“The Intellect is a Point and a Circle”: A Case Study in the Textual Relationship of Abū Yaʿqūb al-Sijistānī’s Kitāb al-Maqālīd and the Longer Theology of Aristotle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In his ground-breaking monograph Early Philosophical Shiism: The Ismaili Neoplatonism of Abū Yaʿqūb al-Sijistānī, Paul Walker has pointed out parallels between al-Sijistānī’s Kitāb al-Maqālīd and the Longer Theology of Aristotle – an augmented version of the Theology of Aristotle preserved mainly in Judeo-Arabic manuscripts and a sixteenth-century Latin translation. This raises the question of whether it is al-Sijistānī who cites the Longer Theology, or the unknown author of the Longer Theology who cites al-Sijistānī, or whether the two rely on a common source. Walker opts for the third solution: a common source used by both al-Sijistānī and the Longer Theology. The present contribution focuses on one of the parallels between al-Sijistānī’s Kitāb al-Maqālīd and the Longer Theology, demonstrates that Walker is indeed correct in postulating such a common source, and shows that this common source contained some of the most significant ideas for al-Sijistānī’s Ismāʿīlī Neoplatonism: the idea that the Word (al-kalima) mediates between the Creator (“Originator,” al-mubdiʿ) and the Intellect, that the Intellect is united with the Word, that the Word is “non-being” (lays), and several others. The article comments on the possible nature of this common source and on how the Longer Theology sheds light on the origins of al-Sijistānī’s Ismāʿīlī Neoplatonism.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".