OUR SINCERE THANKS TO THE CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS FOR THEIR VALUABLE AND STIMULATING PRESENTATIONS AND TO THE MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE WHO HEARD THE PAPERS AND JOINED INTO THE DISCUSSIONS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PRESENCE AND PARTICIPATION WHICH MADE THIS CONFERENCE THE GREAT SUCCESS THAT IT WAS.

DR SARAH PESSIN, PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT AND CENTER FOR JUDAIC STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF DENVER

DR RICHARD TAYLOR, PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT, MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY

Presented by the Departments of Philosophy at

the University of Denver and Marquette University

and

the University of Denver’s Center for Judaic Studies

Organizers:

Prof. Sarah Pessin, University of Denver

&

Prof. Richard C. Taylor, Marquette University

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.

First held at Marquette University in 2008, this Summer Conference alternates between the University of Denver and Marquette University.  In January 2010 the Call for Papers will be made submissions for the 2010 Summer Conference at Marquette University.

PRESENTERS: Established Scholars: send a title and 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: February 1, 2009

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 ($40).

PROGRAM ANNOUNCED: May 1, 2009, or earlier.

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

CONFERENCE REGISTRATION FOR

ALL PRESENTERS AND ATTENDEES

(fees cover refreshments)

Advance Registration by May 1: $40 by check, At the Door: $50 cash.

REGISTRATION FORMS AND CHECKS SHOULD BE MADE OUT TO:

“Department of Philosophy - University of Denver”

(please indicate ‘Summer Conference’ in the memo line)

and sent to:

Melissa Izzo - Summer 09 Philosophy Conference

Department of Philosophy

2000 E Asbury Ave, #257

Denver, CO 80208

Melissa Izzo <mizzo2@du.edu>; phone: 303.871-2063

For the Registration form and for Meals options, click HERE.

CONFERENCE LOCATION:

Conference sessions will take place in the Nelson Hall Private Dining Room and Sturm Hall’s Humanities Institute (Room 286), from June 22-25, 2009.

To locate Nelson Hall and Sturm Hall on the DU campus map, and for information on visitor parking on campus, please visit: http://www.du.edu/maps

Schedule*

*Presenters and Attendees, please note some changes to the original

schedule have been made to accommodate travel plans of presenters.

Sunday June 21 – Pre-Conference Dinner

7 pm Sunday June 21: Pre-Conference dinner at the Mercury Café (2199 California St., Denver, CO, 80205), our local organic foodery powered by wind and sun and filled with different lively community events nightly.

6:15pm: meet at Front Desk of Nelson Hall to take the LightRail downtown (to 20th and Welton station (D line)

Conference Schedule

Sessions will be held in the Nelson Hall Private Dining Room and Sturm Hall Room 286.  See below for maps.

Monday JUNE 22

9:00 - 9:30: Coffee, tea, orange juice, light pastries and bagels

Presentations   (75 min each total for presentation & discussion)

Morning sessions are in Nelson Hall, Private Dining Room:

[1]  9:30 - 10:45: Prof. Siobhan Nash-Marshall, Manhattanville College, “Boethius and Metaphysical Primitives”

[2] 10:50 - 12:05: Prof. Robert Pasnau, University of Colorado, “Matter and Extension”

12:15 pm - 1:30 pm: Lunch

Boxed lunch (pre-order on registration form) in Sturm Hall Room 286

Afternoon presentations are in Sturm Hall Room 286:

[3] 1:30 - 2:45: Prof. Y. Tzvi Langermann, Bar Ilan University Ramat Gan, “Pythagorean Ethics in Medieval Cultures: The sîra of `Alî Ibn Riḍwân and its Jewish Adaptations”

[4] 2:50 - 4:05: Prof. Aladdin M. Yaqub, Lehigh University, “Al-Ghazâlî’s Philosophers on the Divine Unity”

[5] 4:10 - 5:25: Michael Anderson, Marquette University, “Two Returns to Platonism in Arabic Philosophy”

5:45 pm dinner  (Nelson Hall) – Included in conference fee. Video screening of ‘The Making of the Big Blue Bear’ with DU artist, Lawrence Argent

Tuesday JUNE 23

9:00 am - 9:30 am: Coffee, tea, orange juice, light pastries and bagels

Morning sessions are in Nelson Hall Private Dining Room:

[6] 9:30 - 10:45:Prof. Judy Barad, Indiana State University,  “Aquinas on Compassion”

[7] 10:50 - 12:05: Andrew LaZella, DePaul University, “On the Material Impediments to Sublunary Thought and Action in Siger of Brabant’s Quaestiones in Metaphysicam and De Necessitate et Contingentia Causarum”

12:15-1:30 Lunch in Nelson Hall

1:30 pm - 5 pm: Excursion to downtown Denver, Big Blue Bear, and Denver Art Museum

1:30: Meet at Nelson Hall front desk for group LightRail and Public Transport trip downtown

Art Museum ticket - $13 (optional excursion fee on registration form)

For info on the Denver Art Museum, visit:

http://www.denverartmuseum.org/home

For info on the Big Blue Bear (created by DU artist) at the Denver Downtown Convention Center, visit:

http://www.thebigbluebeardenver.com/

6:30 pm Dinner at the home of Prof. Pessin.

Wednesday JUNE 24

9:00 am - 9:30 am: Coffee, tea, orange juice, light pastries and bagels

Morning sessions are in Nelson Hall Private Dining Room

[8] 9:30 - 10:45: Andrew Lang, Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology, “The locus of Intellectual Beatitude in Aquinas”

[9] 10:50 - 12:05: Jason Jordan, University of Oregon, “The Critique of Causation: the Latin Inheritance of an Arab Dispute”

12:15 - 1:30 Lunch @ Garbanzo’s Mediterranean Grill (2045 S University Blvd)

(pay your own tab)

3:30 pm until evening: Bus Excursion to historic Chautauqua Park in Boulder; hiking trails; dinner at Chautauqua Dining Hall [optional excursion fees and RSVPs on Registration form]

Read about the “Chautauqua Movement” and the history of the Colorado Chautauqua:

http://www.chautauqua.com/aboutus_movement.htm

http://www.chautauqua.com/aboutus_history.htm

Dinner (pay your own tab) at Chautauqua Dining Hall:

http://www.dininghall.net/about.php

Thursday JUNE 25

9:00 - 9:30: Coffee, tea, orange juice, light pastries and bagels

Presentations 

Morning sessions are in Nelson Hall, Private Dining Room

[10]  9:30 - 10:45: Shalina Stilley, Marquette University, “The ‘Ought’ of St. Thomas’s Natural Law Theory and the ‘Is’--‘Ought’ Problem”

[11] 10:50 - 12:05:  Prof. Richard C. Taylor, Marquette University, “Averroes on the Sharîfiah of the Philosophers”

12:15 pm - 1:30 pm: Lunch

Boxed lunch (pre-order on registration form) in Sturm Hall Room 286

Closing Session:

Sturm Hall Room 286

[12] 1:30 - 2:45: Prof. Sarah Pessin, University of Denver, “Illuminated Shadows: Emanation Meets First Matter in Isaac Israeli and Ibn Gabirol”

CONFERENCE LOCATION:

Conference sessions will take place in the Nelson Hall Private Dining Room and Sturm Hall’s Humanities Institute (Room 286), from June 22-25, 2009.

To locate Nelson Hall and Sturm Hall on the DU campus map, and for information on visitor parking on campus, please visit:  http://www.du.edu/maps

HOUSING:

On-campus housing is available in Nelson Hall, a new air-conditioned dorm with private bathrooms ($46.50 per night for a single or $36.50 per night for a double; plus a $6 admin. fee per stay).

35 rooms are being held for this event. Check in begins Sunday June 21; check out by Thursday June 25. Cut-off date to reserve a room: May 15. Rooms requested after the cut-off date are subject to availability.

To reserve a room contact Melissa Izzo at mizzo2@du.edu or by phone at 303-871-2063

DIRECTIONS AND MAPS:

TRAVELING TO THE UNIVERSITY OF DENVER (& DOWNTOWN DENVER) FROM DENVER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT:

For a shuttle, see  http://www.supershuttle.com/ (rates are about $19 each way)

Getting to University of Denver’s Nelson Hall (2222 S High Street, Denver 80210) or to Downtown Denver:

    * Expect a taxi to cost around $70 or a bit more due to fuel costs.

1. *Most convenient and cheapest option: SuperShuttle (http://www.supershuttle.com/) The closest SuperShuttle stop to Nelson Hall is: Centennial Halls, 1870 S. High St., Denver, CO 80210
   

The Conference sessions are held on the University of Denver campus in two locations:

1) Nelson Hall Private Dining Room (same building as housing):

LOCATION:  2222 S High Street, Denver CO 80210

2) Sturm Hall Humanities Institute, Room 286

LOCATION: 2000 E Asbury Ave., Denver CO 80208

UNIVERSITY OF DENVER PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT link:

www.du.edu/philosophy

UNIVERSITY OF DENVER CENTER FOR JUDAIC STUDIES link:

www.du.edu/cjs

MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT link:

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

OTHER LINKS:

Aquinas and the Arabs Project link: www.AquinasAndTheArabs.org

Midwest Seminar in Ancient and Medieval Philosophy link:

http://web.mac.com/mistertea/Midwest_Seminar/2009_Summer_Aristotle_Conference.html

Presentation Abstracts

• Michael Anderson, Marquette University, “Two Returns to Platonism in Arabic Philosophy” Abstract: In this paper, I will discuss two Arabic philosophers, Ibn Bajja and Suhrawardi.  Within their opposite ends of the Islamic world both have argued for Platonism, by which I mean at least (1) the primacy of intelligible forms,  (2) which are known through some sort of intuition and (3) thereby weaken the relation between discursive reasoning and fully intelligible reality.  First, I will discuss Ibn Bajja's refutation of the"Third Man" argument.  Second, I will focus on Suhrawardi's criticism of Peripatetic definition.  Third, I will show how these criticisms of the Aristotelian tradition lead both philosophers to the aspects of Platonism outlined above.  The selection of these two thinkers, with their different contexts and approaches, should shed some light upon the perennial nature of Platonism and its concerns.

1. •Prof. Judy Barad, Indiana State University,  “Aquinas on Compassion” Abstract: Although most people recognize compassion as one of the most admirable virtues, it is not easy to find discussions of it by Christian theologians.  Instead, Christian theologians tend to discuss charity, a virtue infused by God into a person.  Etymologically, the word ‘compassion’--compassio-- comes from two Latin words:  com means “with” and pati means “suffer.”  Literally, then, ‘compassion’ means “to suffer with.”    Aquinas discusses compassion as an interior effect of charity, a theological virtue.  It is interior because compassion is felt within the person who has charity. The cause of compassion, charity, Aquinas describes as the friendship between God’s children and God Himself. Although Aquinas wrote prolifically on the subject of charity, someone could overlook his writing on compassion because he discusses it under the term ‘mercy.’ Diana Fritz Cates, for instance, who draws on an Aristotelian-Thomistic ethical framework to develop a theory of compassion, observes, “Aristotle and Thomas have little to say about compassion: hence, it will not be helpful to begin with their accounts.”  However, Aquinas uses the word misericordia (mercy), as a synonym of compassio (compassion).  Beginning with some essential definitions, this presentation will cover Aquinas’ teachings on how we can feel the suffering of others, who should receive our compassion, the difference between compassion and pity, the cause of compassion, the various levels of compassion, the greatest obstacle to compassion, and extending compassion toward enemies.  Aquinas’ work on compassion, I contend, sheds light on a virtue that is very much needed in today’s world. 
   

• Jason Jordan, University of Oregon, “The Critique of Causation: the Latin Inheritance of an Arab Dispute” Abstract: 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 ìmaxim of admissibilityî —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.

1. •Andrew Lang, Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology, “The locus of Intellectual Beatitude in Aquinas” Abstract: One question never directly considered by Thomas Aquinas ex professo is where specifically beatitude resides in the intellect. This presentation attempts to establish the grounds in Aquinas to answer this question by an analysis of the nature and function of the intellect and his understanding of the end of man. This analysis is then compared to the medieval Basel Manuscripts, in which after granting that happiness must consist in an act of the intellect, the author endeavours to answer the first question posed. The central aspect of this comparison is a criticism of the Basel Manuscript’s primitive cataloguing of certain Arabic thinkers on the same question. The aim of this is to bring out the positive aspects in which these thinkers actually contribute to the devel
   

• Prof. Y. Tzvi Langermann, Bar Ilan University Ramat Gan, “Pythagorean Ethics in Medieval Cultures: The sîra of `Alî Ibn Riḍwân and its Jewish Adaptations” Abstract: I propose to discuss a short essay on morals ascribed, almost surely by error, to Aristotle. The Greek original has not yet been located. In Arabic it went under the title al-Risāla fī ’l-tabdīr, “Essay on Regimen”. It was first published by Louis Cheikho from a manuscript at Paris (arabe 132).  Cheikho's manuscript reveals the name of the translator: Abū ‘Alī ‘Īsā Ibn Zur‘a (d. 1008), a well-known Christian translator from Baghdad. Its values derive ultimately from the world of pagan Hellenism, specifically Pythagoreanism.

This work was incorporated by Alī ibn Ridwān (988-ca. 1061) in his sīra, or spiritual autobiography. Sīrā means both biography, or, as in this case, autobiography, but it is also means way of life, or conduct. In some cases, including the present one, it combines both: the biography is meant to instruct and illustrate how one ought to conduct oneself. Its ethic was faithfully assimilated and, if we believe the author (as I do), practiced by Ibn Ridwān. However, the full autobiography has not survived in Arabic; snippets are cited Ibn Abī Usaybī‘a in his biographical encyclopedia of medical personalities.

Ibn Ridwān's sīra was translated into Hebrew by Judah Harīzī. It circulated under the title Iggeret ha-Musar ha-Kelalit, which means something like, “A General Essay on Ethics”, but in some manuscripts it is called Minhag Hasidim, “The Way of Life of the Pious”. Neither the essay published by Cheikho, nor Ibn Ridwān 's sīra, had much of an impact. The Hebrew version, by contrast, had a major impact on its Jewish readership; no less than thirty-five manuscripts have been identified, and it was printed already in 1559, in Riva di Trento.

The pseudo-Aristotelian treatise that stands at the core of Ibn Ridwān's sīra is an interesting plea for a Pythagorean style of piety. As such it continues a tradition that found an audience among some (though perhaps not many) Muslims, as well as Christians living in Islamic lands. However, the appeal of this ethic to Jews antedates Islam by centuries; the success of Ibn Ridwān's sīra (however disguised) testifies to the enduring sympathy between Pythagorean and Jewish ethics.

1. •Andrew LaZella, DePaul University, “On the Material Impediments to Sublunary Thought and Action in Siger of Brabant’s Quaestiones in Metaphysicam and De Necessitate et Contingentia Causarum”  Abstract: Long known almost solely for his cameo in the Divine Comedy as the twelfth member of the circle of lights, eulogized by St. Thomas Aquinas as the “syllogizer of invidious verities,” the twentieth-century has witnessed a significant increase in scholarship surrounding Siger of Brabant with the publication of critical editions of his work. In contribution to the growing field of literature, this paper will shed light on Siger’s notion of “causal impedibility” as resulting from the influence of matter in the sublunary realm. Using both his Quaestiones in Metaphysicam and De Necessitate et Contingentia Causarum, I will show how matter sets limitations both on thought (i.e., knowledge of causal necessity) and on action (i.e., an agent’s causal power to produce an effect) in the world of hylomorphic substances. The limitations and impediments introduced by matter extend not only within this realm, but also reach to those superlunary agents, including the first agent, enacting sublunary effects. This means that matter’s non-responsiveness to causal prompting curtails the extent of divine influence on material beings. God’s knowledge of contingent effects is restricted due to his conception of such effects not through themselves, but through his own substance, which includes knowledge only of God’s own infallibility, not the infallibility of the events themselves.  As for God’s power, although it cannot be impeded, it must operate through a series of intermediaries, some of which are impedible, thereby introducing impediments to the net result of divine operations. What this means for providence, Siger illustrates through the following example (De Necessitate IV, ll. 47-52), is that if the causes preordained by a paterfamilias do not necessarily produce the desired results, then neither his account (ratio), understanding (intellectus), nor providence (providentia) of such events will impose necessity upon them. Extrapolating such an example to the cosmic paterfamilias, we begin to see how the material limitations set on divine production and providential ordering fracture the ontological, cosmological, and political unity of the universe, which Aquinas most certainly would consider an “invidious verity.” 
   

• Prof. Siobhan Nash-Marshall, Manhattanville College, “Boethius and Metaphysical Primitives” Abstract: Metaphysical primitives have been a matter of profound dispute since Aristotle defended the claim that Wisdom must needs be knowledge of all four causes of reality. One of the most controversial and influential post-Aristotelian attempts to define metaphysical primitives is Boethius’s in the De Hebdomadibus or Quomodo Substantiae.

As the complete title of the work indicates, the Quomodo Substantiae is Boethius’s attempt to delineate how things are good in virtue of what they are without being substantial goods [quomodo substantiae in eo quod sint bonae sint, cum non sint substantialia bona]. That is, its primary concern is to determine how the essences [what things are – id quod sunt] of contingent concrete particulars can be the “cause” of the goodness of those concrete particulars whose essences they are [how things can be good in virtue of what they are – quomodo substantiae in eo quod sint bonae sint] without this entailing that those concrete particulars are their essences [without being substantial goods – cum non sint substantialia bona]. What is minimally at stake in the Quomodo, as such, is a specific instance of one of the most basic ontological problems: understanding how essences determine entities/substances. In modern parlance, the problem is minimally to understand how attributes/properties qualify concrete particulars: to explain instantiation. This problem happens to be inordinately difficult in itself. The problem also necessarily calls all manner of basic metaphysical questions to the fore. Most importantly, it calls the question of metaphysical primitives to the fore.

This paper would attempt both to interpret and reconstruct Boethius’s response to the question what is ousia? as it is delineated in the Quomodo.

• Prof. Robert Pasnau, University of Colorado, “Matter and Extension” Abstract: The distinction between matter and form lies at the heart of medieval Aristotelianism, but the proper characterization of that distinction is quite unclear. Here I attempt to understand the character of matter, apart from form, and in particular to understand the relationship between matter and extension. One sort of view takes matter to be intrinsically extended, by its very nature. Others treat extension as an accident of matter, and still others treat extension as the result of a distinct substantial form. These different views arrive at conceptions of hylomorphism that are so different from one another that there is something absurd about characterizing them all as Aristotelian.

• Prof. Sarah Pessin, University of Denver, “Illuminated Shadows: Emanation Meets First Matter in Isaac Israeli and Ibn Gabirol” Abstract: In his Book of Substances (Kitâb al-Jawâhir), Isaac Israeli distinguishes two modes of ontological relation, one “by Influence and Action of divine Power and Will,” and one an “Essential and Subtantial” relation. In this paper, I use the notion of the “illuminated shadow” to examine how these two modes of relation compare with Plotinian emanation, and I compare and contrast these two modes with the dynamic of “matter and divine Will” in Ibn Gabirol’s Fons Vitae, with particular attention to the “shadow” discourse in Ibn Gabirol’s version of Plotinus’ famous Enneads 4.8.1 ascent passage at Fons Vitae 3.56. I will also propose a “checklist” of sorts delineating “3 models of Mediation” as a better alternative to the standard division of “creation vs. emanation” or similar 2-part dichotomies.

• Shalina Stilley, Marquette University, “The ‘Ought’ of St. Thomas’s Natural Law Theory and the ‘Is’--‘Ought’ Problem” Abstract:  Although many thomistic natural law theorists have attempted to establish that they do not invalidly derive an “ought” from an “is” (or statements about what humans ought to do from statements about human nature) little has been said about the type of “ought” which St. Thomas implements in his theory of natural law.  It is fairly easy to establish that generic “ought”-statements can be validly derived from “is”-premises.  It is much more difficult, however, to derive an “ought” which is moral, prescriptive, determinate, relevant to fostering the common good, and non-relativistic.   In this paper, I will attempt to establish that this is the type of “ought” found in Thomas’s theory of natural law.  I will subsequently argue that one of the solutions to the “is”—“ought” problem which has been proposed by thomistic natural law theorists is inadequate because it fails to take this into account.  

1. •Prof. Richard C. Taylor, Marquette University, “Averroes on the Sharîfiah of the Philosophers.” Abstract: In this presentation I undertake two tasks before summarizing in my conclusion. First, I will expound the methodological framework for dealing with matters of religion set forth in the Faṣl al-Maqal. Second, I will consider Averroes’ statements on method in the Tahâfut at-Tahâfut / Incoherence of the Incoherence and al-Kashf ʿan al-manâhij al-adillah fî ʿaqâ’id al-milla / The Explanation of the Sorts of Proofs in the Doctrines of Religion with examples illustrating the method at work in those writings. Finally, I will return to the text quoted to explain how it is that it can be said that there is a “sharîfiah specific to the philosophers” and how that sharîfiah specific to the philosophers consists in the requirement that philosophers study the Divine Nature in the science of metaphysics as the highest worship human beings can undertake.
   

• Prof. Aladdin M. Yaqub, Lehigh University, “Al-Ghazâlî’s Philosophers on the Divine Unity” Abstract: The medieval Islamic philosophers held a certain conception of the divine unity that assumes the necessary existent to be both one and simple. The oneness of the necessary existent meant that it is the only necessary existent and its simplicity meant that it admits no composition whatsoever—it is pure essence and its essence is necessary existence. In The Incoherence of the Philosophers Al-Ghazālī presents, with elaboration, an exposition of the philosophers’ conception of the divine unity, several arguments for its two components (i.e., oneness and simplicity), and his critique of these arguments. In this paper I focus on six of the arguments attributed to the philosophers. Following the textual evidence, I reconstruct these arguments and offer two possible interpretations of them. The first interpretation, which I call the many-argument interpretation, sees one of the arguments as employing the simplicity of the necessary existent to establish its oneness and the other five arguments as invoking oneness to establish simplicity. The second

interpretation, which I call the one-argument interpretation, doesn’t offer a new reading for the first argument but sees the other five arguments as defending the simplicity of the necessary existent based on its basic concept. I argue for the superiority of the one argument interpretation.