Lucas Depierre

In contemporary literature, the apparent lack of coherence in Ibn Sīnā's (d. 1037/427) metaphysical insights, specifically on human soul, has rendered it arduous to delineate his proper intellectual originality in a systematic form. This study excavates a foundational tenet of Ibn Sīnā's theory regarding individual human souls. In The Book of Healing (Kitāb al-shifāʾ), particularly within its Metaphysics (Kitāb al-ilāhiyyāt), I contend that he ascribes metaphysical precedence to existing humans in their individualitywhat I referred to as whonessover essences and intellectual notions, the realm of whatness (māhiyyah). Contrary to the late Platonist framework, on the one hand, the Baghdadi philosopher assigns the individual human soul a higher status than essences and universals in terms of oneness, existence, and truth. On the other hand, he astutely refrained from endorsing the Aristotelian hylomorphic theory and its portrayal of instantiated universals. Moreover, this whoness realm, enshrouded by ontological mystery, incorporates some metaphysical notions initially developed for the divine paradigm.

This contribution endeavors to excavate Cioran’s metaphysics of time as emerging from a critique of Nietzsche’s view(s) of eternal return. Thereby, I argue against reducing Cioran to a self-contradictory and destructive thinker with stylistic qualities but on the margins of philosophical debates, particularly those on the question of time. To retrieve Cioran’s understanding of time, my innovative method is to assemble his disordered aphorisms under a Nietzschean angle in order to unearth Cioran’s intimate spiritual journey on the question of time. I conclude that if Cioran’s coherence has eluded scholarly investigation it is because his identified stance is intricately intertwined with his secretive and agnostic theological quest. To develop a better understanding of Cioran’s metaphysics, I introduce and advocate for a “wandering paradigm” in order to deconstruct what I refer to as the “sedentary paradigm” derived from the nihilist or Nietzschean interpretation.

This study examines the historical originality of Thomas Aquinas’s (c. 1225–1274) Expositio in Iob ad litteram, revealing that it is a self‑claimed literal exegesis of Scripture that breaks with the tradition of interpretation of the book of Job initiated by Gregory’s Moralia and carried forward by the Carolingians. Following Maimonides, Thomas mobilizes the biblical text of Job for addressing concerns that emerged from philosophical currents beyond the Latin Christian West. At stake is the Jewish and Islamic question of whether God may possess knowledge of particulars, and more broadly, the problem of God’s interaction with singulars within the Peripatetic depiction of reality that Thomas partly adopts. In the Super Iob, Thomas constructs a distinct paradigm in which divine providence and divine knowledge are articulated, allowing scriptural milestones to chart the course of his reflection. This paradigm is based upon the depiction of God’s relationship to the world not primarily as a creator but as a governor and judge, whose providence extends to the most particular details of reality, including singular evils to judge them.