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

{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5787","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5787,"authors_free":[{"id":6702,"entry_id":5787,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":203,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gerhard Endress","free_first_name":"Gerhard ","free_last_name":"Endress","norm_person":{"id":203,"first_name":"Gerhard","last_name":"Endress","full_name":"Gerhard Endress","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115696954","viaf_url":"https:\/\/viaf.org\/viaf\/82748395","db_url":"https:\/\/www.deutsche-biographie.de\/pnd115696954.html","from_claudius":0,"link":"bib?authors[]=Gerhard Endress"}}],"entry_title":"Averroes' De Caelo Ibn Rushd's Cosmology in his Commentaries on Aristotle's On the Heavens","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Averroes' De Caelo Ibn Rushd's Cosmology in his Commentaries on Aristotle's On the Heavens"},"abstract":"Averroes defended philosophy by returning to the true Aristotle. For this purpose, Aristotle's book \u201cOn the Heaven,\u201d in which he explained the eternity, uniqueness and movement of the universe, occupied a place of special importance. But the Aristotelian philosopher had a hard time holding his own in the face of contradictions within the book and with respect to Aristotle's later works. In his early Compendium, later Paraphrase, and final Long Commentary of De Caelo, Ibn Rushd continued the efforts of the Hellenistic commentators in order to integrate all the elements of his doctrine into a unified system, to harmonize his early cosmology with his later Metaphysics \u2013 the early doctrine of natural movement of the elements, and of the self-moving star-souls (a Platonic element), with the doctrine of potency and actuality and the theory of the First Mover \u2013 and to uphold his models of homocentric planetary spheres against the mathematical paradigm of Ptolemaic astronomy. By insisting throughout on demonstrative arguments based on rational principles, he asserted the philosophers' claim to irrefutable truth.","btype":3,"date":"1995","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/S0957423900001934","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":21,"category_name":"Aristotle","link":"bib?categories[]=Aristotle"},{"id":23,"category_name":"Commentary","link":"bib?categories[]=Commentary"},{"id":66,"category_name":"De caelo","link":"bib?categories[]=De caelo"},{"id":19,"category_name":"Cosmology","link":"bib?categories[]=Cosmology"},{"id":31,"category_name":"Metaphysics","link":"bib?categories[]=Metaphysics"}],"authors":[{"id":203,"full_name":"Gerhard Endress","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5787,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Arabic Sciences and Philosophy","volume":"5","issue":"1","pages":"9 - 49"}},"sort":[1995]}