Natural Reason and God’s Infinite Power: Diversity of Approaches in the Late 13th and 14th Century Commentaries on Averroes’s De substantia orbis

Q4 Arts and Humanities
Łukasz Tomanek
{"title":"Natural Reason and God’s Infinite Power: Diversity of Approaches in the Late 13th and 14th Century Commentaries on Averroes’s De substantia orbis","authors":"Łukasz Tomanek","doi":"10.18276/aie.2021.54-06","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The subject of this article is Latin reception of Averroes’s treatise De substantia orbis, with special regard to the commentary practice in the late Middle Ages. Numerous philosophical problems were taken up in these commentaries following Averroes’s lead. The most controver-sial among them were these concerning divine attributes, i.e., infinite power, efficient and final causality, and, consequently, God's ability to create out of nothing. \nThree different commentaries were therefore chosen to exemplify the key differences be-tween the doctrinal approaches of the commentaries on the De substantia orbis. The first two of them—composed by Fernand of Spain and Maino de’ Maineri—represent the Averroistic approach, adopting and developing Averroes’s ideas; the third commentary—composed by an anonymous author in Erfurt around 1362—represents the non-Averroistic approach referring to the questions raised in the De substantia orbis in order to propose orthodox solutions being far from these adopted in the treaty by Averroes himself. \nThe article aims at scrutinizing the problems of infinite power of God and divine causali-ty as they have been taken up by Latin philosophers from the late XIIIth to the second half of the XIVth century by elucidating the key differences between the two lines of inquiry and highligh-ting the variety of approaches to Averroes’s De substantia orbis.","PeriodicalId":37710,"journal":{"name":"Analiza i Egzystencja","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Analiza i Egzystencja","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18276/aie.2021.54-06","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The subject of this article is Latin reception of Averroes’s treatise De substantia orbis, with special regard to the commentary practice in the late Middle Ages. Numerous philosophical problems were taken up in these commentaries following Averroes’s lead. The most controver-sial among them were these concerning divine attributes, i.e., infinite power, efficient and final causality, and, consequently, God's ability to create out of nothing. Three different commentaries were therefore chosen to exemplify the key differences be-tween the doctrinal approaches of the commentaries on the De substantia orbis. The first two of them—composed by Fernand of Spain and Maino de’ Maineri—represent the Averroistic approach, adopting and developing Averroes’s ideas; the third commentary—composed by an anonymous author in Erfurt around 1362—represents the non-Averroistic approach referring to the questions raised in the De substantia orbis in order to propose orthodox solutions being far from these adopted in the treaty by Averroes himself. The article aims at scrutinizing the problems of infinite power of God and divine causali-ty as they have been taken up by Latin philosophers from the late XIIIth to the second half of the XIVth century by elucidating the key differences between the two lines of inquiry and highligh-ting the variety of approaches to Averroes’s De substantia orbis.
自然理性与上帝的无穷力量:13世纪末和14世纪方法的多样性——评埃弗罗斯的《实体论》
本文的主题是对Averroes的论文《De entica orbis》的拉丁文接受,特别是中世纪晚期的评论实践。在埃弗罗斯的带领下,这些评论中涉及了许多哲学问题。其中最具争议的是关于神性的属性,即无限的力量、有效和最终的因果关系,以及因此上帝从无到有创造的能力。因此,选择了三种不同的评注来举例说明对实体轨道的评注的理论方法之间的关键差异。其中前两首由西班牙的费尔南德斯和马伊诺·德马涅里创作,代表了阿韦罗主义的方法,采纳和发展了阿韦罗斯的思想;1362年左右,埃尔福特的一位匿名作者撰写了第三篇评论,该评论代表了非阿韦罗主义的方法,指的是《实质条约》中提出的问题,目的是提出与阿韦罗本人在条约中所采用的方法相去甚远的正统解决方案。本文旨在通过阐明上帝的无限力量和神圣因果关系这两条研究路线之间的关键区别,并强调埃弗罗斯的《实体论》的各种方法,来审视拉丁哲学家从十一世纪末到十一世纪下半叶所研究的上帝的无限权力和神圣因果问题。
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
Analiza i Egzystencja
Analiza i Egzystencja Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
6
审稿时长
26 weeks
期刊介绍: «Analysis and Existence» is a quarterly published in paper version (the basic version) and electronically (in Open Access system); licence CC BY-SA. The Journal is included in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). The Journal has been published since 2005, at the beginning twice a year, and since 2011 as a quarterly. Since 2007 the Journal has been listed in the DOAJ, since 2015 in the European Reference Index for the Humanities (ERIH PLUS), and since 2016 in the SCOPUS. The Journal has been publishing articles in Polish, English and German. In 2017 there were 40 volumes of the Journal «Analysis and Existence». Among the authors who have published their articles in the Journal there were such celebrities as Rae Langton, Graham Oppy, Wlodek Rabinowicz, Richard Rorty, John Skorupski, Richard Swinburne, and Michael Teunissen. We invite to cooperate with the Journal all the scholars who investigate existential problems, as well as the ones who concentrate on analysis and arguments. We aspire to a philosophy that is solid and reliable as much as possible, a philosophy that deals with important existential questions. We proceed only papers submitted on this webside by "Suggest article".
×
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