Jari Kaukua

This paper engages critically with Dimitri Gutas’ recent characterization of post-classical Islamic philosophy and theology as a form of paraphilosophy or intellectual activity that merely simulates philosophy. I argue that this view arises from a misguided understanding of the concept of philosophy that should provide the standard for its historiography. In order to avoid a number of problematic consequences, such as gaps in historical continuity or a disconnection from what we understand by philosophy today, we must take our cue from a sufficiently uncontroversial contemporary concept of philosophy instead of any particular historical concept, such as the Peripatetic amalgam of metaphysics, theory of science, and the empirical sciences. Such a strategy provides a sound basis for the inclusion of post-classical thinkers, as well as many classical thinkers who are not falāsifa, in the history of Islamic philosophy without vicious circularity or loss of a normative concept of philosophy

Bu makale, Dimitri Gutas’ın, post-klasik İslam felsefesi ve teolojisini, “felsefemsi” bir form veya felsefeye öykünen entelektüel bir faaliyet olarak nitelemesine eleştirel bir şekilde yaklaşır. Bu görüşün, felsefe tarih- yazımı için standart sağlaması gereken felsefe kavramının yanlış anlaşılmasından kaynaklandığını iddia ediyorum. Tarihsel süreklilikte boşluklara neden olma veya günümüzde felsefeden anladığımız şeyden kopuk olma gibi birtakım problemli sonuçları önlemek için, metafizik, bilim teorisi veya ampirik bilimlerin Meşşâî birleşimi gibi herhangi belirli bir tarihsel kavram yerine, pek tartışmalı olmayan bir çağdaş felsefe kavramından yola çıkmalıyız. Böyle bir strateji, felâsifeden olmayan pek çok klasik düşünürün yanı sıra post- klasik düşünürlerin, herhangi bir kısırdöngüye girilmeksizin veya normatif felsefe kavramı kaybedilmeksizin İslam felsefesi tarihine dâhil edilmesi için sağlam bir temel sunar.

This paper argues that Avicenna was both a necessitarian and a realist about contingency. The two aspects of his modal metaphysics are reconciled by arguing that Avicenna's modal metaphysics is founded on realism about essences: strictly speaking, an individual has no contingent properties, but a modal distinction can be made between the properties that it has by virtue of its essence (and that are thus necessary by virtue of its identity) and those that it has by virtue of extrinsic causes (and that are thus contingent with respect to its identity). Consequently, despite its realism about contingency, Avicennian modal metaphysics is not committed to the existence of counterfactual scenarios. This may seem to be in tension with the fact that Avicenna takes counterfactuals seriously in his logic. The paper argues, however, that the logical discussion of counterfactuals must be set in the framework of Avicenna's conception of the relation between modal logic and modal metaphysics: the metaphysical account of the relation between essences and modalities should provide the foundation for logic, and the purely logical kind of possibility should be understood as a case of epistemic modality. The paper concludes by claiming that such a division of labour is in potentially productive contrast to the contemporary mainstream in modal metaphysics.

This paper addresses two questions related to Themistius’ alleged influence on Avicenna’s theory of the common sense. The first question concerns the phenomenon of incidental perception, which Themistius explained by means of the common sense. For Avicenna, on the contrary, the explanation of cases like our perceiving something yellow as honey involves the faculty of estimation and the entire system of the internal senses that he coined, and this results in an analysis that is considerably more complex than Themistius’. The second question concerns Themistius’ claim according to which an incorporeal spirit is the primary subject of perception. I argue that Avicenna departs from such a view both because for him spirit is a corporeal substance and because he insists that the subject of all cognition is the soul, not any of its faculties. Finally, I conclude by briefly considering other, more general ways in which Themistius could have influenced Avicenna’s psychology.

It is a necessary condition for recognising change that there is a yardstick against which the change can be perceived. The same applies to changes that philosophical concepts undergo. This paper delineates standards for recognising conceptual change that meet the requirements of conscientious history of philosophy. More particularly, we want to argue for the need of what we will call non-textual standards. These are features of the world of experience that must be assumed to be shared between us and the historical authors we study. While they must be used in tandem with the recognised contextual standards of conceptual change, we will argue that without recourse to at least some non-textual standards, important kinds of conceptual change will remain inexplicable.

If the historical importance of a philosopher is measured by her influence, Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥusayn ibn ʿAbdallāh ibn Sīnā, the Latin Avicenna (d. 1037 CE), should merit an uncontested entry in even the narrowest of canons. The development of Islamic philosophy and theology in the so-called post-classical period, that is, from the twelfth century CE down to the dawn of the postcolonial era, is unthinkable without him. By the same token, the Latin translations of a portion of his works were pivotal for the scholastic renaissance of Aristotelian philosophy in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and many Avicennian ideas, such as his modal metaphysics and its theological implications or his theory of the so called internal senses, resounded deep into the modern era, long after his texts had ceased to be immediate sources of inspiration for the mainstream of philosophy. But even apart from historical importance, I would like to claim that Ibn Sīnā deserves a position in the brief canon of philosophy simply for the depth and precision of his insight. An illustrative example of this is his perspicuous description and solid analysis of psychological phenomena, and especially those related to the human, or rational, soul. This was the field in which he made some of the bravest departures from the Aristotelian tradition he built on, and in many ways it can be seen as the culmination of his study of nature. One of the most impressive results of this work is his conception of self-awareness.

Šihāb al-Dīn al-Suhrawardī’s philosophical works seem to contain two conflicting views on providence: in the Talwīḥāt and the Mašāriʿ, he endorses the Avicennian view, only to deny providence altogether in the Ḥikmat al-išrāq. This contribution aims to explain the seeming inconsistency by investigating it in light of the underlying question of God’s knowledge of particular things. I will also argue that despite his qualms concerning providence, Suhrawardī accepts the closely related Avicennian answer to the problem of evil.

Avicenna’s logical theory of negative judgement can be seen as a systematic development of the insights Aristotle had laid out in the De interpretatione. However, in order to grasp the full extent of his theory one must extend the examination from the logical works to the metaphysical and psychological bases of negative judgement. Avicenna himself often refrains from the explicit treatment of the connections between logic and metaphysics or psychology, or treats them in a rather oblique fashion. Time and again he is satisfied with noting that this or that question is not proper for a logician and should be dealt with in metaphysics or psychology—without bothering to refer his reader to the exact loci. The following is an attempt at a reconstruction of Avicenna’s theory of negative judgement in such a broad fashion. I will begin with his analysis of negative judgement as resulting from an operation of ‘removing’ the predicate term from the subject term. On this basis, I will move on to discuss how he conceives of the relation between negative judgements and affirmative judgements that contain privative or metathetic terms as well as the question of whether negative judgements can be reduced to affirmative ones. Having thus laid out his logical theory of negation, I move on to discuss the underlying metaphysics by looking at the relation between existence and non-existence, and existence and privation. Finally, I will address Avicenna’s scattered psychological remarks on how we can conceive of what does not exist.

It is still a matter of some debate whether Avicenna grounds moral responsibility in a robust notion of free will. In this contribution, I will first delve into Avicenna’s theory of voluntary agency, arguing that he holds voluntary agency to be responsive to reasons but also thoroughly determined by the agent’s beliefs concerning the relevant goals, instruments, and qualifying circumstances. Since these beliefs in turn are caused, it seems that there is little room for a causally undetermined will in Avicenna’s theory. I will conclude by considering the question of whether Avicenna is some kind of compatibilist concerning the relation between determinism and responsibility.

Classical Islamic philosophy has in recent years started to receive the sort of attention that this rich period and tradition in the history of philosophy deserves. A consequence of this has been that people working in the field are beginning to approach it in a more philosophically thematic way, and in such a way that its insights look relevant to contemporary research. Questions concerning the mind (Ar. dhihn), the intellect (Ar. ʿaql), or the soul (Ar. nafs), occupied a central place in the thought of many classical Islamic philosophers. The issue’s aim is to shed light on the period’s contribution to the broader history of philosophy and its relevance to contemporary debates in the field.

Contemporary caution against anachronism in intellectual history, and the currently momentous theoretical emphasis on subjectivity in the philosophy of mind, are two prevailing conditions that set puzzling constraints for studies in the history of philosophical psychology. The former urges against assuming ideas, motives, and concepts that are alien to the historical intellectual setting under study, and combined with the latter suggests caution in relying on our intuitions regarding subjectivity due to the historically contingent characterizations it has attained in contemporary philosophy of mind. In the face of these conditions, our paper raises a question of what we call non-textual (as opposed to contextual) standards of interpretation of historical texts, and proceeds to explore subjectivity as such a standard. Non-textual standards are defined as (heuristic) postulations of features of the world or our experience of it that we must suppose to be immune to historical variation in order to understand a historical text. Although the postulation of such standards is often so obvious that the fact of our doing so is not noticed at all, we argue that the problems in certain special cases, such as that of subjectivity, force us to pay attention to the methodological questions involved. Taking into account both recent methodological discussion and the problems inherent in two de facto denials of the relevance of subjectivity for historical theories, we argue that there are good grounds for the adoption of subjectivity as a non-textual standard for historical work in philosophical psychology.

Contemporary caution of anachronism in intellectual history on the one hand, and currently momentous theoretical emphasis on subjectivity on the other, are two prevailing circumstances that set puzzling constraints for studies in the history of philosophical psychology. Together these circumstances call for heightened awareness of our own interpretive presuppositions as historians: the former urges against assuming ideas, motives, and concepts that may be alien in the historical intellectual setting under study and the latter suggests caution in relying on our intuitions regarding subjectivity due to the specific and historicallycontingent characterisations subjectivity has attained in the contemporary philosophy of mind. In face of these enticements our paper explores subjectivity as a non-textual standard of interpretation. Taking into account recent methodological discussion and examples of denials of the relevance of subjectivity for historical theories, we argue that historical work should be conceived as a reflective investigation into what is and what is not genuinely historical. In particular, we show how subjectivity can function as a pre-conceptualized feature of the world that has an effect on our concept formation

Contemporary caution of anachronism in intellectual history on the one hand, and currently momentous theoretical emphasis on subjectivity on the other, are two prevailing circumstances that set puzzling constraints for studies in the history of philosophical psychology. Together these circumstances call for heightened awareness of our own interpretive presuppositions as historians: the former urges against assuming ideas, motives, and concepts that may be alien in the historical intellectual setting under study and the latter suggests caution in relying on our intuitions regarding subjectivity due to the specific and historicallycontingent characterisations subjectivity has attained in the contemporary philosophy of mind. In face of these enticements our paper explores subjectivity as a non-textual standard of interpretation. Taking into account recent methodological discussion and examples of denials of the relevance of subjectivity for historical theories, we argue that historical work should be conceived as a reflective investigation into what is and what is not genuinely historical. In particular, we show how subjectivity can function as a pre-conceptualized feature of the world that has an effect on our concept formation.

This paper engages critically with Dimitri Gutas’ recent characterization of post-classical Islamic philosophy and theology as a form of paraphilosophy or intellectual activity that merely simulates philosophy. I argue that this view arises from a misguided understanding of the concept of philosophy that should provide the standard for its historiography. In order to avoid a number of problematic consequences, such as gaps in historical continuity or a disconnection from what we understand by philosophy today, we must take our cue from a sufficiently uncontroversial contemporary concept of philosophy instead of any particular historical concept, such as the Peripatetic amalgam of metaphysics, theory of science, and the empirical sciences. Such a strategy provides a sound basis for the inclusion of post-classical thinkers, as well as many classical thinkers who are not falāsifa, in the history of Islamic philosophy without vicious circularity or loss of a normative concept of philosophy.

It is a necessary condition for recognising change that there is a yardstick against which the change can be perceived. The same applies to changes that philosophical concepts undergo. This paper delineates standards for recognising conceptual change that meet the requirements of conscientious history of philosophy. More particularly, we want to argue for the need of what we will call non-textual standards. These are features of the world of experience that must be assumed to be shared between us and the historical authors we study. While they must be used in tandem with the recognised contextual standards of conceptual change, we will argue that without recourse to at least some non-textual standards, important kinds of conceptual change will remain inexplicable.

Avicenna’s discussion of future contingent propositions is sometimes considered to entail metaphysical indeterminism. In this paper, I argue that his logical analysis of future contingent statements is best understood in terms of the epistemic modality of those statements, which has no consequences for modal metaphysics. This interpretation is corroborated by hitherto neglected material concerning the question of God’s knowledge of particulars. In the Taʿlīqāt, Avicenna argues that God knows particulars by knowing their complete causes, and when contrasted with the human knowledge of particulars, this epistemically superior access shows that the contingency of statements about future particulars is not due to the modal properties of real particulars but to the nature of human access to them.