intellect as one for all human beings, his view of the agent intellect as 'form for us' is sustained throughout these works. In his Long Commentary on the De Anima he reveals his dependence on al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b for this notion and provides a detailed critique of the Farabian notion that the agent intellect is 'form for us' only as agent cause, not as our true formal cause. Although Averroes argues that the agent intellect must somehow be intrinsic to us as our form since humans are per se rational and undertake acts of knowing by will, his view is shown to rest on an equivocal use of the notion of formal cause. The agent intellect cannot be properly our intrinsic formal principle while remaining ontologically separate.","btype":3,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":null,"doi_url":null,"ti_url":null,"categories":[{"id":12,"category_name":"Psychology","link":"bib?categories[]=Psychology"},{"id":28,"category_name":"al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b","link":"bib?categories[]=al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b"}],"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":837,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"T\u00f3picos. Revista de Filosof\u00eda","volume":"29","issue":null,"pages":"29\u201351"}},"sort":["The Agent Intellect as \"form for us\" and Averroes's Critique of al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b"]}