| 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 | 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 | 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 | 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":[2015]}
| Title | Some Attacks on Causality prior to Hume |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1966 |
| Journal | Vivarium |
| Volume | 4 |
| Pages | 58-65 |
| Categories | al-Ġazālī, Metaphysics |
| Author(s) | William H. D. Neill |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Online Access | https://www.jstor.org/stable/41963479 |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5682","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5682,"authors_free":[{"id":6586,"entry_id":5682,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":903,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"William H. D. Neill","free_first_name":"William H. D. ","free_last_name":"Neill","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":"Some Attacks on Causality prior to Hume","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Some Attacks on Causality prior to Hume"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"1966","language":"English","online_url":"https:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/41963479","doi_url":"","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":14,"category_name":"al-\u0120az\u0101l\u012b","link":"bib?categories[]=al-\u0120az\u0101l\u012b"},{"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":5682,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Vivarium","volume":"4","issue":"","pages":"58-65"}},"sort":[1966]}
| Title | Le Quodlibet 9 est bien de Saint Thomas: l'article sur l'infini en acte est a lui seul probant |
| Type | Article |
| Language | French |
| Date | 1948 |
| Journal | Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Age |
| Volume | 16 |
| Issue | 1947-1948 |
| Pages | 145-185 |
| Categories | Aquinas, Metaphysics |
| Author(s) | J. Isaac |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Online Access | https://www.jstor.org/stable/44403484 |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5631","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5631,"authors_free":[{"id":6536,"entry_id":5631,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":903,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"J. Isaac","free_first_name":"J. ","free_last_name":"Isaac","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":"Le Quodlibet 9 est bien de Saint Thomas: l'article sur l'infini en acte est a lui seul probant","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Le Quodlibet 9 est bien de Saint Thomas: l'article sur l'infini en acte est a lui seul probant"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"1948","language":"French","online_url":"https:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/44403484","doi_url":"","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":2,"category_name":"Aquinas","link":"bib?categories[]=Aquinas"},{"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":5631,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Archives d'histoire doctrinale et litt\u00e9raire du Moyen Age","volume":"16","issue":"1947-1948","pages":"145-185"}},"sort":[1948]}
| 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 | 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":["Atributos divinos y el problema de la unicidad en Averroes"]}
| Title | Le Quodlibet 9 est bien de Saint Thomas: l'article sur l'infini en acte est a lui seul probant |
| Type | Article |
| Language | French |
| Date | 1948 |
| Journal | Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Age |
| Volume | 16 |
| Issue | 1947-1948 |
| Pages | 145-185 |
| Categories | Aquinas, Metaphysics |
| Author(s) | J. Isaac |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Online Access | https://www.jstor.org/stable/44403484 |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5631","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5631,"authors_free":[{"id":6536,"entry_id":5631,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":903,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"J. Isaac","free_first_name":"J. ","free_last_name":"Isaac","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":"Le Quodlibet 9 est bien de Saint Thomas: l'article sur l'infini en acte est a lui seul probant","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Le Quodlibet 9 est bien de Saint Thomas: l'article sur l'infini en acte est a lui seul probant"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"1948","language":"French","online_url":"https:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/44403484","doi_url":"","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":2,"category_name":"Aquinas","link":"bib?categories[]=Aquinas"},{"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":5631,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Archives d'histoire doctrinale et litt\u00e9raire du Moyen Age","volume":"16","issue":"1947-1948","pages":"145-185"}},"sort":["Le Quodlibet 9 est bien de Saint Thomas: l'article sur l'infini en acte est a lui seul probant"]}
| Title | Some Attacks on Causality prior to Hume |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1966 |
| Journal | Vivarium |
| Volume | 4 |
| Pages | 58-65 |
| Categories | al-Ġazālī, Metaphysics |
| Author(s) | William H. D. Neill |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Online Access | https://www.jstor.org/stable/41963479 |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5682","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5682,"authors_free":[{"id":6586,"entry_id":5682,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":903,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"William H. D. Neill","free_first_name":"William H. D. ","free_last_name":"Neill","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":"Some Attacks on Causality prior to Hume","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Some Attacks on Causality prior to Hume"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"1966","language":"English","online_url":"https:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/41963479","doi_url":"","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":14,"category_name":"al-\u0120az\u0101l\u012b","link":"bib?categories[]=al-\u0120az\u0101l\u012b"},{"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":5682,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Vivarium","volume":"4","issue":"","pages":"58-65"}},"sort":["Some Attacks on Causality prior to Hume"]}
| 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":["Substances in Subjects: Instantiation and Existence in Avicenna"]}
| 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":["\u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd\u2019\u00fcn Tanr\u0131\u2019ya cevher demesinin neden ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131"]}