Towards a New Methodology for Natural Philosophy: Latin Averroism Revisited

The reception of Aristotelian philosophy with Averroes’s commentaries in the thirteenth-century Latin world promoted a new way of understanding natural philosophy and its method. A very special case among the readers of such commentaries, mostly found at the Faculty of Arts of the University of Paris, are the so-called averroistae. What these averroistae actually were is still a matter of discussion in current scholarship, whereas there is kind of consensus regarding the main exponents of this philosophical movement, namely Siger of Brabant and Boethius of Dacia. The aim of this paper is to shed light on this topic by providing a re-definition of Averroism in the 13th century. To do this, I will analyse some of the most important works of the aforementioned authors in an attempt to clarify the specificity of their philosophical program.

Teorias do Intelecto na Idade Média Latina. De anima III, cap. 5 de Aristóteles e sua tradição medieval

Resumo: No capítulo 5 do Livro III De anima (430a10-19) Aristóteles distingue entre o νοῦς ποιητικός (nous poietikós), chamado pelos Latinos intellectus agens (intelecto agente), e νοῦς παθητικός (nous pathetikós), chamado pelos Latinos intellectus passivus, ou seja, intellectus possibilis (intelecto possível), termos técnicos e filosóficos mais comuns. O capítulo 5 é de grande importância não só para a filosofia antiga e para os comentadores das obras de Aristóteles, como os comentários de Teofrasto, de Alexander de Afrodisias, de Simplício e Themístius entre outros, mas também para a filosofia do mundo árabe e da Europa latina. Sabe-se que Aristóteles não escreveu um tratado próprio sobre o intelecto, embora possam ser encontradas várias observações acerca do intelecto em suas obras. Os tratados do Intelecto começam com Al-Kindi, Al-Farabi, Avicena e sobretudo Averróis, e se refletem, num sentido crítico e afirmativo, (nos debates) dos tratados latinos, por exemplo, nos tratados de Alberto Magno, de Tomás de Aquino, de Sigério de Brabant entre outros. Este artigo apresenta observações preliminares e preparatórias ao projeto de traduções bilíngue (Latim-Português) dos tratados medievais sobre o intelecto ‘Teorias do Intelecto na Idade Média’ que está em desenvovlimento no Centro Internacional de Estudos Medievais da UFU. Palavras-chaves: unidade do intelecto, imaginação, intencionalidade, luz intelectual e cognição Theories of the Intellect in the Latin Middle Ages. De anima III, cap. 5 of Aristotle and his Medieval Tradition Abstract: In the chapter 5 of the III. Book of De anima (430a10-19) Aristotle distinguishes between the νοῦς ποιητικός (nous poietikós) called by the Latins intellectus agens (agent intellect) and the νοῦς παθητικός (nous pathetikós) called by the Latins intellectus passivus, or intellectus possibilis (possible intellect), most common technical and philosophical terms. The chapter 5 is of great importance not only to ancient philosophy and to the commentators of Aristotle’s works such as the commentaries of Theophrastus, Alexander of Aphrodisias, of Simplicius, and Themistius among others, but also to the philosophy of the Arabic World and the Latin Europe. One knows well that Aristotle does not have written a proper treatise on intellect; although there are several observations about the intellect in his works. Separate treatises begin with Al-Kindi, Al-Farabi, Avicenna, and especially Averroes, which Latin treatises as of Albert the Great, Thomas Aquinas, Siger of Brabant among others reflect in a critical as well as an affirmative sense. This article can be read as preliminary and preparatory observations to a bilingual (Latin-Portuguese) translation project of treatises corresponding to ‘Theories of Intellect in the Middle Ages’ which is ongoing at the International Center for Medieval Studies at UFU. Key-words: Unity of the Intellect, Imagination, Intentionality, Intellectual Light, and Cognition Theorien des Intellekts im Lateinischen Mittelalter. De anima III, 5 des Aristoteles und seine mittelalterliche Tradition Zusammenfassung: Im 5. Kapitel des III. Buchs von De anima (430a10-19) unterscheidet Aristoteles zwischen dem νοῦς ποιητικός (nous poietikós), von den Lateinern intellectus agens (tätiger Intellekt) genannt und dem νοῦς παθητικός (nous pathetikós), von den Lateinern intellectus passivus oder auch intellectus possibilis (möglicher Intellekt) genannt, gemeinhin bekannte technische und philosophische Begriffe. Dieses 5. Kapitel ist von grösster Bedeutung nicht nur für die antike Philosophie und die Kommentatoren der Werke des Aristoteles wie die Kommentare des Theophrastus, des Alexander von Aphrodisias, Simplicius und Themistius unter anderen, sondern auch für die Philosophie der arabischen Welt und des lateinischen Europas. Bekanntlich hat Aristoteles keinen eigenen Traktat über den Intellekt geschrieben, obgleich sich viele Beobachtungen zum Intellekt in seinem Werk antreffen. Selbständige Traktate über den Intellekt beginnen mit Al-Kindi, Al-Farabi, Avicenna und besonders Averroes, die sich in den lateinischen Traktaten, z.B. des Albertus Magnus, Thomas von Aquin, Siger von Brabant und anderen zustimmend wie kritisch widerspiegeln. Dieser Artikel kann als vorläufige und vorbereitende Bemerkungen zu einem zweisprachigen (lateinisch-portugiesischen) Übersetzungsprojekt von Texten gelesen werden, welche „Theorien des Intellekts im Lateinischen Mittelalter“ betreffen. Dieses Projekt ist am Internationalen Zentrum für Mittelalterstudien der UFU in Arbeit genommen worden. Schlüsselwörter: Verstand, Vernunft, Intentionalität, Anschauung und Erkenntnis

Thirteenth-Century Engagements with Thomas Aquinas

Before he gained the status of received authority, Thomas Aquinas influenced scholastic thought by shaping conversations around and by establishing approaches to specific topics. Scholastic thinkers engaged in these conversations and with these specific topics in various ways, both directly and indirectly. While the Correctoria controversy reflected direct engagements with Aquinas, whether critical or supportive, the majority of scholastic engagements with Thomas was more indirect. Typical examples can be found in the works of Giles of Rome, Siger of Brabant, Godfrey of Fontaines, and Henry of Ghent. Among other topics, these thinkers engaged with Thomas on the possibility of an eternal world, on the unicity of substantial form, and on the relationship between esse and essentia. Engagements with Aquinas were complicated by Stephen Tempier’s condemnations of 1277, which touched upon some Thomistic positions and more generally reframed scholastic approaches to philosophical speculations with theological bearings.

The Role of Philosophy in Dante’s Divine Comedy

The paper considers the role of antique philosophy in medieval theology. Dante’s «Divine Comedy» was chosen as an object for a comparative study of philosophy and theology. A «сomplicated» relationship between theology and philosophy is due to the question of the creation of the world. According to Aristotle and his medieval successors Averroes and Siger of Brabant, the world was not created by God but, he is needed as the source of its movement. Despite Aristotle’s overwhelming authority as a Philosopher and a Teacher, Dante placed antique thinkers led by Aristotle, in Limbo, Hell canopy. So they were unable to pass through Hell and Purgatory and face God one day. Ancient thinkers were to blame for living before Christ and therefore not knowing him. It is underlined, that all real-life hostilities become meaningless in Heaven, where everyone is equal before God. That’s why Thomas Aquinas and Siger de Brabantt are side by side in Heaven. The article states that the theme of wisdom is a keynote of Dante’s «Divine Comedy». It is noted, that Dante’s journey through the circles of Hell, ascension into Purgatory and «getting» to Heaven is because of Beatrice – allegory of philosophy. It was philosophy (in the form of beautiful Beatrice) «coming» to help when Dante found himself in an «impassable forest» of his soul. Philosophy in the form of Beatrice presents wisdom. Theology, in turn, is intended to purify the minds, which is possible just in Purgatory. Heaven is the embodiment of justice and perception of truth, the place of some conciliation between theology and philosophy.

Siger of Brabant, author of the anonymous Questio de creatione ex nihilo

An anonymous question on creation, in which a creatio ex nihilo is denied, has been preserved in only one manuscript of Paris. In the study Sigeri di Brabante. Questio de creatione ex nihilo (ms. Paris BnF lat. 16297, f. 116rb-vb): Edizione, paternità e cronologia, the editor Andrea Aiello edits this question and establishes the chronology and the authorship. This treatise is attributed to Siger of Brabant and is probably written between 1270 and 1277. This paper presents a review of this recently published study. It wants to demonstrate some methodological problems, but above all it is accentuated that this study will contribute greatly to scholarship on Siger of Brabant.

Singular Intellection in Medieval Commentaries on Aristotle’s De anima

Discussions about singular cognition, and its linguistic counterpart, are by no means exclusive to contemporary philosophy. In fact, a strikingly similar discussion, to which several medieval texts bear witness, took place in the late Middle Ages. The aim of this article is to partly reconstruct this medieval discussion, as it took place in Parisian question-commentaries on Aristotle’s De anima, so as to show the progression from the rejection of singular intellection in Siger of Brabant (†ca.1283) to the descriptivist positions of John Duns Scotus (†1308) and John of Jandun (†1328), and finally to the singularism of John Buridan (†ca.1360). All these authors accept some kind of intellectual access to individuals. Therefore, the conundrum is not whether we have some kind of intellectual knowledge of individuals, but rather whether we can know them singularly. This article begins by presenting the crucial obstacle to singular intellection in Siger. Thereafter, the author shows that Jandun and Scotus depart in fundamental ways from Siger’s account, but that for them the intellection of individuals is of a general character. Finally, she proposes that Buridan is a genuine singularist.

Siger of Brabant (c.1240–c.1284)

Born probably circa 1240 in the Duchy of Brabant, Siger of Brabant studied philosophy in the arts faculty at the University of Paris and became regent master there in the 1260s. Various positions which he defended were included in Bishop Etienne Tempier’s condemnations of 1270 and 1277, and he appears to have fled France when cited to appear before the French inquisition. He probably spent his final days in Italy, and died there before November 1284. As a professional teacher of philosophy, Siger regarded it as his primary mission to lecture on Aristotle and other philosophers and to present their views on the points at issue. Early in his career he defended some of the positions condemned by Bishop Tempier, but after 1270 he often nuanced his exposition of such views by noting that he was only presenting the views of the philosophers or of Aristotle, or that he was proceeding philosophically in these discussions. Often regarded as a leading Latin ‘Averroist’, he agreed with Averroes that there is only one human intellect, though he eventually reversed his view on this. His personal philosophy is strongly Aristotelian, but with various elements derived from Neoplationism. On the relationship between essence and existence in created beings, Siger denies that existence is something added to a thing’s essence and holds that the existence of such entities belongs to their essence. He holds that one can demonstrate God’s existence, but insists that Aristotle’s physical argument for a First Mover must be completed by metaphysical argumentation. While denying that human beings in this life enjoy any direct knowledge of the divine essence, he seems open to Averroes’ view that they can reach some knowledge thereof.