| 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 | Pomponazzi Contra Averroes on the Intellect |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2016 |
| Journal | British Journal for the History of Philosophy |
| Volume | 24 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 45–66 |
| Categories | Renaissance, De anima, Aristotle, Alexander of Aphrodisias, Themistius, Thomas |
| Author(s) | John Sellars |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| This paper examines Pomponazzi's arguments against Averroes in his De Immortalitate Animae, focusing on the question whether thought is possible without a body. The first part of the paper will sketch the history of the problem, namely the interpretation of Aristotle's remarks about the intellect in De Anima 3.4-5, touching on Alexander, Themistius, and Averroes. The second part will focus on Pomponazzi's response to Averroes, including his use of arguments by Aquinas. It will conclude by suggesting that Pomponazzi's discussion stands as the first properly modern account of Aristotle's psychology. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5255","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5255,"authors_free":[{"id":6064,"entry_id":5255,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"John Sellars","free_first_name":"John","free_last_name":"Sellars","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Pomponazzi Contra Averroes on the Intellect","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Pomponazzi Contra Averroes on the Intellect"},"abstract":"This paper examines Pomponazzi's arguments against Averroes in his De Immortalitate Animae, focusing on the question whether thought is possible without a body. The first part of the paper will sketch the history of the problem, namely the interpretation of Aristotle's remarks about the intellect in De Anima 3.4-5, touching on Alexander, Themistius, and Averroes. The second part will focus on Pomponazzi's response to Averroes, including his use of arguments by Aquinas. It will conclude by suggesting that Pomponazzi's discussion stands as the first properly modern account of Aristotle's psychology.","btype":3,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/09608788.2015.1063979","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":5,"category_name":"Renaissance","link":"bib?categories[]=Renaissance"},{"id":46,"category_name":"De anima","link":"bib?categories[]=De anima"},{"id":21,"category_name":"Aristotle","link":"bib?categories[]=Aristotle"},{"id":15,"category_name":"Alexander of Aphrodisias","link":"bib?categories[]=Alexander of Aphrodisias"},{"id":16,"category_name":"Themistius","link":"bib?categories[]=Themistius"},{"id":51,"category_name":"Thomas","link":"bib?categories[]=Thomas"}],"authors":[],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5255,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"British Journal for the History of Philosophy","volume":"24","issue":"1","pages":"45\u201366"}},"sort":[2016]}
| Title | Ibn Rušd on the Structure of Aristotle's Metaphysics |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2010 |
| Journal | Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale |
| Volume | 21 |
| Pages | 375–410 |
| Categories | Metaphysics, Aristotle, Alexander of Aphrodisias |
| Author(s) | Rüdiger Arnzen |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| The structure of Aristotle's Metaphysics was a matter of dispute among ancient and Medieval Greek, Arabic, and Latin-writing commentators. The present article investigates the question in which way the Arab philosopher Averroes dealt with this problem in his so-called Epitome and his literal commentary on the Metaphysics. It tries to show that in the Epitome Averroes restructured the contents of the Metaphysics according to his own conception of this discipline, and that this conception was partly indebted to his own main sources, al-Fārābī and Ibn Sīnā, partly independent from these. Furthemore, the article examines whether and, if so, in which whay Averroes changed his mind about metaphysics as such and/or the structure of Aristotle's Metaphysics in his late literal commentary. It is argued that Averroes discarded there some of his earlier Avicennian positions in favour of a certain rapprochement to positions held by Alexander of Aphrodisias, but never gave up in general his overall conception of the Metaphysics as displayed in the Epitome. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"1538","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1538,"authors_free":[{"id":1765,"entry_id":1538,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":535,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"R\u00fcdiger Arnzen","free_first_name":"R\u00fcdiger","free_last_name":"Arnzen","norm_person":{"id":535,"first_name":"R\u00fcdiger","last_name":"Arnzen","full_name":"R\u00fcdiger Arnzen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115210423","viaf_url":"NULL","db_url":"NULL","from_claudius":0,"link":"bib?authors[]=R\u00fcdiger Arnzen"}}],"entry_title":"Ibn Ru\u0161d on the Structure of Aristotle's Metaphysics","title_transcript":null,"title_translation":null,"main_title":{"title":"Ibn Ru\u0161d on the Structure of Aristotle's Metaphysics"},"abstract":"The structure of Aristotle's Metaphysics was a matter of dispute among ancient and Medieval Greek, Arabic, and Latin-writing commentators. The present article investigates the question in which way the Arab philosopher Averroes dealt with this problem in his so-called Epitome and his literal commentary on the Metaphysics. It tries to show that in the Epitome Averroes restructured the contents of the Metaphysics according to his own conception of this discipline, and that this conception was partly indebted to his own main sources, al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b and Ibn S\u012bn\u0101, partly independent from these. Furthemore, the article examines whether and, if so, in which whay Averroes changed his mind about metaphysics as such and\/or the structure of Aristotle's Metaphysics in his late literal commentary. It is argued that Averroes discarded there some of his earlier Avicennian positions in favour of a certain rapprochement to positions held by Alexander of Aphrodisias, but never gave up in general his overall conception of the Metaphysics as displayed in the Epitome.","btype":3,"date":"2010","language":"English","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"},{"id":15,"category_name":"Alexander of Aphrodisias","link":"bib?categories[]=Alexander of Aphrodisias"}],"authors":[{"id":535,"full_name":"R\u00fcdiger Arnzen","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1538,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale","volume":"21","issue":null,"pages":"375\u2013410"}},"sort":[2010]}
| Title | Ibn Rušd et les Premiers Analytiques d'Aristote. Aperçu sur un problème de syllogistique modale |
| Type | Article |
| Language | French |
| Date | 1995 |
| Journal | Arabic Sciences and Philosophy |
| Volume | 5 |
| Pages | 51–74 |
| Categories | Logic, Alexander of Aphrodisias, al-Fārābī, Aristotle, Commentary |
| Author(s) | Abdelali Elamrani-Jamal |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Ibn Rušd devoted a certain number of works to Aristotle's Prior Analytics. In a series of opuscules written over a period of twenty years and following upon his Middle Commentary on Aristotle's Prior Analytics, he faced a problem particular to the modal syllogism - that of the mood of the conclusion in mixed syllogisms. The problem can be stated as follows: At the beginning of the Prior Analytics, Aristotle established a formal deductive principle - that of universal attribution (Pr. An. I.1.24b26–30). Applied to the modal syllogism, this principle is inadequate as stated. It is too general to be applied in a univocal manner in all modal syllogisms. To preserve a sense of coherence in Aristotle's declarations, the commentators had to interpret it. Presenting the interpretations of the commentators, primarily al-Fārābī and Alexander, on the basis of al-Fārābī's Large Commentary on Aristotle's Prior Analytics, Averroes criticizes them. Applied according to Alexander's interpretation, the principle of universal attribution is valid only for modal syllogisms one of whose premises is necessary and the other assertoric; according to al-Fārābī's interpretation, it is verified only when the minor premise is possible. Averroes proposes two preliminary solutions. Either this formal deductive principle must be applied differently according to the modal differences of the minor premises in mixed syllogisms (first solution) or would be used in two ways, generally or in keeping with each mood (second solution). These solutions are not satisfactory, for they call into question the unity and universality of the principle of universal attribution as established by Aristotle. What is the utility, Averroes asks, of a principle which does not hold for all modalities or does not apply to all the premises when the Prior Analytics ought to furnish formal and universal principles of deduction? And why did Aristotle define the principle of universal attribution without distinguishing its application according to each of the three modal premises? Returning at the end of his career to a literal exegesis of Aristotle's propositions and without harkening back to the earlier solutions, he proposes a theory of making the terms modal (fourth solution) in order to save Aristotle's declarations with respect to the principle of universal attribution and the mood of the conclusion of mixed syllogisms (Prior Analytics I. 9.30al5–20). Though formally inadequate, this solution, which had a continued history, proposes a new way of looking at the classification of modal propositions. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"479","_score":null,"_source":{"id":479,"authors_free":[{"id":623,"entry_id":479,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":779,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Abdelali Elamrani-Jamal","free_first_name":"Abdelali","free_last_name":"Elamrani-Jamal","norm_person":{"id":779,"first_name":"Abdelali","last_name":"Elamrani-Jamal","full_name":"Abdelali Elamrani-Jamal","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/154697621","viaf_url":"https:\/\/viaf.org\/viaf\/7526121","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]=Abdelali Elamrani-Jamal"}}],"entry_title":"Ibn Ru\u0161d et les Premiers Analytiques d'Aristote. Aper\u00e7u sur un probl\u00e8me de syllogistique modale","title_transcript":null,"title_translation":null,"main_title":{"title":"Ibn Ru\u0161d et les Premiers Analytiques d'Aristote. Aper\u00e7u sur un probl\u00e8me de syllogistique modale"},"abstract":"Ibn Ru\u0161d devoted a certain number of works to Aristotle's Prior Analytics. In a series of opuscules written over a period of twenty years and following upon his Middle Commentary on Aristotle's Prior Analytics, he faced a problem particular to the modal syllogism - that of the mood of the conclusion in mixed syllogisms. The problem can be stated as follows: At the beginning of the Prior Analytics, Aristotle established a formal deductive principle - that of universal attribution (Pr. An. I.1.24b26\u201330). Applied to the modal syllogism, this principle is inadequate as stated. It is too general to be applied in a univocal manner in all modal syllogisms. To preserve a sense of coherence in Aristotle's declarations, the commentators had to interpret it. Presenting the interpretations of the commentators, primarily al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b and Alexander, on the basis of al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b's Large Commentary on Aristotle's Prior Analytics, Averroes criticizes them. Applied according to Alexander's interpretation, the principle of universal attribution is valid only for modal syllogisms one of whose premises is necessary and the other assertoric; according to al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b's interpretation, it is verified only when the minor premise is possible. Averroes proposes two preliminary solutions. Either this formal deductive principle must be applied differently according to the modal differences of the minor premises in mixed syllogisms (first solution) or would be used in two ways, generally or in keeping with each mood (second solution). These solutions are not satisfactory, for they call into question the unity and universality of the principle of universal attribution as established by Aristotle. What is the utility, Averroes asks, of a principle which does not hold for all modalities or does not apply to all the premises when the Prior Analytics ought to furnish formal and universal principles of deduction? And why did Aristotle define the principle of universal attribution without distinguishing its application according to each of the three modal premises? Returning at the end of his career to a literal exegesis of Aristotle's propositions and without harkening back to the earlier solutions, he proposes a theory of making the terms modal (fourth solution) in order to save Aristotle's declarations with respect to the principle of universal attribution and the mood of the conclusion of mixed syllogisms (Prior Analytics I. 9.30al5\u201320). Though formally inadequate, this solution, which had a continued history, proposes a new way of looking at the classification of modal propositions.","btype":3,"date":"1995","language":"French","online_url":null,"doi_url":null,"ti_url":null,"categories":[{"id":27,"category_name":"Logic","link":"bib?categories[]=Logic"},{"id":15,"category_name":"Alexander of Aphrodisias","link":"bib?categories[]=Alexander of Aphrodisias"},{"id":28,"category_name":"al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b","link":"bib?categories[]=al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b"},{"id":21,"category_name":"Aristotle","link":"bib?categories[]=Aristotle"},{"id":23,"category_name":"Commentary","link":"bib?categories[]=Commentary"}],"authors":[{"id":779,"full_name":"Abdelali Elamrani-Jamal","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":479,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Arabic Sciences and Philosophy","volume":"5","issue":null,"pages":"51\u201374"}},"sort":[1995]}
| 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":["Grek \u015e\u00e2rihlerden \u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd'e De\u011fin Aristoteles'in Theta (\u0398) Kitab\u0131'n\u0131n H\u00e2ric\u00ee Tarihi"]}
| Title | Ibn Rušd et les Premiers Analytiques d'Aristote. Aperçu sur un problème de syllogistique modale |
| Type | Article |
| Language | French |
| Date | 1995 |
| Journal | Arabic Sciences and Philosophy |
| Volume | 5 |
| Pages | 51–74 |
| Categories | Logic, Alexander of Aphrodisias, al-Fārābī, Aristotle, Commentary |
| Author(s) | Abdelali Elamrani-Jamal |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Ibn Rušd devoted a certain number of works to Aristotle's Prior Analytics. In a series of opuscules written over a period of twenty years and following upon his Middle Commentary on Aristotle's Prior Analytics, he faced a problem particular to the modal syllogism - that of the mood of the conclusion in mixed syllogisms. The problem can be stated as follows: At the beginning of the Prior Analytics, Aristotle established a formal deductive principle - that of universal attribution (Pr. An. I.1.24b26–30). Applied to the modal syllogism, this principle is inadequate as stated. It is too general to be applied in a univocal manner in all modal syllogisms. To preserve a sense of coherence in Aristotle's declarations, the commentators had to interpret it. Presenting the interpretations of the commentators, primarily al-Fārābī and Alexander, on the basis of al-Fārābī's Large Commentary on Aristotle's Prior Analytics, Averroes criticizes them. Applied according to Alexander's interpretation, the principle of universal attribution is valid only for modal syllogisms one of whose premises is necessary and the other assertoric; according to al-Fārābī's interpretation, it is verified only when the minor premise is possible. Averroes proposes two preliminary solutions. Either this formal deductive principle must be applied differently according to the modal differences of the minor premises in mixed syllogisms (first solution) or would be used in two ways, generally or in keeping with each mood (second solution). These solutions are not satisfactory, for they call into question the unity and universality of the principle of universal attribution as established by Aristotle. What is the utility, Averroes asks, of a principle which does not hold for all modalities or does not apply to all the premises when the Prior Analytics ought to furnish formal and universal principles of deduction? And why did Aristotle define the principle of universal attribution without distinguishing its application according to each of the three modal premises? Returning at the end of his career to a literal exegesis of Aristotle's propositions and without harkening back to the earlier solutions, he proposes a theory of making the terms modal (fourth solution) in order to save Aristotle's declarations with respect to the principle of universal attribution and the mood of the conclusion of mixed syllogisms (Prior Analytics I. 9.30al5–20). Though formally inadequate, this solution, which had a continued history, proposes a new way of looking at the classification of modal propositions. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"479","_score":null,"_source":{"id":479,"authors_free":[{"id":623,"entry_id":479,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":779,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Abdelali Elamrani-Jamal","free_first_name":"Abdelali","free_last_name":"Elamrani-Jamal","norm_person":{"id":779,"first_name":"Abdelali","last_name":"Elamrani-Jamal","full_name":"Abdelali Elamrani-Jamal","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/154697621","viaf_url":"https:\/\/viaf.org\/viaf\/7526121","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]=Abdelali Elamrani-Jamal"}}],"entry_title":"Ibn Ru\u0161d et les Premiers Analytiques d'Aristote. Aper\u00e7u sur un probl\u00e8me de syllogistique modale","title_transcript":null,"title_translation":null,"main_title":{"title":"Ibn Ru\u0161d et les Premiers Analytiques d'Aristote. Aper\u00e7u sur un probl\u00e8me de syllogistique modale"},"abstract":"Ibn Ru\u0161d devoted a certain number of works to Aristotle's Prior Analytics. In a series of opuscules written over a period of twenty years and following upon his Middle Commentary on Aristotle's Prior Analytics, he faced a problem particular to the modal syllogism - that of the mood of the conclusion in mixed syllogisms. The problem can be stated as follows: At the beginning of the Prior Analytics, Aristotle established a formal deductive principle - that of universal attribution (Pr. An. I.1.24b26\u201330). Applied to the modal syllogism, this principle is inadequate as stated. It is too general to be applied in a univocal manner in all modal syllogisms. To preserve a sense of coherence in Aristotle's declarations, the commentators had to interpret it. Presenting the interpretations of the commentators, primarily al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b and Alexander, on the basis of al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b's Large Commentary on Aristotle's Prior Analytics, Averroes criticizes them. Applied according to Alexander's interpretation, the principle of universal attribution is valid only for modal syllogisms one of whose premises is necessary and the other assertoric; according to al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b's interpretation, it is verified only when the minor premise is possible. Averroes proposes two preliminary solutions. Either this formal deductive principle must be applied differently according to the modal differences of the minor premises in mixed syllogisms (first solution) or would be used in two ways, generally or in keeping with each mood (second solution). These solutions are not satisfactory, for they call into question the unity and universality of the principle of universal attribution as established by Aristotle. What is the utility, Averroes asks, of a principle which does not hold for all modalities or does not apply to all the premises when the Prior Analytics ought to furnish formal and universal principles of deduction? And why did Aristotle define the principle of universal attribution without distinguishing its application according to each of the three modal premises? Returning at the end of his career to a literal exegesis of Aristotle's propositions and without harkening back to the earlier solutions, he proposes a theory of making the terms modal (fourth solution) in order to save Aristotle's declarations with respect to the principle of universal attribution and the mood of the conclusion of mixed syllogisms (Prior Analytics I. 9.30al5\u201320). Though formally inadequate, this solution, which had a continued history, proposes a new way of looking at the classification of modal propositions.","btype":3,"date":"1995","language":"French","online_url":null,"doi_url":null,"ti_url":null,"categories":[{"id":27,"category_name":"Logic","link":"bib?categories[]=Logic"},{"id":15,"category_name":"Alexander of Aphrodisias","link":"bib?categories[]=Alexander of Aphrodisias"},{"id":28,"category_name":"al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b","link":"bib?categories[]=al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b"},{"id":21,"category_name":"Aristotle","link":"bib?categories[]=Aristotle"},{"id":23,"category_name":"Commentary","link":"bib?categories[]=Commentary"}],"authors":[{"id":779,"full_name":"Abdelali Elamrani-Jamal","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":479,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Arabic Sciences and Philosophy","volume":"5","issue":null,"pages":"51\u201374"}},"sort":["Ibn Ru\u0161d et les Premiers Analytiques d'Aristote. Aper\u00e7u sur un probl\u00e8me de syllogistique modale"]}
| Title | Ibn Rušd on the Structure of Aristotle's Metaphysics |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2010 |
| Journal | Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale |
| Volume | 21 |
| Pages | 375–410 |
| Categories | Metaphysics, Aristotle, Alexander of Aphrodisias |
| Author(s) | Rüdiger Arnzen |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| The structure of Aristotle's Metaphysics was a matter of dispute among ancient and Medieval Greek, Arabic, and Latin-writing commentators. The present article investigates the question in which way the Arab philosopher Averroes dealt with this problem in his so-called Epitome and his literal commentary on the Metaphysics. It tries to show that in the Epitome Averroes restructured the contents of the Metaphysics according to his own conception of this discipline, and that this conception was partly indebted to his own main sources, al-Fārābī and Ibn Sīnā, partly independent from these. Furthemore, the article examines whether and, if so, in which whay Averroes changed his mind about metaphysics as such and/or the structure of Aristotle's Metaphysics in his late literal commentary. It is argued that Averroes discarded there some of his earlier Avicennian positions in favour of a certain rapprochement to positions held by Alexander of Aphrodisias, but never gave up in general his overall conception of the Metaphysics as displayed in the Epitome. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"1538","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1538,"authors_free":[{"id":1765,"entry_id":1538,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":535,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"R\u00fcdiger Arnzen","free_first_name":"R\u00fcdiger","free_last_name":"Arnzen","norm_person":{"id":535,"first_name":"R\u00fcdiger","last_name":"Arnzen","full_name":"R\u00fcdiger Arnzen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115210423","viaf_url":"NULL","db_url":"NULL","from_claudius":0,"link":"bib?authors[]=R\u00fcdiger Arnzen"}}],"entry_title":"Ibn Ru\u0161d on the Structure of Aristotle's Metaphysics","title_transcript":null,"title_translation":null,"main_title":{"title":"Ibn Ru\u0161d on the Structure of Aristotle's Metaphysics"},"abstract":"The structure of Aristotle's Metaphysics was a matter of dispute among ancient and Medieval Greek, Arabic, and Latin-writing commentators. The present article investigates the question in which way the Arab philosopher Averroes dealt with this problem in his so-called Epitome and his literal commentary on the Metaphysics. It tries to show that in the Epitome Averroes restructured the contents of the Metaphysics according to his own conception of this discipline, and that this conception was partly indebted to his own main sources, al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b and Ibn S\u012bn\u0101, partly independent from these. Furthemore, the article examines whether and, if so, in which whay Averroes changed his mind about metaphysics as such and\/or the structure of Aristotle's Metaphysics in his late literal commentary. It is argued that Averroes discarded there some of his earlier Avicennian positions in favour of a certain rapprochement to positions held by Alexander of Aphrodisias, but never gave up in general his overall conception of the Metaphysics as displayed in the Epitome.","btype":3,"date":"2010","language":"English","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"},{"id":15,"category_name":"Alexander of Aphrodisias","link":"bib?categories[]=Alexander of Aphrodisias"}],"authors":[{"id":535,"full_name":"R\u00fcdiger Arnzen","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1538,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale","volume":"21","issue":null,"pages":"375\u2013410"}},"sort":["Ibn Ru\u0161d on the Structure of Aristotle's Metaphysics"]}
| Title | Pomponazzi Contra Averroes on the Intellect |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2016 |
| Journal | British Journal for the History of Philosophy |
| Volume | 24 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 45–66 |
| Categories | Renaissance, De anima, Aristotle, Alexander of Aphrodisias, Themistius, Thomas |
| Author(s) | John Sellars |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| This paper examines Pomponazzi's arguments against Averroes in his De Immortalitate Animae, focusing on the question whether thought is possible without a body. The first part of the paper will sketch the history of the problem, namely the interpretation of Aristotle's remarks about the intellect in De Anima 3.4-5, touching on Alexander, Themistius, and Averroes. The second part will focus on Pomponazzi's response to Averroes, including his use of arguments by Aquinas. It will conclude by suggesting that Pomponazzi's discussion stands as the first properly modern account of Aristotle's psychology. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5255","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5255,"authors_free":[{"id":6064,"entry_id":5255,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"John Sellars","free_first_name":"John","free_last_name":"Sellars","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Pomponazzi Contra Averroes on the Intellect","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Pomponazzi Contra Averroes on the Intellect"},"abstract":"This paper examines Pomponazzi's arguments against Averroes in his De Immortalitate Animae, focusing on the question whether thought is possible without a body. The first part of the paper will sketch the history of the problem, namely the interpretation of Aristotle's remarks about the intellect in De Anima 3.4-5, touching on Alexander, Themistius, and Averroes. The second part will focus on Pomponazzi's response to Averroes, including his use of arguments by Aquinas. It will conclude by suggesting that Pomponazzi's discussion stands as the first properly modern account of Aristotle's psychology.","btype":3,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/09608788.2015.1063979","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":5,"category_name":"Renaissance","link":"bib?categories[]=Renaissance"},{"id":46,"category_name":"De anima","link":"bib?categories[]=De anima"},{"id":21,"category_name":"Aristotle","link":"bib?categories[]=Aristotle"},{"id":15,"category_name":"Alexander of Aphrodisias","link":"bib?categories[]=Alexander of Aphrodisias"},{"id":16,"category_name":"Themistius","link":"bib?categories[]=Themistius"},{"id":51,"category_name":"Thomas","link":"bib?categories[]=Thomas"}],"authors":[],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5255,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"British Journal for the History of Philosophy","volume":"24","issue":"1","pages":"45\u201366"}},"sort":["Pomponazzi Contra Averroes on the Intellect"]}