Talk:Averroes's theory of the unity of the intellect/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Whiteguru (talk · contribs) 23:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Due this being a long article, the GA review shall be broken into the same sections of the Article, in order to make matters manageable.

Is it reasonably well written?
1. The brief introduction to Avveroes philosophy touches necessary bases relevant to his times, illustrating the influence of previous thinkers such as Aristotle, Plotinus, Al-Farabi, Avicenna (Ibn Sina) and Avempace (Ibn Bajja).
2. The impact of the latin translation illustrates his influence political philosophy of Dante Alighieri in the fourteenth century and the critique by other philosophers—including Thomas Aquinas.
3. The lead concludes with Peter Adamson's conclusion about the influence of Avveroes as a product of its times.
4. A well written lead; neat and simple.

Is it reasonably well written?
1. The background touches bases with philosophers who have examined the intellect: Aristotle, Plotinius, Al-Farabi and Avicenna. There is reference to Avempace developing this theory, but with limitations on understanding exactly what was developed.
2. Well written prose leads the reader to a neat conclusion for the background: notion of unity of the intellect is his most mature theory .

Is it reasonably well written?
1. The Original Theory is succinctly explained like so: a process which contains not universal knowledge but "active consideration of particular things".
2. This then becomes a basis for exegesis of Aristotle's On the Soul. Good.
3. The Latin Averroists propounded operational union; however the reference to phantasmata reaches right back to pre-Socratic philosophy and and is a brilliant inclusion.
4. The double conjunction then leads to a possible sapienta: the intellect becomes a human faculty.

Is it reasonably well written?
1. The Reception shows the reader how the unity of the intellect thesis, in particular, generated an intellectual controversy in Latin Christendom, along with a good illustration of how Dante Alighieri adapted this for his political philosophy.
2. The section Criticisms showed how Scholasticism and Aquinas in particular criticized the thesis from the theological standpoint. To say that the theory fails to provide for a person's immortality and afterlife reveals the (then) closed world of theological reasoning and presumptions about the afterlife. So a telling inclusion.
3. While Aquinas has an evident critique of Averroes in his works, I would be cautious in claiming that the Catholic Church condemned Averroes in a formal dogmatic expression. Siger of Brabant and Boethius of Dacia were singled out as the most prominent targets of the 1277 censure, and a clarification might be in order.

Is it reasonably well written?
1. The evaluation deals delicately with what would today be received as patent nonsense by modern readers. However, Adamson is generous in explaining that philosophers were attempting to understand the nature of reality, knowledge, understanding and how the intellect and reasoning functioned within the human. In this wise, Adamson is generous in his summary of Averroes and his concept of universal intellect. The introduction of the term universal knowledge is important, both to the latin Scholastics and the post-Aristotelian philosophers as it leads us to the modern grasps of knowledge on this planet, and off the planet.
It is Broad in its coverage?
1. It makes a reasonable attribution to the Aristotelian theory of mind.

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
1. Footnotes are succinct and appropriate.
2. Primary References: all from Averroes and his works.
3. Secondary references were examined, verified and well laid out.
It is Broad in its coverage.
1. This is factually concise and gives a proficient coverage of the theory of Averroes and the Universal Intellect, along with its history, expansion among the latin Scholastics and subsequent decline. Averroes methodology in exegesis and writing were taken up and further utilised.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
1. Coverage is considered neutral; there is no bias nor leaning toward any particular theory of Intellect (there are many) and treats Averroes and his works with neutrality.
Is it stable?
1. This page was created on 5 May 2018 and has had 29 editors. The top 10 editors have contributed the majority of the material, and the page is not subject to any edit wars, etc. Pageviews analysis is unclear.
It is illustrated by images and the three images are appropriate and informative.
1. The talk page notes this is part of the WikiProject Philosophy
Overall:
1. Pass Y