Dashtakī (d. 1498) and Dawānī (d. 1502) on the Analysis of Existential Propositions
In: OriensAbstract
The present article is a reconstruction of a logical dispute concerning the analysis of existential propositions between the two rivals from Shiraz, Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī (d. 1502) and Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī (d. 1498), a dispute that continued to echo down to the nineteenth century, especially in Iran and the Indian subcontinent. The controversy was elicited by a passage from a discussion in the commentary by Qūshjī (d. 1474) on Ṭūsī’s Tajrīd in which Qūshjī had briefly suggested that perhaps the predicates “existent” (mawjūd) and “nonexistent” (maʿdūm) are unusual in not needing a copula to link them to the subject. Dashtakī thought that a copula is needed in both existential and non-existential predications, but that in existential predications the copula is simply the union of subject and predicate, whereas in non-existential predications there is an additional copula that signifies the existence or nonexistence of the predicate for the subject. Dawānī’s position was that existential and non-existential predications are exactly on a par and should both be analyzed into subject, copula and predicate.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
Bäck, Allan. Aristotle’s Theory of Predication. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
-
Dashtakī, Ṣadr al-Dīn. Ṭabaqāt. Beyazıt Devlet Kütüphanesi, Istanbul, MS Veliyüddin 2027.
-
Dashtakī, Ṣadr al-Dīn. Ḥāshiya ʿalā Sharḥ al-Shamsiyya. Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, Istanbul, MS Reşid Efendi 1015 & MS Carullah 1371.
-
Dawānī, Jalāl al-Dīn. al-Ḥāshiya al-ajadd. Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, Istanbul, MS Kılıç Ali Paşa 510 and Beyazıt Devlet Kütüphanesi, Istanbul, Veliyüddin 2026.
-
El-Rouayheb, Khaled. “Arabic Logic after Avicenna.” In The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Logic. Ed. by Stephen Read & Catarina Novaes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016, 67–93.
-
El-Rouayheb, Khaled. “Does a Proposition have Three Parts or Four? A Debate in Later Arabic Logic.” Oriens 44 (2016): 301–31.
-
Geach, Peter. “History of the Corruptions of Logic.” In P. Geach, Logic Matters. Oxford: Blackwell, 1972.
-
Gūpāmawī, Qāżī Mubārak. Sharḥ Sullam al-ʿulūm. Kazan: al-Maṭbaʿa al-malakiyya, 1887.
-
Harawī, Mīr Zāhid. Sharḥ Risālat al-taṣawwur wa-l-taṣdīq. Ed. by Mahdī Sharīʿatī. [Published as an appendix with independent pagination to Mahdī Sharīʿatī (ed.), Risālatān fī l-taṣawwur wa l-taṣdīq, Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 2004.]
-
Khayrābādī, ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq. Sharḥ al-Mirqāt. Ed. by ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd al-Turkmānī. Amman: Dār al-nūr, 2019.
-
Lāhījī, ʿAbd al-Razzāq. Shawāriq al-ilhām fī sharḥ Tajrīd al-kalām. Ed. by Akbar Asad ʿAlīzāde & Jaʿfar Subḥānī. Qom: Muʾassasat al-Imām Ṣādiq, 1425/2004–5.
-
Lak̲h̲nawī, Baḥr al-ʿUlūm. Sharḥ Sullam al-ʿulūm. Ed. by ʿAbd al-Nāṣir al-Malībārī. Kuwait: Dār al-Ḍiyāʾ, 2012.
-
McGinn, Colin. Logical Properties: Identity, Existence, Predication, Necessity, Truth. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000.
-
McGinn, Colin. Philosophy of Language: The Classics Explained. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2015.
-
Mīr Dāmād. al-Ufuq al-mubīn. Ed. by Ḥāmid Nājī Iṣfahānī. Tehran: Mīrāth-i Maktūb, 2013.
-
Pourjavady, Reza. “Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī (d. 908/1502), Glosses on ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-Qūshjī’s Commentary on Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī’s Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād.” In The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Philosophy. Ed. by Khaled El-Rouayheb & Sabine Schmidtke. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.
-
Pourjavady, Reza. Philosophy in Early Safavid Iran: Najm al-Dīn al-Nayrīzī and His Writings. Leiden: Brill, 2011.
-
Rāzī, Quṭb al-Dīn. Taḥrīr al-qawāʿid al-manṭiqiyya bi-sharḥ al-Risāla al-Shamsiyya. Cairo: Muṣṭafā al-Bābī al-Ḥalabī, 1948.
-
Rāzī, Quṭb al-Dīn. Lawāmiʿ al-asrār bi-sharḥ Maṭāliʿ al-anwār. Ed. by ʿAlī Aṣghar Jaʿfarī Valanī. Tehran: Dānishgāh-i Tehran, 2014.
-
Read, Stephen. Thinking about Logic: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
-
Sabzawārī, Mullā Hādī. Sharḥ al-Laʾālī al-muntaẓama. Printed as volume 1 of Sharḥ al-Manẓūma fī l-ḥikma. Edited by Masʿūd Ṭālibī and annotated by Ḥasanzāde Āmulī. Tehran: Nashr-i nāb, 1416/1995.
-
Sainsbury, Mark. Logical Forms: An Introduction to Philosophical Logic. 2nd edition. London: Blackwell, 2001.
-
Sāwī, ʿUmar b. Sahlān. al-Baṣāʾir al-Naṣīriyya. Cairo: al-Maṭbaʿa al-amīriyya, 1316/1898.
-
Strobino, Riccardo. “Avicenna’s Use of the Translations of the Posterior Analytics and the Ancient Commentary Tradition.” Oriens 40 (2012): 355–89.
-
Tihrānī, Muḥammad Yūsuf. Naqḍ al-uṣūl wa-talkhīṣ al-fuṣūl. Ed. by A. Qaramaleki, S. Kavandi & M. Javed. Zanjan, Iran: Intishārāt-i Dānishgāh-i Zanjān, 1389/2010.
-
Zimmermann, Fritz. Al-Farabi’s Commentary and Short Treatise on Aristotle’s De Interpretatione. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 484 | 64 | 0 |
| Full Text Views | 65 | 10 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 93 | 21 | 0 |
Dashtakī (d. 1498) and Dawānī (d. 1502) on the Analysis of Existential Propositions
In: OriensAbstract
The present article is a reconstruction of a logical dispute concerning the analysis of existential propositions between the two rivals from Shiraz, Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī (d. 1502) and Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī (d. 1498), a dispute that continued to echo down to the nineteenth century, especially in Iran and the Indian subcontinent. The controversy was elicited by a passage from a discussion in the commentary by Qūshjī (d. 1474) on Ṭūsī’s Tajrīd in which Qūshjī had briefly suggested that perhaps the predicates “existent” (mawjūd) and “nonexistent” (maʿdūm) are unusual in not needing a copula to link them to the subject. Dashtakī thought that a copula is needed in both existential and non-existential predications, but that in existential predications the copula is simply the union of subject and predicate, whereas in non-existential predications there is an additional copula that signifies the existence or nonexistence of the predicate for the subject. Dawānī’s position was that existential and non-existential predications are exactly on a par and should both be analyzed into subject, copula and predicate.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 484 | 64 | 0 |
| Full Text Views | 65 | 10 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 93 | 21 | 0 |