Paraphrase. Due in 2 hours

Avicenna’s principles of metaphysics can be considered as an amalgamation of taxonomy, exegesis and adaptation and by the dint of the format of his method of collection of the different branches of philosophy, Avicenna’s metaphysics have received a specific position in the system of philosophical disciplines (“Arabic and Islamic Metaphysics”, n.d.). In this regard it must also be noted that, Avicenna’s view on metaphysics have enriched the “doctrine of the Metaphysics with theories that are taken from other authors and works within the Aristotelian tradition, or from the fruits of Avicenna’s own mind” (“Arabic and Islamic Metaphysics”, n.d.). But there are differences between Aristotelian metaphysics and the metaphysics of Avicenna.

Before trying to understand the metaphysical principles of Avicenna, it is essential to understand the very nature of Avicenna’s metaphysics. It is to be noted that, there is a threefold division in Avicenna’s metaphysical principles and these threefold division encompasses axioms, hypothesis, and notions which follows the order of a Peripatetic demonstrative science (De Haan, n.d.). From Aristotle’s division of theses (or proper principles into hypothesis denoting statements or propositions), the other two principles of Avicenna have been derived, and hence, the metaphysical notions in Avicenna’s work are have been signified by definitions (De Haan, n.d.).

Avicenna’s metaphysics talks about three primordial metaphysical notions – being, thing, and necessary (De Haan, n.d.). And it should be noted that, even though Avicenna drew many of his notions about metaphysics from that of Aristotle, his interpretation of the subject differs from that of earlier commentary tradition and from Aristotle. In this regard it should be noted that, Avicenna “understood the subject of being qua being to mean being in common or as that which is common to all that is. He derived this interpretation from al-Farabi’s On the Aims of Aristotle’s Metaphysics” (De Haan, n.d.). The fact that Avicenna drew most of his concepts from that of Aristotle is also evident from the fact that, he read Aristotle’s Metaphysics some forty times but without penetrating deep into Aristotle’s intentions (De Haan, n.d.). And there lies the beginning of the wide demarcation between Avicenna’s metaphysical concepts and the metaphysical concepts of Aristotle.

It can be interesting to learn that in Aristotle’s metaphysics and particularly in his doctrine of being, there is no general ontology to be found, but this is not the case with Avicenna’s metaphysics (De Haan, n.d.). Moreover, it must be argued that, unlike Avicenna’s metaphysics, Aristotle’s metaphysics is a theology and to some extent it can also be called an ousiology or a theological ousiology (De Haan, n.d.).

Hence, it can be said that even though Avicenna drew his metaphysics on some of the rudimentary elements of Aristotle’s metaphysics, to some extent, Avicenna’s metaphysics differed from that of Aristotle’s in terms of some specific components of the very interpretation of metaphysics as an important part of philosophy. And this difference can be found sharply in the context of the ontological aspects which can be seen in a more pronounced manner in Aristotle’s work than in the work of Avicenna.

(508 words)

References

Arabic and Islamic Metaphysics (n.d.). Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved July 27, 2015, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/arabic-islamic-metaphysics/#Avi

De Haan, D.D. (n.d.). “Avicenna’s Healing and the Metaphysics of Being and Truth”. Retrieved July 27, 2015, from http://www.academia.edu/839528/_Avicenna_s_Healing_and_the_Metaphysics_of_Being_and_Truth_