Reason, Sound Inference and Classifications of Knowledge

Read-only question overview. Answers and scoring remain inside authenticated learner attempts.

• Which aspect is central to the definition of reason?
• What order is implied by an innate disposition followed by necessary knowledge?
• What follows if a person lacks vision yet can reason?
• Calling reason a substance and calling it a faculty represent what?
• What is material intellect (al-ʿaql al-hayūlānī)?
• Which feature characterizes intellect by disposition?
• What matters in distinguishing actual from acquired intellect?
• Which claim is NOT established by an advanced stage of intellect?
• How should the active intellect be treated in this lesson?
• What does disagreement over the seat of intellect NOT entail?
• What does “absent things through intermediaries” mean here?
• What is wrong with “It shines, therefore it must be gold”?
• Why should historical objections to rational inference not be collapsed into one view?
• What does disagreement among theologians fail to establish?
• Which concern is raised if the value of inference is itself inferred?
• What can account for disagreement about an allegedly self-evident principle?
• When does genuine circularity arise?
• How do the general and particular claims about sound reasoning differ?
• How do inference from traces and evidence from reports differ?
• The proposition “the whole is greater than its part” is an example of what?
• What does “necessary” mean when contrasted with “inferential”?
• On what may the necessary/acquired distinction turn?
• What is common to moving from cause to effect and effect to cause?
• Which statement about sensation, experiment and inference is correct?
• When may sensory knowledge be called necessary in one sense and acquired in another?
• Why distinguish how knowledge is acquired from its ultimate ontological dependence?
• The definition of reason makes potential capacity identical with all actual knowledge.
• Widespread disagreement by itself proves that all sound inference is invalid.
• Judging a particular inference sound requires examining its premises and inferential connection.
• The term “necessary knowledge” must have exactly the same criterion in every classical classification.