ISOEN 2019 : 18th International Symposium on Olfaction and Electronic Nose : 2019 symposium proceedings : ACROS Fukuoka, May 26-29, 2019. International Symposium on Olfaction and the Electronic Nose (18th : 2019 : Fukuoka-shi, Japan)最新文献
Pub Date : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.1109/ISOEN54820.2022.9789606
Justin D. M. Martin, A. Romain
{"title":"Commercial Metal Oxide Gas Sensors For Breath Analysis Sensitive to Higher Alkane Vapours","authors":"Justin D. M. Martin, A. Romain","doi":"10.1109/ISOEN54820.2022.9789606","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ISOEN54820.2022.9789606","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":93772,"journal":{"name":"ISOEN 2019 : 18th International Symposium on Olfaction and Electronic Nose : 2019 symposium proceedings : ACROS Fukuoka, May 26-29, 2019. International Symposium on Olfaction and the Electronic Nose (18th : 2019 : Fukuoka-shi, Japan)","volume":"49 1","pages":"1-3"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77529080","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-05-05DOI: 10.1515/9783110618839-008
Giada Coppola, O. Sforno
The philosophical activity of Obadiah Sforno, who is primarily known for his exegetical interpretations of the Holy Scriptures, has received little scholarly attention. Nonetheless, the few scholars interested in Light of the Nations—Sforno’s (uniquely) philosophical work—were particularly critical of the author’s position in this exposition, showing a sceptical attitude towards the uniqueness of the work. Obadiah Sforno’s philosophical treatise reproduces the classical schema of the medieval quaestio disputata (“disputed question”), in which there was no place for a “new” or “innovative” analysis characterising some of the most original interpreters of the Renaissance period. He published the Hebrew version of Light of the Nations, entitled Or ʿAmmim, in Bologna in 1537. In 1548, also in Bologna, he published the Latin version, with the title Lumen Gentium. The fact that Sforno himself translated his own work from Hebrew into Latin makes him particularly exceptional.2 The Hebrew and Latin versions do not appear to offer significant differences in their overall view. The order of the questions and the general approaches to each argument are identical (with very few exceptions), but nonetheless, we find several changes concerning the style and the breadth of topics, as will be clear from reading the passages presented in this paper. Although the structure of Light of the Nations reproduces the medieval format of the disputed question, it seems that Sforno exercises a sceptical approach towards introducing the quaestio and establishing the solution. In Lumen Gentium, every question is preceded by dubitatur utrum (“it is questionable”), and in the last part —namely, the solution—of both versions, we read:
{"title":"Obadiah Sforno and the Individual Human Soul","authors":"Giada Coppola, O. Sforno","doi":"10.1515/9783110618839-008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110618839-008","url":null,"abstract":"The philosophical activity of Obadiah Sforno, who is primarily known for his exegetical interpretations of the Holy Scriptures, has received little scholarly attention. Nonetheless, the few scholars interested in Light of the Nations—Sforno’s (uniquely) philosophical work—were particularly critical of the author’s position in this exposition, showing a sceptical attitude towards the uniqueness of the work. Obadiah Sforno’s philosophical treatise reproduces the classical schema of the medieval quaestio disputata (“disputed question”), in which there was no place for a “new” or “innovative” analysis characterising some of the most original interpreters of the Renaissance period. He published the Hebrew version of Light of the Nations, entitled Or ʿAmmim, in Bologna in 1537. In 1548, also in Bologna, he published the Latin version, with the title Lumen Gentium. The fact that Sforno himself translated his own work from Hebrew into Latin makes him particularly exceptional.2 The Hebrew and Latin versions do not appear to offer significant differences in their overall view. The order of the questions and the general approaches to each argument are identical (with very few exceptions), but nonetheless, we find several changes concerning the style and the breadth of topics, as will be clear from reading the passages presented in this paper. Although the structure of Light of the Nations reproduces the medieval format of the disputed question, it seems that Sforno exercises a sceptical approach towards introducing the quaestio and establishing the solution. In Lumen Gentium, every question is preceded by dubitatur utrum (“it is questionable”), and in the last part —namely, the solution—of both versions, we read:","PeriodicalId":93772,"journal":{"name":"ISOEN 2019 : 18th International Symposium on Olfaction and Electronic Nose : 2019 symposium proceedings : ACROS Fukuoka, May 26-29, 2019. International Symposium on Olfaction and the Electronic Nose (18th : 2019 : Fukuoka-shi, Japan)","volume":"128 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88212450","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-05-05DOI: 10.1515/9783110618839-014
G. Veltri
their way into China the vast of the Tartars over about the as it would seem, the Vene-tian Marco Polo way
鞑靼人进入中国的道路似乎是威尼斯的马可波罗之路
{"title":"Jesuit Strategic Scepticism toward Religious Self-Consciousness and Commonalities: Chinese Muslims, Jews, and Christians in the Eyes of Matteo Ricci (1552–1610) and His “Translator” Nicolas Trigault (1557–1628)","authors":"G. Veltri","doi":"10.1515/9783110618839-014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110618839-014","url":null,"abstract":"their way into China the vast of the Tartars over about the as it would seem, the Vene-tian Marco Polo way","PeriodicalId":93772,"journal":{"name":"ISOEN 2019 : 18th International Symposium on Olfaction and Electronic Nose : 2019 symposium proceedings : ACROS Fukuoka, May 26-29, 2019. International Symposium on Olfaction and the Electronic Nose (18th : 2019 : Fukuoka-shi, Japan)","volume":"37 1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78215730","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-05-05DOI: 10.1515/9783110618839-013
A. Fiebig
The European-born Israeli thinker Yeshayahu Leibowitz was as provocative as he was popular among the Israeli public, and he influenced more than one generation of society both in Israel and abroad. Born in Riga in 1903, he studied chemistry in Berlin, medicine in Cologne and Heidelberg, and later took his MD in Basel. After participating in the religious-Zionist Mizrachi movement in Germany, he later migrated to Palestine, where he lived from 1934 until his death in Jerusalem in 1994. Leibowitz was widely interpreted as provocative yet highly topical due to his harsh criticism of the Israeli government—particularly after the Six-Day War (1967)—and his interpretation of the Jewish religion, which was “a highly resilient form of Jewish religiosity, capable of enduring the most vigorous philosophical and ethical criticism from the Enlightenment to our time.”1 To this day, there is discussion as to whether Leibowitz can be defined as a philosopher and whether he was part of the tradition of serious Israeli philosophy, as his roots were in natural science. Perhaps this is one reason why his thought has regrettably never gained much popularity outside of Israel.Yet Leibowitz is worth engaging with. At the very least, he was an important thinker in a generation and time that was occupied with asking: “What would be the character of the new Jewish society?”2 He is worth engaging with because of his vast spectrum and originality of thought about the Israeli state and the role of its religious Jewry, and because of his interesting personal development from a young ambitious religious-Zionist thinker into a near-existentialist.3 Finally, he is worth engaging with because his interpretation of Jewish religion allows space for a modern form of Jewish religiosity within a mostly secular Jewish democratic state, as he himself said that his approach was not historical, but contemporary, for the “here and now.”4
{"title":"From Scepticism to Tolerance of “the Other”: The Example of Yeshayahu Leibowitz","authors":"A. Fiebig","doi":"10.1515/9783110618839-013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110618839-013","url":null,"abstract":"The European-born Israeli thinker Yeshayahu Leibowitz was as provocative as he was popular among the Israeli public, and he influenced more than one generation of society both in Israel and abroad. Born in Riga in 1903, he studied chemistry in Berlin, medicine in Cologne and Heidelberg, and later took his MD in Basel. After participating in the religious-Zionist Mizrachi movement in Germany, he later migrated to Palestine, where he lived from 1934 until his death in Jerusalem in 1994. Leibowitz was widely interpreted as provocative yet highly topical due to his harsh criticism of the Israeli government—particularly after the Six-Day War (1967)—and his interpretation of the Jewish religion, which was “a highly resilient form of Jewish religiosity, capable of enduring the most vigorous philosophical and ethical criticism from the Enlightenment to our time.”1 To this day, there is discussion as to whether Leibowitz can be defined as a philosopher and whether he was part of the tradition of serious Israeli philosophy, as his roots were in natural science. Perhaps this is one reason why his thought has regrettably never gained much popularity outside of Israel.Yet Leibowitz is worth engaging with. At the very least, he was an important thinker in a generation and time that was occupied with asking: “What would be the character of the new Jewish society?”2 He is worth engaging with because of his vast spectrum and originality of thought about the Israeli state and the role of its religious Jewry, and because of his interesting personal development from a young ambitious religious-Zionist thinker into a near-existentialist.3 Finally, he is worth engaging with because his interpretation of Jewish religion allows space for a modern form of Jewish religiosity within a mostly secular Jewish democratic state, as he himself said that his approach was not historical, but contemporary, for the “here and now.”4","PeriodicalId":93772,"journal":{"name":"ISOEN 2019 : 18th International Symposium on Olfaction and Electronic Nose : 2019 symposium proceedings : ACROS Fukuoka, May 26-29, 2019. International Symposium on Olfaction and the Electronic Nose (18th : 2019 : Fukuoka-shi, Japan)","volume":"33 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85187981","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-05-05DOI: 10.1515/9783110618839-fm
{"title":"Frontmatter","authors":"","doi":"10.1515/9783110618839-fm","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110618839-fm","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":93772,"journal":{"name":"ISOEN 2019 : 18th International Symposium on Olfaction and Electronic Nose : 2019 symposium proceedings : ACROS Fukuoka, May 26-29, 2019. International Symposium on Olfaction and the Electronic Nose (18th : 2019 : Fukuoka-shi, Japan)","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81226001","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-05-05DOI: 10.1515/9783110618839-003
Aryeh Botwinick
In this paper, I will argue that the conceptual dichotomy between religion and scepticism cannot adequately capture what biblical monotheism inaugurated in the world. In a number of key respects that I will attempt to analytically plot, I will aim to show that Jewish scepticism and its cultural correlative of secularism are co-extensive with Jewish monotheism. I will try to plot the general outlines of an argument that will support the claim that both Western monotheism and Western scepticism have their roots in negative theology. What I will attempt to show is that the logical impediments that block a fully coherent statement of the tenets of both negative theology and scepticism point to a common origin and a common destiny for both doctrines. The traditional narrative of Western religion and its relationship to Western scepticism needs to be radically revised. The traditional story is both structured around and invoked to lend support to the idea of irreconcilable conflict between religion and sceptical modes of thought. The conflicts between religion and scepticism are taken to apply both to the substantive doctrines and to the methodologies of argument of religious and sceptical discourse. With negative theology (the idea that we can only say what God is not, but not what He is) as our organising perspective, we can argue that the areas of continuity and overlap between religion and scepticism are much more prominent and decisive than the areas of tension and discontinuity. The practice of religion is in no way threatened or undermined by this realisation. If anything, it is strengthened and reinforced by it. Where the vista of distance between the human community and God is as steadily maintained as it is by negative theology, the prospect of our succumbing to idolatry and worshipping our own handiwork is considerably diminished. My argument is formulated as a kind of thought experiment. Working with the Maimonidean assumptions in Sefer Ha-Madaʿ and The Guide of the Perplexed (including the annexation of God as a necessary First Cause in the genealogy of monotheism and the historical assumption that the patriarch Abraham was the discoverer of the monotheistic principle), what relationship emerges between monotheism and scepticism? The implicit conception of the relationship between religion and scepticism derivable from negative theology is a function of the central place that Platonic and Neoplatonic arguments occupy in its arsenal. Throughout this paper, I am using the term “scepticism” to refer to the philosophical doctrine that states that words are underdetermined by things; that no item in the “furniture” of the world or the human psyche can be framed in only one way, but that openness and flexibility always prevail with regard to designating the identity of things.
{"title":"The Simultaneous Genesis of Monotheism and Scepticism in the Jewish Religion","authors":"Aryeh Botwinick","doi":"10.1515/9783110618839-003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110618839-003","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, I will argue that the conceptual dichotomy between religion and scepticism cannot adequately capture what biblical monotheism inaugurated in the world. In a number of key respects that I will attempt to analytically plot, I will aim to show that Jewish scepticism and its cultural correlative of secularism are co-extensive with Jewish monotheism. I will try to plot the general outlines of an argument that will support the claim that both Western monotheism and Western scepticism have their roots in negative theology. What I will attempt to show is that the logical impediments that block a fully coherent statement of the tenets of both negative theology and scepticism point to a common origin and a common destiny for both doctrines. The traditional narrative of Western religion and its relationship to Western scepticism needs to be radically revised. The traditional story is both structured around and invoked to lend support to the idea of irreconcilable conflict between religion and sceptical modes of thought. The conflicts between religion and scepticism are taken to apply both to the substantive doctrines and to the methodologies of argument of religious and sceptical discourse. With negative theology (the idea that we can only say what God is not, but not what He is) as our organising perspective, we can argue that the areas of continuity and overlap between religion and scepticism are much more prominent and decisive than the areas of tension and discontinuity. The practice of religion is in no way threatened or undermined by this realisation. If anything, it is strengthened and reinforced by it. Where the vista of distance between the human community and God is as steadily maintained as it is by negative theology, the prospect of our succumbing to idolatry and worshipping our own handiwork is considerably diminished. My argument is formulated as a kind of thought experiment. Working with the Maimonidean assumptions in Sefer Ha-Madaʿ and The Guide of the Perplexed (including the annexation of God as a necessary First Cause in the genealogy of monotheism and the historical assumption that the patriarch Abraham was the discoverer of the monotheistic principle), what relationship emerges between monotheism and scepticism? The implicit conception of the relationship between religion and scepticism derivable from negative theology is a function of the central place that Platonic and Neoplatonic arguments occupy in its arsenal. Throughout this paper, I am using the term “scepticism” to refer to the philosophical doctrine that states that words are underdetermined by things; that no item in the “furniture” of the world or the human psyche can be framed in only one way, but that openness and flexibility always prevail with regard to designating the identity of things.","PeriodicalId":93772,"journal":{"name":"ISOEN 2019 : 18th International Symposium on Olfaction and Electronic Nose : 2019 symposium proceedings : ACROS Fukuoka, May 26-29, 2019. International Symposium on Olfaction and the Electronic Nose (18th : 2019 : Fukuoka-shi, Japan)","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84241558","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-05-05DOI: 10.1515/9783110618839-010
{"title":"Spinoza’s Affective Scepticism","authors":"","doi":"10.1515/9783110618839-010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110618839-010","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":93772,"journal":{"name":"ISOEN 2019 : 18th International Symposium on Olfaction and Electronic Nose : 2019 symposium proceedings : ACROS Fukuoka, May 26-29, 2019. International Symposium on Olfaction and the Electronic Nose (18th : 2019 : Fukuoka-shi, Japan)","volume":"30 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77991285","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-05-05DOI: 10.1515/9783110618839-006
Máté Veres
The majority of the excerpts traditionally taken to derive from a planned book 8 of Clement of Alexandria’s Stromateis concern the theory of demonstration (apodeixis) and related matters of logic. The suspension of judgement (epochē), a recognisably sceptical response to disagreement and a lack of demonstrative certainty, receives two brief treatments in this context. Apart from an attempted refutation of scepticism which points to the allegedly self-refuting character of universal epochē (5.15.2–16.3), the text also includes an account of the causes that lead one to suspend judgement (7.22.1–4). The source of this treatment of scepticism is unknown.2 In his recent edition, translation, and commentary, Matyáš Havrda gives a judicious overview of the scholarly proposals and argues that a liber logicus, perhaps Galen’s lost work On Demonstration (De Demonstratione or Peri Apodeixeōs), could have been the direct or indirect source of parts or the whole of the alleged book 8.3 At the same time, Havrda is not convinced that this material ever made it into a Clementine book. In his view, it is
大部分的节选传统上是从亚历山大的克莱门特的《论文集》第8卷中摘录的，涉及论证理论(apodeixis)和相关的逻辑问题。暂停判断(epoch)是对分歧和缺乏证明性确定性的明显怀疑反应，在此背景下接受了两种简短的处理。除了试图反驳怀疑主义，指出普遍时代的所谓自我反驳的性质(5.15.2-16.3)外，文本还包括导致人们暂停判断的原因(7.22.1-4)的叙述。这种对待怀疑主义的方式的来源是未知的在他最近的版本、翻译和评论中，Matyáš Havrda对学术建议给出了一个审慎的概述，并认为一个逻辑著作，也许是盖伦丢失的著作《论论证》(De Demonstration or Peri Apodeixeōs)，可能是部分或全部所谓的书的直接或间接来源。8.3与此同时，Havrda不相信这些材料曾经成为克莱门蒂的书。在他看来，确实如此
{"title":"The Causes of Epochē: A Note on Stromateis 8.22.1–4","authors":"Máté Veres","doi":"10.1515/9783110618839-006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110618839-006","url":null,"abstract":"The majority of the excerpts traditionally taken to derive from a planned book 8 of Clement of Alexandria’s Stromateis concern the theory of demonstration (apodeixis) and related matters of logic. The suspension of judgement (epochē), a recognisably sceptical response to disagreement and a lack of demonstrative certainty, receives two brief treatments in this context. Apart from an attempted refutation of scepticism which points to the allegedly self-refuting character of universal epochē (5.15.2–16.3), the text also includes an account of the causes that lead one to suspend judgement (7.22.1–4). The source of this treatment of scepticism is unknown.2 In his recent edition, translation, and commentary, Matyáš Havrda gives a judicious overview of the scholarly proposals and argues that a liber logicus, perhaps Galen’s lost work On Demonstration (De Demonstratione or Peri Apodeixeōs), could have been the direct or indirect source of parts or the whole of the alleged book 8.3 At the same time, Havrda is not convinced that this material ever made it into a Clementine book. In his view, it is","PeriodicalId":93772,"journal":{"name":"ISOEN 2019 : 18th International Symposium on Olfaction and Electronic Nose : 2019 symposium proceedings : ACROS Fukuoka, May 26-29, 2019. International Symposium on Olfaction and the Electronic Nose (18th : 2019 : Fukuoka-shi, Japan)","volume":"42 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73586268","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-05-05DOI: 10.1515/9783110618839-009
{"title":"Arnold Geulincx: Scepticism and Mental Holism","authors":"","doi":"10.1515/9783110618839-009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110618839-009","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":93772,"journal":{"name":"ISOEN 2019 : 18th International Symposium on Olfaction and Electronic Nose : 2019 symposium proceedings : ACROS Fukuoka, May 26-29, 2019. International Symposium on Olfaction and the Electronic Nose (18th : 2019 : Fukuoka-shi, Japan)","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74592060","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-05-05DOI: 10.1515/9783110618839-005
Behnam Zolghadr
Following the rise of dialetheism—the view that some contradictions are true—in the 1980s, there was a growing interest in exploring and searching for the possible opponents of the law of non-contradiction throughout the history of philosophy, in both the East and the West. However, between these two—that is, philosophy in Europe and philosophy in India and East Asia—there was a philosophical tradition in the Islamicate world which, as far as I know, has been overlooked from this dialetheic point of view. In this paper, I will discuss some arguments against the law of noncontradiction (henceforth, LNC) set forth by some philosophers in the Islamicate world. The text in which these arguments can be found is Faḫr al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s magnum opus Muḥaṣṣal afkār al-mutaqaddimīn wa-l-mutaʾaḫḫirīn (The Compendium of the Thought of the Ancients and the Moderns). It should be noted that Rāzī (d. 1210) himself is not an opponent of the LNC or the law of excluded middle (henceforth, LEM). However, in a review of the ideas of his predecessors, he discusses the opposition to the LNC. The arguments against the LNC appear in the first part of the book in his discussion of assents (taṣdīqāt). According to Rāzī, some assents are based on sense-perception (henceforth, sensible assents), such as “the fire is hot,” and some are self-evident, such as “negation and affirmation do not combine and cannot be denied” (al-nafy wa-l-iṯbāt lā yaǧtamiʿān wa-lā yartafiʿān). As Rāzī explains, some philosophers deny sensible assents altogether and some accept some of them. Similarly, some philosophers deny all self-evident assents and some confirm that there are self-evident assents. Hence, four possibilities emerge, and thus there will be four groups of thinkers. The first is those who accept both sensible and self-evident assents. As Rāzī says, these constitute the majority. The second group contains those who accept self-evident assents, but deny sensible assents. Rāzī names Plato, Aristotle, Ptolemy, and Galen as members of this group and then discusses their arguments for rejecting sensible assents. The third group is made up of those who deny self-evident assents, but accept sensible assents. Rāzī does not explicitly tell us who they are, but he puts forward their arguments against self-evident assents, such as the LNC and the LEM. In fact, these arguments are the main concern of this paper. As we will see, they are based on Abū Hāšim al-Ǧubbāʾī’s theory of aḥwāl.1 Finally, the fourth group is
在20世纪80年代，随着辩证论(即认为某些矛盾是真实存在的观点)的兴起，人们对探索和寻找贯穿东西方哲学史上非矛盾律的可能反对者的兴趣日益浓厚。然而，在这两者之间，即欧洲哲学与印度和东亚哲学之间，伊斯兰世界有一种哲学传统，据我所知，从这种辩证的角度来看，这种传统被忽视了。在本文中，我将讨论一些反对伊斯兰世界一些哲学家提出的非矛盾律(以下简称LNC)的论点。可以找到这些论点的文本是Faḫr al- d n al-Rāzī的巨著Muḥaṣṣal afkār al- mutaqaddm n wa-l-muta n aḫḫirīn(古今思想纲要)。应该指出的是，Rāzī (d. 1210)本人并不反对LNC或排中律(以下简称LEM)。然而，在回顾他的前辈们的思想时，他讨论了对LNC的反对。反对LNC的论据出现在书中第一部分关于同意的讨论中(taṣdīqāt)。根据Rāzī，有些认同是基于感官知觉的(因此称为感性认同)，如“火是热的”，而有些则是自明的，如“否定和肯定不能结合，也不能否认”(al-nafy wa-l-iṯbāt lā yaǧtami - ān wa-lā yartafi - ān)。正如Rāzī所解释的那样，有些哲学家完全否认理性同意，有些则接受其中的一部分。同样，一些哲学家否认所有自明同意，而另一些则确认存在自明同意。因此，出现了四种可能性，从而出现了四组思想家。第一类人既接受理智的同意，又接受不言自明的同意。正如Rāzī所说，这些人占了大多数。第二类人接受不证自明的同意，但拒绝理智的同意。Rāzī将柏拉图、亚里士多德、托勒密和盖伦列为这一群体的成员，然后讨论他们拒绝理性同意的理由。第三类人是由那些否认不证自明的同意，但接受合理同意的人组成的。Rāzī没有明确告诉我们他们是谁，但他提出了他们的论点，反对不证自明的同意，如LNC和登月舱。事实上，这些论点是本文的主要关注点。正如我们将看到的，它们是基于阿布·Hāšim·al·-Ǧubbā·真主的aḥwāl.1理论最后，第四组是
{"title":"The Theory of Aḥwāl and Arguments against the Law of Non-Contradiction","authors":"Behnam Zolghadr","doi":"10.1515/9783110618839-005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110618839-005","url":null,"abstract":"Following the rise of dialetheism—the view that some contradictions are true—in the 1980s, there was a growing interest in exploring and searching for the possible opponents of the law of non-contradiction throughout the history of philosophy, in both the East and the West. However, between these two—that is, philosophy in Europe and philosophy in India and East Asia—there was a philosophical tradition in the Islamicate world which, as far as I know, has been overlooked from this dialetheic point of view. In this paper, I will discuss some arguments against the law of noncontradiction (henceforth, LNC) set forth by some philosophers in the Islamicate world. The text in which these arguments can be found is Faḫr al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s magnum opus Muḥaṣṣal afkār al-mutaqaddimīn wa-l-mutaʾaḫḫirīn (The Compendium of the Thought of the Ancients and the Moderns). It should be noted that Rāzī (d. 1210) himself is not an opponent of the LNC or the law of excluded middle (henceforth, LEM). However, in a review of the ideas of his predecessors, he discusses the opposition to the LNC. The arguments against the LNC appear in the first part of the book in his discussion of assents (taṣdīqāt). According to Rāzī, some assents are based on sense-perception (henceforth, sensible assents), such as “the fire is hot,” and some are self-evident, such as “negation and affirmation do not combine and cannot be denied” (al-nafy wa-l-iṯbāt lā yaǧtamiʿān wa-lā yartafiʿān). As Rāzī explains, some philosophers deny sensible assents altogether and some accept some of them. Similarly, some philosophers deny all self-evident assents and some confirm that there are self-evident assents. Hence, four possibilities emerge, and thus there will be four groups of thinkers. The first is those who accept both sensible and self-evident assents. As Rāzī says, these constitute the majority. The second group contains those who accept self-evident assents, but deny sensible assents. Rāzī names Plato, Aristotle, Ptolemy, and Galen as members of this group and then discusses their arguments for rejecting sensible assents. The third group is made up of those who deny self-evident assents, but accept sensible assents. Rāzī does not explicitly tell us who they are, but he puts forward their arguments against self-evident assents, such as the LNC and the LEM. In fact, these arguments are the main concern of this paper. As we will see, they are based on Abū Hāšim al-Ǧubbāʾī’s theory of aḥwāl.1 Finally, the fourth group is","PeriodicalId":93772,"journal":{"name":"ISOEN 2019 : 18th International Symposium on Olfaction and Electronic Nose : 2019 symposium proceedings : ACROS Fukuoka, May 26-29, 2019. International Symposium on Olfaction and the Electronic Nose (18th : 2019 : Fukuoka-shi, Japan)","volume":"52 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85873310","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
ISOEN 2019 : 18th International Symposium on Olfaction and Electronic Nose : 2019 symposium proceedings : ACROS Fukuoka, May 26-29, 2019. International Symposium on Olfaction and the Electronic Nose (18th : 2019 : Fukuoka-shi, Japan)
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：