Also found in: Encyclopedia.
References in periodicals archive ?
This criticism gathered force in response to what Josef Pieper has called the "dynamic rationalism" that began to emerge at the University of Paris around 1265 under the aegis of Siger of Brabant, whose Averroist reading of Aristotle provided the basis for what later came to be known as the "double truth" theory.
Certainly the theme most extensively studied in this book is what Granada calls Bruno's "Averroist anthropology." In his preface to Aristotle's Physics Averroes had speculated on the perfectibility of man through philosophy, evidently drawing upon the last book of the Nicomachean Ethics.
Monfasani rightly underscores Ficino's reluctance to enter into the fray while at the same time stressing elements of concord between the "old" Aristotelians and Platonism (as opposed to the Averroist reading of the Stagirite that was eliciting such debate in contemporary circles).
The Maimonidean or Averroist distinction between exoteric and esoteric truths dovetails with the charge of Machiavellianism when the esoteric view is identified as atheism.
Giacomo da Pistoia was also, she demonstrates, a radical Averroist, but he differed from Guido in that he believed in intellectual happiness.
Levi's Pomponazzi is an Averroist on one page (164) and an anti-Averroist on the next.
But it is interesting to note that a contemporary of his who was teaching in the Faculty of Arts at the University of Paris, the so-called Latin Averroist, Siger of Brabant, did address the question in these terms.
Pangle, I think, is not an Averroist, that is, someone who might be tempted to deny any relationship between the Bible and philosophy but who, for political reasons, keeps the news quiet.
Whether ultimately convincing or not, Narboni's Averroist interpretation forces the reader to admit that Maimonides shares a great deal more in common with Averroes on this topic than is often thought.
To appreciate the full depth of his attacks on the Averroists, one needs to be presented with an analysis and appreciation of the Averroist position that is sufficiently penetrating to explain why Aquinas would consider Averroes a worthy though pernicious philosophical adversary.
The opening essay, by Jan Aertsen, provides a clear and concise statement of matters pertaining to Thomas's career in the medieval university, such as the purpose and structure of a scholastic disputation and the Averroist controversy.