| 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 | 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 | On a Possible Argument for Averroes’s Single Separate Intellect |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2016 |
| Journal | Oxford Studies in Medieval Philosophy |
| Volume | 4 |
| Pages | 27–63 |
| Categories | De anima, Psychology |
| Author(s) | Stephen R. Ogden |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5252","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5252,"authors_free":[{"id":6061,"entry_id":5252,"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":"On a Possible Argument for Averroes\u2019s Single Separate Intellect","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"On a Possible Argument for Averroes\u2019s Single Separate Intellect"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":46,"category_name":"De anima","link":"bib?categories[]=De anima"},{"id":12,"category_name":"Psychology","link":"bib?categories[]=Psychology"}],"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":5252,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Oxford Studies in Medieval Philosophy","volume":"4","issue":"","pages":"27\u201363"}},"sort":[2016]}
| 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 | On a Possible Argument for Averroes’s Single Separate Intellect |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2016 |
| Journal | Oxford Studies in Medieval Philosophy |
| Volume | 4 |
| Pages | 27–63 |
| Categories | De anima, Psychology |
| Author(s) | Stephen R. Ogden |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5252","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5252,"authors_free":[{"id":6061,"entry_id":5252,"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":"On a Possible Argument for Averroes\u2019s Single Separate Intellect","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"On a Possible Argument for Averroes\u2019s Single Separate Intellect"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":46,"category_name":"De anima","link":"bib?categories[]=De anima"},{"id":12,"category_name":"Psychology","link":"bib?categories[]=Psychology"}],"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":5252,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Oxford Studies in Medieval Philosophy","volume":"4","issue":"","pages":"27\u201363"}},"sort":["On a Possible Argument for Averroes\u2019s Single Separate Intellect"]}