Al-Muḥaqqiq al-Iṣfahānī的本体论论证与斯宾诺莎关于上帝存在的本体论论证

Mehdi Khayatzadeh, Mohammad Pakdin Asl
{"title":"Al-Muḥaqqiq al-Iṣfahānī的本体论论证与斯宾诺莎关于上帝存在的本体论论证","authors":"Mehdi Khayatzadeh, Mohammad Pakdin Asl","doi":"10.55831/ajis.v7i2.485","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Al-Muḥaqqiq al-Iṣfahānī (1878-1942) and Spinoza (1632-1677), two prominent intellectuals of the Islamic and Western worlds respectively, have proposed different versions of the ontological argument for the existence of God. I present five versions of al-Muḥaqqiq al-Iṣfahānī’s argument in three general dimensions: first, the concept of the necessary being (wājib al-wujūd) as a mental concept; second, the concept of the necessary being as a representation of something external; and finally, the reality of the necessary being or what externally exists by its essence. Only one of these versions is compatible with al-Muḥaqqiq al-Iṣfahānī’s words. On the other hand, Spinoza has presented six arguments in which he has deployed the concept of God in three ways: the concept of God as a concept, the concept of God as a representation of something external, and the mental existence of this concept. In this paper, I compare the accurate construal of al-Muḥaqqiq al-Iṣfahānī’s argument with Spinoza’s six arguments, whereby I make a case for a strong similarity between the grounds and forms of the ontological argument as formulated by these two intellectuals.","PeriodicalId":178428,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Islamic Studies","volume":"62 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Al-Muḥaqqiq al-Iṣfahānī’s Ontological Argument and Spinoza’s Ontological Arguments for the Existence of God\",\"authors\":\"Mehdi Khayatzadeh, Mohammad Pakdin Asl\",\"doi\":\"10.55831/ajis.v7i2.485\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Al-Muḥaqqiq al-Iṣfahānī (1878-1942) and Spinoza (1632-1677), two prominent intellectuals of the Islamic and Western worlds respectively, have proposed different versions of the ontological argument for the existence of God. I present five versions of al-Muḥaqqiq al-Iṣfahānī’s argument in three general dimensions: first, the concept of the necessary being (wājib al-wujūd) as a mental concept; second, the concept of the necessary being as a representation of something external; and finally, the reality of the necessary being or what externally exists by its essence. Only one of these versions is compatible with al-Muḥaqqiq al-Iṣfahānī’s words. On the other hand, Spinoza has presented six arguments in which he has deployed the concept of God in three ways: the concept of God as a concept, the concept of God as a representation of something external, and the mental existence of this concept. In this paper, I compare the accurate construal of al-Muḥaqqiq al-Iṣfahānī’s argument with Spinoza’s six arguments, whereby I make a case for a strong similarity between the grounds and forms of the ontological argument as formulated by these two intellectuals.\",\"PeriodicalId\":178428,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian Journal of Islamic Studies\",\"volume\":\"62 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian Journal of Islamic Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.55831/ajis.v7i2.485\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Islamic Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55831/ajis.v7i2.485","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

Al-Muḥaqqiq al-Iṣfahānī(1878-1942)和斯宾诺莎(1632-1677)分别是伊斯兰世界和西方世界的两位杰出知识分子,他们提出了关于上帝存在的本体论论证的不同版本。我在三个一般维度上提出了al-Muḥaqqiq al-Iṣfahānī论证的五个版本:首先,必然存在的概念(wājib al-wujūd)是一个精神概念;第二,必然存在作为外在事物的表象的概念;最后,是必然存在的实在性,即通过其本质外在存在的东西的实在性。这些版本中只有一个与al-Muḥaqqiq al-Iṣfahānī的单词兼容。另一方面,斯宾诺莎提出了六个论点,在这些论点中,他以三种方式运用了上帝的概念:上帝作为一个概念的概念,上帝作为外在事物的表征的概念,以及这个概念的精神存在。在本文中,我将al-Muḥaqqiq al-Iṣfahānī的论点的准确解释与斯宾诺莎的六个论点进行了比较,在这两个知识分子提出的本体论论点的基础和形式之间存在着强烈的相似性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Al-Muḥaqqiq al-Iṣfahānī’s Ontological Argument and Spinoza’s Ontological Arguments for the Existence of God
Al-Muḥaqqiq al-Iṣfahānī (1878-1942) and Spinoza (1632-1677), two prominent intellectuals of the Islamic and Western worlds respectively, have proposed different versions of the ontological argument for the existence of God. I present five versions of al-Muḥaqqiq al-Iṣfahānī’s argument in three general dimensions: first, the concept of the necessary being (wājib al-wujūd) as a mental concept; second, the concept of the necessary being as a representation of something external; and finally, the reality of the necessary being or what externally exists by its essence. Only one of these versions is compatible with al-Muḥaqqiq al-Iṣfahānī’s words. On the other hand, Spinoza has presented six arguments in which he has deployed the concept of God in three ways: the concept of God as a concept, the concept of God as a representation of something external, and the mental existence of this concept. In this paper, I compare the accurate construal of al-Muḥaqqiq al-Iṣfahānī’s argument with Spinoza’s six arguments, whereby I make a case for a strong similarity between the grounds and forms of the ontological argument as formulated by these two intellectuals.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信