1 Introduction Avicenna’s view about the nature of mathematical objects has two distinct aspects. Its negative aspect was developed in response to the question of what mathematical objects are not. Its positive aspect, on the other hand, clarifies what mathematical objects are. The negative aspect
In recent years, the understanding of Avicenna’s (d. 1037) modal logic has known a development without signifcant parallels since the heyday of the late 12th- and 13th-century commentary tradition exemplified in the logical works of Post-Avicennan authors like Faḫr ad
This volume provides twelve essays on various aspects of Avicenna's philosophical and scientific contributions, approaching these topics from philological, historical and philosohical methodologies. The work is conceptually divided into four sections: (1) methodology, (2) natural philosophy and the exact sciences, (3) theology and metaphysics and (4) Avicenna's heritage.
The First section provides considerations for distinguishing genuine from pseudo Avicennan works. The second section deals with topics encountered in Avicenna's physics, psychology, mathematics and medical theories. The third section treats issues ranging from the theological sources for Avicenna's proof for the existence of God and God's knowledge of particulars to the place of puzzles in Avicenna's Metaphysics as well as the relation of form and matter in Avicenna's thought. The final section considers Avicenna's historical influence on later thinkers such as al-Ghazali as well as his subsequent influence in Persia.
Doubts on Avicenna, Ayman Shihadeh brings to light an important new source, which marks a key moment of transition in twelfth-century Arabic philosophy. Sharaf al-Dīn al-Masʿūdī’s
al-Mabāḥith wa-l-Shukūk ʿalā l-Ishārāt (
Investigations and Objections on the Pointers) offers major insight into the dialectic between the two traditions of Avicennan philosophy and rational theology, particularly Ashʿarism, which by the end of the century culminates in the systematic philosophical theology of Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī. Inaugurating the long and distinguished commentarial tradition on Avicenna’s
Shukūk uniquely consists of aporias on selected passages, as opposed to exegesis. This monograph provides an overview and the first critical edition of the text, and in-depth case studies of metaphysical aporias and their Avicennan background.
* The principal aim of this article is to explore a previously unknown debate surrounding Avicenna’s theory of matter, in particular his views that prime matter is deprived of all actuality, and correspondingly that corporeity is not an inherent characteristic of prime matter, but is instead
1 Introduction Avicenna and Abū r-Rayḥān al-Bīrūnī are two of the most important figures of the Islamic world in their fields, which are medicine and philosophy or astronomy respectively. Despite the availability of extensive manuscript material, as well as two editions of the correspondence
“Essence” versus “Existence” in Avicenna
Averroes’ basic error was his complete misunderstanding of the distinction between the verb “to be (Grk. einai )” and the substantive “being (Grk. to on ).” “To be” for him was the “existent,” which is not distinguished from “essence” or “quiddity
* From among the many philosophical works ascribed to Avicenna 1 (d. 428/1037) 2 there is not a single one to have had the kind of widespread and enduring resonance as a textbook as did his compact philosophical compendium, the Kitāb al-Ishārāt wa-l-tanbīhāt . 3 This
In the opening lines of his lesser-known allegorical work Decree and Determination ( R. fī l-Qaḍāʾ wa-l-qadar ), 1 Avicenna relates a dialogue between the narrative persona—presumably the philosopher himself—and an unnamed companion “in one of the vaulted fortresses ( bi-baʿḍ al-qilāʿ al