This article is about Avicenna’s account of syllogisms comprising opposite premises. We examine the applications and the truth conditions of these syllogisms. Finally, we discuss the relation between these syllogisms and the principle of non-contradiction.

Appealing to some analytic tools developed by contemporary analytic philosophers, I discuss Avicenna’s views regarding the problem(s) of linguistic and mental reference to non-existents, also known as the problem(s) of ‘empty intentionality’. I argue that, according to Avicenna, being in an intentional state directed towards an existing thing involves three elements: (1) an indirect relation to that thing, (2) a direct relation to a mental representation of that thing, and (3) a direct relation to the essence of that thing. Empty (...) intentionality does not involve the first element. Moreover, depending on the nature of the non-existent we are thinking about, the third element may not be involved either. Thus, the necessary element of being in an intentional state towards something is to be related to a mental representation of that thing. The nature of this representation may vary depending on the nature of the non-existent towards which our thought is directed. (shrink)

Some authors have proposed that Avicenna considers mathematical objects, i.e., geometric shapes and numbers, to be mental existents completely separated from matter. In this paper, I will show that this description, though not completely wrong, is misleading. Avicenna endorses, I will argue, some sort of literalism, potentialism, and finitism.

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)

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)

Abraham Ibn Daud critica duramente a Ibn Gabirol en su Fe Exaltada. En este artículo, tengo la intención de demostrar que el objeto genuino de esta crítica es Dominicus Gundissalinus, coautor, junto a Ibn Daud de la traducción de la Shifa’ de Avicena del árabe al latín. Además de su trabajo como traductores, Gundissalinus e Ibn Daud también escribieron obras propias. En este artículo, discuto la definición de materia prima utilizada por Avicena e Ibn Gabirol, adoptada por Ibn Daud y (...) Gundissalinus. Aporto pruebas textuales para demostrar que en la mayoría de los casos en que Ibn Daud critica a Ibn Gabirol, en realidad se está refiriendo a los casos en que Gundissalinus abandona los puntos de vista de Avicena y en su lugar adopta los puntos de vista de Ibn Gabirol. (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)