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.
Hasan Abasi Hosain Abadi
Abstract
The discussion of perfection is of different natures in the ideas of Aristotle and Avicenna. Both have divided perfection into first perfection and second perfection. What is the difference between the two? What are the meanings of each of these concepts and what is the domain of their usage? Has Avicenna ...
Read More
The discussion of perfection is of different natures in the ideas of Aristotle and Avicenna. Both have divided perfection into first perfection and second perfection. What is the difference between the two? What are the meanings of each of these concepts and what is the domain of their usage? Has Avicenna been influenced by Aristotle or has he exceeded him? To discuss perfection, Aristotle has employed the two terms of "energia and entelecheia’, and he has discussed it in different positions in metaphysics, sciences, natural sciences and ethics. He has discussed first perfection and the second perfection in On Soul and talk of movement. To him, the first perfection of the primitive stage is secondary perfection. In the On Soul, the first perfection has potency, and it is imperfect perfection in motion. In his works, Avicenna has used the first perfection and the second perfection as related to natural subjects such as movement, soul, and sometimes regarding God and His relation to creatures. Avicenna perceives the soul from two perspectives: in terms of its relation to the body, as well as the abstract view of the two. And for him, perfection is existential and intensive, and the second perfection is subordinate to the first. The purpose of the present paper is to discuss this division into first and second perfection and its position in Aristotle and Avicenna’s reasoning.
Yassaman Hoshyar
Abstract
According to some interpretations, Aristotle's metaphysics is not a coherent and unified work and does not follow a single issue; in other words, in each two or three books a subject is introduced as a subject of metaphysics. ; For example, in the fourth book, Aristotle refers to a new phrase “being ...
Read More
According to some interpretations, Aristotle's metaphysics is not a coherent and unified work and does not follow a single issue; in other words, in each two or three books a subject is introduced as a subject of metaphysics. ; For example, in the fourth book, Aristotle refers to a new phrase “being qua being” and in the seventh book, he used the term “Ousia” as the subject of this episteme. In this paper, we try to clarify Aristotle's view of these terms, as well as their relationship with each other, and also with other concepts that play an essential role in Aristotle's metaphysics (such as the concept of essence and form). In this way, it becomes clear whether an alternative interpretation can be presented to show that Aristotle has been able to establish a new episteme with a new and unique subject in this book and has been able to respond to the difficulties of the Beta book (aporia of Beta) as a the guideline of Metaphysics. By concentrating on four books of Metaphysics (I, III, IV, and VII), this article tries to investigate the above items and show Aristotle's innovations in some positions, as well as some aspects of his philosophical differentiation of Plato's philosophy.
mohammad hakkak
Abstract
Cause and effect, essence and accident, existence and nonexistence, unity and plurality and necessity and contingency are among the concepts which do not enter the mind through senses. This has caused controversies among the philosophers. Some consider them to be innate. Others seek to justify their ...
Read More
Cause and effect, essence and accident, existence and nonexistence, unity and plurality and necessity and contingency are among the concepts which do not enter the mind through senses. This has caused controversies among the philosophers. Some consider them to be innate. Others seek to justify their acquisition through senses. A third group believes them to be rooted in the nature and mankind’s soul and, thus, illusive. Muslim philosophers consider them to be secondary intelligibles and real concepts. As a Muslim philosopher, Allameh Tabataba’i holds a noble theory about the acquisition of knowledge. Moreover, Kant has a theory about the said concepts. He considers them to be mental categories or a priori forms of knowledge. This paper investigates the possibility of Kantian and non-Kantian a priori forms of knowledge and concludes that they do not exist at all.
elham kandari; saeed binai motlagh
Abstract
One of the most basic metaphysical doctrines is the "Oneness". We are, in this paper, coming to introduce this doctrine in Aristotle; and, so, at first, we mention basic differences between him and his formers, and distinguish Aristotle's "multiple" view from their "monistic" view. Then, counting the ...
Read More
One of the most basic metaphysical doctrines is the "Oneness". We are, in this paper, coming to introduce this doctrine in Aristotle; and, so, at first, we mention basic differences between him and his formers, and distinguish Aristotle's "multiple" view from their "monistic" view. Then, counting the meanings of "one" in common Greek language, we receive to two kinds of oneness: material and formal. We will see that perfection, oneness, and form are parallel to potentiality, multiplicity, and matter; and oneness, in its foremost sense, is the formal "one", not material; and this formal "one" is the principle of individuality. Finally, we will see that how immovable movers, and most of all the first immovable mover, are abstract individuals and the first "Ones".
