[lit-ideas] Re: The 'Near-Eastern' influences on the Greek philosophy, sc...

  • From: Michael Chase <goya@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 12:03:41 +0200

Le 12 avr. 04, =E0 10:08, Omar Kusturica a =E9crit :

>
> --- Robert Paul <Robert.Paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>> Omar writes:
>>
>> There are resonances of both Plato
>> and Aristotle [in 'Avicenna']. Then you have
>> Al-Ghazali (Alghazal)
>> and Ibn-Rushd (Averroes) whose work is primarily or
>> largely philosophical - yes, Al-Ghazali was a
>> theologian, but one deeply steeped in philosophy,
>> which he did not always sufficiently credit - and
>> who
>> certainly have something to say to us today.
>>
>> The first Arab scholars to do philosophy in a
>> recognizably Western sense were
>> apparently Neoplatonists: they were later led to
>> Aristotle via a study of Galen.

M.C. I'm not so sure about this: Aristotle was studied right from the=20
beginnings of the translation movement from Greek to Syriac to Arabic.=20=

Ishaq ibn Hunain , son of the great Hunain ibn Ishaq (808-873), already=20=

translated the Categories and the De interpretatione=A0; Abu Bishr Matta=20=

(died 940) was one of the great early translators of Aristotle; one of=20=

his students was al-Farabi (died 950), who already wrote commentaries=20
or epitomes of Aristotle's Organon, Rhetoric, and Porphyry's=20
Isagoge.Unsurprising, the Arabs adopted the philosophical curriculum=20
studied by their immediate predecessors, the Syriacs, and the latter=20
had taken over the late Greco-Roman Neoplatonic curriculum, lock, stock=20=

and barrel. In this curriculum, Arisotle was studied in an invariable=20
ascending order: starting with the logical works, one then moved on to=20=

ethics, then physics, then metaphysics.



>> Avicenna (a Persian) may have been one of the many
>> thinkers of his time who
>> attempted to bring about a 'reconciliation' of Plato
>> and Aristotle.

M.C. I don't really agree here. The doctrine of the ultimate=20
equivalence of Plato and Aristotle had been taught in Greek Platonism=20
since the time of Porphyry (late 3rd-early 4th centuries). Ibn Sina=20
despised Porphyry, and was not terribly well disposed towards Plato.=20
Above all, Ibn Sina denies the existence of separate, intelligible=20
Platonic forms (*al-ma'na al-ma'q=FBl al-muf=E2riq*), cf. Il=E2hiy=E2t =
Bk. 7,=20
ch. 2.


        We have to remember that unlike the works of Aristotle, whose =
works=20
were translated in their entirety into Arabic quite early on, and=20
thereby preserved for the West, the works of Plato, with very few=20
exceptions, seem never to have been translated into Arabic. There is a=20=

rather fundamental break in Islamic philosophy, between the Western=20
*falasafa*, infleunced primarily by Aristotle (al-Kindi, al-Farabi, Ibn=20=

Sina, Ibn Rushd, et.) and Eastern (i.e. Iranian) Islamic thought, which=20=

turned primarily to Plato.  Thus the Iranians thought Ibn Sina was too=20=

hard on Plato. Reacting to Ibn Sina, the Iranian philosopher Sohrawardi=20=

writes as follows : "Although the First Master (Aristotle) was a man of=20=

great value and eminent authority, a man of profound mind and perfect=20
speculative virtue, it is nevertheless unacceptable to exaggerate one's=20=

praise for him, so that one ends up denigrating those who were his=20
masters..."

        And Sohrawardi's commentator Shahrazori expands on Sohrawardi's=20=

comments as follows=A0: "Aristotle had received wisdom from Plato, who=20=

had received it from Socrates...If, therefore, Avicenna had been the=20
slightest bit equitable, he would have recognized that Aristotle owed=20
the sources he developed to Plato".
>
> They might have been also hoping to forestall
> religious objections if they could present Plato and
> Aristotle as being basically in agreement with each
> other, and both as basically religious thinkers.
> (Notably this was suggested by Al Farabi in his
> Philosophy of Plato and Aristotle.)

M.C. I think matters are less complex than this. Islamic philosophers=20
(most of them, at any rate) presented Plato and Aristotle as in=20
agreement because their sources (i.e. the Greek Neoplatonists, at least=20=

most of them)  did.


>  I am not sure why
> this did not work - it seems plausible enough to me.

M.C. Who says it didn't work?
>
> Best, Mike.
>
Michael Chase
(goya@xxxxxxxxxxx)
CNRS UPR 76
7, rue Guy Moquet
Villejuif 94801
France

------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. lit-ideas
  3. Archive
  4. 04-2004