| Title | Interpreting Averroes. Critical Essays |
| Type | Monograph |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2019 |
| Publication Place | Cambridge |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press |
| Categories | Logic, Natural Philosophy, Psychology, Metaphysics, Law, Medicine, Ethics |
| Author(s) | Peter Adamson , Matteo Di Giovanni |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"4977","_score":null,"_source":{"id":4977,"authors_free":[{"id":5710,"entry_id":4977,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":905,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Peter Adamson","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Adamson","norm_person":{"id":905,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Adamson","full_name":"Peter Adamson","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139896104","viaf_url":"https:\/\/viaf.org\/viaf\/29826916","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]=Peter Adamson"}},{"id":5711,"entry_id":4977,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":734,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Matteo Di Giovanni","free_first_name":"Matteo","free_last_name":"Di Giovanni","norm_person":{"id":734,"first_name":"Matteo","last_name":"Di Giovanni","full_name":"Matteo di Giovanni","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1130687570","viaf_url":"https:\/\/viaf.org\/viaf\/9497149368819485980007","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]=Matteo di Giovanni"}}],"entry_title":"Interpreting Averroes. Critical Essays","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Interpreting Averroes. Critical Essays"},"abstract":"","btype":1,"date":"2019","language":"English","online_url":null,"doi_url":null,"ti_url":null,"categories":[{"id":27,"category_name":"Logic","link":"bib?categories[]=Logic"},{"id":38,"category_name":"Natural Philosophy","link":"bib?categories[]=Natural Philosophy"},{"id":12,"category_name":"Psychology","link":"bib?categories[]=Psychology"},{"id":31,"category_name":"Metaphysics","link":"bib?categories[]=Metaphysics"},{"id":26,"category_name":"Law","link":"bib?categories[]=Law"},{"id":29,"category_name":"Medicine","link":"bib?categories[]=Medicine"},{"id":22,"category_name":"Ethics","link":"bib?categories[]=Ethics"}],"authors":[{"id":905,"full_name":"Peter Adamson","role":2},{"id":734,"full_name":"Matteo di Giovanni","role":2}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":{"id":4977,"pubplace":"Cambridge","publisher":"Cambridge University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2019]}
| Title | Averroes and the Philosophical Account of Prophecy |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2018 |
| Journal | Studia graeco-arabica |
| Volume | 8 |
| Pages | 287–304 |
| Categories | Metaphysics, Commentary, Natural Philosophy |
| Author(s) | Richard C. Taylor |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Prophecy is conspicuous by its complete absence from all three of the commentaries on De Anima by Averroes. However, prophecy and philosophical metaphysics are discussed by him in his Commentary on the Parva Naturalia, a work written before his methodological work on philosophy and religion, the Faṣl al-maqāl, generally held to have been written ca. 1179-1180. The analyses and remarks of Averroes presented in that Commentary have been characterized by Herbert Davidson as “extremely radical” to the extent that “The term prophet would, on this reading, mean nothing more than the human author of Scripture; and the term revelation would mean a high level of philosophical knowledge”. In the present article I discuss Averroes on method in matters of religion and philosophy as well as prophecy in philosophically argumentative works and in dialectical works, with particular consideration of the reasoning of his Commentary on the Parva Naturalia. I conclude that Averroes found in philosophy and its sciences the most complete and precise truth content and highest levels of knowledge and understanding and from them constructed his worldview, while he found prophecy and religion to be like an Aristotelian practical science in that they concern good and right conduct in the achievement of an end attained in action, not truths to be known for their own sake. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5167","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5167,"authors_free":[{"id":5951,"entry_id":5167,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":966,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Richard C. Taylor","free_first_name":"Richard C.","free_last_name":"Taylor","norm_person":{"id":966,"first_name":"Richard C.","last_name":"Taylor","full_name":"Richard C. Taylor","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139866353","viaf_url":"https:\/\/viaf.org\/viaf\/49247370","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]=Richard C. Taylor"}}],"entry_title":"Averroes and the Philosophical Account of Prophecy","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Averroes and the Philosophical Account of Prophecy"},"abstract":"Prophecy is conspicuous by its complete absence from all three of the commentaries on De Anima by Averroes. However, prophecy and philosophical metaphysics are discussed by him in his Commentary on the Parva Naturalia, a work written before his methodological work on philosophy and religion, the Fa\u1e63l al-maq\u0101l, generally held to have been written ca. 1179-1180. The analyses and remarks of Averroes presented in that Commentary have been characterized by Herbert Davidson as \u201cextremely radical\u201d to the extent that \u201cThe term prophet would, on this reading, mean nothing more than the human author of Scripture; and the term revelation would mean a high level of philosophical knowledge\u201d. In the present article I discuss Averroes on method in matters of religion and philosophy as well as prophecy in philosophically argumentative works and in dialectical works, with particular consideration of the reasoning of his Commentary on the Parva Naturalia. I conclude that Averroes found in philosophy and its sciences the most complete and precise truth content and highest levels of knowledge and understanding and from them constructed his worldview, while he found prophecy and religion to be like an Aristotelian practical science in that they concern good and right conduct in the achievement of an end attained in action, not truths to be known for their own sake.","btype":3,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":31,"category_name":"Metaphysics","link":"bib?categories[]=Metaphysics"},{"id":23,"category_name":"Commentary","link":"bib?categories[]=Commentary"},{"id":38,"category_name":"Natural Philosophy","link":"bib?categories[]=Natural Philosophy"}],"authors":[{"id":966,"full_name":"Richard C. Taylor","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5167,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Studia graeco-arabica","volume":"8","issue":"","pages":"287\u2013304"}},"sort":[2018]}
| Title | Discussion of Causality Based on the Conceptions of Nature of Ibn Rushd and al-Ghazalī |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2010 |
| Journal | Ilahiyat Studies. A Journal on Islamic and Religious Studies |
| Volume | 1 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 241–258 |
| Categories | Natural Philosophy, al-Ġazālī, Metaphysics |
| Author(s) | Mehmet Fatih Birgül |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| In this short analysis, we will compare Ibn Rushd's justification of the causality principle to the suspicions and objections of al-Ghazālī. Nevertheless, our analysis of the issue will center on al-Ghazālī's and Ibn Rushd's conceptions of nature. Therefore, our article aims at illuminating two points: first, there is a fundamental difference between the conceptions of nature and generation of the two philosophers; second, this structural difference constitutes the real cause of disagreement over the causality principle. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"1636","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1636,"authors_free":[{"id":1892,"entry_id":1636,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":1425,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mehmet Fatih Birg\u00fcl","free_first_name":"Mehmet","free_last_name":"Fatih Birg\u00fcl","norm_person":{"id":1425,"first_name":"Mehmet","last_name":"Fatih Birg\u00fcl","full_name":"Mehmet Fatih Birg\u00fcl","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"http:\/\/viaf.org\/viaf\/101480661","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]=Mehmet Fatih Birg\u00fcl"}}],"entry_title":"Discussion of Causality Based on the Conceptions of Nature of Ibn Rushd and al-Ghazal\u012b","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Discussion of Causality Based on the Conceptions of Nature of Ibn Rushd and al-Ghazal\u012b"},"abstract":"In this short analysis, we will compare Ibn Rushd's justification of the causality principle to the suspicions and objections of al-Ghaz\u0101l\u012b. Nevertheless, our analysis of the issue will center on al-Ghaz\u0101l\u012b's and Ibn Rushd's conceptions of nature. Therefore, our article aims at illuminating two points: first, there is a fundamental difference between the conceptions of nature and generation of the two philosophers; second, this structural difference constitutes the real cause of disagreement over the causality principle.","btype":3,"date":"2010","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"10.12730\/13091719.2010.12 (refers to the whole issue of the magazine)","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":38,"category_name":"Natural Philosophy","link":"bib?categories[]=Natural Philosophy"},{"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":1425,"full_name":"Mehmet Fatih Birg\u00fcl","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1636,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Ilahiyat Studies. A Journal on Islamic and Religious Studies","volume":"1","issue":"2","pages":"241\u2013258"}},"sort":[2010]}
| Title | Averroes and the Philosophical Account of Prophecy |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2018 |
| Journal | Studia graeco-arabica |
| Volume | 8 |
| Pages | 287–304 |
| Categories | Metaphysics, Commentary, Natural Philosophy |
| Author(s) | Richard C. Taylor |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Prophecy is conspicuous by its complete absence from all three of the commentaries on De Anima by Averroes. However, prophecy and philosophical metaphysics are discussed by him in his Commentary on the Parva Naturalia, a work written before his methodological work on philosophy and religion, the Faṣl al-maqāl, generally held to have been written ca. 1179-1180. The analyses and remarks of Averroes presented in that Commentary have been characterized by Herbert Davidson as “extremely radical” to the extent that “The term prophet would, on this reading, mean nothing more than the human author of Scripture; and the term revelation would mean a high level of philosophical knowledge”. In the present article I discuss Averroes on method in matters of religion and philosophy as well as prophecy in philosophically argumentative works and in dialectical works, with particular consideration of the reasoning of his Commentary on the Parva Naturalia. I conclude that Averroes found in philosophy and its sciences the most complete and precise truth content and highest levels of knowledge and understanding and from them constructed his worldview, while he found prophecy and religion to be like an Aristotelian practical science in that they concern good and right conduct in the achievement of an end attained in action, not truths to be known for their own sake. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5167","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5167,"authors_free":[{"id":5951,"entry_id":5167,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":966,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Richard C. Taylor","free_first_name":"Richard C.","free_last_name":"Taylor","norm_person":{"id":966,"first_name":"Richard C.","last_name":"Taylor","full_name":"Richard C. Taylor","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139866353","viaf_url":"https:\/\/viaf.org\/viaf\/49247370","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]=Richard C. Taylor"}}],"entry_title":"Averroes and the Philosophical Account of Prophecy","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Averroes and the Philosophical Account of Prophecy"},"abstract":"Prophecy is conspicuous by its complete absence from all three of the commentaries on De Anima by Averroes. However, prophecy and philosophical metaphysics are discussed by him in his Commentary on the Parva Naturalia, a work written before his methodological work on philosophy and religion, the Fa\u1e63l al-maq\u0101l, generally held to have been written ca. 1179-1180. The analyses and remarks of Averroes presented in that Commentary have been characterized by Herbert Davidson as \u201cextremely radical\u201d to the extent that \u201cThe term prophet would, on this reading, mean nothing more than the human author of Scripture; and the term revelation would mean a high level of philosophical knowledge\u201d. In the present article I discuss Averroes on method in matters of religion and philosophy as well as prophecy in philosophically argumentative works and in dialectical works, with particular consideration of the reasoning of his Commentary on the Parva Naturalia. I conclude that Averroes found in philosophy and its sciences the most complete and precise truth content and highest levels of knowledge and understanding and from them constructed his worldview, while he found prophecy and religion to be like an Aristotelian practical science in that they concern good and right conduct in the achievement of an end attained in action, not truths to be known for their own sake.","btype":3,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":31,"category_name":"Metaphysics","link":"bib?categories[]=Metaphysics"},{"id":23,"category_name":"Commentary","link":"bib?categories[]=Commentary"},{"id":38,"category_name":"Natural Philosophy","link":"bib?categories[]=Natural Philosophy"}],"authors":[{"id":966,"full_name":"Richard C. Taylor","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5167,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Studia graeco-arabica","volume":"8","issue":"","pages":"287\u2013304"}},"sort":["Averroes and the Philosophical Account of Prophecy"]}
| Title | Discussion of Causality Based on the Conceptions of Nature of Ibn Rushd and al-Ghazalī |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2010 |
| Journal | Ilahiyat Studies. A Journal on Islamic and Religious Studies |
| Volume | 1 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 241–258 |
| Categories | Natural Philosophy, al-Ġazālī, Metaphysics |
| Author(s) | Mehmet Fatih Birgül |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| In this short analysis, we will compare Ibn Rushd's justification of the causality principle to the suspicions and objections of al-Ghazālī. Nevertheless, our analysis of the issue will center on al-Ghazālī's and Ibn Rushd's conceptions of nature. Therefore, our article aims at illuminating two points: first, there is a fundamental difference between the conceptions of nature and generation of the two philosophers; second, this structural difference constitutes the real cause of disagreement over the causality principle. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"1636","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1636,"authors_free":[{"id":1892,"entry_id":1636,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":1425,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mehmet Fatih Birg\u00fcl","free_first_name":"Mehmet","free_last_name":"Fatih Birg\u00fcl","norm_person":{"id":1425,"first_name":"Mehmet","last_name":"Fatih Birg\u00fcl","full_name":"Mehmet Fatih Birg\u00fcl","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"http:\/\/viaf.org\/viaf\/101480661","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]=Mehmet Fatih Birg\u00fcl"}}],"entry_title":"Discussion of Causality Based on the Conceptions of Nature of Ibn Rushd and al-Ghazal\u012b","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Discussion of Causality Based on the Conceptions of Nature of Ibn Rushd and al-Ghazal\u012b"},"abstract":"In this short analysis, we will compare Ibn Rushd's justification of the causality principle to the suspicions and objections of al-Ghaz\u0101l\u012b. Nevertheless, our analysis of the issue will center on al-Ghaz\u0101l\u012b's and Ibn Rushd's conceptions of nature. Therefore, our article aims at illuminating two points: first, there is a fundamental difference between the conceptions of nature and generation of the two philosophers; second, this structural difference constitutes the real cause of disagreement over the causality principle.","btype":3,"date":"2010","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"10.12730\/13091719.2010.12 (refers to the whole issue of the magazine)","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":38,"category_name":"Natural Philosophy","link":"bib?categories[]=Natural Philosophy"},{"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":1425,"full_name":"Mehmet Fatih Birg\u00fcl","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1636,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Ilahiyat Studies. A Journal on Islamic and Religious Studies","volume":"1","issue":"2","pages":"241\u2013258"}},"sort":["Discussion of Causality Based on the Conceptions of Nature of Ibn Rushd and al-Ghazal\u012b"]}
| Title | Interpreting Averroes. Critical Essays |
| Type | Monograph |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2019 |
| Publication Place | Cambridge |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press |
| Categories | Logic, Natural Philosophy, Psychology, Metaphysics, Law, Medicine, Ethics |
| Author(s) | Peter Adamson , Matteo Di Giovanni |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"4977","_score":null,"_source":{"id":4977,"authors_free":[{"id":5710,"entry_id":4977,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":905,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Peter Adamson","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Adamson","norm_person":{"id":905,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Adamson","full_name":"Peter Adamson","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139896104","viaf_url":"https:\/\/viaf.org\/viaf\/29826916","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]=Peter Adamson"}},{"id":5711,"entry_id":4977,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":734,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Matteo Di Giovanni","free_first_name":"Matteo","free_last_name":"Di Giovanni","norm_person":{"id":734,"first_name":"Matteo","last_name":"Di Giovanni","full_name":"Matteo di Giovanni","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1130687570","viaf_url":"https:\/\/viaf.org\/viaf\/9497149368819485980007","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]=Matteo di Giovanni"}}],"entry_title":"Interpreting Averroes. Critical Essays","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Interpreting Averroes. Critical Essays"},"abstract":"","btype":1,"date":"2019","language":"English","online_url":null,"doi_url":null,"ti_url":null,"categories":[{"id":27,"category_name":"Logic","link":"bib?categories[]=Logic"},{"id":38,"category_name":"Natural Philosophy","link":"bib?categories[]=Natural Philosophy"},{"id":12,"category_name":"Psychology","link":"bib?categories[]=Psychology"},{"id":31,"category_name":"Metaphysics","link":"bib?categories[]=Metaphysics"},{"id":26,"category_name":"Law","link":"bib?categories[]=Law"},{"id":29,"category_name":"Medicine","link":"bib?categories[]=Medicine"},{"id":22,"category_name":"Ethics","link":"bib?categories[]=Ethics"}],"authors":[{"id":905,"full_name":"Peter Adamson","role":2},{"id":734,"full_name":"Matteo di Giovanni","role":2}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":{"id":4977,"pubplace":"Cambridge","publisher":"Cambridge University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Interpreting Averroes. Critical Essays"]}