Arabic philosophy

Alpha Meizon of Aristotle’s Metaphysics and the Testimony of the MS. Bibl.

Apostolica Vaticana, Ott. Lat. 2048,” in J. Hamesse (ed.), Les traducteurs au

travail: leurs manuscrits et leurs m´ethodes (Turnhout: 2001), 173–206.

5 Ed. A. Pattin, in Tijdschrift voor filosofie 18 (1966), 90–203. New edition in

preparation by Richard Taylor; cf. R. C. Taylor, “Remarks on the Latin Text

and the Translator of the Kal ¯ amf¯ımah.

d.

al-khair/Liber de Causis,” Bulletin

de philosophie m´edi ´evale 31 (1989), 75–102. For Pseudo-Aristotelian works

in Arabic and Latin, see Kraye, Ryan, and Schmitt [60].

6 Ed. S. L. Vodraska, Ph.D. diss., London University, 1969.

7 H. Suchier, Denkma¨ ler Provenzalischer Literatur und Sprache (Halle:

1883), 473–80.

8 Ed. with Roger Bacon’s commentary by R. Steele, Rogeri Baconi Opera

Hactenus Inedita, vol. V (Oxford: 1920), 2–172.

9 Ed. M. Plezia (Warsaw: 1960).

10 C. Burnett, “‘Abd al-Mas¯ıh. ofWinchester,” in L. Nauta and A. Vanderjagt

(eds.), Between Demonstration and Imagination: Essays on the History of

Science and Philosophy Presented to John D. North (Leiden: 1999), 159–69.

11 Ed. G. Th’ery, “Autour du d’ecret de 1210: II. Alexandre d’Aphrodise,”

Biblioth`eque thomiste 7 (Kain: 1926), 74–82; see also C. Burnett, “Sons of

Averroes,” 282. The translations of Gundisalvi (Dominicus Gundissalinus)

fall between ca. 1160 and ca. 1190.

12 Ed. Th’ery, “Autour du d’ ecret,” 92–7, 86–91, and 99–100.

13 Ed. J. R. O’Donnell, Medieval Studies 20 (1958), 239–315.

14 Ed. S. Landauer (Berlin: 1902).

15 Ed.C. Burnett in “Physics before the Physics,” Medioevo 27 (2002), 53–109

(86–105).

16 Ed. F. Hudry in Chrysopoeia 6 (1997–9), 1–154.

17 Ed. J. Heller (Nuremberg: 1549).

(cont.)

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

402 charles burnett

Notes (cont.)

18 Ed. J. Ruska, Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften

und der Medizin 1 (Berlin: 1931).

19 Ed. J. Wilcox, “The Transmission and Influence of Qust.a¯ ibn Lu¯ qa¯ ’s On

the Difference between Spirit and the Soul,” Ph.D. diss., City University of

New York, 1985.

20 Ed. in J. Wilcox and J. M. Riddle, “Qust.a¯ ibn Lu¯ qa¯ ’s Physical Ligatures

and the Recognition of the Placebo Effect,” Medieval Encounters 1 (1995),

1–50.

21 Both translations ed. in R. Lemay, Abu¯ Ma‘shar al-Balkhı¯, Liber Introductorii

Maioris ad Scientiam Judiciorum Astrorum, 9 vols. (Naples, 1995–6;

see vols. V and VIII).

22 This and the following two items are ed. in A. Nagy, Beitra¨ ge zur

Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters, vol. II, pt. 5 (Mu‥ nster: 1897).

23 Ed. C. Burnett in G. Bos and C. Burnett, Scientific Weather Forecasting

in the Middle Ages: The Writings of al-Kindi (London: 2000), 263–310.

24 Ed. M.-T. d’Alverny and F. Hudry, Archives d’histoire doctrinale et

litte´ raire du moyen aˆ ge 41 (1974), 139–259.

25 Ed. Gonz’alez Palencia, 2nd edn. (Madrid: 1953) (new edn. in preparation

by H. Hugonnard-Roche).

26 Ed. E. Gilson, “Les sources gr ’eco-arabes de l’augustinisme avicennisant,”

Archives d’histoire doctrinale et litte´ raire du moyen aˆ ge 4 (1929), 4–149

(115–26).

27 Ed. D. Salman, Recherches de th´eologie ancienne et m´edievale 12 (1940),

33–48.

28 This is a collection of comments on Aristotle’s logic. Al-F¯ar¯ab¯ı’s summaries

of at least the Categories and the De Interpretatione, as well as his

commentaries on the Prior and Posterior Analytics, were known to Albertus

Magnus: see M. Grignaschi, “Les traductions latines des ouvrages de

la logique arabe et l’abr’eg’e d’Alfarabi,” Archives d’histoire doctrinale et

litte´ raire du moyen aˆ ge 39 (1972), 41–107.

29 See I. Bignami-Odier, “Le manuscrit Vatican latin 2186,” Archives

d’histoire doctrinale et litte´ raire du moyen aˆ ge 11 (1938), 133–66, at 137,

154–5.

30 Ed. M. Grignaschi, “Les traductions latines.”

31 Ed.M. Grignaschi and J. Langhade, Deux ouvrages in´edits sur la r ´ethorique

[sic] (Beirut: 1971).

32 Cf. a text ascribed to al-F ¯ar¯ab¯ı inL. Thorndike and P. Kibre,ACatalogue of

Incipits of Mediaeval ScientificWritings in Latin (London: 1963), col. 1253:

“Liber de natura loci ex latitudine et longitudine: Quod naturam loci scire

oportet in scientia naturali . . .”

33 Incorporated into a Latin commentary on Euclid’s Elements in Vatican,

Reg. Lat. 1268, fols. 72r–73r, ed. C. Burnett, “Euclid and al-F ¯ar¯ab¯ı in MS

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Arabic into Latin 403

Vatican, Reg. Lat. 1268” in Festschrift Gerhard Endress (Leuven: 2004), 411–

36.

34The De Perfectione was rewrittenwith reference to the Hebrew by Alessandro

Achillini (1501); both texts are edited in M. Geoffroy and C. Steel,

Averroe`s, La be´atitude de l’aˆme (Paris: 2001).

35 The text is ascribed to “Mahometh discipulus Alquindi” (Muh. ammad,

a disciple of al-Kind¯ı), and entitled Liber Introductorius in Artem Logicae

Demonstrationis. Ed. Nagy, Beitra¨ ge, vol. II, pt. 5, 51–64. See further C. Baffioni,

“Il Liber Introductorius in artem logicae demonstrationis: problemi

storici e filologici,” Studi filosofici 17 (1994), 69–90.

36 Ed. P. Gauthier-Dalch’ e, Revue d’histoire des textes 18 (1988), 137–67.

37 Ed. A. Sannino, “Ermete mago e alchimista nelle biblioteche di Guglielmo

d’Alvernia e Ruggero Bacone,” Studi Medievali 41 (2000), 151–89; see C.

Baffioni, “Un esemplare arabo del Liber de quattuor confectionibus,” in P.

Lucentini et al. (ed.), Hermetism from Late Antiquity to Humanism (Turnhout:

2003), 295–313.

38 Printed in Opera Omnia Isaac (Lyons: 1515).

39 Both versions ed. J. T. Muckle, Archives d’histoire doctrinale et litt ´ eraire

du moyen aˆ ge 11 (1938), 300–40.

40 Ed. A. Birkenmajer, “Avicennas Vorrede zum ‘Liber Sufficientiae’ und

Roger Bacon,” in A. Birkenmajer, Etudes d’histoire des sciences et de la

philosophie dumoyen aˆ ge (Wroclaw: 1970), 89–101. The information on The

Cure comes from M.-T. d’Alverny, “Notes sur les traductions m’edi ’evales

d’Avicenne,” article IV in d’Alverny [248]. The Shifa¯ ’ is divided into jumul

(sing. jumla), which are progressively subdivided into funu¯ n (sing. fann),

maq¯ al ¯ at or “books,” and fus.

u¯ l (sing. fas. l) or “chapters.” The first two chapters

of the logic (j1, f1, bk. 1, chs. 1 and 2) are respectively entitled Capitulum

Primum et Prohemiale ad Ostendendum quid Contineat Liber Asschyphe

and Capitulum de Excitando ad Scientias.

41 Ed. L. Baur, Beitra¨ ge zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters,

vol. IV, pts. 2–3 (Mu‥ nster: 1903), 124–33 (see also 304–8).

42 Corresponding to bk. 3, chs. 1–10 in the Arabic. Arabic bk. 3, chs. 11–15

and bk. 4 do not appear to have been translated into Latin.

43 Ed. M. Renaud, Bulletin de philosophie m´edi ´evale 15 (1973), 92–130.

44 Ed. E. J. Holmyard and D. C. Mandeville (Paris: 1927).

45 Only as an item in the 1338 catalogue of the library of the Sorbonne.

46 Ed. Van Riet, De Anima, vol. II, AvL, 187–210.

47 This and the following translations by Alpago were made in Damascus in

ca. 1500; see M.-T. d’Alverny, “Andrea Alpago, interpr`ete et commentateur

d’Avicenne,” article XIV in d’Alverny [248].

(cont.)

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

404 charles burnett

Notes (cont.)

48 Ed. E. Franceschini in Atti del Reale istituto veneto di scienze, lettere ed

arti 91 (1931–2), 393–597 (the Latin is translated from the Spanish Bocados

de oro). For this sort of wisdom literature in Arabic see Gutas [22].

49 D. Salman, “Algazel et les latins,” Archives d’histoire doctrinale et

litte´ raire du moyen aˆ ge 10 (1936), 103–27 (125–7).

50 Part on logic ed. C. Lohr, Traditio 21 (1965), 223–90 (239–88); metaphysics

and physics ed. J. T. Muckle (Toronto: 1933).

51 Ed. C. Lohr, Diss. Freiburg/Br., 1967, 94–123 (this compendium was also

put into Catalan verse by Llull).

52 ALatin translation of a lost Castilian version made by “Abraham Hebreus”

for Alfonso X of Castile; ed. J. L. Mancha inM. Comes et al. (eds.), “Ochava

espera” y “Astrof´ısica” (Barcelona: 1990), 133–207 (141–97).

53 Ed. J.M.Mill ’as Vallicrosa, Las traducciones orientales en losmanuscritos

de la Biblioteca catedral de Toledo (Madrid: 1942), 285–312.

54 Ed. M. Smith, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 91.45

(2001).

55 Ed. R. Hissette (Leuven: 1996).

56 An editio minor is being prepared by G. Guldentops.

57 See H. Schmieja, “Secundum aliam Translationem: Ein Beitrag zur

arabisch-lateinischen U‥ bersetzung des grossen Physikkommentars von Ibn

Rushd,” in Aertsen and Endress [134], 316–36.

58 Ed. F. J. Carmody and R. Arnzen (Leuven: 2003).

59 Ed. F. S. Crawford (Cambridge, MA: 1953).

60 Ed. E. L. Shields (Cambridge, MA: 1949).

61 An editio minor is being prepared by D. N. Hasse.

62 Ed. A. Coviello and P. E. Fornaciari (Florence: 1992).

63 Ed. in C. Steel and G. Guldentops, “An Unknown Treatise of Averroes,”

Recherches de th´eologie et philosophie m´edi ´evales 64 (1997), 86–135 (94–

135).

64 Arabic, Hebrew and Latin versions ed. C. Burnett andM. Zonta, Archives

d’histoire doctrinale et litte´ raire du moyen aˆ ge 67 (2000), 295–335.

65 Ed.M. Alonso, Teolog´ıa de Averroes: estudios documentos (Madrid: 1947),

357–65.

66 Ed. B. H. Zedler (Milwaukee, WI: 1961).

67 For the medieval Latin translations of Maimonides, see W. Kluxen, “Literargeschichtliches

zum lateinischen Moses Maimonides,” Recherches de

th´eologie ancienne et m´edi ´evale 21 (1954), 23–50.

68 The last four items are included in Epistolae seu Quesita Logica Diversorum

Doctorum Arabum precipue Averroys. The original Arabic texts are

not known, and the last three authors have not been identified.

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

hossein ziai

19 Recent trends in Arabic and

Persian philosophy

In this chapter I will discuss Arabic and Persian philosophical trends

as presented in texts mainly from the sixteenth and seventeenth

centuries and their more recent continuation. Philosophical activity

continued especially in the lands marked by the geopolitical boundaries

of Persianate influence, centered in the land of Iran as marked

since the Safavid period beginning in 1501.1 Of the philosophers in

the earlier, formative period of Arabic philosophy, it was Avicenna

whose works made the most direct and lasting impact on all subsequent

philosophical trends and schools. The structure, techniques,

and language of Avicenna’s philosophy – best exemplified in his two

main works, al-Isha¯ ra¯ t wa al-tanbı¯ha¯ t and al-Shifa¯ ’ – define a holistic

system against which all subsequent philosophical writings, in

both Arabic and Persian, are measured. Avicenna’s philosophical

texts give Arabic and Persian Peripatetic philosophy its technical

language and methodology, as well as setting out a range of philosophical

problems in semantics, logic, ontology, epistemology, and

so on. Later trends must be regarded as refinements and developments

from within philosophical texts already established by the

twelfth century C.E.

Some Orientalist and apologetichistorians have chosen imprecise,

general descriptions such as “theosophy,” “Orientalwisdom,” “transcendent

theosophy,” “perennial wisdom,” “mystical experience,”

and the like, to describe an entire corpus of texts after Avicenna.2 I

will avoid such imprecise descriptions and focus on the philosophical

intention and value of the texts themselves, rather than the supposed

“spiritual,” “S.

u¯ fı¯,” or “esoteric” dimension of a wide and ill-defined

range of Arabic and Persian texts. As Fazlur Rahman has written, we

405

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

406 hossein ziai

interpret post-Avicennian texts in terms of an ill-defined mysticism

only “at the cost . . . of its purely intellectual and philosophical hard

core, which is of immense value and interest to the modern student

of philosophy.”3

The most significant philosophical trends after Avicenna attempt

to reconstruct consistent, holistic systems that refine, rather than

refute, a range of philosophical propositions and problems, thus rescuing

philosophy from the charges brought against it by al-Ghaz¯ al¯ı.

Increasing significance is also placed on constructing philosophical

systems more compatible with religion. The philosophical system

with the deepest impact on later trends, second only to that of

Avicenna, is the “philosophy of Illumination” of Suhraward¯ı.4 The

system defines a new method, the “Science of Lights” (‘ilm alanwa

¯ r), which holds that we obtain the principles of science immediately,

via “knowledge by presence” (al-‘ilm al-h. ud. u¯ rı¯). About half

a century after the execution of Suhraward¯ı in Aleppo in 1191, the

philosophy of Illumination was heralded as a “more complete system”

(al-niz.

a¯mal-atamm) by Illuminationist commentators starting

with Shams al-Dı¯n al-Shahrazu¯ rı¯.5 The aimto build such “complete”

or holistic systems is distinctive of later philosophical trends, especially

in the seventeenth century. Such systems aim to expand the

structure of Aristotelian philosophy to include carefully selected

religious topics, defending the harmony between philosophy and

religion.

In what follows Iwill therefore examine, first, the relation of these

holistic systems to the older Peripatetic and newer Illuminationist

traditions; second, the question of a “harmonization” between philosophy

and religion, focusing on the work of the Persian philosopher

Ibn Torkeh Is.fah¯an¯ı; and finally, specific philosophical problems of

interest in the later tradition. It should be emphasized that though

many thinkers in the later tradition, from Suhraward¯ı onward, do

discuss “mystical” phenomena, and especially the epistemology of

experiential and inspirational knowledge, they do so from the perspective

of philosophy. The representative figures of later trends are

rationalist thinkers and scientists (‘u¯ lama’); none were members of

S.

u¯ fı¯ brotherhoods, and almost all – especially from the seventeenth

century on – belonged to the ‘ulama¯ ’, that is, the Shı¯‘ite clerical

classes.6

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Recent trends 407

systematic philosophy

Intense philosophical activity took place from the mid-sixteenth

century, first in Sh¯ır ¯az and subsequently in Isfah¯an, lasting for about

a century and a half. This has been described as a “revival of philosophy,”

which led to what has been called “the school of Is.fah¯an.”

The most important figure of this period is S. adr al-D¯ın Sh¯ır ¯az¯ı,

Mull¯a S. adr¯ a, who was the student of the school’s “founder,” M¯ır

D¯am¯ad, and whose greatest philosophical achievement is his magnum

opus, al-H. ikma al-muta‘a¯ liya fı¯ al-asfa¯ r al-arba‘a al-‘aqliyya

(usually referred to simply as Asfa¯ r). His system and “school” are

also called al-h. ikma al-muta‘a¯ liya, or metaphysical philosophy.7

Mull¯a S. adr¯a’s many philosophical works, as well as his commentaries

and independent works on juridical and other religious subjects,

fall within the school’s rational and “scientific” (‘ilm¯ı) intention.

Ensuing scholastic activity of the Sh¯ı‘ite centers based on this

system continues today. A significant development, which probably

owes more to philosophers such asS.

adr¯a than some would admit, is

the theoretical Shı¯‘ite syllabus of the intellectual sciences (‘ulu¯m-e

‘aqlı¯), the higher levels of which include the study of the Asfa¯ r

preceded by the study of philosophical textbooks, notably Ath¯ır

al-Dı¯n al-Abharı¯’sHida¯ya al-h. ikma (Guide to Philosophy), onwhich

numerous commentaries, glosses, and super-glosses have been written

including one by S.

adr¯a himself. In short, the system al-h. ikma

al-muta‘a¯ liya and its repercussions still define intellectual Shı¯‘ism

at present.

Unlike Avicenna’s al-Shifa¯ ’, the Asfa¯ r has no separate section

on logic or physics; it thus departs from the Peripatetic division of

philosophy into logic, physics, and metaphysics, seen not only in

Avicenna but also in such textbooks as the aforementioned Hida¯ya

al-h. ikma. Instead the emphasis is on the study of being, the subject of

the first of the Asfa¯ r’s four books. The work also differs structurally

from Suhraward¯ı’s Philosophy of Illumination, andS.

adr¯a rejects Illuminationist

views regarding many philosophical problems. Still he

follows Illuminationist methodology, despite refining Suhraward¯ı’s

positions in light of S.

adr¯a’s understanding of Peripatetic philosophy.

His overall Illuminationist outlook is evident in several

domains.

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

408 hossein ziai

(a) the principles of science and epistemology. In the Asfa¯ r

“primary intuition” takes the place of Aristotelian definition (horos,

horismos, Avicenna’s al-h. add al-ta¯mm) as the foundation of science

and syllogistic reasoning. This non-Peripatetic position, which is

claimed to be Stoic in its original formulation, posits a primary intuition

of time-space, and holds that “visions” and “personal revelations”

(including religious revelation) are epistemically valid.S.

adr¯a

here follows the Illuminationists in holding that knowledge by presence

(al-‘ilm al-h. ud. u¯ rı¯) is prior to predicative knowledge (al-‘ilm

al-h. us.

u¯ lı¯). He also dispenses, as Suhrawardı¯ had, with the central

role of the Active Intellect as the tenth intellect of a numbered, discrete

(that is, discontinuous) cosmology, in obtaining first principles.

He praises the Illuminationist notion of a multiplicity of intellects

(kathra ‘uqu¯ l), which are distinguished only by equivocation

in terms of degrees of “more” and “less,” as an “improvement”

on the Peripatetic model. This gives rise to S.

adr¯a’s theory of the

“unity” or “sameness” of the knower and the known, perhaps the

most discussed theory in all recent philosophical writings in Arabic

and Persian. The influence ofS.

adr¯a’s epistemology continues today,

as in the work of the eminent Sh¯ı‘ite philosopher, Seyyed Jal ¯ al al-D¯ın

A¯ shtiya¯nı¯.8

(b) ontology. The “primacy of quiddity” (as.a¯ la al-ma¯hiyya) is a

central tenet of Illuminationism, but is rejected by S.

adr¯a in favor

of the “primacy of being” (as.a¯ la al-wuju¯ d). Illuminationists also

divided metaphysics into two parts: metaphysica generalis and

metaphysica specialis, that is, the study of pure being as opposed

to the study of qualified being. This division, upheld and refined

by S.

adr¯ a, is incorporated into every philosophical work in the later

tradition, up to the present.

(c) science and religion. Aristotle’s views on the foundation of

philosophy are refined and expanded byS.

adr¯a. His theory of knowledge

is more along the lines of Illuminationist principles, according

to which knowledge is not founded primarily on the input of

sensation and abstraction of universals, but rather on the knowing

subject (al-mawd. u¯ ‘ al-mudrik) itself. This subject knows its

“I” – al-’ana’iyya al-muta‘a¯ liya – by means of the principle of

self-consciousness. The “I” intuitively recovers primary notions of

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006

Recent trends 409

time-space, accepts the validity of such things as the primary intelligibles,

and confirms the existence of primary truths and of God.

The system is thus seen later as providing a philosophical foundation

more congenial to religious doctrine. This paves the way for the

triumph of al-h. ikma al-muta‘a¯ liya in the scholastic Shı¯‘ite centers

of Iran. If we ponder the impact ofS.

adr¯a’s system on Sh¯ı‘ite political

doctrine, we may fathom how intellectual Sh¯ı‘ism, as the dominant

recent trend in philosophy, has embraced the primacy of practical

reason over theoretical science, especially in the last century. Theoretical

philosophy is subject to the Illuminationist critique that it

is impossible to reach universal propositions that are always true –

the Peripatetic “laws of science.” Instead “living” sages in every era

are thought to determine what “scientific” attitude the society must