RésuméL’«Épître sur le savoir divin» d'Averroès présente quatre dialogues differents sur deux niveaux textuels. Ces dialogues, leur structure syllogistique ainsi que l'emploi des contradictions indiquent que l’«Épître» est structurée presque entièrement en accord avec les descriptions de la dialectique se trouvant dans les commentaires d'Averroès aux Topiques d'Aristote. Ainsi, la solution d'Averroès à la question de savoir comment Dieu peut avoir une connaissance universelle des particuliers passe par un compte rendu dialectique de la distinction entre le savoir divin et celui (...) des humains. De surcroît, à un point crucial de l’«Épître» Averroès se réfère à Métaphysique Β d'Aristote, qu'il considère être une exposition dialectique des questions sur la métaphysique. Cette référence suggère que l’«Épître sur le savoir divin» est, selon Averroès, une sorte d'enquête dialectique visant à répondre aux questions qui se présentent dès qu'on aborde l’étude de la métaphysique. Il en ressort que si on peut voir en l’«Épître» une interprétation dialectique de Coran LXVII, 14, son but primaire est d'introduire ses lecteurs a la spéculation métaphysique. Ainsi, il n'y a pas d'infraction de la prohibition légale d'Averroès, dans le Discours décisif, sur l'usage des interprétations dialectiques dans les oeuvres ouvertes au public général. (shrink)

Mauro Zonta's long awaited work Il Commento medio di Averroè alla Metafisica di Aristotele nella tradizione ebraica is really three books in one: a historical and philological account of the two medieval Hebrew translations of Averroes' Middle Commentary on Aristotle's Metaphysics and editions of both translations. The Arabic of Averroes' Middle Commentary on Aristotle's Metaphysics is not extant apart from a few fragments (see vol. 1, pp. 13-5). Nor is there a direct Latin translation of the Arabic—indeed, Zonta states that (...) there is no evidence of reliable citations of the work by any Latin authors (vol. 1, p. 18). Zonta's book, then, presents the only way of accessing Averroes' monumental work in its .. (shrink)

The 15th century Jewish Aragonian thinker, Abraham Bibago treats conjunction in his two main works, Derekh Emunah and Commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics. In the former, which explicitly interprets Biblical and Talmudic stories along philosophical lines, Bibago promotes a neo-Platonic intellectual emanation schema and boldly asserts that human happiness is attained through conjunction with higher intellects. In the Commentary, which primarily treats Aristotle’s Metaphysics and Averroes’ commentaries on it, Bibago gives an account of conjunction that does not necessarily fit with the (...) intellectual conjunction of Derekh Emunah. Indeed, his remarks in the Commentary are much less decisive about human happiness, suggesting that Bibago qua philosopher is more open minded about the summum bonum than he is qua religious thinker. (shrink)

RésuméSi l’œuvre d'Averroès est souvent considérée comme étant le sommet de la méthode démonstrative aristotélicienne dans la philosophie arabe, un bref passage de sonGrand commentaireàMétaphysiqueΓ.2 d'Aristote souligne l'importance primordiale de la dialectique et suggère d'examiner à nouveaux frais le statut de la dialectique et de la démonstration dans l’œuvre philosophique d'Averroès. Dans ce passage, Averroès décrit la dialectique comme une forme acceptable de philosophie et le dialecticien comme un certain type de scientifique. En mettant la dialectique et la démonstration à (...) un niveau égal ou presque, Averroès semble aller contre sa propre conception d'une distinction entre des types d'hommes dits “dialectiques” et “démonstratifs”, qu'il développe dans sonTraité décisif.En outre, cette interprétation deMétaphysiqueΓ.2 contredit aussi son explication du même passage dans leCommentaire moyen sur la Métaphysique, et la description donnée par Aristote lui-même de la dialectique tout au long de laMétaphysique, à savoir que, dans leGrand commentaireàMétaphysique, il s’écarte de ses vues antérieures en décrivant la dialectique comme une partie nécessaire de la métaphysique, même si la centralité de l'argumentation dialectique pourrait remettre en question le projet de la métaphysique tout entier et, par là, celui des sciences dont les démonstrations s'appuient sur le terrain métaphysique, c'est-à-dire toutes les sciences. Averroès ne souligne pas cette vue, mais sa présence n'en est pas moins ambiguë. (shrink)

Jacob Anatoli (c. 1181–c. 1247 CE) would seem an unlikely skeptic. As the Hebrew translator responsible for bringing a complete program of Aristotelian logic to European Jewry, he is an unlikely skeptic of science. As author of one of the most influential medieval commentaries on the Bible, he is an unlikely skeptic of religious belief. Still, he advances arguments against the possibility of certain knowledge of both Aristotelian science and the tenets of belief. Yet, he does not recommend that thoughtful (...) people reject science and uncritically adopt religious beliefs in the face of uncertainty. Nor does Anatoli recommend a suspension of judgement (epoche) that would allow for freedom from worry (ataraxia) or tranquility. Instead, he pushes constant dialogue, even debate between competing claims to knowledge. The life of the mind that Anatoli recommends, then, is a dialectical interrogation of science and religion that provides not freedom and tranquility but intellectual disquiet and toil. (shrink)

Translators of Aristotle’s and Averroës’ metaphysical works into 14th C Hebrew often associated important philosophical concepts with Hebrew terms that were also used to signify central Jewish and Biblical religious concepts. Here I examine how two such terms, “mofet” and “devequt”, were used to refer to extraordinary, divine wonders and to clinging (in particular to God) respectively in the religious texts, but to Aristotelian demonstration and continuity (especially noetic continuity) respectively in the translations of Averroës’ Long Commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics. (...) This kind of convergence of metaphysical and religious terms makes possible, indeed encourages, a re-interpretation of the religious concepts along Aristotelian lines. Biblical expressions of God’s wonders are thus to be interpreted to refer to Aristotelian demonstration and the mystical desire to cling to God is to refer to unifi cation with the Active Intellect.Translatores, qui Aristotelis et Averrois opera metaphysica in linguam Hebraicam saeculi 14. transferebant, notabilibus conceptibus philosophicis saepe nomina Hebraica assignaverut, quibus et principales notiones religiosae Judaicae ac Biblicae solebant exprimi. In hac dissertatione investigatur, quomodo duo talium nominum, scil. “mofet” et “devequt”, quae in textibus religiosis “extra ordinaria miracula divina” et “adhaerentiam” (praecipue ad Deum) proprie significant, in translationibus Averrois Commentarii Magni in Aristotelis Metaphysicam ad demonstrationem Aristotelicam et continuationem (praecipue noeticam) significandas transumebantur. Huiusmodi nominum metaphysicorum cum religiosis coniunctio conceptus religiosos iuxta sensum Aristotelicum denuo explicari permittit, imo suadet. Hinc dicta Biblica quae miracula Dei olim significaverunt ad demonstrationes Aristotelicas relata sunt; item desiderium mysticum adhaerendi ad Deum de unione cum Intellectu Agenti intellectum est. (shrink)

At the end of the fifteenth century, the Castilian-Aragonian Eli Habilio wrote what is now the only extant, complete, and original Hebrew commentary on the entire Metaphysics of Aristotle. This commentary is short, about 15 folio pages long, and consists almost entirely of quotations from Averroes’ Middle Commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics in the early fourteenth-century translation of Qalonimos ben Qalonimos. Yet Habilio elsewhere expresses only disdain for Averroes and hopes that Jews will turn away from Averroes to read Scotus’ metaphysical (...) works instead. The author’s claim is that Habilio’s Commentary is intended to supplement his translation of Antonius Andreas’ questions on the Metaphysics and provide a Hebrew summary of the most read Hebrew version of the Metaphysics that would choose its words in such a way as not to contradict Scotus and in some cases even to encourage its readers to seek out a Scotist approach. (shrink)

Halper's study traces how the open-questioning of the divine arises in the works of Maimonides, Jacob Anatoli, Gersonides, and Abraham Bibago.