L'intelligence et la pensée sur le De anima

Yale Library of Medieval Philosophy Series

by ibn Rushd, Alain de Libera

Born in 1126 to a family of Maliki legal scholars, Ibn Rushd, known as Averroes, enjoyed a long career in religious jurisprudence at Seville and Cordoba while at the same time advancing his philosophical studies of the works of Aristotle. This translation of Averroes’ Long Commentary on Aristotle’s De Anima brings to English-language readers the complete text of this influential work of medieval philosophy. Richard C. Taylor provides rich notes on the Long Commentary and a generous introduction that discusses Averroes’ most mature reflections on Aristotle’s teachings as well as Averroes' comprehensive philosophical views on soul and intellect. It is only in the Long Commentary that Averroes finally resolves to his satisfaction the much vexed issue of the nature of intellect, Taylor shows.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction

416 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1985

About the author

Arabic version: ابن رشد
Commentaries of well known Arab philosopher, jurist, and physician Averroës or Averrhoës, also ibn Rushd, of Spain on Aristotle exerted a strong influence on medieval Christian theology.

Abu'l-Walid Ibn Rushd, better as Averroes, stands as a towering figure in the history of Islamic as that of west European thought. In the Islamic world, he played a decisive role in the defense of Greeks against the onslaughts of the Ash'arite (Mutakallimun), led by Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, and in the rehabilitation.

A common theme throughout his writings properly understood religion with no incompatibility. His contributions took many forms, ranging from his detailed, his defense against the attacks of those who condemned it as contrary to Islam and his construction of a form, cleansed as far as possible at the time of Neoplatonism.

After centuries of nearly total oblivion in west Europe, world recognition as early as the 13th century contributed to the rediscovery of the master. That instrumental discovery launched Scholasticism in Latin and the Renaissance of the 15th-century Europe in due course. Since the publication of [title:Averroes et l'averroisme] of Ernest Renan in 1852, notwithstanding very little attention to work of Averroes in English, French showed greater interest.

See more here.

Reviews

[Czarny Pies · Rating 4 out of 5]

In 1984 while following a walking tour form the Cordoba tourist bureau, I stumbled upon a statue of Averroes who studied and taught for many years at the local Madras. The Cordoba tourist bureau explained that Averroes was the father of Scholastic philosophy. In 2018, I finally decided to investigate the matter. I read this excellent volume which contains an outstanding introduction and superb notes by translator Alain de Libera.

My impression is that the book supports the claim of the Cordoban tourist bureau. The book is highly focused on the issue of the immortality of the human soul. Being Catholic I believe in the Resurrection of the body ("Credo incarnis resurrectionem") so this aspect of the book did not interest me greatly.

Libera has truly produced an outstanding volume. I leave you to find a reason for attempting to read it.

[Nathan · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is hands down the hardest philosophical text I have ever read, next to the Phenomenology of Spirit and the Science of Logic. I won't lie, I could not finish this text. I read about half of book 3, after doing a seminar on a section for a class in Medieval Philosophy and hearing a friend of mine did an Independent Study on this work. I decided to take up the challenge and study book 3. I got about halfway, when I realized I did not have time to focus solely on this work and give it the required level of attention and commitment. Nevertheless, after having studied parts of it on separate occasions, written a seminar on it, and discussed in class and conversation, I feel as though I understand Averroes' main conclusions and arguments (as presented in Book 3).

Averroes, also known as "the Commentator" undergoes a rigorous analysis of Aristotle's obscure and mysterious work "De Anima". It is important to understand, in the Medieval era, Aristotle was the man. His work was taken as seriously as the Bible and Qur'an. Aristotle was known by many as "The Philosopher". So throughout the Dark Ages (which weren't quite so Dark), many thinkers tried to reconcile Aristotle's thought with the Scripture and (in the West) the Church Fathers. Thinkers falling into this category are: (obviously) Aquinas, Al-Farabi, Al-Ghazali, Averroes, Avicenna, and others.

Averroes, in the sections I've read, gives a thorough account of the intellect, its structure and constitution, components, relation to sensation and imagination, activity and passivity, its place in the four causes, and whether or not it is a singular or composite substance. There is sensation and imagination (even though the soul and body are of two separate substances [an account borrowed by Descartes]), the material intellect, receptive intellect, and agent intellect. The material intellect is the foundation for the intellect, and is the soul's version of prime matter. It is ultimately passive in nature, and, along with the receptive intellect, abstract the form of entities which are witnessed via sensation. It is distinct from imagination, which is gives rise to representations of the material perception of objects. The material intellect [even though it is potency...] allows us to abstract the form, or eidos, of entities (their substance). The agent intellect, on the contrary, is active and allows for theoretical, conceptual knowledge (as distinct from understanding, which for Aristotle is common to all animals and so cannot be a feature of the intellect per se, but imagination and sensation; however the understanding can be modified by the agent intellect and material intellect to allow for active execution of knowledge). While the intellect has various components, it is of one substance, and is immaterial (it cannot be material nor bodily, because it is capable of understanding pure and incorruptible ideas; and moreover, we do not witness ideas through sense). The eidos, abstracted by the material and receptive intellect, are universal, and thus we are capable of understanding universal ideas. [However, it should be noted, that the material intellect is pure potency, while the agent intellect is actuality; receptive intellect is responsible for the abstraction of forms. The material intellect is the potential for this, and the receptive intellect undertakes this abstraction; albeit the two cannot be separated since they are one substance]. Moreover, the intellect itself is universal and belongs to all entities which have the rational capability. Singular ideas, corruptible and changing ideas, occur in individuals, and this is due to the mixture of sense, imagination, and the intellect; but the intellect qua intellect is universal, as are the pure and unchanging ideas.

In conclusion, the matter and form, substance and entelechy, activity and passivity, and composition of the intellect is discussed heavily in book 3. I have not read the other two books, and hope to do so at some point. So remember, this review only captures half of book 3. There is still 5/6ths of a massive work which is untouched by this review. This is a work of extreme depth, and I have only summarized part of the argument.

I'll be reading Aquinas' commentary on De Anima as an Independent Study this semester, and so it might be helpful to return to Averroes in order to better help contextualize Aquinas position. Thankfully, Aquinas is a much more accessible philosopher...Nevertheless, I have tremendous respect for Averroes; and reading this text you will be preview to a case of extreme ambition, enthusiasm, excitement, and passion for thinking and knowledge which lurks behind the density and technicalities. Like most Medieval Philosophy, this is worth the read.

[Jalal]

Waw
Amazing analysis
Am astounded how averroes could clarify aristotle doctrine about soul and reason.
Phenomenal

[am]

compliqué !!!! mais intéressant !!!!

[myriam kisfaludi · Rating 3 out of 5]

Très difficile à lire. Pour lecteurs TRES initiés à la philosophie aristotélicienne