| Title | Relation as Key to God’s Knowledge of Particulars in the Tahāfut al- tahāfut and the Damīma: A Cross-talk between Averroes, al-Ghazālī and Avicenna |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2020 |
| Journal | Arabic Sciences and Philosophy |
| Volume | 20 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 1–26 |
| Categories | Avicenna, al-Ġazālī, Commentary |
| Author(s) | Jean-Baptiste Brenet |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| This article deals with the divine knowledge of particulars in Averroes’ Tahāfut al-tahāfut and Ḍamīma. It examines how the concept of relation, generally neglected, is at the heart of the dispute between Avicenna, al-Ġazālī, and the Commentator. In al-Ġazālī’s eyes, Avicenna's misconception of divine knowledge “in a universal way” is based on a misuse of relation in the case of God's knowledge. If particulars change and God does not, his knowledge of particulars, insofar as it undergoes change, can be considered a pure relation without ontological consequences. Averroes contests both al-Ġazālī’s criticism and his proposal, despite the fact that, for different reasons involving the coming-to-be of human knowledge, he too employs the notion of pure relation in his Long Commentary on the Physics. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5038","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5038,"authors_free":[{"id":5785,"entry_id":5038,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":622,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Jean-Baptiste Brenet","free_first_name":"Jean-Baptiste","free_last_name":"Brenet","norm_person":{"id":622,"first_name":"Jean-Baptiste","last_name":"Brenet","full_name":"Jean-Baptiste Brenet","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051778867","viaf_url":"https:\/\/viaf.org\/viaf\/27224973","db_url":"NULL","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]=Jean-Baptiste Brenet"}}],"entry_title":"Relation as Key to God\u2019s Knowledge of Particulars in the Tah\u0101fut al- tah\u0101fut and the Dam\u012bma: A Cross-talk between Averroes, al-Ghaz\u0101l\u012b and Avicenna","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Relation as Key to God\u2019s Knowledge of Particulars in the Tah\u0101fut al- tah\u0101fut and the Dam\u012bma: A Cross-talk between Averroes, al-Ghaz\u0101l\u012b and Avicenna"},"abstract":"This article deals with the divine knowledge of particulars in Averroes\u2019 Tah\u0101fut al-tah\u0101fut and \u1e0cam\u012bma. It examines how the concept of relation, generally neglected, is at the heart of the dispute between Avicenna, al-\u0120az\u0101l\u012b, and the Commentator. In al-\u0120az\u0101l\u012b\u2019s eyes, Avicenna's misconception of divine knowledge \u201cin a universal way\u201d is based on a misuse of relation in the case of God's knowledge. If particulars change and God does not, his knowledge of particulars, insofar as it undergoes change, can be considered a pure relation without ontological consequences. Averroes contests both al-\u0120az\u0101l\u012b\u2019s criticism and his proposal, despite the fact that, for different reasons involving the coming-to-be of human knowledge, he too employs the notion of pure relation in his Long Commentary on the Physics.","btype":3,"date":"2020","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"10.1017\/S0957423919000109","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":10,"category_name":"Avicenna","link":"bib?categories[]=Avicenna"},{"id":14,"category_name":"al-\u0120az\u0101l\u012b","link":"bib?categories[]=al-\u0120az\u0101l\u012b"},{"id":23,"category_name":"Commentary","link":"bib?categories[]=Commentary"}],"authors":[{"id":622,"full_name":"Jean-Baptiste Brenet","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5038,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Arabic Sciences and Philosophy","volume":"20","issue":"1","pages":"1\u201326"}},"sort":[2020]}
| Title | Relation as Key to God’s Knowledge of Particulars in the Tahāfut al- tahāfut and the Damīma: A Cross-talk between Averroes, al-Ghazālī and Avicenna |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2020 |
| Journal | Arabic Sciences and Philosophy |
| Volume | 20 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 1–26 |
| Categories | Avicenna, al-Ġazālī, Commentary |
| Author(s) | Jean-Baptiste Brenet |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| This article deals with the divine knowledge of particulars in Averroes’ Tahāfut al-tahāfut and Ḍamīma. It examines how the concept of relation, generally neglected, is at the heart of the dispute between Avicenna, al-Ġazālī, and the Commentator. In al-Ġazālī’s eyes, Avicenna's misconception of divine knowledge “in a universal way” is based on a misuse of relation in the case of God's knowledge. If particulars change and God does not, his knowledge of particulars, insofar as it undergoes change, can be considered a pure relation without ontological consequences. Averroes contests both al-Ġazālī’s criticism and his proposal, despite the fact that, for different reasons involving the coming-to-be of human knowledge, he too employs the notion of pure relation in his Long Commentary on the Physics. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5038","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5038,"authors_free":[{"id":5785,"entry_id":5038,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":622,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Jean-Baptiste Brenet","free_first_name":"Jean-Baptiste","free_last_name":"Brenet","norm_person":{"id":622,"first_name":"Jean-Baptiste","last_name":"Brenet","full_name":"Jean-Baptiste Brenet","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051778867","viaf_url":"https:\/\/viaf.org\/viaf\/27224973","db_url":"NULL","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]=Jean-Baptiste Brenet"}}],"entry_title":"Relation as Key to God\u2019s Knowledge of Particulars in the Tah\u0101fut al- tah\u0101fut and the Dam\u012bma: A Cross-talk between Averroes, al-Ghaz\u0101l\u012b and Avicenna","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Relation as Key to God\u2019s Knowledge of Particulars in the Tah\u0101fut al- tah\u0101fut and the Dam\u012bma: A Cross-talk between Averroes, al-Ghaz\u0101l\u012b and Avicenna"},"abstract":"This article deals with the divine knowledge of particulars in Averroes\u2019 Tah\u0101fut al-tah\u0101fut and \u1e0cam\u012bma. It examines how the concept of relation, generally neglected, is at the heart of the dispute between Avicenna, al-\u0120az\u0101l\u012b, and the Commentator. In al-\u0120az\u0101l\u012b\u2019s eyes, Avicenna's misconception of divine knowledge \u201cin a universal way\u201d is based on a misuse of relation in the case of God's knowledge. If particulars change and God does not, his knowledge of particulars, insofar as it undergoes change, can be considered a pure relation without ontological consequences. Averroes contests both al-\u0120az\u0101l\u012b\u2019s criticism and his proposal, despite the fact that, for different reasons involving the coming-to-be of human knowledge, he too employs the notion of pure relation in his Long Commentary on the Physics.","btype":3,"date":"2020","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"10.1017\/S0957423919000109","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":10,"category_name":"Avicenna","link":"bib?categories[]=Avicenna"},{"id":14,"category_name":"al-\u0120az\u0101l\u012b","link":"bib?categories[]=al-\u0120az\u0101l\u012b"},{"id":23,"category_name":"Commentary","link":"bib?categories[]=Commentary"}],"authors":[{"id":622,"full_name":"Jean-Baptiste Brenet","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5038,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Arabic Sciences and Philosophy","volume":"20","issue":"1","pages":"1\u201326"}},"sort":["Relation as Key to God\u2019s Knowledge of Particulars in the Tah\u0101fut al- tah\u0101fut and the Dam\u012bma: A Cross-talk between Averroes, al-Ghaz\u0101l\u012b and Avicenna"]}