Entities and Accidents: Subsistence, Substance and Body
Read-only question overview. Answers and scoring remain inside authenticated learner attempts.
- What does subsistence in itself mean for aʿyān?
- Why does the definition of entities include “possible”?
- Which relation is correct in the white-wall example?
- How does a body in a place differ from an accident in its subject?
- Why is the location of a color treated as derivative?
- What is the distinction between naʿt and manʿūt?
- In what sense is jawhar used here?
- What is the next basic division of substances?
- On the two-part view, what is the minimum condition for a body?
- What do length, breadth and depth designate?
- Why is counting three constituents insufficient by itself to establish three dimensions?
- Why did some thinkers stipulate eight parts?
- What is meant by “this is not a verbal dispute”?
- What did proponents of the two-part view infer from “ajsam”?
- What is the central reply to the “ajsam” argument?
- How do “large body” and “body” differ logically?
- What is the defining claim of jawhar fard?
- What does “by supposition” mean in the threefold exclusion?
- If ordinary tools cannot cut something, does that prove it is a jawhar fard?
- What is required before claiming that the jawhar fard exhausts all noncomposite beings?
- Why are prime matter and form discussed at this point?
- What is reported as the philosophers’ position on jawhar fard?
- Which inference from subsistence in itself would be erroneous?
- What distinguishes the count of parts from the realization of dimensions?
- Why should jawhar fard not simply be identified with a modern atom?
- Which example correctly distinguishes verbal and substantive disputes?
- Technical subsistence in itself does not mean creatures are independent of God for existence and continuance.
- Affirming three dimensions and asking whether two parts suffice for bodily composition are necessarily the same question.
- “Ajsam” can compare size, but the word alone does not establish the technical definition of a body.
- Mentioning philosophers’ alternative categories proves that all their doctrines are true.