Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ibn Sina Metaphysics
Ibn Sina Metaphysics
Ibn Sina Metaphysics
1. existence and necessity are related or even coincident: every existent is necessary,
either per se or per aliud;
2. by virtue of this correlation existents are divided into two general categories: those
that, considered in themselves require no (causal) connection with anything other than
themselves, and those that, as they do need a (causal) link with something other, are
not (in themselves) necessary;
3. independence and dependence on some other correspond respectively to the necessity
and non-necessity of “being” or the existent;
4. everything that is not necessary in itself and is not made necessary by something
other, is possible as regards both existence and non-existence: as such, without a
necessitating cause it does not exist; the possible is thus exactly what must establish a
causal relation as regards its own existence, which ultimately leads us back to a
necessary and absolute cause;
5. the ontological field of what is in itself necessary can comprehend only one being,
simple and absolutely one and unique: the intellect can conceive of only one being
whose existence is unrelated to a cause, while it conceives of things as multiple only
by virtue of a relation or a connection to a cause;[9]
6. the relationship between two things always implies a causal relation (of two separate
things, either one is the cause of the other, or both are caused by a third entity), which
clearly shows the need of a vertical causality (from a superior to an inferior level of
being).
This general law governs Avicenna's emanative theory: it is always a third and superior
cause that accounts for two apparently correlated existing elements (Ilāhiyyāt, I, 7, 39, 16–
42).
1. from the act by which the first caused intelligence thinks of the First Principle and
aims at it, a further intelligence originates; from the act by which it thinks of itself and
aims at itself, two entities originate:
2. a soul, which is an intelligence bound to a body and which is, in some texts, equated
to the practical intellect (Ilāhiyyāt, IX, 2, 387, 4–7); and
3. the celestial body to which this intelligence is bound.
Clearly, the consequence of the immediacy of the divine act is the necessity of the series:
only one caused element can derive directly from the absolutely unique Principle.
Multiplicity is produced by mediation and the product of divine causality is divided between
what is created directly (and is necessarily one) and what is created by way of mediation.
With his emanative doctrine, Avicenna thus maintains the idea of the absolute causation of
being and simultaneously establishes two distinct kinds of effects: those that correspond to
the intermediate (mutawassiṭ), which is caused without mediation, and those that are like the
last caused thing (maʿlūl), which is caused by virtue of the intermediate and is only an effect.
In Avicenna's emanative scheme, the first effects correspond to the celestial entities (and,
strictly speaking, only to the first one, which is caused or “instaured” or absolutely created:
al-mubdaʿ al-awwal); the following ones are, roughly speaking, all the effects (and, strictly
speaking, the sublunary effects).
This pattern also explains the relations among the different causal series: as is the case in the
Neo-Platonic tradition Avicenna divides the four Aristotelian causes into internal and
external as regards the thing of which they are causes (Jolivet 1991; Bertolacci 2002;
Wisnovsky 2003b); thus he inserts them in a hierarchy (cause-intermediate-caused) that
places the intermediate term above the last effect, but below the absolute cause. In the
sublunary world, for example, the form is part of the cause of matter and is superior to it,
because it is an intermediate in the causal relation that binds matter (the last caused thing) to
the intelligence—the dator formarum— from which both form and matter result (Ilāhiyyāt,
II, 4, 87, 13–89, 15; VI, 1, 259, 7–10). Moreover, the effects that are caused without
mediation are absolutely created (or “instaured”) and immaterial and consequently defined
only by the ontological composition of the possibility of their essence and the necessity of
their existence; those that are caused by virtue of a mediation are defined by virtue of their
ontological composition (possibility and necessity; existence distinct from essence), but also
by virtue of the composition that is consequent to the mediation: they are material entities,
composed of matter and form. In this sense the whole of the cosmos is explained: the
intelligences (al-ʿuqūl) that are caused directly by the Necessarily Existent (properly
speaking only the first of them); the entities originated by virtue of the intellection of the first
intelligences: the souls (al-nufūs) and the heavenly bodies (al-aǧrām al-samāwiyya). Both of
these have an influence on the sublunary world and—like the celestial intelligences—are
sometimes called “angels” in religious terms (Ilāhiyyāt, X, 1); they are followed by the world
of simple effects: the beings of the sublunary world.
Indeed the intellectual process is welded to cosmology (in which the Ptolemaic system is
painstakingly harmonized with Aristotle's Metaphysics, Book Λ and De Caelo). The whole
of the heavens is explained in terms of emanation or flow. In some texts, Avicenna mentions
“ten intelligences after the First” (Ilāhiyyāt, IX, 3, 401, 9–12): the Heavens—the outermost
orb, and the orb of the fixed stars, and then Saturn, and so on, up to and including, according
to the traditional scheme, the animated spheres of Jupiter, Mars, the Sun, Venus, Mercury
and the Moon—are bound to the intelligences. The earth is at the center. Theology,
metaphysics, cosmology and (celestial) noetic seem fused with one another.
The noetic process also explains the multiplicity of intelligibles: the Aristotelian idea of the
First Principle as noesis noeseos is interpreted by means of Themistius' idea of Its knowing
all things through Itself (Ilāhiyyāt, VIII, 6, 359, 15–360, 10; Commentaire Lambda: 13;
Pines 1987; Bertolacci 2006), but in the Principle's thinking the multiple is intellected as a
“whole” and “at once” and appears to be reduced to something unique (to one intelligible).
Thus, its order (tartīb), the syllogistic concatenation of intellection that corresponds to
reality, is a consequent of divine intellection and is in a sense relocated from the thought of
the First Principle to that of its immediate effects (Ilāhiyyāt, VIII, 7, 362, 17–366).
6. Conclusion
6.1 The Ethical Dimension
The attribution of intellection and hence awareness to the Necessarily Existent (Ilāhiyyāt,
VIII, 7, 368, 6; Taʿlīqāt, 50, 23–52) allows Avicenna to connote the divine act in an ethical
sense: according to Avicenna the flow explains the procession of being from the Principle—
also called the Pure Good (Ilāhiyyāt, IX, 3, 394, 4)—in different terms from those used of
natural necessity (which is explicitly rejected together with its typical image of
light: Ilāhiyyāt, VIII, 7, 363, 10–13). The atemporal act “at one blow” (dufʿatan wāḥidatan)
of divine intellection—according to the formula already present in the pseudo-Theology of
Aristotle—is interpreted as an act of will (irāda) and love (ʿišq). The First Necessarily
Existent “creates” the world, because, having intellection of Itself, It comprehends, intends,
wants and loves Its own intellection and the consequences that this entails (Ilāhiyyāt, VIII, 7,
363, 14–17; 366, 8–17; Commentaire Lambda: 15, 23–24). Will and love—which Avicenna
includes among the attributes of the Principle (Ilāhiyyāt, VIII, 7, 366, 6–8; 370, 7)—explain
the flow revealing its ethical dimension (Ilāhiyyāt, VIII, 7, 367, 7–11). The flow is the good
(ḫayr) and generosity (ǧūd) and gives the world, or lets it acquire the good: indeed, the flow
is good for the world, as it is generosity in itself (Lizzini 2005). Even evil (defined as non-
existence or privation) is an object of divine will: it is willed accidentally, i.e., insofar as it is
a necessary consequent of the good (Ilāhiyyāt, IX, 6; Steel 2002). Will is also ascribed to the
First Principle in terms of logical possibility: the Principle always wills (there is no time lag),
but It could nevertheless have not willed to create (Ilāhiyyāt, IV, 2, 172, 13–173, 12). The
very rejection of the temporal dimension which would allow an authentic conception
of creatio ex nihilo, is also the condition of a true conception of the divine will, a will that
coincides totally with the being of the Principle and aims at a good inherent in It, from which
the good of the world follows as a consequence. The flow is indeed a communication or
donation of existence: it explains the necessity per aliud of possible essences and, as a
donation, connotes, in an ethical sense, the divine act (Lizzini 2011). At the same time, the
definition of absolute good as the full realization of possibility is the very basis on which
Avicenna ascribes an ethical dimension to the action of the First Principle; and this comes
not without difficulty: it entails the First Principle's having to create the world, because the
realization of possibilities would be good (Lizzini 2014).
Bibliography
Roman ciphers after the title (e.g., Ilāhiyyāt) indicate the treatise/book; Arabic ciphers
indicate the section/chapter, then the pages and finally the lines:
• so Ilāhiyyāt I, 4, 26, 6–10 means: Ilāhiyyāt, treatise, I, section 4, page 26, lines 6–10.
• Taʿlīqāt, 62, 14–19 means: page 62, lines 14–19.
• Išārāt, III, ed. Dunyā, 95–102 means: part III, pages 95–102.
Secondary Literature
Other important references can be found in the works cited.
• Adamson, P., 2013a, “From the necessary existent to God”, in Adamson 2013b: 170–189.
• ––– (ed.), 2013b, Interpreting Avicenna: Critical Essays, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
• Aertsen, J.A., 2008, “Avicenna's Doctrine of the Primary Notions and Its Impact on
Medieval Philosophy”, in Islamic Thought in the Middle Ages: Studies in Text, Transmission
and Translation, in Honour of Hans Daiber, A. Akasoy and W. Raven (eds.), Leiden-
Boston: Brill, pp. 21–42.
• Alper, Ö.M., 2004, “Avicenna's Argument for the Existence of God. Was He Really
Influenced by the Mutakallimun?” in McGinnis 2004: 129–141.
• Bertolacci, A., 2002, “The Doctrine of Material and Formal Causality in the ‘Ilāhiyyāt’ of
Avicenna's Kitāb al-Šifāʾ”, Quaestio, 2: 125–154.
• –––, 2003, “Some Texts of Aristotle's Metaphysics in the Ilāhīyāt of Avicenna's Kitāb al-
Šifāʾ”, in Reisman and al-Rahim 2003: 25–45.
• –––, 2006, The Reception of Aristotle's Metaphysics in Avicenna's Kitāb al-Šifāʾ: A
Milestone of Western Metaphysical Thought, Leiden—Boston: Brill.
• –––, 2007, “Avicenna and Averroes on the Proof of God's Existence and the Subject-Matter
of Metaphysics”, Medioevo, 32: 61–97.
• –––, 2008a, “‘Necessary’ as Primary Concept in Avicenna's Metaphysics”, in Conoscenza e
contingenza, S. Perfetti (ed.), Pisa: Edizioni ETS, pp. 31–50.
• –––, 2008b, “On the Manuscripts of the Ilāhiyyāt of Avicenna's Kitāb al-Šifāʾ”, in Islamic
Thought in the Middle Ages. Studies in Text, Transmission and Translation, in Honour of
Hans Daiber, A. Akasoy and W. Raven (eds.), Leiden: Brill, pp. 59–75.
• –––, 2011, “The ‘Ontologization’ of Logic. Metaphysical Themes in Avicenna's Reworking
of the Organon”, in Methods and Methodologies. Aristotelian Logic East and West 500–
1500, M. Cameron and J. Marenbon (eds.), Leiden-Boston: Brill, pp. 27–51.
• –––, 2012a, “The Distinction of Essence and Existence in Avicenna's Metaphysics: The Text
and Its Context”, in Opwis and Reisman 2012: 257–288.
• –––, 2012b, “A Hidden Hapax Legomenon in Avicenna's Metaphysics: Considerations on
the Use of Anniyya and Ayyiyya in the Ilāhiyyāt of the Kitāb al-Šifāʾ”, in The Letter before
the Spirit. The Importance of Text Editions for the Study of the Reception of Aristotle, A.M.I.
van Oppenraay (ed.), with the collaboration of R. Fontaine, Leiden-Boston: Brill, pp. 289–
309.
• –––, 2012c, “The Manuscript Tradition of Avicenna's Kitāb al-Šifāʾ: The Current State of
Research and Future Prospects” (the Introduction), Oriens, 40(2): 195–198 and the various
texts that make up the Proceedings of the Pisa Colloquium, September 22–24, 2010.
• –––, 2013, “The reception of Avicenna in Latin medieval culture”, in Adamson 2013b: 242–
269.
• Black, D., 1997, “Avicenna on the Ontological and Epistemic Status of Fictional
Beings” Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale, 8: 425–453.
• –––, 1999, “Mental Existence in Thomas Aquinas and Avicenna”, Mediaeval Studies, 61:
45–79.
• Chase, M., 2012, “Philoponus Cosmology in the Arabic Tradition”, Recherches de Théologie
et Philosophie Médiévales, 79(2): 271–306.
• D'Ancona, C., 2000, “Avicenna and the Liber de Causis: A Contribution to the
Dossier”, Revista Española de Filosofía medieval, 7: 95–114.
• Davidson, H. A., 1987, Proofs for Eternity, Creation and the Existence of God in Medieval
Islamic and Jewish Philosophy, New York—Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• De Haan, D., 2014, “A mereological construal of the primary notions Being and Thing in
Avicenna and Aquinas”, American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, 88(2): 335–360.
• Druart, Th.A., 2001, “Shayʾ or Res as Concomitant of Being in Avicenna”, Documenti e
Studi sulla Tradizione filosofica medievale, 12: 125–142.
• –––, 2014, “Ibn Sina and the Ambiguity of Being's Univocity”, in Views on the Philosophy
of Ibn Sina & Mulla Sadra Shirazi, Mokdad Arfa Mensia (ed.), Carthage: The Tunisian
Academy of Sciences, Letters and Arts Beit al-Hikma, pp. 15–24.
• Endress, G., 2006, “Reading Avicenna in the Madrasa. Intellectual Genealogies and Chains
of Transmission of Philosophy and the Sciences in the Islamic East”, in Montgomery 2006:
371–423.
• Gardet L., 1951, “En l'honneur du Millénaire d'Avicenne. l'importance d'un texte
nouvellement traduit : les gloses d'Avicenne sur la Pseudo-Théologie d'Aristote”, Revue
Thomiste, 51: 333–345.
• Gutas, D., 2014, Avicenna and the Aristotelian Tradition: Introduction to Reading
Avicenna's Philosophical Works, Leiden: Brill.
• Hasnawi, A., 1984, “La dynamique d'Ibn Sīnā”, in Études sur Avicenne, J. Jolivet and R.
Rashed (eds.), Paris: Les Belles Lettres, pp. 103–123.
• –––, 1990, “Fayḍ”, in Encyclopédie Philosophique Universelle, II: les Notions
philosophiques. Dictionnaire, tome 1, Publiée sous la direction d'A. Jacob, Paris: Presses
Universitaires de France, pp. 966–972.
• Hasse, D.N. and A. Bertolacci (eds.), 2011, The Arabic, Hebrew and Latin Reception of
Avicenna's Metaphysics, Berlin-Boston: De Gruyter.
• Hourani, F.G., 1972, “Ibn Sīnā on Necessary and Possible Existence”, Philosophical Forum,
4: 74–86.
• Houser, R.E., 1999, “Let Them Suffer into the Truth: Avicenna's Remedy for those Denying
the Axioms of Thought”, American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, 73: 107–133.
• Janos, D., 2011, “Moving the Orbs: Astronomy, Physics, and Metaphysics, and the Problem
of Celestial Motion according to Ibn Sīnā”, Arabic Sciences and Philosophy, 21(2): 165–214.
• Janssens, J., 1987, “Ibn Sīnā's Ideas of Ultimate Realities: Neoplatonism and the Qurʾān as
Problem-Solving Paradigms in the Avicennian System”, Ultimate Reality and Meaning, 10:
252–271.
• –––, 1997, “Creation and Emanation in Ibn Sīnā”, Documenti e Studi sulla tradizione
filosofica medievale, 8: 455–477.
• –––, 2003, “Avicenne et sa ‘paraphrase-commentaire’ du Livre Lambda (Kitāb al-
Inṣāf)”, Recherches de théologie et de philosophie médiévales, 70: 401–416.
• –––, 2004, “Avicenna and the Qurʾān. A Survey of His Qurʾānic Commentaries”, Mélanges
de l'Institut Dominicain d'Etudes Orientales, 25–26: 177–192.
• –––, 2006, “Avicenne”, in Le vocabulaire des philosophes, J.-P. Zarader (ed.), Suppléments,
I, vol. V, Paris: Ellipses, pp. 14–64.
• Jolivet, J., 1984, Aux origines de l'ontologie d'Ibn Sīnā, in Études sur Avicenne, J. Jolivet and
R. Rashed (eds.), Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
• –––, 1991, “La répartition des causes chez Aristote et Avicenne: le sens d'un déplacement”,
in Lectionum varietates: Hommage à Paul Vignaux (1904–1987), J. Jolivet, Z. Kaluza, and
A. de Libera (eds.), Paris: Vrin, pp. 49–65.
• –––, 2006, “Le vocabulaire de l'être et de la création dans la Philosophia prima de l'Avicenna
Latinus”, in J. Jolivet, Perspectives médiévales et arabes, Paris: Vrin, pp. 217–227.
• Koutzarova, T., 2009, Das Transzendentale bei Ibn Sīnā. Zur Metaphysik als Wissenschaft
erster Begriffs- und Urteilsprinzipien, Leiden—Boston: Brill.
• de Libera A., 1994, “d'Avicenne à Averroès, et retour. Sur les sources arabes de la théorie
scholastique de l'un transcendantal”, Arabic Sciences and Philosophy, 4: 141–179.
• –––, 1999, L'Art des généralités. Théories de l'abstraction, Paris: Aubier.
• Lizzini, O., 2003, “Wuǧūd-Mawǧūd/Existence-Existent in Avicenna. A Key Ontological
Notion of Arabic Philosophy”, Quaestio, 3: 111–138.
• –––, 2004, “The relation between Form and Matter: some brief observations on the
‘homology argument’ (Ilāhiyyāt, II, 4) and the deduction of fluxus”, in McGinnis 2004: 175–
185.
• –––, 2005, “Utility and Gratuitousness of Metaphysics in Avicenna (Ilāhiyyāt, I,
3)”, Quaestio, 5: 205–243.
• –––, 2011, Fluxus (fayd). Indagine sui fondamenti della metafisica e della fisica di Avicenna,
Bari: Edizioni di Pagina.
• –––, 2013, “Causality as Relation: Avicenna (and al-Gazālī)”, Quaestio, 13: 165–195.
• –––, 2014, “A mysterious order of possibles, Some remarks on the views of Avicenna and
Aquinas on creation: al-Ilāhiyyāt, the Quaestiones De potentia and Beatrice Zedler's
interpretation”, American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, 88: 237–270.
• Macierowski, E.M., 1988, “Does God have a Quiddity According to Avicenna?”, The
Thomist, 52: 79–87.
• Marmura, M.E., 1980, “Avicenna's Proof from Contingency in the Metaphysics of his al-
Shifāʾ”, Mediaeval Studies, 42: 337–352.
• –––, 1981, “Avicenna on Causal Priority” in Islamic Philosophy and Mysticism, P.
Morewedge (ed.), New York: Delmar, pp. 65–83.
• –––, 1984, “The Metaphysics of Efficient Causality in Avicenna”, in Islamic Theology and
Philosophy: Studies in Honor of G. Hourani, M.E. Marmura (ed.), Albany: State University
of New York Press, pp. 172–188.
• –––, 1992, “Quiddity and universality in Avicenna”, in Studies in Neoplatonism, P.
Morewedge (ed.), Albany: The State University of New York Press.
• –––, 2006, “Avicenna's Critique of Platonists in Book VII, Chapter 2 of the Metaphysics of
his Healing ”, in Montgomery 2006: 355–370.
• Mayer, T., 2001, “Ibn Sīnā's ‘Burhān al-Siddīqīn’”, Journal of Islamic Studies, 12: 18–39.
• McGinnis, J. (ed.), 2004, Interpreting Avicenna: Science and Philosophy in Medieval Islam:
Proceedings of the Second Conference of the Avicenna Study Group, with the assistance of
D. Reisman, Leiden—Boston: Brill.
• –––, 2010a, Avicenna, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2010b, “Avicennan Infinity: A Select History of the Infinite through
Avicenna”, Documenti e Studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale, 21: 199–222.
• –––, 2012, “Making Something of Nothing: Privation, Possibility and Potential in Avicenna
and Aquinas”, The Thomist, 76: 1–25.
• –––, 2013, “Creation and Eternity in Medieval Philosophy”, in A Companion to the
Philosophy of Time, H. Dyke and A. Bardon (eds.), Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, pp.
73–86.
• Menn, S., 2008, “Alfarabi's Kitāb al-Ḥurūf and his analysis of the senses of being”, Arabic
Sciences and Philosophy, 18: 59–97.
• –––, 2013, “Avicenna's Metaphysics”, in Adamson 2013b: 143–169.
• Michot, J.R. [Y], 1986, La destinée de l'homme selon Avicenne. Le retour à Dieu (maʿād) et
l'imagination, Leuven: Peeters.
• –––, 1987, “‘L'épître sur la disparition des formes intelligibles après la mort’ d'Avicenne.
Édition critique, traduction et index”, Bulletin de Philosophie médiévale, 29: 152–170.
• –––, 1993, “La Pandémie avicennienne au VIe/XIIe siècle”, Arabica, 40: 287–344.
• –––, 1997, “La réponse à Bahmanyār et al-Kirmānī. Présentation, traduction critique et
lexique arabe-français de la Mubāḥaṯa III”, Le Muséon, 110: 143–221.
• Montgomery, J.E. (ed.), 2006, Arabic Theology, Arabic Philosophy: From the Many to the
One: Essays in Celebration of Richard M. Frank, Leuven: Peeters.
• Morewedge, P., 1979, “A Third Version of the Ontological Argument in the Ibn Sīnān
Metaphysics”, in Islamic Philosophical Theology, P. Morewedge (ed.), Albany: State
University of New York Press, pp. 188–222.
• Opwis, F. and D. C. Reisman (eds.), 2012, Islamic Philosophy, Science, Culture, and
Religion: Studies in Honor of Dimitri Gutas, Leiden: Brill.
• Pines, Sh., 1987, “Some Distinctive Metaphysical Conceptions in Themistius' Commentary
on Book Lambda and Their Place in the History of Philosophy”, in Aristoteles. Werk und
Wirkung. P. Moraux gewidmet, De J. Wiesner (ed.), Berlin—New York: de Gruyter, II, pp.
177–204. [reprint in 1996, The Collected Works of Shlomo Pines: Studies in the History of
Arabic Philosophy, S. Stroumsa (ed.), Jerusalem: The Magnes Press—The Hebrew
University, III, pp. 267–294].
• Porro, P., 2002, “Universaux et ‘esse essentiae’: Avicenne, Henri de Gand et le ‘troisième
Reich’”, in Le réalisme des universaux, Cahiers de philosophie de l'Université de Caen, 38–
39: 9–51.
• –––, 2011a, “Antiplatonisme et néoplatonisme chez Avicenne (Ilāhiyyāt, livre vii)”,
in Adorare caelestia, gubernare terrena, P. Arfè, I. Caiazzo, and A. Sannino (eds.),
Turnhout: Brepols, i, pp. 113–145.
• –––, 2011b, “Immateriality and Separation in Avicenna and Thomas Aquinas”, in Hasse and
Bertolacci 2011: 275–307.
• Rashed, M., 2004, “Ibn ʿAdī et Avicenne: sur les types d'existants”, in Aristotele e i suoi
esegeti neoplatonici. Logica e ontologia nelle interpretazioni greche e arabe, Atti del
convegno internazionale, Roma, 19–20 ottobre 2001, Vincenza Celluprica and Cristina
D'Ancona (eds.), con la collaborazione di Riccardo Chiaradonna, Istituto per il Lessico
Intellettuale Europeo e Storia delle Idee, Napoli: Bibliopolis, pp. 109–171.
• Reisman, D.C. and A.H. al-Rahim (eds.), 2003, Before and After Avicenna: Proceedings of
the First Conference of the Avicenna Study Group, Leiden: Brill
• Rudolph, U., 1997, “La preuve de l'existence de Dieu chez Avicenne et dans la théologie
musulmane”, in Langages et Philosophie. Hommage à Jean Jolivet, A. de Libera, A.
Elamrani-Jamal, and A. Galonnier (eds.), Paris: Vrin, pp. 339–346.
• Steel, C., 2002, “Avicenna and Thomas Aquinas on Evil”, in Avicenna and His Heritage:
Acts of the International Colloquium, Leuven—Louvain-la-Neuve, September 8 September
11, 1999, J. Janssens and D. De Smet (eds.), Leuven: Leuven University Press, pp. 171–196.
• Treiger, A., 2012, “Avicenna's notion of transcendental modulation of existence (taškīk al-
wuǧūd) and its Greek and Arabic sources”, in Opwis and Reisman 2012: pp. 327–363.
• Vajda, G., 1951, “Les Notes d'Avicenne sur la Théologie d'Aristote”, Revue Thomiste, 51:
346–406.
• Wisnovsky, R., 2003a, Avicenna's Metaphysics in Context, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
• –––, 2003b, “Towards a history of Avicenna's distinction between immanent and
transcendent causes”, in Reisman and al-Rahim 2003: 49–68.
• –––, 2004, “One Aspect in the Avicennian Turn in Sunnī Theology”, Arabic Sciences and
Philosophy, 14: 65–100.
• –––, 2011, “Essence and existence in the Eleventh- and Twelth-Century Islamic East
(Mašriq): A Sketch”, in Hasse and Bertolacci 2011: 27–50.
• –––, 2014, “Towards a genealogy of Avicennism”, Oriens, 42(2–4): 323–363.
Academic Tools
How to cite this entry.
Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society.
Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers, with links to its database.