Author
Tosun, Mustafa Selman, Kandemir, Ahmet Mekin
Publication Place
Ankara Social Sciences University -
Ankara Social Sciences University
Subject
Islamic philosophy
Type
Book
Language
ara,eng,tur
Digital
Yes
Manuscript
No
Library
Leitir Library
Library Asset ID
ISSN: 2757-5616, EISSN: 2757-5616, DOI: 10.51575/atebe.1177059
Record ID
cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_517cbbe22aea4e8ebdedd26b8b92f3fe
Library Location
DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals
Notes
This study focuses on the value of the logical universal in terms of being a universal in the philosophy of Ibn Sina (d. 428/1037) and the criticisms of Ghazali (d. 505/1111) towards Ibn Sina in the context of the logical universal. By touching on how these two thinkers explain the universal and universal types, and revealing the meaning of the universal in their system of thought, a philosophical analysis of Ghazali's criticisms of Ibn Sina is made. Accordingly, Avicenna talks about three types of universals. These universals are divided into three types: natural, rational and logical. The relationship between these universals is based on an essential relationship. The one who determines this kind of relationship and gives principles must be outside the universals. According to him, the concept of existence determines the meaning of universals and the essential relationship between universal types. In this respect, the rational universal is the reasonableness of the natural universal; The rational universal may be necessary for the logical universal. So, in Avicenna, the concept of universal is related to existence. In Ghazali, we can talk about three types of universal. He does not name the types of the universal, but distinguishes them by describing them. In his distinction, the concept of partnership is considered in terms of actual and potential, and existence is divided based on these conceptual distinctions. In this regard, we cannot talk about an incidental distinction between the meaning that Ibn Sina attributes to universals and the meaning that Ghazali attributes to universals. On the contrary, there is an essential difference between the meanings that the two thinkers attribute to universals. Based on this difference, Ghazali's criticisms towards Ibn Sina are also of an essential nature. One of the clearest indicators of Ghazali's criticism of Ibn Sina lies in the meaning he attributes to the logical universal and the example he gives in the context of the logical universal. By considering the logical universal as a meaning that does not accept commonality in terms of potentiality and actuality, Ghazali attributes the commonality in it to a reason other than the thing that is subject to confirmation. Although Ibn Sina agrees with the meaning that Ghazali attributes to the logical universal, saying that it is beyond confirmation, he clearly emphasizes being subject to imagination. Ghazali, on the other hand, ignored Ibn Sina's reference and emphasized that Ibn Sina would accept it, based on the "God" example he gave in the context of a logical universal. However, in Ibn Sina's philosophical system, it is not possible for the word "God" to be subject to imagination. Because “God” is not conceived but perceived. According to him, things that are subject to imagination contain potential multiplicity. But the word "God" is not suitable to be the subject of imagination only because it is a necessary existence. In this respect, it can be analyzed whether Gazzali's criticisms are argumentative or nonsense in terms of the five arts. Both the meaning that Ghazali attributes to the logical universal and the examples he gives for this meaning constitute the essential nature of his criticisms as fallacy.
Detaylı Başlık
İbn Sînâ’da Mantıkî Tümel ve Gazzâlî’nin Mantıkî Tümel Bağlamında İbn Sînâ’ya Yönelttiği Eleştirilerin Analizi
