Avicenna stojí na začátku procesu emancipace metafyziky od Aristotelovy Metafyziky. Aristotelův spis je pro Avicennu východiskem, ovšem Avicennovo rozpracování tohoto spisu je rozsáhlé a originální. Systematicky se transformací Aristotelovy Metafyziky v Avicennově myšlení věnuje kniha Amose Bertolacciho z r. 2005. Z úvodu (zvýraznení je mé vlastní):
The history of the reception of Aristotle’s Metaphysics can be portrayed as a sequence of “reforms”, ending in its definitive “abandonment”. The “reforms” started from the very beginning, with the first “edition” of the Metaphysics by Andronicus of Rhodes in the I century BC ... and were mainly performed by the commentators (Greek, Arab and Latin) of Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Its “abandonment”, on the other hand, can be ascribed to the original thinkers on metaphysics of the Modern Era. [viii]
Avicenna (Ibn Sěnŕ, 980 ca.–1037 AD) plays a key-role in this overall process. His attitude towards Aristotle’s metaphysics marks the transition from the stage of exegetical “reform” to that of self-assertive “abandonment”. On the one hand, Avicenna’s metaphysical oeuvre is the last and widest of a series of transformations of Aristotle’s Metaphysics that took place during the Middle Ages. On the other hand, within the Peripatetic tradition it constitutes the first concrete replacement of this work with an original treatment on metaphysics, thus allowing metaphysics the possibility of an autonomous progress. In so far as Avicenna’s most important works on metaphysics are constitutively linked with the Metaphysics ... they are an expression of the Medieval Peripatetic tradition. But in so far as they are not commentaries on the Metaphysics (neither literal exegeses nor paraphrases), but original reworkings of it, and display epistemological concerns about metaphysics that are largely foreign to Aristotle, they anticipate the Modern approach to metaphysics.
Whereas in the East the substantial progress represented by Avicenna’s metaphysics in comparison to Aristotle’s homonymous writing was immediately perceived, and the former somehow substituted the latter (either to be accepted and commented upon, or to be criticized), in the West Aristotle’s Metaphysics kept on being the textbook on metaphysics for a few centuries, and Avicenna’s point of view was inserted in the commentaries on the Metaphysics, in different amounts and degrees, until the definitive abandonment of this work ...
In sum: Avicenna’s metaphysics is both continuous and discontinuous with Aristotle’s Metaphysics. While being Aristotelian in its guidelines, it goes far beyond Aristotle in its overall purport. As a [s. viii] synthesis of both respects, it is unprecedented in the history of the reception of the Metaphysics, and can be compared to Proclus’ metaphysics with regard to the previous Platonic tradition. In this perspective, it is not exaggerated to regard Avicenna as the second authority on metaphysics, after Aristotle himself, within the Aristotelian school, and the initiator of a new phase of the history of this discipline. Reform and abandonment, continuity and rupture, tradition and innovation: this two-fold attitude of Avicenna towards Aristotle’s Metaphysics is the essence of his “interpretation” of this work. Avicenna’s interpretation of the Metaphysics in his most important work on metaphysics— the Ilahiyyat ([Science of ] Divine Things) of the Kitab al-Šifa (Book of the Cure)—is the object of the present study. [s. ix]
Avicenna si je explicitně vědom nehotového stavu Aristotelova spisu Metafyzika:
The imperfect state of Aristotle’s writings—a situation poignantly described by contemporary Aristotelian scholars as a contrast between “ideal” and “achievement” in Aristotle’s philosophical system—has not escaped Aristotelian interpreters throughout history. In the Introduction of one of his philosophical summae, the Mašriqiyyun (Easterners), Avicenna states that the Aristotelian corpus presents “loose ends”, “breaches”, “imperfections” and “defective theories”, and is in need of “addition”, “correction”, and “revision”; the required restoration—he continues—was not accomplished by previous Aristotelian scholars, and only Avicenna himself “perfected” what Aristotle and his successors “meant to say but fell short of doing, never reaching their aim in it”. [s. ix]
Nedokončenost Metafyziky se projevuje jak co do formy tak co do obsahu:
The defects of Aristotle’s writings, of which Avicenna shows a keen perception, are especially puzzling in the case of the Metaphysics. This work elicits two main categories of problems. The first regards what we can call the “form” of the Metaphysics, namely the scientific profile of the discipline it contains. To this rubric belong issues such as what the metaphysics deals with, how it is structured, what method it follows, how it relates to the other sciences of the Aristotelian corpus etc. What Aristotle says in all these regards is often either elliptical, or ambiguous, or, even worse, inconsistent. The second category [s. ix] of problems regards, on the other hand, the “content” of the Metaphysics, namely its various doctrines. Gaps in exposition, ambiguities and inconsistencies are frequent also in this case. A prime example in this regard is the doctrine of substance, which is surely not less cryptic, and whose implications are not less far-reaching, than the well-known case of the doctrine of intellect in the De anima.[s. ix]
Z hlediska formy Avicennův přínos spočívá především v aplikaci metodologie Druhých analytik na Metafyziku:
In general terms, it can be said that Avicenna’s solution of the problems concerning the form of the Metaphysics consists in a reshaping of this work according to the epistemological canons established by Aristotle himself in the Posterior Analytics: metaphysics has its own subject-matter (“existent qua existent”), a precise structure (given by the species, properties and principles of “existent qua existent”), a rigorous method (apodictic and analytical, rather than dialectical), and a preeminent position in the system of sciences (it is the discipline that provides the foundation of all the others).
Z hlediska obsahu spočívá Avicennův přínos v důrazu na několik základních témat a v integraci neoplatonských a islámských idejí.
The content of the Metaphysics, on the other hand, is reorganized by Avicenna around some fundamental doctrinal cores (substance and accidents; unity and multiplicity; universals; causes; philosophical theology), is reworked according to a rigorous method, and is joined with some original theories (first among all, the famous distinction of essence and existence) capable of interconnecting and bringing to unity these distinct themes. Within philosophical theology, in the last part of the work, Aristotle’s point of view in the Metaphysics is integrated with that of the Greek commentaries on the Metaphysics translated into Arabic, of the Neoplatonic metaphysical writings attributed to Aristotle in the Arabic tradition (the Theologia Aristotelis and the Liber de Causis), and of Islamic theology.
S Bertilacciho tezí souhlasím. Jeho studie Avicenny se zdá na první pohled vynikající. Bertilacci nicméně zapomněl ve svém úvodním přehledu zmínit fakt, že Avicennův emancipační impuls byl na Západě dovršen v Metafyzických disputacích Francisca Suáreze.
---------
Literatura:
- BERTILACCI, Amos. The reception of Aristotle’s Metaphysics in Avicenna’s Kitab al-S’ifa: a milestone of Western metaphysical thought. Leiden: Brill, 2005 ISBN-13: 978-90-04-14899-4
Doplnění (onlinové) literatury:
OdpovědětVymazatSalim Kemal, "Ibn Sina" z Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy
http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/sina/art/ibn%20Sina-REP.htm