Sayf al-Dīn al-Āmidī’s (d. 631/1233) Kashf al-tamwīhāt fī sharḥ al-Ishārāt wa-l-tanbīhāt: Avicennan Philosophy as Currency in the Struggle for Influence
{"title":"Sayf al-Dīn al-Āmidī’s (d. 631/1233) Kashf al-tamwīhāt fī sharḥ al-Ishārāt wa-l-tanbīhāt: Avicennan Philosophy as Currency in the Struggle for Influence","authors":"Laura Hassan","doi":"10.5840/islamicphil2023143","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Given the proliferation of commentarial works in the post-Ghazālian era of Islamic intellectual history, the close study of individual commentaries has recently become a key scholarly concern. To take us beyond the necessarily generalizing categories presented by Dimitri Gutas when he first charted the territory of this genre, an approach is needed that involves narrow textual analysis without neglecting the broader context in which a work is authored. Among the works that were initially taken by Gutas as evidence of the “mainstream Avicennism” of their authors is Sayf al-Dīn al-Āmidī’s (d. 631/1233) Kashf al-tamwīhāt fī sharḥ al-Ishārāt wa-l-tanbīhāt, in which he sets out to critique Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s (d. 610/1210) commentary on Ibn Sīnā’s Pointers and Reminders. In this article, I study the work from three perspectives. Firstly, I consider the contents of the Kashf, in terms of both the scope and the nature of its interaction with al-Rāzī’s first-order commentary on the Ishārāt. Secondly, I calibrate the findings of my textual analysis with materials taken from the accounts of al-Āmidī’s biographers, showing that these sources are mutually interpretive. Thirdly, I analyze the Kashf from within the context of his broader corpus. Together, I argue, these three perspectives contribute to a more nuanced understanding of what it means to describe al-Āmidī’s Kashf as a work of Avicennism.","PeriodicalId":301506,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Islamic Philosophy","volume":"71 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Islamic Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/islamicphil2023143","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Given the proliferation of commentarial works in the post-Ghazālian era of Islamic intellectual history, the close study of individual commentaries has recently become a key scholarly concern. To take us beyond the necessarily generalizing categories presented by Dimitri Gutas when he first charted the territory of this genre, an approach is needed that involves narrow textual analysis without neglecting the broader context in which a work is authored. Among the works that were initially taken by Gutas as evidence of the “mainstream Avicennism” of their authors is Sayf al-Dīn al-Āmidī’s (d. 631/1233) Kashf al-tamwīhāt fī sharḥ al-Ishārāt wa-l-tanbīhāt, in which he sets out to critique Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s (d. 610/1210) commentary on Ibn Sīnā’s Pointers and Reminders. In this article, I study the work from three perspectives. Firstly, I consider the contents of the Kashf, in terms of both the scope and the nature of its interaction with al-Rāzī’s first-order commentary on the Ishārāt. Secondly, I calibrate the findings of my textual analysis with materials taken from the accounts of al-Āmidī’s biographers, showing that these sources are mutually interpretive. Thirdly, I analyze the Kashf from within the context of his broader corpus. Together, I argue, these three perspectives contribute to a more nuanced understanding of what it means to describe al-Āmidī’s Kashf as a work of Avicennism.
Sayf al- d n al-Āmidī ' s (d. 631/1233) Kashf al-tamwīhāt f ' sharmousal-Ishārāt wa-l-tanbīhāt:阿维森纳哲学作为影响力斗争中的货币
鉴于在伊斯兰思想史post-Ghazālian时代评论著作的激增,对个别评论的深入研究最近成为学术界关注的一个关键问题。为了让我们超越迪米特里·古塔斯(Dimitri Gutas)首次描绘这一流派领域时所提出的必然概括的类别,我们需要一种方法,既包括狭隘的文本分析,又不忽视作品创作的更广泛背景。在最初被古塔斯作为“主流阿维主义”的证据的作品中,有Sayf al- dī n al-Āmidī (d. 631/1233) Kashf al-tamwīhāt f ā sharzai al-Ishārāt wa-l-tanbīhāt,其中他开始批评Fakhr al- d ā n al-Rāzī (d. 610/1210)对伊本s ā nā的“指示和提醒”的评论。在这篇文章中,我从三个角度来研究这部作品。首先,我从《喀什夫》与al-Rāzī对Ishārāt的一阶评论相互作用的范围和性质两方面来考虑《喀什夫》的内容。其次,我用取自al-Āmidī传记作者的材料对我的文本分析结果进行校准,表明这些来源是相互解释的。第三,我从他更广泛的语料库的背景下分析喀什夫。我认为,这三种观点合在一起,有助于更细致地理解将al-Āmidī的《喀什夫》描述为阿维主义作品的意义。