Discussions on Ibn Sīnā’s Argument of the External Reality-Mental Form Correspondence in the 7th/13th-8th/14th Centuries: al-Rāzī, al-Āmidī, Ṣadr al-Sharī‘a

Güvenç Şensoy

Article Details

Discussions on Ibn Sīnā’s Argument of the External Reality-Mental Form Correspondence in the 7th/13th-8th/14th Centuries: al-Rāzī, al-Āmidī, Ṣadr al-Sharī‘a

Authors:

Güvenç Şensoy

Publisher:

Eskişehir Osmangazi University

Main Topics:

Kelam

Journal:

Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.12 Issue 1, pp.27-42

Document Type:

Article

Publication Date:

3/2025

Document Language:

Turkish

Document ID (Org No.):

2001341578

pISSN:

2147-8171

Keywords:

Abstract:

 One of the fundamental issues in the discussions of mental existence is clarifying the relationship between external reality and mental representation. This topic has been extensively debated in the fields of philosophy and theology, leading to significant discussions. In this study, the objections raised by Rāzī d. 6061210 on the evidence presented in the third namat section of Ibn Sīnās d. 4261037 work al-Ishārāt, the responses to these objections by Āmidī d. 6311233, and the evaluations of Ṣadr al-Sharīa d. 7471346 are examined in detail. Ibn Sīnā, as one of the prominent figures in Islamic philosophy, attempted to explain the relationship between external reality and mental form. However, his views on this topic have faced various criticisms over time. Specifically, Rāzī offered serious criticisms of Ibn Sīnās evidence. These criticisms were addressed in detail by Āmidī, who responded to them in various aspects. Ṣadr al-Sharīa approached these debates from a different perspective, providing his own evaluations. Among the objections found in Rāzīs Sharḥ, only the general encompassing all types of cognition and specific evidence in the first maṭlab were selected as the subject. The reason for such limitation is to enable the identification and clarification of the views of other thinkers. In this study, the approaches of thinkers towards each others evidence are presented comparatively within a certain topic framework. Although Ṣadr al-Sharīa does not have a work directly included in the al-Ishārāt Commentaries literature, his views have been sought alongside the other names mentioned in this literature for the specific issue chosen. Identifying his views was largely possible by reading between the lines of his statements. In this regard, this study is significant as it indicates the ground Ṣadr al-Sharīa occupied in a specific issue and in the encounter between theology and philosophy. Additionally, such detailed analyses provide important contributions to the deep understanding of philosophical and theological debates in the history of Islamic thought. The study reveals that while Rāzī criticized Ibn Sīnās evidence, Āmidī retreated from some of Ibn Sīnās assumptions, yet Ṣadr al-Sharīa pointed out that Rāzīs criticisms remained valid despite this retreat. The titles of the examined issue are derived from Rāzīs objections. Under these titles, the views of Rāzī, Āmidī, and Ṣadr al-Sharīa, which can be read as analyses of Ibn Sīnās evidence, are presented. Moreover, comparisons among the views of these theologians have been made, and if any, the underlying assumptions causing differences in opinions have been analyzed. The issue, examined under three main titles, is questioned in terms of the relationship of attribution between two things, the locus of the imagined form, and the status of the seen form. The relationship of attribution focuses on the nature of the relationship between one entity and another. The locus of the imagined form refers to the mental space where the images we form in our minds reside. The status of the seen form discusses how the objects we perceive in the external world are represented in our minds and the accuracy of these representations. While Rāzī pointed out the deficiencies he perceived in Ibn Sīnās evidence, Āmidī argued that Rāzīs criticisms were unfounded. Rāzī and Āmidīs positions aimed at testing the internal consistency of the assumptions in Ibn Sīnās evidence, whereas Ṣadr al-Sharīa, unlike these two, offered his criticisms from an external position, not sharing the fundamental assumptions of the system. This situation provides important clues for understanding the relationships and interactions between different schools of thought in the history of Islamic thought. This detailed examination contributes to understanding the historical debates between theology and philosophy. At the same time, it sheds light on a specific debate at a particular time in the history of Islamic thought by revealing how the ideas of thinkers like Ibn Sīnā, Rāzī, Āmidī, and Ṣadr al-Sharīa evolved and interacted with each other.

 Zihnî varlık tartışmalarında yer alan temel meselelerden biri, haricî hakikat ile zihnî suretin ilişkisinin netleştirilmesidir. Bu konu, felsefe ve kelâm alanında derinlemesine tartışılmış ve önemli tartışmalara yol açmıştır. Bu çalışmada, İbn Sînânın ö. 4261037 el-İşârât adlı eserinin üçüncü namatında yer alan işâre delil üzerine, Râzînin ö. 6061210 itirazları, Âmidînin ö. 6311233 bu itirazlara cevapları ve Sadruşşerîanın ö. 7471346 değerlendirmeleri ayrıntılı bir şekilde incelenmektedir. İbn Sînâ, İslam felsefesinin önde gelen isimlerinden biri olarak, haricî hakikat ile zihnî suretin ilişkisini açıklamaya çalışmış, ancak bu konudaki görüşleri zamanla çeşitli eleştirilerle karşılaşmıştır. Özellikle Râzî, İbn Sînânın deliline yönelik ciddi eleştiriler getirmiştir. Bu eleştiriler, Âmidî tarafından detaylı bir şekilde ele alınmış ve bazı yönlerden cevaplandırılmıştır. Sadruşşerîa ise, bu tartışmalara farklı bir perspektiften yaklaşarak kendi değerlendirmelerini sunmuştur. Râzînin Şerhinde yer alan itirazlardan yalnızca birinci matluptaki genel tüm idrak türlerini kapsayan ve özel deliller konu olarak seçilmiştir. Böyle bir sınırlama yapılmasının sebebi, diğer düşünürlerin görüşlerinin tespit edilmesi ve netleştirilmesine imkân vermesidir. Çalışmada, belirli bir konu çerçevesinde düşünürlerin birbirlerinin delillerine yönelik yaklaşımları karşılaştırmalı olarak sunulmuştur. Sadruşşerîanın doğrudan İşârât Şerhleri literatüründe yer alan bir çalışması olmasa da seçilen mesele özelinde onun da söz konusu literatürde yer alan isimlerle birlikte görüşleri tespit edilmeye çalışılmıştır. Onun görüşlerinin tespiti, çoğunlukla ifadelerinin satır aralarını okumakla mümkün olmuştur. Çalışma, bu açıdan, Sadruşşerîanın özel bir konuda ve kelâm-felsefe karşılaşmasında bulunduğu zemine işaret etmesi açısından önemlidir. Ayrıca, bu tür detaylı analizler, İslam düşünce tarihindeki felsefi ve teolojik tartışmaların derinlemesine anlaşılmasına önemli katkılar sunmaktadır. Çalışma, Râzînin, İbn Sînânın deliline yönelttiği eleştirilere karşı Âmidînin İbn Sînânın bazı kabullerinden geri adım attığını ve Sadruşşerîanın da bu geri çekilme durumuna rağmen Râzînin eleştirilerinin geçerliliğini savunduğunu tespit etmiştir. İncelenen meselenin başlıkları, Râzînin itirazlarından alınmıştır. Başlıklar altında Râzî, Âmidî ve Sadruşşerîanın İbn Sînânın delilinin tahlili olarak okunabilecek görüşleri sunulmaktadır. Ayrıca, sözü edilen bu kelâmcıların görüşleri arasında karşılaştırmalar yapılmış ve varsa görüş farklılıklarının kaynaklandığı üst kabuller tahlil edilmiştir. Temelde üç başlık altında incelenen mesele, iki şey arasındaki ittisaf ilişkisi, hayal edilen suretin mahalli ve görülenin suretinin durumu açısından sorgulanmaktadır. İttisaf ilişkisi, bir varlığın başka bir varlıkla olan ilişkisi ve bu ilişkinin mahiyeti üzerine yoğunlaşır. Hayal edilen suretin mahalli, zihnimizde oluşturduğumuz imgelerin yer aldığı zihinsel alanı ifade eder. Görülenin suretinin durumu ise, dış dünyada algıladığımız nesnelerin zihnimizde nasıl temsil edildiğini ve bu temsillerin doğruluğunu tartışır. Râzî, İbn Sînânın delilinde eksiklik addettiği kısımlara işaret ederken, Âmidî, Râzînin eleştirilerinin yerinde olmadığını belirtmektedir. Râzî ve Âmidînin konumu, İbn Sînânın delilinde yer alan kabullerin sistem içi tutarlılığını test etmeye yönelik iken, Sadruşşerîa bu iki isimden farklı olarak sistem dışı ve temel kabulleri paylaşmayan bir konumda eleştirilerini sunmaktadır. Bu durum, İslam düşünce tarihinde farklı düşünce okullarının birbirleriyle olan ilişkilerini ve etkileşimlerini anlamak açısından önemli ipuçları vermektedir. Bu inceleme, kelâm ve felsefe arasındaki tarihsel tartışmaların anlaşılmasına katkı sağlamaktadır. Aynı zamanda, İbn Sînâ, Râzî, Âmidî ve Sadruşşerîa gibi düşünürlerin fikirlerinin nasıl evrildiğini ve birbirleriyle olan etkileşimlerini ortaya koyarak, İslam düşünce tarihinin belirli bir zamanındaki özel bir tartışmaya ışık tutmaktadır.

 One of the fundamental issues in the discussions of mental existence is clarifying the relationship between external reality and mental representation. This topic has been extensively debated in the fields of philosophy and theology, leading to significant discussions. In this study, the objections raised by Rāzī d. 6061210 on the evidence presented in the third namat section of Ibn Sīnās d. 4261037 work al-Ishārāt, the responses to these objections by Āmidī d. 6311233, and the evaluations of Ṣadr al-Sharīa d. 7471346 are examined in detail. Ibn Sīnā, as one of the prominent figures in Islamic philosophy, attempted to explain the relationship between external reality and mental form. However, his views on this topic have faced various criticisms over time. Specifically, Rāzī offered serious criticisms of Ibn Sīnās evidence. These criticisms were addressed in detail by Āmidī, who responded to them in various aspects. Ṣadr al-Sharīa approached these debates from a different perspective, providing his own evaluations. Among the objections found in Rāzīs Sharḥ, only the general encompassing all types of cognition and specific evidence in the first maṭlab were selected as the subject. The reason for such limitation is to enable the identification and clarification of the views of other thinkers. In this study, the approaches of thinkers towards each others evidence are presented comparatively within a certain topic framework. Although Ṣadr al-Sharīa does not have a work directly included in the al-Ishārāt Commentaries literature, his views have been sought alongside the other names mentioned in this literature for the specific issue chosen. Identifying his views was largely possible by reading between the lines of his statements. In this regard, this study is significant as it indicates the ground Ṣadr al-Sharīa occupied in a specific issue and in the encounter between theology and philosophy. Additionally, such detailed analyses provide important contributions to the deep understanding of philosophical and theological debates in the history of Islamic thought. The study reveals that while Rāzī criticized Ibn Sīnās evidence, Āmidī retreated from some of Ibn Sīnās assumptions, yet Ṣadr al-Sharīa pointed out that Rāzīs criticisms remained valid despite this retreat. The titles of the examined issue are derived from Rāzīs objections. Under these titles, the views of Rāzī, Āmidī, and Ṣadr al-Sharīa, which can be read as analyses of Ibn Sīnās evidence, are presented. Moreover, comparisons among the views of these theologians have been made, and if any, the underlying assumptions causing differences in opinions have been analyzed. The issue, examined under three main titles, is questioned in terms of the relationship of attribution between two things, the locus of the imagined form, and the status of the seen form. The relationship of attribution focuses on the nature of the relationship between one entity and another. The locus of the imagined form refers to the mental space where the images we form in our minds reside. The status of the seen form discusses how the objects we perceive in the external world are represented in our minds and the accuracy of these representations. While Rāzī pointed out the deficiencies he perceived in Ibn Sīnās evidence, Āmidī argued that Rāzīs criticisms were unfounded. Rāzī and Āmidīs positions aimed at testing the internal consistency of the assumptions in Ibn Sīnās evidence, whereas Ṣadr al-Sharīa, unlike these two, offered his criticisms from an external position, not sharing the fundamental assumptions of the system. This situation provides important clues for understanding the relationships and interactions between different schools of thought in the history of Islamic thought. This detailed examination contributes to understanding the historical debates between theology and philosophy. At the same time, it sheds light on a specific debate at a particular time in the history of Islamic thought by revealing how the ideas of thinkers like Ibn Sīnā, Rāzī, Āmidī, and Ṣadr al-Sharīa evolved and interacted with each other.

 One of the fundamental issues in the discussions of mental existence is clarifying the relationship between external reality and mental representation. This topic has been extensively debated in the fields of philosophy and theology, leading to significant discussions. In this study, the objections raised by Rāzī d. 6061210 on the evidence presented in the third namat section of Ibn Sīnās d. 4261037 work al-Ishārāt, the responses to these objections by Āmidī d. 6311233, and the evaluations of Ṣadr al-Sharīa d. 7471346 are examined in detail. Ibn Sīnā, as one of the prominent figures in Islamic philosophy, attempted to explain the relationship between external reality and mental form. However, his views on this topic have faced various criticisms over time. Specifically, Rāzī offered serious criticisms of Ibn Sīnās evidence. These criticisms were addressed in detail by Āmidī, who responded to them in various aspects. Ṣadr al-Sharīa approached these debates from a different perspective, providing his own evaluations. Among the objections found in Rāzīs Sharḥ, only the general encompassing all types of cognition and specific evidence in the first maṭlab were selected as the subject. The reason for such limitation is to enable the identification and clarification of the views of other thinkers. In this study, the approaches of thinkers towards each others evidence are presented comparatively within a certain topic framework. Although Ṣadr al-Sharīa does not have a work directly included in the al-Ishārāt Commentaries literature, his views have been sought alongside the other names mentioned in this literature for the specific issue chosen. Identifying his views was largely possible by reading between the lines of his statements. In this regard, this study is significant as it indicates the ground Ṣadr al-Sharīa occupied in a specific issue and in the encounter between theology and philosophy. Additionally, such detailed analyses provide important contributions to the deep understanding of philosophical and theological debates in the history of Islamic thought. The study reveals that while Rāzī criticized Ibn Sīnās evidence, Āmidī retreated from some of Ibn Sīnās assumptions, yet Ṣadr al-Sharīa pointed out that Rāzīs criticisms remained valid despite this retreat. The titles of the examined issue are derived from Rāzīs objections. Under these titles, the views of Rāzī, Āmidī, and Ṣadr al-Sharīa, which can be read as analyses of Ibn Sīnās evidence, are presented. Moreover, comparisons among the views of these theologians have been made, and if any, the underlying assumptions causing differences in opinions have been analyzed. The issue, examined under three main titles, is questioned in terms of the relationship of attribution between two things, the locus of the imagined form, and the status of the seen form. The relationship of attribution focuses on the nature of the relationship between one entity and another. The locus of the imagined form refers to the mental space where the images we form in our minds reside. The status of the seen form discusses how the objects we perceive in the external world are represented in our minds and the accuracy of these representations. While Rāzī pointed out the deficiencies he perceived in Ibn Sīnās evidence, Āmidī argued that Rāzīs criticisms were unfounded. Rāzī and Āmidīs positions aimed at testing the internal consistency of the assumptions in Ibn Sīnās evidence, whereas Ṣadr al-Sharīa, unlike these two, offered his criticisms from an external position, not sharing the fundamental assumptions of the system. This situation provides important clues for understanding the relationships and interactions between different schools of thought in the history of Islamic thought. This detailed examination contributes to understanding the historical debates between theology and philosophy. At the same time, it sheds light on a specific debate at a particular time in the history of Islamic thought by revealing how the ideas of thinkers like Ibn Sīnā, Rāzī, Āmidī, and Ṣadr al-Sharīa evolved and interacted with each other.

Article Details

Discussions on Ibn Sīnā’s Argument of the External Reality-Mental Form Correspondence in the 7th/13th-8th/14th Centuries: al-Rāzī, al-Āmidī, Ṣadr al-Sharī‘a

Authors:

Güvenç Şensoy

Publisher:

Eskişehir Osmangazi University

Main Topics:

Kelam

Journal:

Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.12 Issue 1, pp.27-42

Document Type:

Article

Publication Date:

3/2025

Document Language:

Turkish

Document ID (Org No.):

2001341578

pISSN:

2147-8171

Kalām

Mental Existence

Kalām-Philosophy Encounter

al-Rāzī

al-Amidī

Ṣadr al-Sharī‘aKelâm

Zihnî varlık

Kelâm-Felsefe Karşılaşması

Râzî

Âmidî

Sadruşşerîa

Issues

Article Details

Authors: Güvenç Şensoy

Publisher: Eskişehir Osmangazi University

Main Topics: Kelam

Journal: Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.12 Issue 1, pp.27-42

Document Type: Article

Publication Date: 3/2025

Document Language: Turkish

Document ID (Org No.): 2001341578

pISSN: 2147-8171

Issues

Authors:

Güvenç Şensoy

Publisher:

Eskişehir Osmangazi University

Main Topics:

Kelam

Journal:

Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.12 Issue 1, pp.27-42

Document Type:

Article

Publication Date:

3/2025

Document Language:

Turkish

Document ID (Org No.):

2001341578

pISSN:

2147-8171