Journal article Open Access
{ "description": "<p>Ghaz\u0101l\u012b’s “The incoherence of the philosophers” spurred a counter-commentary by Ibn Rushd, as is well known. Up to ten texts from Ottoman scholars also purport to be commentaries on the Tah\u0101fut, constituting a commentary tradition that has been neglected by scholars. The first two commentators, Khojaz\u0101da (d. 1488) and \u02bfAl\u0101\u02be al-D\u012bn \u1e6c\u016bs\u012b (d. 1482), are not line-by-line exegetes of Ghaz\u0101l\u012b, but rather update the discussions that Ghaz\u0101l\u012b broached to the level of knowledge available to them. Khojaz\u0101da was favored by the Ottomans, but \u02bfAl\u0101\u02be al-D\u012bn’s content, methodology and argumentation style proves to be just as, if not more, interesting for us.</p>", "license": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode", "creator": [ { "affiliation": "Utrecht University", "@id": "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1846-4703", "@type": "Person", "name": "Lit, L.W. Cornelis van" } ], "headline": "An Ottoman Commentary Tradition on Ghaz\u0101l\u012b's Tah\u0101fut al-fal\u0101sifa. Preliminary Observations", "image": "https://zenodo.org/static/img/logos/zenodo-gradient-round.svg", "datePublished": "2020-04-19", "url": "https://zenodo.org/record/3757131", "@context": "https://schema.org/", "identifier": "https://doi.org/10.1163/18778372-04303004", "@id": "https://doi.org/10.1163/18778372-04303004", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "name": "An Ottoman Commentary Tradition on Ghaz\u0101l\u012b's Tah\u0101fut al-fal\u0101sifa. Preliminary Observations" }
Views | 29 |
Downloads | 27 |
Data volume | 9.4 MB |
Unique views | 26 |
Unique downloads | 24 |