The Hıstorıcal Process Of The Dıscussıons On The Fragrance Of Apples

Alaattin Tekin

Makale detayları

The Hıstorıcal Process Of The Dıscussıons On The Fragrance Of Apples

Yazarlar:

Alaattin Tekin

Yayıncı:

Gaziantep University

Ana Başlıklar:

İslam Felsefesi | Mantık

Dergi:

İlahiyat Akademi Issue 21, pp.1-23

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2025

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001353036

pISSN:

2149-3979

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 The text is about the debate among ancient and medieval Hellenistic commentators around the question of Can the singularindividual or particular be separated from its subject or not. In particular, the main argument that fueled the debate is the issue of predication between i the universal substance, what is said in the subject, and ii the particular accident, what is found in the subject, based on the concepts of substance and accident in Aristotles Categories. Here, his explanations about what is found in the subject led to serious discussions among the commentators in the following period. Moreover, this issue was revealed through empirical examples such as the fragrance of apples, the heat of fire, and whiteness in Socrates, in particular, and the issue of fragrance in general. This situation has caused the description if the accident can be physically or temporally separated from its present subject to become debatable. These discussions can also be regarded as an attempt to reveal the limits of Aristotelian ontologys theory of categories and the creative interpretations developed by the commentators to overcome these limits. In this respect, the commentators raised various objections by examining the fundamental differences between the substance-accident distinction that Aristotle tried to deal with ontologically. As a matter of fact, although Aristotle states that accidents cannot exist apart from what they are in, it can be said that there is an ambiguity about the fact that the fragrance in apples and other things seem to come to us from their subjects and their evaluation as accidents. In order to resolve this ambiguity, Porphyrius and Dexippus tried to analyse the issue by determining the time solution, Ammonius son of Hermias the flow solution, Simplicius the qualitative solution through fire and heat, and Philoponus the diosmic solution, which is generally revealed through the air and water environment. Time, flow and diosmic solutions were analysed by Olympiodorus and Elias with direct references in the following period. The issue of fragrance, which became a standard problem in the Simplicius period, reached a certain stage with the analyses of the commentators, and with the translation activity, it was examined by Abū al-Faraj ibn aṭ-Ṭayyib and Avicenna and was transferred to the Islamic world. Abū al-Faraj at approached the issue with three proposed solutions and criticized them from various angles and stated that the first two solutions corresponded to the flow and diosmic solutions. The third solution, which he accepts as correct, is the solution of spiritual impression, not corporeal impression. His defense of this solution revealed that he was a pure Aristotelian defender. Avicenna, on the other hand, after criticizing the existing views, adopted a combined approach model by determining that fragrance is transmitted by both flow and transformation of air. This approach represents the synthesis of Hellenistic flow theory and diosmic theory and is supported by empirical observations. Although the views put forward in general are analyzed in the commentaries on the Categories, Philoponus and Avicenna tried to put forward a new and original perspective by moving the subject to the field of nafspsychology in their commentaries on De AnimaOn the Soul. In addition, we will also examine how these names influenced the process after them with the influence of the newly developed approaches to this issue in the text. Considering the nature of the problem, these approaches show that the discussions have actually evolved towards the nafspsychology. As a matter of fact, in order to purify Aristotles ontology from this form, it is necessary to seriously examine the idea of soul-logic. Considering these issues, we will evaluate the issue of fragrance in a chronological manner.

 The text is about the debate among ancient and medieval Hellenistic commentators around the question of Can the singularindividual or particular be separated from its subject or not. In particular, the main argument that fueled the debate is the issue of predication between i the universal substance, what is said in the subject, and ii the particular accident, what is found in the subject, based on the concepts of substance and accident in Aristotles Categories. Here, his explanations about what is found in the subject led to serious discussions among the commentators in the following period. Moreover, this issue was revealed through empirical examples such as the fragrance of apples, the heat of fire, and whiteness in Socrates, in particular, and the issue of fragrance in general. This situation has caused the description if the accident can be physically or temporally separated from its present subject to become debatable. These discussions can also be regarded as an attempt to reveal the limits of Aristotelian ontologys theory of categories and the creative interpretations developed by the commentators to overcome these limits. In this respect, the commentators raised various objections by examining the fundamental differences between the substance-accident distinction that Aristotle tried to deal with ontologically. As a matter of fact, although Aristotle states that accidents cannot exist apart from what they are in, it can be said that there is an ambiguity about the fact that the fragrance in apples and other things seem to come to us from their subjects and their evaluation as accidents. In order to resolve this ambiguity, Porphyrius and Dexippus tried to analyse the issue by determining the time solution, Ammonius son of Hermias the flow solution, Simplicius the qualitative solution through fire and heat, and Philoponus the diosmic solution, which is generally revealed through the air and water environment. Time, flow and diosmic solutions were analysed by Olympiodorus and Elias with direct references in the following period. The issue of fragrance, which became a standard problem in the Simplicius period, reached a certain stage with the analyses of the commentators, and with the translation activity, it was examined by Abū al-Faraj ibn aṭ-Ṭayyib and Avicenna and was transferred to the Islamic world. Abū al-Faraj at approached the issue with three proposed solutions and criticized them from various angles and stated that the first two solutions corresponded to the flow and diosmic solutions. The third solution, which he accepts as correct, is the solution of spiritual impression, not corporeal impression. His defense of this solution revealed that he was a pure Aristotelian defender. Avicenna, on the other hand, after criticizing the existing views, adopted a combined approach model by determining that fragrance is transmitted by both flow and transformation of air. This approach represents the synthesis of Hellenistic flow theory and diosmic theory and is supported by empirical observations. Although the views put forward in general are analyzed in the commentaries on the Categories, Philoponus and Avicenna tried to put forward a new and original perspective by moving the subject to the field of nafspsychology in their commentaries on De AnimaOn the Soul. In addition, we will also examine how these names influenced the process after them with the influence of the newly developed approaches to this issue in the text. Considering the nature of the problem, these approaches show that the discussions have actually evolved towards the nafspsychology. As a matter of fact, in order to purify Aristotles ontology from this form, it is necessary to seriously examine the idea of soul-logic. Considering these issues, we will evaluate the issue of fragrance in a chronological manner.

 The text is about the debate among ancient and medieval Hellenistic commentators around the question of Can the singularindividual or particular be separated from its subject or not. In particular, the main argument that fueled the debate is the issue of predication between i the universal substance, what is said in the subject, and ii the particular accident, what is found in the subject, based on the concepts of substance and accident in Aristotles Categories. Here, his explanations about what is found in the subject led to serious discussions among the commentators in the following period. Moreover, this issue was revealed through empirical examples such as the fragrance of apples, the heat of fire, and whiteness in Socrates, in particular, and the issue of fragrance in general. This situation has caused the description if the accident can be physically or temporally separated from its present subject to become debatable. These discussions can also be regarded as an attempt to reveal the limits of Aristotelian ontologys theory of categories and the creative interpretations developed by the commentators to overcome these limits. In this respect, the commentators raised various objections by examining the fundamental differences between the substance-accident distinction that Aristotle tried to deal with ontologically. As a matter of fact, although Aristotle states that accidents cannot exist apart from what they are in, it can be said that there is an ambiguity about the fact that the fragrance in apples and other things seem to come to us from their subjects and their evaluation as accidents. In order to resolve this ambiguity, Porphyrius and Dexippus tried to analyse the issue by determining the time solution, Ammonius son of Hermias the flow solution, Simplicius the qualitative solution through fire and heat, and Philoponus the diosmic solution, which is generally revealed through the air and water environment. Time, flow and diosmic solutions were analysed by Olympiodorus and Elias with direct references in the following period. The issue of fragrance, which became a standard problem in the Simplicius period, reached a certain stage with the analyses of the commentators, and with the translation activity, it was examined by Abū al-Faraj ibn aṭ-Ṭayyib and Avicenna and was transferred to the Islamic world. Abū al-Faraj at approached the issue with three proposed solutions and criticized them from various angles and stated that the first two solutions corresponded to the flow and diosmic solutions. The third solution, which he accepts as correct, is the solution of spiritual impression, not corporeal impression. His defense of this solution revealed that he was a pure Aristotelian defender. Avicenna, on the other hand, after criticizing the existing views, adopted a combined approach model by determining that fragrance is transmitted by both flow and transformation of air. This approach represents the synthesis of Hellenistic flow theory and diosmic theory and is supported by empirical observations. Although the views put forward in general are analyzed in the commentaries on the Categories, Philoponus and Avicenna tried to put forward a new and original perspective by moving the subject to the field of nafspsychology in their commentaries on De AnimaOn the Soul. In addition, we will also examine how these names influenced the process after them with the influence of the newly developed approaches to this issue in the text. Considering the nature of the problem, these approaches show that the discussions have actually evolved towards the nafspsychology. As a matter of fact, in order to purify Aristotles ontology from this form, it is necessary to seriously examine the idea of soul-logic. Considering these issues, we will evaluate the issue of fragrance in a chronological manner.

 Çalışma, antik ve orta çağda yetişmiş Helenistik dönem şârihleri arasında Tekilbirey ya da tikel bağlı olduğu konusundan ayrılabilir mi yoksa ayrılamaz mı? sorusu etrafında cereyan eden tartışma hakkındadır. Bilhassa tartışmanın fitilini ateşleyen ana argüman Aristotelesin Kategoriler adlı eserinde cevher-araz kavramlarından hareketle tümel cevherin, konuya söylenen ile ii tikel arazın, konuda bulunan arasında vuku bulan yüklemleme meselesidir. Burada kendisinin konuda bulunan ile ilgili ortaya koyduğu açıklamalar sonraki süreçte şârihler arasında ciddi tartışmaların yaşanmasına neden olmuştur. Ayrıca bu konu özelde elmanın kokusu, ateşin sıcaklığı ve Sokratesteki beyazlık gibi empirik örnekler üzerinden genelde ise koku meselesiyle birlikte açığa çıkmıştır. Bu durum arazın mevcut konusundan fiziksel veya zamansal olarak ayrılabildiğine dair ileri sürülen betimin tartışılır hale gelmesine neden olmuştur. Bu tartışmalar aynı zamanda Aristotelesçi ontolojinin kategoriler teorisinin sınırlarını ve şârihlerin bu sınırları aşmak için geliştirdiği yaratıcı yorumları ortaya koyma girişimi olarak da kabul edilebilir. Bu açıdan şârihler konu hakkında Aristotelesin ontolojik açıdan ele almaya çalıştığı cevher-araz ayrımı arasındaki temel farklılıkları irdeleyerek çeşitli itirazlar ileri sürmüşlerdir. Nitekim Aristoteles arazları ele alırken arazların içinde bulundukları şeyden ayrı olarak var olamayacağını belirtmesine rağmen özellikle elma ve diğer şeylerdeki kokuların bize konularından geliyor gibi olması ve bunların araz olarak değerlendirmesi konusunda bir belirsizliğin hâkim olduğu söylenebilir. Bu belirsizliğin giderilmesi adına Porphyrios ve Dexippus zaman çözümü, Ammonius son of Hermias akış çözümü, Simplicius ateş ve ısı üzerinden niteliksel açıdan çözümü ve Philoponus ise genel itibariyle hava ve su ortamı aracılığıyla açığa çıkan diosmik çözümü belirleyerek konuyu çözümlemeye çalışmışlardır. Zaman, akış ve diosmik çözüm önerileri sonraki süreçte Olympiodorus ve Elias tarafından doğrudan atıf yapılarak incelenmiştir. Simplicius döneminde standart bir problem haline gelen koku meselesi şârihlerin incelemeleriyle belli bir aşamaya gelmiş ve tercüme faaliyetiyle birlikte Ebül-Ferec İbnüt-Tayyib ve İbn Sînâ tarafından incelenerek İslâm dünyasına aktarılmıştır. Ebül-Ferec konuya üç çözüm önerisiyle yaklaşmış ve ilk iki çözüm önerisi akış ve diosmik çözüme karşılık geldiğini aktardıktan sonra bunları çeşitli açılardan eleştirmiştir. Kendisinin doğru olduğunu kabul ettiği üçüncü çözüm cismanî intiba değil de ruhanî intiba çözümüdür. Onun bu çözümü savunması salt bir Aristoteles savunucusu olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. İbn Sînâ ise mevcut görüşleri eleştirdikten sonra kokunun hem akış hem de havanın dönüşümü ile iletildiğini belirleyerek telifçi bir yaklaşım modeli benimsemiştir. Bu yaklaşım, Helenistik akış teorisi ile diosmik teorinin sentezini temsil eder ve empirik gözlemlerle desteklenir. Genel itibariyle ortaya konan görüşler Kategoriler üzerine yazılan şerhlerde incelense de Philoponus ve İbn Sînâ Kategoriler Şerhi dışında De AnimaRuh Üzerine adlı esere yazdıkları şerhlerde de konuyu nefspsikoloji alanına taşıyarak yeni ve orijinal bir bakış açısı ortaya koymaya çalışmışlardır. Ayrıca çalışma içerisinde bu meseleye dair yeni gelişen yaklaşımların etkisiyle söz konusu isimlerin kendilerinden sonraki süreci nasıl etkiledikleri ele alınacaktır. Zira bu yaklaşımlar sorunun doğası dikkate alındığında tartışmaların aslında nefs zeminine doğru evrildiğini gösterir. Nitekim bu hususta Aristotelesin ontolojisinin bu şüpheden arındırılması adına nefs-mantık düşüncesinin ciddi bir şekilde incelenmesi gerektiği ortaya çıkmaktadır. Bu hususlar göz önünde bulundurularak koku meselesi kronolojik bir şekilde değerlendirilecektir.

Makale detayları

The Hıstorıcal Process Of The Dıscussıons On The Fragrance Of Apples

Yazarlar:

Alaattin Tekin

Yayıncı:

Gaziantep University

Ana Başlıklar:

İslam Felsefesi | Mantık

Dergi:

İlahiyat Akademi Issue 21, pp.1-23

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2025

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001353036

pISSN:

2149-3979

Logic

Nafs/Psychology

Accident

Apple

Fragrance

Aristotle

Hellenistic Commentators

Abū al-Faraj ibn aṭ-ṬayyibMantık

Nefs/Psikoloji

Araz

Elma

Koku

Aristoteles

Helenistik Şârihler

Ebü’l-Ferec İbnü’t-Tayyib.

Sayı

Makale detayları

Yazarlar: Alaattin Tekin

Yayıncı: Gaziantep University

Ana Başlıklar: İslam Felsefesi | Mantık

Dergi: İlahiyat Akademi Issue 21, pp.1-23

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 6/2025

Belge Dili: Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.): 2001353036

pISSN: 2149-3979

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Alaattin Tekin

Yayıncı:

Gaziantep University

Ana Başlıklar:

İslam Felsefesi | Mantık

Dergi:

İlahiyat Akademi Issue 21, pp.1-23

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2025

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001353036

pISSN:

2149-3979