A Critique Of Ibn-sina And Mulla Sadra's Ideas Of The Four-fold Accidental Motions

In this Paper, the Writer has analyzed the ideas of these two great philosophers of motion in the four accidental categories of 'quantity, quality, place, and position, and derived the following conclusions:- Mulla Sadra's definition of motion is more convincing than that of Ibn-Sina.- The reason given by these two philosophers for preferring one of the possibilities concerning the meaning of motion in the category of existence is not error-free.- None of the referents proposed for quantitative motion have thenecessary characteristics for being such in reality.- The most certain referent for qualitative motion is motion in essential qualities.- The reason adduced for proving rotational motion is not error - free.- Although motion in place is certain, there is some doubt concerning whether place and position are categories in the real sense of the word
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 47,443
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views

Recent downloads (6 months)

How can I increase my downloads?


Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.

My notes

Sign in to use this feature