Univrsity Of Tehran Press Philosophy and Kalam 2008-9422 55 1 2022 08 23 Avicenna's Answer to Paradoxes about Matter and Form Avicenna's Answer to Paradoxes about Matter and Form 153 133 89185 10.22059/jitp.2022.336683.523324 FA Hamideh Mokhtari PhD in Islamic philosophy and theology. Allameh Tabatabae’i University, Tehran, Journal Article 2022 01 19 This article examines Avicenna's response to Kite Fine's paradoxes about matter and form. He formulates these paradoxes under the theory of Aristotelian Hylomorphism and analyzes Aristotelian assumptions from their point of view. Avicenna's response to paradoxes is essential because it identifies the possible advantages and disadvantages of Avicenna's theory. The first paradox concerns the possibility of distinguishing between two objects that have a common form and matter. Fine offers three doctrines to solve the paradox: material migration, common form, and simple composition. Rejection of any doctrine removes the paradox. He pursues solutions by rejecting simple composition. The solutions involve examining the relationship between time index and composition, but Avicenna responds to the first paradox by rejecting the common form. The second paradox concerns the matter variation in an object and maintaining that object's identity over time. According to Fine, the paradox will not be solved if we reject the material migration and the common form. Again, the solution is to abandon the doctrine of simple composition, but Avicenna cannot solve the paradox by rejecting the common form. We examined several different answers from Avicenna's perspective, but we have shown that Avicenna cannot solve the problem. This article examines Avicenna's response to Kite Fine's paradoxes about matter and form. He formulates these paradoxes under the theory of Aristotelian Hylomorphism and analyzes Aristotelian assumptions from their point of view. Avicenna's response to paradoxes is essential because it identifies the possible advantages and disadvantages of Avicenna's theory. The first paradox concerns the possibility of distinguishing between two objects that have a common form and matter. Fine offers three doctrines to solve the paradox: material migration, common form, and simple composition. Rejection of any doctrine removes the paradox. He pursues solutions by rejecting simple composition. The solutions involve examining the relationship between time index and composition, but Avicenna responds to the first paradox by rejecting the common form. The second paradox concerns the matter variation in an object and maintaining that object's identity over time. According to Fine, the paradox will not be solved if we reject the material migration and the common form. Again, the solution is to abandon the doctrine of simple composition, but Avicenna cannot solve the paradox by rejecting the common form. We examined several different answers from Avicenna's perspective, but we have shown that Avicenna cannot solve the problem. https://jitp.ut.ac.ir/article_89185_6967d1f1bb939fc5836b6a7d93759a5f.pdf