In Islamic logic and philosophy usually is said, as a rule, that the attribution of logical secondary inteligibles is totally subjective. This paper shows that sometimes some Muslim thinkers, in practice, have violated this rule unintentionally, in the discussion of absolute non–existent paradox, ...
Read More
In Islamic logic and philosophy usually is said, as a rule, that the attribution of logical secondary inteligibles is totally subjective. This paper shows that sometimes some Muslim thinkers, in practice, have violated this rule unintentionally, in the discussion of absolute non–existent paradox, for example. We will reinforce this violation and will present stronger arguments for the external and objective attribution of at least some logical secondary intelligibles, i.e. matters that are tied with intentionality and signification such as ‘cognition’, ‘information’, ‘describility’, ‘non-describility’, ‘knowability’. In this way the generality of this rule is violated.
external world and in the mind as well) paradox, so many solutions have been suggested: The difference in the intension and extension and its equivalent; the difference in the battī and lā–battī and its equivalent; and so forth. Having a glance at the incorrectness of these resolutions, the ...
Read More
external world and in the mind as well) paradox, so many solutions have been suggested: The difference in the intension and extension and its equivalent; the difference in the battī and lā–battī and its equivalent; and so forth. Having a glance at the incorrectness of these resolutions, the essay shows the knowability of the absolute non–existent. Although here a few of thinkers previously have tried to show the knowability, we will show that their resolutions, due to not paying attention to the exact and strong definition of the unknowable and un-declarable absolute non–existent, are problematic. By summing up the different versions of the meaning in question, we will argue for the knowability of the absolute non–existent by means of four proofs: 1. the principle of non–contradiction; 2. non–existence qua non–existence; 3. the non–existentiality of the subject; 4. proof by reductio ad absurdum.
Volume 5, Issue 1 , Winter and Spring 2014, , Pages 1-30
Abstract
For Different thinkers, throughout history, ‘The unknowable non-existent’ has had different meanings. However, despite these differences, the ordinary absolute non-existent in Muslim philosophy (ma‘dūm muṭlaq; non-existent in both the external world and in the mind), can be ...
Read More
For Different thinkers, throughout history, ‘The unknowable non-existent’ has had different meanings. However, despite these differences, the ordinary absolute non-existent in Muslim philosophy (ma‘dūm muṭlaq; non-existent in both the external world and in the mind), can be expressed in this way: absolute non-existent is never existed in external world or in mind (rather it is impossible to be conceived in the mind), neither detailedly nor un-detailedly, neither in perception nor in imagination and intellect. ‘The absolute non-existent’ leads us to a paradox which is usually called the paradox of informing from absolute non-existent; suppose that (P) is ‘The absolute nonexistent is unknowable’, since the very P is a kind of knowledge or information about the absolute nonexistent, so we are encountered to a paradox. In this paper I explore the roots of the ‘absolute nonexistent’ and the paradox in Greek philosophy; actually in Parmenides and Plato.
Volume 4, Issue 1 , Winter and Spring 2013, , Pages 1-43
Abstract
The main purpose of this essay is to review and criticize the paper published earlier in this journal, Logical Study, titled ‘the Paradox of the informing from Absolute Unknown: Analyzing the Concept of information’ written by Sharifzadeh and Hodjati. In spite of having some useful points, ...
Read More
The main purpose of this essay is to review and criticize the paper published earlier in this journal, Logical Study, titled ‘the Paradox of the informing from Absolute Unknown: Analyzing the Concept of information’ written by Sharifzadeh and Hodjati. In spite of having some useful points, the paper is, in several aspects, problematic. We review and criticize respectively such problematic points as: the expression of non-judgeability (ukmnāpadhīrī) in the absolute unknown (majhūl muṭlaq) debate; the invalidity of refer to Qaramaleki and Jahed in the criticism of the previous solutions; absolute non-existent division (ma‘dūm muṭlaq) into ontological and epistemological non-existent; the relationship between the absolute unknown and the absolute non-existent, and their solutions; neglecting the rule of far‘īyah and the predecessors’ strong definitions of the absolute non-existent; the solutions of the paper and its frequent inconsistencies; the successfulness of the paper in showing the indefensibility of the previous solutions; criticism of the analysis of the paper of ‘information’ (khabar) and probably of speech (sukhan); and misunderstanding the predecessors’ purpose; neglecting the definition of absolute unknown and the reason why it couldn’t be informed and spoken.
