Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Home
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

41 results

Page 1 of 3

  • Referencing the Region
  • Aaron Segal
  • Journal: Latin American Research Review / Volume 29 / Issue 3 / 1994
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 October 2022, pp. 257-264
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation
  • Africa and the United States Media
  • Aaron Segal
  • Journal: African Issues / Volume 6 / Issue 2-3 / Summer/Fall 1976
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 August 2021, pp. 49-56
  • Print publication: Summer/Fall 1976
  • View extract

    Africa and Africans do not get along well with the United States press, radio and television—and vice versa. Most Africans (whether students, individuals, or government officials) who have had some exposure believe it offers of Africa. Most directors of the U.S. media are leery of Africa and would prefer major news events to occur elsewhere. Fraternization and sympathy are mostly limited to African journalists who have lived or traveled in the United States (a considerable number on various exchange grants) and American journalists who have done an African stint. Alcoholically cursing their respective bosses, these two groups usually get on quite well.

  • Chapter 6 - His Existence Is Essentiality
  • from Part III - The Creator
  • Edited by Daniel Frank, Purdue University, Indiana, Aaron Segal, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
  • Book: Maimonides' <I>Guide of the Perplexed</I>
  • Published online: 18 June 2021
  • Print publication: 01 July 2021, pp 102-124
  • View extract

    Summary

    Maimonides famously says some rather radical things about God – radical even by philosophical standards – both about what God is like “in Himself” and about God’s relationship with the created universe. Maimonides’ most detailed and sustained presentation of these radical ideas is in his discussion of divine attributes in chapters 50–70 of the Guide. Indeed, it seems evident that Maimonides’ point in that section is to make plain these radical ideas. To put matters rather simply and straightforwardly, the radical ideas are these: Strictly speaking, God shares nothing substantive in common with created beings, neither existence nor life nor power nor knowledge. Indeed, strictly speaking, God has no intrinsic nature at all, no attributes at all, and stands in no relations whatsoever to the created universe – save for negative attributes and attributes of action. Even speaking strictly, God does have negative attributes and does stand in whatever relations to the created universe are entailed by His having attributes of action.

  • Introduction
  • Edited by Daniel Frank, Purdue University, Indiana, Aaron Segal, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
  • Book: Maimonides' <I>Guide of the Perplexed</I>
  • Published online: 18 June 2021
  • Print publication: 01 July 2021, pp 1-8
  • View extract

    Summary

    Moses Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed is the greatest and most influential work in Jewish philosophy. It directly influenced Aquinas, Spinoza, and Leibniz, and the history of Jewish philosophy takes a decisive turn after the appearance of the Guide, in the wake of its Hebrew translation. Aquinas refers to “Rabbi Moyses” when he develops his own theory of analogical predication, and Spinoza has Maimonides and the Guide squarely in focus in the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, when he presents his own theory of biblical interpretation.

Maimonides' <I>Guide of the Perplexed</I>
  • Maimonides' Guide of the Perplexed
  • A Critical Guide
  • Edited by Daniel Frank, Aaron Segal
  • Published online: 18 June 2021
  • Print publication: 01 July 2021
  • View description
    Moses Maimonides' Guide of the Perplexed (c. 1190) is the greatest and most influential text in the history of Jewish philosophy. Controversial in its day, the Guide directly influenced Aquinas, Spinoza, and Leibniz, and the history of Jewish philosophy took a decisive turn after its appearance. While there continues to be keen interest in Maimonides and his philosophy, this is the first scholarly collection in English devoted specifically to the Guide. It includes contributions from an international team of scholars addressing the most important philosophical themes that range over the three parts of this sprawling work - including topics in the philosophy of language, metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of law, ethics, and political philosophy. There are also essays on the Guide's hermeneutic puzzles, and on its overall structure and philosophical trajectory. The volume will be of interest to philosophers, Judaists, theologians, and medievalists.
  • Sceptical theism and divine truths
  • AARON SEGAL
  • Journal: Religious Studies / Volume 47 / Issue 1 / March 2011
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 February 2011, pp. 85-95
  • Print publication: March 2011
  • View abstract

    Sceptical theism has been employed by its adherents in an argument aimed at undermining the so called ‘noseeum inference’. Erik Wielenberg (2010) has recently argued that there is an equally plausible argument for the conclusion that sceptical theism implies that we do not know any proposition that has word-of-God justification only. Thus, sceptical theists need to give up their argument against the noseeum inference or accept the conclusion that we do not know any proposition that has word-of-God justification only. I claim that sceptical theists need not face such a difficult choice because the argument that Wielenberg offers is not as plausible as their argument against the noseeum inference.

Page 1 of 3