Pub Date : 2019-11-01DOI: 10.1163/18778372-04701600
A. Bertolacci
The present article brings to the scholarly attention the Avicennian manuscript San Lorenzo de El Escorial (Madrid), Real Biblioteca del Monasterio de San Lorenzo de El Escorial, 621, by conveying a basic description of its codicological features and by locating it in the wider context of the connection metaphysics-medicine that the transmission of Avicenna’s magnum opus Kitāb al-Šifāʾ (Book of the Cure/Healing) displays. The manuscript at stake is the only extant, though incomplete, codex of the Ilāhiyyāt (Science of Divine Things) of Avicenna’s Šifāʾ presently known in the Iberian peninsula (Spain and Portugal), and one of the few codices of the Šifāʾ housed there. In its present state, it cumulates metaphysics and medicine, since it joins some excerpts of the Ilāhiyyāt with fragments of the commentaries on Avicenna’s Al-Qānūn fī l-ṭibb (Canon of Medicine) by Ibn al-Nafīs al-Qurašī (d. 687 H/1288) and by Quṭb al-Dīn al-Šīrāzī (634–719 H/1236–1311). The part of the commentary on Avicenna’s Canon by Ibn al-Nafīs al-Qurašī preserved in this manuscript contains a revealing critical quotation of a medical tenet which Avicenna discusses in the Šifāʾ; this criticism very likely represents an instance of the ‘rectification’ of Avicenna’s philosophical encyclopedia of which Ibn al-Nafīs is credited in historical sources. The example of the revision of Avicenna’s philosophy by Ibn al-Nafīs analyzed on the basis of this manuscript makes clear that physicians in the XIII century did not limit their familiarity with Avicenna’s works to the Canon of Medicine and the other medical works of Avicenna, but adopted some kind of all-encompassing approach to Avicenna’s oeuvre, which did not eschewed tackling critically also the Šifāʾ on the basis of a profound and extensive knowledge of the Šayḫ al-raʾīs’s philosophical masterpiece.
{"title":"Metaphysics, Elemental Transformation, Medicine","authors":"A. Bertolacci","doi":"10.1163/18778372-04701600","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18778372-04701600","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The present article brings to the scholarly attention the Avicennian manuscript San Lorenzo de El Escorial (Madrid), Real Biblioteca del Monasterio de San Lorenzo de El Escorial, 621, by conveying a basic description of its codicological features and by locating it in the wider context of the connection metaphysics-medicine that the transmission of Avicenna’s magnum opus Kitāb al-Šifāʾ (Book of the Cure/Healing) displays. The manuscript at stake is the only extant, though incomplete, codex of the Ilāhiyyāt (Science of Divine Things) of Avicenna’s Šifāʾ presently known in the Iberian peninsula (Spain and Portugal), and one of the few codices of the Šifāʾ housed there. In its present state, it cumulates metaphysics and medicine, since it joins some excerpts of the Ilāhiyyāt with fragments of the commentaries on Avicenna’s Al-Qānūn fī l-ṭibb (Canon of Medicine) by Ibn al-Nafīs al-Qurašī (d. 687 H/1288) and by Quṭb al-Dīn al-Šīrāzī (634–719 H/1236–1311). The part of the commentary on Avicenna’s Canon by Ibn al-Nafīs al-Qurašī preserved in this manuscript contains a revealing critical quotation of a medical tenet which Avicenna discusses in the Šifāʾ; this criticism very likely represents an instance of the ‘rectification’ of Avicenna’s philosophical encyclopedia of which Ibn al-Nafīs is credited in historical sources. The example of the revision of Avicenna’s philosophy by Ibn al-Nafīs analyzed on the basis of this manuscript makes clear that physicians in the XIII century did not limit their familiarity with Avicenna’s works to the Canon of Medicine and the other medical works of Avicenna, but adopted some kind of all-encompassing approach to Avicenna’s oeuvre, which did not eschewed tackling critically also the Šifāʾ on the basis of a profound and extensive knowledge of the Šayḫ al-raʾīs’s philosophical masterpiece.","PeriodicalId":43744,"journal":{"name":"Oriens","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2019-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18778372-04701600","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42025770","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-11-01DOI: 10.1163/18778372-04700100
Mohammad Saleh Zarepour
In this paper I investigate Avicenna’s criticisms of the separateness of mathematical objects and of the view that they are principles for natural things. These two theses form the core of Plato’s view of mathematics; i.e., mathematical Platonism. Surprisingly, Avicenna does not consider his arguments against these theses as attacks on Plato. This is because his understanding of Plato’s philosophy of mathematics differs from both Plato’s original view and what Aristotle attributes to Plato.
{"title":"Avicenna against Mathematical Platonism","authors":"Mohammad Saleh Zarepour","doi":"10.1163/18778372-04700100","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18778372-04700100","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In this paper I investigate Avicenna’s criticisms of the separateness of mathematical objects and of the view that they are principles for natural things. These two theses form the core of Plato’s view of mathematics; i.e., mathematical Platonism. Surprisingly, Avicenna does not consider his arguments against these theses as attacks on Plato. This is because his understanding of Plato’s philosophy of mathematics differs from both Plato’s original view and what Aristotle attributes to Plato.","PeriodicalId":43744,"journal":{"name":"Oriens","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2019-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18778372-04700100","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45023304","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-11-01DOI: 10.1163/18778372-04800200
N. Polloni
With his original reflection—deeply influenced by many important Arabic thinkers—Gundissalinus wanted to renovate the Latin debate concerning crucial aspects of the philosophical tradition. Among the innovative doctrines he elaborated, one appears to be particularly problematic, for it touches a very delicate point of Christian theology: the divine creation of the human soul, and thus, the most intimate bond connecting the human being and his Creator. Notwithstanding the relevance of this point, Gundissalinus ascribed the creation of the human soul to the angels rather than God. He also stated that the angels create the souls from prime matter, and through a kind of causality which cannot be operated by God. What are the sources of this unusual and perilous doctrine? And what are the reasons which led Gundissalinus to hold such a problematic position? This article thoroughly examines the theoretical development and sources of Gundissalinus’s position, focusing on the correlations between this doctrine, the overall cosmological descriptions expounded by Gundissalinus in his original works, and the main sources upon which this unlikely doctrine is grounded: Avicenna and Ibn Gabirol.
{"title":"Gundissalinus on the Angelic Creation of the Human Soul","authors":"N. Polloni","doi":"10.1163/18778372-04800200","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18778372-04800200","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 With his original reflection—deeply influenced by many important Arabic thinkers—Gundissalinus wanted to renovate the Latin debate concerning crucial aspects of the philosophical tradition. Among the innovative doctrines he elaborated, one appears to be particularly problematic, for it touches a very delicate point of Christian theology: the divine creation of the human soul, and thus, the most intimate bond connecting the human being and his Creator. Notwithstanding the relevance of this point, Gundissalinus ascribed the creation of the human soul to the angels rather than God. He also stated that the angels create the souls from prime matter, and through a kind of causality which cannot be operated by God. What are the sources of this unusual and perilous doctrine? And what are the reasons which led Gundissalinus to hold such a problematic position? This article thoroughly examines the theoretical development and sources of Gundissalinus’s position, focusing on the correlations between this doctrine, the overall cosmological descriptions expounded by Gundissalinus in his original works, and the main sources upon which this unlikely doctrine is grounded: Avicenna and Ibn Gabirol.","PeriodicalId":43744,"journal":{"name":"Oriens","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2019-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18778372-04800200","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43930037","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-11-01DOI: 10.1163/18778372-04800100
C. Burnett
The aim of this paper is to show how the ninth-century astrologer, Abū Maʿshar Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad b. ʿUmar al-Balkhī, accounted for generation, corruption and change in the sublunary world. He sides with the philosophers against the astrologers and takes as his principal source the Peripatetic tradition. He shows that it is the movements of the heavenly bodies, rather than their elemental qualities, that are responsible for all elemental changes, and that these changes ‘result from,’ or follow naturally from, those movements rather than are caused by them.
{"title":"Agency and Effect in the Astrology of Abū Maʿshar of Balkh (Albumasar)","authors":"C. Burnett","doi":"10.1163/18778372-04800100","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18778372-04800100","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The aim of this paper is to show how the ninth-century astrologer, Abū Maʿshar Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad b. ʿUmar al-Balkhī, accounted for generation, corruption and change in the sublunary world. He sides with the philosophers against the astrologers and takes as his principal source the Peripatetic tradition. He shows that it is the movements of the heavenly bodies, rather than their elemental qualities, that are responsible for all elemental changes, and that these changes ‘result from,’ or follow naturally from, those movements rather than are caused by them.","PeriodicalId":43744,"journal":{"name":"Oriens","volume":"67 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2019-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18778372-04800100","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41260432","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-11-01DOI: 10.1163/18778372-04701100
Frédérique Woerther
{"title":"Les fragments arabes du Commentaire moyen d’ Averroès à l’ Éthique à Nicomaque","authors":"Frédérique Woerther","doi":"10.1163/18778372-04701100","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18778372-04701100","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43744,"journal":{"name":"Oriens","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2019-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18778372-04701100","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49056376","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-05-13DOI: 10.1163/18778372-04701003
Michael A. Rapoport
In the more than 125 years since A.F. Mehren included Chapters VIII–X of al-Išārāt wa-l-tanbīhāt in his anthology of Ibn Sīnā’s allegedly mystical treatises, scholars have used the presence of Sufi vocabulary in these chapters as evidence of Ibn Sīnā’s mysticism. Yet, his use of Sufi terminology has received little dedicated, critical study. Through careful philological analysis, this study demonstrates that even though Ibn Sīnā appropriated technical vocabulary from Sufism, the meanings that he applied to those terms agree with his philosophical system. His use of these terms is not evidence of experimentation with a mystical, suprarational method of cognition.
{"title":"Sufi Vocabulary, but Avicennan Philosophy","authors":"Michael A. Rapoport","doi":"10.1163/18778372-04701003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18778372-04701003","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In the more than 125 years since A.F. Mehren included Chapters VIII–X of al-Išārāt wa-l-tanbīhāt in his anthology of Ibn Sīnā’s allegedly mystical treatises, scholars have used the presence of Sufi vocabulary in these chapters as evidence of Ibn Sīnā’s mysticism. Yet, his use of Sufi terminology has received little dedicated, critical study. Through careful philological analysis, this study demonstrates that even though Ibn Sīnā appropriated technical vocabulary from Sufism, the meanings that he applied to those terms agree with his philosophical system. His use of these terms is not evidence of experimentation with a mystical, suprarational method of cognition.","PeriodicalId":43744,"journal":{"name":"Oriens","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2019-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18778372-04701003","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43962916","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-05-13DOI: 10.1163/18778372-04701001
Kamran I. Karimullah
In this article, I discuss the legacy of Faḫr al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s commentary on Avicenna’s Canon of Medicine in Islamic medical commentary after 1100. I argue that Faḫr al-Dīn’s legacy lies in the exegetical practices, the method of verification (taḥqīq) he introduced into Islamic medical scholarship through his commentary on the Canon. I first argue that the features that characterise the method of verification in works such as Faḫr al-Dīn’s commentary on Avicenna’s Pointers and Reminders are present in the commentary on the Canon, even if Faḫr al-Dīn’s introduction to the latter work does not allude to these practices in the way that the introductions to his later works do. Based on an analysis of Galen’s prescription about exegetical best-practice in his Hippocratic commentaries and Muḥammad ibn Zakarīyā al-Rāzī’s (d. ca. 925) introduction to Doubts on Galen, I argue next that Faḫr al-Dīn’s introduction of the verification method into the Islamic medical discourse was a watershed moment in the tradition. I use Ibn al-Quff’s (d. 1286) commentary on the Hippocratic Aphorisms to show how these methods were imitated by later medical commentators. This final section illustrates the enormous exegetical interest that the Canon of Medicine attracted, suggesting other promising trajectories for research into Faḫr al-Dīn’s medical legacy.
在这篇文章中，我讨论了Faḫr al- d n al-Rāzī对阿维森纳医学经典的评论在1100年后的伊斯兰医学评论中的遗产。我认为Faḫr al- d n的遗产在于训诂实践，即他通过对正典的评论将验证方法(taḥqīq)引入伊斯兰医学学术。我首先认为，在诸如Faḫr al- d n对阿维森纳的《指针和提醒》的评论等作品中，具有验证方法特征的特征出现在对《正典》的评论中，即使Faḫr al- d n对后一部作品的介绍并没有像对他后来的作品的介绍那样暗示这些实践。基于对盖伦在他的希波克拉底评论中关于训诂最佳实践的处方的分析，以及Muḥammad ibn zakar yā al-Rāzī (d. ca. 925)对盖伦的怀疑的介绍，我接下来认为Faḫr al- d n将验证方法引入伊斯兰医学话语是传统的分水岭时刻。我用Ibn al-Quff(1286年)对希波克拉底格言的评论来说明这些方法是如何被后来的医学评论员所模仿的。最后一节说明了《医学经典》所吸引的巨大训诂兴趣，为研究Faḫr al- d - n的医学遗产提出了其他有希望的发展轨迹。
{"title":"The Emergence of Verification (taḥqīq) in Islamic Medicine","authors":"Kamran I. Karimullah","doi":"10.1163/18778372-04701001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18778372-04701001","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In this article, I discuss the legacy of Faḫr al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s commentary on Avicenna’s Canon of Medicine in Islamic medical commentary after 1100. I argue that Faḫr al-Dīn’s legacy lies in the exegetical practices, the method of verification (taḥqīq) he introduced into Islamic medical scholarship through his commentary on the Canon. I first argue that the features that characterise the method of verification in works such as Faḫr al-Dīn’s commentary on Avicenna’s Pointers and Reminders are present in the commentary on the Canon, even if Faḫr al-Dīn’s introduction to the latter work does not allude to these practices in the way that the introductions to his later works do. Based on an analysis of Galen’s prescription about exegetical best-practice in his Hippocratic commentaries and Muḥammad ibn Zakarīyā al-Rāzī’s (d. ca. 925) introduction to Doubts on Galen, I argue next that Faḫr al-Dīn’s introduction of the verification method into the Islamic medical discourse was a watershed moment in the tradition. I use Ibn al-Quff’s (d. 1286) commentary on the Hippocratic Aphorisms to show how these methods were imitated by later medical commentators. This final section illustrates the enormous exegetical interest that the Canon of Medicine attracted, suggesting other promising trajectories for research into Faḫr al-Dīn’s medical legacy.","PeriodicalId":43744,"journal":{"name":"Oriens","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2019-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18778372-04701001","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47752971","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-05-13DOI: 10.1163/18778372-04701002
Paul Hullmeine
The present paper is devoted to the famous letter exchange between al-Bīrūnī and Avicenna. Its main concern is to elaborate the philosophical content of two of the 18 questions, namely on the existence of void and the plurality of worlds. Since this has previously only been done in a superficial way, this paper aims to draw attention to al-Bīrūnī’s hitherto unknown philosophical doctrines. In the course of this investigation, it will be necessary to consider his arguments from the letters in view of the background of the ancient, Neoplatonic, and Arabic philosophical and theological discourse. Since this letter exchange is dated to the beginning of Avicenna’s career, his answers illuminate the development of his thought.
{"title":"Al-Bīrūnī and Avicenna on the Existence of Void and the Plurality of Worlds","authors":"Paul Hullmeine","doi":"10.1163/18778372-04701002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18778372-04701002","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The present paper is devoted to the famous letter exchange between al-Bīrūnī and Avicenna. Its main concern is to elaborate the philosophical content of two of the 18 questions, namely on the existence of void and the plurality of worlds. Since this has previously only been done in a superficial way, this paper aims to draw attention to al-Bīrūnī’s hitherto unknown philosophical doctrines. In the course of this investigation, it will be necessary to consider his arguments from the letters in view of the background of the ancient, Neoplatonic, and Arabic philosophical and theological discourse. Since this letter exchange is dated to the beginning of Avicenna’s career, his answers illuminate the development of his thought.","PeriodicalId":43744,"journal":{"name":"Oriens","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2019-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18778372-04701002","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45470749","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-11-26DOI: 10.1163/18778372-04603002
Robert Wisnovsky
This article examines the earliest surviving commentary on Avicenna’s Kitāb al-Shifāʾ: ʿAllāmah al-Ḥillī’s (d. 726/1325) Kitāb Kashf al-khifāʾ min Kitāb al-Shifāʾ, composed when Ḥillī was working with the Īlkhānid vizier Rashīd al-Dīn al-Hamadānī (d. 718/1318). Only part of this work—covering the initial chapters from the Maqūlāt (Categories) of the Manṭiq (Logic) section of the Shifāʾ—is extant. After describing the manuscript (Chester Beatty Ar. 5151), the article situates the Kashf al-khifāʾ within the history of kalām appropriations of Avicenna’s metaphysics. Ḥillī’s commentary contains evidence of a tug-of-war between Sunni and Shiite mutakallimūn over proprietorship of the Avicennian legacy.
{"title":"On the Emergence of Maragha Avicennism","authors":"Robert Wisnovsky","doi":"10.1163/18778372-04603002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18778372-04603002","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article examines the earliest surviving commentary on Avicenna’s Kitāb al-Shifāʾ: ʿAllāmah al-Ḥillī’s (d. 726/1325) Kitāb Kashf al-khifāʾ min Kitāb al-Shifāʾ, composed when Ḥillī was working with the Īlkhānid vizier Rashīd al-Dīn al-Hamadānī (d. 718/1318). Only part of this work—covering the initial chapters from the Maqūlāt (Categories) of the Manṭiq (Logic) section of the Shifāʾ—is extant. After describing the manuscript (Chester Beatty Ar. 5151), the article situates the Kashf al-khifāʾ within the history of kalām appropriations of Avicenna’s metaphysics. Ḥillī’s commentary contains evidence of a tug-of-war between Sunni and Shiite mutakallimūn over proprietorship of the Avicennian legacy.","PeriodicalId":43744,"journal":{"name":"Oriens","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2018-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41540778","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-11-26DOI: 10.1163/18778372-04603001
Frédérique Woerther
{"title":"Le statut « scientifique » de l’ éthique d’ après le Commentaire moyen d’ Averroès à l’ Éthique à Nicomaque d’ Aristote","authors":"Frédérique Woerther","doi":"10.1163/18778372-04603001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18778372-04603001","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43744,"journal":{"name":"Oriens","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2018-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47214816","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：