What do you think?
Rate this book
La filosofía en la Edad Media: desde los orígenes patrísticos hasta el fin del siglo XIV
«Nada hay más legítimo, desde el punto de vista de la historia general de la filosofía, que preguntarse qué fue de los problemas filosóficos propuestos por los griegos durante los catorce primeros siglos de la era cristiana. Sin embargo, si se quiere estudiar y comprender la filosofía de esta época, hay que buscarla donde se encuentra, es decir, en los escritos de los hombres que se consideraban abiertamente teólogos, o que aspiraban a serlo. La historia de la filosofía en la Edad Media es una abstracción tomada de la realidad más vasta y global que fue la teología católica en la Edad Media.»
Étienne Gilson (1884-1978), filósofo e historiador de la filosofía, ofrece una gran panorámica del pensamiento desde los orígenes patrísticos hasta finales del siglo XVI, un paisaje intelectual mucho más rico y variado de lo que se cree a menudo, con cimas destacadas (Juan Escoto Erígena, san Anselmo, santo Tomás de Aquino, Guillermo de Ockham...) sobre un fondo de gran profundidad (filosofías árabe y judía, fundación de las universidades...). Con este renovador estudio de conjunto, Gilson elimina dos tópicos que, por desidia, se mantienen como difusas nociones generales: que no hubo gran filosofía en la Edad Media y que no ha habido una filosofía específicamente cristiana.
"Una visión panorámica del pensamiento filosófico desde los orígenes patrísticos hasta finales del siglo XVI que pone de relieve la abundancia y la riqueza del pensamiento medieval y cristiano."
Étienne Gilson (1884-1978), filósofo e historiador de la filosofía, ofrece una gran panorámica del pensamiento desde los orígenes patrísticos hasta finales del siglo XVI, un paisaje intelectual mucho más rico y variado de lo que se cree a menudo, con cimas destacadas (Juan Escoto Erígena, san Anselmo, santo Tomás de Aquino, Guillermo de Ockham...) sobre un fondo de gran profundidad (filosofías árabe y judía, fundación de las universidades...). Con este renovador estudio de conjunto, Gilson elimina dos tópicos que, por desidia, se mantienen como difusas nociones generales: que no hubo gran filosofía en la Edad Media y que no ha habido una filosofía específicamente cristiana.
"Una visión panorámica del pensamiento filosófico desde los orígenes patrísticos hasta finales del siglo XVI que pone de relieve la abundancia y la riqueza del pensamiento medieval y cristiano."
772 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1922
31 people are currently reading
390 people want to read
About the author
Étienne Gilson
248 books165 followersÉtienne Henri Gilson was born into a Roman Catholic family in Paris on 13 June 1884. He was educated at a number of Roman Catholic schools in Paris before attending lycée Henri IV in 1902, where he studied philosophy. Two years later he enrolled at the Sorbonne, graduating in 1907 after having studied under many fine scholars, including Lucien Lévy Bruhl, Henri Bergson and Emile Durkheim.
Gilson taught in a number of high schools after his graduation and worked on a doctoral thesis on Descartes, which he successfully completed (Sorbonne) in 1913. On the strength of advice from his teacher, Lévy Bruhl, he began to study medieval philosophy in great depth, coming to see Descartes as having strong connections with medieval philosophy, although often finding more merit in the medieval works he saw as connected than in Descartes himself. He was later to be highly esteemed for his work in medieval philosophy and has been described as something of a saviour to the field.
From 1913 to 1914 Gilson taught at the University of Lille. His academic career was postponed during the First World War while he took up military service. During his time in the army he served as second lieutenant in a machine-gun regiment and was awarded the Croix de Guerre for bravery upon relief from his duties. After the war, he returned to academic life at Lille and (also) Strasbourg, and in 1921 he took up an appointment at the Sorbonne teaching the history of medieval philosophy. He remained at the Sorbonne for eleven years prior to becoming Professor of Medieval Philosophy at the College de France in 1932. During his Sorbonne years and throughout his continuing career Gilson had the opportunity to travel extensively to North America, where he became highly influential as a historian and medievalist, demonstrating a number of previously undetermined important differences among the period’s greatest figures.
Gilson’s Gifford Lectures, delivered at Aberdeen in 1931 and 1932, titled ‘The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy’, were published in his native language (L’espirit de la philosophie medieval, 1932) before being translated into English in 1936. Gilson believed that a defining feature of medieval philosophy was that it operated within a framework endorsing a conviction to the existence of God, with a complete acceptance that Christian revelation enabled the refinement of meticulous reason. In this regard he described medieval philosophy as particularly ‘Christian’ philosophy.
Gilson married in 1908 and the union produced three children, two daughters and one son. Sadly, his wife died of leukaemia in late 1949. In 1951 he relinquished his chair at the College de France in order to attend to responsibilities he had at the Institute of Medieval Studies in Toronto, Canada, an institute he had been invited to establish in 1929. Gilson died 19 September 1978 at the age of ninety-four.
Gilson taught in a number of high schools after his graduation and worked on a doctoral thesis on Descartes, which he successfully completed (Sorbonne) in 1913. On the strength of advice from his teacher, Lévy Bruhl, he began to study medieval philosophy in great depth, coming to see Descartes as having strong connections with medieval philosophy, although often finding more merit in the medieval works he saw as connected than in Descartes himself. He was later to be highly esteemed for his work in medieval philosophy and has been described as something of a saviour to the field.
From 1913 to 1914 Gilson taught at the University of Lille. His academic career was postponed during the First World War while he took up military service. During his time in the army he served as second lieutenant in a machine-gun regiment and was awarded the Croix de Guerre for bravery upon relief from his duties. After the war, he returned to academic life at Lille and (also) Strasbourg, and in 1921 he took up an appointment at the Sorbonne teaching the history of medieval philosophy. He remained at the Sorbonne for eleven years prior to becoming Professor of Medieval Philosophy at the College de France in 1932. During his Sorbonne years and throughout his continuing career Gilson had the opportunity to travel extensively to North America, where he became highly influential as a historian and medievalist, demonstrating a number of previously undetermined important differences among the period’s greatest figures.
Gilson’s Gifford Lectures, delivered at Aberdeen in 1931 and 1932, titled ‘The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy’, were published in his native language (L’espirit de la philosophie medieval, 1932) before being translated into English in 1936. Gilson believed that a defining feature of medieval philosophy was that it operated within a framework endorsing a conviction to the existence of God, with a complete acceptance that Christian revelation enabled the refinement of meticulous reason. In this regard he described medieval philosophy as particularly ‘Christian’ philosophy.
Gilson married in 1908 and the union produced three children, two daughters and one son. Sadly, his wife died of leukaemia in late 1949. In 1951 he relinquished his chair at the College de France in order to attend to responsibilities he had at the Institute of Medieval Studies in Toronto, Canada, an institute he had been invited to establish in 1929. Gilson died 19 September 1978 at the age of ninety-four.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
July 26, 2018
Un manuel clair, pédagogique, intéressant sur l'histoire de la philosophie médiévale.
Il est moins technique et moins détaillé qu'Emile Bréhier, mais Gilson est très fort pour expliquer la continuité historique et la succession des idées. Tous les penseurs ont eut droit à un traitement équitable, et quand vous aurez fini le manuel, vous pourrez être certain d'avoir eu une bonne introduction au sujet, et vous saurez les bonnes catégories qu'il faut appliquer pour lire les penseurs médiévaux. Un vrai bon livre, qui me permet à mon tour de vulgariser sur le sujet.
Il est moins technique et moins détaillé qu'Emile Bréhier, mais Gilson est très fort pour expliquer la continuité historique et la succession des idées. Tous les penseurs ont eut droit à un traitement équitable, et quand vous aurez fini le manuel, vous pourrez être certain d'avoir eu une bonne introduction au sujet, et vous saurez les bonnes catégories qu'il faut appliquer pour lire les penseurs médiévaux. Un vrai bon livre, qui me permet à mon tour de vulgariser sur le sujet.
July 12, 2011
03/27/2006
The Tragic self-destruction of Scholastic Philosophy
that were not inherent to it. While, as has been noted in many places, one can say that with the birth (and death) of Christ History ceased to be a Tragedy and became (in Dante's sense) a Comedy, - that is, the direction of History was now rising, no longer falling - the actual history of Christian thought remained, in at least one way, a Tragedy for Etienne Gilson. The tragedy is the missed opportunity represented (for Gilson) by Thomism, which was (more or less) abandoned, in the wake of the ill-conceived Condemnation of 1277, for the (so-thought) `doctrinally sound' via moderna.
The deep cause of the Great Condemnation was the importing of Arabic (or Islamic) philosophy, most especially the philosophy of Averroes, into the Latin West. Now, in my opinion, Gilson, while understanding correctly that the Latins mainly learned from the Islamic philosophers (Falasifa) and not the Islamic (Ash'arite) theologians, overestimates the piety of the falasifa. His work, on this point, is dated - it lacks, for instance, the relatively recent editing/publishing of some crucial works of Farabi - but, nevertheless, he gives an intelligent, and essentially correct, reconstruction of how the Latins understood their Islamic predecessors. Gilson correctly notes that men like "Alfarabi, Avicenna or Averroes, who were neither theologians nor even what the West would have called clerics, were not to be seen at the universities of Paris, of Oxford, nor, in fact, anywhere in Europe in the middle ages." The importation of such an alien stance into Western scholasticism was to have remarkable consequences.
The specific (or greatest) problem, I think, boils down to the understanding of the relationship between Philosophy and Theology as taught by Averroes. Gilson is well aware of this (for him) troubling understanding. Averroes, Gilson explains, is trying to both safeguard philosophy from those unworthy of it while, at the same time, trying to protect the faithful from philosophy. Gilson notes that Averroes "saw the remedy in an exact definition of the various levels of comprehension" of revealed texts and the shepherding of each reader to his exact level. Broadly speaking, according to Averroes, there are three types of people; those capable of understanding philosophical demonstration, those satisfied with probable explanations, i.e. dialectics, and lastly, those that can only respond to exhortation, rhetoric, imagination and passion. Not to put too fine a point on it; theologians are incapable, according to Averroes, of rising above dialectics.
Averroes main point here, according to Gilson, "is that each spirit has the right and the duty to understand the Koran in the most perfect way of which it is capable." Now, thanks to these three levels of comprehension, "[t]wo consequences follow immediately from this principle. The first is that a mind should never seek to raise itself above the degree of interpretation of which it is capable; the second is that one should never divulge to inferior classes of minds the interpretation reserved for superior classes." In fact, as Gilson notes, "according to Averroes, theology is the worst type of speculation precisely because it is neither faith nor philosophy, but, rather, a corruption of both." You can see how dangerous, to Christianity and its theologians, such an interpretation necessarily is. The frank teaching of the necessary superiority of philosophy to theology could only wreak havoc in the midst of a scholastic culture where philosophy was always but a tool of theology.
It did, in spite of the tremendous effort of Aquinas to make Aristotelianism safe for Christianity. The problem is the Latin Averroists. Men like Siger of Brabant and Boetius of Dacia continued to hold, in the Parisian Faculty of Arts, verboten Averroistic positions. It must be remembered that Averroes is not, in fact, the be-all and end-all of Aristotelian interpretation. As Gilson says, `{t}o speak of an Avicennian, an Averroistic or a Thomistic Aristotle is to point out three different interpretations of a fourth one." The Latin Averroists insisted upon the conclusions of (an Averroistic) philosophy even in the face of Revelation and Dogma. They are, according to Gilson, guilty of "identifying Averroes with Aristotle, and Aristotle himself with philosophy" and furthermore, maintaining, "that necessary philosophical conclusions could contradict the teaching of Christian revelation."
"Averroism was pitting the universe of the "philosophers" against that of the "theologians," and even though it expressly maintained that the universe of the theologians was the true one, it also maintained that the universe of the philosophers was that of natural reason." There are two crucial points here that one must note: first, we see the so-called double-truth theory in all its naked `splendor' and, secondly, we see that Reason and Faith are viewed here as irreconcilable and necessary opposites. It is inconceivable that there would be no reaction. There was: first in 1270, a condemnation of 13 articles by the Bishop of Paris, Etienne Tempier. The tide was turning; for instance, Aquinas himself, at this time, writes `On the Unity of the Intellect against the Averroists".
Gilson's handling of the Great Condemnation of 1277 is itself interesting. "[W]ithout consulting the Pope even by messenger, Etienne Tempier is supposed to have proceeded motu proprio to a doctrinal condemnation." Gilson seems to imply that the Papacy approved this condemnation even though no evidence has ever been found. Perhaps, since one of the targets of the condemnation -Aquinas- was later canonized, the documentation was `conveniently' lost.
Be that as it may, the condemnation had dire consequences for any attempt at a unified view of reason and revelation. It is no wonder that, from 1277 on, the belief in the rational demonstration of metaphysical Christian tenets declines, they are now though to be "only knowable in the light of revelation." As Gilson correctly observes, "Scotism and Ockhamism are dominated by the desire to insure the freedom of the Christian God with respect to the world of things. Greek necessitarianism is the Carthage they are eager to destroy." Gilson goes on to say a little later, to "the necessitarianism of the Greeks Scotus will oppose the contingency of the operations of God ad extra and, within man, the radical indetermination of the will. The omnipotent God of Ockham will be another devastating attack against the determinism of the Greeks." In attacking Greek necessitarianism and determinism (i.e., Aristotelianism) the Latin Schoolmen turned away from the via antiqua and towards the via moderna; i.e., the God of Will and his nominalistic world. ...Insofar as this maneuver led to the modern world, we are all still reeling from the consequences of this.
This is a first rate study, with superb notes (over 250 pages), that I heartily recommend. Do not shrink from the tragic story it tells. It is shameful that this book hasn't been reprinted.
The Tragic self-destruction of Scholastic Philosophy
that were not inherent to it. While, as has been noted in many places, one can say that with the birth (and death) of Christ History ceased to be a Tragedy and became (in Dante's sense) a Comedy, - that is, the direction of History was now rising, no longer falling - the actual history of Christian thought remained, in at least one way, a Tragedy for Etienne Gilson. The tragedy is the missed opportunity represented (for Gilson) by Thomism, which was (more or less) abandoned, in the wake of the ill-conceived Condemnation of 1277, for the (so-thought) `doctrinally sound' via moderna.
The deep cause of the Great Condemnation was the importing of Arabic (or Islamic) philosophy, most especially the philosophy of Averroes, into the Latin West. Now, in my opinion, Gilson, while understanding correctly that the Latins mainly learned from the Islamic philosophers (Falasifa) and not the Islamic (Ash'arite) theologians, overestimates the piety of the falasifa. His work, on this point, is dated - it lacks, for instance, the relatively recent editing/publishing of some crucial works of Farabi - but, nevertheless, he gives an intelligent, and essentially correct, reconstruction of how the Latins understood their Islamic predecessors. Gilson correctly notes that men like "Alfarabi, Avicenna or Averroes, who were neither theologians nor even what the West would have called clerics, were not to be seen at the universities of Paris, of Oxford, nor, in fact, anywhere in Europe in the middle ages." The importation of such an alien stance into Western scholasticism was to have remarkable consequences.
The specific (or greatest) problem, I think, boils down to the understanding of the relationship between Philosophy and Theology as taught by Averroes. Gilson is well aware of this (for him) troubling understanding. Averroes, Gilson explains, is trying to both safeguard philosophy from those unworthy of it while, at the same time, trying to protect the faithful from philosophy. Gilson notes that Averroes "saw the remedy in an exact definition of the various levels of comprehension" of revealed texts and the shepherding of each reader to his exact level. Broadly speaking, according to Averroes, there are three types of people; those capable of understanding philosophical demonstration, those satisfied with probable explanations, i.e. dialectics, and lastly, those that can only respond to exhortation, rhetoric, imagination and passion. Not to put too fine a point on it; theologians are incapable, according to Averroes, of rising above dialectics.
Averroes main point here, according to Gilson, "is that each spirit has the right and the duty to understand the Koran in the most perfect way of which it is capable." Now, thanks to these three levels of comprehension, "[t]wo consequences follow immediately from this principle. The first is that a mind should never seek to raise itself above the degree of interpretation of which it is capable; the second is that one should never divulge to inferior classes of minds the interpretation reserved for superior classes." In fact, as Gilson notes, "according to Averroes, theology is the worst type of speculation precisely because it is neither faith nor philosophy, but, rather, a corruption of both." You can see how dangerous, to Christianity and its theologians, such an interpretation necessarily is. The frank teaching of the necessary superiority of philosophy to theology could only wreak havoc in the midst of a scholastic culture where philosophy was always but a tool of theology.
It did, in spite of the tremendous effort of Aquinas to make Aristotelianism safe for Christianity. The problem is the Latin Averroists. Men like Siger of Brabant and Boetius of Dacia continued to hold, in the Parisian Faculty of Arts, verboten Averroistic positions. It must be remembered that Averroes is not, in fact, the be-all and end-all of Aristotelian interpretation. As Gilson says, `{t}o speak of an Avicennian, an Averroistic or a Thomistic Aristotle is to point out three different interpretations of a fourth one." The Latin Averroists insisted upon the conclusions of (an Averroistic) philosophy even in the face of Revelation and Dogma. They are, according to Gilson, guilty of "identifying Averroes with Aristotle, and Aristotle himself with philosophy" and furthermore, maintaining, "that necessary philosophical conclusions could contradict the teaching of Christian revelation."
"Averroism was pitting the universe of the "philosophers" against that of the "theologians," and even though it expressly maintained that the universe of the theologians was the true one, it also maintained that the universe of the philosophers was that of natural reason." There are two crucial points here that one must note: first, we see the so-called double-truth theory in all its naked `splendor' and, secondly, we see that Reason and Faith are viewed here as irreconcilable and necessary opposites. It is inconceivable that there would be no reaction. There was: first in 1270, a condemnation of 13 articles by the Bishop of Paris, Etienne Tempier. The tide was turning; for instance, Aquinas himself, at this time, writes `On the Unity of the Intellect against the Averroists".
Gilson's handling of the Great Condemnation of 1277 is itself interesting. "[W]ithout consulting the Pope even by messenger, Etienne Tempier is supposed to have proceeded motu proprio to a doctrinal condemnation." Gilson seems to imply that the Papacy approved this condemnation even though no evidence has ever been found. Perhaps, since one of the targets of the condemnation -Aquinas- was later canonized, the documentation was `conveniently' lost.
Be that as it may, the condemnation had dire consequences for any attempt at a unified view of reason and revelation. It is no wonder that, from 1277 on, the belief in the rational demonstration of metaphysical Christian tenets declines, they are now though to be "only knowable in the light of revelation." As Gilson correctly observes, "Scotism and Ockhamism are dominated by the desire to insure the freedom of the Christian God with respect to the world of things. Greek necessitarianism is the Carthage they are eager to destroy." Gilson goes on to say a little later, to "the necessitarianism of the Greeks Scotus will oppose the contingency of the operations of God ad extra and, within man, the radical indetermination of the will. The omnipotent God of Ockham will be another devastating attack against the determinism of the Greeks." In attacking Greek necessitarianism and determinism (i.e., Aristotelianism) the Latin Schoolmen turned away from the via antiqua and towards the via moderna; i.e., the God of Will and his nominalistic world. ...Insofar as this maneuver led to the modern world, we are all still reeling from the consequences of this.
This is a first rate study, with superb notes (over 250 pages), that I heartily recommend. Do not shrink from the tragic story it tells. It is shameful that this book hasn't been reprinted.
September 14, 2023
An excellent overview of the history of medieval philosophy by an author who is deeply familiar with it from an insider's perspective. Well written, clear, easy to follow, creates a sensible historical narrative.
August 13, 2021
«فلسفۀ اسلامی و یهودی به روایت ژیلسون» ترجمۀ بخش پنجم کتاب ژیلسون، تاریخ فلسفۀ مسیحی در قرون وسطی، است. اتیَن ژیلسون در قرن بیستم واژه و ایدۀ «فلسفۀ مسیحی» را مطرح کرد. عبارت فلسفۀ مسیحی همان پرسشی را به همراه داشت که عبارات «فلسفۀ اسلامی» و «فلسفۀ یهودی» بر میانگیخت، یعنی فلسفه چه نسبتی با اسلام، مسیحیت و یهودیت دارد. به عبارت فنی، ترکیب «فلسفۀ اسلامی» آیا ترکیبی وصفی است یا اضافی؟ آیا فلسفه از درون اسلامی بر میخیزد (ترکیب وصفی) یا جدای از آن است و باید چیزی را به آن بیفزاییم؟ (ترکیب اضافی، مانند فلسفۀ فیلسوفان مسلمان) مقصود ژیلسون از فلسفۀ مسیحی معنای نخست بود. «اشتباه افلاطون و ارسطو این بود که خواستند عقل محض را برای وصول به حقایق به کار ببرند، درحالیکه ادعاءِ اتکا صرف به فلسفه اشتباه است، تنها روشی که میتوانیم از درستیِ آن اطمینان داشته باشیم وحی الاهی است. به بیان دیگر، ژیلسون معقتد است در سرتاسر قرون وسطی این ایده مطرح بوده که تعقل در جهتِ محتوای وحیِ مُنزَل است و فلسفه تعقل دربارۀ وحی است. (ژیلسون، روح فلسفۀ قرون وسطی، ص 10) بنابراین فلسفۀ مسیحی با دین عیسی مسیح (ع) نسبت دارد، نه با متألهان و فیلسوفانی که مسیحی بودند. (چنانکه فلسفۀ اسلامی با اسلام و فلسفۀ یهودی با یهودیت ارتباط دارد)
کتاب حاضر به معرفی فیلسوفان مسلمان و یهودی میپردازد، از آن جهت که بر فلسفۀ مدرسیِ قرون وسطی تاثیر گذاشتند. بیشتر کتاب به فلسفۀ اسلامی و چهار فیلسوف مسلمان، کندی، فارابی، ابنسینا و ابنرشد، میپردازد. در این بین بیشترین سهم از آن ابنسیناست. (جالب است بدانیم که در قرون وسطی بدون شک ابنسینا فیلسوف است، اما در فیلسوف بودن ابنرشد إنقلتهایی است. برای نمونه، دونس اسکوتوس (زیسته در آخر قرن 12 و اول قرن 13)، که یکی از سه شخصیت برجستۀ قرون وسطای متأخر است (در کنار توماس آکوئیناس و ویلیام اهل اوکام) در آثار خود ابنسینا را فیلسوف (بدون قید) و ابنرشد را شارح (بدون قید) میآورد). ژیلسون ذیل شش عنوان فلسفۀ ابنسینا را بررسی میکند: منطق، طبیعیات، هیئت، علمالنفس، مابعدالطبیعه و الهیات.
نویسنده در ابتدا بهخوبی نقل فلسفه از یونان به مسیحیت، سپس به سوریه و سپس به ایران را باز میکند. به نقش تقریباً فراموششدۀ سُریانیان توجه میکند، مکتبهای کلامی پس از پدیداریِ فلسفه در اسلام را مختصری توضیح میدهد و پس از اینها اندکی به کندی و فارابی میپردازد. ابنسینا را اما با تفصیل بیشتری توضیح میدهد، زیرا فیلسوف ایرانی بیشترین تاثیر را در قرون وسطی دارد. (تاثیر مستقیم بر راجر بیکن، توماس و اسکوتوس) هنگامی که از بخشهای مختلف حکمت شیخالرئیس سخن میگوید به ابنسینای قرون وسطی و کتابشناسی او اشاره میکند. در هر بخش بهطور مبسوط اندیشۀ فیلسوف را باز میکند. حتی مداقههایی مفید نیز دارد که بیش از آنکه با ژیلسون مورخ مواجه باشیم ژیلسونِ شارح را میبینیم. البته نهتنها ابنسینا را با توجه به قرون وسطی توضیح میدهد بلکه او را در قیاس با افلاطون و ارسطو مطرح میسازد.
این اثر میتواند بهعنوان درآمدی مفید به ابنسینا در نظر گرفته شود. بهخصوص از جهتی که کتابی مختصر و مفید برای معرفی اندیشههای ابنسینا با تألیف زبان فارسی در دسترس نیست، اثری مانند «مقدمهای بر حکمت اشراق» یا «مدخلی به عرفان شیعه»ی دکتر سعید رحیمیان. (تا جایی که میدانم در معرفی ابنسینا بهصورت مختصر و مفید تلاشی صورت نگرفته و هر چه که هست شرح و بسط کتابهای اوست؛ کتابهایی نیز موجود است که با چنین انگیزهای تألیف شدهاند اما مغشوش مینمایند) اما این نکتۀ مهم را باید به خاطر بسپاریم که تلاش ژیلسون معطوف به کتاب «الشفاء» است، کتابی که در بعضی موضوعات بهصورت ناقص به فلسفۀ مدرسی راه پیدا کرد. اما اگر این را بپذیریم که ابنسینای فیلسوف خود را در آثار دیگرش، خصوصاً «الاشارات و التنبیهات» معرفی کرده است میتوان از این جهت به کار ژیلسون نقدی را وارد کرد.
چنانکه گفته شد بیشتر این کتاب به ابنسینا اختصاص دارد. اما به ابنرشد از عالم اسلام و سلیمان ابن جبرول و ابنمیمون از عالم یهودیت نیز پرداخته است. کتاب ترجمۀ خوبی دارد، یادداشتهای هر فصل در آخر کتاب آمده است که نکات فرعی و مفیدی دارد. علاوهبراین مترجم واژهنامهای انگلیسی و لاتینی به فارسی در آخر کتاب آورده است که به��ور مختصر و مفید بیان شده است.
پ.ن: برای فهمِ بهتر ابنسینا و همینطور باقی اشخاص و اصطلاحات فلسفی دو مرجع معرفی میکنم که هم معتبرند و هم بهروز. یکی فرهنگنامۀ تاریخی مفاهیم فلسفه، نوشتۀ ریتر و همکاران، به سرویراستاری دکتر سیدمحمدرضا حسینی بهشتی، از انتشارات سمت، در سه جلد (سه جلد در مابعدالطبیعه، تا جایی که اطلاع دارم هنر و الهیات نیز چاپ شده است)، و دیگری مقالات دانشنامۀ بزرگ اسلامی (دبا) که هم بهروز است و هم در کمال اختصار، به مقتضای دانشنامهنویسی، نگاشته شدهاند.
کتاب حاضر به معرفی فیلسوفان مسلمان و یهودی میپردازد، از آن جهت که بر فلسفۀ مدرسیِ قرون وسطی تاثیر گذاشتند. بیشتر کتاب به فلسفۀ اسلامی و چهار فیلسوف مسلمان، کندی، فارابی، ابنسینا و ابنرشد، میپردازد. در این بین بیشترین سهم از آن ابنسیناست. (جالب است بدانیم که در قرون وسطی بدون شک ابنسینا فیلسوف است، اما در فیلسوف بودن ابنرشد إنقلتهایی است. برای نمونه، دونس اسکوتوس (زیسته در آخر قرن 12 و اول قرن 13)، که یکی از سه شخصیت برجستۀ قرون وسطای متأخر است (در کنار توماس آکوئیناس و ویلیام اهل اوکام) در آثار خود ابنسینا را فیلسوف (بدون قید) و ابنرشد را شارح (بدون قید) میآورد). ژیلسون ذیل شش عنوان فلسفۀ ابنسینا را بررسی میکند: منطق، طبیعیات، هیئت، علمالنفس، مابعدالطبیعه و الهیات.
نویسنده در ابتدا بهخوبی نقل فلسفه از یونان به مسیحیت، سپس به سوریه و سپس به ایران را باز میکند. به نقش تقریباً فراموششدۀ سُریانیان توجه میکند، مکتبهای کلامی پس از پدیداریِ فلسفه در اسلام را مختصری توضیح میدهد و پس از اینها اندکی به کندی و فارابی میپردازد. ابنسینا را اما با تفصیل بیشتری توضیح میدهد، زیرا فیلسوف ایرانی بیشترین تاثیر را در قرون وسطی دارد. (تاثیر مستقیم بر راجر بیکن، توماس و اسکوتوس) هنگامی که از بخشهای مختلف حکمت شیخالرئیس سخن میگوید به ابنسینای قرون وسطی و کتابشناسی او اشاره میکند. در هر بخش بهطور مبسوط اندیشۀ فیلسوف را باز میکند. حتی مداقههایی مفید نیز دارد که بیش از آنکه با ژیلسون مورخ مواجه باشیم ژیلسونِ شارح را میبینیم. البته نهتنها ابنسینا را با توجه به قرون وسطی توضیح میدهد بلکه او را در قیاس با افلاطون و ارسطو مطرح میسازد.
این اثر میتواند بهعنوان درآمدی مفید به ابنسینا در نظر گرفته شود. بهخصوص از جهتی که کتابی مختصر و مفید برای معرفی اندیشههای ابنسینا با تألیف زبان فارسی در دسترس نیست، اثری مانند «مقدمهای بر حکمت اشراق» یا «مدخلی به عرفان شیعه»ی دکتر سعید رحیمیان. (تا جایی که میدانم در معرفی ابنسینا بهصورت مختصر و مفید تلاشی صورت نگرفته و هر چه که هست شرح و بسط کتابهای اوست؛ کتابهایی نیز موجود است که با چنین انگیزهای تألیف شدهاند اما مغشوش مینمایند) اما این نکتۀ مهم را باید به خاطر بسپاریم که تلاش ژیلسون معطوف به کتاب «الشفاء» است، کتابی که در بعضی موضوعات بهصورت ناقص به فلسفۀ مدرسی راه پیدا کرد. اما اگر این را بپذیریم که ابنسینای فیلسوف خود را در آثار دیگرش، خصوصاً «الاشارات و التنبیهات» معرفی کرده است میتوان از این جهت به کار ژیلسون نقدی را وارد کرد.
چنانکه گفته شد بیشتر این کتاب به ابنسینا اختصاص دارد. اما به ابنرشد از عالم اسلام و سلیمان ابن جبرول و ابنمیمون از عالم یهودیت نیز پرداخته است. کتاب ترجمۀ خوبی دارد، یادداشتهای هر فصل در آخر کتاب آمده است که نکات فرعی و مفیدی دارد. علاوهبراین مترجم واژهنامهای انگلیسی و لاتینی به فارسی در آخر کتاب آورده است که به��ور مختصر و مفید بیان شده است.
پ.ن: برای فهمِ بهتر ابنسینا و همینطور باقی اشخاص و اصطلاحات فلسفی دو مرجع معرفی میکنم که هم معتبرند و هم بهروز. یکی فرهنگنامۀ تاریخی مفاهیم فلسفه، نوشتۀ ریتر و همکاران، به سرویراستاری دکتر سیدمحمدرضا حسینی بهشتی، از انتشارات سمت، در سه جلد (سه جلد در مابعدالطبیعه، تا جایی که اطلاع دارم هنر و الهیات نیز چاپ شده است)، و دیگری مقالات دانشنامۀ بزرگ اسلامی (دبا) که هم بهروز است و هم در کمال اختصار، به مقتضای دانشنامهنویسی، نگاشته شدهاند.
Want to read
January 19, 2025Jan 2025. In SOCRATES'S CHILDREN, Kreeft calls this book magisterial.
February 17, 2017
Libro eccezionale.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews