Ibn Sina’s Answer to Two Fundamental Questions around the Scope of Human Knowledge

Ibn Sina, whose extensive research on the human being from biological and existential aspects, and especially on the human soul, is unparalleled in the Islamic world, considers the comprehension of universals to be the highest level of perception and the highest stage of the human soul. The comprehension of universals, which is the key to entering the boundless sea of knowledge and truths, has sparked long-standing ambiguities and debates among philosophers. These include whether its scope is limited or unlimited, and also to what extent humans can recognize the essence and properties of universals. In light of the importance and functional role of consciousness in all spheres of life, this research has endeavored to provide an appropriate response from Ibn Sina’s perspective to two questions: (1) what is the extent of human knowledge? and (2) is the only role of definitions to distinguish between things, or do they also enable humans to recognize all their essential qualities? To reach a scholarly judgment, two groups of Ibn Sina’s statements are first presented, evaluated, and analyzed. Then, drawing on general philosophical principles that do not consider human knowledge limited, and benefiting from Ibn Sina’s philosophical foundations, especially his view on the connection between soul and body and his emphasis on the ability to develop existential capacities, it is concluded that humans have no closed boundary in the horizontal path to acquiring perfections and are capable of recognizing the essence of things. If it is objected that, in addition to ancient philosophical texts, many treatises and articles have been written on the comprehension of universals and the subject matter of this research, the answer is that what distinguishes this research from previous research is the explanation of the existential capacities of humans. If these capacities are developed, they open up new horizons around the scope of knowledge for humans and reveal the fallacy of the assumption that Ibn Sina’s statements about the limits of human knowledge are not consistent with each other.