Rethinking Intellectual Ecumenism in Interfaith Debates on God's Existence: From Avicenna's Salvation and Maimonides's Guide to Aquinas's De Ente

IF 0.2 4区 哲学 0 RELIGION
Matthew K. Reising
{"title":"Rethinking Intellectual Ecumenism in Interfaith Debates on God's Existence: From Avicenna's Salvation and Maimonides's Guide to Aquinas's De Ente","authors":"Matthew K. Reising","doi":"10.1353/ecu.2024.a931513","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>precis:</p><p>Scholars have long contended that Aquinas managed to escape the devastating critique launched by Averroes against the being/essence distinction by reimagining being/essence according to an analogy of act/potency rather than Avicenna's model of accident/substance. This essay complicates the scholarly consensus that Aquinas defined his metaphysical thought on being and essence against the philosophy of Averroes and instead argues that Aquinas's <i>De Ente et Essentia</i> can be seen as modeling interfaith dialogue, intellectual ecumenicism, and hybridity. Aquinas developed his thought through interlocution and philosophical interchange rather than opposition, a process that emphasized openness rather than alterity. After showing through the source material that Aquinas would not even have had access to Averroes's critique, I offer a reexamination of the historical development of Aquinas's reimagining of being/essence as act/potency and argue that Aquinas developed his thought not in opposition to Averroes's <i>Long Commentary of the Metaphysics</i> but, rather, in dialogue with Maimonides.</p></p>","PeriodicalId":43047,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF ECUMENICAL STUDIES","volume":"80 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF ECUMENICAL STUDIES","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/ecu.2024.a931513","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

precis:

Scholars have long contended that Aquinas managed to escape the devastating critique launched by Averroes against the being/essence distinction by reimagining being/essence according to an analogy of act/potency rather than Avicenna's model of accident/substance. This essay complicates the scholarly consensus that Aquinas defined his metaphysical thought on being and essence against the philosophy of Averroes and instead argues that Aquinas's De Ente et Essentia can be seen as modeling interfaith dialogue, intellectual ecumenicism, and hybridity. Aquinas developed his thought through interlocution and philosophical interchange rather than opposition, a process that emphasized openness rather than alterity. After showing through the source material that Aquinas would not even have had access to Averroes's critique, I offer a reexamination of the historical development of Aquinas's reimagining of being/essence as act/potency and argue that Aquinas developed his thought not in opposition to Averroes's Long Commentary of the Metaphysics but, rather, in dialogue with Maimonides.

从阿维森纳的《救赎》和迈蒙尼德的《指南》到阿奎那的《神的存在》,重新思考宗教间关于上帝存在的辩论中的知识普世主义:从阿维森纳的《救赎》和迈蒙尼德的《指南》到阿奎那的《神的存在
前言:长期以来,学者们一直认为,阿奎那根据行为/能动的类比而非阿维森纳的偶然/实体模型来重新想象存在/本质,从而成功地摆脱了阿维罗伊对存在/本质区别的毁灭性批判。学术界普遍认为阿奎那将其关于存在与本质的形而上学思想与阿维罗的哲学对立起来,而本文则认为阿奎那的《存在与本质》可被视为跨宗教对话、思想普世性和混合性的典范。阿奎那通过对话和哲学交流而非对立来发展自己的思想,这一过程强调开放性而非改变性。在通过原始资料表明阿奎那甚至没有机会接触到阿维罗伊斯的批判之后,我重新审视了阿奎那将存在/本质重新想象为行为/能力的历史发展,并认为阿奎那不是在与阿维罗伊斯的《形而上学长篇评论》对立的过程中,而是在与迈蒙尼德对话的过程中发展了自己的思想。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
33
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信