There is a disagreement among contemporary commentators about Avicena's view of the theoretical intellect in "Kitāb alnafs". Is its activity performed by an internal sense helped by the intellect, or is it a activity proper of the intellect independently of material forms? Some passages of V.5 and V.6 suggest that both elements are necessary to the knowledge: unifying the multiplicity and multiplying the unity; in others words, it is not enough that the intellect conceptualizes the minor and major terms of (...) the syllogism, it also needs to intuit the middle term. (shrink)

The Muʿtazilī theologians, particularly the later Imāmī ones, developed numerous interesting arguments against divine command theory. The arguments, however, have not received the attention they deserve. Some of the arguments have been discussed in passing, and some have not been discussed at all. In this article, I aim to present and analyse the arguments. To that end, I first distinguish between different semantic, ontological, epistemological, and theological theses that were often conflated in the debate, and examine the logical relation among (...) them. Then I go over the Muʿtazila's arguments determining, among other things, which of the theses was targeted by each argument. In presenting the arguments, I focus mainly on the late kalām period, the period falling roughly between the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries of the common era, as the arguments were at their most sophisticated level by this time. (shrink)

A main function of common natures in Avicenna’s metaphysics is supposed to be providing an objective ground for the categories. Thus, it is commonly assumed that in his metaphysics things are objectively divided into the categories into which they are because members of each category share the same common nature. However, common natures cannot perform the function unless they are shared, in a real sense of the word, by the members of the respective categories, and it is not clear at (...) all in what real sense Avicenna took common natures to be shared by them. On the one hand, he rejected Platonic and Aristotelian realisms about common natures, the two standard accounts of how common natures are shared by their instances. On the other hand, it is unclear that his alternative account(s) of common natures renders them genuinely common. The primary goal of this paper is to examine whether Avicenna’s common natures can provide an objective ground for the categories. It considers various interpretations of Avicenna's account and argues that they are either incorrect interpretations of Avicenna or do not render common natures genuinely common. It concludes with proposing to look elsewhere in Avicenna’s system to find the objective ground. (shrink)

In this article, I defend a version of ontological pluralism, specifically with an eye toward laying metaphysical groundwork for an account of divine naming inspired by Avicenna. I try to show (1) that Avicenna’s pluralism is well-motivated as a metaphysical thesis and (2) that it offers substantive philosophical support for a correlatively pluralist approach to divine naming. My argument proceeds by identifying two influential objections to ontological pluralism, and then offering replies to these objections with the help of Avicenna. The (...) first objection pertains to pluralism as a position in general metaphysics, whereas the second pertains to pluralism as a position in theological epistemology or divine naming. To the extent that these replies are successful, I argue that Avicennian pluralism is compelling on both counts as a philosophical position. (shrink)

Logic, an old discipline with a long history, is a product of the nature of thinking that is based on mental thought, which is distinguished from other creatures by human nature. Logical thought and various forms of rational inference, seen in all the geographical regions of the world before attaining a systematic structure, have directed to human life and its scientific products. A systematic structure is taken back to Parmenides, lived in ancient Greek thought. The logic developed from various directions (...) was given a proper shape by Aristotle nearly two thousand years ago and has been in continuous development and transformation in the direction of human mind and its needs. Today, in addition to Aristotelian logic, which is two most valuable structures, many valued logics have emerged.. Quite different logic conception emerges from classical logic, however, which is considered as a beginning for philosophical thought and is one of the important factors in reaching the goal of the philosophical effort. But the presence of classical logic continues in the areas of religious, classical philosophy and social sciences. In this frame, the value of classical logic from past histories requires the position that it deserves. Especially, in the area of logic as well as the problems faced in logic education, more effective planning is required especially in the higher education level. This article will briefly discuss the structure of logic and its various interpretations. It will also point out the importance of logic and will draw attention to the problems in the Theology Faculties. A few suggestions that we want to discuss in this framework will also be put forward. (shrink)

No argument from the Arabic philosophical tradition has received more scholarly attention than Avicenna's ‘flying man’ thought experiment, in which a human is created out of thin air and is able to grasp his existence without grasping that he has a body. This paper offers a new interpretation of the version of this thought experiment found at the end of the first chapter of Avicenna's treatment of soul in theHealing. We argue that it needs to be understood in light of (...) an epistemological theory set out elsewhere by Avicenna, which allows that all the constitutive properties of an essence will be clear to someone who understands and considers that essence. On our reading, this theory is put to work in the ‘flying man’: because the flying man would grasp that his own essence has existence without grasping that he has a body, connection to body cannot be constitutive of the essence. (shrink)