Presented by the Aquinas and the Arabs Project

at Marquette University

Marquette University

Department of Philosophy

Milwaukee, Wisconsin, June 20-21, 2008

This Conference is intended to provide a formal occasion and central location for philosophers and scholars of the Arabic / Islamic, Jewish and Latin Christian philosophical traditions of the Middle Ages  to present and discuss their current work in medieval philosophy.

PRESENTERS: Established Scholars: send a title and tentative abstract; Graduate Students: send a title, abstract and a supporting letter from your faculty advisor or dissertation director. Send applications to: Richard.Taylor@Marquette.edu.

OPENING DATE FOR SUBMISSIONS: March 1, 2008

The Organizing Committee will select presenters on the basis  of quality of proposals (title and abstract) and scholarly record as the primary criteria.  Presenters selected will be asked to confirm their participation by registering and paying the conference fee ($35).

DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSIONS: Thursday April 24, 2008.

PROGRAM ANNOUNCED: May 1, 2008, or earlier.

ATTENDING ONLY: Send Registration check with name, address, academic affiliation.

CONFERENCE REGISTRATION FOR

ALL PRESENTERS AND ATTENDEES

(fees cover breakfasts, refreshments, dinner one night)

Advance Registration by May 1: $35 by check, At the Door: $45 cash.

CHECKS SHOULD BE MADE OUT TO: Marquette University

(Fees are waived for Marquette students, faculty and staff.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Registration Form.

NAME:

TITLE: 

ACADEMIC AFFILIATION:

ADDRESS:

TELEPHONE:

CHECK NUMBER: 

(Registration fees are waived for members of the Marquette community.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Print the Registration Form above and send your check made out to “Marquette University” to:

Richard Taylor

Philosophy Department

Marquette University

P.O. Box 1880

Milwaukee, WI 53201-1881

7 pm Thursday June 19: Pre-Conference dinner at the home of David and Cindy Twetten, 1895 Pilgrim Pkwy Brookfield, WI 53005-5146.

See http://www.mapquest.com/maps/915+W.+Wisconsin+Ave+Milwaukee+WI+53233/1895+Pilgrim+Pkwy+Brookfield+WI+53005/#a/mapsprint/l::915+W+Wisconsin+Ave:Milwaukee:WI:53233-2310:US:43.038666:-87.92345:address:Milwaukee+County/l::1895+Pilgrim+Pkwy:Brookfield:WI:53005-5146:US:43.056044:-88.107133:address:Waukesha+County/m::2:::0::/io:1:::::f:EN:m:/e

Conference Schedule

All sessions will be held in the Beaumier Conference Center in the lower level of Raynor Library. (See below for location link.)

FRIDAY JUNE 20

8-8:30 am. Coffee, tea, orange juice, etc.

Presentations   (75 min each total for presentation & discussion)

[1] 8:30-9:45: Prof. R. E. Houser, Center for Thomistic Studies, University of St Thomas, Houston, “Avicenna on the Principles of Metaphysics: Shifa’, Metaphysics, Book 1”

[2] 9:50-11:00: Christopher Lutz, St. Meinrad School of Theology, “Thomism and Nominalism: Two Responses to the Challenge of Islam in Medieval Western Christian Thought”

[3] 11:05-12:20: Damien Janos,  McGill University, “Al-Fārābī and the cosmological doctrine of the K. al-jam‛ and the Jawābāt”

Lunch 12:20-1:55 pm: suggestions: AMU (Student Union), Subway, local Chinese or Pizza restaurants, Ziggy's, and more in the immediate area.  The pleasant Lunda Room in the AMU is reasonably priced for lunch.

Presentations

[4]  1:55-3:10: Nazif Muhtaroglu, University of Kentucky, “Aquinas’s and al-Ghazali’s Intuitions Regarding Omnipotence”

[5]  3:15-4:30: Prof. Sarah Pessin, University of Denver, “2 Elephants in the Room: Maimonides’ Apophasis as Via Analogia.”

[6] 4:35-5:50: Prof. David Burrell, “Implications of Mulla Sadra’s return for Human Freedom”

Library & Conference Center close at 6 pm sharp Friday.

8 pm:  Fish and Chicken buffet at the Seven Seas restaurant lakeside at Lake Nagawicka, ca. 35 min west of Milwaukee.  See http://www.weissgerbers.com/sevenseas/html/fishfry.html for menu. **Covered by the conference fee.**

Directions: I-94 West to the WI-83 exit, EXIT 287, toward HARTLAND/WALES.

Turn RIGHT onto WI-83. After 1.2 miles, turn left onto NAGAWICKA RD. The restaurant is less than one mile down the road.

SATURDAY JUNE 21

10 am. Coffee, tea, orange juice, etc

Presentations

[7] 10:15-11:30: Jason Jordan, University of Oregan, “The Critique of Causation: The Latin Inheritance of an Arab Dispute”

[8] 11:35-12:50: Luis Xavier López Farjeat, “Averroes criticism against the determinism of the Ash'arītes”

12:50-2:00 pm Lunch: suggestions: Subway, Jimmy John’s, Ziggy's, or Pizza restaurants and more in the immediate area.

Presentations

[9] 2:00-3:15: Isabelle Moulin, “Emanation and Eduction: Albert the Great's account of Creation from the Divine Names to the De causis et processu universitatis a prima causa”

[10] 3:20-4:35: Jörg Tellkamp, “Perception and reason in Aquinas's theory of the vis cogitativa”

4:35-4:45: Conference closing remarks.

Library & Conference Center close at 5 pm sharp Friday.

ca. 8 pm dinner at Shahrazad Restaurant at 2847 N. Oakland Ave, Milwaukee. See http://shahrazadrestaurant.com/ Mohammad, the owner, will do a very nice buffet of various Middle Eastern dishes for ca. $20 per person tip included (self-pay), drinks are extra.

CONFERENCE LOCATION:

Conference sessions will take place in the Raynor Library (1355 W. Wisconsin Ave.) Friday and Saturday June 20-21, 2008. For information on the Raynor Library and nearby parking see https://www.marquette.edu/contact/finder/raynor.shtml and the links there.

HOUSING:

On campus housing is available in Straz Tower, 915 W. Wisconsin Ave. (single or double, $44-70 per night). To reserve a room contact the housing office directly:  Carrie Martin at 414-288-7204 or via email at carrie.enea@marquette.edu.

15 rooms are being held for this event. Cut-off date: May 17, 2008. Rooms requested after the cut-off date are subject to availability.

HOTELS:

Just a few blocks East from Marquette University is the Holiday Inn Milwaukee City Center, 611 West Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, WI 53203. Tel. 1-414-273-2950.

For further information on the hotel, see http://www.ichotelsgroup.com/h/d/hi/1/en/hd/mkecc?irs=null

A few blocks West from Marquette University is the charming Ambassador Hotel: 2308 W Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, WI 53233. Tel.(414) 342-8400

For further information on the hotel, see www.ambassadormilwaukee.com

(Mention that you are attending a Marquette conference may get you a discount. Be sure to ask.)

DIRECTIONS AND MAPS:

For directions to the Marquette Campus, see https://www.marquette.edu/contact/directions/

For a map of the Marquette University campus, see https://www.marquette.edu/contact/CampusMap.pdf

For a map of downtown Milwaukee, see

http://www.wisconline.com/counties/milwaukee/map-downtown.html

TRAVELING TO MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY (& DOWNTOWN MILWAUKEE) FROM

MILWAUKEE’S MITCHELL AIRPORT:

For a shuttle, see http://www.mitchellairport.com/getting.html

Downtown Milwaukee: info from http://kiwinc.itgo.com/mwc/mitchell.html

    * Expect a taxi to cost around $30 or a bit more due to fuel costs.

    * Most convenient: Airport Connection shared ride van serves a frequent loop of most downtown hotels. http://mkelimo.com/ ($12-15)

    * Cheapest: MCTS route 80 serves 6th St. downtown, next to the Midwest Airlines Center and nearby hotels. Travel time is 25 minutes, often only a few minutes longer than taxi or van.

http://www.ridemcts.com/routes_and_schedules/schedule.asp?route=80

The Conference Center is in the lower level of Raynor Library at 1355 W. Wisconsin Ave.

Aquinas and the Arabs Project link:

http://web.mac.com/mistertea/iWeb/Aquinas%20&%20the%20Arabs/Aquinas%20&%20the%20Arabs.html

Midwest Seminar in Ancient and Medieval Philosophy link:

http://web.mac.com/mistertea/Midwest_Seminar/Welcome.html

MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT link:

https://www.marquette.edu/phil/

Presentation Abstracts

• Rev. Prof. David Burrell, C.S.C., Hesburgh Professor emeritus in Philosophy and Theology, University of Notre Dame (IN, USA) & Uganda Martyrs University (Nkozi, Uganda), “Implications of Mulla Sadra’s return for Human Freedom.

Given the central presuppositions of human freedom:  our capacity for receiving praise or blame, as Aristotle put it succinctly, acting freely cannot simply mean “doing what comes naturally,” where that phrase connotes both doing what our instincts suggest and what “everyone is doing.”  Moreover, in a world whose salient features reflect the wisdom of a unique creator, we cannot dismiss nature itself as a guide to proper behavior.  Indeed, that will be Mulla Sadra’s position, established in the emanation from the One which is creation, and confirmed in the path of human return to that very One.  So any facile separation of ‘ought’ from ‘is’ cannot be countenanced on a creation pattern.  It is this pattern which we wish to explore, as Mulla Sadra articulates it in its origination and its return.

• Prof. R. E. Houser, Center for Thomistic Studies, University of St Thomas, Houston, “Avicenna on the Principles of Metaphysics: Shifa’, Metaphysics, Book 1”

Outline:

1. Metaphysics at the Summit of Knowledge

2. The Organization of Philosophy in the Shifa’

3. The subject and conclusions sought in metaphysics (Met. 1.1-4)

4. The Primary Notions of Metaphysics (Met. 1.5)

5. The Primary Hypotheses of Avicennian Metaphysics (Met. 1.6-7)

6. How Avicenna Argues for Metaphysical Principles

7. Avicenna’s “Sufficiency Argument” for the Real Distinction in Creatures (Met. 1.6)

8. Avicenna’s “Predicables Argument” for the Unity of Essence and Existence in God (Met. 1.7)

9. Conclusions

• Damien Janos, McGill University, graduate student, “Al-Fārābī and the cosmological doctrine of the K. al-jam‛ and the Jawābāt”

The attribution of the K. al-jam‛ and the Jawābāt to al-Fārābī has been questioned repeatedly in the modern scholarship, notably by R. Walzer, J. Lameer, and more recently M. Rashed. Rashed in particular has argued that the cosmogony exposed in these two works is incompatible with al-Fārābī’s cosmological ideas as they appear in his emanationist treatises. Yet to this day no in-depth analysis of the relevant sections of these two works has been conducted. My paper proposes to examine this subject in connection to Greek and Arabic philosophy and the Christian and Islamic theological traditions, particularly the work of Philoponus. I argue that the cosmological accounts of the Jam‛ and the Jawābāt are a complex synthesis of elements drawn from Aristotelian and Neoplatonic sources (especially the Neoplatonica arabica), but also from Philoponus’ arguments for creation. Moreover, I contend that in many respects they put forth a creationist view that is much closer to that of Philoponus and al-Kindī than to that conveyed by the Neoplatonica arabica, particularly on the questions of divine will and the world’s destruction. I conclude with a dual hypothesis concerning the authenticity of these two treatises (or at least of their cosmological sections): they were composed either by a disciple of al-Fārābī (the opinion of Lameer and Rashed), or by al-Fārābī himself, in which case they must belong to an early period of his life when he was studying logic and philosophy with the Christian Peripatetics in Baghdad and had not yet developed his emanationist cosmology. This developmental hypothesis accords with the biographical data on al-Fārābī.

• Jason Jordan, University of Oregan, graduate student, “The Critique of Causation: The Latin Inheritance of an Arab Dispute”

    Unlike Aquinas’ debt to Averroes, the debt of the Latin Nominalists to the Mutakallim theologians is not widely appreciated. This paper proposes to examine this linkage in terms of al-Ghazali’s critique of the principle of causation and it’s recapitulation in the West by Ockham and Autrecourt. Both disputes share a remarkable similarity both in terms of the arguments employed, as well as the general philosophical and theological commitments of the disputants. From al-Ghazali —likely through Maimonides— Ockham and Autrecourt appropriated the principles of logical separability and necessary connection, the so-called “maxim of admissibility” —by which all that is conceivable is possible, and a skeptical phenomenology regarding the experience of causation. Moreover, these thinkers were motivated by a similar concern to preserve the divine omnipotence, which they considered to have been fatally undermined by Aristotelian rationalism. As this skeptical tradition regarding causation was to be enormously influential to both the Cartesian occasionalists and Hume, I regard it as the most fruitful and long lasting of the intersections between the Arabs and the West. 

• Prof. Luis Xavier López Farjeat, Universidad Panamerica, Mexico City, “Averroes criticism against the determinism of the Ash'arītes”

One of the most known discussions in the Arabic-Islamic medieval philosophy is about how to interpret the Koranic assertion of God as a Creator and Agent of the world. Philosophers usually interpret this thesis in a different fashion than theologians. Discrepancies in this respect are the origin of a series of discussions in which Ash'arītes play a leading role. They promoted the so-called "Kasb doctrine". According to it, God has arranged what we are capable to do. This doctrine raises a complex question: Who is the actual agent of human actions? Is it human beings or the author of the causal network, namely, God? The most renowned Ash'arīte who tries to solve this questions is al-Ghazālī. In this paper I will explain, first, the kasb doctrine. Subsequently, I will analyze al-Ghazālī's position in this regard. Finally, I will discuss Averroes' arguments against al-Ghazālī and the Ash'arītes in order to find out if they really refute the Ash'arīte determinism.

• Christopher Lutz, St. Meinrad School of Theology, “Thomism and Nominalism: Two Responses to the Challenge of Islam in Medieval Western Christian Thought”

    This paper will propose that we read Thomism and Nominalism as two responses to theological challenges that arose in the Western Christian encounter with Islam in the twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth centuries.  Thomas’s extensive use of Muslim sources in his Commentary of the Sentences of Peter Lombard, the work of Thomas’s confreres in the Spanish and North African missions, and the structure of the Summa Contra Gentiles all indicate Thomas’s awareness of and engagement with Islamic thought in his time.  By comparing the main themes of Thomas’s work with some of the main themes of Islamic theology, this paper will propose that Thomas was working to maintain the realism of the Augustinian tradition against the voluntarism of Islam.  By exploring the work of Heiko Oberman in the light of this reading of Thomas, this paper will propose that the Nominalist movement found something compelling in the Islamic emphasis on the sovereignty of God and sought to develop a voluntarist, nominalist Christian theology that nevertheless, and against its own principles, respected the freedom of the human agent.

•Prof. Isabelle Moulin, "Emanation and Eduction: Albert the Great's account of Creation from the Divine Names to the De causis et processu universitatis a prima causa".

My purpose is to show the two sides of Albert's attempt to give a philosophical answer to the notion of Creation. Departing from his vision of Avicenna's Dator formarum and Plato's demiurge, Albert, in his commentary upon the Divine Names, proposes his own theory of eduction as the true answer to the generation of forms in the created world. The theory of eduction however rests upon the dionysian vision of the First cause and developped in the Liber de Causis. It presupposes the proper emanation from the Fist principle along a series of Intelligences that carry out the flux formarum. Defining Creation as both an opus intelligentiae and naturae, Albert the Great tends to distinguish more sharply the two notions in his late works, such as the Dcpu: he insists that the proper action of God in the world is a true emanation while confining the eduction to the solely natural world, without never abandonning however his notion of formal exemplary causality. My conclusion will show how rightly Albert has sometimes been said to belong to "Neoplatonic peripatetism".

• Nazif Muhtaroglu, graduate student, University of Kentucky, “Aquinas’s and al-Ghazali’s Intuitions Regarding Omnipotence”

        I have two main tasks in this paper. First, I will compare critically what Aquinas says about omnipotence with al-Ghazali’s ideas on it. Second I will develop their intuitions regarding omnipotence and bring a solution to omnipotence puzzle from this framework.

         Aquinas excludes contradictions or things implying contradictions from the scope of divine power for the reason that they are not genuine possibilities. This fact does not pose a difficulty such as limiting divine omnipotence because the impossibility of their non-occurrence stems from the lack of possibility regarding such objects but not from the lack of divine power. Aquinas expresses this idea in Summa Theologicae and De Potentia Dei by saying for instance that “God cannot do such things.” He is not satisfied with this expression because he also says that “it is more proper to say that such things cannot be done rather than God cannot do them.” He tries to avoid using a formulation that may make an impression as if God is unable to do such things. Nevertheless, his last formulation semantically implies the inability of God in the same way as the former expression implies. If we complete the passive sentence “Such things cannot be done” by adding the agent responsible for such an act, we arrive at the following sentence:  Such things cannot be done by God. Unfortunately, his suggestion to avoid unintended meaning of the inability of God is not successful.

         In this regard, I suggest a crucial distinction here: the distinction between the metaphysical aspect of omnipotence and its linguistic aspect. Aquinas’s idea that contradictions do not fall under the scope of divine power is related to the metaphysical aspect of omnipotence. It is a metaphysical matter to determine what falls under the scope of divine power. However, once you determined what falls under the scope of divine power, there is another aspect of philosophical activity which concerns how to express this metaphysical option correctly. The formulations used or suggested to express the metaphysical analysis are related to the linguistic analysis of omnipotence.

         Al-Ghazali assumes the same metaphysical option as Aquinas did. He excludes impossibilities from the scope of divine power and an impossibility is a contradiction for him. However, he is more sensitive than Aquinas in formulating this metaphysical option.  He nowhere in Tahafut al-Falasifah (The Incoherence of Philosophers) and al-Iqtisad fi al-Itiqad (Moderation in Belief) which are the main works where he analyzes omnipotence uses “cannot” as a modal verb in a sentence whose subject is God. His formulation is that such things are not objects of (divine) power.

         By clarifying and developing Aquinas’s and al-Ghazali’s intuitions regarding omnipotence, I will try to give an answer to omnipotence puzzle. Let me first present the puzzle briefly.

         Can God create a stone too heavy for him to lift or can He make Himself nonexistent or can He behave unjustly or lie? If we assume omnipotence, being all-powerful, as an essential attribute of God, these questions seem to be puzzling. If the answer to such questions is yes, then we allowed accepting that God can kill Himself. But if He can kill Himself, then He is not an eternal being, so not truly God. If the answer is no, it seems that He has not enough power to perform the tasks in question. And this seems to be a defect in His power which implies an imperfection in Him. So again He is not truly God. In any case, the answers to such questions produce a difficulty in terms of the coherence of the traditional notion of God.

         Such questions presuppose that divine power is applicable to contradictory cases for Him but this is a category mistake. The idea of “category mistake” is the unnamed intuition shared by Aquinas and al-Ghazali. If contradictions do not fall within the scope of divine power, to put them under its scope would be category mistake.  Let’s following al-Ghazali’s sensitivity and continue: to say that God cannot do a contradictory thing involves a category mistake because in using the term “cannot” we presuppose that divine power is applicable to contradictions but the agent is unable to do it. The presupposition in question is simply false

         So the question whether God can kill Himself is illegitimate which can be answered neither by “yes” nor by “no.” It is like the following question: How many times did you kick your dog? Assume that you don’t have a dog. If you have no dog, there is no point to ask the number of kicking it. It is an absurd question under such a condition.

• Prof. Sarah Pessin, University of Denver, “2 Elephants in the Room: Maimonides’ Apophasis as Via Analogia.” 

    It is a well-received part of the history of philosophy that Maimonides’ negative theology is starker than any “via analogia.” In this study, I question this conceptual framework, arguing that Maimonides apophasis does indeed admit of a kind of “via analogia,” though one that is distinct from Aquinas’ own approach. As part of my analysis, I investigate Maimonides’ sensitivity to “essential” vs. “non-essential” ways of speaking about God in his own decision to adopt two strategies for divine predication: (1) the stark via analogia approach for making sense of what we might call “so-called essential claims about God” (seen most colorfully and emphatically in his Guide 1.60 “elephant analysis” – this is the first “elephant in the room” of the paper’s title), and (2) his “attributes of action” strategy for cases of what we might call “so-called non-essential claims about God” (seen most emphatically in his Guide 3.54 engagement with Exodus 33:11 ff. and Jeremiah 9:24). I argue that the very sensitivity to needing two kinds of apophatic strategies in itself reveals a strong kind of via analogia (although different from Aquinas’) in Maimonides’ thinking. This point helps us enrich our understanding of the complexity of Maimonides’ theology.

    In addition to a close text study of Maimonidean apophasis, my study also includes a methodological call to action, urging scholars to avoid tacitly privileging Thomistic meanings in our use of metaphysical terminology. Just because Maimonides lacks the kind of  “via analogia” found in Aquinas is no reason to avoid enriching our picture of Maimonides by seeing in him a different kind of “via analogia”. On this methodological point, I urge us to consider the ways in which the telling of the history of ideas is weakened when we tacitly read texts and categorize concepts through Christian lenses. In this respect, I talk about this point of method in my study of “Divine Will” Ibn Gabirol, and in my study of “holiness” in Otto vs. Soloveitchik. This metholodical point about avoiding tacitly wearing Christian lenses in our telling of the history of ideas (in addition to Maimonides’ discussion of elephants in his via negativa analysis) is the other “elephant in the room” of this paper’s title.

• Prof. Jörg Tellkamp, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana , Mexico City, “Perception and Reason in Aquinas's theory of the vis cogitativa”

    In the present paper I wish to follow two ideas. The first has to do

with the nature and function of the inner senses, mainly of the vis

cogitativa (and partly of the vis aestimativa in higher animals). I

will argue that the theory of the inner senses has considerable

explanatory power in order to account for the complex and intentional

knowledge of the outer and inner senses. The second idea relates to

the question of how to understand the vis cogitativa as ratio

particularis, i.e., as a sensory power with rational features, which

seem to stem from its relationship with intellectual capacities. It

will be crucial to analyze Aquinas's account of this relationship.

For other recent conferences sponsored by the Aquinas and the Arabs Project, see

http://web.me.com/mistertea/A_&_A_Conferences/Conferences_%26_Seminars.html