Christian Kanzian

Although Ibn Sina’s metaphysics is heavily indebted to Aristotle’s, with regard to the substantiality of the rational soul and God, Aristotle and Ibn Sina take opposite positions: Aristotle holds that theos is a substance, while Ibn Sina denies that God is a substance; Aristotle holds that the soul is not a substance, while Ibn Sina claims that it is. In both of these regards we observe the movement toward greater abstraction in Ibn Sina. The concept of God is more abstract when considered outside the categories, and the soul is understood more abstractly, not merely as the form of an organism, but as independent of any materiality. God is freed from the constraints of substantiality while the soul is freed from the constraints of corporeality. Ibn Sina argues that since God transcends the categories, God is not a substance. Another argument is that everything that falls under the categories is contingent in its existence, God, however, is necessary in His existence. Hence, God is not a substance. Ibn Sina’s main argument, however, is that a condition for being a substance is, according to Arsitotle, not to be in a subject. This condition should be understood in such a manner that it does not imply the existence of what satisfies it. The existence of a necessary being, however, is implied by such a condition. Hence, God does not have the condition, and, thus, is not a substance.

This volume aims to investigate the topic of Substance and Attribute. The way leading to this aim is a dialogue between Islamic and Western Philosophy. Our project is motivated by the observation that the historical roots of Islamic and of Western philosophy are very similar. Thus some of the articles in this volume are dedicated to the history of philosophy in Islamic thinking as well as in Western traditions. But the dialogue between both philosophies is not only an historical issue, it also has systematic relevance for actual philosophical questions. The topic Substance and Attribute particularly has systematic relevance for the actual ontological debate.

The leading idea of the book is to focus on the common roots of Islamic and Western traditions and to increase awareness of the chances of systematic philosophical dispute, with the aim to promote a substantial dialogue on an academic level. Most of the collected papers in this edition are results of contributions to a workshop, organized by the editors of the volume, as an integrated part of a visit to the Imam Khomeini Education and Research Institute (IKERI) of Qom by a delegation of philosophers from the University of Innsbruck in May 2008. The organizational frame of the workshop and also of this edition is the partnership between the IKERI and the University of Innsbruck the first formal high-level academic partnership between an Iranian Institution and a European University. The contributions in this edition investigate the topic Soul in an interdisciplinary and comparative way: Psychologists, Philosophers, and Theologians from both, Islamic and Western traditions, should be brought into dialogue with the focus on the general theme."

Ziel der Arbeit ist es, Ansätze zur Interpretation der Schriften der ersten beiden wesentlichen Schaffensperioden Kants zu entwickeln. Die leitenden Ideen sind mit den Schlagwörtern des Titels bezeichnet. 1755/56 hat Kant bereits originelle Auffassungen dargelegt. In den Texten von 1762/63 findet sich eine spezifische Spannung. Sie resultiert aus Kants unreflektiertem Versuch, empiristische Thesen anglo-sächsischer Provenienz aufzugreifen und in seine rationalistisch geprägten Grundüberzeugungen zu integrieren. Die Untersuchungen gehen von ausführlichen Darstellungen der Texte Kants aus. Die Methode kann als systematisch orientierte Exegese gekennzeichnet werden.

This paper seeks to show how a proper version of dispositionalism, taking powers as basic elements of reality, may figure as a causal theory of perception. On the basis of this argument, the paper draws some further conclusions, which may indicate the explanatory competence of such a disposition-affine theory of causality, for example in terms of the distinction between primary and secondary qualities, as well as an ontological account of mere potentialities of active capacities to perceive and of “privations,” respectively.

In meinem Beitrag versuche ich, das Problem einer Ontologie natürlicher Arten auf eine Weise anzugehen, die nicht dem Verdacht ausgesetzt ist, von vornherein auf nominalistische oder realistische Extrempositionen festzulegen. Zunächst lege ich meine terminologischen und inhaltlichen Voraussetzungen dar: Eine davon besteht in der Annahme, daß die Identität von Dingen, d.i. ihre ontologische Konstitution, sortal dependent ist. Die ontologische Konstiution von Dingen hängt auch von ihrer Artzugehörigkeit ab. In der Folge analysiere ich, worin diese sortale Dependenz genauerhin besteht. Dies geschieht anhand einer Untersuchung von Existenz-bzw. Konstitutionsbedingungen, denen individuelle Dinge aufgrund ihrer Artzugehörigkeit unterliegen. In einem nächsten Schritt stelle ich die Frage, ob es Entitäten gibt, deren ontologische Konstitution in besonderer Weise sortal abhängig ist. Ich lege ausfürhrlich dar, worin diese Besonderheit bestehen soll und diskutiere meine Option, die gestellte Frage zu bejahen. Schließlich schlage ich vor, Vorkommnisse, deren ontologische Konstitution auf diese besondere Weise sortal dependent ist, als Vorkommnisse natürlicher Arten zu bezeichnen. Meine Vorgangsweise ist nicht thesenhaft behauptend, sondern argumentativ abwägend. Mit der Anführung meiner Option verbinde ich somit nicht den Anspruch, das Problem einer Ontologie natürlicher Arten zu lösen; eher den, zur weiteren Aktualisieriung seiner Diskussion beizutragen.

The problem of persistence is as old as the tradition of systematic ontology. How can we explain that the middle-sized standard objects of everyday s life are regarded normally as remaining 'the same', even if they change their properties and their material constituents? The aim of this edition is to present new arguments, perspectives, and theoretical backgrounds concerning 'persistence': There is much more to consider than the classical distinction between 'endurantism' and 'perdurantism'. The volume includes contributions authored by S. Barker, P. Dowe, A. Chrudzimski, P. Grenon, B. Smith, L. Jansen, E.J. Lowe, U. Meixner, K. Miller, E. Runggaldier, J. Seibt, and E. Tegtmeier."

What can systematic philosophy contribute to come from conflict between cultures to a substantial dialogue? This question was the general theme of the twenty-ninth international symposium of the Austrian Ludwig Wittgenstein Society in Kirchberg (Austria). Worldwide leading philosophers accepted the invitation to come to the conference, whose results are published in this volume, edited by Christian Kanzian and Edmund Runggaldier. The sections are dedicated to the philosophy of Wittgenstein, logics and philosophy of language, decision and action theory, ethical aspects of the intercultural dialogue, intercultural dialogue, and last but not least to social ontology. Christian Kanzian is extraordinary professor of philosophy at the philosophical department, theological faculty, University of Innsbruck (Austria), and president of the Austrian Ludwig Wittgenstein Society. Edmund Runggaldier is full professor at the philosophical department, theological faculty, University of Innsbruck (Austria).