Search

Avicenna in two parts of the book of Al-Shifa (کتاب الشفاء) or The Book of Healing reports the theory of Platonic Ideas or Forms: first account is in the chapter 10 from the second book in the Demonstration Treatise (رسالة البرهان) and second account is in the chapter 2 from the seventh book in the Theology Treatise (رسالة الالهیّات). Both reports have explanations of the theory of Platonic Ideas and then some critiques of the theory. Here we will discuss only Avicenna's description and explanations of the theory of Ideas; what is Avicenna's understanding from Plato's Ideas? At the present essay it is necessary to investigate the range of familiarity that Avicenna has with Platonic Ideas, Aristotle's role in this familiarity and the philosophical functions of the Ideas in Avicenna's understanding and identification of them. First of all, Avicenna thinks that Platonic Ideas are universals and, on this description, he erects other descriptions of their truth. It is vital to know that Avicenna's familiarity with Platonic Forms is essentially mediate; that's by way of Aristotle's works including both descriptions and criticisms of those forms. Review and analysis of Avicenna's texts brings us to the three arguments of Platonists for the existence of Ideas: the argument from the sciences, the one over many arguments and the object of thought argument.

In this paper, I examine Aristotle's cosmological proof of God's existence, Avicenna's metaphysical proof, and Thomas Aquinas's five-way proof. By comparing these proofs, I argue that philosophers and theologians take different approaches to proving God's existence not only because they follow different epistemological principles but, more fundamentally, because they construct different metaphysical frameworks in which God as the Supreme Being plays different roles and is thus clarified differently. The proof of God's existence is also of theological significance. This paper makes an original contribution by showing that, despite Avicenna's harsh criticism, Aquinas returns to Aristotelian cosmological proof. Moreover, Aquinas goes beyond Aristotle by identifying God not only as the First Mover but also as the Creator. The theme of God's existence bridges philosophy and theology, and it also clearly reflects the interplay and mutual influence of Greek philosophy, Arabic Aristotelianism, and Latin Scholastics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Karabük Türkoloji Dergisi is the property of Karabuk University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This work concerns Avicenna's account of nature, mainly as it engages with Aristotle's Physics. By discussing two accounts of nature, particularly their treatment of motion and rest, I wish to highlight Avicenna's addendum to Aristotle's account of nature. Integral to my argument shall be Avicenna's emphasis on the necessity of understanding components of nature in temporal terms. Incorporating his idea of the "flowing now" into nature, Avicenna's physics, I suggest, constantly emphasizes the place of temporality operative in natural occurrences. In doing so, he does not simply incorporate time into his account of nature but sees temporality as the necessary ground of the natural. Constantly asserting the temporal nature of motion and rest, he affirms the happening and event-based character of nature and highlights the becoming operative in it. He presents an account of nature qua natura fluens, or "flowing nature.". [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review is the property of Cambridge University Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This work concerns Avicenna's account of nature, mainly as it engages with Aristotle’s Physics. By discussing two accounts of nature, particularly their treatment of motion and rest, I wish to highlight Avicenna's addendum to Aristotle's account of nature. Integral to my argument shall be Avicenna's emphasis on the necessity of understanding components of nature in temporal terms. Incorporating his idea of the ‘flowing now’ into nature, Avicenna's physics, I suggest, constantly emphasizes the place of temporality operative in natural occurrences. In doing so, he does not simply incorporate time into his account of nature but sees temporality as the necessary ground of the natural. Constantly asserting the temporal nature of motion and rest, he affirms the happening and event-based character of nature and highlights the becoming operative in it. He presents an account of nature qua natura fluens, or ‘flowing nature.’

This paper argues that both Aristotle's theory of the so-called focal homonymy of "being" and Avicenna's corresponding theory of the ambiguity of "existence" (tashkīk al-wujūd) are meant to address the same dilemma of categorial ontology, but by recourse to different solutions. Avicenna retains Aristotle's concerns but rejects his solution of focal homonymy, offering a new theory which more satisfactorily addresses each horn of the dilemma. This reading departs from prior scholarship, which, taking Avicenna to have adopted the focal theory basically intact from his Late Antique predecessors, instead tends to privilege the theory's (peripheral) theological applications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to the medical tradition, the temperament of bodies came from the balance of their primary qualities – hot, cold, dry, and moist. However, physicians associated additional sensory properties with temperament in the field of pharmacology. These sensations included taste, color, and odor, which allow an appraisal of the constitution and active powers of drugs. The present paper examines this theme in late-Renaissance medicine, through the accounts of the French physician Jean Fernel (ca. 1497–1558) and the Italian physician Andrea Cesalpino (1519–1603). As will be shown, their respective interpretations of drug "faculties" offered original views on the relationship between temperament, sensory properties, and matter theories. Such discussions, in turn, revealed the Renaissance reception of Arabic-Latin pharmacology, Galenic medicine, and the Aristotelian physics of matter and form. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is some debate among interpreters of Aquinas as to whether he attributed a doctrine of creation to Plato and Aristotle. Mark Johnson has noted many texts where Aquinas does appear to attribute to Plato and Aristotle an understanding of creation. Yet, an initial glance at Summa Theologiae I.44.2 would suggest he did not. This paper first examines what various interpreters of Aquinas have had to say on the matter. Secondly, it argues that Summa Theologiae I.44.2, taken in context with the proceeding article and De Potentia III.5, need not be read as denying such a doctrine to Plato and Aristotle. Thirdly, this paper concludes that because Plato and Aristotle do not actually possess doctrines of creation, they cannot be the chief sources for Aquinas’ own thought on this matter. Instead, to attribute creation to Plato and Aristotle, Aquinas interprets them through Avicenna. Thus, Avicenna is the chief source for Aquinas’ understanding of creation.

Happiness is a fundamental topic in practical philosophy, captivating the minds of philosophers, from the ancient Greeks to the contemporary philosophers. Throughout history, philosophers have explored this concept from various philosophical perspectives. One of the most influential theories of happiness was developed by Aristotle in his renowned work, Nicomachean Ethics. His theory had a profound impact on subsequent philosophers, including Muslim philosophers like Avicenna, who was heavily influenced by Aristotle’s ideas on happiness. Aristotle believed that human happiness is attained through a rational life enriched with moral virtues. Similarly, Avicenna regarded intellectual pleasure as the highest form of good and happiness and emphasized achieving happiness through reaching the level of acquired intellect and striving for likeness with the active intellect, and maintaining control of reason over bodily desires. In this paper, we employ a comparative approach to examine and analyze Aristotle and Avicenna’s theories of happiness. We aim to highlight both the similarities and differences in their perspectives, while also employing a critical perspective to identify weaknesses and shortcomings within each theory.

Modern sleep specialists are taught that, before the twentieth century, sleep was universally classified as a passive phenomenon with minimal to no brain activity. However, these assertions are made on the basis of particular readings and reconstructions of the history of sleep, using Western European medical works and ignoring works composed in other parts of the world. In this first of two articles on Arabic medical discussions on sleep, I shall show that sleep was not understood to be a purely passive phenomenon, at least from the time of Ibn Sīnā (lat. Avicenna, d. 1037) onward. Building on the earlier Greek medical tradition, Ibn Sīnā provided a new pneumatic understanding of sleep that allowed him to explain previously recorded phenomena associated with sleep, while providing a way to capture how certain parts of the brain (and body) can even increase their activities during sleep. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bu çalışma İbn Sînâ’nın eş-Şifâ: Metafizik kitabının birinci makalesinin sekizinci faslını odağına alma amacındadır. Söz konusu fasıldaki sofistlere dair yapılan incelemenin metafizik ilmi açısından gerekliliği, zihni arka planı, burada kullanılan yöntem ve tercih edilen bu yöntemin gerekçelerini belirlemeye çalıştım. Filozofun buradaki ibarelerinin gönderme yaptığı teori, tartışma ve ilkeleri yakalamaya ve bunların felsefe tarihindeki izlerini bulmaya gayret ettim. Bu fasıldaki sorunlarla benzer meselelerin ele alındığı Aristoteles’in Metafizik kitabındaki görüşler arasındaki irtibata da yer vermeye çalıştım. Makalede, amaçlanan tahlili yapabilmek için İbn Sînâ’nın zihin dışı ile zihin arasında kurduğu irtibatı öne çıkarmaya çalıştım. Burada zihnin, sofistlerin iddiasının tam tersi bir konumda bulunduğunu ve varlık hakkındaki önermelerde asıl belirleyici olanın zihin değil de dış olduğunu gerekçeleriyle ortaya koymaya gayret ettim. Zihin dışının zihni bilfiilleştirerek kendini yeni bir varlık alanı olarak onda ifşa ettiğini, bundan dolayı da zihnin/mantığın temel önermeleri olarak bilinen kuralların aslında ve öncelikli olarak varolanın ilkeleri olduğunu açıklamaya çalıştım.

The relation of priority and posteriority between the affirmation and negation, which Aristotle put forth in Peri Hermêneias, has had some important consequences in terms of logical attribution and judgement. The problem encountered here is the question of whether affirmation (i.e., affirming something of something) and negation (i.e., denying something of something) share the same status as a statement (qawl). In the fifth chapter of the first article (I.5) of al-‘Ibāra, the volume from al-Shifā corpus that corresponds to Peri Hermêneias, Avicenna deals with affirmation and negation in terms of these logical consequences and reveals his own position on the subject by way of distinguishing between attribution and judgement. However, the text of al-Shaikh al-Raīs presents some obscurities for the reader. The reason behind this obscurity is that a debate taking place among Hellenistic commentators lies in the background of Avicenna’s text. This article proposes to study this text alongside the Hellenistic commentators in order to better understand the logical problem in the relevant passages from al-‘Ibāra. Our guide in this reading will be Boethius, who wrote a Latin commentary on Peri Hermêneias. In the present study, I will try to reveal how the positions of the Hellenistic commentators (i.e., Alexander of Aphrodisias, Porphyry, and Syrianus), whose views Boethius conveyed, coincide with the views Avicenna defended and criticized regarding affirmation and negation. In this respect, my reading in this article aims to better understand Avicenna’s relevant text and its logical extensions as well as the dimensions of his relationship with Hellenistic commentators.

In his works, Kriegel criticizes a common viewpoint in the philosophy of mind upon which there is no direct relationship between consciousness and self-consciousness. He knows the problem of this view in that its proponents have not been able to make distinction between different kinds of self-consciousness. Kriegel, after making distinction between four different kinds of self-consciousness, refers to this point that there is a kind of self-consciousness which is prior to every other kind of self-consciousness. This kind of self-consciousness, called intransitive state self-consciousness, accompanies all other kinds of consciousness. Indeed, intransitive state self- consciousness is a kind of self-consciousness that is implicitly along with a conscious mental state and it is the root of first-person view. Kriegel’s viewpoint has a long background in the history of western philosophy inasmuch as its roots can be traced back to Aristotle’s philosophy. According to Aristotle, conscious being attains self-consciousness through or implicitly with being conscious of something else. Avicenna criticizes this Aristotelian viewpoint in his works and along with dividing self-consciousness into two different kinds: self-awareness and awareness of awareness emphasizes this point that first kind of self-consciousness is the very essence of conscious being and is the same as its specific existence. Accordingly, it is not separated from the conscious being and it is not depended on the presence of other beings and being conscious of them. So, it is prior to every other kind of consciousness. This Avicenna’s criticism although is principally directed at Aristotle, it equally aims the Kriegel’s viewpoint.

Aristotle’s aitiai (‘causes’) are middle terms in Aristotelian syllogisms. I argue that stating the aitia of a thing therefore amounts to re-describing this same thing in an alternative and illuminating way. This, in turn, means that a thing and its aitiai really are one and the same thing under different descriptions. The purpose of this paper is to show that this view is implied by Aristotle’s account of explanation, and that it makes more sense than one might expect.

Copyright of Cumhuriyet Ilahiyat Dergisi / Cumhuriyet Theology Journal is the property of Cumhuriyet Universitesi, Ilahiyat Fakultesi / Cumhuriyet University, Faculty of Theology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Nazariyat: Journal for the History of Islamic Philosophy & Sciences / Nazariyat Islam Felsefe Bilim Tarihi Arastirmalari Dergisi is the property of Ilmi Etudler Dernegi (ILEM) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article analyzes the activity of the greatest classic of the Islamic philosophy - Ibn Sina (Avicenna, 980-1037), aimed at the revision of Aristotelianism, mainly in terms of its synthesis with Islamic monotheism. Preferential attention is paid to the metaphysical section of Avicennian multivolume encyclopedia “The Healing” (c. 1020-1027). Instead of Aristotelian God / the Prime Mover as the final cause, which serves as the source of the movement of the world, Avicenna establishes God / Necessary Being, who acts as the Giver of being. Developing the ontological foundation of creationism, i.e. the creation of every thing in the world, the philosopher introduces a distinction between essence and existence ( māhiyyawujūd , lat. essentia-existentia), which will pass through the subsequent history of philosophy. Ibn Sina thoroughly modifies the Aristotelian doctrine of the unity of God and His essential cataphatic attributes. The intellectual narcissism of God, Who only knows Himself in Stagirite, he changes with the concept of Divine Omniscience and His providence of all existents. Ibn Sina transforms Aristotelian eternalism into eternalistic creationism, modifying the emanationist scheme of cosmogenesis advanced by al-Farabi (d. 950), in which the process of proceeding of the existents from the First Principle appears as an intellectual act. The Muslim philosopher complements Aristotelian cosmology with the doctrine of angels, whom he identifies with cosmic intellects and souls as the governors of the celestial spheres. Avicennian radical innovation is in the doctrine of Active Intellect ( al-‘akl al-fa‘‘al , lat. intellectus agens ), who is not only the ruler of the sublunar world, but actually is its demiurge. This intellect is assigned with the function of the illumination of the human intellect, as well as with the role of the archangel Gabriel the transmitter of divine revelation according to Muslim tradition. From the philosophical perspective, Avicenna develops alien to Aristotelianism topics related to the prophecy and revelation, the immortality of the soul and its otherworldly fate.

In this paper, the formation and development of Signification theory and its effect on Muslim thinkers are studied. In the ancient period, there were three important schools that investigated signals and issues surrounding them. First, Aristotle investigated signs at the outset of his “On Interpretation”, as well as, at the end of his “Prior Analytics”. Second, physicians with classifying signs into two main groups made various comments about the argumentative role of them in inferences. Third, Stoics studied signs as a primary part of their logic and investigated arguments on the basis of them. In the Islamic period, Avicenna is the first logicians studying verbal signification meticulously and classifying it into three parts. Avicenna’s doctrines about verbal signification which are repeated in other logicians’ books are in accordance with Aristotle’s discourse at the beginning of “On Interpretation”. Natural verbal signification is added into logical books explicitly by Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī and after him, Afḍal al-Dīn al-Khūnajī and other logicians implied to it. Rational verbal signification is added to verbal signification in the works of Siraj al-Dīn Urmawī, Allameh Ḥelli, and Quṭb al-Dīn Shirāzī. Furthermore, Quṭb al-Dīn Rāzī with examining non-verbal signification extended the domain of signification theory, as well as he introduced a new definition of signification. This new definition of signification and attention to non-verbal signification possibly are rooted in Aristotle’s comment in the second book of Prior Analytics as well as Stoics and physicians' doctrines which were transmitted through theologians and Aristotle commentator into later logicians.

In Aristotle’s Contributions to Logic, the modal syllogistic has a special place and has been controversial from antiquity to the present. One of the most discussed problems of modal syllogistic is the result of a syllogism composed of an absolute minor and a necessary major. Meanwhile, Aristotle has regarded the result necessary, some of his successors have refuted this conclusion. A recent study to defend the consistency of Aristotle’s modal theory as a whole shows that the proposed counterexamples are not acceptable, referring to the theory of predicable in Topics. Focusing on Avicenna’s work, this study shows that in the logic of Islamic tradition, appealing to the distinction between essential (dhati) and description (wasfi) necessity, another solution has been proposed to this difficulty. A solution that can be used to explain the relation between the Book of Syllogism and the Book of Demonstration. Also, it would solve the ambiguity prevailing in Aristotle’s thoughts.

Muslim Philosopherson the Relation between Metaphysics and Theology Mohammad Saeedimehr* Received: 01/07/2019 | Accepted: 05/09/2019 In different parts of Metaphysics, Aristotle presents different (and apparently, conflicting) views on the nature and subject matter of the discipline in question. These different characterizations led to wide-ranging interpretations of the relation between metaphysics and philosophical theology. Muslim Philosophers adopted two different views. Al-Kindi and al-Farabi (in some of his works) endorsed the view that metaphysics is the same as theology as far as its subject matter is the First Cause (God) and it deals essentially with incorporeal entities. After Avicenna, however, a second view became dominant according to which metaphysics has a broader realm that embraces theology as its most noble part. The rationale behind this view is that the subject matter of metaphysics is “being qua being”, or unconditioned existent, in its broad sense so that philosophical theology can be taken as discussing some of the proper accidents of the unconditioned existent. This view requires that metaphysics cannot be a secular discipline and should be totally consistent with theology. It also provides us with a certain interpretation of what is usually called “Islamic philosophy.” * Professor. Department of Philosophy, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran. Iran. ׀ saeedi@modares.ac.ir 🞕 Saeedimehr, M. (2019). Muslim Philosophers on the Relation between Metaphysics and Theology. The Journal of Philosophical-Theological Research, 21(81), 103۔ 118. doi: 10.22091/jptr.2019.4723.2201

In their embryology, Aristotle and Galen greatly disagreed on the role of human derived materials like menstrual blood and vaginal secretion (called by them female sperm or semen). This gap made those two ancients also disagree on their understanding of mother’s role in the generation of the human body in her womb. During the Middle Ages, especially during the thirteenth century, the scholastics drew on those two ancient thoughts for some rational underpinnings of their philosophical and theological doctrines. However, the manners of adoption and assimilation were varied. For example, Albert the Great strived to reconcile the two in the image of Avicenna, one of the main and the most important sources of Galenist medicine in the thirteenth Century. By contrast, those scholastics who played an important role in the controversy over plurality/unicity of the substantial form, drew on their disagreements. For example, pluralists like Bonaventure, William of la Mare, and Duns Scotus appealed to Galenist medical perspective to underpin their positions and paved ways to decorate Virgin Mary’s motherhood and her active contribution to the Virgin birth and to the manhood of her Holy Son. in contrast a unicist like Thomas Aquinas advanced his theory in line with Aristotelian model that Mary’s role in her Son’s birth and manhood was passive and material. Giles, another unicist, while repudiating Galenist embryology with the support of Averroes’s medical work called Colliget, alluded to some theologically crucial impieties with which might be associated some pluralists’ Mariology based on the Roman physician’s model. In this processus historiae, we can see not only the intertwining of medieval medicine, philosophy, and theology, but some critical moments where medicine provided, side by side with philosophy, natural settings and explanations for religious marvels or miracles such as the Virgin birth, the motherhood of Mary, the manhood of Christ, etc. Likewise, we can observe two medieval maxims coincide and resonate: “philosophia ancilla theologiae” and “philosophia et medicina duae sorores sunt.”

This study aims to examine how becoming like God is handled in Avicenna’s philosophy. Basically the article is based on the need to interpret that Plato and Aristotle and Plotinus are philosophers that complement each other, not diverge, in terms of the topic of becoming like God. First and foremost I present Avicenna’s arguments using the concepts of becoming like god (teşebbüh billah) and becoming like the First (teşebbüh bi’l-evvel) as a springboard. Moreover, based on the context in which Avicenna uses the concept of manifestation (tecelli), I examine how the idea of unification with God is transformed into an intellectual ideal. In the last section, I present the connection between the journey of becoming a perfected human and becoming like god which was established in the Metaphysics volume of The Book of Healing (eş-Şifa) as a section of the matter which is related to ethics.

Avicenna's metaphysics is a coherent system, the elements of which is established in a universal proportion and takes their meaning alongside each other and gets meaning to others. This taking and getting the procedure of meaning presumes the assumption of hermeneutical writing and reading of Avicenna's work and allegory is the basis of such writing and reading. So Avicenna's metaphysics in its totality which can be named "allegorical metaphysics", affected by the Islamic esotericism, neo-Platonic reading of Aristotle and Al-Farbi's philosophy, founded an allegorical methodology, which gave meaning to all of his systems, from logical text to theology and allegorical stories, as a coherent system; so Avicenna's allegorical stories, is the continuation of his logical texts and his logical texts become meaningful in relationship to those allegorical ones; even if allegory of one is more than the other. So, in this paper, I aim to show the dimensions of this allegorical approach.

"Mohakat" (Muḥākāt) is a central concept in Avicenna's thoughts on art. He uses this term as a translation for Aristotelian "mimesis". Since there have been different conceptions about Mohakat, or representation, in the history of thought, it should be questioned that what Mohakat means in painting according to Avicenna's views. In studies about the aesthetics of Avicenna, poetry and music have been much considered, but Avicenna's views on painting have not been much noticed in the literature. The present research, therefore, seeks to provide a clear account of Avicenna's views on the concept and the meaning of Mohakat in painting, and in other words, to determine the characteristic features of Mohakat in painting according to his views. It is tried to answer this question by examining Avicenna's scattered words about painting. In this study, the aesthetic views of Avicenna on Mohakat are summarized in three general themes. The nature of Mohakat in painting is examined in the first part, the sub-queries of which are as follows: is the meaning of Mohakat pure and complete imitation, or is this kind of representation compatible with innovation? What are the cases of Mohakat, and in other words, what kinds of objects are represented in a painting? Does the painter merely represent the existing things, or he/she can deal with things that are not actual existing only in his mind? Does the painter only represent the surfaces of the things, or can he/she represent the inner qualities of the subject? What is the relation of Mohakat in painting with that in such other arts as poetry and music? The second part addresses the pleasure of Mohakat. This aesthetic pleasure is considered about both the artist and the audience. It should be inquired that are there any differences between the pleasure of the Mohakat in painting and that in the other arts? Is this pleasure dedicated to humans, or other beings can also benefit from it? The third part discusses the epistemic role of the Mohakat in painting. Is the picture necessarily true, in the sense that it should correspond to an actual object, or may it offer a non-correspondent knowledge to the audience? If so, how does it influence the audience' soul? Finally, can a painting be a good medium for transferring knowledge? And in this case, what is the characteristic features of it? In this research, it has been attempted to respond to above questions using library resources, mainly Avicenna's works, specially his scattered words about painting. Avicenna believes that the work of a poet resembles that of a painter, both imitate something. He defines Mohakat as "presenting something similar to something else, but not the thing itself." Nevertheless, he believes that Mohakat in painting does not imply mere imitation of a model. Mohakat in painting is not merely the imitation of existing objects, and it is not necessary for the painter to make use of a model that presents in the outside world, that is, Mohakat in painting is not merely an imitation of outward appearance. In other words, the painter can portray, in addition to the outward appearance of someone, his/her inward states. Considering the relation that Avicenna has made between the kind of Mohakat in poetry and painting, it can be concluded that from his point of view, imagination has an important role in the definition of painting. Avicenna describes imitated painted forms as "pleasurable" and "delightful", and regards the ability of imitating things as one of the aspects of human superiority over animals. He emphasizes that the pleasure of Mohakat is not purely sensual pleasure and dedicated to it, rather, it is a mental pleasure and depends on the rational faculty. The audience of a painting is enjoying two things: first, the picture itself in terms of its quality and status, and the like. It seems that, according to amodern interpretation, it may imply color, composition, and formal features of the image. But on the second level, the thing that completes the pleasure is to understand that the image is an imitation of something else. Avicenna believes that the pleasure of painting is so great that it is more enjoyable to see a painting of an object than the object itself. There is also a kind of pictorial Mohakat in the music. From his point of view, Mohakat in the painting is not necessarily true or false. Truth and falsehood in painting is beyond logical truth and falsehood. Avicenna believes that painting can make people charmed and fascinated, and engage the mind of human beings. Also, Mohakat in painting can be a means of expressing rational meanings in sensible language using a coded form.

Copyright of Anales del Seminario de Historia de la Filosofía is the property of Universidad Complutense de Madrid and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The collective human effort to understand the brain and its common disease, stroke, has spanned many centuries, cultures, and societies. The ancient Greek and Muslim physicians made important contributions to the understanding and management of stroke in their time. The Muslim physicians, from 800 to 1200 AD, played an outstanding role, by conserving and refining Greco-Roman philosophies, formulating their own theories and reaching conclusions, some of which match our modern stroke models. They recognized the importance of the brain as a source of stroke symptoms, proposed the vascular nature of stroke etiology, and had some thoughts about intra-ventricular hemorrhage, and the process of atherosclerosis with the help of ancient philosophies. Their management strategies have now been discarded, but some of the herbal medicines they used, may be useful in stroke management today. Therefore, more research is required into the ancient texts to evaluate the efficacy of their management strategies.

In this paper I investigate Avicenna's criticisms of the separateness of mathematical objects and of the view that they are principles for natural things. These two theses form the core of Plato's view of mathematics; i.e., mathematical Platonism. Surprisingly, Avicenna does not consider his arguments against these theses as attacks on Plato. This is because his understanding of Plato's philosophy of mathematics differs from both Plato's original view and what Aristotle attributes to Plato. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article deals with the history of geomorphology from the distant past to the periods of the Age of Enlightenment in Europe. Geomorphology, whose origin is as old as the history of mankind, has been transformed into a very significant or dramatic transformation and change. In this study, developments and changes occurring in the early stages of geomorphology were evaluated by dividing into different time periods. The first ideas about how the earth was shaped were in Egypt, China and Mesopotamia. In later periods, scientific thought was born in the ancient Greek world, which entered into interaction with the mentioned civilizations. In the beginning, the discussions which started with cosmology, astronomy, and the shape and location of the globe have been expanded and the subject of Geomorphology has been taken into consideration. In the early days there is no specialization in any subject among thinkers. Because, according to the perspective of the period, the thinker has to produce ideas on every subject. Therefore, views on landforms were included in both Geography and Cosmology books. However, even though an individual specialization did not arise in these early times, it was seen that subject-based books were written. In this period; Ancient Greek philosophers systematized, generalized and produced knowledge without relying on actual observations. But what we call science in the modern sense; with new methods (experiment, observation, and measurement) emerged in the Islamic world unused by previous philosophers. As a result, the first scientific ideas about geomorphology were born in the Islamic world and spread all over the world during the Middle Ages. Geomorphology, which showed a slow development between the 12th and 16th centuries, became an independent discipline in the 19th century. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Önermelerle ilişkili bir konu olmakla birlikte klasik mantık kitaplarında Birinci Analitikler’in girişinde yer verilen döndürmeler konusu, genellikle kıyaslarda sonucun elde edilmesi için ihtiyaç duyulan bir işlem olmasından dolayı inceleme konusu yapılmaktadır. Nitel değerlerine dokunmadan konu ve yüklemin yer değiştirilmesi şeklinde bir işlem olan döndürme, Aristoteles sisteminde kuralları hem mutlak hem de modal önermelerde belirlenmiştir. İbn Sînâ ise Aristoteles tarafından belirlenmiş olan bazı kuralları sorunsallaştırarak bunları tartışmış ve kendisinden sonra tartışılmasına sebep olmuştur. Çalışmamız, önermelerin döndürmesinde İbn Sînâ’nın sorunsallaştırdığı noktalarda İbn Rüşd’ün Aristoteles savunusundan hareketle İbn Sînâ’ya yöneltmiş olduğu eleştirilerin bir çözümlemesini sunacaktır. Böylelikle yüzyıllar sonra İbn Rüşd tarafından çözüm olarak sunulan bizzat-bilaraz veya bilkuvve-bilfiil kategoriler perspektifiyle, Aristoteles’in haklılığı ve İbn Sînâ’nın yanlışlığı temellendirilmiş olunacaktır.

This essay examines the biblical discourse on animals in Job 38-41, as interpreted by Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas in their 13th-century biblical commentaries. In God’s first reply to Job (chapters 38 and 39) twelve species of animals are introduced and realistically described, including accurate details of their behavior. Subsequently, chapters 40 and 41 introduce two more complex animals, Behemoth and Leviathan, in which realistic and symbolic features intertwine. This peculiarity of the book of Job – long sequences dedicated to descriptions of animals – allows to investigate to what extent and how the availability of Aristotelian zoology, whose study was prescribed in the Dominican program promoted and practiced by Albert himself, became an instrument for a renewed biblical exegesis, different from the allegorical and theological moralizing hitherto prevailing in the Christian tradition of commentaries on Job.

Avicennan theory of isti‘dād ve tahayyu’ is one of the most important components of Avicenna’s natural philosophy and this theory achieves important revisions on Aristotelian conception of dunamis, but up to now received little attention in the secondary literature. In order to arrive at a correct understanding of Avicenna’s theory of isti‘dād, this article analyzes the aforementioned concepts in relation to the division of essential possibility and possibility in the form of propensity and tries to find an answer to the question “what types of transformations the concept have undergone in comparison to the Aristotelian dunamis?”. In this context, questions on whether the usage of the terms isti‘dād and tahayyu’, which cannot be found in Greek-Arabic translations of Aristotle’s texts, points to a simple passage to a new scientific terminology or there occurred a new conceptual framework and it forced introduction of such new vocabulary are discussed in comparison to Aristotle’s division of dunamis-heksis, Alexander of Aphrodisias’ theory of natural powers and eventually Simplicius’ and Philoponus’ Neoplatonic conception of epitêdeiotês.

Abstract Evaluating and considering of immateriality and immortality by three philosophers naming Aristotle's (322-384 H.Q), Avicenna (370-428 H.Q), and Aviross (520-595 H.Q) constituted the core of this article. Contradiction and ambiguities seen in some of Aristotle's ideas is considered as the origin of the differences of his exponents about this matter. Philosophers such as Alexander Aphrodisias and (2 and 3 BC), Aviross attributed materiality and mortality of individuals’ souls and also Avicenna attributed immateriality and immortality to Aristotle. Some definitions of Aristotle on soul based on immateriality and immortality as well as his emphasis on soul simplicity is an expression of accurate viewpoint of Avicenna, not related to Aviross. Avicenna relying on the lack of dividing the location of intelligible forms and also according to personal science of self-esteem proves personal souls immateriality and survival of them. But, Aviross was not able to prove the personal souls immateriality based on the unity of intellect course and the relation of potential intellect and active intellect and eventually, Then did not consider them as immaterial and one.

This study is concerned with 'nature' specifically as the subject-matter of physics, or natural science, as described by Aristotle in his "Physics". It also discusses the definitions of nature, and more specifically physical nature, provided by Avicenna (d. 1037) and Averroes (d. 1198) in their commentaries on Aristotle's "Physics". Avicenna and Averroes share Aristotle's conception of nature as a principle of motion and rest. While according to Aristotle the subject matter of physics appears to be nature, or what exists by nature, Avicenna believes that it is the natural body, and Averroes holds that the subject matter of physics or natural science consists in the natural things, in what constitutes a slight shift in focus.

Copyright of Beytulhikme: An International Journal of Philosophy is the property of Beytulhikme: An International Journal of Philosophy and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The collective human effort to understand the brain and its common disease, stroke, has spanned many centuries, cultures, and societies. The ancient Greek and Muslim physicians made important contributions to the understanding and management of stroke in their time. The Muslim physicians, from 800 to 1200 AD, played an outstanding role, by conserving and refining Greco-Roman philosophies, formulating their own theories and reaching conclusions, some of which match our modern stroke models. They recognized the importance of the brain as a source of stroke symptoms, proposed the vascular nature of stroke etiology, and had some thoughts about intra-ventricular hemorrhage, and the process of atherosclerosis with the help of ancient philosophies. Their management strategies have now been discarded, but some of the herbal medicines they used, may be useful in stroke management today. Therefore, more research is required into the ancient texts to evaluate the efficacy of their management strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Ars & Humanitas is the property of Ars & Humanitas and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This paper traces the reception of the Aristotelian definition of time from its earliest (Boethus of Sidon) to its most authoritative interpretations (Alexander of Aphrodisias), and describes how their readings pave the way for a sophisticated amalgamation of divergent Aristotelian and Platonic elements in the temporal theory of Avicenna. The focus of attention lies on specific perceptions of the relation between time and motion, more precisely on the contrary descriptions of time as the measure of motion and motion as the measure of time. The latter leads to a conception of time as a universal self-subsisting substance beyond all measure, and the former to an understanding of time as an accident providing all motion with its particular measure. It is the antagonism between these two conceptions, both inherent in the Arabic term miqdār (“measure, magnitude”) at the heart of Avicenna’s definition of time, which arguably informs the Latin tradition and thereby also shapes the early modern contrast between objective and subjective theories of time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Academic Journal of Philosophy / Felsefi Düşün is the property of Pinhan Yayincilik and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This essay examines the biblical discourse on animals in Job 38-41, as interpreted by Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas in their 13th-century biblical commentaries. In God's first reply to Job (chapters 38 and 39) twelve species of animals are introduced and realistically described, including accurate details of their behavior. Subsequently, chapters 40 and 41 introduce two more complex animals, Behemoth and Leviathan, in which realistic and symbolic features intertwine. This peculiarity of the book of Job - long sequences dedicated to descriptions of animals - allows to investigate to what extent and how the availability of Aristotelian zoology, whose study was prescribed in the Dominican program promoted and practiced by Albert himself, became an instrument for a renewed biblical exegesis, different from the allegorical and theological moralizing hitherto prevailing in the Christian tradition of commentaries on Job. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article aims to argue that the logic of emanation of Avicenna (d. 428/1037) flourishes on the ground of a philosophical basis instead of a mystical one. In order to prove this argument, I indicate to several contact points between Avicennan theory of emanation and causality. In this framework, I determine three contact points: (i) The conception of causality based on the transmission, (ii) the principle of "From one proceeds only one" and (iii) the distinction between necessary existent by itself and contingent existent by itself/necessary existent by other. Among these points, (i) and (ii) are derived from the Aristotelean (d. BC 322) and Neo-Platonist background. On the other hand, (iii) is what Avicenna includes into the theory of emanation as his own philosophical contribution. Avicenna establishes his theory of emanation by utilizing all of these points which also emerged in the philosophical discussions on causality. Therefore, Avicenna presents an explanation of emanation explicitly connected to the causality in comparison to the schema of emanation of the Neo-Platonist philosophers and al- Fārābī (d. 339/950). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article reflects on some important elements in the "relationship" between the doctrine of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. In particular, there are three subjects that interest us here and serve as head of each one of the sections of the systematic development of this work: (1) the cultural panorama Thomas Aquinas faces regarding the rediscovery of Aristotle, (2) the description of each one of the works that Aquinas commented on, and (3) some conclusions that are drawn as "nuances" in order to take into account and righteously judge the relationship between these thinkers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Avicenna may be regarded as the first Muslim philosopher who has perceived a deep connection between Aristotelian concept of ousia and being and, analyzing the concept ontologically, he tried to correct the failures of Aristotle’s thought in this field. In this way, the ambiguity of the subject-matter of first philosophy has been omitted and the capability of Aristotle’s philosophical teachings is used for establishing a religious philosophy. As is explained, in spite of considerable changes made in contemporary studies on Aristotle`s philosophy, Avicenna can be regarded as a perfect authority in this field.

Bu makalede düşünce tarihinin iki önemli düşünürü Aristoteles ve İbn Sînâ’nın reenkarnasyon/tenasüh hakkındaki görüşlerini inceledik. Her iki düşünürde reenkar-nasyonu reddetmektedir. Konuyu ele almadan önce kaynak olmaları bakımından Aristoteles ve İbn Sînâ’dan önceki bazı filozofların ruh ve reenkarnasyon hakkındaki görüşlerini araştırdık. Daha sonra da her iki filozofun ruh tanımlarım belirledikten sonra reenkarnasyone niçin reddettiklerini ortaya koymaya çalıştık. Nihayetinde görüşlerinde ki benzer ve farklı noktaları tespit için bir karşılaştırma yaptık