Journal of Philosophical Investigations

Understanding Brain Rot: A Processual and Philosophical Analysis through Avicenna’s Hierarchy of Intellect

Tri Wi Farma; Abd. Rahman Hamid; Muhammad Akmansyah; Muhammad Afif Anshori

Articles in Press, Accepted Manuscript, Available Online from 28 June 2025

https://doi.org/10.22034/jpiut.2025.67650.4130

Abstract

This study explores the concept of brain rot and its correlation with Avicenna’s four stages of intellect, offering a philosophical and normative perspective on cognitive decline ... Read More

View Article

An Analysis of Avicenna's Report of Plato's Ideas in Al-Shifa (the book of Healing)

Majid Sadr Majles

Volume 18, Issue 49 , December 2024, , Pages 61-82

https://doi.org/10.22034/jpiut.2024.62528.3821

Abstract

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 ... Read More

Determinism and Moral Responsibility According to Avicenna's Theory of Action

Roozbeh Zare; Seyed Hassan Hosseini Sarvari

Volume 16, Issue 38 , May 2022, , Pages 287-314

https://doi.org/10.22034/jpiut.2022.46706.2881

Abstract

The main issue of this article is how to harmonize determinism and moral responsibility (the classic problem of free will) by reconsidering the philosophy of Avicenna. Certainly, Avicenna ... Read More

Are the Theories of Evolution, Multiverse, and the Inexistence of Universe Starting Point, the Product of Modern Science? Causality and Chance in Modern and Ancient Science

Yousef Jamali

Volume 15, Issue 37 , December 2021, , Pages 70-99

https://doi.org/10.22034/jpiut.2020.40100.2571

Abstract

In the last two centuries, a better understanding of nature and significant advances in science and technology have led to the emergence of new and exciting ideas and approaches. Almost ... Read More

A Critical Study of the Contemporary Approaches to the Contradiction of Avicenna's View Concerning the Moral Judgments

Ali Alamolhoda

Volume 13, Issue 27 , September 2019, , Pages 213-230

https://doi.org/10.22034/jpiut.2019.32842.2288

Abstract

One of the most famous criticisms for Avicenna's criticizers is about his opinion for the general acceptance of ethical propositions. On the other hand, he emphasizes that they are ... Read More

Modification of Aristotle's theory of definition in Avicennian logic

Akbar Faydei; Masoud Omid

Volume 12, Issue 25 , February 2019, , Pages 173-187

https://doi.org/10.22034/jpiut.2019.8010

Abstract

Abstract According to Aristotle, definition is the first step to aquire scientific knowledge. And the full knowledge of objects is possible only by knowing their essence and essential ... Read More Abstract According to Aristotle, definition is the first step to aquire scientific knowledge. And the full knowledge of objects is possible only by knowing their essence and essential definition. Following Aristotle, Avicenna thinks that the full knowledge of things is gained through the knowledge of their essence. Admitting the difficulty of understanding the essentials of objects, he states, based on his essentialist doctrine, that real definition should imply quiddity, truth and perfection of essential existence of the limited object so that it represents all its essence. But man can not identify essentials of objects and true definitions of them. Avicenna describes details of all kinds of definitions, and this article we modifies and completes the rules of Aristotle's theory of definition. In will explain it. Keywords: Essentialism, Real Definitions, Genus and Differentia, Aristotle, Avicenna. 1. Introduction Distinguishing between essential and accidental attributes of objects, Aristotle chooses essentialism as his approach. Avicenna shows interest in Aristotelian essentialism in some of his works, but in other works he claims that kowing the essential features of objects is beyond human epistemic capacity and thus modifies the rules of the Aristotelian definitions. 2. Aristotelian Essentialism about Definition: According to Aristotle, sensitive perception represents the knowledge of particular objects and is not considered an example of scientific knowledge; but these very sensitive observations assist the intellect to discover the hidden universals within particular objects and pave the way for the reason to get access to the specific form of objects and distinguish between their essential and accidental features and succeed in revealing their true nature. Aristotle in his metaphysical discussions distinguishes between real and nominal definitions and declares both of them possible and considers the real definition to be the first step for acquiring the scientific knowledge of objects. According to Aristotle, perfect knowledge of objects can be achieved merely by the knowledge of their nature and essence. Real definition of an object is a statement that expresses its essential features, without mentioning the name of the object itself in the definition. This definition is composed of genus (non-conditioned as a matter) and differentia (non-conditioned as a form), and it is always universal and affirmative. 3. Avicenna's Notion of Definition and His Critisism of Aristotelian Definition: Avicenna's words in Shifa and Isharat, like followers of Aristotle, are focused on the possibility of the knowledge of essential features of objects; in the essay devoted to the issue of definition in his book entitled Nijat, Avicenna endorses the possibility of definition and at the same time highlights the absolute difficulty of definition, including real and nominal definitions. However, in his book entitled Ta'liqat he clearly argues that true definition of objects is out of the reach of man. In his book entitled Mantiq al-Mashriqyyin, he provides a detailed discussion of various types of definition and makes some modifications in Aristotelian rules of definition. In Ta'liqat, Avicenna declares real definition composed of genus and differentia to be impossible and criticizes Aristotle's method as incorrect. He restricts human knowledge of objects to knowing their features, requirements and accidents and denied the possibility of knowing their essential features and real definitions. He claims that the first epistemic means of human being is sense, which touches the superficial aspects of objects; then man distinguishes between identical and different perceptions using his intellectual powers and reason and thus understands some of their attributes and requirements and remains uninformed about others. If man was able to perceive the truth of objects he could be aware of all requirements; then man is not able to know the essence and truth of objects. Moreover, difference of opinions regarding the nature of objects is a sign of human reason's inability to understand essential attributes of objects. Knowledge of the true differentia of compound objects lies beyond the ability of man's intellectual perception and he has access only to their requirements. So, man calls their common requirements as genus while he calls their special requirements differentia and particular accident. For example, thinking is not the true differentia of human being, but rather one of the requirements of his true differentia. Furthermore, simple objects have no genus and differentia so that man could know them by knowing these. For this reason, man does not have any access to the knowledge of the essence of objects. The completely immaterial objects are considered as externally simple and intellectually compound, as accidents. The essence of the completely immaterial entities is simple and lacks any matter or external form. We assume genus and differenia for them and bring these in their essential definition. Genus and differentia are declared to be mental matter and form when these are considered without any condition and in this case, they are parts of real definition, not components of simple entities. So, in fact, neither the essence of compound entities nor the essence of simple entities is accessible to man. 4. Conclusion: Aristotle believes that every object has an essence and definition aims at knowing this very essence. Aristotle's followers contend that true definition is difficult to reach, but many Muslim philosophers in general and Avicenna in particular in some of his works argue that essential attributes of objects lie beyond the limits of human intellect. Reaching the true genus and differentia of objects and knowing their essential features is not possible for man. What is declared to be the differentia of the object is in fact its logical differentia, which is in turn the requirement of true differentia. However, knowledge of some of the essential features and requirements leads to the undetailed knowledge of the truths of objects and their features. The major purpose of the definition is thus achieved and man is delivered from the vortex of doubt and sophistry. References: - Aristotle (1980 AD), Aristotelian logic, Abdul Rahman Badawi’s research, Beirut, Dar al-Qalam, 2,418 - Aristotle (2006 AD), metaphysics, translated by Mohammad Hassan Lotfi, Tehran, Tarh-e-now, 63 - Ibn Sina, Hussein bin Abdullah (1982 AD), Mantiq Al-Mashriqiyin, Shukri al-Najjar’s introduction, Beirut, Dar Al-hedatheh, 59-67 - Ibn Sina (1404 AH), Al-ta’liqat, Abdul Rahman Badawi’s research, Qom, School Al-Alam al-salami, 34

Avicenna and Augustine on the problem of evil

Khali Sultangorae Sultangorae; Hossein Atashi; Zahra Elmi

Volume 5, Issue 9 , November 2011, , Pages 89-106

Abstract

Both Avicenna and Augustine were the greatest philosophers and theologians, and because of being theologians, they considered the problem of evil from the window of their devotion to ... Read More

Journal of Philosophical Investigations

Articles in Press

Current Issue

Volume 19 (2025)

Volume 18 (2024)

Volume 17 (2023)

Volume 16 (2022)

Volume 15 (2021)

Volume 14 (2020)

Volume 13 (2019)

Volume 12 (2018)

Volume 11 (2017)

Volume 10 (2016)

Volume 9 (2015)

Volume 8 (2014)

Volume 7 (2013)

Volume 6 (2012)

Volume 5 (2011)

Volume 4 (2010)

Volume 3 (2009)

Volume 2 (2008)

Volume 1 (2007)

Keywords = Avicenna

Understanding Brain Rot: A Processual and Philosophical Analysis through Avicenna’s Hierarchy of Intellect

Abstract

An Analysis of Avicenna's Report of Plato's Ideas in Al-Shifa (the book of Healing)

Abstract

Determinism and Moral Responsibility According to Avicenna's Theory of Action

Abstract

Are the Theories of Evolution, Multiverse, and the Inexistence of Universe Starting Point, the Product of Modern Science? Causality and Chance in Modern and Ancient Science

Abstract

A Critical Study of the Contemporary Approaches to the Contradiction of Avicenna's View Concerning the Moral Judgments

Abstract

Modification of Aristotle's theory of definition in Avicennian logic

Abstract

Avicenna and Augustine on the problem of evil

Abstract