ibn Harm

Category: Metaphysics

  • Is Metaphysics Possible? Considerations in Relation to Ibn Sina

    Metaphysics or “what comes before nature” aims to investigate everything that is not human. This prima facie seems inconsistent since nature encompasses more than just what is human so it seems that investigating that what is not human is not necessarily metaphysical. However it is consistent since the metaphysical inquiry itself only has meaning in so far it is relatable to human. If reality is experienced through light of human experience description in non-human language carries no meaning.

    Since al-Kindi serious thought in Arabic had taken off. Al-Kindi demonstrated that philosophical reflection was also possible in the language of the Arabs. This provided necessary weight to counteract intellectual attacks. Following his seminal work Arabic philosophy can be said to be reinvented by Ibn Sina whose influence is still visible in works of mathematics. Besides mathematics Ibn Sina also penned works of medicine. I believe it is Al-Kindi who broaches the question of the Eternity of the World into Arabic philosophy. After him Ibn Sina considers the question as well and comes to the conclusion that the world is Eternal.[1]

    According to Aristotle who authored the field of metaphysics the study of metaphysics inquires into being qua being. “Being” in Arabic intellectual tradition is translated as “wujud” which literally means “to find.” So being is “to be found.” So contrary to not being found existing things are found. This implies at least another entity for if something is to be found there is an entity that is finding the found entity. Thus being always occurs in multiplicity.[2]

    This multiplicity means that there is a uniting attribute since for all things that are said to exist it cannot be said that they do not exist. In other words the brilliance of Ibn Sina is that he creates free will which can be said to not exist in Aristotles theory of causes since every action has a teleological cause. By differentiating between contingent beings and necessary being Ibn Sina makes room for volition.

    However these last points seem to relate more to logic “mantiq” in Arabic than to Metaphysics[3] proper. Perhaps if we consider some metaphysical models we can arive at greater confidence in our beliefs. We can consider a fairly typical neoplatonic model which has metaphysical intent. In neoplatonic thought human experiences travel on a vertical metaphysical scale. The higher something is located on this scale the closer it is to pure intelligence.

    Vice versa the lower something is located on this scale the further it is removed from the One. This hierarchical model allows for the existence of celestial intelligences. Thus intelligence emanates and is therefore graded. A proof for this is that for something to emanate there needs to be a source that is emanating. Related to the world of witnessed things it makes only sense to appeal to a higher entity if it is expected that a) this entity exists and b) that this entity is able and willing to influence human affairs.

    But is belief in a higher entity (necessary being in philosophical speech) a proof that metaphysical progress is possible? Aristotle posited some thirty first openers in his Metaphysics which would be used to open up conversation. Contrarily Plato did not order the world of appearences by innate goads but rather emphasized shared ideas of serious consideration. Ibn Sina in this milieu is helpful because he explicitly guides conversation to questions regarding primacy of essence and existence.

    ‘Ilm is contrasted by ‘aql in Muslim thought. ‘Aql relates more to human access to ‘Ilm. Besides ‘ilm Quranic thought also knows hikmah. Hikmah is more generally known as Wisdom which is a semitic root also found in the Bible. In Hebrew wisdom thought (חָכְמָה) seems to relate to meanings of expertise and skill. Thus these differing semantic labels seem compatible with a separate Greco-Arabic investigation into shared commonalities between semitic vis-à-vis proto-indo-european wisdom tradition.

    It does not seem that we have achieved a lot of progress so let us now take a skeptical approach to the possibility of metaphysics and see if we run into any absurdities. Let us assume that metaphysics is not possible. What are the implications of this?

    If metaphysics is not possible it means that there are limits to what we can investigate. Specifically it means that we are able to investigate everything up till the question of what things express in their substance if a) we accept Aristotles theory that existence is added as attribute to form and b) if we assume a positivist attitude towards the possibility of knowledge.

    Let us focus on premise a since b relates more to epistemology. If we consider premise a we discover that we can only deny metaphysics against metaphysics. It seems to be the case that we either accept Aristotles theory and accept that progress is possible since it seems unplausible that one person initiates a field of inquiry and simultaneously perfects it. Or we reject Aristotles theory. Now it seems we may have shed one layer of covering.

    Is there a third approach? We firstly follow via positiva and on exhaustion we approach from via negativa which in coherence requires a somethingness which is to be approached. As I recall there is a third via which arises from exhaustion of both via positiva and via negativa. This seems to be the path which is wished by the author to lead to improved ability vis-à-vis independence. To pursue this independence is probably meant to mean independence of things thought to be adverse to health since utter independence seems lonely. Independence in writing can then mean that it is sought to arive at ease in writing.

    [1] Ibn Rushd also discusses the question after Ibn Sina.

    [2] This collapses monistic wisdom thought.

    [3] Metaphysics is known as ‘ilm al-kulli in arabic. Lit.: “science of all.”

  • On spirit and matter

    It seems to be the case that a metaphysics that includes spirit and matter is preferred over metaphysical thought that emphasizes the primacy of matter.

  • The Study of Science

    The relevance of philosophical enterprises is sometimes questioned. This is not entirely unexpected since great theoretical problems like the trolley problem might not seem very relevant to practical bodily life. In a previous post I have argued already about the relationship between science and philosophy (multiple articles actually) and this metastudy will expand that investigation.

    To build on on aforementioned preliminary thought I propose that we introduce the alien-perspective. Humor me to imagine a alien that is observing the universe. This entity is alive following our conventional notions of aliens. Now how would this alien, who is lone in his genus come to a account of knowledge?

    This thought experiment assumes that knowledge is something to strive for, that entities willingly pursue a “knowledge,” a understanding of the world. Whether this understanding viz. the desire to arrive at knowledge derives from prior universals is not relevant in this possible world.

    Now the alien has a body which is airproof, which has the consequence that she can float in “empty” space indefinitely. The alien could naturally arive at the existence of numbers perhaps, since she can count stars. Is there inherent meaning in counting? Perhaps not, what would the alien do with the concept of the number? Does “5” have any inherent meaning?

    For a lone alien floating through space it seems difficult to make the case. Alternatively why would “5” not have any inherent meaning? Since the conscious or unconscious act of counting seems to derive from a desire it can be interpreted as denying to judge said practice meaningless.

    Let us continue our case and see where it leads. Now the alien counts 1, 2, 3, till 100.000 stars. Would said being infere that there are larger numbers than 100.000? If the being has a sense of self she can infere that at least 100.001 exists, 100.000 stars plus her self. But numbers beyond that? It does not seem emperically obvious that higher numbers exist.

    But if she has the ability to track time, to keep track of time, to keep a mental account of her mental states previous to the arrival at the state of the counting of star number 100.001 she can judge that since at a moment in time there was 1 (star) and then 2 (stars) there seems to be something going up. A “counter.” Now to consider such mental disposition of a hypothetical figure is understood as a possible world inside a possible world.

    This is kripke’s semantics or rather a molested version of it. To return to the second-order judgement of the existence of the counter we (in base reality/first level reality) know that mathematics has concepts like infinite series etc. Would the alien be able to infer the concept of a infinite series from the act of counting the perceivable objects? Perhaps the being realizes that she can go to 100.002 if she counts the blackness of empty space as another thing to be counted.

    But this then finally seems to end the practice of counting. Or is the mental state at ariving at the “end” of counting not another thing in itself? If this is the case the count is 100.003 and will grow infinitely since there are always more mental states. (100.003: the “end” of counting, 100.004: the mental state of the realization that event 100.003 was not really the last thing to be counted. 100.005: counting “event” 100.004, 100.006: counting event 100.006, etc.)

    To be continued.

  • Is metaphysics possible? (#1)

    Todays lecture will concern the topic of the possibility of metaphysics God-willing.

    It can be argued for various reasons that metaphysical investigation is intrinsically impossible since its aim, which following Aristotles deliverance is to investigate being qua being. As such it follows that metaphysical inquiry can be considered to be ephereal since it seems absurd to think that objective knowledge about the fundamental constitution of reality is possible from the works of entities that make up that same reality.

    If humans live in the world of being how can they be expected to come to true conclusions about the principles that temporally come prior to their (the human) substances?

    Let us muse together on this question and see if we can formulate some answers to this extended question in following lectures.