6. 形而上学
6. 1 形而上学的主题
6.2 基本概念
阿维森纳在《形而上学》的第一章第五节中认为,正如有首要的和不言自明的句子一样,也有基本的、先知的、不言自明的概念,这些概念对所有人来说都是共通的:“存在的”、“物”、“必要的”。正是由于阿维森纳,作为原始认知(primum cognitum),即知识的首要对象,成为中世纪拉丁形而上学的中心话题。关于原始认知的问题得到各式各样的回答。对于图尔奈的吉伯特、博纳文图拉和根特的亨利来说,上帝就是原始认知(戈里斯,1999年),对于托马斯·阿奎那和斯科特来说,则是存在,对于穆斯堡的贝托尔德(Berthold of Moosburg)来说,则是善(bonum)。受阿维森纳影响的一个例子是托马斯·阿奎那。托马斯认为,无论是在论证的顺序上,还是在定义的顺序上,都不可能存在逻辑的无限倒退。这就是为什么有了第一个概念:“存在”。它是头脑最先获得的东西,且它是不受限制的普遍性。然而,对于托马斯来说,定义和论证的顺序并不在同一水平上。矛盾的原则(基础)建立在概念的基础上,因为它可以被简化为组成它的术语,其中“存在”是第一个术语(在Metaph.IV.6中;Aertsen 1996146-151)。
阿维森纳的第一概念理论是超验概念理论的重要来源,经院哲学家在13世纪发展起来,借鉴了亚里士多德、阿维森纳和酒神狄奥尼索斯的传统(Aertsen 2008;Aertsen 2012;皮尼2012)。阿维森纳不仅为超验论的讨论留下了关于“存在”、“一”和“物”概念的具体解释,而且还留下了一个本体论上的普适性观点,即第一概念是最普适的,因为它们对一切事物都是有效的,而在认识论上,它们是首要的认知对象,因为它是不言自明的,所以不可能再分解为更原初的概念。
6.3 本质与存在、普遍性与个别性
托马斯·阿奎那在早期的《论存在与本质》(De ente et essentia IV)中就已经采用了阿维森纳的观点。本质可以被认为是存在于它本身,或者被认为与它的灵魂有关,或者在它的具体表现里。普遍性和个别性相比于本质而言只是一种偶然,本质本身既不具有普遍性,也不具有特殊性。托马斯·阿奎那采用了阿威罗伊的“本质的意外”的说法(Comm.magnum Metaph.IV.3)。根据托马斯的说法,普遍性是一种自然的共性(natura communis),它只存在于智力之中。从来源而言,个体只是本质根据数量维度个别化以后的产物;个体产生之后,它的个别性就来自于它的形式。在后来的著作中,托马斯发展了他的本质和存在的概念,他认为存在即是本质的实现。(Summa theol.Ia.q.3a.4)(Wippel 1990;布莱克1999)。
吉尔斯(Giles of Rome)是真正区分本质和存在的一位有影响力的捍卫者。由于他在这两个概念中都使用了“物”(res)的术语去指代,所以他被批评将“存在”变成了一个事物,只有在另一个事物“存在”的情况下,它本身才存在,等等。这种批评来自于由西格(Siger of Brabant )和戈弗雷(Godfrey of Fontaines)(Wippel 1982),但实际上它最初来自阿威罗伊,他在《长篇形而上学评注》(IV.3)中果断拒绝了阿维森纳的作出的这样的区分。
虽然一些作者采取了极端的立场,认为本质和存在之间的区别只存在于大脑之中,但亨利(Henry of Ghent)提出了一个改良版的阿维森纳理论。他区分本质本身和存在,即或者存在于头脑中或或者存在于外部世界。但他将一种特定的存在归因于本质本身(Quodlibet I,9和III,9):本质的存在(“esse essentiae”),这是上帝作为本质之因而与本质之间的永恒联系。相反,esse essentiae是本质的实际存在。由此,亨利发展了一种理论,即本质是如何先于它们在头脑或世界中的实际存在而存在的,并在阿维森纳的形而上学I.5章节中对本质的“适当存在”(esse proprium)进行了简短而试探性的引用。
6.4 第一因和智力的流溢
《第一和第二因之书》(Liber de causis primis et secundis)是由一位匿名作者写作,该书可追溯到十三世纪之交,没有对必要的存在和可能的存在进行区分,而是用强烈的阿维森主义术语描述了流溢的过程:从第一因产生了第一个被创造的存在,一个智慧。从这种智慧中,又产生了一系列的智慧,其中最底层的是积极智能。流溢的发生三角是:一种智力凭借其智力活动而产生天球的形式、球体的本体和另一种智力(第4章)。这位匿名作者还借鉴了《原因之书》(见上文第6节开头),例如,当将智能根据等级的降低,而不断减弱它的权力和统一性(第6章)。
奥弗涅的威廉(公元1249年)深受阿拉伯形而上学和心理学理论的吸引(他经常不加区别地将其归于“亚里士多德及其追随者”的观点),并对其进行了详细的讨论,但最终往往以这些观点与基督教信仰相冲突为由拒绝接受这些理论。在《论宇宙》(De universo II.1)中,威廉讨论并否定了阿维森尼的流溢理论:通过第一因的因果关系的必要性;智力从第一智慧向积极智能的流溢;积极智能是有效产生人类灵魂的原因。尽管如此,他还是默认了阿维森纳(Teske 1993)的形而上学原则“一只能产生一”(de uno non-nisi unum),并将第一个原因描述为“自身即是必要”(being necessary through itself)(Tesk 2002)。
阿维森纳学说的吸引力在西格尔(Siger of Brabant)的作品中可见一斑。在他的一些著作中,西格尔教导说,上帝作为第一个存在,只会立即创造出一个存在,即第一种非物的质,并从中产生其他智能,即天国,最后是尘世,这样的创世是一个永恒且必然的过程。然而,必然性并不是普适的,尘世中存在的偶然性和自由意志约束了必然性的存在(De necessentia et contingentia causarum;Van Steenberghen 1991346)。然而,斯科特对于阿维森纳这种从第一因而引导出来的连环因果持强烈的批评态度。他提出了几个反对它的理由,最重要的理由是是,只有当第一因不根据必要性行为的时候,才会有偶然性出现。(Ordinatio I d. 8 p. 2 q. un)。
1277年,几篇受到阿维森纳启发而写作的关于第一因和智力的论文受到了巴黎主教的谴责,其中包括:上帝是第一智慧和天国的第一因(第58条和第59条),上帝根据必要性行事且立即会有后果(第53条),积极智能是一种可与人类智力分离的质(第123条),理性的灵魂是由智能创造的(第30条)。阿维森纳关于第一因的理论仍然影响着学术界的讨论。例如,上帝存在的证据就曾经被托马斯·阿圭那引用。彼得(Peter of Auvergne)、亨利(Henry of Ghent)和斯科特(Duns Scotus)也借鉴了阿维森纳关于可能存在和必要的存在的论点(Druart 2002; Janssens 2003; Pickavé 2007, ch. 6)。
1270年和1277年的谴责还针对另一种基于阿拉伯来源的理论:星命决定论(第143、161、167、195、206、207条)。这些谴责并不能否定阿拉伯哲学家的影响力:阿维森纳出于认识论的原因对占星术持批评态度,阿维罗伊将占星术学说归入了关于恒星巡回产生的影响的主流理论中。这些谴责表明,阿拉伯占星家,如阿尔布马扎(Albumasar)和阿尔卡比图斯(Alcabitius),在十三世纪就已经在拉丁西方非常有影响力。
古典占星四书——克劳丢斯·托勒密(Claudius Ptolemy)
7. 伦理
阿拉伯的伦理和政治著作的影响力很小,部分是因为阿拉伯哲学家在这些领域的作品很少,也有部分原因在于一些重要著作根本没有被翻译(如法拉比的《关于完美国家和公民的原则》),有的则直到16世纪才被翻译(例如阿维罗伊的《长篇柏拉图共和国评注》)。然而,阿拉伯哲学家通过他们关于的智力理论,对伦理学和心理学之间的交叉领域产生了影响,也对人类幸福是什么产生了重要影响。
法拉比、阿维森纳和阿维罗伊都认为,幸福是通过人类智力与独立的积极智能的结合来实现的。他们也有一种认识论上的乐观主义,即对于他们称为哲学家或哲学家先知的特殊天赋的人来说,在这一生中这样的完美的结合(人类智力和积极智能的结合)是可能的(瑞·蒙克丨《维特根斯坦传:天才之为责任》(1):世界毁灭的试验场——维也纳)。大阿尔伯特的幸福理论深受这些阿拉伯理论的影响。就像之前谈及的,他从阿维森纳和阿维罗伊那里采纳了“获得性智力/天赋”(intellectus adeptus)的概念,认为这是可能的智力和积极智能之间的最高层次的结合。只有达到这样,一个人才能真正成为一个人。(是否想起维特根斯坦的问题:一个人如果不是天才的话,其实已经没有必要活下去了。)通过与积极智能的结合,人类的智力思考着外在物,并在其中构成了人的“沉思的幸福”(felicitas interpretiva),这是一种在一生中可能获得的幸福(De anima III.3.12)(Müller 2006;关于阿尔伯特的影响,见De Libera 2005329-361)。托马斯·阿奎那不同意这一立场的认识论前提和伦理结论:由于人类的知识与感官联系在一起,因此在这一生中不可能了解非物质的物质,完美的人类幸福也不可能存在(Summa theol.Ia IIae q.3 a.2)。
1277年,几篇关于人类幸福和美好生活的哲学论文遭到谴责:幸福应该存在于今世而不是另一世(第176条),没有比学习哲学更好的(生活)状态了(第40条)。这些文章显然是针对巴黎大学的艺术大师,其中包括西格尔(Siger of Brabant)和博埃修斯(Boethius of Dacia)。正如我们从西格尔的《论幸福》中所知道的那样,他接受了阿维罗伊的论点,即所有的智力都是通过与积极智能结合而获得幸福的。在西格尔的解释中,处于这种状态的人类通过一种智能来思考上帝,而这种智能就是上帝本身。有许多迹象表明,西格尔确信,了解不同的物质,从而获得人类幸福,是可能的(斯蒂尔2001227-231)。博埃修斯也相信,人类的幸福可以在这一生中实现,这是一种和人类能力相匹配的幸福,但最高的幸福依然是死后的幸福(博埃修斯《论至善(De summo bono)》中)。博埃修斯似乎受到了阿拉伯知识提升理论的启发,但不像西格尔那样支持智能结合理论。他坚信哲学家的生活是唯一真实的生活,这与阿拉伯主流哲学家所采取的非常自信和精英主义的立场如出一辙。
·Aertsen, J. A. (1996), Medieval Philosophy and the Transcendentals: the Case of Thomas Aquinas, Leiden: Brill.
·Aertsen, J. A. (1998), “What is First and Most Fundamental? The Beginnings of Transcendental Philosophy”, in J. A. Aertsen and A. Speer, eds, Was ist Philosophie im Mittelalter?, Berlin/New York: deGruyter, 177–192.
·Aertsen, J. A. (2008), “Avicenna's Doctrine of the Primary Notions and Its Impact on Medieval Philosophy”, in A. Akasoy and W. Raven, eds, Islamic Thought in the Middle Ages. Studies in Text, Transmission and Translation, in Honour of Hans Daiber, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 21–42.
·Aertsen, J. A. (2012), Medieval Philosophy as Transcendental Thought, Leiden: Brill.
·Akasoy, A. / Giglioni, G. (eds) (2013), Renaissance Averroism and its Aftermath: Arabic Philosophy in Early Modern Europe, Dordrecht: Springer.
·Bertolacci, A. (2007), “Avicenna and Averroes on the Proof of God's Existence and the Subject-Matter of Metaphysics”, Medioevo, 32: 61–97.
·Bertolacci, A. (2009), “The Reception of Averroes' Long Commentary on the 'Metaphysics' in Latin Medieval Philosophy until Albertus Magnus”, in L. Honnefelder, H. Möhle and S. Bullido del Barrio, eds, Via Alberti. Texte – Quellen – Interpretationen, Münster: Aschendorff, 457–480.
·Bertolacci, A. (2011), “Community of Translators: The Latin Medieval Versions of Avicenna's Kitāb al-Shifā’ (Book of the Cure)”, in J.N. Crossley and C.J. Mews, eds, Communities of Learning: Networks and the Shaping of Intellectual Identity in Europe 1100–1450, Turnhout: Brepols, 37–54.
·Bertolacci, A. (2012), “On the Latin Reception of Avicenna's Metaphysics before Albertus Magnus: An Attempt at Periodization”, in D.N. Hasse and A. Bertolacci, eds, The Arabic, Hebrew and Latin Reception of Avicenna's Metaphysics, Berlin/Boston: deGruyter, 197–223.
·Bertolacci, A. (2013), “Averroes against Avicenna on Human Spontaneous Generation: The Starting-Point of an Enduring Debate”, in A. Akasoy and G. Giglioni, eds, Renaissance Averroism and its Aftermath: Arabic Philosophy in Early Modern Europe, Dordrecht: Springer, 37–54.
·Bianchi, L. (1993), “Les aristotélismes de la scolastique”, in L. Bianchi and E. Randi, eds, Vérités dissonantes. Aristote à la fin du Moyen Âge, Fribourg: Ed. univ., 1–37.
·Black, D. L. (1996), “Memory, Individuals, and the Past in Averroes' Psychology”, Medieval Philosophy and Theology, 5: 161–187.
·Black, D. L. (1999), “Mental Existence in Thomas Aquinas and Avicenna”, Mediaeval Studies 61: 45–79.
·Black, D. L. (2000), “Imagination and Estimation: Arabic Paradigms and Western Transformations”, Topoi, 19: 59–75.
·Black, D. L. (2004), “Models of the Mind: Metaphysical Presuppositions of the Averroist and Thomistic Accounts of Intellection”, Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale 15: 319–352.
·Black, D. L. (2011), “Avicenna's 'Vague Individual' and its Impact on Medieval Latin Philosophy”, in C. Fraenkel, R. Wisnovsky, F. Wallis and J. Fumo, eds, Vehicles of Transmission, Translation, and Transformation in Medieval Cultures, Turnhout: Brepols, 269–302.
·Black, D. L. (forthcoming), “How Do We Acquire Concepts? Avicenna on Abstraction and Emanation”, in J. Hause, ed., Debates in Medieval Philosophy, London: Routledge.
·Bobzin, H. (1992), “Geschichte der arabischen Philologie in Europa bis zum Ausgang des achtzehnten Jahrhunderts”, in W. Fischer, ed., Grundriß der Arabischen Philologie, III Supplement, Wiesbaden: Reichert, 155–187.
·Bouyges, M. (1923), “VII. Sur le De scientiis d'Alfarabi, récemment édité en arabe à Saida et sur le de Divisione Philosophiae de Gundissalinus”, Mélanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph de Beyrouth, 9: 49-70.
·Brenet, J.-B. (2003), Transferts du sujet: la noétique d'Averroès selon Jean de Jandun, Paris: Vrin.
·Burnett, C. (1982), Hermann of Carinthia, De essentiis, critical edition, translation and commentary, Leiden: Brill.
·Burnett, C. (1997a), “Vincent of Beauvais, Michael Scot and the 'New Aristotle’”, in S. Lusignan and M. Paulmier–Foucart, eds, Vincent de Beauvais, frère prêcheur: un intellectuel et son milieu au XIIIe siècle, Grâne: Editions Créaphis, 189–213.
·Burnett, C. (1997b), “Petrarch and Averroes: An Episode in the History of Poetics”, in I. Macpherson and R. Penny, eds, The Medieval Mind: Hispanic Studies in Honour of Alan Deyermond, Woodbridge: Tamesis, 49–56.
·Burnett, C. (1999), “The Second Revelation of Arabic Philosophy and Science: 1492–1575”, in C. Burnett and A. Contadini, eds, Islam and the Italian Renaissance, London: The Warburg Institute, 185–198.
·Burnett, C. (2001), “The Coherence of the Arabic-Latin Translation Program in Toledo in the Twelfth Century”, Science in Context, 14: 249–288.
·Burnett, C. (2005), “Arabic into Latin: the reception of Arabic philosophy into Western Europe”, in P. Adamson and R.C. Taylor, eds,The Cambridge Companion to Arabic Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 370–404.
·Burnett, C. (2006), “Humanism and Orientalism in the Translations from Arabic into Latin in the Middle Ages”, in A. Speer and L. Wegener, eds, Wissen über Grenzen. Arabisches und lateinisches Mittelalter, Berlin: deGruyter, 22–31.
·Burnett, C. (2011), “Two Approaches to Natural Science in the Twelfth Century”, in M.M. Tischler and A. Fidora, eds, Christlicher Norden – Muslimischer Süden: Ansprüche und Wirklichkeiten von Christen, Juden und Muslimen auf der Iberischen Halbinsel im Hoch– und Spätmittelalter, Münster: Aschendorff, 69–80.
·Burnett, C. (2013), “Revisiting the 1552-1550 and 1562 Aristotle-Averroes Edition”, in A. Akasoy and G. Giglioni, eds, Renaissance Averroism and its Aftermath: Arabic Philosophy in Early Modern Europe, Dordrecht: Springer, 55–64.
·Calma, D. (2010), Études sur le premier siècle de l'averroisme latin: approches et textes inédits, Turnhout: Brepols.
·Coccia, E. (2005), La trasparenza delle immagini. Averroè e l'averroismo, Milano: Mondadori.
·Craig, M. (2007), “Rethinking Renaissance Averroism”, Intellectual History Review 17: 3–19.
·Craig, M. (2013), “Humanism and the Assessment of Averroes in the Renaissance”, in A. Akasoy and G. Giglioni, eds, Renaissance Averroism and its Aftermath: Arabic Philosophy in Early Modern Europe, Dordrecht: Springer, 65–80.
·Daiber, H. (1990), “Lateinische Übersetzungen arabischer Texte zur Philosophie und ihre Bedeutung für die Scholastik des Mittelalters. Stand und Aufgaben der Forschung”, in J. Hamesse and M. Fattori, eds, Rencontres de cultures dans la philosophie médiévale: traductions et traducteurs de l’antiquité tradive au XIVe siècle, Louvain-la-Neuve: Université catholique de Louvain; Cassino: Università degli studi di Cassino, 203–250.
·Dales, R. C. (1990), Medieval discussions of the eternity of the world, Leiden: Brill.
·Davidson, H. A. (1987), Proofs for eternity, creation, and the existence of God in medieval Islamic and Jewish philosophy, New York: Oxford University Press.
·d’Alverny, M.-Th. / Hudry, F. (1975), “Al-Kindi: De radiis”, Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Âge, 41: 139–260.
·d'Ancona Costa, C. (1995), Recherches sur le Liber de causis, Paris: Vrin.
·de Libera, A. (2005), Métaphysique et noétique: Albert le Grand, Paris: Vrin.
·Denifle, H. / Chatelain, E. (1889), Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, Tomus I, Paris: Delalain.
·Des Chene, D. (2000), Life's form: late Aristotelian conceptions of the soul, Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
·Druart, Th.-A. (2002), “Avicenna's Influence on Duns Scotus' Proof for the Existence of God in the Lectura”, in J. Janssens and D. De Smet, eds, Avicenna and HisHeritage, Leuven: Leuven University Press, 253–266.
·Eichner, H. (2005), Averroes: Talkhīs kitāb al-kawn wa-al-fasād. Mittlerer Kommentar zu Aristoteles' De generatione et corruptione, Paderborn: Schöningh.
·Etzwiler, J. P. (1971), “Baconthorp and the Latin Averroism: The Doctrine of the Unique Intellect”, Carmelus, 19: 235–292.
·Farmer, H. G. (1934), Al-Fārābī’s Arabic-Latin Writings on Music, Glasgow: The Civic Press.
·Fidora, A. (2007), “Politik, Religion und Philosophie in den Wissenschaftseinteilungen der Artisten im 13. Jahrhundert”, in A. Fidora, J. Fried and M. Lutz-Bachmann, eds, Politischer Aristotelismus und Religion in Mittelalter und Früher Neuzeit, Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 27–36.
·Fidora, A. / Niederberger, A. (2001), Von Bagdad nach Toledo: Das “Buch der Ursachen” und seine Rezeption im Mittelalter, Lateinisch-deutscher Text, Kommentar und Wirkungsgeschichte des Liber de causis, Mainz: Dieterich’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.
·Fidora, A. / Werner, D. (2007), Dominicus Gundissalinus: De divisione philosophiae: Lateinisch/Deutsch, Über die Einteilung der Philosophie, Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder.
·Gauthier, R.-A. (1982a), “Le Traité De anima et de potenciis eius d’un maître ès arts (vers 1225)”, Revue des Sciences philosophiques et théologiques, 66: 27–55.
·Gauthier, R.-A. (1982b), “Notes sur les débuts (1225-1240) du premier 'Averroisme’”, Revue des Sciences philosophiques et théologiques, 66: 321–374.
·Giles of Rome (1944), Errores philosophorum: critical text with notes and introduction by Josef Koch … English translation by John O. Riedl, Milwaukee, Wis.: Marquette University Press.
·Gilson, E. (1926/27), “Pourquoi saint Thomas a critiqué saint Augustin”, Archives d’Histoire Doctrinale et Littéraire du Moyen Âge, 1: 1–127.
·Goichon, A.-M. (1951), “L'influence de la philosophie avicennienne dans l'Europe médiévale”, in A.-M. Goichon, La philosophie d'Avicenne et son influence en Europe médiévale, 2. ed., Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve, 89–133.
·Goris, W. (1999), “Die Anfänge der Auseinandersetzung um das Ersterkannte im 13. Jahrhundert: Guibert von Tournai, Bonaventura und Thomas von Aquin”, Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale, 10: 355–369.
·Grant, E. (1974), A Source Book in Medieval Science, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
·Hasse, D. N. (1999), “Das Lehrstück von den vier Intellekten in der Scholastik: von den arabischen Quellen bis zu Albertus Magnus”,Recherches de Théologie et Philosophie médiévales, 66: 21–77.
·Hasse, D. N. (2000), Avicenna's De Anima in the Latin West: The Formation of a Peripatetic Philosophy of the Soul, 1160–1300, London / Turin: The Warburg Institute – Nino Aragno Editore.
·Hasse, D. N. (2001), “Avicenna on Abstraction”, in R. Wisnovsky, ed., Aspects of Avicenna, Princeton: Markus Wiener, 39–72.
·Hasse, D. N. (2004a), “The Attraction of Averroism in the Renaissance: Vernia, Achillini, Prassicio”, in P. Adamson, H. Baltussen, M. W. F. Stone, eds, Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin Commentaries, 2 vols., London: Institute of Classical Studies, vol. 2, 131–147.
·Hasse, D. N. (2004b), “Aufstieg und Niedergang des Averroismus in der Renaissance: Niccolò Tignosi, Agostino Nifo, Francesco Vimercato”, in J. A. Aertsen and M. Pickavé, eds, 'Herbst des Mittelalters?' Fragen zur Bewertung des 14. und 15. Jahrhunderts, Berlin: deGruyter, 131–147.
·Hasse, D. N. (2006), “The Social Conditions of the Arabic-(Hebrew-)Latin Translation Movements in Medieval Spain and in the Renaissance”, in A. Speer and L. Wegener, eds, Wissen über Grenzen: Arabisches Wissen und lateinisches Mittelalter, Berlin: de Gruyter, 68–86 and 806.
·Hasse, D. N. (2007a), “Spontaneous Generation and the Ontology of Forms in Greek, Arabic, and Medieval Latin Sources”, in P. Adamson, ed., Classical Arabic Philosophy: Sources and Reception, London / Turin: The Warburg Institute – Nino Aragno Editore, 150–175.
·Hasse, D. N. (2007b), “Averroica secta: Notes on the Formation of Averroist Movements in Fourteenth-Century Bologna and Renaissance Italy”, in J.-B. Brenet, ed., Averroes et les Averroïsmes juif et latin, Turnhout: Brepols, 307–331.
·Hasse, D. N. (2007c), “Arabic philosophy and Averroism”, in J. Hankins, ed., Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 113–136.
·Hasse, D. N. (2008), “The Early Albertus Magnus and his Arabic Sources on the Theory of the Soul”, Vivarium 46: 232–252.
·Hasse, D. N. (2010), Latin Averroes Translations of the First Half of the Thirteenth Century, Hildesheim/Zürich/New York: Olms (also printed in: A. Musco, ed., Universalità della Ragione. Pluralità delle Filosofie nel Medioevo, Palermo: Officina di Studi Medievali, 2012, 149–177).
·Hasse, D. N. (2012), “Avicenna's 'Giver of Forms' in Latin Philosophy, Especially in the Works of Albertus Magnus”, in D.N. Hasse and A. Bertolacci, eds, The Arabic, Hebrew and Latin Reception of Avicenna's Metaphysics, Berlin/Boston: deGruyter, 225–249.
·Hasse, D. N. / Bertolacci, A. (eds) (2012), The Arabic, Hebrew and Latin Reception of Avicenna's Metaphysics, Berlin/Boston: deGruyter.
·Hayoun, M.–R. / de Libera, A. (1991), Averroès et l'averroisme, Paris: Presses Univ. de France.
·Hugonnard-Roche, H. (1984), “La classification des sciences de Gundissalinus et l’influence d’Avicenne”, in J. Jolivet and R. Rashed, eds, Etudes sur Avicenne, Paris: Belles Lettres, 41–75.
·Hyman, A. (1965), “Aristotle's 'First Matter’ and Avicenna's and Averroes' 'Corporeal Form’”, in Harry Austryn Wolfson Jubilee Volume, 3 vols, Jerusalem: American Academy for Jewish Research, vol. 1, 385–406.
·Imbach, R. (1991), “L'averroisme latin du XIIIe siècle”, in R. Imbach and A. Maierù, eds, Gli studi di filosofia medievale fra otto e novecento, contributo a un bilancio storiografico, Roma: Ed. di Storia et Letteratura, 191–208.
·Janssens, J. (2003), “Elements of Avicennian Metaphysics in the Summa”, in G. Guldentops and C. Steel, eds, Henry of Ghent and the Transformation of Scholastic Thought, Leuven: Leuven University Press, 41–59.
·Jolivet, J. (1988), “The Arabic Inheritance”, in P. Dronke, ed., A History of Twelfth Century Western Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 113–150.
·Kischlat, H. (2000), Studien zur Verbreitung von Übersetzungen arabischer philosophischer Werke in Westeuropa 1150–1400: Das Zeugnis der Bibliotheken, Münster: Aschendorff.
·Knudsen, C. (1982), “Intentions and Impositions”, in N. Kretzmann, A. Kenny, J. Pinborg, eds, The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 479–495.
·Kuksewicz, Z. (1997), “Some Remarks on Erfurt Averroists”, Studia Mediewistyczne 32: 93–121.
·Lafleur, C. (1988), Quatre introductions à la philosophie au XIIIe siècle. Textes critiques et études historique, Montreal: Institut d'Etudes Médiévales, 1988.
·Leinsle, U. G. (1985), Das Ding und die Methode: methodische Konstitution und Gegenstand der frühen protestantischen Metaphysik, Augsburg : Maroverlag.
·Lemay, R. J. (1962), Abu Ma'shar and Latin Aristotelianism in the twelfth century: the recovery of Aristotle's natural philosophy through Arabic astrology, Beirut: Catholic Press.
·Lohr, C.H. (1965), “Logica Algazelis: Introduction and Critical Text”, Traditio, 21: 223–290.
·Maier, A. (1952), An der Grenze von Scholastik und Naturwissenschaft: Studien zur Naturphilosophie des 14. Jahrhunderts, 2. ed., Rome: Edizioni di storia e letteratura.
·Maier, A. (1955), Metaphysische Hintergründe der spätscholastischen Naturphilosophie, Rome: Edizioni di storia e letteratura.
·Maierù, A. (1987), “Influenze arabe e discussioni sulla natura della logica presso i latini fra XIII e XIV secolo”, in B. Scarcia Amoretti, ed., La diffusione delle science islamiche nel Medio Evo europeo, Rome: Accademia nazionale dei Lincei, 243–267.
·Marmura, M. E. (1979), “Avicenna's Chapter on Universals in the Isagoge of his Shifa”, in A. T. Welch and P. Cachia, eds, Islam: Past influence and present challenge, Albany: State University of New York Press, 34–56 (repr. in M. Marmura, Probing in Islamic Philosophy, Binghamton: Global Acad. Publ., 2005).
·McGinnis, J. (2007), “Making Abstraction Less Abstract: The Logical, Psychological, and Metaphysical Dimensions of Avicenna's Theory of Abstraction”, in M. Baur, ed., Intelligence and the Philosophy of Mind, Bronx, NY: American Catholic Philosophical Association, 169–183.
·Müller, J. (2006), “Der Einfluß der arabischen Intellektspekulation auf die Ethik des Albertus Magnus”, in A. Speer and L. Wegener, ed., Wissen über Grenzen: Arabisches Wissen und lateinisches Mittelalter, Berlin: de Gruyter, 545–568.
·Nardi, B. (1965), “Pietro Pomponazzi e la teoria di Avicenna intorno alla generazione spontanea nell’uomo”, in B. Nardi, Studi su Pietro Pomponazzi, Firenze: F. Le Monnier, 305–319.
·Niewöhner, F. / Sturlese, L. (eds) (1994), Averroismus im Mittelalter und in der Renaissance, Zürich: Spur–Verlag.
·Perfetti, S. (2000), Aristotle's Zoology and its Renaissance Commentators (1521-1601), Leuven: Leuven University Press.
·Perfetti, S. (2004), Pietro Pomponazzi: Expositio super primo et secundo De partibus animalium, Firenze: Olschki.
·Perler, D. (1994), “Peter Aureol vs. Hervaeus Natalis on Intentionality, A Text Edition with Introductory Remarks”, Archives d’Histoire Doctrinale et Littéraire du Moyen Age, 61: 227–262.
·Perler, D. (2006), “Intentionality and Action: Medieval Discussions on the Cognitive Capacities of Animals”, in M.C. Pacheco and J.F. Meirinhos, eds, Intellect et imagination dans la philosophie médiévale, 3 vols, Turnhout: Brepols, vol. 1, 73–98.
·Pickavé, M. (2007), Heinrich von Gent über Metaphysik als erste Wissenschaft: Studien zu einem Metaphysikentwurf aus dem letzten Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts, Leiden: Brill.
·Piché, D. (1999), La condamnation parisienne de 1277: nouvelle édition du texte latin: traduction, introduction et commentaires, Paris: Vrin.
·Pini, G. (2012), “Scotus and Avicenna on What it is to Be a Thing”, in D.N. Hasse and A. Bertolacci, eds, The Arabic, Hebrew and Latin Reception of Avicenna's Metaphysics, Berlin/Boston: deGruyter, 365–387.
·Sabra, A. I. (1980), “Avicenna on the Subject Matter of Logic”, The Journal of Philosophy, 77: 746–764.
·Schmitt, C. B. (1979), “Renaissance Averroism Studied through the Venetian Editions of Aristotle-Averroes (with Particular Reference to the Giunta Edition of 1550–2)”, in Convegno Internazionale l'Averroismo in Italia, Roma, 121–142 (repr. in: Schmitt, C. B., The Aristotelian Tradition and Renaissance Universities, London: Variorum repr., 1984, art. VIII).
·Siraisi, N. (1987), Avicenna in Renaissance Italy: the Canon and Medical Teaching in Italian Universities after 1500, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
·Steel, C. (2001), “Siger of Brabant versus Thomas Aquinas on the Possibility of Knowing the Separate Substances”, in J. A. Aertsen, K. Emery, Jr., A. Speer, eds, Nach der Verurteilung von 1277: Philosophie und Theologie an der Universität von Paris im letzten Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts, Berlin: deGruyter, 211–231.
·Street, T. (2005), “Logic”, in P. Adamson and R.C. Taylor, eds, The Cambridge Companion to Arabic Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 247–265.
·Tamani, G. (1992), “Traduzioni ebraico-latine di opere filosofiche e scientifiche”, in I. Zinguer ed., L’hébreu au temps de la Renaissance, Leiden: Brill, 105–114.
·Taylor, R. C. (1983), “The Liber de Causis. A Preliminary List of Extant MSS.”, Bulletin de philosophie médiévale 25: 63–84.
·Teske, R. J. (1993), “William of Auvergne's Use of Avicenna's Principle: Ex Uno, Secundum Unum, Non Nisi Unum”, The Modern Schoolman, 71: 1–15.
·Teske, R. J. (2002), “William of Auvergne's Debt to Avicenna”, in J. Janssens and D. De Smet, eds, Avicenna and His Heritage, Leuven: Leuven University Press, 153–170.
·Trifogli, C. (2000), Oxford physics in the thirteenth century (ca. 1250–1270): motion, infinity, place and time, Leiden : Brill.
·Trifogli, C. (2010), “Change, Time and Place”, in R. Pasnau, ed., The Cambridge History of Medieval Philosophy, I, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 267–278.
·Van Steenberghen, F. (1974), Introduction à l'étude de la philosophie médiévale, Louvain: Publ. Univ.
·Van Steenberghen, F. (1991), La philosophie au XIIIe siècle, Louvain-la-Neuve: Institut supérieur de philosophie.
·Wippel, J. F. (1982), “Essence and Existence”, in N. Kretzmann, A. Kenny, J. Pinborg, eds, The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 385–410.
·Wippel, J. F. (1990), “The Latin Avicenna as a Source for Thomas Aquinas's Metaphysics”, Freiburger Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Theologie 37: 65–72.
·Wood, R. (2010), “The Influence of Arabic Aristotelianism on Scholastic Natural Philosophy. Projectile Motion, the Place of the Universe, and Elemental Composition”, in R. Pasnau, ed., The Cambridge History of Medieval Philosophy, I, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 247–266.
·Zimmermann, A. (1998), Ontologie oder Metaphysik? Die Diskussion über den Gegenstand der Metaphysik im 13. und 14. Jahrhundert; Texte und Untersuchungen, Leuven: Peeters.
联系客服