| Title | İbn Rüşd’ün Tanrı’ya cevher demesinin neden ve sonuçları |
| Translation | The reasons for and the consequences of Averroes’ saying essence to God |
| Type | Article |
| Language | Turkish |
| Date | 2021 |
| Journal | Turkish Academic Research Review |
| Volume | 6 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 1035-1052 |
| Categories | Metaphysics, Relation between Philosophy and Theology, Cosmology |
| Author(s) | Fevzi Yiğit |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Bu makalede, İbn Rüşd’ün Tanrı’ya cevher demesinin görece neden ve sonuçları konu edilmektedir. Böylece İbn Rüşd örneğinden hareketle, filozofların Tanrı telakkilerinin aslında metafiziğin konusuyla doğrudan bağlantılı olduğu gösterilmek istenmektedir. Makalede bilkuvve-bilfiil, cevher-araz, varlık-mâhiyet, madde-sûret ve teşkîk gibi güçlü felsefî ayrımlara ihtiyaç duyuldukça başvurulacaktır. İbn Rüşd’e göre mevcut/var olan araştırması temelde bir cevher araştırmasıdır. Mevcut kavramı cevherin üstünde yer alan daha üst bir varlık seviyesini temsil etmese de kapsamının genişliği yüzünden cevherden daha üst bir kavramdır. Oysaki İbn Sînâ’ya göre mevcut, cevherden daha üst bir varlık seviyesini karşılar ve bu yüzden mevcut araştırması sadece cevher araştırmasına hasredilemez. Dolayısıyla ona göre metafiziğin konusu cevher olması açısından cevher değildir. İbn Rüşd’ün Tanrı’ya cevher demesinin muhtemel nedenleri şunlardır: Birincisi, Tanrı bütün mevcudat içerisinde cevher tanımına en uygun olandır. İkincisi onun mevcut kavramını -diğer anlamlarını akılda tutmak kaydıyla- dış dünyada gerçekliği olmayan zihinsel bir kavram yani cins olarak kabul etmesi dolayısıyla sadece cevhere gerçeklik tanımış olmasıdır. Üçüncüsü, göksel cisimlerin sonsuz bir biçimde hareket ettiği düşüncesidir. Dördüncüsü tümeller ve ayrık mevcutlar ile hissedilir ferdi cevherler arasındaki ilişkiye dair görüşüdür. İbn Rüşd Aristoteles’i takiben tümellerin ve ideaların ferdi cevherlerin varoluşunda katkısı olmadığını düşünür. İbn Rüşd’ün Tanrı’ya cevher demesinin muhtemel sonuçlarıysa şunlardır: Birincisi onun din felsefe ilişkisine dair yazdığı Faslü’l-makâl ve el-Keşf an menâhicü’ledille kitaplarında Tanrı hakkında takındığı Hanbeli tavırdır. İkincisi aslında yukarıda sebep olarak zikredilen burada ise sonuç olarak dile getirilebilecek döngüsel bir şeydir. Yani gök cisimleri ve âlemi ezeli olarak kabul etmek Tanrı’ya cevher denmesine sebep olurken Tanrı’ya cevher denmesi de âlemin Tanrı’nın etkisiyle ancak O’ndan ayrı ve kopuk olarak mevcut olması fikrini sonuç vermektedir. Üçüncüsü sudûr ve yoktan yaratma doktrinlerini reddetmesidir. Yoktan yaratmayı reddi ise -antik filozofların da açıkça dile getirdiği üzere- “salt yokluğun varlığın kaynağı olamayacağı “şeklindeki genel bir ontolojik ilkeye dayanmaktadır. This article deals with the relative reasons and consequences of Averroes’ saying God the essence. Thus, based on the example of Averroes, it is desired to show that the philosophers’ conception of God is actually directly related to the subject of metaphysics. The distinctions between potential and actual, being-essence and matter-form, which are thought to have strong forms of explanation, will be applied when needed. According to Averroes, his research of being is basically an investigation of essence. Although the concept of being/existence does not represent a higher level of being above the substance, it takes place in metaphysics as a higher concept with different meanings. However, according to Ibn Avicenna, the existing meets a higher level of being than the substance, and therefore its inquiry cannot be only the one for substance. Therefore, according to him, the subject of metaphysics is not a substance qua substance. In short, the possible reasons for Averroes to call God essence are as follows: First, God is the most suitable for the definition of essence in all existence. The second is that, keeping other meanings of being in mind, he accepted the concept of “mawjūd” as a mental concept that has no reality in the external world, that is, as a genus, and therefore only recognized the substance as reality. The third is the idea that the celestial bodies move endlessly. The fourth is his view on the relationship between universals and discrete entities and tangible individual essences. Following Aristotle, Averroes thinks that universals and ideas do not contribute to the existence of individual essences. The possible consequences of Averroes’ calling God a substance are as follows: The first is his Hanbalī attitude towards God in his books Fasl al-maqāl and al-Kashf an manāhij al-adilla, which he wrote on the relationship between religion and philosophy. Secondly, what was mentioned above as a cause, is a cyclical thing that can be expressed as a result here. In other words, while accepting the celestial bodies and the universe as eternal, causes God to be called essence, calling God essence results in the idea that the universe exists only apart and disconnected from him under the influence of God. The third is his rejection of the doctrines of creation out of nothing and sudūr (emanation). The refusal to create out of nothing is based on a general ontological principle -as the ancient philosophers openly expressed- “absolute absence cannot be the source of existence”. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5582","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5582,"authors_free":[{"id":6480,"entry_id":5582,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":903,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Fevzi Yi\u011fit","free_first_name":"Fevzi","free_last_name":"Yi\u011fit","norm_person":{"id":903,"first_name":"","last_name":"","full_name":"","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]="}}],"entry_title":"\u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd\u2019\u00fcn Tanr\u0131\u2019ya cevher demesinin neden ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"The reasons for and the consequences of Averroes\u2019 saying essence to God","main_title":{"title":"\u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd\u2019\u00fcn Tanr\u0131\u2019ya cevher demesinin neden ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131"},"abstract":"Bu makalede, \u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd\u2019\u00fcn Tanr\u0131\u2019ya cevher demesinin g\u00f6rece neden ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131 konu edilmektedir. B\u00f6ylece \u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd \u00f6rne\u011finden hareketle, filozoflar\u0131n Tanr\u0131 telakkilerinin asl\u0131nda metafizi\u011fin konusuyla do\u011frudan ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 oldu\u011fu g\u00f6sterilmek istenmektedir. Makalede bilkuvve-bilfiil, cevher-araz, varl\u0131k-m\u00e2hiyet, madde-s\u00fbret ve te\u015fk\u00eek gibi g\u00fc\u00e7l\u00fc felsef\u00ee ayr\u0131mlara ihtiya\u00e7 duyulduk\u00e7a ba\u015fvurulacakt\u0131r. \u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd\u2019e g\u00f6re mevcut\/var olan ara\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131 temelde bir cevher ara\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131d\u0131r. Mevcut kavram\u0131 cevherin \u00fcst\u00fcnde yer alan daha \u00fcst bir varl\u0131k seviyesini temsil etmese de kapsam\u0131n\u0131n geni\u015fli\u011fi y\u00fcz\u00fcnden cevherden daha \u00fcst bir kavramd\u0131r. Oysaki \u0130bn S\u00een\u00e2\u2019ya g\u00f6re mevcut, cevherden daha \u00fcst bir varl\u0131k seviyesini kar\u015f\u0131lar ve bu y\u00fczden mevcut ara\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131 sadece cevher ara\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131na hasredilemez. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ona g\u00f6re metafizi\u011fin konusu cevher olmas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan cevher de\u011fildir. \u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd\u2019\u00fcn Tanr\u0131\u2019ya cevher demesinin muhtemel nedenleri \u015funlard\u0131r: Birincisi, Tanr\u0131 b\u00fct\u00fcn mevcudat i\u00e7erisinde cevher tan\u0131m\u0131na en uygun oland\u0131r. \u0130kincisi onun mevcut kavram\u0131n\u0131 -di\u011fer anlamlar\u0131n\u0131 ak\u0131lda tutmak kayd\u0131yla- d\u0131\u015f d\u00fcnyada ger\u00e7ekli\u011fi olmayan zihinsel bir kavram yani cins olarak kabul etmesi dolay\u0131s\u0131yla sadece cevhere ger\u00e7eklik tan\u0131m\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131d\u0131r. \u00dc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fcs\u00fc, g\u00f6ksel cisimlerin sonsuz bir bi\u00e7imde hareket etti\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesidir. D\u00f6rd\u00fcnc\u00fcs\u00fc t\u00fcmeller ve ayr\u0131k mevcutlar ile hissedilir ferdi cevherler aras\u0131ndaki ili\u015fkiye dair g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcd\u00fcr. \u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd Aristoteles\u2019i takiben t\u00fcmellerin ve idealar\u0131n ferdi cevherlerin varolu\u015funda katk\u0131s\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcr. \u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd\u2019\u00fcn Tanr\u0131\u2019ya cevher demesinin muhtemel sonu\u00e7lar\u0131ysa \u015funlard\u0131r: Birincisi onun din felsefe ili\u015fkisine dair yazd\u0131\u011f\u0131 Fasl\u00fc\u2019l-mak\u00e2l ve el-Ke\u015ff an men\u00e2hic\u00fc\u2019ledille kitaplar\u0131nda Tanr\u0131 hakk\u0131nda tak\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 Hanbeli tav\u0131rd\u0131r. \u0130kincisi asl\u0131nda yukar\u0131da sebep olarak zikredilen burada ise sonu\u00e7 olarak dile getirilebilecek d\u00f6ng\u00fcsel bir \u015feydir. Yani g\u00f6k cisimleri ve \u00e2lemi ezeli olarak kabul etmek Tanr\u0131\u2019ya cevher denmesine sebep olurken Tanr\u0131\u2019ya cevher denmesi de \u00e2lemin Tanr\u0131\u2019n\u0131n etkisiyle ancak O\u2019ndan ayr\u0131 ve kopuk olarak mevcut olmas\u0131 fikrini sonu\u00e7 vermektedir. \u00dc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fcs\u00fc sud\u00fbr ve yoktan yaratma doktrinlerini reddetmesidir. Yoktan yaratmay\u0131 reddi ise -antik filozoflar\u0131n da a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dile getirdi\u011fi \u00fczere- \u201csalt yoklu\u011fun varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n kayna\u011f\u0131 olamayaca\u011f\u0131 \u201c\u015feklindeki genel bir ontolojik ilkeye dayanmaktad\u0131r.\r\n \r\nThis article deals with the relative reasons and consequences of Averroes\u2019 saying God the essence. Thus, based on the example of Averroes, it is desired to show that the philosophers\u2019 conception of God is actually directly related to the subject of metaphysics. The distinctions between potential and actual, being-essence and matter-form, which are thought to have strong forms of explanation, will be applied when needed. According to Averroes, his research of being is basically an investigation of essence. Although the concept of being\/existence does not represent a higher level of being above the substance, it takes place in metaphysics as a higher concept with different meanings. However, according to Ibn Avicenna, the existing meets a higher level of being than the substance, and therefore its inquiry cannot be only the one for substance. Therefore, according to him, the subject of metaphysics is not a substance qua substance. In short, the possible reasons for Averroes to call God essence are as follows: First, God is the most suitable for the definition of essence in all existence. The second is that, keeping other meanings of being in mind, he accepted the concept of \u201cmawj\u016bd\u201d as a mental concept that has no reality in the external world, that is, as a genus, and therefore only recognized the substance as reality. The third is the idea that the celestial bodies move endlessly. The fourth is his view on the relationship between universals and discrete entities and tangible individual essences. Following Aristotle, Averroes thinks that universals and ideas do not contribute to the existence of individual essences. The possible consequences of Averroes\u2019 calling God a substance are as follows: The first is his Hanbal\u012b attitude towards God in his books Fasl al-maq\u0101l and al-Kashf an man\u0101hij al-adilla, which he wrote on the relationship between religion and philosophy. Secondly, what was mentioned above as a cause, is a cyclical thing that can be expressed as a result here. In other words, while accepting the celestial bodies and the universe as eternal, causes God to be called essence, calling God essence results in the idea that the universe exists only apart and disconnected from him under the influence of God. The third is his rejection of the doctrines of creation out of nothing and sud\u016br (emanation). The refusal to create out of nothing is based on a general ontological principle -as the ancient philosophers openly expressed- \u201cabsolute absence cannot be the source of existence\u201d.","btype":3,"date":"2021","language":"Turkish","online_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/20.500.11787\/6522","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":31,"category_name":"Metaphysics","link":"bib?categories[]=Metaphysics"},{"id":47,"category_name":"Relation between Philosophy and Theology","link":"bib?categories[]=Relation between Philosophy and Theology"},{"id":19,"category_name":"Cosmology","link":"bib?categories[]=Cosmology"}],"authors":[{"id":903,"full_name":"","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5582,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Turkish Academic Research Review","volume":"6","issue":"3","pages":"1035-1052"}},"sort":[2021]}
| Title | İbn Rüşd’ün Tanrı’ya cevher demesinin neden ve sonuçları |
| Translation | The reasons for and the consequences of Averroes’ saying essence to God |
| Type | Article |
| Language | Turkish |
| Date | 2021 |
| Journal | Turkish Academic Research Review |
| Volume | 6 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 1035-1052 |
| Categories | Metaphysics, Relation between Philosophy and Theology, Cosmology |
| Author(s) | Fevzi Yiğit |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Bu makalede, İbn Rüşd’ün Tanrı’ya cevher demesinin görece neden ve sonuçları konu edilmektedir. Böylece İbn Rüşd örneğinden hareketle, filozofların Tanrı telakkilerinin aslında metafiziğin konusuyla doğrudan bağlantılı olduğu gösterilmek istenmektedir. Makalede bilkuvve-bilfiil, cevher-araz, varlık-mâhiyet, madde-sûret ve teşkîk gibi güçlü felsefî ayrımlara ihtiyaç duyuldukça başvurulacaktır. İbn Rüşd’e göre mevcut/var olan araştırması temelde bir cevher araştırmasıdır. Mevcut kavramı cevherin üstünde yer alan daha üst bir varlık seviyesini temsil etmese de kapsamının genişliği yüzünden cevherden daha üst bir kavramdır. Oysaki İbn Sînâ’ya göre mevcut, cevherden daha üst bir varlık seviyesini karşılar ve bu yüzden mevcut araştırması sadece cevher araştırmasına hasredilemez. Dolayısıyla ona göre metafiziğin konusu cevher olması açısından cevher değildir. İbn Rüşd’ün Tanrı’ya cevher demesinin muhtemel nedenleri şunlardır: Birincisi, Tanrı bütün mevcudat içerisinde cevher tanımına en uygun olandır. İkincisi onun mevcut kavramını -diğer anlamlarını akılda tutmak kaydıyla- dış dünyada gerçekliği olmayan zihinsel bir kavram yani cins olarak kabul etmesi dolayısıyla sadece cevhere gerçeklik tanımış olmasıdır. Üçüncüsü, göksel cisimlerin sonsuz bir biçimde hareket ettiği düşüncesidir. Dördüncüsü tümeller ve ayrık mevcutlar ile hissedilir ferdi cevherler arasındaki ilişkiye dair görüşüdür. İbn Rüşd Aristoteles’i takiben tümellerin ve ideaların ferdi cevherlerin varoluşunda katkısı olmadığını düşünür. İbn Rüşd’ün Tanrı’ya cevher demesinin muhtemel sonuçlarıysa şunlardır: Birincisi onun din felsefe ilişkisine dair yazdığı Faslü’l-makâl ve el-Keşf an menâhicü’ledille kitaplarında Tanrı hakkında takındığı Hanbeli tavırdır. İkincisi aslında yukarıda sebep olarak zikredilen burada ise sonuç olarak dile getirilebilecek döngüsel bir şeydir. Yani gök cisimleri ve âlemi ezeli olarak kabul etmek Tanrı’ya cevher denmesine sebep olurken Tanrı’ya cevher denmesi de âlemin Tanrı’nın etkisiyle ancak O’ndan ayrı ve kopuk olarak mevcut olması fikrini sonuç vermektedir. Üçüncüsü sudûr ve yoktan yaratma doktrinlerini reddetmesidir. Yoktan yaratmayı reddi ise -antik filozofların da açıkça dile getirdiği üzere- “salt yokluğun varlığın kaynağı olamayacağı “şeklindeki genel bir ontolojik ilkeye dayanmaktadır. This article deals with the relative reasons and consequences of Averroes’ saying God the essence. Thus, based on the example of Averroes, it is desired to show that the philosophers’ conception of God is actually directly related to the subject of metaphysics. The distinctions between potential and actual, being-essence and matter-form, which are thought to have strong forms of explanation, will be applied when needed. According to Averroes, his research of being is basically an investigation of essence. Although the concept of being/existence does not represent a higher level of being above the substance, it takes place in metaphysics as a higher concept with different meanings. However, according to Ibn Avicenna, the existing meets a higher level of being than the substance, and therefore its inquiry cannot be only the one for substance. Therefore, according to him, the subject of metaphysics is not a substance qua substance. In short, the possible reasons for Averroes to call God essence are as follows: First, God is the most suitable for the definition of essence in all existence. The second is that, keeping other meanings of being in mind, he accepted the concept of “mawjūd” as a mental concept that has no reality in the external world, that is, as a genus, and therefore only recognized the substance as reality. The third is the idea that the celestial bodies move endlessly. The fourth is his view on the relationship between universals and discrete entities and tangible individual essences. Following Aristotle, Averroes thinks that universals and ideas do not contribute to the existence of individual essences. The possible consequences of Averroes’ calling God a substance are as follows: The first is his Hanbalī attitude towards God in his books Fasl al-maqāl and al-Kashf an manāhij al-adilla, which he wrote on the relationship between religion and philosophy. Secondly, what was mentioned above as a cause, is a cyclical thing that can be expressed as a result here. In other words, while accepting the celestial bodies and the universe as eternal, causes God to be called essence, calling God essence results in the idea that the universe exists only apart and disconnected from him under the influence of God. The third is his rejection of the doctrines of creation out of nothing and sudūr (emanation). The refusal to create out of nothing is based on a general ontological principle -as the ancient philosophers openly expressed- “absolute absence cannot be the source of existence”. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5582","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5582,"authors_free":[{"id":6480,"entry_id":5582,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":903,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Fevzi Yi\u011fit","free_first_name":"Fevzi","free_last_name":"Yi\u011fit","norm_person":{"id":903,"first_name":"","last_name":"","full_name":"","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]="}}],"entry_title":"\u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd\u2019\u00fcn Tanr\u0131\u2019ya cevher demesinin neden ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"The reasons for and the consequences of Averroes\u2019 saying essence to God","main_title":{"title":"\u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd\u2019\u00fcn Tanr\u0131\u2019ya cevher demesinin neden ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131"},"abstract":"Bu makalede, \u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd\u2019\u00fcn Tanr\u0131\u2019ya cevher demesinin g\u00f6rece neden ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131 konu edilmektedir. B\u00f6ylece \u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd \u00f6rne\u011finden hareketle, filozoflar\u0131n Tanr\u0131 telakkilerinin asl\u0131nda metafizi\u011fin konusuyla do\u011frudan ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 oldu\u011fu g\u00f6sterilmek istenmektedir. Makalede bilkuvve-bilfiil, cevher-araz, varl\u0131k-m\u00e2hiyet, madde-s\u00fbret ve te\u015fk\u00eek gibi g\u00fc\u00e7l\u00fc felsef\u00ee ayr\u0131mlara ihtiya\u00e7 duyulduk\u00e7a ba\u015fvurulacakt\u0131r. \u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd\u2019e g\u00f6re mevcut\/var olan ara\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131 temelde bir cevher ara\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131d\u0131r. Mevcut kavram\u0131 cevherin \u00fcst\u00fcnde yer alan daha \u00fcst bir varl\u0131k seviyesini temsil etmese de kapsam\u0131n\u0131n geni\u015fli\u011fi y\u00fcz\u00fcnden cevherden daha \u00fcst bir kavramd\u0131r. Oysaki \u0130bn S\u00een\u00e2\u2019ya g\u00f6re mevcut, cevherden daha \u00fcst bir varl\u0131k seviyesini kar\u015f\u0131lar ve bu y\u00fczden mevcut ara\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131 sadece cevher ara\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131na hasredilemez. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ona g\u00f6re metafizi\u011fin konusu cevher olmas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan cevher de\u011fildir. \u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd\u2019\u00fcn Tanr\u0131\u2019ya cevher demesinin muhtemel nedenleri \u015funlard\u0131r: Birincisi, Tanr\u0131 b\u00fct\u00fcn mevcudat i\u00e7erisinde cevher tan\u0131m\u0131na en uygun oland\u0131r. \u0130kincisi onun mevcut kavram\u0131n\u0131 -di\u011fer anlamlar\u0131n\u0131 ak\u0131lda tutmak kayd\u0131yla- d\u0131\u015f d\u00fcnyada ger\u00e7ekli\u011fi olmayan zihinsel bir kavram yani cins olarak kabul etmesi dolay\u0131s\u0131yla sadece cevhere ger\u00e7eklik tan\u0131m\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131d\u0131r. \u00dc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fcs\u00fc, g\u00f6ksel cisimlerin sonsuz bir bi\u00e7imde hareket etti\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesidir. D\u00f6rd\u00fcnc\u00fcs\u00fc t\u00fcmeller ve ayr\u0131k mevcutlar ile hissedilir ferdi cevherler aras\u0131ndaki ili\u015fkiye dair g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcd\u00fcr. \u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd Aristoteles\u2019i takiben t\u00fcmellerin ve idealar\u0131n ferdi cevherlerin varolu\u015funda katk\u0131s\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcr. \u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd\u2019\u00fcn Tanr\u0131\u2019ya cevher demesinin muhtemel sonu\u00e7lar\u0131ysa \u015funlard\u0131r: Birincisi onun din felsefe ili\u015fkisine dair yazd\u0131\u011f\u0131 Fasl\u00fc\u2019l-mak\u00e2l ve el-Ke\u015ff an men\u00e2hic\u00fc\u2019ledille kitaplar\u0131nda Tanr\u0131 hakk\u0131nda tak\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 Hanbeli tav\u0131rd\u0131r. \u0130kincisi asl\u0131nda yukar\u0131da sebep olarak zikredilen burada ise sonu\u00e7 olarak dile getirilebilecek d\u00f6ng\u00fcsel bir \u015feydir. Yani g\u00f6k cisimleri ve \u00e2lemi ezeli olarak kabul etmek Tanr\u0131\u2019ya cevher denmesine sebep olurken Tanr\u0131\u2019ya cevher denmesi de \u00e2lemin Tanr\u0131\u2019n\u0131n etkisiyle ancak O\u2019ndan ayr\u0131 ve kopuk olarak mevcut olmas\u0131 fikrini sonu\u00e7 vermektedir. \u00dc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fcs\u00fc sud\u00fbr ve yoktan yaratma doktrinlerini reddetmesidir. Yoktan yaratmay\u0131 reddi ise -antik filozoflar\u0131n da a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dile getirdi\u011fi \u00fczere- \u201csalt yoklu\u011fun varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n kayna\u011f\u0131 olamayaca\u011f\u0131 \u201c\u015feklindeki genel bir ontolojik ilkeye dayanmaktad\u0131r.\r\n \r\nThis article deals with the relative reasons and consequences of Averroes\u2019 saying God the essence. Thus, based on the example of Averroes, it is desired to show that the philosophers\u2019 conception of God is actually directly related to the subject of metaphysics. The distinctions between potential and actual, being-essence and matter-form, which are thought to have strong forms of explanation, will be applied when needed. According to Averroes, his research of being is basically an investigation of essence. Although the concept of being\/existence does not represent a higher level of being above the substance, it takes place in metaphysics as a higher concept with different meanings. However, according to Ibn Avicenna, the existing meets a higher level of being than the substance, and therefore its inquiry cannot be only the one for substance. Therefore, according to him, the subject of metaphysics is not a substance qua substance. In short, the possible reasons for Averroes to call God essence are as follows: First, God is the most suitable for the definition of essence in all existence. The second is that, keeping other meanings of being in mind, he accepted the concept of \u201cmawj\u016bd\u201d as a mental concept that has no reality in the external world, that is, as a genus, and therefore only recognized the substance as reality. The third is the idea that the celestial bodies move endlessly. The fourth is his view on the relationship between universals and discrete entities and tangible individual essences. Following Aristotle, Averroes thinks that universals and ideas do not contribute to the existence of individual essences. The possible consequences of Averroes\u2019 calling God a substance are as follows: The first is his Hanbal\u012b attitude towards God in his books Fasl al-maq\u0101l and al-Kashf an man\u0101hij al-adilla, which he wrote on the relationship between religion and philosophy. Secondly, what was mentioned above as a cause, is a cyclical thing that can be expressed as a result here. In other words, while accepting the celestial bodies and the universe as eternal, causes God to be called essence, calling God essence results in the idea that the universe exists only apart and disconnected from him under the influence of God. The third is his rejection of the doctrines of creation out of nothing and sud\u016br (emanation). The refusal to create out of nothing is based on a general ontological principle -as the ancient philosophers openly expressed- \u201cabsolute absence cannot be the source of existence\u201d.","btype":3,"date":"2021","language":"Turkish","online_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/20.500.11787\/6522","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":31,"category_name":"Metaphysics","link":"bib?categories[]=Metaphysics"},{"id":47,"category_name":"Relation between Philosophy and Theology","link":"bib?categories[]=Relation between Philosophy and Theology"},{"id":19,"category_name":"Cosmology","link":"bib?categories[]=Cosmology"}],"authors":[{"id":903,"full_name":"","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5582,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Turkish Academic Research Review","volume":"6","issue":"3","pages":"1035-1052"}},"sort":["\u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd\u2019\u00fcn Tanr\u0131\u2019ya cevher demesinin neden ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131"]}