Aristotelian and neoplatonic elements in Kindī's doctrine of knowledge

American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly

Volumn 73, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 9-35

  D'Ancona Costa, Cristina ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PADOVA   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84880553790     PISSN: 10513558     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5840/acpq19997312     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. The first chapter of Kindī's First Philosophy is devoted to provide a general framework to the subject-matter of the book by defining the nature and scope of first philosophy and by vindicating the right to use foreign cultures in order to get nearer the truth concerning God and the first principles. The second chapter begins with the mentioned Aristotelian distinction, which is introduced by the following words: "Inasmuch as that which ought to precede has been given priority in the beginning of this book, let us follow this with what follows naturally, and say: there are two kinds of human perceptions⋯" Kindī's passages are taken from M. Abū Rīda edition: Rasā'il al-Kindī al-Falsafiya (Cairo: Dā al-fikr al-'arabī, 1950)
2. and quoted in the translation provided by A.L. Ivry, al-Kindīs Metaphysics. A Translation of Y a 'qub ibn Ishāq al-KindTs Treatise 'On First Philosophy' (fial-falsafah al-ūl̄) (Albany: SUNY Press, 1974), the present passage, 61; hereafter cited as Kindī, Abū Rīda pagination/Ivry pagination.
3. De An. III 3, 427b6-8: "Now it is clear that perception and intelligence are not the same thing. For all animals share in the one, but only a few in the other." An analogous distinction between to aisthanesthai and to doxazein occurs at II2, 413b29-32. See also III 12, 434a30-31. All the translations of Aristotle's De Anima are taken from Aristotle De Anima (with Translation, Introduction and Notes by R. D. Hicks), (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1907; reprint edition, Salem, New Hampshire: Ayer Company Publishers, 1988).
4. De sensu et sensato I, 436b6-8: "That sensation is produced in the soul through the medium of the body is obvious on theoretical grounds and also apart from theory." All the translations from De sensu et sensato and De memoria et riminiscentia are taken from Aristotle On the Soul, Parva Naturalia, On Breath, W. S. Hett (London-Cambridge: The Loeb Classical Library - Harvard U. P., 1964).
5. On the Arabic tradition of the De sensu et sensato and in general of the Parva Naturalia, see F. E. Peters, Aristoteles Arabus. The Oriental Translations and Commentaries in the Aristotelian Corpus (Leiden: Brill, 1968), 45-47
6. and H. Gātje, Studien zur Überlieferung der aristotelischen Psychologie im Islam (Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitātsverlag, 1971), 81-91; on Kindī's knowledge of the Parva Naturalia see Gātje, 82-83.
7. Plato's Theaetetus is mentioned in the Fihrist, first among the list of the dialogues al-Nadīm claims to have drawn from Theon of Smyrne, and possibly also in the list he claims to have drawn "from other than the statement of Theon." See Kitāb al-Fihrist, mit Anmerkungen hrsg. von G. Flügel (Leipzig: F.C.W. Vogel, 1871), 246. 10 and 19;
8. The Fihrist, A Tenth-century Survey of Muslim culture, ed. and trans. B. Dodge (New York-London: Columbia University Press, 1970), vol. II, 592-93.
9. This second mention is doubtful but more interesting. The first mentioned, in fact, just lists the name of the dialogue, whereas in the second we are told that among Plato's works there is the "Theaetetus, which Olympiodorus translated, according to the handwriting of Yahyā" (Dodge, 593). Al-Nadīm here seems to be acquainted with an Arabic circulation of the Theaetetus, which is by no means implied by the first mention. Unfortunately the title is doubtful, as Dodge himself observes (593, note 83); Flügel, vol. II, 111-112, suggests that the dialogue al-Nadīm alluded to here is the Sophist. On the other hand, one must keep in mind that Plato's doctrines were known mostly in gnomological forms: see F. Rosenthal, "On the Knowledge of Plato's philosophy in the Islamic World," Islamic Culture 14 (1940): 384-422;
10. F. Klein-Franke, "Zur Überlieferung der platonischen Schriften im Islam," Israel Oriental Studies 3 (1973): 120-39;
11. D. Gutas, Greek Wisdom Literature in Arabic Translation. A Study of the Graeco-Arabic Gnomologia (New Haven: 1975).
12. Kindī is mentioned in the incipit of the Prologue of the pseudo-Theology of Aristotle - the most extended remainder of the Arabic translation of Plotinus' Enneads - as the "revisor" of the work: see 'A. Badawī, Aflūtīn 'inda-l-'arab. Plotinus apud Arabes. Theologia Aristotelis et fragmenta quae supersunt (Cairo: Dār al-nahdat al-misrīya, 1966), 3.8-9.
13. The close relationship between the language of the Plotiniana Arabica and Kindī's own works has been demonstrated by G. Endress, Proclus Arabus. Zwanzig Abschnitte aus der Institutio Theologica in arabischer Überlieferung (Wiesbaden-Beirut: F. Steiner-Imprimerie Catholique, 1973).
14. See also F. W. Zimmermann, "The Origins of the so-called Theology of Aristotle" in Pseudo-Aristotle in the Middle Ages, ed. J. Kraye, W.F. Ryan, C.B. Schmitt (London: The Warburg Institute, 1986), 110-240.
15. An excellent status quaestionis on the Arabic Plotinus is provided by M. Aouad, "La 'Théologie d'Aristote' et autres textes du Plotinus Arabus," in Dictionnaire des Philosophes Antiques, publié sous la direction de R. Goulet, I (Paris: Ed. du CNRS, I, 1989), 541-90.
16. Badawī, Aflūtīn 'inda-l- 'arab, 25.15-26.6;
17. English translation by G. Lewis, in Plotini Opera, ed. P. Henry and H. R. Schwyzer (Paris-Bruxelles: Desclée de Brouwer, 1959), 231; hereafter cited as Badawīi Arabic pagination/english pagination.
18. In the Greek doxographies transmitted to the Islamic world and their key role in the formation of the Arabic philosophical culture see H. Daiber, Aetius Arabus. Die Vorsokratiker in arabischer Überlieferung (Wiesbaden: F. Steiner Verlag, 1980);
19. "Doxographie und Geschichtsschreibung über griechische Philosophen in islamischer Zeit," Medioevo 16(1990): 1-21;
20. "Hellenistisch-Kaiserzeitliche Doxographie und philosophischer Synkretismus in islamischer Zeit," in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neuren Forschung, ed. Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase, Tiel II: Band 36.7, (Berlin-New York: W. de Gruter, 1994), 4974-4992.
21. Most important in relationship with the doxographical excursus in chapter one of the pseudo-Theology quoted is the Arabic doxography attributed to Ammonius but ultimately depending upon the Refutatio omnium haeresium by Hyppolitus, whose stylistic and terminological similarity with the productions of Kindī's circle has been shown by Endress, Proclus Arabus, 105, 211, 231.
22. See U. Rudolph (Die Doxographie despseudo-Ammonios. Ein Beitrag zur neuplatonischen Überlieferung im Islam [Wiesbaden-Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1989]) whose extremely helpful commentary shows that the author of the doxography is also indebted with the Neoplatonic tradition.
23. V 1 [10], 12.8-10; English translation from Plotinus, trans. A. H. Armstrong, 7 vols. (Cambridge, London: Loeb Classical Library).
24. The commentary to these lines by M. Atkinson, Plotinus: Ennead V 1 On the Three Principal Hypostases (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983) is worth quoting: "P. sums up by giving two reasons why we are not aware of the continual activity of the three hypostases. In the first he says that 'we' are involved with the sentient soul (meta tou aisthêtikou)⋯ The second of P.'s reasons is a corollary of the first. The extensive concept of'self which P. adopts here includes the lower sentient soul. 'We' are not merely that part of the soul in which Intellect and the One are⋯ but the whole soul from that higher point downwards⋯ In the context of our present passage, the activities of Intellect and the One and the undescending soul could be said to take place peri meros tes psychês. But since 'we' are not just a part but the whole (including that part which deals with the body) 'we' cannot perceive them until they percolate through to the lower sentient soul" (246-7).
25. See G. Endress, "La concordance entre Platon et Aristote, l'Aristote arabe et l'émancipation de la philosophie en Islam médié val," in Historia Philosophiae Medii AevL Studien zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters, ed. B. Mojsisch, O. Pluta (Amsterdam: Grüner, 1991), 237-57;
26. "The Defense of Reason: The Plea for Philosophy in the Religious Community," Zeitschrift für Geschichte der arabisch-islamisch Wissenschaften, 6 (1991): 1-49;
27. "Der Erste Lehrer. Der arabische Aristoteles und das Konzept der Philosophie im Islam," in Gottes its der Orient - Gottes ist der Okzident. Festschrift für A. Falaturi, ed. U. Tworuschka (Köln-Wien: Böhlau, 1991), 151-81;
28. "L'Aristote arabe. Réception, autorité et transformation du Premier Maître," Medioevo 23 (1997): 1-42.
29. R. Arnzen, Aristoteles De Anima. Eine verlorene spātantike Paraphrase in arabischer und persischer Überlieferung. Arabischer Text nebst Kommentar, quellengeschichtlichen Studien und Glossaren (Leiden - New York - Köln: Brill, 1998). Arnzen first demonstrates that the Arabic paraphrase both follows the structure and echoes the way of thinking of the Alexandrian commentaries (80-84). Subsequently (85-108), he argues convincingly for the conclusion that the author of the paraphrase "reworked on his own - in all likelihood consulting Aristotle's text - the commentaries by Stephanus and Philoponus." (104). Hereafter cited as: Arnzen, Arabic pagination/German pagination.
30. H. J. Blumenthal, "Neoplatonic Elements in the De Anima Commentaries," Phronesis 21 (1976): 64-87
31. also, with an Addendum, in Aristotle Transformed. The Ancient Commentators and Their Influence, ed. R. Sorabji [London: Duckworth, 1990], 305-24;
32. "Neoplatonic Interpretations of Aristotle on Phantasia," Review of Metaphysics 31 (1977): 251-72;
33. Aristotle and Neoplatonism in Late Antiquity. Interpretations of the De Anima (London-Ithaca: 1996);
34. "Were Aristotle's Intentions in Writing the De Anima Forgotten in Late Antiquity?" Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale 8 (1997): 143-57.
35. H. J. Blumenthal, "Plotinus' Psychology: Aristotle in the Service of Platonism," International Philosophical Quarterly 12 (1972): 340-64;
36. "Plotinus's Adoption of Aristotle's Psychology: Sensation, Imagination and Memory," in The Significance of Neoplatonism ed. R. Baine Harris (Norfolk: International Society for Neoplatonic Studies, Old Dominion University, 1976), 41-58
37. both reprinted in Soul and Intellect. Studies in Plotinus and Later Neoplatonism [Aldershot - Brookfield: Variorum, 1993]).
38. See also E. K. Emilsson, Plotinus on Sense-Perception. A Philosophical Study (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988).
39. At variance with the historiographie thesis of a proper doctrinal difference between Athenian and Alexandrian Neoplatonism propounded by Praechter, Ilsetraut Hadot argued that different attitudes were due not to doctrinal reasons but to the different 'level' the writings of the Athenian and Alexandrian Neoplatonists occupied within the curriculum of the philosophical studies. The late Neoplatonic curriculum included Aristotle, whose logical, ethical, physical and finally metaphysical works were conceived of as an introduction to Plato. Alexandrian commentaries focus on the introductory part of the curriculum, namely, Aristotle's corpus; Athenian commentaries and systematical works deal with the top of the hierarchy, Plato. This organization of the study of philosophy is best accounted for within the assumption that the philosophical ideas of Plato and Aristotle were conceived as basically consistent. See I. Hadot, Le problème du néoplatonisme alexandrin: Hiéroclès et Simplicius (Paris: Etudes Augustiniennes, 1978);
40. "The Role of the Commentaries on Aristotle in the Teaching of Philosophy According to the Prefaces of the Neoplatonic Commentaries on the Categories" in Aristotle and the Later Tradition. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Supplementary Volume (1991): 171-89;
41. "Aristote dans l'enseignement philosophique néoplatonicien. Les préfaces des commentaires sur les Catégories" Revue de théologie et de philosophie 124 (1992): 407-25.
42. The topos of the harmony between Plato and Aristotle which lies in the background of this attitude of the late Neoplatonic schools traces back ultimately to Porphyry. See P. Hadot, "L'harmonie des philosophies de Plotin et d'Aristote selon Porphyre dans le commentaire de Dexippe sur les Catégories" in Plotino e il Neoplatonismo in Oriente e in Occidente, (Roma: Atti dell'Accademia nazionale dei Lincei, 1974), 31-37;
43. English transi, with the title "The harmony of Plotinus and Aristotle according to Porphyry," in Aristotle Transformed, 125-40;
44. C. Evangeliou, Aristotle's Categories and Porphyry (Leiden: Brill, 1988);
45. H.D. Saffrey, "Pourquoi Porphyre a-t-il édité Plotin? Réponse provisoire," in Porphyre. La Vie de Plotin, II, ed. L. Brisson et alii (Paris: Vrin, 1992), 31-64.
46. Philoponus' commentary on the De Anima is edited within the series of the Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca: Ioannis Philoponi in Aristotelis De Anima libros commentaria, ed. M. Hayduck, (Berlin: 1897) (CAG XV).
47. The commentary on Book HI, which is different both in style and content from the one on Books I-II, has been attributed by Hayduck to Stephanus of Alexandria, and this attribution was supported by H. J. Blumenthal, "John Philoponus and Stephanus of Alexandria: Two Neoplatonic Christian Commentators on Aristotle?" in Neoplatonism and Christian Thought, ed. D. J. O'Meara (Norfolk: International Society for Neoplatonic Studies, 1982), 244-46
48. reprint in Soul and Intellect, quoted above, note 36.
49. W. Bernard, "Philoponus on Self-Awareness," in Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science, ed. R. Sorabji (London: Duckworth, 1987), 154-63
50. and P. Lautner, "Philoponus, In De Anima III: Quest for an Author," Classical Quarterly n.s. 42 (1992): 510-22, criticize Hayduck's identification and argue for the attribution of the commentary on Book III to Philoponus himself, who would have written it at a later stage of his career, and might consequently have changed his mind. Lautner's arguments, in turn, are criticized by Arnzen, 95-97.
51. We have access to Philoponus' own commentary on chapters IV-VIII of Book III of the De Anima through the Latin translation made by William of Moerbeke: Jean Philopon. Commentaire sur le De Anima d'Aristote, traduction de Guillaume de Moerbeke, éd. critique (⋯) par G. Verbeke, (Louvain-Paris: Publications Universitaires - B. Nauwelaerts, 1966).
52. Moerbeke's version has been translated into English: Philoponus. On Aristotle On the Intellect (De Anima 3.4-8) trans. W. Charlton with the assistance of F. Bossier (London: Duckworth, 1991); hereafter cited by the Latin pagination/English translation.
53. Themistii, for instance, interprets the simile as meaning that when intellect thinks what is simple, it is simple; when it thinks a composite object, it becomes "double (diplous)" instead of remaining one (anth'enos): Themistii in Libros Aristotelis De Anima Paraphrasis, ed. R. Heinze, Berlin 1899 (GAG, V, 3), 96.24-30.
54. Simplicii in Libros Aristotelis De Anima Commentaria edidit M. Hayduck, Berlin 1882 (CAG, XI)
55. An outline of this doctrine has been recently provided by L. P. Gerson, "Epistrophê pros heauton: History and Meaning," Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale 8 (1997): 1-32.
56. V 3[49]. This treatise has been translated recently both in English and in German and commented upon: H. Oosthout, Modes of Knowledge and the Transcendental. An Introduction to Plotinus Ennead 5.3[49] (Amsterdam- Philadelphia: Grüner, 1991);
57. W. Beierwaltes, Selbsterkenntnis und Erfahrung der Einheit. Plotins Enneade V 3. Text, Übersetzung, Interpretation, Erlauterungen (Frankfurt a. M.: V. Klostermann, 1991).
58. See also the recent study by P. Hadot, "La conception plotinienne de l'identité entre l'intellect et son objet. Plotin et le De Anima d'Aristote," in Corps et âme. Sur le De Anima d'Aristote sous la direction de G. Romeyer Dhereby. Etudes réunies par C. Viano (Paris: Vrin, 1996), 367-76.
59. nd ed.), 144.22 and 146.16.
60. Liber de Causis 15[16], which I quote from Taylor's translation of the Latin text: St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Book of Causes, trans.V. A. Guagliardo O.P., C. R. Hess O.P. and R. C. Taylor (Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 1996), 98; hereafter cited by the Bardenhewer pagination/English pagination.
61. Liber de Causis, 78.2-5/65 (see note 62).
62. The relationship between the Arabic paraphrase of the De Anima and the Neoplatonic texts translated into Arabic is carefully examined both from terminological and doctrinal viewpoints by Arnzen, 108-130. See also M. Fattal, "L'intellection des indivisibles dans le De Anima (III 6) d'Aristote. Lectures arabes et modernes," in Corps et âme. Sur le De Anima d'Aristote (see above, note 60), 423-40; see 436-37 on the couple bi-lātawassutin bi-tawassuti al-hiss.
63. G. Endress, "Al-Kindī's theory of Anamnesis. A new text and its implications," in Islão e arabismo na peninsula ibérica. Actas do XI Congresso de União Europeia de Arabistas e Islamólogos, ed. A. Sidarus (Évora 1986), 393-402
64. and "Al-Kindī über die Wiedererinnerung der Seele. Arabischer Piatonismus und die Legitimation der Wissenschaften im Islam," (Mens 34 (1994): 174-221.
65. Endress, "Al-Kindī über die Wiedererinnerung der Seele," 216.
66. The influence of Philoponus' doctrine of the intellect upon al-Kindī has been studied by J. Jolivet, L'intellect selon Kindī (Brill: Leiden, 1971), 51-73.