Criticism and analysis of Ibn Sina’s arguments in al-Nijat on the “unity is an accident”

Abstract

According to Aristotle, there was a popular theory in ancient Greece according to which "unity" was considered an independent substance that has a causal role in relation to other substances. Aristotle tried to reject that theory by stating that “one” is a "predicate" and also referring to the corrupt result. This theory and Aristotle's critiques of it came to the attention of Ibn Sina, and he, unlike Aristotle, did not confine himself to simply considering the "one" as the “predicate”. In the Ketab al-Nijat, he tried, through three arguments, to prove the “one” is an indispensable accident and is the source of the derivation of "unity." Ibn Sina's arguments are distorted in many ways, but the most important drawback of his argument is the confusion of categorical and analytical propositions, and the acceptance of the predicate of the one and by accepting the predicate of the “one” and its non-separation from the subject, it is not possible to prove “unity” is an "accident", in contrast to the substance, and thus negate the causality of the one in relation to the substances.

Keywords

• unity
• display
• the symptoms of existence
• the symptoms of quiddity
• the matter