The goal of the book is to provide an anthology covering the reception of Plato's Republic in the Islamic world, with a focus on Averroes's outstanding but underappreciated commentary on Plato's most famous dialogue. Despite the publication of Ralph Lerner's excellent English translation almost 50 years ago, very few scholarly studies have been written on it. We propose the following chapters, keeping in mind that some might be changed owing to collaboration with contributors.

RésuméCet article vise à présenter et à discuter le sophisme de transfert et de substitution d'al-Fārābī (d. 950-1 CE) dans son peu étudié « Sur les topoi trompeurs » (Kitāb al-amkina al-muġalliṭa), ainsi que la critique d'Averroès (d. 1198 CE), selon laquelle al-Fārābī aurait violé l'airmation d'Aristote sur l'exhaustivité de sa liste de sophismes. La première moitié de cet article présente le traité d'al-Fārābī et ses innovations par rapport aux Sophistici elenchi d'Aristote. La deuximème partie se concentre sur la critique (...) d'Averroès dans son soi-disant commentaire intermédiaire (talḫīṣ) sur les SE d'Aristote et discute la validité de ses arguments contre al-Fārābī. Comme notre analyse finale le montrera, la critique d'Averroès ne tient pas suffisamment compte de l'indépendance du traité d'al-Fārābī par rapport au SE d'Aristote, de sa négligence à l’égard de l’étude de la tromperie et de la contre tromperie dialectique, et de son accent particulier sur les sciences démonstratives. À la lumière de l'innovation d'al-Fārābī, son « Sur les topoi trompeurs»s'avère être un ouvrage d'une grande originalité qui s'appuie sur un large éventail de textes sources. (shrink)

What kind of causality does the Aristotelian Prime Mover exert on the heaven? Who “loves” the Prime Mover? Renaissance peripatetic philosopher, Francesco Vimercato, a “royal” teacher of “Greek and Latin philosophy” in Paris during the forties and the fifties of the 16th century tried to resolve these traditional puzzles that resulted from the exegesis of the Metaphysics XII, 6–7. His solution appears to be innovative, if compared to the ancient and the medieval ones. It seems partially to prefigure the last (...) two decades’ interpretations of Aristotelian “theology”. (shrink)

This paper examines Pomponazzi's arguments against Averroes in his De Immortalitate Animae, focusing on the question whether thought is possible without a body. The first part of the paper will sketch the history of the problem, namely the interpretation of Aristotle's remarks about the intellect in De Anima 3.4-5, touching on Alexander, Themistius, and Averroes. The second part will focus on Pomponazzi's response to Averroes, including his use of arguments by Aquinas. It will conclude by suggesting that Pomponazzi's discussion (...) stands as the first properly modern account of Aristotle's psychology. (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: Philosophy and theology God and natural philosophy Religion and political philosophy.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Averroes on Intellect: From Aristotelian Origins to Aquinas’s Critique by Stephen R. OgdenLuis Xavier López-FarjeatStephen R. Ogden. Averroes on Intellect: From Aristotelian Origins to Aquinas’s Critique. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022. Pp. 296. Hardback, $90.00.Stephen Ogden’s book is a remarkable contribution to one of the most controversial topics within the tradition of interpreters of Aristotle’s De anima. As is well known, Aristotle defines the intellect (nous) as “the (...) part of the soul by which it knows and thinks” (DA III.4, 429a9– 10). This doctrine of the intellect becomes rather obscure in DA III.5, where Aristotle states that there is a passive intellect that needs to be actualized through an active intellect. This passage contains, perhaps, the most debated statement in Aristotelian psychology. Aristotle argues that the passive or potential intellect is the part of the soul that, in a sense, becomes all things as it knows them. The intellect, however, has another aspect: in a sense, it makes all things. This is what Aristotle calls the “active” or “agent” intellect. This characterization is fairly ambiguous: it is separable (chôristos), separated (chôristheis), not passive (apathês), unmixed (amigês), and it is essentially an activity (têi ousiai energeia); furthermore, it is immortal (athanaton), eternal (aidion), and always thinking.According to Alexander of Aphrodisias’s interpretation, Aristotle holds that since the human intellect is in potency, its actualization needs the intervention of an intellect that is always thinking, namely, the active intellect. Alexander associates the active or agent intellect (poiêtikos nous) with the divine intellect and divine intellection as it appears in Aristotle’s Metaphysics XII.9, 1074b33–35, another famous passage where Aristotle describes the first mover as thought thinking itself. A long tradition of interpreters and commentators, both ancient and medieval, discussed whether Aristotle held that the actualization of the potential intellect came from an external intellect—be it God (as Alexander thought) or another kind of separate intellect (as was the case for Islamic philosophers such as al-Farabi, Avicenna, and Averroes), or whether Aristotle was referring to two aspects within a single human intellect (as Thomas Aquinas held, for instance).As its title indicates, Ogden’s book focuses on Averroes, a Muslim philosopher who proposed one of the most puzzling interpretations of the Aristotelian doctrine of the intellect. It is puzzling, perhaps false, and even absurd, because it holds that “the intellect that understands intelligible concepts is a single, separate, eternal substance shared by [End Page 659] all humanity”(1). Strange as it may seem, this position—which Ogden calls the “unicity thesis” (1)—was among the most debated in the Jewish and Christian traditions throughout the medieval period and the Renaissance. But beyond detailing the mere reception and historical assimilation of Averroes’s doctrine, Ogden takes on the task of arguing for its philosophical coherence. It is not a simple task. One might think that, rather than helping to clarify Aristotle’s theory, Averroes made it more complicated. If it is already difficult to understand the Aristotelian definition of the active intellect and to decide whether it is a separate intellect or part of the soul, Averroes seems to make things worse by arguing that the active or agent intellect (in Latin, intellectus agens or intelligentia agens; in Arabic, ‘aql al-fa“āl) and the so-called material or possible intellect (intellectus materialis; ‘aql hayūlānī) are both single, separate, and eternal intellects.As is well known, and as Ogden himself explains, Thomas Aquinas criticized the idea of two separate intellects (passive and active) and provided an account that is in principle satisfactory, according to which the two intellects are intellectual powers of each person’s soul. There is an enormous amount of scholarly literature evaluating the merits of Thomas Aquinas’s refutation of Averroes and his followers. But as Ogden notices, few scholars— among them, Richard C. Taylor, Jean-Baptiste Brenet, Deborah Black, and Josep Puig—have pointed out that the two philosophers begin their discussions with different assumptions. In my view, one of the greatest merits of Ogden’s book is that, as far as I... (shrink)

The present paper aims at presenting Averroes’ doctrine of act and potency in the framework of his general conception of metaphysics as a science. By tracing the origins of his doctrine back to Alexander of Aphrodisias, it shows that Averroes conceives act and potency as concomitant attributes of being qua being and as terms πρὸς ἕν and ἀφ’ ἑνός. According to this reading, the study of these two notions, considered as such, constitutes an essential step in Averroes’ metaphysical project, (...) whose ultimate goal is to account for the essence of the first of all forms: God. (shrink)

In Averroes’s epistemology, knowledge is universal, but it is always singular in terms of the known. Averroes believes that there is no need for an activity, even in the sense that used by those who have the idea of "kumūn" rational forms being formed by other rational forms of the same kind, or for a power such as in the example of polishing a mirror to reflect an image. Similarly, he argues that there are no discrete abstract forms of existing (...) things because otherwise, everyone would have to know everything. Although there are different degrees and levels, the existence of absolute metaphysical forms is subject to change and increases with the multiplication of their subjects. There are three means of knowledge: sensation, imagination, and intellect. Unlike the sensation and perception modes in animals, humans perceive the outer appearance of objects as well as their unique meanings and distinctions. Like animals, the function of sensation in humans is to mediate the self. While perception is abstract and spiritual in one sense, it is material and concrete in another. Averroes does not find it correct to link the knowledge of the contingents of the world to the eternal knowledge of God. Beacuse this implies that there is a difference in God's knowledge between the state of the world's existence and non-existence. In addition, human knowledge about contingents is deficient and changeable, whereas God's knowledge is the cause of the existence of contingents and is unchanging. Ultimately, it does not seem possible for humans to comprehend the nature of God's knowledge. It is agreed with Alexander of Aphrodisias that there should be a distinction between the active and imaginative intellects, but he differs from him in the point that the imaginative intellect disappears. According to Averroes, the active intellect in action is eternal, unlike Themistius’ view. According to Averroes, the intellect is neither a pure potentiality nor a distinct substance. That is to say, if the imaginative intellect were an actual thing, it could not perceive other things. If the intellect were absolute, everyone would know the same things. Similarly, if the intellect were absolute plurality, there would be no unity and connection between intellects. If the intellect were merely an accepting capacity, it could not perceive absence. According to Averroes, the active intellect is not a distinct intellect that gives form or governs the spheres, but rather the form and purpose of the imaginative intellect. There are two powers of this intellect: to abstract the concepts in their potential state from their matter and to make them actual and accepting them. In conclusion, it can be said that Averroes made a substance-centered philosophy regarding the possibility and reality of knowledge, and while he did not deviate from the Aristotelian line, he had to make new openings. Paradoxically, he tries to explain both the actual/abstract and potential/material aspects of the intellect that are postulated by introducing an original soul theory with the imaginative intellect. Therefore, he places importance on both a priori knowledge and sensation and imagination. (shrink)

This is not a book for the ordinary historian of philosophy. It consists almost exclusively of detailed analyses of the manuscript readings at a few scores of places in Metaphysics A–Δ and Λ, confronting the transmitted readings each time with Alexander of Aphrodisias’s comments on the relevant passage. The reason why only those books are studied is simple: Alexander’s commentary on books E–N was lost before the end of the Byzantine era, but Averroes preserved information about the contents (...) of an Arabic translation of the commentary on book Λ. If you are brazen-bowelled enough to stomach so much philological detail, this is a rich book, which teaches the... (shrink)

This piece of work intends to shed light on Alexander of Aphrodisias from the second-century Aristotle commentator through the history of Aristotelian psychology up to the sixteenth century's clandestine prompter of the new philosophy of nature. In the millennium after his death the head of the Peripatetic school in Athens served as the authority on Aristotle in the Neo-Platonic school, survived the Arabic centuries of philosophy as Averroes' exemplary exponent of the mortality of the soul and as such was (...) not considered worthy of translation by the Latin Scholastics. This attitude changed only in the Late Middle Ages, when the resistance against Averroes grew fierce and Alexander emerged as the only Aristotelian alternative to him. In 1495 his account of Aristotle's psychology was translated and published and the underlying principles of a natural philosophy, based on sense perception and exempt from metaphysics, became accessible. The prompt reception and widespread endorsement of Alexander's teaching testify to his impact throughout the sixteenth century. (shrink)

This piece of work intends to shed light on Alexander of Aphrodisias from the second-century Aristotle commentator through the history of Aristotelian psychology up to the sixteenth century's clandestine prompter of the new philosophy of nature. In the millennium after his death the head of the Peripatetic school in Athens served as the authority on Aristotle in the Neo-Platonic school, survived the Arabic centuries of philosophy as Averroes' exemplary exponent of the mortality of the soul and as such was (...) not considered worthy of translation by the Latin Scholastics. This attitude changed only in the Late Middle Ages, when the resistance against Averroes grew fierce and Alexander emerged as the only Aristotelian alternative to him. In 1495 his account of Aristotle's psychology was translated and published and the underlying principles of a natural philosophy, based on sense perception and exempt from metaphysics, became accessible. The prompt reception and widespread endorsement of Alexander's teaching testify to his impact throughout the sixteenth century. (shrink)

This article examines Averroes’ interpretation, found in his Long Commentary on the De Anima, of a famous passage in Aristotle’s De An. III 5 which presents the intellect “producing all things, as a kind of positive state, like light”. Averroes, clearly heir to Alexander of Aphrodisias for whom hexis refers not to the intellect “agent” itself but to its product, defends nevertheless, via the comparison with light, the conception of the agent intellect as an hexis, which leads us to (...) the inevitable consequence that the agent intellect is the prime object of the material intellect, acting as a condition for all subsequent thoughts. (shrink)

The Arabic tradition knew Alexander’s treatises On Fate and On Providence. Alexander criticizes the Stoic determinism with some peripatetic arguments. In those treatises we can find, at least, two positions: the peripatetic and “libertarian” position represented by Alexander, and Stoic determinism. A very similar discussion can be found in Islamic tradition. As S. Van den Bergh has insisted, Islamic theological schools had some Stoic influences. One of the issues in which we can find some common views is, (...) precisely, the problem of determinism and free will. The aim of this paper is to show that the kasb (acquisition)doctrine of the Islamic theologians Asharites is very similar to Stoic determinism in its compatibilist version: both, Stoics and Asharites, conceive a causal network established by the fate or the providence. From this point of view we have to discuss which is the true agent of the natural and human acts that happen in this world. If the providence guides every act, the natural causality and the free will should be denied. On the one hand, I will present some arguments from the most representative Asharite theologian, al-Ghazali, to support a kind of compatibilist determinism; from the other hand, I will evaluate Averroes peripatetic arguments against determinism. Is Averroes more consistent than Alexander or do we have to conclude that al-Ghazali and the Asharites have stronger arguments in order to support the kasb doctrine? (shrink)

Lo studio si concentra sul modo in cui i commenti alla Metafisica di Paolo di Venezia e Alessandro di Alessandria evidenziano il grado di modificazione della comprensione della dottrina aristotelica sull'essenza, dovuta alla ricezione della dottrina di Tommaso d'Aquino e di Averroè al riguardo. Dopo un'introduzione di inquadramento storico dottrinale dei due commenti, la seconda parte è centrata sulle dottrine dei due maestri relative all'essenza, e l'A. articola la sua ricognizione attorno ai temi del rapporto fra essenza e sostanza, essenza (...) e predicazione, e sulla rispettiva ricezione della dottrina tomista sull'essenza, fondata a sua volta sulla dottrina avicenniana . La terza parte verte su una puntuale ricostruzione della dottrina dell'essenza in Paolo, mentre la quarta evidenzia come Alessandro sia la fonte primaria di Paolo. L'A., infine, esamina il commento di Alessandro in relazione al tema dell'essenza. Nella conclusione ribadisce come Alessandro e Paolo tentino di riconciliare la dottrina averroista con Aristotele, adottando l'interpretazione di Tommaso. Tra i testi dell'Aquinate utilizzati si ricordano il De ente et essentia, il commento alla Metaphysica e quello alle Sentenze, la Summa theologiae. (shrink)

The works of Gersonides encompass science, philosophy, and biblical exegesis. The majority of the philosophical writings are constituted by supercommentaries on Averroes’s commentaries on Aristotle’s works, whereas his magnum opus, The Wars of the Lord, encompasses all three genres. Since these works engage his preeminent predecessors, Maimonides and Averroes, and since Gersonides explains the motivation to composing the Wars as a concern for human flourishing, the absence of a supercommentary on the Nicomachean Ethics is striking.The Virtue Ethics of Levi Gersonides (...) is a bold attempt to provide an account of Gersonides’s ethics as a significant departure from his preeminent... (shrink)

L'esistenza del commento di Alessandro di Afrodisia al De generatione aristotelico, perduto nella versione greca e nella traduzione araba, è attestata da numerose fonti arabe, tra le quali Averroè, nel suo commento alla stessa opera. L'A. rintraccia la presenza, la tipologia e la distribuzione delle citazioni tratte dal commento di Alessandro nel Kitab al-Tasrif, un'opera del corpus alchemico attribuita a Gabir ibn Hayyan. Secondo l'A., la sezione interessata dalle citazioni assembla tre diversi tipi di testi: 1) lemmi del De generatione (...) in traduzione araba; 2) frammenti lacunosi della traduzione araba del commento di Alessandro; 3) interventi di collegamento. Una più ampia discussione si trova in un saggio visibile sulla pagina "publicationslist" dell'autore: "Alessandro di Afrodisia sulle 'contrarietà tangibili' (De gen. et corr. II.2): fonti greche e arabe a confronto" in: Aristotele e Alessandro di Afrodisia nella tradizione araba, a c. di C. D'Ancona e G. Serra, “Il Poligrafo”, Padova 2002, pp. 151-189. Notasi che il testo ricostruito di Alessandro in GC 2.2-5 è stato pubblicato da E. Gannagé nella serie ACA, che però non menziona il contributo di SF, dalla cui iniziativa, dalle cui analisi e dalla cui ricostruzione integrale, svolta sul manoscritto arabo Paris. 5099, la ricerca prese l'avvio. (shrink)

In this paper, I present a translation and analysis of Metaphysics α 1, 993 b 23-31 to subsequently show how Alexander of Aphrodisias’s interpretation of said passage led medieval philosophers to attribute a doctrine of creation to Aristotle. For Alexander, those things that are most true and those beings that are in the highest degree, about which Aristotle speaks in Met. α 1, a passage that originally addressed the relationship between the premises and conclusions of demonstrations, are the (...) unmoved movers, which have a relationship of imitation or participation with the things that depend on them. In Averroes, who favors the Neoplatonic notion of perfection, the causality of the unmoved mover becomes an efficient causality in its fullest sense: an explanation not only of the movement of the heavens, but of their being and that of all things. Thus, he implicitly presents Aristotle as a monotheistic and creationist philosopher. Thomas Aquinas, using the notions of “being by essence” and “being by participation” and deriving a notion of “always being” from that of “always being true”, also transforms the unmoved mover into a true creator and explicitly points out the reasons for his interpretation in the text of Aristotle. (shrink)

This book explores noteworthy approaches to modal syllogistic adopted by medieval logicians including Abélard, Albert the Great, Avicenna, Averröes, Jean Buridan, Richard Campsall, Robert Kilwardby, and William of Ockham. The book situates these approaches in relation to Aristotle's discussion in the Prior and Posterior Analytics, and other parts of the Organon, but also in relation to the thought of Alexander of Aphrodisias and Boethius on the one hand, and to modern interpretations of the modal syllogistic on the other. Problems (...) explored include: Aristotle's doctrine of modal conversion, the pure and mixed necessity-moods, modal ecthesis, the pure and mixed contingency-moods, and Aristotle's use of counter-examples. Medieval logicians brought various concepts to bear on these problems, including the distinction between per se and per accidens terms, the notion of essential predication, the distinction between ut nunc and simpliciter propositions, the distinction between de dicto and de re modals, and the notion of ampliation. All these are examined in this book. (shrink)

Thomas Alexander shows that the primary, guiding concern of Dewey's philosophy is his theory of aesthetic experience.

Die Forschung zu Eduard Hanslicks Vom Musikalisch-Schönen (1854) ist in der deutschsprachigen Diskussion auf die historischen Hintergründe von Hanslicks Argument fokussiert. Während die frühesten Deutungen von Hanslicks Standpunkt seine systematischen Berührungspunkte mit dem ahistorischen Formalismus von Johann Friedrich Herbart konstatierten, akzentuierte die deutsche Forschung der 1970er und 1980er seinen starken Konnex mit Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Dahlhaus betonte speziell, dass Hanslicks Argument eine Bekanntschaft mit dem Hegelianismus als der »herrschenden Philosophie der 1830er und 1840er« nötig mache. Dahlhaus’ Hypothese wird bei (...) der gewissenhaften Rekonstruktion der österreichischen Hegelrezeption jedoch schwierig. Habsburgische Bildungsplaner befanden dagegen den Deutschen Idealismus für politisch untragbar, was die Entlassung von mehreren Professoren nach sich zog, die den ›gefährlichen‹ Hegelianismus propagierten. Diese Lage wird von uns als geeigneter Ansatzpunkt für die detailgetreue Untersuchung der hegelianischen Theorieelemente von Hanslicks Abhandlung benutzt, welche vor dem Hintergrund der ablehnenden Grundhaltung ›Österreichs‹ zum Deutschen Idealismus sorgsam erfolgen muss. Hanslicks VMSTraktat umfasst dennoch mehrere wichtige Elemente der hegelianischen Ästhetik-diskussion, die nicht einzig Hegels System, sondern ebenso hegelianische Kunsttheoretiker (Kahlert, Krüger, Vischer etc.) umfänglich einbeziehen muss. Hanslicks Standpunkt, der die ahistorische Ausrichtung des Herbart’schen Formalismus niemals aufgriff, ist vor allem durch Vischers Annahme zur historischen Entwicklung des musikalischen Grundmaterials geprägt worden. Wir sehen somit Hanslicks VMS-Traktat als die ›eklektische‹ Verschmelzung von heterogenen theoretischen Diskursfeldern, womit dieser Herbartianismus und Hegelianismus als ästhetische Gegenpole des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts miteinander ausgleichen konnte. German-speaking scholarship on Eduard Hanslick’s aesthetic treatise »On the Musically- Beautiful« (1854) is primarily concerned with the historical background of Hanslick’s argument. Whereas contemporary investigations into Hanslick’s aesthetics emphasised theoretical overlaps with Johann Friedrich Herbart’s ahistorical formalism, German scholars of the 1970s and 1980s highlighted similarities to Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. In this respect, Dahlhaus specifically accentuated that Hanslick’s doctrine implies an exposure to Hegelianism as the »reigning philosophy of the 1830s and 1840s«. By reconstructing the historical reception of Hegel’s system in Austria, however, Dahlhaus’s premise becomes thoroughly problematic. Habsburg authorities considered German Idealism to be politically intolerable, thereby prompting numerous sackings of Austrian university lecturers on account of ›dangerous‹ Hegelianism. We take this historical framework as a suitable starting point for a comprehensive investigation of Hanslick’s Hegelian leanings that have to be carefully explored in the light of ›Austria’s‹ critical attitude towards speculative philosophy. »On the Musically-Beautiful«, however, comprises important elements of Hegelian aesthetics that are not limited to Hegel’s system but rather extend to Hegelian aesthetics in general (Kahlert, Krüger, Vischer etc.). Vischer’s hypothesis regarding the historical development of musical material particularly influenced Hanslick’s aesthetic outlook, who did not share the ahistorical conception of Herbartian formalism. Thus, we interpret Hanslick’s aesthetic treatise as an ›eclectic‹ fusion of diverse theoretical frameworks, ultimately reconciling Herbart and Vischer as the opposing extremes of mid-19th century aesthetics. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Otot ha-Shamayim: Samuel Ibn Tibbon’s Hebrew Version of Aristotle’s “Meteorology.” by AristotleSteven HarveyAristotle. Otot ha-Shamayim: Samuel Ibn Tibbon’s Hebrew Version of Aristotle’s “Meteorology.” Translated and edited by Resianne Fontaine. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995. Pp. lxxx + 268. Cloth, $108.50.This modest, seemingly unimportant, volume is in fact a surprisingly fascinating text that should be of interest to all historians of philosophy. Under the rather boring guise of an edition (...) and English translation of a medieval Hebrew translation of an early ninth-century Arabic translation of Aristotle’s Meteorology, this book is destined to be ignored by most historians of philosophy and even by those who have a special interest in Aristotle. This is a shame, and it is the goal of this brief review to alert the reader to the book’s value.The Hebrew translation of the Meteorology is, to be more precise, a creative translation of an inadequate Arabic version of the text, corrected, interpreted, and expanded on the basis of the commentaries of Alexander of Aphrodisias and Averroes, by a philosopher struggling to understand what was for him a seminal text of Aristotle’s. The philosopher-translator was Samuel Ibn Tibbon, best known for his faithful translation into Hebrew of Maimonides’s Guide of the Perplexed. What is immediately significant about the translation of the Meteorology, which was completed in 1210, is that it was the first text of Aristotle’s to be translated into Hebrew and, as far as is known, the first Hebrew translation of any philosophic or scientific work of a non-Jew. For the philosophically inclined Jew who did not know Arabic and who had struggled through Maimonides’s Guide without the benefit of translations, paraphrases, or even commentaries on Aristotle’s Physics and other prerequisite writings on natural science, the translation must have been an eagerly awaited and much welcome work. But why, of all things, the historian of philosophy will ask, the Meteorology? And however much appreciated the translation may have been in 1210, what possible use could an English translation of this patchwork Hebrew translation of a garbled and abridged Arabic translation of perhaps a Syriac translation of the Greek original or compendium of the Meteorology have for us today when we have a fine Greek edition of the text and modern translations from that edition?There were good reasons not to translate the Meteorology first. In contrast to most of Aristotle’s writings on natural science which existed in impressively reliable Arabic translations, the Meteorology existed in a poor and incomplete one. Ibn Tibbon comments in his Introduction to the translation that “errors and omissions” in the Arabic translation are evident from the context, from a comparison with Alexander’s commentary and the lemmata found therein, and from a comparison with other Aristotelian works that existed in trustworthy translations. The text could not simply be translated, [End Page 130] but needed to be reconstructed on the basis of a careful study of the commentaries of Alexander of Aphrodisias, Averroes, and the other commentaries that were available. Yet, even if the text had existed in a reliable translation, the tradition of text-study required that the sciences be studied in a proper order and this meant—as is clear from the opening words of the Meteorology—beginning the study of natural sciences with the Physics and turning to the Meteorology only after completing On the Heavens and On Generation and Corruption. Ibn Tibbon acknowledged this, and, in fact, interjected in his own name (27, 29) that “all the statements the philosopher has [made] thus far, are introductory remarks taken from earlier discussions in other books.... Someone who has not previously acquired knowledge and learning from his books that precede this one, will understand very little of this introduction.” Unfortunately for Ibn Tibbon’s reader, it would be forty years before any of those books or epitomes of them would be translated into Hebrew. Resianne Fontaine, in her wide-ranging and informative Introduction (xi–xii), brings support for A. Ravitzky’s suggestion that Ibn Tibbon’s decision to translate the Meteorology was motivated by his personal interest in the text... (shrink)

It is argued that Weyl’s theory of gravitation and electricity came out of ‘mathematical justice’: out of the equal rights direction and length. Such mathematical justice was manifestly at work in the context of discovery, and is enough to derive all of source-free electromagnetism. Weyl’s repeated references to coordinates and gauge are taken to express equal treatment of direction and length.

Albert and Aquinas present beatitude in their Commentaries on the Sentences in strikingly different ways. While Albert’s theory of beatitude is an account purely based on theological conceptions and sources, Aquinas makes extensive use of philosophers such as Aristotle, Alexander of Aphrodisias, Avicenna, and Averroes. Recent scholarship has shown that Aquinas derived his philosophical argumentation for the beatific vision from Averroes’s conjunction theory. Yet the reasons for Albert’s and Aquinas’s disparate theories of beatitude have not yet been investigated. In (...) this paper, I shall show that Albert’s and Aquinas’s divergent conceptions of the relationship between the two sciences of philosophy and theology explain their disparate theories of beatitude. (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: Introduction Necessity and Essence Naming and Reference Rules and Meaning Conclusion References.

Can we have a posteriori knowledge of modal facts? And if so, is that knowledge fundamentally a posteriori, or does a priori intuition provide the modal component of what is known? Though the latter view seems more straightforward, there are also reasons for taking the first option seriously.

Metaphors involve immense explanatory power and positive impact predominantly in the scientific education and popularization. Still the use of metaphors in science might be a double-edged sword. Introduction of the computer metaphor to many scientific fields in the last century resulted in reductionist approaches, oversimplifications and mechanistic explanations in science as well as in humanities. In this short commentary we developed further the computer metaphor by prof. Noble and the illusions this metaphor led to in genetics, linguistics and consequently DNA (...) linguistics. (shrink)

The origin of modern christian Aristotelianism founded first, in the positive and negative sense, the Renaissance philological-historical humanism. In the first case it provided hermeneutic methods which ensured a study of authentic Aristotelianism covered by the medieval scholastic syntheses. The application of Renaissance hermeneutics brought forth the revival of Aristotelian studies. They made efforts to read out the authentic heritage of Aristotle, therefore they referred to more literal interpreters, such as Alexander of Aphrodisia or Averroës. This practice aroused (...) anxiety about the conformity of the Aristotelian doctrine to the Christian doctrine and called for some steps to use the interpretations that satisfied this condition, i.e. the times of golden scholasticism in the form of the so-called of via antiqua. At the same time the role of Christianised Aristotelianism was stressed vis-à-vis philosophical pluralism which threatened the unity of Christian theology, especially neo-Platonism involved in various naturalistic trends. They made religion philosophical and threatened its identity through the relativization of the Biblical revelation. The latter was treated as one of the elements of mystic wisdom. On the other hand Renaissance humanism by stressing the role of philological-historical studies reduced the importance of philosophy, treated at most as a praxistic ethical reflection. No wonder then that the reform of the mid-15th century – initiated by Pope Nicholas V, a prominent humanist – made efforts to preserve the unity of the church doctrine in which philosophy would play the role of a rational foundation of religious faith. This reform tended on the one hand to the revival of the philosophical spirit, especially the maximalistically understood philosophy of Aristotelianism, on the other it sought to conform this Aristotelianism to Christianity. (shrink)

In der sog. »aristotelischen Zeitaporie« (Physik IV) äußert sich Aristoteles zum Verhältnis von Zeit und Seele. Dieser Text gehört zu den umstrittensten Abschnitten seines Zeittraktates. Zur Interpretation rekonstruiert die vorgelegte Untersuchung die Entwicklungslinien der Analysen zur Zeitaporie von der Spätantike über die arabische Philosophie bis zur Frühphase der lateinischen Aristoteleskommentierung im 13. Jahrhundert. Der erste Abschnitt zeigt, wie die antike Physik-Kommentatoren diesen Text erklärten. Im Zentrum steht dabei die Auslegung des Alexander von Aphrodisias. Den der Spätantike diskutierten die Araber. (...) Ein zweite Abschnitt stellt daher die Analysen der arabischen Zeitphilosophie vor. Vermittelt durch lateinische Übersetzungen, beeinflussen arabische und jüdische Theoretiker die Zeitphilosophie des 13. Jahrhunderts. Die Geschichte des sukzessiven Vordringens der Konzeption des Averroes in die Auslegung der Zeitaporie im 13. Jahrhundert expliziert daher ein dritter Teil. Erst die Philosophen dieser Zeit konnten die These des Aristoteles zum Verhältnis von Zeit und Seele mit der Konzeption des Augustinus vergleichen. Sie haben das elfte Buch der Bekenntnisse neu entdeckt. (shrink)