KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Beytulhikme An International Journal of Philosophy / 2019 / Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 1

İbn Rüşd’ün Heyûlânî Aklın Faal Akıl ile İttisali ve Özdeşliği Görüşünün Aquinas’ın Eleştirileri Bağlamında Değerlendirilmesi

The Evaluation of Averroes’ Doctrine of Conjunction of Material Intellect with Agent Intellect and Their Identity in the Context of Thomas Aqui-nas’ Criticisim

MEHMET ATA AZ
Sayfa
13–38
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Therefore, in order for the individual to be per se understand, the agent intellect should not be a discrete, transcendent, and a single intellect, but an actual aspect of faculty of the individual intellectual soul.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:This study aims to highlight that why and how much the views of Averroes and Thomas Aquinas, who formed their own doctrines of intellect on Aristotle's intellect doctrine, differentiate on the possibility of material intel-lect conjunction with agent intellect and their identity.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Aquinas, who agrees with Averroes for the abstraction and actualization of intelligible, has criticized Averroes' separate and one agent intellect doctrine from two points: The first one is that the agent intellect is not a separate, single and common intellect, and the second it if separate intellect conjunct with in-dividuals through intelligible it will not suffice to make each individual under-stand per se.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Therefore, in order for the individual to be per se understand, the agent intellect should not be a discrete, transcendent, and a single intellect, but an actual aspect of faculty of the individual intellectual soul.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

This study aims to highlight that why and how much the views of Averroes and Thomas Aquinas, who formed their own doctrines of intellect on Aristotle's intellect doctrine, differentiate on the possibility of material intel-lect conjunction with agent intellect and their identity. Averroes partly adopted the view of Ancient Greek commentators -Alexander of Aphrodisias, Themis-tius- and Ibn Bajja's agent intellect thesis and he argues that the agent intellect is external, eternal and one, its conjuncts with each individual through intelligi-ble. Nevertheless, Aquinas argued that the agent intellect is united to the soul as its faculty and it numerically multiplied according to the number of individu-als. Aquinas, who agrees with Averroes for the abstraction and actualization of intelligible, has criticized Averroes' separate and one agent intellect doctrine from two points: The first one is that the agent intellect is not a separate, single and common intellect, and the second it if separate intellect conjunct with in-dividuals through intelligible it will not suffice to make each individual under-stand per se. Therefore, in order for the individual to be per se understand, the agent intellect should not be a discrete, transcendent, and a single intellect, but an actual aspect of faculty of the individual intellectual soul.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

AZ, M. A. (2019). İbn Rüşd’ün Heyûlânî Aklın Faal Akıl ile İttisali ve Özdeşliği Görüşünün Aquinas’ın Eleştirileri Bağlamında Değerlendirilmesi. Beytulhikme An International Journal of Philosophy, Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 1, 13–38. https://ajindex.com/articles/147274

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (18)

  1. Aquinas, T. (1946a).
  2. Summa Theologica, I-III. (Trans. Fathers of English Domini-can Province). New York: Benziger Brothers, Inc. Aquinas, T. (1946b). The Commentary of St. Thomas Aquinas on Aristotle’s Treatise on the Soul. (Trans. R. A. Kocourek). Minnesota: St. Paul, Minn. College of St. Thomas. Aquinas, T. (1949a). On Spiritual Creatures (De Spiritualibus Creaturis). (Trans. M. C. Fitzpatrick & J. J. Wellmuth). Milwaukee: Marquette University Press.
  3. Aquinas, T. (1949b). The Soul: A Translation of St. Thomas Aquinas’ De Anima (Dis-puted Questions on De Anima). John Patrick Rowan: B. Herder Book Co. Aquinas, T. (1956).
  4. Summa Contra Gentiles, I-IV. (Trans. J. F. Anderson). London: University of Notre Dame Press.
  5. Aquinas, T. (1968). On the Unity of the Intellect Against the Averroists (De Unitate Intellectus Contra Averroistas). (Trans. B. H. Zedler). Milwaukee: Marquette University Press.
  6. Aquinas, T. (1999). Commentary on Aristotle’s De Anima. (Trans. R. Pasnau). New Haven: Yale University Press.
  7. Aquinas, T. (2009). Compendium of Theology. (Trans. R. J. Regan). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  8. Aquinas, T. (2013). Commentary on Book II of the Sentences, Distinction 17, Question 2, Ariticle 1. (Trans. R. Taylor). Philosophical Psychology in Arabic Thought and the Aristotelianism of the 13th Century. (Eds. L. X. Lopez & F. and J. A. Tellkamp). Paris: J. Vrin, 279-96.
  9. Aristotle (1907). De Anima. (Trans. R. D. Hicks). London: Cambridge University Press.
  10. Arkan, A. (2015). İbn Rüşd Psikolojisi: Fizikten Metafiziğe İbn Rüşd’ün İnsan Tasavvuru. İstanbul:
  11. İz Yayıncılık. Black, D. (1993). Consciousness and Self-Knowledge in Aquinas’s Critique of Averroes’s Psychology. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 31, 349-385.
  12. Black, D. (1999). Conjunction and the Identity of Knower and Known in Aver-roes. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, 73, 159–84.
  13. Davidson, H. (1992).
  14. Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes on Intellect: Their Cosmologies, Theories of the Active Intellect, and Theories of Human Intellect. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  15. Dönmez, S. (2009). Aklın Birlikten Çokluğa Yolculuğu: 13. Yüzyıl Latin İbn Rüşdçülüğü Bağlamında Aklın ya da Akılların Birliği Problemi. Ankara:
  16. Birleşik Yayınevi.
  17. Ivry, A. L. (1966). Averroes on Intellection and Conjunction. Journal of the Ameri-can Oriental Society, 86 (2), 76-85.
  18. İbn Rüşd (1950). Telhisu Kitabi’n-Nefs. (Ed. A. F. el-Ehvani). Kahire: Mektebetu’n Nahdati’l Mısriyye. İbn Rüşd (1967-73). Tefsîr Mâ Ba‘de’t-Tabîa: Grand C