ema-ranth

[ema-ranth]

Accidental change vs substantial change

Accidental properties are always subject to change in Aristotelian doctrine, but the substance does not change and they are stable and can be known.

Mulla sadra thinks that all substance is changing all the time, just that it’s so gradual we can’t see it. He also thinks everything is becoming something else (lol)

[ema-ranth]

True existence is like pure light emanated from god. Created things suffer from degrees of darkness, I.e. different intensities of existence.

All existence is a continuous stream (of light?) flowing from god, but they vary in terms of intensity of existence. Thus, we can say that all things are unified with god, without them actually being indistinguishable from god.

— very illuminationist / Sufist expansion of Avicenna’s existence theory from Mulla Sadra

I really like this theory :)

[ema-ranth]

What’s better than Eve with a sword? Eve with a bardiche :D

[ema-ranth]

Lol illuminationist take on transmigration of souls (good souls transcend and bad souls go to animals) is so Provistian xD. Not that I knew any of that beforehand xD

[ema-ranth]

Illuminationism (Suhravardi): knowledge by presence. Extends Avicenna’s point that “the flying man must know himself” to other objects of knowledge. I.e. if something is present in unobstructed sight, we immediately obtain the (universal) knowledge of it

God, intellects, heavenly spheres, souls = literally lights. Lights are self-knowing.

Bodies = shadows that obstruct the light and self-knowledge

[ema-ranth]

Augustine & Crescas & Kant : time is an subjective illusion

:)

[ema-ranth]

Maimonides: religion and philosophy teach the same things

Interpreting religious texts when they don’t appear to agree with philosophy:

1) positive statements are actually negative statements

2) descriptions about god are actually about gods creations

3) don’t take things literally

[ema-ranth]

Ibn arabi: mystic who thinks the world is the manifestation of god

Cf pseudo Dionysus

[ema-ranth]

Averroes: Truth does not contradict truth. So philosophical demonstration is the ultimate way to get at truth — even over religious doctrine.

Also Averroes: god is the final cause that draws all things to him: everything strives towards god. God doesn’t go out and “do” things because god does not know particulars. The religious (Islamic) scriptures saying god did this and that is just ... well, meant for the masses and not strictly true.

Also Averroes: all humans share an intellect, so there’s no personal immortality after death.

He just contradicted the whole of Islam with his truths, lol.

[ema-ranth]

Averroes - the universal intellect

Basically all humans share the same intellect. Their particular thoughts are bound with a particular faculty in their physical brains. This is why you and I can think different things. But the consequence is that when we die, we all become the universal intellect, and nothing can distinguish us anymore (particularity is specific to the body.)

[ema-ranth]

Hayy ibn yaqzan is the og Robinson Crusoe lol. I need to read this so badly now

[ema-ranth]

Al-ghazali thinks that philosophers (ie avicenna) fail because they cannot prove what they propose (ie the heavenly spheres) by demonstrative proof. He thinks they are selling ideas that they got from prior prophecy.

[ema-ranth]

Lol, al-ghazali is the og inquisitioner (Muslim)... he is the first to write down in words the definition of “clandestine apostasy” as, I e people who appear to believe in Muslim but hold and preach positions that are just unacceptable. These people should be killed just like people who openly abandon Islam. (And anyone can do the killing. )

Avicenna is the really major apostate to him. He holds 3 untenable beliefs:

1. The world is eternal

2. God does not know particulars, only broad classes

3. There is no bodily resurrection, afterlife only pertains to the immaterial soul

Frank Griffel says that he thinks the latter 2 are bad because they encourage people to be bad in this life as there are no rewards or punishments in the afterlife.

[ema-ranth]

Al-Ghazali thinks that philosophers are wrong in thinking that there are actual agents (determinist causes) in the created universe, because that would undermine god’s untrammeled power and make him too removed as a cause (basically asharites belief that god controls everything directly)

Instead he thinks that: god happens to choose to create those “causes” and “effects” together, and we as humans habitually thinks the cause produces the effect (e.g fire & burning). When god doesn’t do his usual combo, we think there’s a miracle (e.g. someone doesn’t burn in fire)

But he could have gone another way instead, to think that secondary agents do exist, and produce their effects deterministically, but god still needs to permit each effect to happen. This way he can still exercise power without denying causation.

[ema-ranth]

Calm after the storm

She’s wearing a reasonable cuirass, finally.

Also the general feeling is like the garden of Eden, which is fitting......

[ema-ranth]

Avicenna on the soul:

The only immaterial part is the rational soul. But the rational soul needs the body to exercise its functions, and after death, rational souls are only identified by their previous experience in bodies (is this memory????)

No reincarnation is possible, because every body at its birth is given a soul by the agent intellect, of reincarnation is a thing, you’ll end up with 2 souls.

2 theories of knowledge:

Empiricist - all knowledge comes from sense experience

Emanationist - forms come from the agent intellect, where they reside

[ema-ranth]

I love Avicenna’s proof for god.

He says there are 3 modalities : necessary (essence necessitates existence), contingent (essence =?= existence, must have external cause) , or impossible (essence precludes existence)

He wants to prove there is 1 eternal necessary thing in the universe.

The collection of all things in the world are contingent. So it must be caused by 1 necessary thing, bam.

If the collection of all things is necessary, then itself is the 1 necessary thing. (Does that mean god is all and all is god?)

Then he proves each attribute of god separately, his uniqueness, all knowingness, etc. some of these proofs are weaker and easy to attack.