| Title | Philosopher-Kings and Counselors: How Should Philosophers Participate in Politics? |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2022 |
| Published in | Plato's Republic in the Islamic Context. New Perspectives on Averroes's Commentary |
| Pages | 253–274 |
| Categories | Politics, Tradition and Reception |
| Author(s) | Alexander Orwin |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| The most famous, or infamous, proposal in Plato's Republic concerns the rule of philosopher-kings. Throughout the long history of the philosophical reception of Plato, this theme has been explored, restated, and rejected in countless ways. One of the most original treatments of it comes from the Andalusian philosopher Averroes, in his Commentary on Plato's “Republic.” The title of this inventive work must not be construed too narrowly. On every major theme in the Republic, Averroes deviates, either by omission, addition, or editorial commentary, from Plato. His treatment of the philosopher-kings will make use of all these techniques. Before turning to this topic, I wish to make some general remarks about the work as a whole. Averroes announces his departure from Plato in the first sentence of the work, with the somewhat cryptic promise to remove all dialectical arguments from the Republic while preserving the demonstrative arguments (CR 21.4). Dialectic is associated, etymologically and semantically, with dialogue. Sure enough, Averroes expunges not only the dialogue form of the original but also its principal characters. This choice should not simply be attributed to ignorance: even if we were to assume that Averroes had only a summary of the original, he would surely have known of the existence of the characters Socrates and Thrasymachus through Alfarabi. In fact, Averroes himself mentions Thrasymachus and his arguments about justice in his Middle Commentary on the Topics. The form with which Averroes replaces the dialogue can hardly be described as a straightforward treatise. Averroes attributes the arguments he presents to a variety of sources, as indicated by expressions such as “we said,” and “Plato said.” In addition, Alfarabi and Aristotle are often cited, paraphrased, or even plagiarized, in what is ostensibly a commentary on Plato. This implies a dialogue of sorts between not only Averroes and Plato, but Aristotle and Alfarabi as well. One is tempted to say that the discussions between Socrates, an aged father, a sophist, and several young Greeks is replaced by a discussion between four great political philosophers across the ages, orchestrated by the latest representative of this august group. On this point, it is useful to recall Leo Strauss's observation, that no Platonic dialogue relates a discussion among equals. If dialectic involves a superior person such as Socrates leading less accomplished interlocutors by the hand, then Averroes's new, demonstrative form consists of a dialogue between equals to whom historical accident never granted the opportunity for a face-to-face meeting. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5358","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5358,"authors_free":[{"id":6209,"entry_id":5358,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":1790,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Alexander Orwin","free_first_name":"Alexander ","free_last_name":"Orwin","norm_person":{"id":1790,"first_name":" Alexander","last_name":" Orwin","full_name":" Alexander Orwin","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/1153328348","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null,"link":"bib?authors[]= Alexander Orwin"}}],"entry_title":"Philosopher-Kings and Counselors: How Should Philosophers Participate in Politics?","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Philosopher-Kings and Counselors: How Should Philosophers Participate in Politics?"},"abstract":"The most famous, or infamous, proposal in Plato's Republic concerns the rule of philosopher-kings. Throughout the long history of the philosophical reception of Plato, this theme has been explored, restated, and rejected in countless ways. One of the most original treatments of it comes from the Andalusian philosopher Averroes, in his Commentary on Plato's \u201cRepublic.\u201d The title of this inventive work must not be construed too narrowly. On every major theme in the Republic, Averroes deviates, either by omission, addition, or editorial commentary, from Plato. His treatment of the philosopher-kings will make use of all these techniques. Before turning to this topic, I wish to make some general remarks about the work as a whole.\r\n\r\nAverroes announces his departure from Plato in the first sentence of the work, with the somewhat cryptic promise to remove all dialectical arguments from the Republic while preserving the demonstrative arguments (CR 21.4). Dialectic is associated, etymologically and semantically, with dialogue. Sure enough, Averroes expunges not only the dialogue form of the original but also its principal characters. This choice should not simply be attributed to ignorance: even if we were to assume that Averroes had only a summary of the original, he would surely have known of the existence of the characters Socrates and Thrasymachus through Alfarabi. In fact, Averroes himself mentions Thrasymachus and his arguments about justice in his Middle Commentary on the Topics.\r\n\r\nThe form with which Averroes replaces the dialogue can hardly be described as a straightforward treatise. Averroes attributes the arguments he presents to a variety of sources, as indicated by expressions such as \u201cwe said,\u201d and \u201cPlato said.\u201d In addition, Alfarabi and Aristotle are often cited, paraphrased, or even plagiarized, in what is ostensibly a commentary on Plato. This implies a dialogue of sorts between not only Averroes and Plato, but Aristotle and Alfarabi as well. One is tempted to say that the discussions between Socrates, an aged father, a sophist, and several young Greeks is replaced by a discussion between four great political philosophers across the ages, orchestrated by the latest representative of this august group. On this point, it is useful to recall Leo Strauss's observation, that no Platonic dialogue relates a discussion among equals. If dialectic involves a superior person such as Socrates leading less accomplished interlocutors by the hand, then Averroes's new, demonstrative form consists of a dialogue between equals to whom historical accident never granted the opportunity for a face-to-face meeting.","btype":2,"date":"2022","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/9781800104983.013","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":4,"category_name":"Politics","link":"bib?categories[]=Politics"},{"id":43,"category_name":"Tradition and Reception","link":"bib?categories[]=Tradition and Reception"}],"authors":[{"id":1790,"full_name":" Alexander Orwin","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":{"id":5358,"section_of":5346,"pages":"253\u2013274","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":5346,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Plato's Republic in the Islamic Context. New Perspectives on Averroes's Commentary","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2022","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":0,"online_url":"","online_resources":null,"translation_of":"0","new_edition_of":"0","is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"ti_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/9781800104983","book":{"id":5346,"pubplace":"","publisher":" Boydell & Brewer","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"persons":[{"id":6196,"entry_id":5346,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":" Alexander Orwin","free_first_name":" Alexander","free_last_name":" Orwin","norm_person":null}]}},"article":null},"sort":[2022]}
| Title | Natural Perfection or Divine Fiat |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2022 |
| Published in | Plato's Republic in the Islamic Context. New Perspectives on Averroes's Commentary |
| Pages | 233–252 |
| Categories | Nicomachean ethics, Politics, Tradition and Reception |
| Author(s) | Joshua Parens |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| As a reader of Averroes's Commentary on Plato's “Republic,” one is struck from the beginning by how much he omits from his commentary. Typically, this would be taken to indicate that Averroes does not comprehend Plato's intention. Indeed, the author can seem at times to confirm what many readers assume—namely, that he would rather have commented on a work by Aristotle. We will try to show that his major omissions—that is, of books 1, (most of ) 6, and 10, and especially what he substitutes for these omissions—form a coherent pattern and ultimately reveal a profound commentary on the omitted passages. That coherent pattern is already set within the first few pages of the work. From the beginning he seems to focus on the place of the Republic in relation to practical science and theoretical science. This comes as little surprise in a commentary on a work devoted to what I would like to call the philosopher-king conceit. The Republic is at least in part Plato's consideration of the relation between theoretical and practical science, as encapsulated in the person of the philosopher-king. Although Socrates does not get around to the centrality of this theme until Republic book 5, Averroes is on it from the beginning. He does so in part in order to place his discussion of the Republic in relation to his commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics—putatively the more theoretical of the two works. Be that as it may, we are most interested in what ties together the omissions of books 1, 6, and 10—and especially what Averroes substitutes for those omissions. We hope to show that the golden thread running through what Averroes substitutes is the theme of human perfection, in at least two senses: the philosopher-king and immortality. In each case, there is some element in Plato's original that Averroes needs to take into another register (from conventionalism in book 1 to fiat transplanted into the Second Treatise; from separate forms in book 6 to the active intellect in the Second Treatise; and from immortality of the soul in book 10 to conjunction with the active intellect in the Second Treatise). In effect, all these omissions are drawn together in the Second Treatise. For that reason, eventually, we will comment more closely on the most relevant section of the Second Treatise (60.17–74.12). |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5357","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5357,"authors_free":[{"id":6208,"entry_id":5357,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":1783,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Joshua Parens","free_first_name":"Joshua","free_last_name":" Parens","norm_person":{"id":1783,"first_name":"Joshua","last_name":"Parens","full_name":"Joshua Parens","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172958881","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null,"link":"bib?authors[]=Joshua Parens"}}],"entry_title":"Natural Perfection or Divine Fiat","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Natural Perfection or Divine Fiat"},"abstract":"As a reader of Averroes's Commentary on Plato's \u201cRepublic,\u201d one is struck from the beginning by how much he omits from his commentary. Typically, this would be taken to indicate that Averroes does not comprehend Plato's intention. Indeed, the author can seem at times to confirm what many readers assume\u2014namely, that he would rather have commented on a work by Aristotle. We will try to show that his major omissions\u2014that is, of books 1, (most of ) 6, and 10, and especially what he substitutes for these omissions\u2014form a coherent pattern and ultimately reveal a profound commentary on the omitted passages. That coherent pattern is already set within the first few pages of the work. From the beginning he seems to focus on the place of the Republic in relation to practical science and theoretical science. This comes as little surprise in a commentary on a work devoted to what I would like to call the philosopher-king conceit. The Republic is at least in part Plato's consideration of the relation between theoretical and practical science, as encapsulated in the person of the philosopher-king. Although Socrates does not get around to the centrality of this theme until Republic book 5, Averroes is on it from the beginning. He does so in part in order to place his discussion of the Republic in relation to his commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics\u2014putatively the more theoretical of the two works. Be that as it may, we are most interested in what ties together the omissions of books 1, 6, and 10\u2014and especially what Averroes substitutes for those omissions. We hope to show that the golden thread running through what Averroes substitutes is the theme of human perfection, in at least two senses: the philosopher-king and immortality. In each case, there is some element in Plato's original that Averroes needs to take into another register (from conventionalism in book 1 to fiat transplanted into the Second Treatise; from separate forms in book 6 to the active intellect in the Second Treatise; and from immortality of the soul in book 10 to conjunction with the active intellect in the Second Treatise). In effect, all these omissions are drawn together in the Second Treatise. For that reason, eventually, we will comment more closely on the most relevant section of the Second Treatise (60.17\u201374.12).","btype":2,"date":"2022","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/9781800104983.012","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":70,"category_name":"Nicomachean ethics","link":"bib?categories[]=Nicomachean ethics"},{"id":4,"category_name":"Politics","link":"bib?categories[]=Politics"},{"id":43,"category_name":"Tradition and Reception","link":"bib?categories[]=Tradition and Reception"}],"authors":[{"id":1783,"full_name":"Joshua Parens","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":{"id":5357,"section_of":5346,"pages":"233\u2013252","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":5346,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Plato's Republic in the Islamic Context. New Perspectives on Averroes's Commentary","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2022","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":0,"online_url":"","online_resources":null,"translation_of":"0","new_edition_of":"0","is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"ti_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/9781800104983","book":{"id":5346,"pubplace":"","publisher":" Boydell & Brewer","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"persons":[{"id":6196,"entry_id":5346,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":" Alexander Orwin","free_first_name":" Alexander","free_last_name":" Orwin","norm_person":null}]}},"article":null},"sort":[2022]}
| Title | Leo Strauss and Islamic Political Thought |
| Type | Monograph |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2022 |
| Publication Place | Cambridge |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press. |
| Categories | Theology, Politics, Relation between Philosophy and Theology, Tradition and Reception |
| Author(s) | Rasoul Namazi |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| In this book, Rasoul Namazi offers the first in-depth study of Leo Strauss' writings on Islamic political thought, a topic that interested Strauss over the course of his career. Namazi's volume focuses on several important studies by Strauss on Islamic thought. He critically analyzes Strauss's notes on Averroes' commentary on Plato's Republic and also proposes an interpretation of Strauss' theologico-political notes on the Arabian Nights. Namazi also interprets Strauss' essay on Alfarabi's enigmatic treatise, The Philosophy of Plato and provides a detailed commentary on his complex essay devoted to Alfarabi's summary of Plato's Laws. Based on previously unpublished material from Strauss' papers, Namazi's volume provides new insights into Strauss' reflections on religion, philosophy, and politics, and their relationship to wisdom, persecution, divine law, and unbelief in the works of key Muslim thinkers. His work presents Strauss as one of the most innovative historians and scholars of Islamic thought of all time. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5361","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5361,"authors_free":[{"id":6212,"entry_id":5361,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":1792,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rasoul Namazi","free_first_name":"Rasoul","free_last_name":"Namazi","norm_person":{"id":1792,"first_name":"Rasoul","last_name":"Namazi","full_name":"Rasoul Namazi","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1218634294","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null,"link":"bib?authors[]=Rasoul Namazi"}}],"entry_title":"Leo Strauss and Islamic Political Thought","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Leo Strauss and Islamic Political Thought"},"abstract":"In this book, Rasoul Namazi offers the first in-depth study of Leo Strauss' writings on Islamic political thought, a topic that interested Strauss over the course of his career. Namazi's volume focuses on several important studies by Strauss on Islamic thought. He critically analyzes Strauss's notes on Averroes' commentary on Plato's Republic and also proposes an interpretation of Strauss' theologico-political notes on the Arabian Nights. Namazi also interprets Strauss' essay on Alfarabi's enigmatic treatise, The Philosophy of Plato and provides a detailed commentary on his complex essay devoted to Alfarabi's summary of Plato's Laws. Based on previously unpublished material from Strauss' papers, Namazi's volume provides new insights into Strauss' reflections on religion, philosophy, and politics, and their relationship to wisdom, persecution, divine law, and unbelief in the works of key Muslim thinkers. His work presents Strauss as one of the most innovative historians and scholars of Islamic thought of all time.","btype":1,"date":"2022","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":39,"category_name":"Theology","link":"bib?categories[]=Theology"},{"id":4,"category_name":"Politics","link":"bib?categories[]=Politics"},{"id":47,"category_name":"Relation between Philosophy and Theology","link":"bib?categories[]=Relation between Philosophy and Theology"},{"id":43,"category_name":"Tradition and Reception","link":"bib?categories[]=Tradition and Reception"}],"authors":[{"id":1792,"full_name":"Rasoul Namazi","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":{"id":5361,"pubplace":"Cambridge","publisher":"Cambridge University Press.","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2022]}
| Title | Plato's Republic in the Islamic Context. New Perspectives on Averroes's Commentary |
| Type | Edited Book |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2022 |
| Publisher | Boydell & Brewer |
| Categories | al-Fārābī, Ibn Bāǧǧa, Logic, Theology, Politics, Tradition and Reception |
| Author(s) | Alexander Orwin |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5346","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5346,"authors_free":[{"id":6196,"entry_id":5346,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":1790,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":" Alexander Orwin","free_first_name":" Alexander","free_last_name":" Orwin","norm_person":{"id":1790,"first_name":" Alexander","last_name":" Orwin","full_name":" Alexander Orwin","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/1153328348","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null,"link":"bib?authors[]= Alexander Orwin"}}],"entry_title":"Plato's Republic in the Islamic Context. New Perspectives on Averroes's Commentary","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Plato's Republic in the Islamic Context. New Perspectives on Averroes's Commentary"},"abstract":"","btype":4,"date":"2022","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/9781800104983","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":28,"category_name":"al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b","link":"bib?categories[]=al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b"},{"id":17,"category_name":"Ibn B\u0101\u01e7\u01e7a","link":"bib?categories[]=Ibn B\u0101\u01e7\u01e7a"},{"id":27,"category_name":"Logic","link":"bib?categories[]=Logic"},{"id":39,"category_name":"Theology","link":"bib?categories[]=Theology"},{"id":4,"category_name":"Politics","link":"bib?categories[]=Politics"},{"id":43,"category_name":"Tradition and Reception","link":"bib?categories[]=Tradition and Reception"}],"authors":[{"id":1790,"full_name":" Alexander Orwin","role":2}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":{"id":5346,"pubplace":"","publisher":" Boydell & Brewer","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2022]}
| Title | Averroes between Platonic Philosophy and the Sharīʻa |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2022 |
| Published in | Leo Strauss and Islamic Political Thought |
| Pages | 46-83 |
| Categories | Relation between Philosophy and Theology, Tradition and Reception, Plato, Politics, Modern Readings |
| Author(s) | Rasoul Namazi |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Chapter 1 is dedicated to the interpretation of a recently discovered, unpublished typescript by Strauss on Averroes’s commentary on Plato’s Republic. In this transcript, available as Appendix A and composed sometime after 1956, Strauss underscores the conflict between philosophy and Islam in Averroes’s commentary on Plato’s Republic. The transcript consists only of short notes and therefore, to reveal its message, it needs to be interpreted in the context of Strauss’s other writings. Strauss’s interpretation of Averroes is based on the idea that Averroes must have been aware of the incompatibility of Islamic revelation with the best regime of Plato. Unlike other scholars, who are mainly preoccupied with Averroes’s access or lack thereof to a reliable translation of Plato’s Republic, Strauss argues that the deficiencies of Averroes’s commentary do not mean that Averroes did not have access to Plato’s Republic; he claims that such apparent deficiencies might be intentional and significant for understanding Averroes’s views. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5618","_score":null,"_ignored":["booksection.book.abstract.keyword"],"_source":{"id":5618,"authors_free":[{"id":6521,"entry_id":5618,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":1792,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rasoul Namazi","free_first_name":"Rasoul ","free_last_name":"Namazi","norm_person":{"id":1792,"first_name":"Rasoul","last_name":"Namazi","full_name":"Rasoul Namazi","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1218634294","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null,"link":"bib?authors[]=Rasoul Namazi"}}],"entry_title":"Averroes between Platonic Philosophy and the Shar\u012b\u02bba","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Averroes between Platonic Philosophy and the Shar\u012b\u02bba"},"abstract":"Chapter 1 is dedicated to the interpretation of a recently discovered, unpublished typescript by Strauss on Averroes\u2019s commentary on Plato\u2019s Republic. In this transcript, available as Appendix A and composed sometime after 1956, Strauss underscores the conflict between philosophy and Islam in Averroes\u2019s commentary on Plato\u2019s Republic. The transcript consists only of short notes and therefore, to reveal its message, it needs to be interpreted in the context of Strauss\u2019s other writings. Strauss\u2019s interpretation of Averroes is based on the idea that Averroes must have been aware of the incompatibility of Islamic revelation with the best regime of Plato. Unlike other scholars, who are mainly preoccupied with Averroes\u2019s access or lack thereof to a reliable translation of Plato\u2019s Republic, Strauss argues that the deficiencies of Averroes\u2019s commentary do not mean that Averroes did not have access to Plato\u2019s Republic; he claims that such apparent deficiencies might be intentional and significant for understanding Averroes\u2019s views.","btype":2,"date":"2022","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/9781009105118.003","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":47,"category_name":"Relation between Philosophy and Theology","link":"bib?categories[]=Relation between Philosophy and Theology"},{"id":43,"category_name":"Tradition and Reception","link":"bib?categories[]=Tradition and Reception"},{"id":20,"category_name":"Plato","link":"bib?categories[]=Plato"},{"id":4,"category_name":"Politics","link":"bib?categories[]=Politics"},{"id":35,"category_name":"Modern Readings","link":"bib?categories[]=Modern Readings"}],"authors":[{"id":1792,"full_name":"Rasoul Namazi","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":{"id":5618,"section_of":5361,"pages":"46-83","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":5361,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":1,"language":"en","title":"Leo Strauss and Islamic Political Thought","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2022","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"In this book, Rasoul Namazi offers the first in-depth study of Leo Strauss' writings on Islamic political thought, a topic that interested Strauss over the course of his career. Namazi's volume focuses on several important studies by Strauss on Islamic thought. He critically analyzes Strauss's notes on Averroes' commentary on Plato's Republic and also proposes an interpretation of Strauss' theologico-political notes on the Arabian Nights. Namazi also interprets Strauss' essay on Alfarabi's enigmatic treatise, The Philosophy of Plato and provides a detailed commentary on his complex essay devoted to Alfarabi's summary of Plato's Laws. Based on previously unpublished material from Strauss' papers, Namazi's volume provides new insights into Strauss' reflections on religion, philosophy, and politics, and their relationship to wisdom, persecution, divine law, and unbelief in the works of key Muslim thinkers. His work presents Strauss as one of the most innovative historians and scholars of Islamic thought of all time.","republication_of":0,"online_url":"","online_resources":null,"translation_of":"0","new_edition_of":"0","is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"ti_url":"","doi_url":"","book":{"id":5361,"pubplace":"Cambridge","publisher":"Cambridge University Press.","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"persons":[{"id":6212,"entry_id":5361,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":1792,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rasoul Namazi","free_first_name":"Rasoul","free_last_name":"Namazi","norm_person":{"id":1792,"first_name":"Rasoul","last_name":"Namazi","full_name":"Rasoul Namazi","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1218634294","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}]}},"article":null},"sort":[2022]}
| Title | The medieval Islamic commentary on Plato’s republic: Ibn Rushd’s perspective on the position and potential of women |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2021 |
| Journal | Islamology |
| Volume | 11 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 9-23 |
| Categories | Commentary, Plato, Politics, Tradition and Reception |
| Author(s) | Tineke Melkebeek |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| This paper investigates the twelfth-century commentary on Plato’s Republic by the Andalusian Muslim philosopher Ibn Rushd (Averroes). Ibn Rushd is considered to be the only Muslim philosopher who commented on the Republic. Written around 375 BC, Plato’s Republic discusses the order and character of a just city-state and contains revolutionary ideas on the position and qualities of women, which remained contested also in Ibn Rushd’s time. This Muslim philosopher is primarily known as the most esteemed commentator of Aristotle. However, for the lack of an Arabic translation of Aristotle’s Politics, Ibn Rushd commented on the political theory of Aristotle’s teacher, i.e. Plato’s Republic, instead. In his commentary, Ibn Rushd juxtaposes examples from Plato’s context and those from contemporary Muslim societies. Notably, when he diverges from the text, he does not drift off toward more patriarchal, Aristotelian interpretations. On the contrary, he argues that women are capable of being rulers and philosophers, that their true competencies remain unknown as long as they are deprived of education, and that this situation is detrimental to the flourishing of the city. This article aims to critically analyse Ibn Rushd’s statements on the position of women, as well as their reception in scholarly literature. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5808","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5808,"authors_free":[{"id":6729,"entry_id":5808,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":903,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Tineke Melkebeek","free_first_name":"Tineke ","free_last_name":"Melkebeek","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":"The medieval Islamic commentary on Plato\u2019s republic: Ibn Rushd\u2019s perspective on the position and potential of women","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"The medieval Islamic commentary on Plato\u2019s republic: Ibn Rushd\u2019s perspective on the position and potential of women"},"abstract":"This paper investigates the twelfth-century commentary on Plato\u2019s Republic by the Andalusian Muslim philosopher Ibn Rushd (Averroes). Ibn Rushd is considered to be the only Muslim philosopher who commented on the Republic. Written around 375 BC, Plato\u2019s Republic discusses the order and character of a just city-state and contains revolutionary ideas on the position and qualities of women, which remained contested also in Ibn Rushd\u2019s time. This Muslim philosopher is primarily known as the most esteemed commentator of Aristotle. However, for the lack of an Arabic translation of Aristotle\u2019s Politics, Ibn Rushd commented on the political theory of Aristotle\u2019s teacher, i.e. Plato\u2019s Republic, instead. In his commentary, Ibn Rushd juxtaposes examples from Plato\u2019s context and those from contemporary Muslim societies. Notably, when he diverges from the text, he does not drift off toward more patriarchal, Aristotelian interpretations. On the contrary, he argues that women are capable of being rulers and philosophers, that their true competencies remain unknown as long as they are deprived of education, and that this situation is detrimental to the flourishing of the city. This article aims to critically analyse Ibn Rushd\u2019s statements on the position of women, as well as their reception in scholarly literature. ","btype":3,"date":"2021","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"10.24848\/islmlg.11.1.02","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":23,"category_name":"Commentary","link":"bib?categories[]=Commentary"},{"id":20,"category_name":"Plato","link":"bib?categories[]=Plato"},{"id":4,"category_name":"Politics","link":"bib?categories[]=Politics"},{"id":43,"category_name":"Tradition and Reception","link":"bib?categories[]=Tradition and Reception"}],"authors":[{"id":903,"full_name":"","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5808,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":" Islamology","volume":"11","issue":"1","pages":"9-23"}},"sort":[2021]}
| Title | Aristotelismus und Averroismus in der politischen Theorie bei Marsilius von Padua und Wilhelm von Ockham |
| Type | Article |
| Language | German |
| Date | 2019 |
| Journal | Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia |
| Volume | 75 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 1739–1762 |
| Categories | Politics, Latin Averroism, Tradition and Reception, Ockham |
| Author(s) | Jürgen Miethke |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| The paper is aiming to look at the importance of the Arabian political philosopher Averroes (Ibn Rušd) for the reception of the political philosophy of the Greek philosopher Aristotle in the Latin West by analyzing the exemple of two maior medieval authors (Marsiglio of Padua and William Ockham) for “averroistic” doctrines, in order to check the often discussed so called “Political Averroism” in the medieval Latin political philosophy. As result there seems to emerge the insight, that “Political Averroism” is only a “historiographical myth”, for Marsiglio is showing only some minor points of reference to averroistic topics, whereas Ockham seems free of clear relationship to “Averroism”. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5406","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5406,"authors_free":[{"id":6267,"entry_id":5406,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"J\u00fcrgen Miethke","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Miethke","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Aristotelismus und Averroismus in der politischen Theorie bei Marsilius von Padua und Wilhelm von Ockham","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Aristotelismus und Averroismus in der politischen Theorie bei Marsilius von Padua und Wilhelm von Ockham"},"abstract":"The paper is aiming to look at the importance of the Arabian political philosopher Averroes (Ibn Ru\u0161d) for the reception of the political philosophy of the Greek philosopher Aristotle in the Latin West by analyzing the exemple of two maior medieval authors (Marsiglio of Padua and William Ockham) for \u201caverroistic\u201d doctrines, in order to check the often discussed so called \u201cPolitical Averroism\u201d in the medieval Latin political philosophy. As result there seems to emerge the insight, that \u201cPolitical Averroism\u201d is only a \u201chistoriographical myth\u201d, for Marsiglio is showing only some minor points of reference to averroistic topics, whereas Ockham seems free of clear relationship to \u201cAverroism\u201d.","btype":3,"date":"2019","language":"German","online_url":"https:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/26796771","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.17990\/RPF\/2019_75_3_1739","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":4,"category_name":"Politics","link":"bib?categories[]=Politics"},{"id":7,"category_name":"Latin Averroism","link":"bib?categories[]=Latin Averroism"},{"id":43,"category_name":"Tradition and Reception","link":"bib?categories[]=Tradition and Reception"},{"id":3,"category_name":"Ockham","link":"bib?categories[]=Ockham"}],"authors":[],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5406,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia","volume":"75","issue":"3","pages":"1739\u20131762"}},"sort":[2019]}
| Title | The Genesis of Secular Politics in Medieval Philosophy: The King of Averroes and the Emperor of Dante |
| Type | Article |
| Language | undefined |
| Date | 2016 |
| Journal | Labyrinth |
| Volume | 18 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 209–231 |
| Categories | Politics, Aristotle, Tradition and Reception |
| Author(s) | Sabeen Ahmed |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| In contemporary political discourse, the "clash of civilizations" rhetoric often undergirds philosophical analyses of "democracy" both at home and abroad. This is nowhere better articulated than in Jacques Derrida's Rogues, in which he describes Islam as the only religious or theocratic culture that would "inspire and declare any resistance to democracy" (Derrida 2005, 29). Curiously, Derrida attributes the failings of democracy in Islam to the lack of reference to Aristotle's Politics in the writings of the medieval Muslim philosophers. This paper aims to analyze this gross misconception of Islamic philosophy and illuminate the thoroughgoing influence the Muslim philosophers had on their Christian successors, those who are so often credited as foundations of Western political philosophy. In so doing, I compare the ideal states presented by Averroes and Dante – in which Aristotelian influence is intimately interlaced – and offer an analysis thereof as heralds of what we might call the secularization of the political, inspiring those democratic values that Derrida believes to be absent in the rich philosophy of the Middle Ages. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"4995","_score":null,"_source":{"id":4995,"authors_free":[{"id":5729,"entry_id":4995,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":903,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sabeen Ahmed","free_first_name":"Sabeen","free_last_name":"Ahmed","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":"The Genesis of Secular Politics in Medieval Philosophy: The King of Averroes and the Emperor of Dante","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"The Genesis of Secular Politics in Medieval Philosophy: The King of Averroes and the Emperor of Dante"},"abstract":"In contemporary political discourse, the \"clash of civilizations\" rhetoric often undergirds philosophical analyses of \"democracy\" both at home and abroad. This is nowhere better articulated than in Jacques Derrida's Rogues, in which he describes Islam as the only religious or theocratic culture that would \"inspire and declare any resistance to democracy\" (Derrida 2005, 29). Curiously, Derrida attributes the failings of democracy in Islam to the lack of reference to Aristotle's Politics in the writings of the medieval Muslim philosophers. This paper aims to analyze this gross misconception of Islamic philosophy and illuminate the thoroughgoing influence the Muslim philosophers had on their Christian successors, those who are so often credited as foundations of Western political philosophy. In so doing, I compare the ideal states presented by Averroes and Dante \u2013 in which Aristotelian influence is intimately interlaced \u2013 and offer an analysis thereof as heralds of what we might call the secularization of the political, inspiring those democratic values that Derrida believes to be absent in the rich philosophy of the Middle Ages.","btype":3,"date":"2016","language":null,"online_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.25180\/lj.v18i2.54","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":4,"category_name":"Politics","link":"bib?categories[]=Politics"},{"id":21,"category_name":"Aristotle","link":"bib?categories[]=Aristotle"},{"id":43,"category_name":"Tradition and Reception","link":"bib?categories[]=Tradition and Reception"}],"authors":[{"id":903,"full_name":"","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":4995,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Labyrinth","volume":"18","issue":"2","pages":"209\u2013231"}},"sort":[2016]}
| Title | Well Begun is Only Half Done: Tracing Aristotle’s Political Ideas in Medieval Arabic, Syriac, Byzantine, and Jewish Sources |
| Type | Edited Book |
| Language | undefined |
| Date | 2011 |
| Publication Place | Tempe, Arizona |
| Publisher | ACMRS (Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies) |
| Series | Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies; Medieval Confluences Series |
| Volume | 388 respectively 1 |
| Categories | Aristotle, Politics, Tradition and Reception |
| Author(s) | Vasileios Syros |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5379","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5379,"authors_free":[{"id":6231,"entry_id":5379,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Vasileios Syros ","free_first_name":"Vasileios ","free_last_name":"Syros ","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Well Begun is Only Half Done: Tracing Aristotle\u2019s Political Ideas in Medieval Arabic, Syriac, Byzantine, and Jewish Sources","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Well Begun is Only Half Done: Tracing Aristotle\u2019s Political Ideas in Medieval Arabic, Syriac, Byzantine, and Jewish Sources"},"abstract":"","btype":4,"date":"2011","language":null,"online_url":"","doi_url":"","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":21,"category_name":"Aristotle","link":"bib?categories[]=Aristotle"},{"id":4,"category_name":"Politics","link":"bib?categories[]=Politics"},{"id":43,"category_name":"Tradition and Reception","link":"bib?categories[]=Tradition and Reception"}],"authors":[],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":{"id":5379,"pubplace":"Tempe, Arizona","publisher":"ACMRS (Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies)","series":"Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies; Medieval Confluences Series ","volume":"388 respectively 1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2011]}
| Title | Democracy, Islam and the tradition of Ibn Rushd |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2003 |
| Published in | |
| Pages | 385-394 |
| Categories | Politics, Tradition and Reception |
| Author(s) | Noah Feldman |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5550","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5550,"authors_free":[{"id":6445,"entry_id":5550,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":1328,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Noah Feldman","free_first_name":"Noah","free_last_name":"Feldman","norm_person":{"id":1328,"first_name":"Noah","last_name":"Feldman","full_name":"Noah Feldman","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131876627","viaf_url":"http:\/\/viaf.org\/viaf\/54442695","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]=Noah Feldman"}}],"entry_title":"Democracy, Islam and the tradition of Ibn Rushd","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Democracy, Islam and the tradition of Ibn Rushd"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"2003","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":4,"category_name":"Politics","link":"bib?categories[]=Politics"},{"id":43,"category_name":"Tradition and Reception","link":"bib?categories[]=Tradition and Reception"}],"authors":[{"id":1328,"full_name":"Noah Feldman","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":{"id":5550,"section_of":null,"pages":"385-394","is_catalog":null,"book":null},"article":null},"sort":[2003]}
| Title | Aristotelismus und Averroismus in der politischen Theorie bei Marsilius von Padua und Wilhelm von Ockham |
| Type | Article |
| Language | German |
| Date | 2019 |
| Journal | Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia |
| Volume | 75 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 1739–1762 |
| Categories | Politics, Latin Averroism, Tradition and Reception, Ockham |
| Author(s) | Jürgen Miethke |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| The paper is aiming to look at the importance of the Arabian political philosopher Averroes (Ibn Rušd) for the reception of the political philosophy of the Greek philosopher Aristotle in the Latin West by analyzing the exemple of two maior medieval authors (Marsiglio of Padua and William Ockham) for “averroistic” doctrines, in order to check the often discussed so called “Political Averroism” in the medieval Latin political philosophy. As result there seems to emerge the insight, that “Political Averroism” is only a “historiographical myth”, for Marsiglio is showing only some minor points of reference to averroistic topics, whereas Ockham seems free of clear relationship to “Averroism”. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5406","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5406,"authors_free":[{"id":6267,"entry_id":5406,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"J\u00fcrgen Miethke","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Miethke","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Aristotelismus und Averroismus in der politischen Theorie bei Marsilius von Padua und Wilhelm von Ockham","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Aristotelismus und Averroismus in der politischen Theorie bei Marsilius von Padua und Wilhelm von Ockham"},"abstract":"The paper is aiming to look at the importance of the Arabian political philosopher Averroes (Ibn Ru\u0161d) for the reception of the political philosophy of the Greek philosopher Aristotle in the Latin West by analyzing the exemple of two maior medieval authors (Marsiglio of Padua and William Ockham) for \u201caverroistic\u201d doctrines, in order to check the often discussed so called \u201cPolitical Averroism\u201d in the medieval Latin political philosophy. As result there seems to emerge the insight, that \u201cPolitical Averroism\u201d is only a \u201chistoriographical myth\u201d, for Marsiglio is showing only some minor points of reference to averroistic topics, whereas Ockham seems free of clear relationship to \u201cAverroism\u201d.","btype":3,"date":"2019","language":"German","online_url":"https:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/26796771","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.17990\/RPF\/2019_75_3_1739","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":4,"category_name":"Politics","link":"bib?categories[]=Politics"},{"id":7,"category_name":"Latin Averroism","link":"bib?categories[]=Latin Averroism"},{"id":43,"category_name":"Tradition and Reception","link":"bib?categories[]=Tradition and Reception"},{"id":3,"category_name":"Ockham","link":"bib?categories[]=Ockham"}],"authors":[],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5406,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia","volume":"75","issue":"3","pages":"1739\u20131762"}},"sort":["Aristotelismus und Averroismus in der politischen Theorie bei Marsilius von Padua und Wilhelm von Ockham"]}
| Title | Averroes between Platonic Philosophy and the Sharīʻa |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2022 |
| Published in | Leo Strauss and Islamic Political Thought |
| Pages | 46-83 |
| Categories | Relation between Philosophy and Theology, Tradition and Reception, Plato, Politics, Modern Readings |
| Author(s) | Rasoul Namazi |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Chapter 1 is dedicated to the interpretation of a recently discovered, unpublished typescript by Strauss on Averroes’s commentary on Plato’s Republic. In this transcript, available as Appendix A and composed sometime after 1956, Strauss underscores the conflict between philosophy and Islam in Averroes’s commentary on Plato’s Republic. The transcript consists only of short notes and therefore, to reveal its message, it needs to be interpreted in the context of Strauss’s other writings. Strauss’s interpretation of Averroes is based on the idea that Averroes must have been aware of the incompatibility of Islamic revelation with the best regime of Plato. Unlike other scholars, who are mainly preoccupied with Averroes’s access or lack thereof to a reliable translation of Plato’s Republic, Strauss argues that the deficiencies of Averroes’s commentary do not mean that Averroes did not have access to Plato’s Republic; he claims that such apparent deficiencies might be intentional and significant for understanding Averroes’s views. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5618","_score":null,"_ignored":["booksection.book.abstract.keyword"],"_source":{"id":5618,"authors_free":[{"id":6521,"entry_id":5618,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":1792,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rasoul Namazi","free_first_name":"Rasoul ","free_last_name":"Namazi","norm_person":{"id":1792,"first_name":"Rasoul","last_name":"Namazi","full_name":"Rasoul Namazi","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1218634294","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null,"link":"bib?authors[]=Rasoul Namazi"}}],"entry_title":"Averroes between Platonic Philosophy and the Shar\u012b\u02bba","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Averroes between Platonic Philosophy and the Shar\u012b\u02bba"},"abstract":"Chapter 1 is dedicated to the interpretation of a recently discovered, unpublished typescript by Strauss on Averroes\u2019s commentary on Plato\u2019s Republic. In this transcript, available as Appendix A and composed sometime after 1956, Strauss underscores the conflict between philosophy and Islam in Averroes\u2019s commentary on Plato\u2019s Republic. The transcript consists only of short notes and therefore, to reveal its message, it needs to be interpreted in the context of Strauss\u2019s other writings. Strauss\u2019s interpretation of Averroes is based on the idea that Averroes must have been aware of the incompatibility of Islamic revelation with the best regime of Plato. Unlike other scholars, who are mainly preoccupied with Averroes\u2019s access or lack thereof to a reliable translation of Plato\u2019s Republic, Strauss argues that the deficiencies of Averroes\u2019s commentary do not mean that Averroes did not have access to Plato\u2019s Republic; he claims that such apparent deficiencies might be intentional and significant for understanding Averroes\u2019s views.","btype":2,"date":"2022","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/9781009105118.003","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":47,"category_name":"Relation between Philosophy and Theology","link":"bib?categories[]=Relation between Philosophy and Theology"},{"id":43,"category_name":"Tradition and Reception","link":"bib?categories[]=Tradition and Reception"},{"id":20,"category_name":"Plato","link":"bib?categories[]=Plato"},{"id":4,"category_name":"Politics","link":"bib?categories[]=Politics"},{"id":35,"category_name":"Modern Readings","link":"bib?categories[]=Modern Readings"}],"authors":[{"id":1792,"full_name":"Rasoul Namazi","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":{"id":5618,"section_of":5361,"pages":"46-83","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":5361,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":1,"language":"en","title":"Leo Strauss and Islamic Political Thought","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2022","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"In this book, Rasoul Namazi offers the first in-depth study of Leo Strauss' writings on Islamic political thought, a topic that interested Strauss over the course of his career. Namazi's volume focuses on several important studies by Strauss on Islamic thought. He critically analyzes Strauss's notes on Averroes' commentary on Plato's Republic and also proposes an interpretation of Strauss' theologico-political notes on the Arabian Nights. Namazi also interprets Strauss' essay on Alfarabi's enigmatic treatise, The Philosophy of Plato and provides a detailed commentary on his complex essay devoted to Alfarabi's summary of Plato's Laws. Based on previously unpublished material from Strauss' papers, Namazi's volume provides new insights into Strauss' reflections on religion, philosophy, and politics, and their relationship to wisdom, persecution, divine law, and unbelief in the works of key Muslim thinkers. His work presents Strauss as one of the most innovative historians and scholars of Islamic thought of all time.","republication_of":0,"online_url":"","online_resources":null,"translation_of":"0","new_edition_of":"0","is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"ti_url":"","doi_url":"","book":{"id":5361,"pubplace":"Cambridge","publisher":"Cambridge University Press.","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"persons":[{"id":6212,"entry_id":5361,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":1792,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rasoul Namazi","free_first_name":"Rasoul","free_last_name":"Namazi","norm_person":{"id":1792,"first_name":"Rasoul","last_name":"Namazi","full_name":"Rasoul Namazi","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1218634294","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}]}},"article":null},"sort":["Averroes between Platonic Philosophy and the Shar\u012b\u02bba"]}
| Title | Democracy, Islam and the tradition of Ibn Rushd |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2003 |
| Published in | |
| Pages | 385-394 |
| Categories | Politics, Tradition and Reception |
| Author(s) | Noah Feldman |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5550","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5550,"authors_free":[{"id":6445,"entry_id":5550,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":1328,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Noah Feldman","free_first_name":"Noah","free_last_name":"Feldman","norm_person":{"id":1328,"first_name":"Noah","last_name":"Feldman","full_name":"Noah Feldman","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131876627","viaf_url":"http:\/\/viaf.org\/viaf\/54442695","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]=Noah Feldman"}}],"entry_title":"Democracy, Islam and the tradition of Ibn Rushd","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Democracy, Islam and the tradition of Ibn Rushd"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"2003","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":4,"category_name":"Politics","link":"bib?categories[]=Politics"},{"id":43,"category_name":"Tradition and Reception","link":"bib?categories[]=Tradition and Reception"}],"authors":[{"id":1328,"full_name":"Noah Feldman","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":{"id":5550,"section_of":null,"pages":"385-394","is_catalog":null,"book":null},"article":null},"sort":["Democracy, Islam and the tradition of Ibn Rushd"]}
| Title | Leo Strauss and Islamic Political Thought |
| Type | Monograph |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2022 |
| Publication Place | Cambridge |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press. |
| Categories | Theology, Politics, Relation between Philosophy and Theology, Tradition and Reception |
| Author(s) | Rasoul Namazi |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| In this book, Rasoul Namazi offers the first in-depth study of Leo Strauss' writings on Islamic political thought, a topic that interested Strauss over the course of his career. Namazi's volume focuses on several important studies by Strauss on Islamic thought. He critically analyzes Strauss's notes on Averroes' commentary on Plato's Republic and also proposes an interpretation of Strauss' theologico-political notes on the Arabian Nights. Namazi also interprets Strauss' essay on Alfarabi's enigmatic treatise, The Philosophy of Plato and provides a detailed commentary on his complex essay devoted to Alfarabi's summary of Plato's Laws. Based on previously unpublished material from Strauss' papers, Namazi's volume provides new insights into Strauss' reflections on religion, philosophy, and politics, and their relationship to wisdom, persecution, divine law, and unbelief in the works of key Muslim thinkers. His work presents Strauss as one of the most innovative historians and scholars of Islamic thought of all time. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5361","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5361,"authors_free":[{"id":6212,"entry_id":5361,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":1792,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rasoul Namazi","free_first_name":"Rasoul","free_last_name":"Namazi","norm_person":{"id":1792,"first_name":"Rasoul","last_name":"Namazi","full_name":"Rasoul Namazi","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1218634294","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null,"link":"bib?authors[]=Rasoul Namazi"}}],"entry_title":"Leo Strauss and Islamic Political Thought","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Leo Strauss and Islamic Political Thought"},"abstract":"In this book, Rasoul Namazi offers the first in-depth study of Leo Strauss' writings on Islamic political thought, a topic that interested Strauss over the course of his career. Namazi's volume focuses on several important studies by Strauss on Islamic thought. He critically analyzes Strauss's notes on Averroes' commentary on Plato's Republic and also proposes an interpretation of Strauss' theologico-political notes on the Arabian Nights. Namazi also interprets Strauss' essay on Alfarabi's enigmatic treatise, The Philosophy of Plato and provides a detailed commentary on his complex essay devoted to Alfarabi's summary of Plato's Laws. Based on previously unpublished material from Strauss' papers, Namazi's volume provides new insights into Strauss' reflections on religion, philosophy, and politics, and their relationship to wisdom, persecution, divine law, and unbelief in the works of key Muslim thinkers. His work presents Strauss as one of the most innovative historians and scholars of Islamic thought of all time.","btype":1,"date":"2022","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":39,"category_name":"Theology","link":"bib?categories[]=Theology"},{"id":4,"category_name":"Politics","link":"bib?categories[]=Politics"},{"id":47,"category_name":"Relation between Philosophy and Theology","link":"bib?categories[]=Relation between Philosophy and Theology"},{"id":43,"category_name":"Tradition and Reception","link":"bib?categories[]=Tradition and Reception"}],"authors":[{"id":1792,"full_name":"Rasoul Namazi","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":{"id":5361,"pubplace":"Cambridge","publisher":"Cambridge University Press.","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Leo Strauss and Islamic Political Thought"]}
| Title | Natural Perfection or Divine Fiat |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2022 |
| Published in | Plato's Republic in the Islamic Context. New Perspectives on Averroes's Commentary |
| Pages | 233–252 |
| Categories | Nicomachean ethics, Politics, Tradition and Reception |
| Author(s) | Joshua Parens |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| As a reader of Averroes's Commentary on Plato's “Republic,” one is struck from the beginning by how much he omits from his commentary. Typically, this would be taken to indicate that Averroes does not comprehend Plato's intention. Indeed, the author can seem at times to confirm what many readers assume—namely, that he would rather have commented on a work by Aristotle. We will try to show that his major omissions—that is, of books 1, (most of ) 6, and 10, and especially what he substitutes for these omissions—form a coherent pattern and ultimately reveal a profound commentary on the omitted passages. That coherent pattern is already set within the first few pages of the work. From the beginning he seems to focus on the place of the Republic in relation to practical science and theoretical science. This comes as little surprise in a commentary on a work devoted to what I would like to call the philosopher-king conceit. The Republic is at least in part Plato's consideration of the relation between theoretical and practical science, as encapsulated in the person of the philosopher-king. Although Socrates does not get around to the centrality of this theme until Republic book 5, Averroes is on it from the beginning. He does so in part in order to place his discussion of the Republic in relation to his commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics—putatively the more theoretical of the two works. Be that as it may, we are most interested in what ties together the omissions of books 1, 6, and 10—and especially what Averroes substitutes for those omissions. We hope to show that the golden thread running through what Averroes substitutes is the theme of human perfection, in at least two senses: the philosopher-king and immortality. In each case, there is some element in Plato's original that Averroes needs to take into another register (from conventionalism in book 1 to fiat transplanted into the Second Treatise; from separate forms in book 6 to the active intellect in the Second Treatise; and from immortality of the soul in book 10 to conjunction with the active intellect in the Second Treatise). In effect, all these omissions are drawn together in the Second Treatise. For that reason, eventually, we will comment more closely on the most relevant section of the Second Treatise (60.17–74.12). |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5357","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5357,"authors_free":[{"id":6208,"entry_id":5357,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":1783,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Joshua Parens","free_first_name":"Joshua","free_last_name":" Parens","norm_person":{"id":1783,"first_name":"Joshua","last_name":"Parens","full_name":"Joshua Parens","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172958881","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null,"link":"bib?authors[]=Joshua Parens"}}],"entry_title":"Natural Perfection or Divine Fiat","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Natural Perfection or Divine Fiat"},"abstract":"As a reader of Averroes's Commentary on Plato's \u201cRepublic,\u201d one is struck from the beginning by how much he omits from his commentary. Typically, this would be taken to indicate that Averroes does not comprehend Plato's intention. Indeed, the author can seem at times to confirm what many readers assume\u2014namely, that he would rather have commented on a work by Aristotle. We will try to show that his major omissions\u2014that is, of books 1, (most of ) 6, and 10, and especially what he substitutes for these omissions\u2014form a coherent pattern and ultimately reveal a profound commentary on the omitted passages. That coherent pattern is already set within the first few pages of the work. From the beginning he seems to focus on the place of the Republic in relation to practical science and theoretical science. This comes as little surprise in a commentary on a work devoted to what I would like to call the philosopher-king conceit. The Republic is at least in part Plato's consideration of the relation between theoretical and practical science, as encapsulated in the person of the philosopher-king. Although Socrates does not get around to the centrality of this theme until Republic book 5, Averroes is on it from the beginning. He does so in part in order to place his discussion of the Republic in relation to his commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics\u2014putatively the more theoretical of the two works. Be that as it may, we are most interested in what ties together the omissions of books 1, 6, and 10\u2014and especially what Averroes substitutes for those omissions. We hope to show that the golden thread running through what Averroes substitutes is the theme of human perfection, in at least two senses: the philosopher-king and immortality. In each case, there is some element in Plato's original that Averroes needs to take into another register (from conventionalism in book 1 to fiat transplanted into the Second Treatise; from separate forms in book 6 to the active intellect in the Second Treatise; and from immortality of the soul in book 10 to conjunction with the active intellect in the Second Treatise). In effect, all these omissions are drawn together in the Second Treatise. For that reason, eventually, we will comment more closely on the most relevant section of the Second Treatise (60.17\u201374.12).","btype":2,"date":"2022","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/9781800104983.012","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":70,"category_name":"Nicomachean ethics","link":"bib?categories[]=Nicomachean ethics"},{"id":4,"category_name":"Politics","link":"bib?categories[]=Politics"},{"id":43,"category_name":"Tradition and Reception","link":"bib?categories[]=Tradition and Reception"}],"authors":[{"id":1783,"full_name":"Joshua Parens","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":{"id":5357,"section_of":5346,"pages":"233\u2013252","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":5346,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Plato's Republic in the Islamic Context. New Perspectives on Averroes's Commentary","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2022","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":0,"online_url":"","online_resources":null,"translation_of":"0","new_edition_of":"0","is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"ti_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/9781800104983","book":{"id":5346,"pubplace":"","publisher":" Boydell & Brewer","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"persons":[{"id":6196,"entry_id":5346,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":" Alexander Orwin","free_first_name":" Alexander","free_last_name":" Orwin","norm_person":null}]}},"article":null},"sort":["Natural Perfection or Divine Fiat"]}
| Title | Philosopher-Kings and Counselors: How Should Philosophers Participate in Politics? |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2022 |
| Published in | Plato's Republic in the Islamic Context. New Perspectives on Averroes's Commentary |
| Pages | 253–274 |
| Categories | Politics, Tradition and Reception |
| Author(s) | Alexander Orwin |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| The most famous, or infamous, proposal in Plato's Republic concerns the rule of philosopher-kings. Throughout the long history of the philosophical reception of Plato, this theme has been explored, restated, and rejected in countless ways. One of the most original treatments of it comes from the Andalusian philosopher Averroes, in his Commentary on Plato's “Republic.” The title of this inventive work must not be construed too narrowly. On every major theme in the Republic, Averroes deviates, either by omission, addition, or editorial commentary, from Plato. His treatment of the philosopher-kings will make use of all these techniques. Before turning to this topic, I wish to make some general remarks about the work as a whole. Averroes announces his departure from Plato in the first sentence of the work, with the somewhat cryptic promise to remove all dialectical arguments from the Republic while preserving the demonstrative arguments (CR 21.4). Dialectic is associated, etymologically and semantically, with dialogue. Sure enough, Averroes expunges not only the dialogue form of the original but also its principal characters. This choice should not simply be attributed to ignorance: even if we were to assume that Averroes had only a summary of the original, he would surely have known of the existence of the characters Socrates and Thrasymachus through Alfarabi. In fact, Averroes himself mentions Thrasymachus and his arguments about justice in his Middle Commentary on the Topics. The form with which Averroes replaces the dialogue can hardly be described as a straightforward treatise. Averroes attributes the arguments he presents to a variety of sources, as indicated by expressions such as “we said,” and “Plato said.” In addition, Alfarabi and Aristotle are often cited, paraphrased, or even plagiarized, in what is ostensibly a commentary on Plato. This implies a dialogue of sorts between not only Averroes and Plato, but Aristotle and Alfarabi as well. One is tempted to say that the discussions between Socrates, an aged father, a sophist, and several young Greeks is replaced by a discussion between four great political philosophers across the ages, orchestrated by the latest representative of this august group. On this point, it is useful to recall Leo Strauss's observation, that no Platonic dialogue relates a discussion among equals. If dialectic involves a superior person such as Socrates leading less accomplished interlocutors by the hand, then Averroes's new, demonstrative form consists of a dialogue between equals to whom historical accident never granted the opportunity for a face-to-face meeting. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5358","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5358,"authors_free":[{"id":6209,"entry_id":5358,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":1790,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Alexander Orwin","free_first_name":"Alexander ","free_last_name":"Orwin","norm_person":{"id":1790,"first_name":" Alexander","last_name":" Orwin","full_name":" Alexander Orwin","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/1153328348","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null,"link":"bib?authors[]= Alexander Orwin"}}],"entry_title":"Philosopher-Kings and Counselors: How Should Philosophers Participate in Politics?","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Philosopher-Kings and Counselors: How Should Philosophers Participate in Politics?"},"abstract":"The most famous, or infamous, proposal in Plato's Republic concerns the rule of philosopher-kings. Throughout the long history of the philosophical reception of Plato, this theme has been explored, restated, and rejected in countless ways. One of the most original treatments of it comes from the Andalusian philosopher Averroes, in his Commentary on Plato's \u201cRepublic.\u201d The title of this inventive work must not be construed too narrowly. On every major theme in the Republic, Averroes deviates, either by omission, addition, or editorial commentary, from Plato. His treatment of the philosopher-kings will make use of all these techniques. Before turning to this topic, I wish to make some general remarks about the work as a whole.\r\n\r\nAverroes announces his departure from Plato in the first sentence of the work, with the somewhat cryptic promise to remove all dialectical arguments from the Republic while preserving the demonstrative arguments (CR 21.4). Dialectic is associated, etymologically and semantically, with dialogue. Sure enough, Averroes expunges not only the dialogue form of the original but also its principal characters. This choice should not simply be attributed to ignorance: even if we were to assume that Averroes had only a summary of the original, he would surely have known of the existence of the characters Socrates and Thrasymachus through Alfarabi. In fact, Averroes himself mentions Thrasymachus and his arguments about justice in his Middle Commentary on the Topics.\r\n\r\nThe form with which Averroes replaces the dialogue can hardly be described as a straightforward treatise. Averroes attributes the arguments he presents to a variety of sources, as indicated by expressions such as \u201cwe said,\u201d and \u201cPlato said.\u201d In addition, Alfarabi and Aristotle are often cited, paraphrased, or even plagiarized, in what is ostensibly a commentary on Plato. This implies a dialogue of sorts between not only Averroes and Plato, but Aristotle and Alfarabi as well. One is tempted to say that the discussions between Socrates, an aged father, a sophist, and several young Greeks is replaced by a discussion between four great political philosophers across the ages, orchestrated by the latest representative of this august group. On this point, it is useful to recall Leo Strauss's observation, that no Platonic dialogue relates a discussion among equals. If dialectic involves a superior person such as Socrates leading less accomplished interlocutors by the hand, then Averroes's new, demonstrative form consists of a dialogue between equals to whom historical accident never granted the opportunity for a face-to-face meeting.","btype":2,"date":"2022","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/9781800104983.013","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":4,"category_name":"Politics","link":"bib?categories[]=Politics"},{"id":43,"category_name":"Tradition and Reception","link":"bib?categories[]=Tradition and Reception"}],"authors":[{"id":1790,"full_name":" Alexander Orwin","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":{"id":5358,"section_of":5346,"pages":"253\u2013274","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":5346,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Plato's Republic in the Islamic Context. New Perspectives on Averroes's Commentary","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2022","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":0,"online_url":"","online_resources":null,"translation_of":"0","new_edition_of":"0","is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"ti_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/9781800104983","book":{"id":5346,"pubplace":"","publisher":" Boydell & Brewer","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"persons":[{"id":6196,"entry_id":5346,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":" Alexander Orwin","free_first_name":" Alexander","free_last_name":" Orwin","norm_person":null}]}},"article":null},"sort":["Philosopher-Kings and Counselors: How Should Philosophers Participate in Politics?"]}
| Title | Plato's Republic in the Islamic Context. New Perspectives on Averroes's Commentary |
| Type | Edited Book |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2022 |
| Publisher | Boydell & Brewer |
| Categories | al-Fārābī, Ibn Bāǧǧa, Logic, Theology, Politics, Tradition and Reception |
| Author(s) | Alexander Orwin |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5346","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5346,"authors_free":[{"id":6196,"entry_id":5346,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":1790,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":" Alexander Orwin","free_first_name":" Alexander","free_last_name":" Orwin","norm_person":{"id":1790,"first_name":" Alexander","last_name":" Orwin","full_name":" Alexander Orwin","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/1153328348","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null,"link":"bib?authors[]= Alexander Orwin"}}],"entry_title":"Plato's Republic in the Islamic Context. New Perspectives on Averroes's Commentary","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Plato's Republic in the Islamic Context. New Perspectives on Averroes's Commentary"},"abstract":"","btype":4,"date":"2022","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/9781800104983","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":28,"category_name":"al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b","link":"bib?categories[]=al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b"},{"id":17,"category_name":"Ibn B\u0101\u01e7\u01e7a","link":"bib?categories[]=Ibn B\u0101\u01e7\u01e7a"},{"id":27,"category_name":"Logic","link":"bib?categories[]=Logic"},{"id":39,"category_name":"Theology","link":"bib?categories[]=Theology"},{"id":4,"category_name":"Politics","link":"bib?categories[]=Politics"},{"id":43,"category_name":"Tradition and Reception","link":"bib?categories[]=Tradition and Reception"}],"authors":[{"id":1790,"full_name":" Alexander Orwin","role":2}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":{"id":5346,"pubplace":"","publisher":" Boydell & Brewer","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Plato's Republic in the Islamic Context. New Perspectives on Averroes's Commentary"]}
| Title | Prophecy Between Poetics and Politics from Al-Farabi to Leo Strauss |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Journal | International Journal of the Classical Tradition |
| Pages | 1-29 |
| Categories | al-Fārābī, Avicenna, Maimonides, Aristotle, Poetics, Rhetoric, Politics, Tradition and Reception |
| Author(s) | Peter Makhlouf |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Judaeo-Arabic prophetology, as developed in the wake of Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy, was highly attentive to the kind of representational modes produced by divine revelation and their political use—but also their political precarity. By drawing on another corpus, less often discussed in this context, the Arabic commentaries on Aristotle's Poetics and Rhetoric, this study proposes to undertake a close analysis of how the medieval thinkers in question (Al-Farabi, Avicenna, Averroes, and Maimonides) understood the poetics of prophecy to function. What emerges is an account of how the political theo-logic of poetics and rhetoric—as developed with respect to terms such as imitation, imagination and visualization—came to play a central role in the theory of prophecy, and how that theory of prophecy in turn gave rise to an understanding of what Leo Strauss once termed the ‘literary character’ of these philosophers' ‘art of writing’. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5615","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5615,"authors_free":[{"id":6518,"entry_id":5615,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":903,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Peter Makhlouf","free_first_name":"Peter ","free_last_name":"Makhlouf","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":"Prophecy Between Poetics and Politics from Al-Farabi to Leo Strauss","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Prophecy Between Poetics and Politics from Al-Farabi to Leo Strauss"},"abstract":"Judaeo-Arabic prophetology, as developed in the wake of Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy, was highly attentive to the kind of representational modes produced by divine revelation and their political use\u2014but also their political precarity. By drawing on another corpus, less often discussed in this context, the Arabic commentaries on Aristotle's Poetics and Rhetoric, this study proposes to undertake a close analysis of how the medieval thinkers in question (Al-Farabi, Avicenna, Averroes, and Maimonides) understood the poetics of prophecy to function. What emerges is an account of how the political theo-logic of poetics and rhetoric\u2014as developed with respect to terms such as imitation, imagination and visualization\u2014came to play a central role in the theory of prophecy, and how that theory of prophecy in turn gave rise to an understanding of what Leo Strauss once termed the \u2018literary character\u2019 of these philosophers' \u2018art of writing\u2019.","btype":3,"date":"","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s12138-022-00632-8","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":28,"category_name":"al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b","link":"bib?categories[]=al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b"},{"id":10,"category_name":"Avicenna","link":"bib?categories[]=Avicenna"},{"id":9,"category_name":"Maimonides","link":"bib?categories[]=Maimonides"},{"id":21,"category_name":"Aristotle","link":"bib?categories[]=Aristotle"},{"id":44,"category_name":"Poetics","link":"bib?categories[]=Poetics"},{"id":48,"category_name":"Rhetoric","link":"bib?categories[]=Rhetoric"},{"id":4,"category_name":"Politics","link":"bib?categories[]=Politics"},{"id":43,"category_name":"Tradition and Reception","link":"bib?categories[]=Tradition and Reception"}],"authors":[{"id":903,"full_name":"","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5615,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"International Journal of the Classical Tradition","volume":"","issue":"","pages":"1-29"}},"sort":["Prophecy Between Poetics and Politics from Al-Farabi to Leo Strauss"]}
| Title | The Genesis of Secular Politics in Medieval Philosophy: The King of Averroes and the Emperor of Dante |
| Type | Article |
| Language | undefined |
| Date | 2016 |
| Journal | Labyrinth |
| Volume | 18 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 209–231 |
| Categories | Politics, Aristotle, Tradition and Reception |
| Author(s) | Sabeen Ahmed |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| In contemporary political discourse, the "clash of civilizations" rhetoric often undergirds philosophical analyses of "democracy" both at home and abroad. This is nowhere better articulated than in Jacques Derrida's Rogues, in which he describes Islam as the only religious or theocratic culture that would "inspire and declare any resistance to democracy" (Derrida 2005, 29). Curiously, Derrida attributes the failings of democracy in Islam to the lack of reference to Aristotle's Politics in the writings of the medieval Muslim philosophers. This paper aims to analyze this gross misconception of Islamic philosophy and illuminate the thoroughgoing influence the Muslim philosophers had on their Christian successors, those who are so often credited as foundations of Western political philosophy. In so doing, I compare the ideal states presented by Averroes and Dante – in which Aristotelian influence is intimately interlaced – and offer an analysis thereof as heralds of what we might call the secularization of the political, inspiring those democratic values that Derrida believes to be absent in the rich philosophy of the Middle Ages. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"4995","_score":null,"_source":{"id":4995,"authors_free":[{"id":5729,"entry_id":4995,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":903,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sabeen Ahmed","free_first_name":"Sabeen","free_last_name":"Ahmed","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":"The Genesis of Secular Politics in Medieval Philosophy: The King of Averroes and the Emperor of Dante","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"The Genesis of Secular Politics in Medieval Philosophy: The King of Averroes and the Emperor of Dante"},"abstract":"In contemporary political discourse, the \"clash of civilizations\" rhetoric often undergirds philosophical analyses of \"democracy\" both at home and abroad. This is nowhere better articulated than in Jacques Derrida's Rogues, in which he describes Islam as the only religious or theocratic culture that would \"inspire and declare any resistance to democracy\" (Derrida 2005, 29). Curiously, Derrida attributes the failings of democracy in Islam to the lack of reference to Aristotle's Politics in the writings of the medieval Muslim philosophers. This paper aims to analyze this gross misconception of Islamic philosophy and illuminate the thoroughgoing influence the Muslim philosophers had on their Christian successors, those who are so often credited as foundations of Western political philosophy. In so doing, I compare the ideal states presented by Averroes and Dante \u2013 in which Aristotelian influence is intimately interlaced \u2013 and offer an analysis thereof as heralds of what we might call the secularization of the political, inspiring those democratic values that Derrida believes to be absent in the rich philosophy of the Middle Ages.","btype":3,"date":"2016","language":null,"online_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.25180\/lj.v18i2.54","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":4,"category_name":"Politics","link":"bib?categories[]=Politics"},{"id":21,"category_name":"Aristotle","link":"bib?categories[]=Aristotle"},{"id":43,"category_name":"Tradition and Reception","link":"bib?categories[]=Tradition and Reception"}],"authors":[{"id":903,"full_name":"","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":4995,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Labyrinth","volume":"18","issue":"2","pages":"209\u2013231"}},"sort":["The Genesis of Secular Politics in Medieval Philosophy: The King of Averroes and the Emperor of Dante"]}
| Title | The medieval Islamic commentary on Plato’s republic: Ibn Rushd’s perspective on the position and potential of women |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2021 |
| Journal | Islamology |
| Volume | 11 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 9-23 |
| Categories | Commentary, Plato, Politics, Tradition and Reception |
| Author(s) | Tineke Melkebeek |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| This paper investigates the twelfth-century commentary on Plato’s Republic by the Andalusian Muslim philosopher Ibn Rushd (Averroes). Ibn Rushd is considered to be the only Muslim philosopher who commented on the Republic. Written around 375 BC, Plato’s Republic discusses the order and character of a just city-state and contains revolutionary ideas on the position and qualities of women, which remained contested also in Ibn Rushd’s time. This Muslim philosopher is primarily known as the most esteemed commentator of Aristotle. However, for the lack of an Arabic translation of Aristotle’s Politics, Ibn Rushd commented on the political theory of Aristotle’s teacher, i.e. Plato’s Republic, instead. In his commentary, Ibn Rushd juxtaposes examples from Plato’s context and those from contemporary Muslim societies. Notably, when he diverges from the text, he does not drift off toward more patriarchal, Aristotelian interpretations. On the contrary, he argues that women are capable of being rulers and philosophers, that their true competencies remain unknown as long as they are deprived of education, and that this situation is detrimental to the flourishing of the city. This article aims to critically analyse Ibn Rushd’s statements on the position of women, as well as their reception in scholarly literature. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5808","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5808,"authors_free":[{"id":6729,"entry_id":5808,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":903,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Tineke Melkebeek","free_first_name":"Tineke ","free_last_name":"Melkebeek","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":"The medieval Islamic commentary on Plato\u2019s republic: Ibn Rushd\u2019s perspective on the position and potential of women","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"The medieval Islamic commentary on Plato\u2019s republic: Ibn Rushd\u2019s perspective on the position and potential of women"},"abstract":"This paper investigates the twelfth-century commentary on Plato\u2019s Republic by the Andalusian Muslim philosopher Ibn Rushd (Averroes). Ibn Rushd is considered to be the only Muslim philosopher who commented on the Republic. Written around 375 BC, Plato\u2019s Republic discusses the order and character of a just city-state and contains revolutionary ideas on the position and qualities of women, which remained contested also in Ibn Rushd\u2019s time. This Muslim philosopher is primarily known as the most esteemed commentator of Aristotle. However, for the lack of an Arabic translation of Aristotle\u2019s Politics, Ibn Rushd commented on the political theory of Aristotle\u2019s teacher, i.e. Plato\u2019s Republic, instead. In his commentary, Ibn Rushd juxtaposes examples from Plato\u2019s context and those from contemporary Muslim societies. Notably, when he diverges from the text, he does not drift off toward more patriarchal, Aristotelian interpretations. On the contrary, he argues that women are capable of being rulers and philosophers, that their true competencies remain unknown as long as they are deprived of education, and that this situation is detrimental to the flourishing of the city. This article aims to critically analyse Ibn Rushd\u2019s statements on the position of women, as well as their reception in scholarly literature. ","btype":3,"date":"2021","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"10.24848\/islmlg.11.1.02","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":23,"category_name":"Commentary","link":"bib?categories[]=Commentary"},{"id":20,"category_name":"Plato","link":"bib?categories[]=Plato"},{"id":4,"category_name":"Politics","link":"bib?categories[]=Politics"},{"id":43,"category_name":"Tradition and Reception","link":"bib?categories[]=Tradition and Reception"}],"authors":[{"id":903,"full_name":"","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5808,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":" Islamology","volume":"11","issue":"1","pages":"9-23"}},"sort":["The medieval Islamic commentary on Plato\u2019s republic: Ibn Rushd\u2019s perspective on the position and potential of women"]}