2025 Thomas Class Today – Prof. Richard C. Taylor

18 December 2025 KUL student presentations of course paper work.

11 December 2025 KUL student presentations of course paper work.

4 December 2025

Your presentation will focus on selected passages from the Summa Theologiae, Third Part, q.9, a.1-4; q.12, a.1-4; q.15, a.8 & 10; q.21, a.1-2.

After you have had time to read and reflect on the assigned texts, we may — if you wish — arrange a meeting to discuss your approach and presentation together.

In the meantime, we encourage you to begin preparing by reading Tertia Pars, Question 9 (“Christ’s Knowledge in General”): st3-ques09.pdf

As a secondary resource, you may find helpful Richard Cross, The Metaphysics of Incarnation: Thomas Aquinas to Scotus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), especially the section on Aquinas

27 November 2025

Precise assignment:

Thomas Aquinas’s Commentary on the Gospel of John. Link

Prologue
Chapter 1, lectiones 1–16
Chapter 9, lectiones 1–4

This is a biblical commentary, and thus a philosophical genre quite distinct from the summae or quaestiones disputatae, as well as from literal commentaries on Aristotle. Thomas holds that Sacred Scripture contains, in addition to its literal sense, figurative and spiritual senses. On the doctrine of the senses of Scripture, the research of Father Henri de Lubac, S.J., remains fundamental, and I recommend that you consult his work Medieval Exegesis. (See Some Resources)

Hereafter, you will also find a reference to a recent and up-to-date overview by Gilbert Dahan, which may serve as a useful introduction.

Your task is to understand the method of analysis adopted by Thomas and, by examining the text yourselves, to identify the key elements relevant to his conception of human knowledge.

Please make sure to submit your presentation handout by November 25 (midnight)!

You will be working on selected passages from Aquinas’s Commentary on the Gospel of John.

Prof. Robiglio will send you the precise sections for your analysis within a week, certainly within the next ten days. After you have had time to read and reflect on the selected passages, he could – if you wish – schedule a meeting to discuss your approach and presentation together.

In the meantime, we encourage you to begin preparing by reading the short “Prologue” to Aquinas’s Commentary on John:

Thomas Aquinas: Commentary on the Gospel of John

As a secondary resource, you may find helpful the 2005 volume edited by Michael Dauphinas and Matthew Levering (which offers thematic and exegetical insights into the commentary): Reading John with St. Thomas Aquinas: Theological Exegesis and Speculative Theology on JSTOR

You may also find stimulating an old article by Cornelio Fabro: “The Overcoming of the Neoplalonic Triad of Being, Life and Intellect by Thomas Aquinas”, in Dominic O’Meara (ed.), Neoplatonism and Christian Thought: Albany NY: SUNY Press, 1981, pp. 97-108.

For those interested in a broader and historically more articulated perspective, see T. Engberg-Pedersen, John and Philosophy: A New Reading of the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017). One may also consult the older – though superseded, yet still stimulating – work of C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009 [1st ed. 1953]).

20 November 2025

Team 6a (Kubashev, Gardner, Hockett) will focus on Aquinas’s On the Unity of the Intellect Against the Averroists (1270). Last week we had a detailed discussion of the Arabic tradition on intellect by Aquinas in the Summa contra gentiles, so the issues are not unknown to you. On the Unity of the Intellect is a five (5) chapter short work focused on the receptive possible intellect (=material intellect in Averroes). Aquinas works even harder here than in the SCG to explain Aristotle and to refute those who would draw upon and follow closely an interpretation of Averroes. Be aware of the seriousness of this work which is evident in the harsh words of Aquinas at the end of this treatise. Much was at stake since some thinkers under various sorts of influence by doctrines considered to be those of Averroes pushed hard for the value of philosophy as the science most fulfilling and rewarding, even to the point of implications that threatened deep central teachings of Christianity. Other relevant work: Aquinas gives a masterful account of the soul and the issues in his Disputed Questions on the Soul (1265-66). Your focus should be on Question 3 of this work as context. This was written around the same time as his account in the Summa theologiae, 1a Q.79 on the intellectual powers of the soul. I leave it to you to figure out what may be of value for your presentation in this work. You should consult Aquinas against the Averroists: on there being only one intellect, by Ralph McInerny (1993)

Team 6b (Roushdy, Christon, Davies) will focus on the distinct understandings of the knowability of the Divine Essence East and West and how Aquinas reasons that the Divine Essence is both knowable and able to be named. Relevant texts are In 1 Sent. d.1, q.1, a.3; SCG 3, ch. 51-57, 1, ch. 30-37; ST 1a, q.12, a.1 and q. 13. Also De Veritate, q.8, a.1, resp.

Brenet on Averroes and European Paintings; English summary available through Google Gemini.

13 November 2025

Instructions for the KUL presenters

We will shortly share with you the specific sections selected for your analysis.

As a first step, please read Aquinas’s short “Prologue” to his Commentary on Aristotle’s De sensu et sensato, and then Book 1, ch. 1-4, 9, 14-18. Presenters should consult the Leonine critical edition, Opera omnia XLV, 2 (1985).

Thomas Aquinas: Commentary on Aristotle’s De sensu et sensato, English.

Also study Kevin White’s essay on Aquinas’s Prologues (2005):

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS ON PROLOGUES

You may also find the following studies at Some Resources especially helpful:

D. De Haan, “Perception and the Vis Cogitativa: A Thomistic Analysis of Aspectual, Actional, and Affectional Percepts,” in: American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 88 (2014), no. 3, pp. 397–437.
M. Acton, “Reflective Imagination: Time Perception in Thomas Aquinas I,” in: Rivista di Filosofia Neo-Scolastica 114 (2022), no. 4, pp. 859–872; and “Reflective Imagination: Time Perception in Thomas Aquinas II,” in: Rivista di Filosofia Neo-Scolastica 115 (2023), no. 1, pp. 79–104.

BTW, DeHaan and Acton were students who worked with Profs. Robiglio and Taylor. DeHaan has a multiyear position at Oxford’s Dominican and Jesuit Colleges. He has published his dissertation and also many articles. Acton took this course with us in Fall 2021. His two articles in Rivista di Filosofia Neo-Scholastica came out of his course paper submitted to us 19 January 2022.

6 November 2025

Instructions for the KUL presenters:

The texts you will be working with are drawn from Thomas Aquinas’s Summa contra Gentiles.

As mentioned on October 13, please make sure you have read the introductory reading on the Summa contra Gentiles available on Toledo, as well as the first five chapters of Book I. You should also take into account Norman Kretzmann’s The Metaphysics of Creation, which will be a useful reference for your analysis.

Against this background, you receive here the specific passages that you are expected to analyze, contextualize, and present in class:

Book I, chapters 3-8; Book II, chapters 59-61 & chapters 73-78.

Please send us the final version of your handout by November 4 (midnight), following the same format used by Group KUL-1 last week.

30 October 2025: Advice

As a first step, please read the Introductory Chapter on the Summa contra Gentiles available on Toledo (as Optional Reading). As a second step, review the texts from Disputed Questions on Truth (De Veritate) that will be presented and discussed on October 23 — particularly De Veritate 10, which immediately precedes the composition of the ScG. In addition, we recommend reading Book I, chapters 1–5, to gain a sense of the overall project of the Summa contra Gentiles. Thomas Aquinas: Contra Gentiles: English

23 October 2025: Advice

(i) Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Peter Lombard’s Sentences, Book IV, Distinction 50, Question 1, Article 1: Utrum anima aliquid intelligere possit a corpore separata– Sent.IV.D50.Q1.A1 – Aquinas. This passage addresses a crucial test case in Aquinas’s theory of human knowledge. It represents his earliest formulation (1257-58), written just before the Disputed Questions on Truth. (ii) Thomas Aquinas, Disputed Questions on Truth, Question 10: On Mind: https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~QDeVer.Q10 [List of articles: https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~QDeVer.Q10.T. This is a rich and complex Quaestio, composed of 13 articles. You should read the entire question carefully, but for the purposes of our course and your presentation, focus especially on: Article 2: On the relationship between mind and intellect – https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~QDeVer.Q10.A2; Article 6: On the mind’s dependence on the body – https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~QDeVer.Q10.A6; Article 8: On the unity of intellect and the soul’s cognitive activity – https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~QDeVer.Q10.A8. As you’ll see, for instance, Articles 4 and 5 will help you better understand the framework for Article 6, etc. Your team handout should focus on the four articles mentioned above (Sent. IV, d. 50, q. 1, a. 1 and De veritate, q. 10, aa. 2, 6, and 8), while demonstrating a solid understanding of the entire Question 10 of De veritate as their broader context. Please make sure to coordinate among yourselves to divide the workload efficiently. We are confident your discussion will bring out some illuminating insights from these challenging but rewarding texts.

16 October 2025: Prof. Taylor at Leuven for this class.

Thomas on the (largely philosophical) reasoning for the immortality of soul.’ For this presentation students should consider doing 1-2 pages summarizing key relevant points in (A) Whether the human soul is of the divine essence aquinas.cc/la/en/~Sent.II.D17.Q1.A1 and (B) Whether the human soul is constituted of any matter. https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~Sent.II.D17.Q1.A2. In (B) there is a reference to Sent II, D.3, Q1, A1 Whether an angel is composed of matter and form. I would like presenters to include those first ca. two pages because it establishes the essence-existence ‘composition’ in angels and all other creatures thanks to Avicenna. For the remaining 4 single spaced pages the presenters should consider expounding Aquinas on Whether the soul of man is corrupted at the corruption of the body aquinas.cc/la/en/~Sent.II.D19.Q1.A1.

Whether the rational soul or intellect is numerically one in all men aquinas.cc/la/en/~Sent.II.D17.Q2.A1. This is Thomas’s review of the Greek and Arabic traditions on the unity of intellect (AI, and in the case of Averroes, AI and PI or ‘Material’ Intellect). Prof. Taylor’s 2013 treatment of this is the most thorough discussion available. MU students may use it as a source guide but may not not just to copy from it.

9 October 2025

Part 1: Questions from KUL students on R. C. Taylor, “Thomas Aquinas On Intellect and Abstraction. Formative Foundations.” SECOND PROOFS. FOR PERSONAL USE. DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE OUR CLASS in Some Resources.

Part 2: Prof. Robiglio on Thomas and his Latin Tradition Sources

Assignments: Read (i) Marcia Colish on Peter Lombard; (ii) Aquinas’s Prologues to the first and second books of his Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard: Sent.I – Aquinas and Sent.II – Aquinas; (iii) In class on 25 September we mentioned that Bonaventure was writing his own Commentary on the Sentences and was just a bit ahead of Thomas who was reading the work of Bonaventure. It may be valuable to read the Prologue to his Commentary on the work of God Link.

KUL students may also want to view the video lectures on the Arabic tradition HERE.

2 October 2025

Addendum (A) 1 October 2025: In class and in conversations with the MU class I have indicated that the reasoning of Thomas and others of the Latin tradition on the per se intellectuality and immateriality of the human soul has been challenged by B. Carlos Bazán. Because of that I have recommended to the presenters preparing their 16 October papers two articles by Bazán available in Some Resources. I have also mentioned my own skeptical concerns about Thomas’s philosophical account. I now add for your consideration the opinion of Thomas’s teacher, Albert the Great who thinks that the afterlife of the soul is not the business of philosophers but rather that of theologians and writes the following in his Super Ethica (1250-52):

“It should be said that the notion that the souls of the dead remain [in existence] after death cannot be sufficiently known through philosophy. When it is supposed that they remain [in existence] nothing at all can be known through philosophy regarding their state and how they relate to the things which come to pass regarding us. Rather, these things are known by a higher infused non-natural light, which is a disposition of faith.”

“Similarly, a separated soul has a noble operation which cannot be known by us through philosophy . . . and if intellect is not a particular form, it cannot be demonstrated that many souls remain distinct [in existence] but rather for all there will be one soul, as the Commentator asserts in his Commentary on the De Anima. In this way he explains it on the basis of the authority of Aristotle, although it is contrary to faith”

“It should be said that, as was said, philosophy has no business considering the state of the separated soul, because it cannot be accepted through its principles. Hence, how the separated soul relates to things which take place here and how it may be aided by them does not pertain to the philosopher but to the theologian.”

“It should be said that the error of some of the Arabs was that our intellect does not remain [in existence] according to being after death, but only according to essence. In this way they said that it remains in the tenth intelligence from which it flows, and in this way there remains only one soul. [This is] because, since the individuation of the soul is only in virtue of body, when what made it a particular has been removed, there will remain only one common thing. But this is heresy.”

These quotations are taken from R. C. Taylor, Ibn Rushd and Averroes: A Question of More Than a Name? Philosophical Teachings of Ibn Rushd and the Construction of Averroes by Albert the Great,” Philosmus. Journal of Philosophy and Sciences in Muslim Contexts 5-6 (Rabat 2024) 239-266.

Addendum (B) 1 October: Remarks on bibliographical searching with a sample from Phil Papers and the use of ChatGPT.

Change of Plans for this Day due to a conflict with the Dean’s welcome reception at KUL.

The new plan for the 2 October class: (Please remind me to record the class!)

(1) A brief review of my Medieovo paper and then MU student questions (at least 2 each) on issues discussed in that paper. R. C. Taylor, “Thomas Aquinas On Intellect and Abstraction. Formative Foundations.” SECOND PROOFS. FOR PERSONAL USE. DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE OUR CLASS in Some Resources.

(2) Prof. Robiglio will share with you how to read Thomas’s various ways of writing. E.g., Commentary on the Sentences , On Being and Essence, Summa contra gentiles, special Disputed Questions, Aristotelian commentaries, the famous Summa theologiae and other theological writings. This is important so that you can understand the function of the parts of writings you will be expounding. Below you can see in (A) a reference to Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, Book 2, Distinction 17, Question 1, Article 1. In Article 1 you will see him start with Objections (negative on the issue), then proceed to Sed contras (positive authorities on the issue), Thomas’s Solution or Response on the issue and finally his detailed responses to the Objections. It is a brilliant system for in-depth and rigorous study, reasoning and argument on philosophical and theological issues.

(3) We will then use what we learn to read the assigned texts for 16 October presentations in this order:

(3a) Walk through the 4 texts indicated below for first presentation

Thomas on the (largely philosophical) reasoning for the immortality of soul.’ For this presentation I want them to do 1-2 pages summarizing key relevant points in (A) Whether the human soul is of the divine essence aquinas.cc/la/en/~Sent.II.D17.Q1.A1 and (B) Whether the human soul is constituted of any matter. https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~Sent.II.D17.Q1.A2. In (B) there is a reference to Sent II, D.3, Q1, A1 Whether an angel is composed of matter and form. I would like presenters to include those first ca. two pages because it establishes the essence-existence ‘composition’ in angels and all other creatures thanks to Avicenna. For the remaining 4 single spaced pages I want the presenters to expound Whether the soul of man is corrupted at the corruption of the body aquinas.cc/la/en/~Sent.II.D19.Q1.A1.

(3b) Walk through the 1 text indicated for the second presentation.

(4) Advise students regarding secondary source bibliography.

Original Plan revised due to absence of KUL students.

Original:

Read:

R. C. Taylor forthcoming 2025/26 (Springer Handbook of Islamic Philosophy), “The Value of the Arabic Philosophical Tradition for the Thought of Thomas Aquinas” in Some Resources.

Olga Lizzini, “Human Knowledge and Separate Intellect,” Routledge Companion to Islamic Philosophy, pp. 285-300. (Al-Kindi to Ibn Sina) Available in Some Resources.

Luis López-Farjeat, “Al-Farabi’s Psychology and Epistemology,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

R. C. Taylor, “Thomas Aquinas On Intellect and Abstraction. Formative Foundations.” SECOND PROOFS. FOR PERSONAL USE. DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE OUR CLASS in Some Resources.

Our first class with student presentations on 16 October will concern Thomas’s earliest major work, his Commentary on the Sentences (1252-55) and its conception of the soul and the intellect in the context of teachings from the Arabic tradition. Mondin’s very brief account of some philosophical teachings in the Commentary on the Sentences is valuable for us to see some key doctrines and topics treated in his Commentary. For Mondin, see Some Resources.

25 September 2025

Complete reading of Porro’s book on Aquinas.

Read Cory, Therese Scarpelli, 2022, “The Nature of Cognition and Knowledge,” available in Some Resources.

Marquette Teams for presentations on 16 October:

(1a) Rev. Hartman, Caden Page, Holly Schmit: Aquinas on the Human Soul. Main text to be explicated: (C) Whether the soul of man is corrupted at the corruption of the body aquinas.cc/la/en/~Sent.II.D19.Q1.A1; to be preceded by very brief accounts of (A) Whether the human soul is of the divine essence aquinas.cc/la/en/~Sent.II.D17.Q1.A1 and (B) Whether the human soul is constituted of any matter aquinas.cc/la/en/~Sent.II.D17.Q1.A2. Suggested secondary literature includes two articles on soul by B. Carlos Bazán available in Some Resources.

(1b) Joseph Nguyễn, Allan Schiller, Tyler Hocket. Whether the rational soul or intellect is numerically one in all men aquinas.cc/la/en/~Sent.II.D17.Q2.A1. Suggested secondary literature includes Taylor 2013 Aquinas & the Arabs available in Some Resources.

Mondin’s very brief account of some philosophical teachings in the Commentary on the Sentences is valuable for us to see some key doctrines and topics treated in his Commentary. For Mondin, see Some Resources.

For Marquette Students after the connection with KU Leuven:

Léon J. Elders, “Averroès et Thomas D’Aquin” Link: https://www.leoelders.org/docs/1994/1994_Averroes_et_Thomas_d_Aquin.pdf Exercise: translation with Google Gemini.

Reading the texts of Thomas Aquinas:

https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~Sent.I; https://isidore.co/aquinas; https://isidore.co/aquinas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm.

https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~Sent.II.D17.Q1

Jean-Baptiste BRENET, Le dehors dedans. Averroès en peinture. Will AI translate this into English or just summarize it?

18 September 2025

Professionalism: AI. Ask ChatGPT “How can AI be valuable for study of the history of philosophy?” Then ask Gemini, Grok, claud.ai, and Microsoft Copilot. We are testing options of positive ways to use AI in our work. Will AI replace RA work in bibliography and summarizing research articles for faculty? See the work I had AI do on the Baltuta article in Some Resources.

We continue our work in preparation for our study of the teachings of Thomas Aquinas.

Discussion of student questions based on Assignments.

Varia: How Aristotle understands light and uses it metaphorically;

Asssignments

Our last class must have been exhausting for you since I covered so much of the Arabic Classical Rationalist Philosophical Tradition. When we reached Ibn Rushd / Averroes I had no assigned readings of his works for you and just sketched an overview. So I think it is important that I provide you with an introduction to this author and his writings relevant to our class discussions. The most productive way to do this is to provide you with two video lectures I prepared on Ibn Rushd / Averroes. These are: (i) an introductory video that quickly turns to his reasoning in his Short Commentary or Epitome of Aristotle’s De Anima and his Middle Commentary on Aristotle’s De Anima: Link. These writings were NOT available in Latin translation in the 13th century; and (ii) a video on a work immediately prior to his Long Commentary on the De Anima and on his final teaching in the Long Commentary on the De Anima. This work is his most important writing on soul and intellect and was available in Latin translation. (An English transition of the Latin with lengthy introductions was published in 2009.) Link to video.

Human Knowing in the 13th century: (i) the Early 13th century: In 2024 I published an article, “Albert the Great and Two Momentous Interpretive Accounts of Averroes” in Albert the Great and his Arabic Sources, Katja Krause and Richard C. Taylor, eds., Brepols Publishers: Turnhout, 2024. Book available as free download: Link. Download this article and read on pp. 73-83 my detailed account entitled “Ibn Rushd on Human Intellect.” and “A Tale of Two Averroisms” with pp. 89-98 ; (ii) Albert, Thomas and the Arabic Tradition: Link; (iii) for a short look ahead, read Baltuta, Elena, 2012, “Thomas Aquinas on Bridging the Gap Between Mind and Reality,” available in Some Resources.

John Philoponus and al-Kindi

11 September 2025

(A) Professionalism in Philosophy: conference presentations (5 + 4); 1979, evaluations, revisions, proofs; evaluating articles and book manuscripts;

(B) Student questions and the issue of forming questions.

Lecture outline 11 Sept 2025 (posted 7 Sept 2025)

1. Greek and Syriac into Arabic: Pre-Arabic Context; Early Translations; Two Translation Teams in 9th century Baghdad and their work: al-Kindi (d. 873) & the Circle of al-Kindi and Nestorian Ḥunayn Ibn Ishāq (d. 873) and his Team; 10th century Baghdad: Greek and Syriac into Arabic, Comments on Greek, Syriac and Arabic translators and what cannot be known of the times directly.

2. The Circle of al-Kindi: Aristotelianism and Platonism combined. Major works. The Plotiniana Arabica and the Kalām fī maḥḍ al-khair (Discourse on the Pure Good, Latin Liber de causis). Importance for our topic of human knowing.

3. Al-Kindī (d. 873) on human knowing. Platonic principles and Aristotelian reasoning.

4. Ḥunayn Ibn Ishāq (d. 873) and his Team: Greek into Syriac into Arabic; Greek into Arabic. Story of his study of Greek; Galen and more; Aristotle and commentaries.

5. Al-Fārābī (d. 950) : Al-Fārābī’s Risālah fī-l-‘Aql / Treatise on the Intellect / De Intellectu; Human intellect and Agent Intellect; shai’un mā (“something”); metaphysical abstraction (transfer from one mode of being to another: al-Fārābī, Ibn Rushd / Averroes, Aquinas), knowledge and the afterlife; Ishāq ibn Ḥunayn, son of Ḥunayn Ibn Ishāq translator of Alexander’s De Intellectu and Themistius’s Paraphrase of the De Anima. Reading Alexander and Themistius with the Plotiniana Arabica. Reading order. A few remarks on philosophy and religion.

6. Ibn Sīnā / Avicenna (d. 1037): rational soul and material body; brain functions / internal senses: common sense, retentive imagination, compositive imagination (= cogitative power used by intellect), estimative power, memory (see Black); emanation from and/or conjunction with the transcendent Agent Intellect. Apprehending the middle term. Empiricism or emanation-conjunction? The importance of Themistius. Immortality and happiness. A few remarks on philosophy and religion.

7. Ibn Rushd / Averroes (d. 1198): Commentaries on De Anima: Short, Middle, Long; relevance of Long Commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics; internal senses: common sense, imagination, cogitation, memory. (Hansburger); abstraction; Long Commentary on De Anima: (i) human perception to transcendent Intellects; (ii) transcendent Intellects to human knower (ṣurah la-nā, forma nobis, “form for us;” the unity of intellect. Human mortality and happiness. A few remarks on philosophy and religion.

What is here below was posted 6 September 2025.

Assigned readings: If the Links below do not work, you can access the folder and subfolder through this link: Some Resources

Primary sources:

al-Kindi, readings on soul and intellect Link. Study pp. 96-98, 1-106, 111-118.

al-Farabi, Treatise the Intellect Link. Study. 68-78.

Ibn Sina / Avicenna, De Anima, Book 5, The Rational Soul, Chapter 5, On the Active Intellect in Our Souls and the Intellect Affected by Our Souls, pp. 127-129. Optional suggested reading: Chapter 6, On the Ranks of the acts of the Intellect and on its Highest Rank, namely, the Holy Intellect, pp. 130-135. (Unpublished translation by Deborah Black and Michael Marmura) Link

I chose not to provide texts of Ibn Rushd / Averroes here since there is little chance we would have time. Also the texts are both many and very complex. I elect then to tell you about his teaching and perhaps later to provide some snippets of his insights.

Secondary sources:

NOTE: Of the secondary sources, read Lizzini first. Then do the best you can with the rest.

Olga Lizzini, “Human Knowledge and Separate Intellect,” Routledge Companion to Islamic Philosophy, pp. 285-300. (Al-Kindi to Ibn Sina) Available online via Marqcat.

Luis López-Farjeat, “Al-Farabi’s Psychology and Epistemology,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

R. C. Taylor, “The Importance of the Paraphrase of the De Anima of Themistius for Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd,” forthcoming in Themistius and the Power of Words. Philosophy and Rhetoric on the Crossroad of Ages and Languages. ISBN: 978-3-11-165047-0, Elisa Coda, ed. , pp. 316-330, Berlin / Boston: De Gruyter 2024. (Forthcoming 2025). Link

R. C. Taylor, “Avicenna and the Issue of the Intellectual Abstraction of Intelligibles,” in Vol. 2 Philosophy of Mind in the Early and High Middle Ages, ed. Margaret Cameron, in The History of the Philosophy of Mind, ed. R. Copenhaver and Ch. Shields, (Abingdon, Oxon; New York: 2019) vol. 2 pp. 56-82. Link This is a long and complex review of literature on the issue. It is optional for you.

R, C. Taylor, “Averroes on the Attainment of Knowledge,” in Knowledge in Medieval Philosophy, ed. Henrik Lagerlund in The Philosophy of Knowledge: A History, ed. Stephen Hetherington, (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2019) vol. 2, pp. 59-79. Link

Suggested:

Dimitri Gutas, “Avicenna’s philosophical project”, Avicenna – Interpreting Avicenna. Critical Essays, ed. Adamson 2013, pp. 28-47. See Some Resources.

Some earlier video lectures:

al-Farabi on Intellect, Abstraction and Substantial Transformation 1 of 2, 2 of 2. (In the first I misspoke and said “The part is greater than the whole,” intending, “The whole is greater than the part.”)

Ibn Sina / Avicenna on Rational Soul and Abstractions: 1 of 2, 2 of 2. My view of Ibn Sina has evolved a bit but I will explain that at class.

Ibn Rushd / Averroes. Theories of intellect and intelligibles: 1 of 2, 2 of 2

4 September 2025

Students should study in advance of class the texts indicated for 28 August (e) below, and the readings available in the link at (e) below.

Platonic metaphysics and Aristotelian metaphysics

(a) Remarks on publishing professional papers, continued: Responding to critical evaluations, revise-and-resubmit, et al.

(b) AAIWG and SIEPM in Buenos Aires (Some Resources)

(d) Completion of discussion of readings assigned for 28 August.

(e) Readings and lectures contextualizing human knowing. Link: Human Knowing in Aristotle, with Alexander, Plotinus and Themistius

(f) Reminder: In the first four weeks of the course, a general requirement is that MU students take the tme to read Pasquale Porro, 2016, Thomas Aquinas: A Historical and Philosophical Profile, available online via Marqcat.

(g) Readings for next class are forthcoming. I will email you links to texts and videos. But one assignment I can provide now is that you study my essay, “The Value of the Arabic Philosophical Tradition to the Thought of Thomas Aquinas,” available via this link: Some Resources

28 August 2025

Note taking: See (a) https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2024/05/11/1250529661/handwriting-cursive-typing-schools-learning-brain; and (b) https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-writing-by-hand-is-better-for-memory-and-learning/.

Introduction to graduate study in philosophy and professional writing: a quantum leap; reading, analysis (outlining and discerning author intentions, e.g. reading Plato), professional writing (outlining and your intentions, How to do argumentative philosophy essays); studying the History of Philosophy; “Source-based Contextualism;” Successes (e.g, T. Wietecha); Planning for a professional life; How I will read your work.

This course explained and its syllabus.

Part 1: Aristotle

Physics 2.1-5: 2.1 Natural things have a principle of motion and of rest which we call nature. This term is polysemous. It can mean material substrate, shape or form as specified in a definition. Form is more nature (physis) since it provides structure and reality / actuality to material. What is natural is contrasted to what is artificial. 2.2. For Aristotle there are four causes: final, formal, material and efficient or moving. (Why did I reverse the order of Aristotle?) 2.3-2.5 Is Chance a cause? Or are chance events uncaused? Distinguishing Chance (tyche) as more narrowly unintentional in the context of intentional action, from the broader notion of Spontaneity (automaton). “necessarily chance is in the sphere of moral actions” (2.6)

Physics 3.2, 202a9-11: The mover will always transmit a form, either a ‘this’ or such or so much, which, when it moves, will be the principle and cause of the motion, e.g. the actual man begets man from what is potentially man.

Physics 3.3 From Plato’s Gorgias: If a court finds a person guilty, is the person guilty? Aristotle: In the natural world, the actuality of an agent takes place in the patient. It is one action under two descriptions. 202b6-10: It is not absurd that the actualization of one thing should be in another. Teaching is the activity of a person who can teach, yet the operation is performed in something-it is not cut adrift from a subject, but is of one thing in another. There is nothing to prevent two things having one and the same actualization (not the same in being, but related as the potential is to the actual).

Metaphysics 1.1-3: 1.1: All men by nature desire to know. An indication of this is the delight we take in our senses; for even apart from their usefulness they are loved for themselves; and above all others the sense of sight. For not only with a view to action, but even when we are not going to do anything, we prefer sight to almost everything else. The reason is that this, most of all the senses, makes us know and brings to light many differences between things.

Appearances, memories, experience, but humans “live also by art and reasonings”. Knowledge of individuals in experience gives rise to reason. Through our efforts applying art to this there comes to be knowledge and understanding. Later there can be wisdom which concerns apprehending first causes and principles in theoretical sciences. (For Aristotle knowledge is theoretical [for its own sake], practical [for action]or productive [for a product].),

1.2: Since we are seeking this knowledge, we must inquire of what kind are the causes and the principles, the knowledge of which is wisdom. Wisdom is the most authoritative science far above the particulars which we easily grasp. That it is not a science of production is clear even from the history of the earliest philosophers. For it is owing to their wonder that men both now begin and at first began to philosophize; they wondered originally at the obvious difficulties, then advanced little by little and stated difficulties about the greater matters, e.g. aboutthe phenomena of the moon and those of the sun and the stars, and about the genesis of the universe. And a man who is puzzled and wonders thinks himself ignorant (whence even the lover of myth is in a sense a lover of wisdom, for myth is composed of wonders); therefore since they philosophized in order to escape from ignorance, evidently they were pursuing science in order to know, and not for any utilitarian end. And this is confirmed by the facts; for it was when almost all the necessities of life and the things that make for comfort and recreation were present, that such knowledge began to be sought. Evidently then we do not seek it for the sake of any other advantage; but as the man is free, we say, who exists for himself and not for another, so we pursue this as the only free science, for it alone exists for itself.

1.3: We seek out causes, the four causes, and as well the heavens as the ultimate causes.

Metaphysics 12.1-5. 12.1: Substance and accidents. 10 categories of being. Seeking the causes and principles of substances (ousiai). [Think about our philosophical use of the term, substance, today. Boetius and his translations of hypokeinmenon and ousia as substantia. Einai, on, ousia: esse, ens, essentia / esse, substantia] Ousiai are i) sensible and perishable, ii) sensible and eternal, iii) immovable and eternal. 12.2-3: Potentiality and actuality; Matter, form, composite (nature): the determinate particular entity (tode ti, hoc aliquid, al-mushar ilai-hi); form and actuality are primary. Enough.

Nicomachean Ethics: 9.4: Now each of these is true of the good man’s relation to himself (and of all other men in so far as they think themselves good; excellence and the good man seem, as has been said, to be the measure of every class of things). For his opinions are harmonious, and he desires the same things with all his soul; and therefore he wishes for himself what is good and what seems so, and does it (for it is characteristic of the good man to exert himself for the good), and does so for his own sake (for he does it for the sake of the intellectual element in him, which is thought to be the man himself); and he wishes himself to live and be preserved, and especially the element by virtue of which he thinks.

NE 10.7: But such a life would be too high for man; for it is not in so far as he is man that he will live so, but in so far as something divine is present in him; and by so much as this is superior to our composite nature is its activity superior to that which is the exercise of the other kind of excellence. If intellect is divine, then, in comparison with man, the life according to it is divine in comparison with human life. But we must not follow those who advise us, being men, to think of human things, and, being mortal, of mortal things, but must, so far as we can, make ourselves immortal, and strain every nerve to live in accordance with the best thing in us; for even if it be small in bulk, much more does it in power and worth surpass everything. This would seem, too, to be each man himself, since it is the authoritative and better part of him. It would be strange, then, if he were to choose not the life of himself but that of something else. And what we said before will apply now; that which is proper to each thing is by nature best and most pleasant for each thing; for man, therefore, the life according to intellect is best and pleasantest, since intellect more than anything else is man. This life therefore is also the happiest

Generation of Animals 2.3, 736b27028: Plainly those principles whose activity is bodily cannot exist without a body, e.g. walking cannot exist without feet. For the same reason also they cannot enter from outside. For neither is it possible for them to enter by themselves, being inseparable from a body, nor yet in a body, for the semen is only a residue of the nutriment in process of change. It remains, then, for the reason alone so to enter and alone to be divine, for no bodily activity has any connexion with the activity of reason. (nous thurathen: intellect / mind from outside)

If time allows, we will proceed to a close reading of selections of the Posterior Analytics and De Anima that are directly relevant to our consideration of human knowing.