{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"479","_score":null,"_source":{"id":479,"authors_free":[{"id":623,"entry_id":479,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":779,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Abdelali Elamrani-Jamal","free_first_name":"Abdelali","free_last_name":"Elamrani-Jamal","norm_person":{"id":779,"first_name":"Abdelali","last_name":"Elamrani-Jamal","full_name":"Abdelali Elamrani-Jamal","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/154697621","viaf_url":"https:\/\/viaf.org\/viaf\/7526121","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]=Abdelali Elamrani-Jamal"}}],"entry_title":"Ibn Ru\u0161d et les Premiers Analytiques d'Aristote. Aper\u00e7u sur un probl\u00e8me de syllogistique modale","title_transcript":null,"title_translation":null,"main_title":{"title":"Ibn Ru\u0161d et les Premiers Analytiques d'Aristote. Aper\u00e7u sur un probl\u00e8me de syllogistique modale"},"abstract":"Ibn Ru\u0161d devoted a certain number of works to Aristotle's Prior Analytics. In a series of opuscules written over a period of twenty years and following upon his Middle Commentary on Aristotle's Prior Analytics, he faced a problem particular to the modal syllogism - that of the mood of the conclusion in mixed syllogisms. The problem can be stated as follows: At the beginning of the Prior Analytics, Aristotle established a formal deductive principle - that of universal attribution (Pr. An. I.1.24b26\u201330). Applied to the modal syllogism, this principle is inadequate as stated. It is too general to be applied in a univocal manner in all modal syllogisms. To preserve a sense of coherence in Aristotle's declarations, the commentators had to interpret it. Presenting the interpretations of the commentators, primarily al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b and Alexander, on the basis of al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b's Large Commentary on Aristotle's Prior Analytics, Averroes criticizes them. Applied according to Alexander's interpretation, the principle of universal attribution is valid only for modal syllogisms one of whose premises is necessary and the other assertoric; according to al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b's interpretation, it is verified only when the minor premise is possible. Averroes proposes two preliminary solutions. Either this formal deductive principle must be applied differently according to the modal differences of the minor premises in mixed syllogisms (first solution) or would be used in two ways, generally or in keeping with each mood (second solution). These solutions are not satisfactory, for they call into question the unity and universality of the principle of universal attribution as established by Aristotle. What is the utility, Averroes asks, of a principle which does not hold for all modalities or does not apply to all the premises when the Prior Analytics ought to furnish formal and universal principles of deduction? And why did Aristotle define the principle of universal attribution without distinguishing its application according to each of the three modal premises? Returning at the end of his career to a literal exegesis of Aristotle's propositions and without harkening back to the earlier solutions, he proposes a theory of making the terms modal (fourth solution) in order to save Aristotle's declarations with respect to the principle of universal attribution and the mood of the conclusion of mixed syllogisms (Prior Analytics I. 9.30al5\u201320). Though formally inadequate, this solution, which had a continued history, proposes a new way of looking at the classification of modal propositions.","btype":3,"date":"1995","language":"French","online_url":null,"doi_url":null,"ti_url":null,"categories":[{"id":27,"category_name":"Logic","link":"bib?categories[]=Logic"},{"id":15,"category_name":"Alexander of Aphrodisias","link":"bib?categories[]=Alexander of Aphrodisias"},{"id":28,"category_name":"al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b","link":"bib?categories[]=al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b"},{"id":21,"category_name":"Aristotle","link":"bib?categories[]=Aristotle"},{"id":23,"category_name":"Commentary","link":"bib?categories[]=Commentary"}],"authors":[{"id":779,"full_name":"Abdelali Elamrani-Jamal","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":479,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Arabic Sciences and Philosophy","volume":"5","issue":null,"pages":"51\u201374"}},"sort":["Ibn Ru\u0161d et les Premiers Analytiques d'Aristote. Aper\u00e7u sur un probl\u00e8me de syllogistique modale"]}

{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"410","_score":null,"_source":{"id":410,"authors_free":[{"id":552,"entry_id":410,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":343,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Josep Puig Montada","free_first_name":"Josep","free_last_name":"Puig Montada","norm_person":{"id":343,"first_name":"","last_name":"","full_name":"Josep Puig Montada","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/188325034","viaf_url":"https:\/\/viaf.org\/viaf\/61625512","db_url":"NULL","from_claudius":0,"link":"bib?authors[]=Josep Puig Montada"}}],"entry_title":"Les stades de la philosophie naturelle d'Averro\u00e8s","title_transcript":null,"title_translation":null,"main_title":{"title":"Les stades de la philosophie naturelle d'Averro\u00e8s"},"abstract":"The stages in the development of Averroes' philosophy can be better defined by the revisions Averroes himself made of his works than by the traditional order of his commentaries (short, middle, long); such revisions often take the form of glosses. In his initial stages Averroes' opinions are influenced by the interpretations of Alexander of Aphrodisias and Themistius as well as Avempace. In his final stages, he departs from them and moves closer to Aristotle's original thought. Averroes' reading of the beginning of Physics, Book VIII is an exception: there he agrees with Aristotle in the first stage and moves away from him in the final stage, because he came to believe that Aristotle's purpose in this part of the book was to prove the eternity of heavenly movement. The explanation for the different reading of the introduction to the short commentary can be found in the persecution Averroes and other philosophers suffered in 1197, after which Averroes no longer declared philosophy to be the way to attain human perfection, and he only wanted to illuminate Aristotle's philosophy.","btype":3,"date":"1997","language":"Spanish","online_url":null,"doi_url":null,"ti_url":null,"categories":[{"id":13,"category_name":"Biography","link":"bib?categories[]=Biography"},{"id":15,"category_name":"Alexander of Aphrodisias","link":"bib?categories[]=Alexander of Aphrodisias"},{"id":16,"category_name":"Themistius","link":"bib?categories[]=Themistius"},{"id":17,"category_name":"Ibn B\u0101\u01e7\u01e7a","link":"bib?categories[]=Ibn B\u0101\u01e7\u01e7a"}],"authors":[{"id":343,"full_name":"Josep Puig Montada","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":410,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Arabic Sciences and Philosophy","volume":"7","issue":null,"pages":"115\u2013137"}},"sort":["Les stades de la philosophie naturelle d'Averro\u00e8s"]}