Iranians have enjoyed a long cultural continuity, something that distinguishes them from other Middle Eastern neighbors. Avicenna's presence in Iranian landmarks not only serves as a reminder of his remarkable achievements but also fosters a sense of national pride among Persians
I really appreciate your podcasts and your books, of which I have read four volumes. Philosophy is so undervalued nowadays, and this explains why you get so few listeners. What Maurice De Wulf said about medieval philosophy could be repeated in today’s truer Dark Ages: “Scholasticism collapsed not because of lack of ideas, but for lack of brains.”
tbh I struggle to understand what is supposed to be the difference between "necessary" and "contingent" things in an absolute sense. there is only one universe and I don't understand what it could possibly mean to say that something which doesn't exist "might have existed" (as if it does exist in a parallel universe). humans use terms like possible and impossible because our knowledge is limited, and "impossible" means something we can conclusively rule out even with our limited knowledge and "possible" means we can't rule it out (or couldn't rule it our before-the-fact). but for an omniscient being (like God) the difference between possible and actual seems to collapse. given the laws of physics and the initial conditions of the universe, everything else is "guaranteed." this is maybe what avicenna meant by saying the phoenix is "impossible," but it seems to me to undercut the whole aristotelean idea that certain beings are intrinsically contingent.
Haven't watched the video yet so can't comment related to that, but the assumption that "there is only one (possible) universe" is already assuming a lot. The difference between necessity and contingency is often elucidated in contemporary analytical philosophy by referral to "possible worlds": some being/event/etc. is contingent if and only if there is some possible world where this being/event/etc. doesn't exist/occur. The idea here is that it's hard to imagine a world where for example some logical laws wouldn't apply (that is to say, they might apply in all possible worlds and hence be necessary), whereas it doesn't seem impossible for there not to be a certain spider that walks across my living room floor. You're right that all of this might boil down to the limitations and perspectival nature of human thought: perhaps if we could see the spider in all of its causal connections, we would see that it'd be impossible for the spider not to exist as a part of the whole of nature. This is a perspective that for example Benedictus de Spinoza has advocated for and based on your comment, you might like his ideas. Still, there are certain problems with assuming that everything exists necessarily: 1) Some elements of our universe seem to be more central and "solid" than others (for example, laws of physics vs. individual creatures). These could maybe be said to "ground" other elements of our universe. If everything is necessary, how do we make sense of these sorts of differences? Or is it merely an appearance that there is a difference? 2) What is meant by "universe"? If it refers to the physical universe, what becomes of such entities as abstract mathematical truths which seem to apply regardless of concrete existence? 3) Is it true that from given initial conditions things follow necessarily? This seems to assume that there is no randomness to events. This has been a central tenet of modern physics, but for example quantum mechanics had called this into question. 4) To us, as (perhaps limited) human beings, many things appear to involve chance and choice. It seems to me, at least, that the assumption of choice is central to large parts of our ethical lives. What becomes of this if we assume total determinism? These are just some thoughts, I hope you can make heads and tails out of them.
I really really hate being "that guy", but does the "human = rational" thing apply to deeply brain damaged people, archaic hominid species (Homo Erectus, Neanderthal, Denisovan, etc) and/or human foetuses?
He’s referring to human essence, not accidental differences. Aristotle’s concept of “entelechy@ may resolve this: What a thing by nature is destined to become (unless something bars it).
@@charlescarpenter9000 Oh boy! Holy Toledo! You've just opened up quite the philosophical can o'worms. Then is a single celled, fertilized human ovum a person? How about just a single human sperm cell? Both have ye olde "human essence" in them. How about a random stem cell in your tummy? You can clone that shit, and voila! Alas, alack, oh woe! What is the "essence" of a human, anyway? And hey, for that matter, what's a "human"? Something that has "reason"? Well, "they" say that all those species I had listed all had "reason" as it's anthropologically defined. Does that mean that Neanderthal sperm and ova were "persons" too, because potential?
Don't hate to be that guy, but you need to understand the abstract by itself. For instance, he have mentioned that, as humans, we have the ability to laugh, and this is some sort of characteristics for humans(which known as the accidental proposition). We might figure out, down the road, that there are other species or things that laugh too. Due to our ignorance, we thought that we're the only species which is able to laugh. Yet, the abstract proposition(that propose an accidental proposition) is still true, and we can implement it in other vaild cases.
@@saadsameer6171 Okay. What if we find that other species do EVERYTHING we do? (And one can make the strong argument that we have, and there are scientists out there who DO make that argument.) What are we left with? An abstract concept? What if (now this is admittedly a titanic if, but it's something a lot of people are crowing about so we might as well go there) we make those famous "artificial intelligences" and things like Mr Data on Star Trek start walking around and chattering away? What happens to the abstract human then? I suppose we could just call the machines humans too. But then are really smart animals "quasi human"?
Many names are modified from country to country. Think what happened to our middle eastern relatives at Ellis Island. I’m half Lebanese and some of my relatives have different spellings for the same last names. Likewise, depending on what language you speak, a surname may be pronounced in a way conformable to the original language or to the receiving language. For example, in Spanish one is expected to pronounce a foreign surname according to the phonetic rules of Spanish.
Its ibn sina not Avicenna wht are people trying to conceal the fact that he was a muslim. Like do we call Shakespeare Sheikh Zubayr. Please stop latinizing muslim names
I fundamentally agree and still this is the name he has been known for in the western world for hundreds of years. Surely some people will use the Latin name out of a general disregard of islamic philosophy but I think it is more likely that the main reason is devoid of judgement ( if at all sprinkled with ignorance). I mean he is known, taught and remembered as Avicenna in the western world. Assuming the use of his Latin name is connected to people wanting to "conceal the fact the he was muslim" is the less likely explanation. Also it makes this about muslim vs. westeners/christians. Which distracts from the point that his very philosophy emerged out of an amalgam of western and eastern thought and that his other teachings (like the book of healing) have been a fundamental influence on western medicine as well. Ibn Sina (Avicenna) is for me a great example of how we do not have to see the world in black and white and divided in western and eastern or christian and muslim. Especially because his thought stretches beyond the limits of singular religions by tackling general ontological and theological questions that are shared among all people.
@@ThegeniusmonkeyI already said that I fundamentally agree with you - meaning that the use of the Arabic name is preferable and moreover appropriate. My point is that a more refined way of looking at the contemporary use of the Latin name can protect us from judgments that presuppose and cause discordance between cultures.
"Muslim"? Sina is a Persian name and Ibn means 'the son of' in Arabic. It's not "Muslim" in any way. Appropriating names belonging to other languages in harmony with the host language has been happening for thousands of years. Pronouncing Arabic names is simply difficult for non-Arabs, so they change the name to be able actually pronounce it, just like how Muslims changed Aristotle to 'Arastu' and Socrates to 'Soqrat.'
Iranians have enjoyed a long cultural continuity, something that distinguishes them from other Middle Eastern neighbors. Avicenna's presence in Iranian landmarks not only serves as a reminder of his remarkable achievements but also fosters a sense of national pride among Persians
I really appreciate your podcasts and your books, of which I have read four volumes. Philosophy is so undervalued nowadays, and this explains why you get so few listeners. What Maurice De Wulf said about medieval philosophy could be repeated in today’s truer Dark Ages: “Scholasticism collapsed not because of lack of ideas, but for lack of brains.”
Very interesting!
tbh I struggle to understand what is supposed to be the difference between "necessary" and "contingent" things in an absolute sense. there is only one universe and I don't understand what it could possibly mean to say that something which doesn't exist "might have existed" (as if it does exist in a parallel universe). humans use terms like possible and impossible because our knowledge is limited, and "impossible" means something we can conclusively rule out even with our limited knowledge and "possible" means we can't rule it out (or couldn't rule it our before-the-fact). but for an omniscient being (like God) the difference between possible and actual seems to collapse. given the laws of physics and the initial conditions of the universe, everything else is "guaranteed." this is maybe what avicenna meant by saying the phoenix is "impossible," but it seems to me to undercut the whole aristotelean idea that certain beings are intrinsically contingent.
Haven't watched the video yet so can't comment related to that, but the assumption that "there is only one (possible) universe" is already assuming a lot. The difference between necessity and contingency is often elucidated in contemporary analytical philosophy by referral to "possible worlds": some being/event/etc. is contingent if and only if there is some possible world where this being/event/etc. doesn't exist/occur. The idea here is that it's hard to imagine a world where for example some logical laws wouldn't apply (that is to say, they might apply in all possible worlds and hence be necessary), whereas it doesn't seem impossible for there not to be a certain spider that walks across my living room floor.
You're right that all of this might boil down to the limitations and perspectival nature of human thought: perhaps if we could see the spider in all of its causal connections, we would see that it'd be impossible for the spider not to exist as a part of the whole of nature. This is a perspective that for example Benedictus de Spinoza has advocated for and based on your comment, you might like his ideas.
Still, there are certain problems with assuming that everything exists necessarily:
1) Some elements of our universe seem to be more central and "solid" than others (for example, laws of physics vs. individual creatures). These could maybe be said to "ground" other elements of our universe. If everything is necessary, how do we make sense of these sorts of differences? Or is it merely an appearance that there is a difference?
2) What is meant by "universe"? If it refers to the physical universe, what becomes of such entities as abstract mathematical truths which seem to apply regardless of concrete existence?
3) Is it true that from given initial conditions things follow necessarily? This seems to assume that there is no randomness to events. This has been a central tenet of modern physics, but for example quantum mechanics had called this into question.
4) To us, as (perhaps limited) human beings, many things appear to involve chance and choice. It seems to me, at least, that the assumption of choice is central to large parts of our ethical lives. What becomes of this if we assume total determinism?
These are just some thoughts, I hope you can make heads and tails out of them.
1:33 i lost
I really really hate being "that guy", but does the "human = rational" thing apply to deeply brain damaged people, archaic hominid species (Homo Erectus, Neanderthal, Denisovan, etc) and/or human foetuses?
He’s referring to human essence, not accidental differences. Aristotle’s concept of “entelechy@ may resolve this: What a thing by nature is destined to become (unless something bars it).
@@charlescarpenter9000 Oh boy! Holy Toledo! You've just opened up quite the philosophical can o'worms.
Then is a single celled, fertilized human ovum a person? How about just a single human sperm cell? Both have ye olde "human essence" in them. How about a random stem cell in your tummy? You can clone that shit, and voila!
Alas, alack, oh woe! What is the "essence" of a human, anyway? And hey, for that matter, what's a "human"? Something that has "reason"? Well, "they" say that all those species I had listed all had "reason" as it's anthropologically defined. Does that mean that Neanderthal sperm and ova were "persons" too, because potential?
What a strange notion it is to think that non-rational humans are impossible!
I hate to be "that guy", but....
Carnivory has been observed in giraffes!!!
There are no square circles though.
Don't hate to be that guy, but you need to understand the abstract by itself.
For instance, he have mentioned that, as humans, we have the ability to laugh, and this is some sort of characteristics for humans(which known as the accidental proposition). We might figure out, down the road, that there are other species or things that laugh too. Due to our ignorance, we thought that we're the only species which is able to laugh. Yet, the abstract proposition(that propose an accidental proposition) is still true, and we can implement it in other vaild cases.
@@saadsameer6171 Okay. What if we find that other species do EVERYTHING we do? (And one can make the strong argument that we have, and there are scientists out there who DO make that argument.) What are we left with? An abstract concept?
What if (now this is admittedly a titanic if, but it's something a lot of people are crowing about so we might as well go there) we make those famous "artificial intelligences" and things like Mr Data on Star Trek start walking around and chattering away? What happens to the abstract human then? I suppose we could just call the machines humans too.
But then are really smart animals "quasi human"?
He is Abu Ali Cena not avicena
his name is abu ali al hussein ibn sina. in latin ibn sina is avicenna in french it`s avicenne .
Many names are modified from country to country. Think what happened to our middle eastern relatives at Ellis Island. I’m half Lebanese and some of my relatives have different spellings for the same last names. Likewise, depending on what language you speak, a surname may be pronounced in a way conformable to the original language or to the receiving language. For example, in Spanish one is expected to pronounce a foreign surname according to the phonetic rules of Spanish.
We never were told about them in our school.. we just read chalse jame hawking fvking bla bla bla 😐😑
Its ibn sina not Avicenna wht are people trying to conceal the fact that he was a muslim. Like do we call Shakespeare Sheikh Zubayr. Please stop latinizing muslim names
I fundamentally agree and still this is the name he has been known for in the western world for hundreds of years. Surely some people will use the Latin name out of a general disregard of islamic philosophy but I think it is more likely that the main reason is devoid of judgement ( if at all sprinkled with ignorance). I mean he is known, taught and remembered as Avicenna in the western world. Assuming the use of his Latin name is connected to people wanting to "conceal the fact the he was muslim" is the less likely explanation. Also it makes this about muslim vs. westeners/christians. Which distracts from the point that his very philosophy emerged out of an amalgam of western and eastern thought and that his other teachings (like the book of healing) have been a fundamental influence on western medicine as well. Ibn Sina (Avicenna) is for me a great example of how we do not have to see the world in black and white and divided in western and eastern or christian and muslim. Especially because his thought stretches beyond the limits of singular religions by tackling general ontological and theological questions that are shared among all people.
Do you agree with the latinisation though? I find it stupid.
@@ThegeniusmonkeyI already said that I fundamentally agree with you - meaning that the use of the Arabic name is preferable and moreover appropriate. My point is that a more refined way of looking at the contemporary use of the Latin name can protect us from judgments that presuppose and cause discordance between cultures.
@@enquiredmind2425 I am glad you enjoyed it :)
"Muslim"? Sina is a Persian name and Ibn means 'the son of' in Arabic. It's not "Muslim" in any way. Appropriating names belonging to other languages in harmony with the host language has been happening for thousands of years. Pronouncing Arabic names is simply difficult for non-Arabs, so they change the name to be able actually pronounce it, just like how Muslims changed Aristotle to 'Arastu' and Socrates to 'Soqrat.'