Even though, in Aristotelian and Islamic logic and philosophy, inherently impossible affairs don’t actualize in the world and can’t be actualized, they are considered meaningful, and thus their characteristics and their philosophical judgments have been discussed by Islamic philosophers. ...
Read More
Even though, in Aristotelian and Islamic logic and philosophy, inherently impossible affairs don’t actualize in the world and can’t be actualized, they are considered meaningful, and thus their characteristics and their philosophical judgments have been discussed by Islamic philosophers. In this paper, I have argued that there are some flaws in the arguments which have presented for the meaningfulness of impossible affairs by such philosophers. In addition, I have suggested some philosophical and logical arguments for their meaninglessness. According to some Islamic philosophy rules, such as ‘the contrast between a’dam wa malike’ (positive and privative), we can argue that impossible affairs are indeed compound words which are constructed through wordplay. Although the parts of such compound words may have meaning, they, as a whole, don’t refer to anything and so don’t bring about anything in our minds. We have just the illusion of their meaningfulness when we are talking about them, and that’s why we call them ‘pseudo-concepts’. This view has some important consequences which have been discussed in the paper.
