Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Controversies in astronomy during Medieval Islamic period
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In addition to this, al-Kindi adopted a naturalistic view of the prophetic visions. He argued that through the power of "imagination" as it was conceived in Aristotelian philosophy, certain "pure" and well prepared souls were able to receive information about future events. Significantly, he does not attribute such visions or dreams to the revelation of God, but instead explains that imagination enables human beings capture the "form" of something without perceiving the physical entity to which it refers. Therefore, this would seem to imply that anyone who has purified himself would be able to receive such visions. It is precisely this idea, among other naturalistic explanations of prophetic miracles, which Algazel attacks in The Incoherence of the Philosophers. …show more content…
During his lifetime , al-Kindi was fortunate enough to enjoy the patronage of the pro-mustalíes caliphs, al-Ma'mun and al-Mu'tasim, which enabled him to carry out his philosophical speculations with relative ease. This change dramatically towards the end of his life when al-Mutawakkil supported the traditionalists and began a chase of several schools of unorthodox thought, including the philosophers. In his own time, al-Kindi would be criticized for extolling the "intelligence" as the most immanent creation next to God, a position that was commonly attributed only to angels. It is also embroiled in discussions with mutazalíes, whom he attacked for their belief in atoms. But the real contribution of al-Kindi in the conflict between philosophers and theologians would prepare the ground for the debate. Deborah Black says that his work contains all the seeds of future controversy that would be reflected in the book of al - Ghazali, Incoherence of
Alikindi and Descartes are two authors and philosophers who worked very hard to find a way to attain knowledge. The knowledge they sought is a justified true belief. Though their methods are very well developed, there are big differences between Alkindi’s method and Descartes’s method. Alkindi was a devoted Muslim. He worked for the Khalfia Al Mo'tassem Bellah in the translation of books that was written in Greek and other languages. Alkindi uses the method of false contradiction to get to the knowledge he is seeking. He believed that we should attain the truth from wherever it comes and whoever said it. He was one of the Muslim pioneers in term of using philosophy to attain knowledge. Alkindi defined knowledge as “knowledge of the true nature
Scholars and historians of rhetoric consider the Greek philosopher, Aristotle, one of the great contributors to our present understanding of this art which, since its early origins and until present, has been a controversial field of study because of its association with persuasion and influence. However, readings of the many ancient and contemporary texts and analyses of the origins and the developments of this ancient art marginalized the role of the Sophists, who were the first to introduce rhetoric to Greece, and usually associated them with the bad reputation rhetoric has acquired over the years. Undoubtedly, Aristotle developed rhetoric in a more comprehensive and systemized explanation than what the Sophists offered, but an examination of how this great philosopher reached his findings, and what elements formed his theory on rhetoric points out that the Sophists, who initiated this art, deserve a re-evaluation of their role and an explanation of their “unethical” perspectives. In this essay, I consider the Aristotelian rhetoric to be a progression of the Sophists’ nascent teachings in rhetoric. Arguably, the “disdained” Sophists introduced a novel field of study that constituted a base for Aristotle’s theory. My argument is based on a chronological reading of the origins and development of rhetoric and recent studies on the Sophists and their discredited achievements almost since the great philosopher, Plato, staged his battle against them. I also regard the platonic versus sophistic approach to the definition of rhetoric, its goals and purposes, and its relation with the public as consequential factors of development of this art. Accordingly, I assume that this rivaling situation could not have existed without the sophisti...
Examining a Statement From Michiavelli's The Prince Few people have not heard of the saying “The end justifies the
In the history of concepts, there is no concern that Al-Ghazali’s figure emerges as one of the best Western thinkers. Considered as the prominent Sunni theologian that ever lived, Al-Ghazali’s polemic againstNeoplatonic thinkers, mainly Ibn Sina, dealt a fatal rage to philosophy within Islamic world. Written following his period of private study of philosophy, and completed in 1094 CE, Tahafut al-Falasifa carried the purpose of pursuing the analysis of reason that inspired his stint of cynicism, and was attempting to illustrate that reason is not self-reliant in the sphere of metaphysics and is incapable out of itself to construct an absolute world-view. Whereas, as Goldziher (1981) explains, Al-Ghazali uniquely held certain beliefs which he refuted in Tahafut, he wanted to demonstrate that reason on its own cannot establish that the world has the creator, two gods are unfeasible, God is not an entity or a body, and that he understand both himself and others, that the spirit is a self-resilient body. This paper will analyze Al-Ghazali’s argument on the eternity of the world, as found in his first areas of debate with philosophers and evaluated against Ibn Rushd’s answers.
In the world there are two distinct types of things. There are things that exist external to us, such as one's reputation or a relationship. We do not have direct control over these things since they exist outside of us. Then there are internal things that we do have control over, like out desires, or things we dislike. The internal things can be controlled, while the external can be harder to control. Some philosophers even believe that the external things cannot be controlled, and attempting to control them will just bring unhappiness.
Aristotle's Theory of the Soul in the De Anima centres on the kinds of souls possessed by different kinds of living things, distinguished by their different operations. He holds that the soul is the form, or essence of any living thing; that it is not a distinct substance from the body that it is in; that it is the possession of soul (of a specific kind) that makes an organism an organism at all, and thus that the notion of a body without a soul, or of a soul in the wrong kind of body, is simply unintelligible. Aristotle uses his familiar matter/form distinction to answer the question “What is soul?” he says that there are three sorts of substance which are matter, form and the compound of the matter and form. Aristotle is interested in compounds that are alive. These - plants and animals - are the things that have souls. Their souls are what make them living things. Aristotle also argues that the mind is immaterial, able to exist without the body, and immortal by “Saying that something has a soul just means that it is alive”
Epictetus was a philosopher that was born in 50 C.E.and died in 130 C.E., Epictetus was famous for his strong belief in self discipline. Unlike fellow philosopher Epicurus Epictetus does not believe that matter is the most important thing in the universe and that people should try to fulfill their pleasures. Epictetus believes that the most important thing in the universe is God. He believes that people should live their entire lives understanding where they stand in the cosmic universe. As stated in the book Great Traditions In Ethics Epictetus believes “That we are first to learn that there is a god; and that his providence directs the whole” (Denise, White, &
1. al-Ghazali and Averroës’ conceptions of divine knowledge differ in significant ways. So much so that Averroës considered it appropriate to compose a document naming al-Ghazali’s thoughts as incoherent. Their concepts of causality led each to hold differing views of God.
Men know well that they are acted upon, but they do not know by whom. So they must invent by themselves the idea of these powers with which they feel themselves in connection, and from that, we are able to catch a glimpse of the way by which they are led to represent them under forms that are really foreign to their nature and to transfigure them by thought. (172)
Visions are an astounding thing that is very difficult to understand the secrets behind them. There is a full history to it behind visions, many stories relating to it that happen in the world but also from the Bible. Visions actually do occur to some, but
The author is attacking a religious group called the Asharites throughout the writing on the basis of their views of religion. This attack throughout the article is evidence that there was split in the views of Islamic philosophers. The Asharites appear to have a less strict view on how the idea of God should be presented and about how perfect he has created the world. The author writes "They think that the creation does not lead us to the knowledge of God through any of His goodness, but through possibility, that is, the possibility which is found in all things...
Once these analogies are established, they lead us to further contemplate our sense of perception in everyday life: our minds are not screens loyally reflecting the outside world but active interpreters that are constantly ordering and reshaping sensory impressions according to our own mental scheme of things, and there is a subjective projection of imagination in all that we see or feel—we can never see things “as they really are” but only things “as we see them to be”, and sometimes the disparity between these too can be so large that after some bitter disillusionment, we can only think of the past derision as “a dream and fruitless vision” (3. 2. 371). The line that separates dreaming from waking life is thus blurred: like characters in the play, we cannot tell clearly where conscious life ends and dream begins. As the embodiment of imagination, irrationality and unconsciousness, the dream also challenges the boundaries of human reason and the idea of a stable, solid and unifying selfhood.
"Truth has made me strong." This is a quote from Tiresias, one of the characters in Sophocles's tragedy, Oedipus Rex. The quote has different meaning and relevance for each of the different characters, but for the character of Creon, the quote is completely true. By the end of the play, the truth had not only prompted Oedipus to forgive Creon, clearing his name of any previous accusations, but the truth had also made Creon Oedipus's successor. However, Creon was not one to squander the power that he knew can be gained from knowing the truth. He understood its power and importance, and kept it private.
What is the purpose of life? This is a question that has been argued since the beginning of time. Countless honorable and wise men have pondered and made conclusions about what our true purpose is in life. Aristotle and al’Ghazili are two philosophers that studied this purpose of life for almost all of their human existence. Their two proposals about the purpose of life and the ethics that are required to accomplish this purpose share some common ideas, while also having serious contrasts.
Aristotle made contributions to logic, physics, biology, medicine, and agriculture. He redesigned most, if not all, areas of knowledge he studied. Later in life he became the “Father of logic” and was the first to develop a formalized way of reasoning. Aristotle was a greek philosopher who founded formal logic, pioneered zoology, founded his own school, and classified the various branches of philosophy.