{"title":"存在与Aḥwāl问题:阿维森纳存在的方向性、本体论地位及其伊斯兰接受","authors":"F. Zamboni","doi":"10.1163/18778372-12340026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nThe Avicennian distinction between quiddity and existence opens the way to several derivative issues concerning the quiddity of existence (what existence is) and the ontological status of existence (whether and how existence is). This paper presents a fine-grained account of the positions and arguments developed by post-Avicennian authors on these matters, showing how the debates on states (aḥwāl) and grounding (taʿlīl) feed into the picture. The discussions on the quiddity of existence revolve around the features of its knowability and its connection to a ground (ʿilla), or lack thereof. As for the ontological status of existence, the standard idea of a clash between realism (existence is an extramental existent) and conceptualism (existence is a purely mental existent) calls for further refinement. First, realism itself encompasses two distinct positions when it comes to the relation between the second-order existence of existence and existence itself (sameness, additionality). Second, the tradition presents other doctrines not easily classifiable within the realism-conceptualism framework (the existential non-assertability of existence, the non-existence of existence).","PeriodicalId":43744,"journal":{"name":"Oriens","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Existence and the Problem of Aḥwāl: The Quiddity and Ontological Status of Existence in Avicenna and His Islamic Reception\",\"authors\":\"F. Zamboni\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/18778372-12340026\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nThe Avicennian distinction between quiddity and existence opens the way to several derivative issues concerning the quiddity of existence (what existence is) and the ontological status of existence (whether and how existence is). This paper presents a fine-grained account of the positions and arguments developed by post-Avicennian authors on these matters, showing how the debates on states (aḥwāl) and grounding (taʿlīl) feed into the picture. The discussions on the quiddity of existence revolve around the features of its knowability and its connection to a ground (ʿilla), or lack thereof. As for the ontological status of existence, the standard idea of a clash between realism (existence is an extramental existent) and conceptualism (existence is a purely mental existent) calls for further refinement. First, realism itself encompasses two distinct positions when it comes to the relation between the second-order existence of existence and existence itself (sameness, additionality). Second, the tradition presents other doctrines not easily classifiable within the realism-conceptualism framework (the existential non-assertability of existence, the non-existence of existence).\",\"PeriodicalId\":43744,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oriens\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oriens\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/18778372-12340026\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oriens","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18778372-12340026","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
阿维森纳对本质和存在的区分,为存在的本质(存在是什么)和存在的本体论地位(存在是否存在以及如何存在)的几个衍生问题开辟了道路。本文对后阿维森纳作家在这些问题上的立场和论点进行了细致的描述,展示了关于状态(aḥwāl)和基础(ta al āl)的辩论是如何进入画面的。关于存在的本质性的讨论围绕着存在的可知性特征及其与根据的联系(或缺乏联系)展开。关于存在的本体论地位,实在论(存在是一种外在的存在)和概念论(存在是一种纯粹精神的存在)之间的冲突的标准观念需要进一步完善。首先,当涉及到存在的二阶存在和存在本身(同一性,附加性)之间的关系时,现实主义本身包含两个不同的立场。其次,传统提出了其他难以在现实主义-概念主义框架内分类的学说(存在的存在不可断言性,存在的不存在性)。
Existence and the Problem of Aḥwāl: The Quiddity and Ontological Status of Existence in Avicenna and His Islamic Reception
The Avicennian distinction between quiddity and existence opens the way to several derivative issues concerning the quiddity of existence (what existence is) and the ontological status of existence (whether and how existence is). This paper presents a fine-grained account of the positions and arguments developed by post-Avicennian authors on these matters, showing how the debates on states (aḥwāl) and grounding (taʿlīl) feed into the picture. The discussions on the quiddity of existence revolve around the features of its knowability and its connection to a ground (ʿilla), or lack thereof. As for the ontological status of existence, the standard idea of a clash between realism (existence is an extramental existent) and conceptualism (existence is a purely mental existent) calls for further refinement. First, realism itself encompasses two distinct positions when it comes to the relation between the second-order existence of existence and existence itself (sameness, additionality). Second, the tradition presents other doctrines not easily classifiable within the realism-conceptualism framework (the existential non-assertability of existence, the non-existence of existence).
期刊介绍:
Oriens is dedicated to extending our knowledge of intellectual history and developments in the rationalist disciplines in Islamic civilization, with a special emphasis on philosophy, theology, and science. These disciplines had a profoundly rich and lasting life in Islamic civilization and often interacted in complex ways--from the period of their introduction to Islamic civilization in the translation movement that began in the eighth century, through the early and classical periods of development, to the post-classical age, when they shaped even such disciplines as legal theory and poetics. The journal''s range extends from the early and classical to the early modern periods (ca. 700-1900 CE) and it engages all regions and languages of Islamic civilization. In the tradition of Hellmut Ritter, who founded Oriens in 1948, the central focus of interest of the journal is on the medieval and early modern periods of the Near and Middle East. Within this framework, the opening up of the sources and the pursuit of philological and historical research based on original source material is the main concern of its editors and contributors. In addition to individual articles, Oriens welcomes proposals for thematic volumes within the series.