Suhrawardī has leveled five criticisms in order to demonstrate the inefficiency of the Peripatetic theory of definition and, in return, has suggested another method for defining things. This method, which is known as the “conceptual definition”, is based on a common sen
More
Suhrawardī has leveled five criticisms in order to demonstrate the inefficiency of the Peripatetic theory of definition and, in return, has suggested another method for defining things. This method, which is known as the “conceptual definition”, is based on a common sense understanding of the meanings of words. According to this method, words are defined through providing their conceptual bases in the view of linguists or the people of language. Here, the author firstly explains Suhrawardī’s method of defining things and then examines it critically. The critical analysis of his view reveals that the logical conclusion of his criticism of the Peripatetic theory of definition is the correction of this theory through employing intuition rather than leaving the definition of things based on their quiddity aside and advocating the theory of conceptual definition. Moreover, Suhrawardī’s theory of definition, as a replacement for its Peripatetic counterpart, suffers from several problems. Therefore, even if Suhrawardī’s objections to the Peripatetics’ theory of definition are accepted, his own method in this regard is not acceptable by itself. At the end of this paper, the author explains and criticizes the views of a contemporary researcher of Suhrawardī’s ideas who believes that the relationship between Ibn Sīnā’s and Suhrawardī’s logic of definition is one of completion rather than difference.
Manuscript profile
