David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 83:129-140 (2009)
This paper examines and compares the ways in which the Latin Avicenna, that is the Persian thinker’s work as known in Latin translation to medieval Christianthinkers, and Aquinas alter Aristotle’s conception of the breadth and scope of the subject of metaphysics. These two medieval philosophers inherited the problem that Aristotle posed in the Metaphysics concerning the relationship between the study of being as being and the natural study of God. Both thinkers reject the idea that God is the subject of metaphysics and maintain that the one subject of this science is being qua being. They differ, however, in their analysis of the relationship between this subject and God. Avicenna does not directly address this problem, but certain passages from the Liber de prima philosophia seem to suggest, and were interpreted during the middle ages as suggesting, that God falls within the scope of being qua being. Aquinas, on the other hand, analyzes this relationship in detail and firmly denies that God falls within the scope of the subject of metaphysics
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
R. E. Houser (2011). Aristotle and Two Medieval Aristotelians on the Nature of God. International Philosophical Quarterly 51 (203):355 - 375.
John F. Wippel (1999). Thomas Aquinas, Siger of Brabant, and Their Use of Avicenna in Clarifying the Subject of Metaphysics. The Proceedings of the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy 1999:15-26.
Rahim Acar (2005). Talking About God and Talking About Creation: Avicenna's and Thomas Aquinas' Positions. Brill.
Roland J. Teske (2007). Some Aspects of Henry of Ghent's Debt to Avicenna's Metaphysics. Modern Schoolman 85 (1):51 - 70.
Stephen L. Brock (2006). On Whether Aquinas's Ipsum Esse is “Platonism”. Review of Metaphysics 60 (2):269-303.
Hector Ferreiro (2007). La Absolutización de la Esencia Como Axioma Fundamental de la Metafísica Tomista. Patristica Et Mediaevalia 28:83-97.
Jon McGinnis (2011). The Ultimate Why Question: Avicenna on Why God Is Absolutely Necessary. In The Ultimate Why Question: Why is There Anything at All Rather Than Nothing Whatsoever? Cath Univ Amer Pr.
Avicenna (2004). The Metaphysics of the Healing: A Parallel English-Arabic Text = Al-Ilahīyāt Min Al-Shifāʼ. Brigham Young University Press.
Kevjn Lim (2009). God's Knowledge of Particulars. Journal of Islamic Philosophy 5:75-98.
Riccardo Strobino (2012). Avicenna’s Use of the Arabic Translations of the Posterior Analytics and the Ancient Commentary Tradition. Oriens 40 (2):355–389.
Robert L. Faricy (1971). The Trinitarian Indwelling. The Thomist 35 (3):369 - 404.
Thomas M. Ward (2011). Relations Without Forms: Some Consequences of Aquinass Metaphysics of Relations. Vivarium 48 (3-4):279-301.
Lorna Green (1985). The Verification of Metaphysical Theories: Ethics as Basis for Metaphysics. Interface Press.
Eric Roark (2006). Aquinas's Unsuccessful Theodicy. Philosophy and Theology 18 (2):247-256.
David Torrijos-Castrillejo (2011). Santo Tomás y el motor inmóvil. Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval 18:123-136.
Added to index2011-12-01
Total downloads20 ( #94,667 of 1,413,361 )
Recent downloads (6 months)8 ( #26,440 of 1,413,361 )
How can I increase my downloads?