philosophy
Asghar Vaezi; Hussein Niazbakhsh
Abstract
IntroductionIbn Gabirol (a Jewish philosopher of the 11th century CE) enumerates different divisions for the concept of "being" in his book, “Fons Vitae". At first glance, some of these divisions seem incompatible with each other. Based on the findings of this research, Ibn Gabirol considers “being” ...
Read More
IntroductionIbn Gabirol (a Jewish philosopher of the 11th century CE) enumerates different divisions for the concept of "being" in his book, “Fons Vitae". At first glance, some of these divisions seem incompatible with each other. Based on the findings of this research, Ibn Gabirol considers “being” to be equivalent to “unity”. By focusing on this concept, different divisions of being can be reconciled. God (Unity the Creator) is at the head of the hierarchy of beings and after that, there is “what is possible” (unity the created). Every “possible” is made up of two beings: matter and form. According to Ibn Gabirol, the form is the same as unity, but matter (material being) is neither unity nor plurality, although it can be the subject and sustainer of unity and plurality.Research Question(s)Ibn Gabirol has several different interpretations of the meaning of “being” and its types. On the one hand, he attributes “being” to God or “First Essence”, and on the other hand, he attributes it to “universal matter” and “universal form” and not God. The Jewish philosopher, also, has different interpretations about the value of “being” and its meaning. But how can these different interpretations and statements be united? Is it possible to achieve a coherent philosophy from Ibn Gabirol's ontology? Literature ReviewThe issue of "being" in the philosophy of Ibn Gabirol is not raised by the commentators of this philosopher and his book, “Fons Vitae”. Most of the commentators have not tried to specify the type of being of matter and determine its relation to the “universal form” and “First Essence”. It is only “Sarah Pessin” who has tried to determine the place of matter and explain the ontology of Ibn Gabirol in her book: "Theology of Desire". But she has abandoned the duality of matter and form and has considered “universal matter” to be higher and more valuable than form, and this is exactly what is not consistent with Ibn Gabirol's philosophy and the text of “Fons Vitae”. MethodologyThis article’s method is "structural textualism". In this method, some internal contradictions of a specific text are considered and only based on the text and its content and rules, and without considering external assumptions, it is tried to dissolve the contradictions or solve the problems. ResultsIn Ibn Gabirol's ontological system, “matter” has a special place and cannot be compared with Ibn Sina's "quiddity" (Mahiyat). According to Ibn Gabirol, universal matter and universal form are equal and none is superior to the other. Only God is the source and creator of both and for this reason, God is above them. This point of view is opposed to the dominant view of the Platonic philosophers (such as Muslims, Jews, Christians, and even pagans) who consider matter as the source of ambiguity and change, and sometimes equal to privation. Ibn Gabirol has a different view of “matter” and believes that matter has the highest ontological rank after God and is more valuable (dignior) than all beings in the world (from Intelligence to Soul, Nature, etc.). Discussion The foundation of the coherence of the Jewish philosopher's ontology and the relationship between the types of being is the concept of "unity". The statement "being is unity" is the fundamental statement of Ibn Gabirol's ontology. Unity the Creator or God, which is "one", is the unity that is self-sufficient and has inherent consistency. This pure unity emanates its unity to the world. This emanated unity (unity the created) is called “universal form”. But the emanated unity is not self-sufficient and needs a sustainer, which is a “universal matter”. Matter in itself is neither unity nor multiplicity, but the origin of the realization of unity and multiplicity, and for this reason, it is related to unity. All beings in the universe can be analyzed into matter and form. God is "one" or unity that is self-sufficient and is the origin of all numbers or beings. From this self-sufficient being, another “one” is created, which is conjunct with matter. This substance causes the multiplication of this secondary unity and makes different numbers which are created from "one". Therefore, the only beings that have real existence are:The first essence (unity the creator and self-sufficient)universal form (unity the created and non-self-sufficient)universal matter (the sustainer of form).The “First Essence”, which is “pure unity”, is called “absolute being” (esse tantum). The universal form and universal matter are called universal beings (esse universalis) and all other entities that are reduced to matter and form are called beings (esse). The relationship between matter and being is as paradoxical and ambiguous as the relationship between matter and unity. Matter is not the substance of unity, but is the sustainer of unity, and for this reason, it is indirectly called “unity”. In the same way, matter is called “being” because of its connection with being. ConclusionThe concept which is able to solve the problem of “being” in Ibn Gabirol's philosophy is “unity". Just as all beings are numbers and numbers are all created from the repetition of “one”, beings are also the result of the repetition of “being” and finally reduced to universal matter and form and the first essence.
Mohammadhadi Tavakoli
Abstract
According to Aristotle, there was a popular theory in ancient Greece according to which "unity" was considered an independent substance that has a causal role in relation to other substances. Aristotle tried to reject that theory by stating that “one” is a "predicate" and also referring to ...
Read More
According to Aristotle, there was a popular theory in ancient Greece according to which "unity" was considered an independent substance that has a causal role in relation to other substances. Aristotle tried to reject that theory by stating that “one” is a "predicate" and also referring to the corrupt result. This theory and Aristotle's critiques of it came to the attention of Ibn Sina, and he, unlike Aristotle, did not confine himself to simply considering the "one" as the “predicate”. In the Ketab al-Nijat, he tried, through three arguments, to prove the “one” is an indispensable accident and is the source of the derivation of "unity." Ibn Sina's arguments are distorted in many ways, but the most important drawback of his argument is the confusion of categorical and analytical propositions, and the acceptance of the predicate of the one and by accepting the predicate of the “one” and its non-separation from the subject, it is not possible to prove “unity” is an "accident", in contrast to the substance, and thus negate the causality of the one in relation to the substances.
null null; behzad hassanpour
Abstract
Kant's transcendental ego is the absolute and final subject which constitutes the logical foundation of knowledge and experience. It is completely subjective, and as the most necessary and fundamental element in Kant's epistemology is involved in any judgment, intuition, imagination, synthesis, and category ...
Read More
Kant's transcendental ego is the absolute and final subject which constitutes the logical foundation of knowledge and experience. It is completely subjective, and as the most necessary and fundamental element in Kant's epistemology is involved in any judgment, intuition, imagination, synthesis, and category and, in a word, in any kind of knowledge and experience which occurs in a priori way. One of the most important and fundamental problems arising about transcendental ego is that of its functions. In this article, we have extracted four functions of transcendental ego according to Kant's own viewpoints in CPR which as follows: 1- transcendental ego provides our knowledge with universality. 2- It provides necessity for our knowledge. 3- It makes possible our knowledge. 4-It unifies our knowledge through the process and act of synthesis. Finally, we came to the conclusion that the function of unification is the most important and fundamental function due to fundamentality and importance of the process of synthesis in Kant’s epistemology.
Mohammadkazem Rezazadeh Joudi
Volume 10, Issue 38 , July 2014, , Pages 87-102
Abstract
The issue of Incarnation is one of the fundamental beliefs in Christianity on which others principles such as The Holy Trinity or Ransom Theory of Atonement are based. From the beginning, this belief has faced numerous discussions regarding the nature and manner of the unity between human and divine ...
Read More
The issue of Incarnation is one of the fundamental beliefs in Christianity on which others principles such as The Holy Trinity or Ransom Theory of Atonement are based. From the beginning, this belief has faced numerous discussions regarding the nature and manner of the unity between human and divine natures in Jesus Christ, and the language used for understanding it. In this paper, the source of creation for the theory of incarnation and some evidence regarding the human and divine nature of Jesus Christ have been studied. These studies have been carried out by using the main source of Christianity, that is the Holy Book, and also the Chalcedonian Definition. Afterwards, two of the main approaches of Christian scholars, that is True Meaning and Virtual Meaning, have been explained and, in the end, certain criticisms such as obscurity, inconsistency etc. regarding the first approach have been proposed.
