| Revision as of 09:12, 15 August 2010 editOntoraul (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,042 edits →External links: Updated link← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:30, 20 August 2010 edit undoJ8079s (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,585 edits Jagged 85 cleanupNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| ''']''' ({{lang-ar|''منطق''}}) played an important role in ''']'''. ] and ] placed importance on formulating standards of ], which gave rise to a novel approach to logic in ], as seen in the method of '']''. This approach, however, was later displaced to some extent by ideas from ] and ] with the rise of the ] school, who highly valued ]'s '']''. The works of Hellenistic-influenced ] were crucial in the reception of ] logic in medieval Europe, along with the commentaries on the ''Organon'' by ], founder of ]. In turn, the Aristotelian tradition was later displaced by ], which in turn was succeeded by Post-Avicennian logic. | |||
| Important developments made by Islamic logicians included the development of original systems of logic, notably Avicennian and Post-Avicennian logic, and the development of early theories on ], ],<ref name=Britannica/><ref name=Street/> ],<ref name=Goodman/><ref name=Iqbal/> ],<ref name=Goodman/> ],<ref name=Goodman-1992/> ],<ref name=Mas/><ref name="Sowa"/> and ].<ref name=Hallaq/> Other important developments in ] include the development of a strict ], the ] or "backing", and the development of a ] to disprove claims, the ], which could be generally applied to many types of questions. | |||
| ==History== | |||
| According to the ]: | |||
| {{quote|"For the Islamic philosophers, logic included not only the study of formal patterns of inference and their validity but also elements of the philosophy of language and even of ] and metaphysics. Because of territorial disputes with the Arabic grammarians, Islamic philosophers were very interested in working out the relationship between logic and language, and they devoted much discussion to the question of the subject matter and aims of logic in relation to reasoning and speech. In the area of formal logical analysis, they elaborated upon the theory of ], propositions and syllogisms as formulated in Aristotle's ], ] and ]. In the spirit of Aristotle, they considered the syllogism to be the form to which all rational argumentation could be reduced, and they regarded syllogistic theory as the focal point of logic. Even poetics was considered as a syllogistic art in some fashion by most of the major Islamic Aristotelians."}} | |||
| {{quote|"Since logic was viewed as an organon or instrument by which to acquire knowledge, logic in the Islamic world also incorporated a general theory of argumentation focused upon epistemological aims. This element of Islamic logic centred upon the theory of ] found in Aristotle's Posterior Analytics, since demonstration was considered the ultimate goal sought by logic. Other elements of the theory of argumentation, such as ]s and ], were viewed as secondary to demonstration, since it was held that these argument forms produced ] states inferior in certitude and stability to demonstration. The philosopher's aim was ultimately to demonstrate necessary and certain truth; the use of dialectical and rhetorical arguments was accounted for as preparatory to demonstration, as defensive of its conclusions, or as aimed at communicating its results to a broader audience."}} | |||
| ===Logic in Arabic grammar=== | |||
| {{main|Arabic grammar}} | |||
| Some of the earliest known logic in the Islamic world came from the work of ]ians. Examples include the grammatical works of ] (d. 735) and ] (d. 797). The latter's work in particular has been compared in its logical sophistication to the work of ], a ]ian of the ]. | |||
| ===Logic in Islamic law and theology=== | |||
| {{see also|Qiyas|Kalam}} | |||
| Early forms of ] reasoning, ] and categorical ] were introduced in ] (Islamic jurisprudence), ] (Islamic law) and ] (]) from the 7th century with the process of '']'', at least a century before Muslims had become aware of Aristotelian logic. The ''Qiyas'' process was described by early Islamic legal scholars such as ] (699-765) and ] (767-820). Later during the ], there was a logical ] among Islamic philosophers, logicians and theologians over whether the term ''Qiyas'' refers to analogical reasoning, inductive reasoning or categorical syllogism. Some Islamic scholars argued that ''Qiyas'' refers to inductive reasoning, which ] (994-1064) disagreed with, arguing that ''Qiyas'' does not refer to inductive reasoning, but refers to categorical syllogism in a ] sense and analogical reasoning in a ]ical sense. On the other hand, ] (1058-1111) (and in modern times, ]) argued that ''Qiyas'' refers to analogical reasoning in a real sense and categorical syllogism in a metaphorical sense. Other Islamic scholars at the time, however, argued that the term ''Qiyas'' refers to both analogical reasoning and categorical syllogism in a real sense.<ref>Wael B. Hallaq (1993), ''Ibn Taymiyya Against the Greek Logicians'', p. 48. ], ISBN 0198240430.</ref> | |||
| ] (994-1064) wrote the ''Scope of Logic'', in which he stressed on the importance of ] ] as a source of knowledge.<ref name=Iqbal>], '']'', "The Spirit of Muslim Culture" (] and )</ref> He wrote that the "first sources of all human knowledge are the soundly used senses and the intuitions of reason, combined with a correct understanding of a language." He also criticized some of the more traditionalist theologians who were opposed to the use of ] and argued that the first generations of ]s did not rely on logic. His response was that the early Muslims had witnessed the ] directly, whereas the Muslims of his time have been exposed to contrasting beliefs, hence the use of logic is necessary in order to preserve the true teachings of ].<ref>Seyyed ] and ] (1996), ''History of Islamic Philosophy'', pp. 107-109, ], ISBN 0415056675.</ref> Ibn Hazm's ''Fisal'' (''Detailed Critical Examination'') also stressed the importance of sense perception as he realized that human ] can be flawed, and thus criticized some of the more rationalist theologians who placed too much emphasis on reason. While he recognized the importance of reason, since the ] itself invites ], he argued that this reflection refers mainly to ] data, since the principles of reason are themselves derived entirely from sense ]. He concludes that reason is not a faculty for independent ] or ], but that that sense perception should be used in its place, an idea which forms the basis of ].<ref>, ''Islamic Philosophy Online''.</ref> | |||
| ] (1058–1111) had an important influence on the use of logic in ], as he was the first to apply the ] of ] ] to Islamic theology.<ref name=Britannica/> He also established the application of three types of logical systems in Islamic Sharia law: reasoning by ], ], and ]. In cases that have multiple legal ]s, he recommended the use of inductive logic, stating that the "larger the number of pieces of textual evidence is, the stronger our knowledge becomes."<ref>{{Cite journal|title=The Logic of Legal Reasoning in Religious and Non-Religious Cultures: The Case of Islamic Law and the Common Law|last=Hallaq|first=Wael B.|journal=Cleveland State Law Review|volume=34|year=1985-1986|pages=79–96 |postscript=<!--None-->}}</ref> His followers, ] (1149-1209) and ] (1263-1328), also applied inductive logic to Islamic Sharia law.<ref name=Hallaq>{{Cite journal|title=The Logic of Legal Reasoning in Religious and Non-Religious Cultures: The Case of Islamic Law and the Common Law|last=Hallaq|first=Wael B.|journal=Cleveland State Law Review|volume=34|year=1985-1986|pages=79–96 |postscript=<!--None-->}}</ref> Ibn Taymiyyah in particular argued against the certainty of ] and in favour of analogy.<ref name=Mas/><ref name="Sowa"/> | |||
| ] (1213-1288) wrote two major works dealing with logic in Islamic theology. ''Theologus Autodidactus'' was a fictional story dealing with many Islamic topics. Through its story, Ibn al-Nafis attempted to establish that the human ] is capable of ] the natural, philosophical and religious ]s of Islam through logical thinking.<ref name=Roubi/> In ''A Short Account of the Methodology of Hadith'', he demonstrated the use of logic in the ] into four categories: decidedly true (''maclūm al-sidq''), probably true (''yuz annu bihi'l-sidq''), probably false (''yuz annu bihi'l-kadhb'') and decidedly false (''maclūm al-kadhb'').<ref>Nahyan A. G. Fancy (2006), "Pulmonary Transit and Bodily Resurrection: The Interaction of Medicine, Philosophy and Religion in the Works of Ibn al-Nafīs (d. 1288)", p. 67-73, ''Electronic Theses and Dissertations'', ].</ref> | |||
| ===Aristotelian logic=== | |||
| Most early Muslim logicians during the 8th and 9th centuries produced commentaries on ]. The first original Arabic writings on logic were produced by ] (Alkindus) (805–873), who produced a summary on earlier logic up to his time.<ref name=Britannica/> | |||
| ] (Averroes) (1126–1198) was the last major logician from ], who wrote the most elaborate commentaries on Aristotelian logic. He was also the last major Aristotelian logician from the Islamic world.<ref name=Britannica/> Though his commentaries on Aristotelian logic ] had little influence in the Islamic world, his commentaries had a strong influence on ] after the ]. | |||
| The last major logician to write a commentary on Aristotelian logic was ] (1213-1288), though he himself was not an Aristotelian logician. He wrote the ''Al-Wurayqat'' (''The Little Papers''), a commentary on ]'s '']'' and '']''.<ref name=Roubi>Dr. Abu Shadi Al-Roubi (1982), "Ibn Al-Nafis as a philosopher", ''Symposium on Ibn al-Nafis'', Second International Conference on Islamic Medicine: Islamic Medical Organization, Kuwait (] , ''Encyclopedia of Islamic World'').</ref> | |||
| ===Alfarabian logic=== | |||
| ] (Alfarabi) (873–950) is considered the father of logic in the Islamic philosophical tradition.<ref>{{cite web|title=Mysticism in Arabic and Islamic Philosophy|work=]|date=March 7, 2009|url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/arabic-islamic-mysticism/|accessdate=2010-04-01}}</ref> Though he was mainly an Aristotelian logician, he included a number of non-Aristotelian elements in his works. He discussed the topics of ]s, the number and relation of the categories, the relation between ] and ], and non-Aristotelian forms of ].<ref name=Britannica/> | |||
| Al-Farabi also considered the theories of ]s and ], which were part of the ] tradition of logic rather than the Aristotelian.<ref>{{Cite journal | issn = 0022362X | volume = 61 | issue = 22 | pages = 724–734 | last = Feldman | first = Seymour | title = Rescher on Arabic Logic | journal = The Journal of Philosophy | accessdate = 2010-03-24 | date = 1964-11-26 | url = http://www.jstor.org/stable/2023632 | doi = 10.2307/2023632}} . {{Cite book | publisher = Cambridge University Press | isbn = 0-521-27556-3 | last = Long | first = A. A. | coauthors = D. N. Sedley | title = The Hellenistic Philosophers. Vol 1: Translations of the principal sources with philosophical commentary | location = Cambridge | date = 1987}}</ref> Another addition al-Farabi made to the Aristotelian tradition was his introduction of the concept of ] ] in a commentary on Aristotle's '']''.<ref>{{Cite journal|title=The Islamic roots of the poetic syllogism|journal=College Literature|date=February 1996|last=Ludescher|first=Tanyss|url=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3709/is_199602/ai_n8749610 |accessdate=2008-02-29}}</ref> | |||
| {{Avicenna}} | |||
| ], founder of ].]] | |||
| ===Avicennian logic=== | |||
| {{main|Avicennism#Avicennian logic|l1=Avicennian logic}} | |||
| Dimitri Gutas and the ] consider the period between the 11th and 14th centuries to be the "]" of Arabic and Islamic philosophy, initiated by ]'s successful integration of logic into the ] curriculum and the subsequent rise of ].<ref name=Stanford>{{cite web|author=Tony Street|title=Arabic and Islamic Philosophy of Language and Logic|publisher=]|date=July 23, 2008|url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/arabic-islamic-language|accessdate=2008-12-05}}</ref> | |||
| ] (Avicenna) (980–1037) developed his own ] known as "Avicennian logic" as an alternative to Aristotelian logic. After the ], Avicennian logic also influenced early ] logicians such as ]<ref>Richard F. Washell (1973), "Logic, Language, and Albert the Great", ''Journal of the History of Ideas'' '''34''' (3), p. 445-450 .</ref> and ],<ref name=Kukkonen>{{Cite journal|title=Possible Worlds in the Tahâfut al-Falâsifa: Al-Ghazâlî on Creation and Contingency|author=Taneli Kukkonen|journal=]|volume=38|issue=4|year=2000|pages=479–502|doi=10.1353/hph.2005.0033|postscript=<!--None-->}}</ref> though Aristotelian logic later became more dominant in Europe due to the strong influence of ].<ref name=Hasse>{{cite web|author=Dag Nikolaus Hasse|title=Influence of Arabic and Islamic Philosophy on the Latin West|publisher=]|date=September 19, 2008|url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/arabic-islamic-influence/|accessdate=2009-10-13}}</ref> | |||
| He wrote on the ]<ref name=Goodman/> and on the ], which were both part of the Stoic logical tradition.<ref name=Goodman-1992>Goodman, Lenn Evan (1992); ''Avicenna'', p. 188, ], ISBN 0-415-01929-X.</ref> He developed an original theory of “] ]” syllogistic<ref name=Britannica>, '']''.</ref> and made use of ], such as the ] which are critical to the ].<ref name=Goodman>Goodman, Lenn Evan (2003), ''Islamic Humanism'', p. 155, ], ISBN 0-19-513580-6.</ref> | |||
| One of Avicenna's ideas had a particularly important influence on Western logicians such as ]. Avicenna's word for a meaning or notion (''ma'na''), was translated by the scholastic logicians as the Latin ''intentio''. In medieval logic and ], this is a sign in the mind that naturally represents a thing.<ref>Kneale p. 229</ref> This was crucial to the development of Ockham's ]. A universal term (e.g. "man") does not signify a thing existing in reality, but rather a sign in the mind (''intentio in intellectu'') which represents many things in reality. Ockham cites Avicenna's commentary on ''Metaphysics'' V in support of this view.<ref>Kneale: p. 266; Ockham: ] i. 14; Avicenna: ''Avicennae Opera'' Venice 1508 f87rb</ref> | |||
| ===Post-Avicennian logic=== | |||
| {{see also|Avicennism#Avicennian logic|l1=Avicennian logic}} | |||
| The Islamic theologian ] (b. 1149) criticised Aristotle's "]" and formulated an early system of ], foreshadowing the system of inductive logic developed by ] (1806-1873).<ref name=Iqbal/> Al-Razi also applied inductive logic to Islamic ] law and ] jurisprudence.<ref>{{Cite journal|title=The Logic of Legal Reasoning in Religious and Non-Religious Cultures: The Case of Islamic Law and the Common Law|last=Hallaq|first=Wael B.|journal=Cleveland State Law Review|volume=34|year=1985-1986|pages=79–96 |postscript=<!--None-->}}</ref> Al-Razi's work was seen by later Islamic scholars as marking a new direction for Islamic logic, towards a Post-Avicennian logic. This was further elaborated by his student Afdaladdîn al-Khûnajî (d. 1249), who developed a form of logic revolving around the subject matter of ]ions and ]. In response to this tradition, ] (1201-1274) began a tradition of Neo-Avicennian logic which remained faithful to Avicenna's work and existed as an alternative to the more dominant Post-Avicennian school over the following centuries. Al-Tusi's work included the following commentary on Avicenna's theory of absolute ]s:<ref name=Stanford/> | |||
| {{quote|"What spurred him to this was that in the ] syllogistic Aristotle and others sometimes used ] of absolute propositions on the assumption that they are absolute; and that was why so many decided that absolutes did contradict absolutes. When Avicenna had shown this to be wrong, he wanted to give a way of construing those examples from Aristotle."}} | |||
| Systematic refutations of Greek logic were written by the ], founded by ] (1155-1191), who developed the idea of "decisive necessity", which refers to the reduction of all modalities (], ], ] and ]) to the single mode of necessity.<ref>Dr. Lotfollah Nabavi, , ''Journal of Faculty of Literature and Human Sciences''.</ref> ] (1213-1288) wrote a book on Avicennian logic, which was a commentary of Avicenna's ''Al-Isharat'' (''The Signs'') and ''Al-Hidayah'' (''The Guidance'').<ref name=Roubi/> | |||
| ] (d. 1276), a student of al-Tusi,<ref>{{Cite web| title = Illuminated Islamic Manuscript: A Selection of New Acquisitions at Yale University| work = Yale University Library, Near Eastern Collection| accessdate = 2010-03-17| date = 2009-08-06| url = http://www.library.yale.edu/neareast/exhibitions/exhibit20071.html}}</ref> was the author of a work on logic, ''Al-Risāla al-Shamsiyya''<ref>Page 227 of {{Cite book| publisher = Brill| isbn = 9789004129788| editors = David C. Reisman and Ahmed H. al-Rahim (edd.)| last = al-Rahim| first = Ahmed H.| title = Before and After Avicenna: Proceedings of the First Conference of the Avicenna Study Group| chapter = The Twelver Si'i Reception of Avicenna in the Mongol Period| series = Islamic philosophy, theology and science: texts and studies| date = 2003}}</ref> (''Logic for Shams al-Dīn''), that was commonly used as the first major text on logic in ] ]s, right down until the 20th century and is "perhaps the most studied logic textbook of all time."<ref>{{Cite book| publisher = Cambridge University Press| isbn = 9780521520690| pages=247 & 250| editors = Peter Adamson and Richard C. Taylor (ed.)| last = Street| first = Tony| title = The Cambridge Companion to Arabic Philosophy| chapter = Logic| date = 2005-01-01}}</ref> Al-Qazwīnī's logic was largely inspired by the Avicenna's formal system of ] ], but is more elaborate and departs from it in several ways. While Avicenna considered ten modalities and examined six of them, Al-Qazwlni considers many more modalized propositions and examines thirteen which he considers 'customary to investigate'.<ref name=Street>{{Cite journal|title=TOWARD A HISTORY OF SYLLOGISTIC AFTER AVICENNA: NOTES ON RESCHER'S STUDIES ON ARABIC MODAL LOGIC|author=Tony Street|journal=Journal of Islamic Studies|volume=11|issue=2|year=2000|publisher=]|pages=209–228|doi=10.1093/jis/11.2.209|postscript=<!--None-->}}</ref> | |||
| Another systematic refutation of Greek logic was written by ] (1263-1328), the ''Ar-Radd 'ala al-Mantiqiyyin'' (''Refutation of Greek Logicians''), where he argued against the usefulness, though not the validity, of the ]<ref>See pp. 253–254 of {{Cite book | publisher = Cambridge University Press | isbn = 9780521520690 | pages = 247–265 | editors = Peter Adamson and Richard C. Taylor (edd.) | last = Street | first = Tony | title = The Cambridge Companion to Arabic Philosophy | chapter = Logic | date = 2005}}</ref> and in favour of ].<ref name=Iqbal/> He also applied inductive logic to Islamic ] law and ] jurisprudence. The "fundamental idea underlying Ibn Thymiyya's theory of logic in general, and legal logic in particular, is that the knowledge of the external world results from the observation of particular things." This could be seen as an anticipation of ] in the 19th century.<ref name=Hallaq-94-5>{{Cite journal|title=The Logic of Legal Reasoning in Religious and Non-Religious Cultures: The Case of Islamic Law and the Common Law|last=Hallaq|first=Wael B.|journal=Cleveland State Law Review|volume=34|year=1985-1986|pages=79–96 |postscript=<!--None-->}}</ref> Later, Ibn Taymiyyah argued against the certainty of ] and in favour of ]. His argument is that concepts founded on ] are themselves not certain but only probable, and thus a syllogism based on such concepts is no more certain than an argument based on analogy. He further claimed that induction itself is founded on a process of analogy. His model of analogical reasoning was based on that of juridical arguments.<ref name=Mas>{{Cite journal | author = Ruth Mas | title = Qiyas: A Study in Islamic Logic | journal = Folia Orientalia | volume = 34 | pages = 113–128 | year = 1998 | url = http://www.colorado.edu/ReligiousStudies/faculty/mas/LOGIC.pdf | issn = 0015-5675}}</ref><ref name="Sowa">{{Cite conference | author1 = ] | coauthors = Arun K. Majumdar | title = Analogical reasoning | booktitle = Conceptual Structures for Knowledge Creation and Communication, Proceedings of ICCS 2003 | publisher = Springer-Verlag | year = 2003 | location = Berlin | url = http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/analog.htm | accessdate = }}, pp. 16-36</ref> This model of analogy has been used in the work of ].<ref name="Sowa"/> | |||
| In the 14th century, the ] and historiographer ] discussed the Post-Avicennian tradition in his '']'' (1377). He wrote the following on how Islamic logic had changed substantially since the 12th century: | |||
| {{quote|"Treatment of has become lengthy and wide-ranging—the first to do this was ] (d. 1210) and, after him, Afdaladdîn al-Khûnajî (d. 1249), on whom Eastern scholars rely even now… The books and ways of the ancients have been abandoned, as though they had never been."<ref name=Stanford/>}} | |||
| The ''Sharh al-takmil fi'l-mantiq'' written by Muhammad ibn Fayd Allah ibn Muhammad Amin al-Sharwani in the 15th century is the last major Arabic work on logic that has been studied.<ref>] and Arnold vander Nat, "The Arabic Theory of Temporal Modal Syllogistic", in George Fadlo Hourani (1975), ''Essays on Islamic Philosophy and Science'', p. 189-221, ], ISBN 0873952243.</ref> However, there have been "thousands and thousands of pages" devoted to logical subjects throughout the period from the 14th century through to the 19th century. Only a fraction of the texts written during this period have been studied, hence little is known about the original work on Islamic logic produced during this later period.<ref name=Stanford/> | |||
| ==Major figures in Islamic logic== | |||
| *] (d. 735) | |||
| *] (699-765) | |||
| *] (c. 760-797) | |||
| *] (767-820) | |||
| *] (''Alkindus'') (805–873) | |||
| *] (''Alfarabi'') (873–950) | |||
| *] (''Avicenna'') (980–1037) | |||
| *] (994-1064) | |||
| *] (''Algazel'') (1058–1111) | |||
| *] (''Averroes'') (1126–1198) | |||
| *] (1149-1210) | |||
| *] (''Sohrevardi'') (1155-1191) | |||
| *Afdaladdîn al-Khûnajî (d. 1249) | |||
| *] (1201-1274) | |||
| *] (d. 1276) | |||
| *] (1213-1288) | |||
| *] (1263-1328) | |||
| *Muhammad ibn Fayd Allah ibn Muhammad Amin al-Sharwani (15th century) | |||
| ==See also== | |||
| *] | |||
| **] | |||
| *] | |||
| **] | |||
| *] | |||
| ==References== | |||
| {{reflist}} | |||
| ==External links== | |||
| *, ]. Routledge, 1998. (Alternatively, see ) | |||
| *, at Raul Corazzon's ''Theory and History of Ontology''. | |||
| {{-}} | |||
| {{DEFAULTSORT:Logic In Islamic Philosophy}} | |||
| ] | |||
Revision as of 23:30, 20 August 2010
Redirect to: