RESUMEN Se discute cómo pueden dos filósofos islámicos sostener que la generación del cuerpo es necesaria para que se origine el alma y, al mismo tiempo, afirmar que ésta puede separarse del cuerpo, ya sea transformándose en un intelecto inmaterial -en el caso de al-Fārābī-, o bien en un alma individuada e inmortal -en el caso de Avicena. El primero es cercano al hilemorfismo peripatético; el segundo adopta un dualismo robusto. Se argumenta que la integración de la cosmología, la biología (...) y la noética conduce, en ambos casos, a una reconciliación coherente entre el origen natural del alma y su inmaterialidad. ABSTRACT The article discusses how it is possible for two Islamic philosophers to claim that the generation of the body is necessary for the soul to arise, and, at the same time, to affirm that the latter can separate from the body, whether by becoming an immaterial intellect -in the case of al-Fārābī-, or an immortal, individual soul -in the case of Avicenna. While the former is close to Peripatetic hylemorphism, the latter adopts a robust dualism. The paper argues that the integration of cosmology, biology, and noetics leads, in both cases, to a coherent reconciliation between the natural origin of the soul and its immaterial nature. (shrink)

Se discute cómo pueden dos filósofos islámicos sostener que la generación del cuerpo es necesaria para que se origine el alma y, al mismo tiempo, afirmar que ésta puede separarse del cuerpo, ya sea transformándose en un intelecto inmaterial ‒en el caso de al-Fārābī‒, o bien en un alma individuada e inmortal ‒en el caso de Avicena. El primero es cercano al hilemorfismo peripatético; el segundo adopta un dualismo robusto. Se argumenta que la integración de la cosmología, la biología y (...) la noética conduce, en ambos casos, a una reconciliación coherente entre el origen natural del alma y su inmaterialidad. (shrink)

This paper reconstructs the account of concept formation developed in the 4th Century A.D. by Themistius in the most ancient extant commentary on Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics. Themistius’ account can be contrasted with two widespread modern interpretations of Aristotle. Unlike psychological empiricists, Themistius ascribes an active role in concept formation to our innate capacity of understanding. Unlike intuitionists, he would not be satisfied by saying that νοῦς “intuits” or “spots” concepts. Rather, the question is what makes our νοῦς capable of “finding” (...) and “recognizing” concepts in experience, and this can only be an understanding prior to all experience. Themistius seems to be responding here to Platonist arguments against Aristotle’s epistemology: postulating a “potential νοῦς” is not enough, for one can apply Meno’s dilemma to it and ask how it can recognize that it has found what it was looking for. But, contrary to the judgment of some modern scholars, Themistius never embraced the theory of recollection either. He argued that both empiricism and Platonist innatism are wrong and developed a middle path marked by a strong interdependence between the perceptive and the rational capacity. This holds for all rational learning, and concept formation is its first stage: to form a concept means to learn something genuinely new, but also to recognize it as falling, e. g., under one of the ten categories. While being presented as a mere “paraphrasis” of Aristotle’s words, Themistius’ account is a well-advised and original response to the epistemological debates of his time. (shrink)