Podcasts about Avicenna

The extraordinary spread of Islam after 632 - from Central Asia to North Africa in a century - reached Europe from the eighth century, generating issues still energising to this day. Not ones of religion, though, but of technology.Within a few generations, the devices of the new civilisation hit the Iberian peninsula: vertical axis windmills, the clocks of Ibn Khalaf al-Muradi, astrolabes.Anxiety about machines, remaining to the present say, was born. Were we becoming uncoupled from the cosmos? How might our existence relate to our essence? Can the human mind still fit the divine mind?But with the technology came ideas, those discussed and disputed by Al-Ghazali, Avicenna, Averroes, Thomas Aquinas - all drawing on “the first teacher”: Aristotle.Their questions about occasionalism, the eternity of the cosmos, and unified intelligence can help us now. These reflections reveal how existence flows from divine being, the momentary nature of time reflects eternity, many minds echo the one intelligence.Their work offers us imaginative, spiritual space to refind participation with spirit and God as the millennia-long story of the machine continues.

Experimenting, translating, and philosophizing about physics and metaphysics, biology and geology, two great thinkers from Central Asia stand out both for their achievements, and their completely opposite points of view. This week, Danièle speaks with S. Frederick Starr about the work and the lives of Ibn Sina (aka Avicenna) and Biruni, their contributions to science and culture, and the reason they outright despised each other.You can support this podcast on Patreon - go to https://www.patreon.com/medievalists

Season 28 : CERITA SOBAT PEMBELAJAR

Wie Paracelsus den Weg für die moderne Medizin und Pharmazie geebnet hat, erzählt Andrea Sawatzki in dieser Folge.

Ibn Sina verfasst das wohl einflussreichste Medizinbuch aller Zeiten. Wie ihm das gelang, obwohl er immer wieder auf der Flucht war, erzählt Andrea Sawatzi in dieser Folge.

Listen Ad Free https://www.solgood.org - Listen to hundreds of audiobooks, thousands of short stories, and meditative sounds.

Listen Ad Free https://www.solgood.org - Listen to hundreds of audiobooks, thousands of short stories, and meditative sounds.

IS THERE A ONE TRUE GOD OVERVIEW: There are many sources of information that people use to infer what might be true about God, including observation and revelation: Observation Some say that general observations of the universe support the existence of God, such as the idea of a non-eternal universe as shown by the Big Bang theory. Other observations that might support God's existence include the Earth's weather patterns, which some say are finely tuned to support human life, and the way nature works to form life. Revelation Some say that God may have entered the universe and told us true things about himself, morality, and how to have a relationship with him. This includes the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. The Bible also includes passages that some say indicate that God has made evidence of his existence so obvious that there is no excuse for denying him.  IS THERE PROOF OF GOD'S EXISTENCE? The existence of God is a subject of debate in the philosophy of religion.[1] A wide variety of arguments for and against the existence of God can be categorized as logical, empirical, metaphysical, subjective or scientific. In philosophical terms, the question of the existence of God involves the disciplines of epistemology (the nature and scope of knowledge) and ontology (study of the nature of being or existence) and the theory of value (since some definitions of God include "perfection"). The Western tradition of philosophical discussion of the existence of God began with Plato and Aristotle, who made arguments for the existence of a being responsible for fashioning the universe, referred to as the demiurge or the unmoved mover, that today would be categorized as cosmological arguments. Other arguments for the existence of God have been proposed by St. Anselm, who formulated the first ontological argument; Thomas Aquinas, who presented his own version of the cosmological argument (the first way); René Descartes, who said that the existence of a benevolent God is logically necessary for the evidence of the senses to be meaningful. John Calvin argued for a sensus divinitatis, which gives each human a knowledge of God's existence. Islamic philosophers who developed arguments for the existence of God comprise Averroes, who made arguments influenced by Aristotle's concept of the unmoved mover; Al-Ghazali and Al-Kindi, who presented the Kalam cosmological argument; Avicenna, who presented the Proof of the Truthful; and Al-Farabi, who made Neoplatonic arguments. In philosophy, and more specifically in the philosophy of religion, atheism refers to the proposition that God does not exist.[2] Some religions, such as Jainism, reject the possibility of a creator deity. Philosophers who have provided arguments against the existence of God include David Hume, Ludwig Feuerbach, and Bertrand Russell. Theism, the proposition that God exists, is the dominant view among philosophers of religion.[3] In a 2020 PhilPapers survey, 69.50% of philosophers of religion stated that they accept or lean towards theism, while 19.86% stated they accept or lean towards atheism.[4] Prominent contemporary philosophers of religion who defended theism include Alvin Plantinga, Yujin Nagasawa, John Hick, Richard Swinburne, and William Lane Craig, while those who defended atheism include Graham Oppy, Paul Draper, Quentin Smith, J. L. Mackie, and J. L. Schellenberg. Traditional religious definition of God In classical theism, God is characterized as the metaphysically ultimate being (the first, timeless, absolutely simple and sovereign being, who is devoid of any anthropomorphic qualities), in distinction to other conceptions such as theistic personalism, open theism, and process theism. Classical theists do not believe that God can be completely defined. They believe it would contradict the transcendent nature of God for mere humans to define him. Robert Barron explains by analogy that it seems impossible for a two-dimensional object to conceive of three-dimensional humans.[7] In modern Western societies, the concepts of God typically entail a monotheistic, supreme, ultimate, and personal being, as found in the Christian, Islamic and Jewish traditions. In monotheistic religions outside the Abrahamic traditions, the existence of God is discussed in similar terms. In these traditions, God is also identified as the author (either directly or by inspiration) of certain texts, or that certain texts describe specific historical events caused by the God in question or communications from God (whether in direct speech or via dreams or omens). Some traditions also believe that God is the entity which is currently answering prayers for intervention or information or opinions. Ibn Rushd, a 12th-century Islamic scholar Many Islamic scholars have used philosophical and rational arguments to prove the existence of God. For example, Ibn Rushd, a 12th-century Islamic scholar, philosopher, and physician, states there are only two arguments worthy of adherence, both of which are found in what he calls the "Precious Book" (The Qur'an). Rushd cites "providence" and "invention" in using the Qur'an's parables to claim the existence of God. Rushd argues that the Earth's weather patterns are conditioned to support human life; thus, if the planet is so finely-tuned to maintain life, then it suggests a fine tuner—God. The Sun and the Moon are not just random objects floating in the Milky Way, rather they serve us day and night, and the way nature works and how life is formed, humankind benefits from it. Rushd essentially comes to a conclusion that there has to be a higher being who has made everything perfectly to serve the needs of human beings.[8][9] Moses ben Maimon, widely known as Maimonides, was a Jewish scholar who tried to logically prove the existence of God. Maimonides offered proofs for the existence of God, but he did not begin with defining God first, like many others do. Rather, he used the description of the earth and the universe to prove the existence of God. He talked about the Heavenly bodies and how they are committed to eternal motion. Maimonides argued that because every physical object is finite, it can only contain a finite amount of power. If everything in the universe, which includes all the planets and the stars, is finite, then there has to be an infinite power to push forth the motion of everything in the universe. Narrowing down to an infinite being, the only thing that can explain the motion is an infinite being (meaning God) which is neither a body nor a force in the body. Maimonides believed that this argument gives us a ground to believe that God is, not an idea of what God is. He believed that God cannot be understood or be compared.[10] Non-personal definitions of God In pantheism, God and the universe are considered to be the same thing. In this view, the natural sciences are essentially studying the nature of God. This definition of God creates the philosophical problem that a universe with God and one without God are the same, other than the words used to describe it. Deism and panentheism assert that there is a God distinct from, or which extends beyond (either in time or in space or in some other way) the universe. These positions deny that God intervenes in the operation of the universe, including communicating with humans personally. The notion that God never intervenes or communicates with the universe, or may have evolved into the universe (as in pandeism), makes it difficult, if not by definition impossible, to distinguish between a universe with God and one without. The Ethics of Baruch Spinoza gave two demonstrations of the existence of God.[11] The God of Spinoza is uncaused by any external force and has no free will, it is not personal and not anthropomorphic. Debate about how theism should be argued In Christian faith, theologian and philosopher Thomas Aquinas made a distinction between: (a) preambles of faith and (b) articles of faith.[12] The preambles include alleged truths contained in revelation which are nevertheless demonstrable by reason, e.g., the immortality of the soul, the existence of God. The articles of faith, on the other hand, contain truths that cannot be proven or reached by reason alone and presuppose the truths of the preambles, e.g., in Christianity, the Holy Trinity, is not demonstrable and presupposes the existence of God. The argument that the existence of God can be known to all, even prior to exposure to any divine revelation, predates Christianity.[clarification needed] Paul the Apostle made this argument when he said that pagans were without excuse because "since the creation of the world God's invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made".[13] In this, Paul alludes to the proofs for a creator, later enunciated by Thomas Aquinas[14] and others, that had also been explored by the Greek philosophers. Another apologetical school of thought, including Dutch and American Reformed thinkers (such as Abraham Kuyper, Benjamin Warfield, and Herman Dooyeweerd), emerged in the late 1920s. This school was instituted by Cornelius Van Til, and came to be popularly called presuppositional apologetics (though Van Til felt "transcendental" would be a more accurate title). The main distinction between this approach and the more classical evidentialist approach is that the presuppositionalist denies any common ground between the believer and the non-believer, except that which the non-believer denies, namely, the assumption of the truth of the theistic worldview. In other words, presuppositionalists do not believe that the existence of God can be proven by appeal to raw, uninterpreted, or "brute" facts, which have the same (theoretical) meaning to people with fundamentally different worldviews, because they deny that such a condition is even possible. They claim that the only possible proof for the existence of God is that the very same belief is the necessary condition to the intelligibility of all other human experience and action. They attempt to prove the existence of God by means of appeal to the transcendental necessity of the belief—indirectly (by appeal to the unavowed presuppositions of the non-believer's worldview) rather than directly (by appeal to some form of common factuality). In practice this school uses what have come to be known as transcendental arguments. These arguments claim to demonstrate that all human experience and action (even the condition of unbelief, itself) is a proof for the existence of God, because God's existence is the necessary condition of their intelligibility. Protestant Christians note that the Christian faith teaches "salvation is by faith",[15] and that faith is reliance upon the faithfulness of God. The most extreme example of this position is called fideism, which holds that faith is simply the will to believe, and argues that if God's existence were rationally demonstrable, faith in its existence would become superfluous. Søren Kierkegaard argued that objective knowledge, such as 1+1=2, is unimportant to existence. If God could rationally be proven, his existence would be unimportant to humans.[citation needed] It is because God cannot rationally be proven that his existence is important to us. In The Justification of Knowledge, the Calvinist theologian Robert L. Reymond argues that believers should not attempt to prove the existence of God. Since he believes all such proofs are fundamentally unsound, believers should not place their confidence in them, much less resort to them in discussions with non-believers; rather, they should accept the content of revelation by faith. Reymond's position is similar to that of his mentor Gordon Clark, which holds that all worldviews are based on certain unprovable first premises (or, axioms), and therefore are ultimately unprovable. The Christian theist therefore must simply choose to start with Christianity rather than anything else, by a "leap of faith". This position is also sometimes called presuppositional apologetics, but should not be confused with the Van Tillian variety. THE HISTORICAL JESUS According to Christianity, Jesus is the Son of God as chronicled in the Bible's New Testament, and in most Christian denominations He is held to be God the Son, a prosopon (Person) of the Trinity of God. Christians believe him to be the messiah, or a saviour (giving him the title Christ), who was prophesied in the Bible's Old Testament. Through Jesus's crucifixion and resurrection, Christians believe that God offers humans salvation and eternal life,[1] with Jesus's death atoning for all sin, thus making humanity right with God. The commonly held belief among Christians is the phrase, "Jesus died for your sins," and thus they accept that salvation is only possible through him.[2] These teachings emphasize that as the Lamb of God, Jesus chose to suffer nailed to the cross at Calvary as a sign of his obedience to the will of God, as an "agent and servant of God".[3][4] Jesus's choice positions him as a man of obedience, in contrast to Adam's disobedience.[5] According to the New Testament, after God raised him from the dead,[6] Jesus ascended to heaven to sit at the right hand of God the Father,[7] with his followers awaiting his return to Earth and God's subsequent Last Judgment.[8] According to the gospel accounts, Jesus was born of a virgin, instructed other Jews how to follow God (sometimes using parables), performed miracles and gathered disciples. Christians generally believe that this narrative is historically true. While there has been theological debate over the nature of Jesus, Trinitarian Christians believe that Jesus is the Logos, God incarnate (God in human form), God the Son, and "true God and true man"—fully divine and fully human. Jesus, having become fully human in all respects, suffered the pains and temptations of a mortal man, yet he did not sin.

Sari Nusseibeh's book Avicenna's Al-Shifā': Oriental Philosophy (Routledge, 2018) deals with the philosophy of Ibn Sina - Avicenna as he was known in the Latin West- a Persian Muslim who lived in the eleventh century, considered one of the most important figures in the history of philosophy. Although much has been written about Avicenna, and especially about his major philosophical work, Al-Shifa, this book presents the rationalist Avicenna in an entirely new light, showing him to have presented a theory where our claims of knowledge about the world are in effect just that, claims, and must therefore be underwritten by our faith in God. His project enlists arguments in psychology as well as in language and logic. In a sense, the ceiling he puts on the reach of reason can be compared with later rationalists in the Western tradition, from Descartes to Kant -though, unlike Descartes, he does not deem it necessary to reconstruct his theory of knowledge via a proof of the existence of God. Indeed, Avicenna's theory presents the concept of God as being necessarily presupposed by our theory of knowledge, and God as the Necessary Being who is presupposed by an existing world where nothing of itself is what it is by an intrinsic nature, and must therefore be as it is due to an external cause. The detailed and original analysis of Avicenna's work here is presented as what he considered to be his own, or 'oriental' philosophy. Presenting an innovative interpretation of Avicenna's thought, this book will appeal to scholars working on classical Islamic philosophy, kalām and the History of Logic. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Sari Nusseibeh's book Avicenna's Al-Shifā': Oriental Philosophy (Routledge, 2018) deals with the philosophy of Ibn Sina - Avicenna as he was known in the Latin West- a Persian Muslim who lived in the eleventh century, considered one of the most important figures in the history of philosophy. Although much has been written about Avicenna, and especially about his major philosophical work, Al-Shifa, this book presents the rationalist Avicenna in an entirely new light, showing him to have presented a theory where our claims of knowledge about the world are in effect just that, claims, and must therefore be underwritten by our faith in God. His project enlists arguments in psychology as well as in language and logic. In a sense, the ceiling he puts on the reach of reason can be compared with later rationalists in the Western tradition, from Descartes to Kant -though, unlike Descartes, he does not deem it necessary to reconstruct his theory of knowledge via a proof of the existence of God. Indeed, Avicenna's theory presents the concept of God as being necessarily presupposed by our theory of knowledge, and God as the Necessary Being who is presupposed by an existing world where nothing of itself is what it is by an intrinsic nature, and must therefore be as it is due to an external cause. The detailed and original analysis of Avicenna's work here is presented as what he considered to be his own, or 'oriental' philosophy. Presenting an innovative interpretation of Avicenna's thought, this book will appeal to scholars working on classical Islamic philosophy, kalām and the History of Logic. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/islamic-studies

Sari Nusseibeh's book Avicenna's Al-Shifā': Oriental Philosophy (Routledge, 2018) deals with the philosophy of Ibn Sina - Avicenna as he was known in the Latin West- a Persian Muslim who lived in the eleventh century, considered one of the most important figures in the history of philosophy. Although much has been written about Avicenna, and especially about his major philosophical work, Al-Shifa, this book presents the rationalist Avicenna in an entirely new light, showing him to have presented a theory where our claims of knowledge about the world are in effect just that, claims, and must therefore be underwritten by our faith in God. His project enlists arguments in psychology as well as in language and logic. In a sense, the ceiling he puts on the reach of reason can be compared with later rationalists in the Western tradition, from Descartes to Kant -though, unlike Descartes, he does not deem it necessary to reconstruct his theory of knowledge via a proof of the existence of God. Indeed, Avicenna's theory presents the concept of God as being necessarily presupposed by our theory of knowledge, and God as the Necessary Being who is presupposed by an existing world where nothing of itself is what it is by an intrinsic nature, and must therefore be as it is due to an external cause. The detailed and original analysis of Avicenna's work here is presented as what he considered to be his own, or 'oriental' philosophy. Presenting an innovative interpretation of Avicenna's thought, this book will appeal to scholars working on classical Islamic philosophy, kalām and the History of Logic. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/middle-eastern-studies

Sari Nusseibeh's book Avicenna's Al-Shifā': Oriental Philosophy (Routledge, 2018) deals with the philosophy of Ibn Sina - Avicenna as he was known in the Latin West- a Persian Muslim who lived in the eleventh century, considered one of the most important figures in the history of philosophy. Although much has been written about Avicenna, and especially about his major philosophical work, Al-Shifa, this book presents the rationalist Avicenna in an entirely new light, showing him to have presented a theory where our claims of knowledge about the world are in effect just that, claims, and must therefore be underwritten by our faith in God. His project enlists arguments in psychology as well as in language and logic. In a sense, the ceiling he puts on the reach of reason can be compared with later rationalists in the Western tradition, from Descartes to Kant -though, unlike Descartes, he does not deem it necessary to reconstruct his theory of knowledge via a proof of the existence of God. Indeed, Avicenna's theory presents the concept of God as being necessarily presupposed by our theory of knowledge, and God as the Necessary Being who is presupposed by an existing world where nothing of itself is what it is by an intrinsic nature, and must therefore be as it is due to an external cause. The detailed and original analysis of Avicenna's work here is presented as what he considered to be his own, or 'oriental' philosophy. Presenting an innovative interpretation of Avicenna's thought, this book will appeal to scholars working on classical Islamic philosophy, kalām and the History of Logic. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

Sari Nusseibeh's book Avicenna's Al-Shifā': Oriental Philosophy (Routledge, 2018) deals with the philosophy of Ibn Sina - Avicenna as he was known in the Latin West- a Persian Muslim who lived in the eleventh century, considered one of the most important figures in the history of philosophy. Although much has been written about Avicenna, and especially about his major philosophical work, Al-Shifa, this book presents the rationalist Avicenna in an entirely new light, showing him to have presented a theory where our claims of knowledge about the world are in effect just that, claims, and must therefore be underwritten by our faith in God. His project enlists arguments in psychology as well as in language and logic. In a sense, the ceiling he puts on the reach of reason can be compared with later rationalists in the Western tradition, from Descartes to Kant -though, unlike Descartes, he does not deem it necessary to reconstruct his theory of knowledge via a proof of the existence of God. Indeed, Avicenna's theory presents the concept of God as being necessarily presupposed by our theory of knowledge, and God as the Necessary Being who is presupposed by an existing world where nothing of itself is what it is by an intrinsic nature, and must therefore be as it is due to an external cause. The detailed and original analysis of Avicenna's work here is presented as what he considered to be his own, or 'oriental' philosophy. Presenting an innovative interpretation of Avicenna's thought, this book will appeal to scholars working on classical Islamic philosophy, kalām and the History of Logic. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dive into the timeless wisdom of Ibn Sina, also known as Avicenna, and his philosophy. Explore the profound teachings and contributions of this influential Islamic philosopher, physician, and polymath. From his groundbreaking philosophical works to his advancements in medicine and even a famous "proof" for the existence of God. In this episode, we explore the historical context and legacy of one of history's greatest minds.Sources/Recomended Reading:Adamson, Peter (ed.) (2011). "The Cambridge Companion to Arabic Philosophy". Cambridge University Press.Gohlman, William E. (translated by) (1974). "The Life of Ibn Sina: A Critical Edition and Annotated Translation". State University of New York Press.Inati, Shams (translated by) (1984). "Remarks and Admonitions: Part One - Logic". Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies.Inati, Shams (1996). "Ibn Sina & Mysticism: Remarks and Admonitions (Part 4 - Sufism)". Routledge.Inati, Shams (translated by) (2014). "Ibn Sina's Remarks and Admonitions: Physics and Metaphysics: An Analysis and Annotated Translation". Columbia University Press.Marmura, Michael E. (translated by) (2005). "Avicenna: The Metaphysics of The Healing". University of Chicago Press.McGinnis, Jon (translated by) (2010). "Avicenna: The Physics of The Healing – A Parallel English–Arabic Text". University of Chicago Press.Morewedge, Parviz (1992). "Neoplatonism and Islamic Thought". State University of New York Press.Suhrawardi (1187). "The Philosophy of Illumination". Translated by John Walbridge & Hossein Ziai. Islamic Translation Series. University of Chicago Press.Winter, Tim (ed.) (2008). "The Cambridge Companion to Islamic Theology". Cambridge University Press. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Embark with me, David Wright, on an enthralling expedition through the vast and mystical realm of hypnosis, where myths of ancient gods and the wisdom of historic influencers converge to reveal the secrets of the mind. Our episode unwraps the enigmatic history of this psychological phenomenon, right from its beginnings in the temples of Egypt and Greece to the mesmerizing advancements in the science behind it. As we traverse through time, I'll share tales of the mythical gods Hypnos and Somnus, whose very names have inspired the terminology we use today, and introduce you to the early pioneers like Wong Tai and Avicenna, who distinguished hypnosis from mere sleep with their groundbreaking insights.Fast forward to the present, and we'll explore the contributions of the late Richard Lewis, whose passing we mourn and whose legacy in entertainment we celebrate. Losing myself in the narratives of our past, I reflect on personal anecdotes and offer homage to the father of modern hypnosis, Franz Mesmer, and the predecessors who have lit the way for today's hypnotic practices. So, if your curiosity is piqued by the thought of delving into the mind's most profound mysteries, this episode promises a journey filled with discovery, nostalgia, and a touch of the human experience that connects us all.FIND ME:My Website: https://motorcityhypnotist.com/podcastMy social media links: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/motorcityhypnotist/YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCjjLNcNvSYzfeX0uHqe3gATwitter: https://twitter.com/motorcityhypnoInstagram: motorcityhypnoFREE HYPNOSIS GUIDEhttps://detroithypnotist.convertri.com/podcast-free-hypnosis-guidePlease also subscribe to the show and leave a review.(Stay with me as later in the podcast, I'll be giving away a free gift to all listeners!)Change your thinking, change your life!Laugh hard, run fast, be kind. David R. Wright MA, LPC, CHTThe Motor City Hypnotist

QUIDDITY English transliteration of the Latin quidditas, meaning "whatness"; in scholastic usage it designates a thing's essence taken precisely in its capacity to inform the intellect of the answer to the question "what is it?" Related Terms. At most a virtual minor distinction obtains between essence and quiddity: essence is the thing as capacity for existence, whereas quiddity is the thing as capacity to instruct the intellect. The quiddity of a thing, if definable, is analytically expressed in its real definition by its genus and specific difference. As such it is similar to, but more exact than, nature in boethius's first sense: "anything that can be grasped (by the intellect) in any way whatever" (De persona et duabus naturis 1; Patrologia Latina, 64:1341BC). Nature, in the more etymological and Aristotelian sense, is closer to essence than to quiddity inasmuch as nature signifies a thing's principle of operation—effective only through existence. Such are the comparisons between these terms suggested by St. thomas aquinas (De ente 1, 3). To these he adds form and Aristotle's phrase "the what was to be" (τò τί [symbol omitted]ν ε[symbol omitted]ναι, quod quid erat esse ). He defines the form that is convertible with essence and quiddity as "the complete essential determination" of a thing. This is the "form of the whole" (forma totius, ε[symbol omitted]δος) according to the Avicennian interpretation of book seven of the Metaphysics —an interpretation rejected by Averroës but accepted by St. Thomas (In 7 meta. 9. 1467–69). Form in this sense includes the matter as universalizable as well as the "form of the part" (forma partis, μορφή), the substantial form as distinct from matter (see matter and form). Form thus expresses the completeness of an essence's specification in itself with respect both to existence and to intellect, and in the latter respect is synonymous with quiddity. Some modern scholars concur independently in the Averroist interpretation that Aristotle excludes matter altogether from the notion of form or species and its equivalent, "the what was to be." But St. Thomas insists that Aristotle holds its inclusion necessary in the case of natural substances, since it must be included universally in their definition (In 7 meta. 9.1468; In I anim. 1.24–29). Aristotelian Meaning. The term quidditas, coined in the 12th century in translations of Avicenna into Latin and possibly also in paraphrasing the Topics, stems ultimately from Aristotle's own phrase "the what was to be." From its grammar and from the probable places of its earliest appearance (Topica101b 22, 132a 1), it originated in a context of dialectics and predication and was designed as a verbal sort of variable representing the full answer to any Socratic question as to what a thing is, for example, man, virtue, the Sophist, etc. The particular reference of the phrase can be specified in any context by adding a dative, for example, "the what was it for a man to be," or "the being characteristic of man." This full answer, Aristotle says, is expressed in the definition of the thing in question. As such the phrase must be distinguished from another Aristotelian one, "the what is it" (τò τί ἐστι, quod quid est ), of wider range, since it not only may refer to the complete formula or definition but may also be satisfied by any one of its parts taken separately—genus, matter, difference, or form. Grammatically, the past tense, "was" ([symbol omitted]ν, erat ), has a habitual or transtemporal sense, indicating the specifying, or formal, identity of the essence with respect to any individual of that essence at any time (Meta. 1031a 15–32a 11, esp. 32a 5; Aquinas, In 7 meta. 5) or, in the case of the separate substances, beyond time. Going Boldly Where The Last Man has Gone Before! Decrease time over target:  PayPal or Venmo @clastronaut Cash App $clastronaut

Rick Koster founded Leaderscope in 2013, a network of leadership trainers, coaches, and facilitators who develop courageous leadership to transform teams, organizations, and systems.Rick has a background in ecology, neurobiology, leadership, and communication skills development. He specializes in developing and guiding transformative leadership programs, leadership team guidances, and designing processes for strategy development. He works in The Netherlands, where he lives, in Europe and Africa.Leaderscope has a broad range of diverse clients, from large corporate organizations, many of them in food, to schools and universities, to health organizations and local and national governments. This is what Rick loves: diving into an organization, understanding how the ‘system' works, and seeing what is needed for positive change.Some of the leadership programmes Rick and his team have developed and delivered are the Nudge Global Impact Challenge and the European Nutrition Leadership Programme. Rick is also an established contributor to the programmes of the Academy of Leadership, Avicenna, in The Netherlands.Quotes From This Episode"If I've been working really hard in a session, that's not a good sign. They have to be working really hard and doing most of the work because something has to happen within their organization or their team. And I'm the facilitator of that transformation.""Deep democracy is a way of thinking, a philosophy, a way of looking at organizations and teams. You look at the texture of an organization, the fabric of an organization. So, not what is happening in people, but between people - Iit's really beautiful."Resources Mentioned in This EpisodeTelevision Show: ‘How To' with John WilsonOrganization: Deep Democracy InstituteApplication: CalmAbout The International Leadership Association (ILA)The ILA was created in 1999 to bring together professionals interested in studying, practicing, and teaching leadership. Plan for ILA's 25th Global Conference in Vancouver, British Columbia, October 12-15, 2023.About The Boler College of Business at John Carroll UniversityBoler offers four MBA programs – 1 Year Flexible, Hybrid, Online, and Professional. Each MBA track offers flexible timelines and various class structure options (online, in-person, hybrid, asynchronous). Boler's tech core and international study tour opportunities set these MBA programs apart. Rankings highlighted in the intro are taken from CEO Magazine.About  Scott J. AllenWebsiteWeekly Newsletter: The Leader's EdgeMy Approach to HostingThe views of my guests do not constitute "truth." Nor do they reflect my personal views in some instances. However, they are views to consider, and I hope they help you clarify your perspective. Nothing can replace your reflection, research, and exploration of the topic.

https://www.solgood.org - Check out our Streaming Service for our full collection of audiobooks, podcasts, short stories, & 10 hour sounds for sleep and relaxation at our websiteThis show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/5202498/advertisement

阿維森納（Avicenna，980–1037） 阿維羅伊（Averroës，1126–1198） 摩西·邁蒙尼德（Moses Maimonides，1135–1204）

Peter Adamson's book Ibn Sīnā (Avicenna): a Very Short Introduction (Oxford UP, 2023) provides an introduction to the most important philosopher of the Islamic world, Ibn Sīnā, often known in English by his Latinized name Avicenna. After introducing the man and his works, with an overview of the historical context in which he lived, the book devotes chapters to the different areas of Ibn Sīnā's thought. Among the topics covered are his innovations in logic, his theory of the human soul and its powers, the relation between his medical writings and his philosophy, and his metaphysics of existence. Particular attention is given to two famous arguments: his flying man thought experiment and the so-called “demonstration of the truthful,” a proof for the existence of God as the Necessary Existent. A distinctive feature of the book is its attention to the relationship between Ibn Sīnā and Islamic rational theology (kalām): in which we see how Ibn Sīnā responded to this tradition in many areas of his thought. A final chapter looks at Ibn Sīnā's legacy in both the Islamic world and in Latin Christendom. Here Adamson focuses on the critical responses to Ibn Sīnā in subsequent generations by such figures as al-Ghazālī, al-Suhrawardī, and Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī. Peter Adamson is professor of Philosophy at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich. He received his BA from Williams College and PhD from the University of Notre Dame. From 2000 to 2012 he was a member of the Philosophy Department at King's College London, and he maintains a connection to King's. But his primary position is now as Professor of Late Ancient and Arabic Philosophy at the LMU in Munich. The author of numerous monographs and articles on ancient and medieval philosophy, especially Neoplatonism and philosophy in the Islamic world, he also hosts the History of Philosophy podcast, which appears as a series of books with Oxford University Press. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Peter Adamson's book Ibn Sīnā (Avicenna): a Very Short Introduction (Oxford UP, 2023) provides an introduction to the most important philosopher of the Islamic world, Ibn Sīnā, often known in English by his Latinized name Avicenna. After introducing the man and his works, with an overview of the historical context in which he lived, the book devotes chapters to the different areas of Ibn Sīnā's thought. Among the topics covered are his innovations in logic, his theory of the human soul and its powers, the relation between his medical writings and his philosophy, and his metaphysics of existence. Particular attention is given to two famous arguments: his flying man thought experiment and the so-called “demonstration of the truthful,” a proof for the existence of God as the Necessary Existent. A distinctive feature of the book is its attention to the relationship between Ibn Sīnā and Islamic rational theology (kalām): in which we see how Ibn Sīnā responded to this tradition in many areas of his thought. A final chapter looks at Ibn Sīnā's legacy in both the Islamic world and in Latin Christendom. Here Adamson focuses on the critical responses to Ibn Sīnā in subsequent generations by such figures as al-Ghazālī, al-Suhrawardī, and Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī. Peter Adamson is professor of Philosophy at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich. He received his BA from Williams College and PhD from the University of Notre Dame. From 2000 to 2012 he was a member of the Philosophy Department at King's College London, and he maintains a connection to King's. But his primary position is now as Professor of Late Ancient and Arabic Philosophy at the LMU in Munich. The author of numerous monographs and articles on ancient and medieval philosophy, especially Neoplatonism and philosophy in the Islamic world, he also hosts the History of Philosophy podcast, which appears as a series of books with Oxford University Press. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

Peter Adamson's book Ibn Sīnā (Avicenna): a Very Short Introduction (Oxford UP, 2023) provides an introduction to the most important philosopher of the Islamic world, Ibn Sīnā, often known in English by his Latinized name Avicenna. After introducing the man and his works, with an overview of the historical context in which he lived, the book devotes chapters to the different areas of Ibn Sīnā's thought. Among the topics covered are his innovations in logic, his theory of the human soul and its powers, the relation between his medical writings and his philosophy, and his metaphysics of existence. Particular attention is given to two famous arguments: his flying man thought experiment and the so-called “demonstration of the truthful,” a proof for the existence of God as the Necessary Existent. A distinctive feature of the book is its attention to the relationship between Ibn Sīnā and Islamic rational theology (kalām): in which we see how Ibn Sīnā responded to this tradition in many areas of his thought. A final chapter looks at Ibn Sīnā's legacy in both the Islamic world and in Latin Christendom. Here Adamson focuses on the critical responses to Ibn Sīnā in subsequent generations by such figures as al-Ghazālī, al-Suhrawardī, and Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī. Peter Adamson is professor of Philosophy at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich. He received his BA from Williams College and PhD from the University of Notre Dame. From 2000 to 2012 he was a member of the Philosophy Department at King's College London, and he maintains a connection to King's. But his primary position is now as Professor of Late Ancient and Arabic Philosophy at the LMU in Munich. The author of numerous monographs and articles on ancient and medieval philosophy, especially Neoplatonism and philosophy in the Islamic world, he also hosts the History of Philosophy podcast, which appears as a series of books with Oxford University Press. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/islamic-studies

Peter Adamson's book Ibn Sīnā (Avicenna): a Very Short Introduction (Oxford UP, 2023) provides an introduction to the most important philosopher of the Islamic world, Ibn Sīnā, often known in English by his Latinized name Avicenna. After introducing the man and his works, with an overview of the historical context in which he lived, the book devotes chapters to the different areas of Ibn Sīnā's thought. Among the topics covered are his innovations in logic, his theory of the human soul and its powers, the relation between his medical writings and his philosophy, and his metaphysics of existence. Particular attention is given to two famous arguments: his flying man thought experiment and the so-called “demonstration of the truthful,” a proof for the existence of God as the Necessary Existent. A distinctive feature of the book is its attention to the relationship between Ibn Sīnā and Islamic rational theology (kalām): in which we see how Ibn Sīnā responded to this tradition in many areas of his thought. A final chapter looks at Ibn Sīnā's legacy in both the Islamic world and in Latin Christendom. Here Adamson focuses on the critical responses to Ibn Sīnā in subsequent generations by such figures as al-Ghazālī, al-Suhrawardī, and Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī. Peter Adamson is professor of Philosophy at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich. He received his BA from Williams College and PhD from the University of Notre Dame. From 2000 to 2012 he was a member of the Philosophy Department at King's College London, and he maintains a connection to King's. But his primary position is now as Professor of Late Ancient and Arabic Philosophy at the LMU in Munich. The author of numerous monographs and articles on ancient and medieval philosophy, especially Neoplatonism and philosophy in the Islamic world, he also hosts the History of Philosophy podcast, which appears as a series of books with Oxford University Press. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/middle-eastern-studies

Peter Adamson's book Ibn Sīnā (Avicenna): a Very Short Introduction (Oxford UP, 2023) provides an introduction to the most important philosopher of the Islamic world, Ibn Sīnā, often known in English by his Latinized name Avicenna. After introducing the man and his works, with an overview of the historical context in which he lived, the book devotes chapters to the different areas of Ibn Sīnā's thought. Among the topics covered are his innovations in logic, his theory of the human soul and its powers, the relation between his medical writings and his philosophy, and his metaphysics of existence. Particular attention is given to two famous arguments: his flying man thought experiment and the so-called “demonstration of the truthful,” a proof for the existence of God as the Necessary Existent. A distinctive feature of the book is its attention to the relationship between Ibn Sīnā and Islamic rational theology (kalām): in which we see how Ibn Sīnā responded to this tradition in many areas of his thought. A final chapter looks at Ibn Sīnā's legacy in both the Islamic world and in Latin Christendom. Here Adamson focuses on the critical responses to Ibn Sīnā in subsequent generations by such figures as al-Ghazālī, al-Suhrawardī, and Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī. Peter Adamson is professor of Philosophy at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich. He received his BA from Williams College and PhD from the University of Notre Dame. From 2000 to 2012 he was a member of the Philosophy Department at King's College London, and he maintains a connection to King's. But his primary position is now as Professor of Late Ancient and Arabic Philosophy at the LMU in Munich. The author of numerous monographs and articles on ancient and medieval philosophy, especially Neoplatonism and philosophy in the Islamic world, he also hosts the History of Philosophy podcast, which appears as a series of books with Oxford University Press. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

Peter Adamson's book Ibn Sīnā (Avicenna): a Very Short Introduction (Oxford UP, 2023) provides an introduction to the most important philosopher of the Islamic world, Ibn Sīnā, often known in English by his Latinized name Avicenna. After introducing the man and his works, with an overview of the historical context in which he lived, the book devotes chapters to the different areas of Ibn Sīnā's thought. Among the topics covered are his innovations in logic, his theory of the human soul and its powers, the relation between his medical writings and his philosophy, and his metaphysics of existence. Particular attention is given to two famous arguments: his flying man thought experiment and the so-called “demonstration of the truthful,” a proof for the existence of God as the Necessary Existent. A distinctive feature of the book is its attention to the relationship between Ibn Sīnā and Islamic rational theology (kalām): in which we see how Ibn Sīnā responded to this tradition in many areas of his thought. A final chapter looks at Ibn Sīnā's legacy in both the Islamic world and in Latin Christendom. Here Adamson focuses on the critical responses to Ibn Sīnā in subsequent generations by such figures as al-Ghazālī, al-Suhrawardī, and Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī. Peter Adamson is professor of Philosophy at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich. He received his BA from Williams College and PhD from the University of Notre Dame. From 2000 to 2012 he was a member of the Philosophy Department at King's College London, and he maintains a connection to King's. But his primary position is now as Professor of Late Ancient and Arabic Philosophy at the LMU in Munich. The author of numerous monographs and articles on ancient and medieval philosophy, especially Neoplatonism and philosophy in the Islamic world, he also hosts the History of Philosophy podcast, which appears as a series of books with Oxford University Press. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Im Juni 1527 warf der Stadtarzt von Basel, ein gewisser Theophrastus Bombast von Hohenheim, das wichtigste Nachschlagewerk der Medizin ins Feuer – den „Kanon der Medizin“ von Avicenna. Ein Affront, der nicht ohne Folgen blieb! Der Stadtarzt, besser bekannt als Paracelsus, ist einer der bekanntesten Ärzte der Frühen Neuzeit, nachdem heute noch zahlreiche Straßen und Apotheken benannt sind. Er lehnte die gängige medizinische Lehrmeinung, die Viersäftelehre strikt ab und versuchte stattdessen eine neue, eigene Medizin zu etablieren. Allerdings nicht den Vorläufer einer modernen, wissenschaftlichen Medizin, vielmehr eine auf alchemistischen Grundsätzen ausgelegte Heilkunde. Wir sprechen in der Folge über das unstete Leben des Paracelsus und warum sein Leben bis zur Unkenntlichkeit vom Nachruhm überstrahlt wird, wie es einer seiner Biographen formuliert hat. // Literatur - Udo Benzenhöfer: „Paracelsus“ - Pirmin Meier: „Paracelsus: Arzt und Prophet: Arzt und Prophet“ Tickets für unsere Liveauftritte im Herbst gibt es hier: https://www.contrapromotion.com/ Und wer unser Buch, das am 28.9. erscheinen wird, vorbestellen will, kann das im gut sortierten Buchhandel oder hier tun: https://www.piper.de/buecher/geschichten-aus-der-geschichte-isbn-978-3-492-06363-0 //Aus unserer Werbung Du möchtest mehr über unsere Werbepartner erfahren? Hier findest du alle Infos & Rabatte: https://linktr.ee/GeschichtenausderGeschichte NEU: Wer unsere Folgen lieber ohne Werbung anhören will, kann das über eine kleine Unterstützung auf Steady oder ein Abo des GeschichteFM-Plus Kanals auf Apple Podcasts tun. Wir freuen uns, wenn ihr den Podcast bei Apple Podcasts oder wo auch immer dies möglich ist rezensiert oder bewertet. Wir freuen uns auch immer, wenn ihr euren Freundinnen und Freunden, Kolleginnen und Kollegen oder sogar Nachbarinnen und Nachbarn von uns erzählt!

In this episode J.J. and Dr. Lenn Goodman discuss Maimonides' Guide to the Perplexed, and the challenges of a brand new translation. Also: What Strauss, Pines, and the UChicago school of interpretation got wrong.For more fantastic Jewish content follow Torah in Motion on instagram or visit torahinmotion.orgLenn E. Goodman is Professor of Philosophy and Andrew W. Mellon Professor in the Humanities at Vanderbilt University. He was honored with the Baumgardt Prize of the American Philosophical Association, and with a volume in Brill Library of Contemporary Jewish Philosophy. He is a rare humanities winner of the Sutherland Prize, Vanderbilt University's highest research award. Goodman's book-length contributions in Jewish philosophy include The Holy One of Israel (2019), Judaism: A Contemporary Philosophical Investigation (2017), Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself, his Gifford Lectures (2008), Judaism, Human Rights & Human Values (1998), God of Abraham (1996, which won the Gratz Centennial Prize), Judaism, Human Rights & Human Values (1998), and On Justice: An Essay in Jewish Philosophy (2008). Goodman has also written extensively on Islamic philosophy, including work on Razi, Farabi, Avicenna, Ghazali, Ibn Tufayl, and Ibn Khaldun. His books in general philosophy include In Defense of Truth, Coming to Mind: The Soul and its Body (co-authored with D. Greg Caramenico), Religious Pluralism and Values in the Public Sphere, and Creation and Evolution. Goodman has lectured widely, in Oxford, Jerusalem, Taiwan, Morocco, and in many venues in the United States and Canada. His new translation/commentary of Maimonides' Guide to the Perplexed (co-authored with Phillip Lieberman), and a companion volume of his own titled A Guide to Maimonides' Guide to the Perplexed, will be published by Stanford University Press early in 2024. He is now at work on a new book titled God and Truth.

Talal Al Hamad: Islamic Alchemy & Unani, Mineral Gardening, Plant Stones, Materia Medica & Avicenna thetempleofmercury.com For 15% off your Temple of Mercury Orders enter PHILOCAST at checkout eauxchaotiques.com For 15% off your Eaux Chaotiques Orders enter PHILOPOD at checkout medicinebuddhalabs.com For 10% off your Temple of Medicine Buddha Labs Orders enter PMPODCAST at checkout  

We are in a global world, so normally what is good for the EU can be also good for other countries. But here the only barrier is local law. This is mainly what we will discuss on this Podcast. We will use the example of SaMD or Software as a Medical device for it and share with you the experience that we have but this is applicable to nearly all medical devices. Check the podcast page at: https://podcast.easymedicaldevice.com/220-2/ ——————————————————————————————————- ► Who is Stéphane Berger? Holder of a diploma in Electronics, with an experience of 25 years in the industry, after 10 years in the semiconductor field service business, he entered the medical device world in an ultrasound imaging company and started to implement ISO13485 requirements as customer service director and operation director. He began his career in quality and regulatory affairs in a recognized Notified Body with a position of auditor specialized in medical devices and software. He is currently holding the position of Regulatory and Quality Affairs Manager at Avicenna.AI, a French start-up that provides artificial intelligence solutions for radiology. Their products are registered in more than 40 countries worldwide and follow the evolving world of regulation around the Artificial Intelligence and Medical Device markets. ——————————————————————————————————- ► Who is Monir El Azzouzi? Monir El Azzouzi is a Medical Device Expert specializing in Quality and Regulatory Affairs. After working for many years with big Healthcare companies, particularly Johnson and Johnson, he decided to create EasyMedicalDevice.com to help people better understand Medical Device Regulations worldwide. He has now created the consulting firm Easy Medical Device GmbH and developed many ways to deliver knowledge through videos, podcasts, online courses… His company also acts as Authorized Representative for the EU, UK, and Switzerland. Easy Medical Device becomes a one-stop shop for medical device manufacturers that need support on Quality and Regulatory Affairs. ——————————————————————————————– ► Links from the Video ■ LinkedIn Profile of Stéphane Berger: https://www.linkedin.com/in/bergerstephane ■ Avicenna Website: https://avicenna.ai/ ■ WHO listing of Worldwide requirements: https://apps.who.int/iris/rest/bitstreams/1480622/retrieve ■ Authorized Representative Service: https://easymedicaldevice.com/authorised-representative-and-importer/ ——————————————————————————————- ► Social Media to follow ■ Monir El Azzouzi Linkedin: https://linkedin.com/in/melazzouzi ■ Twitter: https://twitter.com/elazzouzim ■ Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/easymedicaldevice ■ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/easymedicaldevice ———————————————– #easymedicaldevice #medicaldevice #regulatorycompliance

Peter Adamson is Professor of Late Ancient and Arabic Philosophy at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich and Professor of Ancient and Medieval Philosophy at King's College London. He's also the host of the podcast History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps and the author of the book series by the same name. Robinson and Peter talk about Islamic philosophy broadly conceived, as well as some of its great philosophers—Avicenna in particular—and its most fascinating debates. 00:00 Introduction 04:46 Can Anything Be the Subject of Philosophy? 11:03 Dead and Living Languages 24:35 What Is Islamic Philosophy? 40:28 Some Distinctive Problems of Islamic Philosophy 50:40 Metaphysical Debates about the Eucharist and Koran 59:21 Free Will, Islamic Philosophy, and the Koran 01:08:56 Islam and the Eternity of the World 01:29:48 Avicenna's Flying Man Argument 01:41:25 Al-Farabi and Illuminationism 01:47:54 What Is Philosophical Mysticism? 01:55:00 Islamic Mysticism and Sufism 01:59:18 Philosophy, Reincarnation, and Vegetarianism 02:03:37 The History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps Twitter: @robinsonerhardt Instagram: @robinsonerhardt Twitch (Robinson Eats): @robinsonerhardt YouTube (Robinson Eats): youtube.com/@robinsoneats TikTok: @robinsonerhardt --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/robinson-erhardt/support

Dr. Robert Gaynes, distinguished physician and professor of infectious diseases at Emory University, joins Meet the Microbiologist for a unique episode, in which we share the story of Françoise Barré-Sinoussi, the French, female scientist who discovered HIV and found herself at the heart of one of the most bitter scientific disputes in recent history. Subscribe (free) on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, Android, RSS or by email. Ashley's Biggest Takeaways The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)'s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report first reported on a cluster of unusual infections in June of 1981, which would become known as AIDS. Evidence suggested that the disease was sexually transmitted and could be transferred via contaminated blood supply and products, as well as contaminated needles, and could be passed from mother to child. All hemophiliacs of this generation acquired AIDS (15,000 in the U.S. alone). The fact that the microbe was small enough to evade filters used to screen the clotting factor given to hemophiliacs indicated that the etiologic agent was a virus. AIDS patients had low counts of T-lymphocytes called CD4 cells. By 1993, the most likely virus candidates included, a relative of hepatitis B virus, some kind of herpes virus or a retrovirus. Howard Temin discovered reverse transcriptase, working with Rous sarcoma in the 50s and 60s. His work upset the Central Dogma of Genetics, and at first people not only did not believe him, but also ridiculed him for this claim. Research conducted by David Baltimore validated Temin's work, and Temin, Baltimore and Renato Dulbecco shared the Nobel Prize for the discovery in 1975. Robert Gallo of the U.S. National Institute of Health (NIH), discovered the first example of a human retrovirus—human T-cell lymphotropic virus (HTLV-1). Françoise Barré-Sinoussi worked on murine retroviruses in a laboratory unit run by Luc Montagnier, where she became very good at isolating retroviruses from culture. In 1982, doctors gave lab Montagnier's lab a sample taken from a with generalized adenopathy, a syndrome that was a precursor to AIDS. Barré-Sinoussi began to detect evidence of reverse transcriptase in cell culture 2 days after the samples were brought to her lab. Barré-Sinoussi and Luc Montagnier were recognized for the discovery of HIV with the 2008 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Links for the Episode: From the ancient worlds of Hippocrates and Avicenna to the early 20th century hospitals of Paul Ehrlich and Lillian Wald to the modern-day laboratories of François Barré-Sinoussi and Barry Marshall, Germ Theory brings to life the inspiring stories of medical pioneers whose work helped change the very fabric of our understanding of how we think about and treat infectious diseases. Germ Theory: Medical Pioneers in Infectious Diseases The second edition of Germ Theory, which will include chapters on Françoise Barré-Sinoussi, Barry Marshall and Tony Fauci, will publish in Spring 2023.

Today on the Ether we have part 2 of a 2 part Cephii space discussing the Cosmos. We are the Cosmos. You'll hear from ChuggaBoom, Naller, 0xCowboy, Mayor Ed Dantes, Avicenna, Jerbear, R Ξ U B Ξ N, Avatar Bjongo Bjongo, DKarr, ExistentialKev, Austin, Web3 Builders Alliance, and more! Recorded on October 7th 2022. If you enjoy the music at the end of the episodes, you can find the albums streaming on Spotify, and the rest of your favorite streaming platforms. Check out Project Survival, Virus Diaries, and Plan B wherever you get your music. Thank you to everyone in the community who supports TerraSpaces.

Today on the Ether we have part 1 of a 2 part Cephii space discussing the Cosmos. We are the Cosmos. You'll hear from ChuggaBoom, Naller, 0xCowboy, Mayor Ed Dantes, Avicenna, Jerbear, R Ξ U B Ξ N, Avatar Bjongo Bjongo, DKarr, ExistentialKev, Austin, Web3 Builders Alliance, and more! Recorded on October 7th 2022. If you enjoy the music at the end of the episodes, you can find the albums streaming on Spotify, and the rest of your favorite streaming platforms. Check out Project Survival, Virus Diaries, and Plan B wherever you get your music. Thank you to everyone in the community who supports TerraSpaces.

Today on the Ether we have about the last 2 hours or so of the Atom 2.0 afterhours space hosted by Mayor Ed Dantes. You'll hear from Jack Zampolin, Jacob Gadikian, Cosmos Joe, Jimmy the Otter, Rarma, Carter L. Woetzel, Shrute, antoine, Avicenna, and more! Recorded on October 3rd 2022. If you enjoy the music at the end of the episodes, you can find the albums streaming on Spotify, and the rest of your favorite streaming platforms. Check out Project Survival, Virus Diaries, and Plan B wherever you get your music. Thank you to everyone in the community who supports TerraSpaces.

Today on the Ether we have part 1 of a 2 part Cephii space philosophically, and metaphorically discussing how love causes wars. You'll hear from addi, Jerbear, ChuggaBoom, Ava, healthmood of Türk frogs, Avicenna, Grøver, and more! Recorded on October 2nd 2022. If you enjoy the music at the end of the episodes, you can find the albums streaming on Spotify, and the rest of your favorite streaming platforms. Check out Project Survival, Virus Diaries, and Plan B wherever you get your music. Thank you to everyone in the community who supports TerraSpaces.

Few philosophers can be said to have been watershed figures, in the wake of whose teachings a tradition of philosophy forever changed its course. Shihab al-Din Suhrawardi was such a figure for the development of Islamic philosophy. Trained in the Aristotelian school of Ibn Sina (known in the West as Avicenna), Suhrawardi nonetheless became a mystical philosopher who not only demonstrated the limits of rational deduction, but also insisted there was an alternative mode of knowledge. This he called ‘ilm al-huzuri—literally ‘knowledge by presence'—that derived from our direct experiences. As a mystic, such experiences included not only the commonsensical realm of ordinary everyday experience. It also included the mystical states that he argued allowed human beings to come into the presence of their own true being and in turn the ultimate Being of God. Both, he claimed, were pure light: divine light that that was at once the basis of all existence and the source of all knowledge. Drawing from the famous Light Verse of the Quran, from his philosophical studies, and from his own mystical experiences, Suhrawardi called his teachings the ‘Wisdom of Illumination' (hikmat al-ishraq).  Nile Green talks to John Walbridge, author of God and Logic in Islam: The Caliphate of Reason (Cambridge University Press, 2010).  

Access Contemporary Music's latest album features music commissioned as part of their innovative project Composer Alive. Each piece was composed in short installments and rehearsed and recorded in real time as they were received. Host Seth Boustead features a sample of this fascinating music. Sunshowers by Jane O'Leary (mvmts 1 and 2) De Ánimos y Quebrantos by Gabriela Ortiz Toy by Alexandre Lunsqui Dance With My Breath by Agnieszka Stulginska (mvmt 1) Commercial Etudes by Will Rowe (mvmts 1 and 2) Micro Moments IX: Hommage a Avicenna by Arshia Samsaminia

Today on the Ether we have the last hour and a half or so of the IBC Gang space hosted by CryptoTank chatting about favorite things you heard at Cosmoverse. You'll hear from Wendy J, Chad Grif, Bbandz, Sky Monks, Rusty Shackleford, Avicenna, and more! Recorded on September 26th 2022. If you enjoy the music at the end of the episodes, you can find the albums streaming on Spotify, and the rest of your favorite streaming platforms. Check out Project Survival, Virus Diaries, and Plan B wherever you get your music. Thank you to everyone in the community who supports TerraSpaces.

Today on the Ether we have a space hosted by Rarma chatting about the Cosmos. You'll hear from LiLGainzz, Zach Ramsay, Mayor Ed Dantes, Cephii, Ghazni, JGnft, Avicenna, The Bendy One, CryptoLikeMo, CryptoTank, Home, Rekt Vee, and more! Recorded on September 17th 2022. If you enjoy the music at the end of the episodes, you can find the albums streaming on Spotify, and the rest of your favorite streaming platforms. Check out Project Survival, Virus Diaries, and Plan B wherever you get your music. Thank you to everyone in the community who supports TerraSpaces.

Tramite l'intermediazione di Avicenna e Averroè, il pensiero aristotelico cominciò presto ad interessare anche vari pensatori cristiani. Ma gli ostacoli all'inizio furono molti.

Oltre ad Avicenna, l'altro grande filosofo musulmano medievale fu Averroè. Ecco cosa pensava sulla creazione, sul mondo e sul destino dell'anima.

Introduction “How did the universe come into existence?” It's a question that most of the world's religions seek to answer. According to the Abrahamic faiths, the world can only exist with the existence of a being who was not caused by something other than itself – and this they call ‘Yahweh', ‘Allāh', or ‘God'. Philosophical arguments to this end come in many forms, one of which – from the medieval Islamic philosopher Ibn Sina (known in the West as ‘Avicenna') ­­­– claims that we can prove the existence of this necessary being with absolute certainty. If something can exist there must be an uncaused being, and from this concept alone, Avicenna says that we can deduce every other property that Muslims attribute to Allāh. In this interview, we'll be discussing Avicenna and the philosophy of Islam with Dr Mohammad Saleh Zarepour. Currently Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Manchester, Dr Zarepour completed his first PhD at the Tarbiat Modares University in Iran and his second PhD at the University of Cambridge. Publishing extensively in philosophy of religion – and having worked on major initiatives such as the Global Philosophy of Religion Project – it is safe to say that Saleh is one of the world's leading experts in Islamic philosophy. Islam claims to solve the problem of existence, but its implications extend far beyond the origin of the cosmos. Allāh is a being invested in his creation – a being that will judge, reward, or punish us for our good and bad deeds, who permits us to live and to suffer – and differs from the God of Judaism and Christianity in his nature and actions. Thus, we should ask not only whether belief in Allāh's necessity is reasonable, but whether the beliefs of Muslims are more (or less) reasonable than those of their Abrahamic cousins. This episode is produced in partnership with The Global Philosophy of Religion Project at University of Birmingham, led by Yujin Nagasawa and funded by the John Templeton Foundation. Contents Part I. Allāh Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion Links Mohammad Saleh Zarepour (website). Mohammad Saleh Zarepour, Necessary Existence and Monotheism (book). Zain Ali, ‘Some Reflections on William Lane Craig's Critique of Islam' (paper).

There's one final question to ask when examining Maimonides mysticism and that is, did Maimonides believe that the human could actually reach, know and experience God? Getting down to the fine print in the debate about Maimonides mysticism: Did Maimonides believe that one could know and unite with something metaphysical? And if so, which metaphysical entity does he believe the aspiring seeker can know and unite with, is it an entity which can be considered divine, God, or ultimate reality, making this union properly mystical in nature, a unio mystica? Can one, according to Maimonides, unite with God or only with the Active Intellect? And if it's the later, does he believe that the Active Intellect is divine, and if so in what way, and what does that mean for his mysticism? Sources and Further Reading: • Adam Afterman “And They Shall Be One Flesh”: On the Language of Mystical Union in Judaism, 2016, pp. 105-119 • Alexander Altmann, "Maimonides on the Intellect and the Scope of Metaphysics," 1987, 60-129. • Alfred L. Ivry, “Maimonides and Neoplatonism” in Neoplatonism and Jewish Thought, 1992 • Aviezer Ravitzky, “The Secrets of the “Guide to the Perplexed,” Studies in Maimonides, 1990, 159–207. • Barry Kogan, "What Can We Know and When Can We Know It?," in Moses Maimonides and His Time, 1989, 130-7 • David Fried, Mysticism and its Alternatives: Rethinking Maimonides, 2018 • Diana Lobel, “Silence Is Praise to You” Maimonides on Negative Theology, Looseness of Expression, and Religious Experience, in American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly vol. 76, no. 1, 2002. • Gideon Freudenthal, “The Philosophical Mysticism of Maimonides and Maimon,” in Maimonides and his Heritage, 2009, 117-118. • Hannah Kasher, “Self-Cognizing Intellect and Negative Attributes in Maimonides' Theology.” • Herbert A. Davidson, Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes on Intellect: Their Cosmologies, Theories of the Active Intellect, and Theories of Human Intellect, 1992, 197-207. • Herbert Davidson, "Maimonides on Metaphysical Knowledge," Maimonidean Studies 3 (1992-93): 79-87. • Idit Dobbs-Weinstein, Maimonides and St. Thomas on the Limits of Reason, 1995 • Josef Stern, “Maimonides' Demonstrations: Principles and Practice,” Medieval Philosophy and Theology 10 (2001): 80. • Joseph Citron, Maimonides and Mysticism, unpublished • Julius Guttmann, “Introduction” in Maimonides, The Guide of The Perplexed, 1947 • Julius Guttmann, Religion and Knowledge, 103–118, especially 111. [Hebrew] • Michah Gottlieb, “Two Paradigms of the Nexus Between Philosophy and Mysticism Judah Halevi and Moses Maimonides” in Faith, Reason, Politics, 2013 • Moshe Idel, Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah (NY: SUNY Press, 1988), p. 4 • Philip Merlan, Monopsychism, Mysticism, Metaconsciousness: Problems of the Soul in the Neoaristotelian and Neoplatonic Tradition, 1963 • Sarah Pessin, The Influence of Islamic Thought on Maimonides • Shlomo Pines, "The Limits of Human Knowledge According to Alfarabi, Ibn Bajja, and Maimonides," Studies in Medieval Jewish History and Literature, vol. 1, ed. I. Twersky, 1979, p. 94-100 • Shlomo Pines, “The Philosophical Purport of Maimonides Halachic Works and the Purport of the Guide of the Perplexed,” in Maimonides and Philosophy, 1986, 1-14.

Introduction “How did the universe come into existence?” It's a question that most of the world's religions seek to answer. According to the Abrahamic faiths, the world can only exist with the existence of a being who was not caused by something other than itself – and this they call ‘Yahweh', ‘Allāh', or ‘God'. Philosophical arguments to this end come in many forms, one of which – from the medieval Islamic philosopher Ibn Sina (known in the West as ‘Avicenna') ­­­– claims that we can prove the existence of this necessary being with absolute certainty. If something can exist there must be an uncaused being, and from this concept alone, Avicenna says that we can deduce every other property that Muslims attribute to Allāh. In this interview, we'll be discussing Avicenna and the philosophy of Islam with Dr Mohammad Saleh Zarepour. Currently Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Manchester, Dr Zarepour completed his first PhD at the Tarbiat Modares University in Iran and his second PhD at the University of Cambridge. Publishing extensively in philosophy of religion – and having worked on major initiatives such as the Global Philosophy of Religion Project – it is safe to say that Saleh is one of the world's leading experts in Islamic philosophy. Islam claims to solve the problem of existence, but its implications extend far beyond the origin of the cosmos. Allāh is a being invested in his creation – a being that will judge, reward, or punish us for our good and bad deeds, who permits us to live and to suffer – and differs from the God of Judaism and Christianity in his nature and actions. Thus, we should ask not only whether belief in Allāh's necessity is reasonable, but whether the beliefs of Muslims are more (or less) reasonable than those of their Abrahamic cousins. This episode is produced in partnership with The Global Philosophy of Religion Project at University of Birmingham, led by Yujin Nagasawa and funded by the John Templeton Foundation. Contents Part I. Allāh Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion Links Mohammad Saleh Zarepour (website). Mohammad Saleh Zarepour, Necessary Existence and Monotheism (book). Zain Ali, ‘Some Reflections on William Lane Craig's Critique of Islam' (paper).

On Episode 16 of the Stroke Alert Podcast, Dr. Negar Asdaghi highlights two articles from the May issue of Stroke: “Number of Affected Relatives, Age, Smoking, and Hypertension Prediction Score for Intracranial Aneurysms in Persons With a Family History for Subarachnoid Hemorrhage” and “Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke With or Without General Anesthesia.” She also interviews Dr. Patrick Lyden on “The Stroke Preclinical Assessment Network: Rationale, Design, Feasibility, and Stage 1 Results.” Dr. Negar Asdaghi:         Let's start with some questions. 1) How is it that stroke can be cured in rodents but not in humans? 2) Are we wasting time or gaining time with general anesthesia before endovascular thrombectomy? 3) My father had an aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage, Doctor. What is my risk of having an aneurysm, and how often should we check for one? We're back here with the Stroke Alert Podcast to tackle the toughest questions in the field because this is the best in Stroke. Stay with us. Dr. Negar Asdaghi:         Welcome back to the May 2022 issue of the Stroke Alert Podcast. My name is Negar Asdaghi. I'm an Associate Professor of Neurology at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine and your host for the monthly Stroke Alert Podcast. For the May 2022 issue of Stroke, we have a number of papers that I'd like to highlight. We have seven articles as part of our Focused Update on the topic of neuroimmunology and stroke, organized by our own Stroke editors, Drs. Johannes Boltze and Miguel Perez-Pinzon. We also have an interesting study by Dr. David Saadoun and colleagues from Sorbonne University in Paris, where we learn that in patients with Takayasu disease, how the delay in diagnosis, as defined by the time from symptom onset to the diagnosis being over one year, was significantly associated with development of ischemic cerebrovascular events. In the Comments and Opinions section, we have an interesting study by Dr. Goldenberg and colleagues from University of Toronto on the benefits of GLP-1 receptor agonists for stroke reduction in type 2 diabetes and why should stroke neurologists be familiar with this new class of diabetic medication. Dr. Negar Asdaghi:         Later, in the interview section of the podcast, I have the great honor of interviewing Dr. Patrick Lyden, one of the founding fathers of thrombolytic therapy in stroke, as he walks us through the Stroke Preclinical Assessment Network and what his hopes are for the future of stroke therapy. I also ask him for some advice, and he did tell us about the view from the top, as he truly stands on the shoulder of giants. But first with these two articles. Dr. Negar Asdaghi:         In a landmark population-based study out of Sweden that was published in Brain in 2008, we learned that the odds of development of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage for individuals with one first-degree relative with a prior history of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage was 2.15. For individuals with two affected first-degree relatives, the odds ratio was 51. So, it's not surprising that a great deal of anxiety is caused within a family when a relative has an aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage, especially if that family member was young or another member of the family had the same condition before. This scenario is commonly followed by a number of inevitable questions: Should all family members of the affected individual be screened for presence of an intracranial aneurysm? If yes, how often should vascular imaging be performed, and should other aneurysmal risk factors, such as age, sex, smoking, and hypertension, be also considered in the screening decision-making? In this issue of the journal, as part of a derivation-validation study, a group of investigators, led by Dr. Charlotte Zuurbier from University Medical Center at Utrecht Brain Center in the Netherlands, studied the ability of a simple scoring system that was developed in their derivation cohort to predict the presence of an intracranial aneurysm on vascular imaging. Dr. Negar Asdaghi:         They then tested the scoring model in their validation cohort. So, for their development cohort, they used data on 660 persons who were screened at the University Medical Center for presence of an intracranial aneurysm because they had two or more affected first-degree relatives with a prior history of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. The median age of participants at the time of first screening was 40, and 59% were female. Dr. Negar Asdaghi:         So, in this cohort, the investigators simply looked at factors that were independently associated with finding an aneurysm on vascular screening by their multivariate analysis. And they identified the following factors; the first factor was the number of affected relatives. Now, a reminder that all of these people in the cohort had at least two first-degree relatives with an aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. And they found that amongst these people, those that had three or more family members with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage were significantly more likely to have a positive screening test for intracranial aneurysm. The next factor was older age — the older that relative, the more likely their screening imaging was positive for an aneurysm — and the other independent factors were smoking and hypertension. So they created the NASH acronym; N for number of relatives, A for age, S for smoking, and H for hypertension. When assigning points for each of these factors, the NASH scoring system had a C statistics of 0.68 in predicting whether or not someone would have a positive test, which is an intracranial aneurysm. Dr. Negar Asdaghi:         And now a reminder for our listeners that C statistics gives us the probability that a person with a certain condition, in this case, a certain NASH score, will have the outcome of interest, in this case, an aneurysm found by vascular imaging. In general, for C statistics, the closer we get to 1, the more robust is our predictive model. Values over 0.7 indicate that we have a good model, but values over 0.8 indicate a very strong model. So the NASH score, at 0.68, has a reasonably good capability in predicting who will or will not have an intracranial aneurysm if we complete the vascular imaging. But it's not a very strong model, and this should be kept in mind. Let's look at some of their numbers. In their development cohort, the probability of finding an intracranial aneurysm for a person who scored low on NASH, that is a young person who never smoked and is not hypertensive, was only 5%, whereas the probability of finding an intracranial aneurysm in a person who scored high on NASH, that is an older person in their 60s or 70s, with three or more affected relatives, who is hypertensive and a smoker, was 36%. Dr. Negar Asdaghi:         So, then they tested this NASH score in their external validation cohort and found that the likelihood of identifying an aneurysm increased as expected along the range of predicted probabilities of NASH. That is, the higher the score, the more likely to find an aneurysm on screening with vascular imaging. And the C statistics in the validation cohort was slightly lower than the C statistics in the derivation cohort. So, the important lesson we learned from this study is that the risk of having an intracranial aneurysm in a person who has a first-degree family member with a prior history of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage is substantially different depending on their NASH score, and this should be taken into consideration when deciding on screening and counseling various family members of the affected patient or prioritizing who should be screened first in routine practice. Dr. Negar Asdaghi:         The ideal anesthetic management during endovascular therapy is still unknown. A number of studies have compared the different anesthetic options available during thrombectomy, which include general anesthesia, or GA, conscious sedation, use of local anesthesia, and no sedation at all. The main argument for doing endovascular therapy under general anesthesia is that although this procedure will take some precious pre-thrombectomy time, it does result in strict immobility. And that is really ideal in the sense that it improves catheter navigation and interpretation of angiography, in addition to obviously providing a secure airway and, of course, avoiding the need to have to do an emergency intubation in case of procedural complications. The argument against general anesthesia is not only the issue of time but also the risk of hypotension and hemodynamic compromise, especially during induction, and the loss of very valuable neurological examination in a completely sedated patient during the procedure. Dr. Negar Asdaghi:         The question is, does general anesthesia improve or worsen neurological and functional outcomes post-thrombectomy? Several smaller randomized trials have looked at this very question, mainly comparing GA to all other forms of sedation during thrombectomy, but they have yielded inconsistent findings regarding the three-month functional outcome. Dr. Negar Asdaghi:         Some of them showed that patients under GA ended up doing better. Some showed no difference in the overall outcomes. But overall, their pooled analysis suggested that GA might be superior to the competing counterpart, which is the conscious sedation, and associated with better functional outcome. But these centers had highly specialized anesthesia teams, and it's possible that their findings may not be generalizable to routine practice. So, in this issue of the journal, using the Swiss Stroke Registry, Dr. Benjamin Wagner from the Department of Neurology at the University Hospital in Basel and colleagues report on the outcomes of endovascularly treated patients in the Swiss Stroke Registry receiving thrombectomy for an anterior circulation stroke with or without general anesthesia. The primary outcome was disability on the modified Rankin Scale after three months. For this study, they excluded one out of the nine centers in the registry that had lots of missing data on their three-month follow-up. Dr. Negar Asdaghi:         And so, from 2014 to 2017, 1,284 patients across eight stroke centers in the registry were included in this study. Sixty-six percent received thrombectomy under general anesthesia. On baseline comparison, the patients in the GA group were older, had a higher NIH Stroke Scale on admission, had worse preclinical functional status, and more likely to have presented with multi-territorial ischemic stroke. So, many reasons as to why people who underwent general anesthesia would have a worse clinical outcome in this study. So, now let's look at their primary outcome. In the unadjusted model, the three-month modified Rankin Scale was significantly worse in the GA group as compared to the non-GA group, which is obviously expected given the differences in their baseline characteristics. Dr. Negar Asdaghi:         But what was surprising was that the odds of having a higher mRS score was significantly greater still in the adjusted models. They also did propensity score matching analysis, and they found that the NIH Stroke Scale after 24 hours, and the odds of dependency and death and mortality were all higher in the adjusted model in the GA group. They also looked at a number of secondary outcomes and found that door-to-puncture time was longer in the GA group. Dr. Negar Asdaghi:         And also these patients were more likely to be transferred to ICU after treatment as compared to the non-GA treated counterparts. The authors point out that these real-world data are in keeping with the findings from the HERMES meta-analysis, which included over 1,700 endovascularly treated patients, and two previously published large registry data, one from Italy, which included over 4,000 endovascularly treated patients, and one from Germany, including 5,808 patients, all of them showing a worse functional outcome in endovascular therapy if the treatment was performed under general anesthesia, as compared to all other forms of sedation or no sedation at all. Again, these findings are in contrast with the reassuring results of the randomized trials on this topic, specifically in contrast to the AnStroke, SIESTA, and GOLIATH randomized trials, which compare GA to conscious sedation, showing either neutral or positive results in favor of general anesthesia pre-thrombectomy. Dr. Negar Asdaghi:         So, in summary, what we learned from this real-world, observational study is that general anesthesia was associated with worse functional outcome post-endovascular thrombectomy, independent of other confounders, which means that the jury is still out on the ideal form of anesthesia for an individual patient prior to endovascular therapy, and we definitely need larger, multicenter studies on this topic. Dr. Negar Asdaghi:         There are over a thousand experimental treatments that have shown benefit in prevention of neurological disability in animal models of ischemic stroke but have failed to show the same efficacy in human randomized trials. In fact, to date, reperfusion therapies, either in the form of intravenous lytic therapies or endovascular treatments, are the only successful treatments available to improve clinical outcomes in patients who suffer from ischemic stroke, and stroke remains a leading cause of death and disability worldwide. How come stroke can be cured in rodents but not in humans? Are neuroprotective therapies, or as more correctly referred to, the cerebroprotective therapies, the epitome of bench-to-bedside translational research failure? And if this is true, what are the key contributors to the scientific conundrum, and how can this be averted in the future? This is the question that a remarkable group of neuroscientists, led by Dr. Patrick Lyden from University of Southern California, are hoping to answer. Dr. Negar Asdaghi:         In this issue of the journal, these investigators describe the rationale, design, feasibility, and stage 1 results of their multicenter SPAN collaboration, which stands for the Stroke Preclinical Assessment Network. I'm joined today by Professor Lyden himself to discuss this collaboration. Now, Professor Lyden absolutely needs no introduction to our stroke community, but as always, introductions are nice. So, here we go. Dr. Lyden is a Professor of Physiology, Neuroscience, and Neurology at Zilkha Neurogenetic Institute, Keck School of Medicine, at USC. He has truly been a leader in the field of preclinical and clinical vascular research with over 30 years of experience in conducting studies and randomized trials, including conducting the pivotal NINDS clinical trial that led to the approval of the first treatment for acute ischemic stroke in 1996. Throughout his exemplary career, he has accumulated many accolades and is the recipient of multiple awards and honors, including the prestigious 2019 American Stroke Association William Feinberg Award for Excellence in Clinical Stroke. Good morning, Pat, it's truly an honor to welcome you to our podcast today. Dr. Patrick Lyden:            Thanks, I'm glad to be here. Dr. Negar Asdaghi:         Well, in the era of successful reperfusion therapies, it seems that the new generation of stroke neurologists and interventionalists have their eyes, so to speak, on the clock and are interested in opening the blood vessels and opening them fast. In the age of reperfusion treatments, why do we still need to talk about the role of cerebroprotective treatments? Dr. Patrick Lyden:            Well, not to sound too glib about it, but not everybody gets better after a thrombectomy. So, thrombectomy is good, it's more effective than anything else that we've tried before, but there are a remaining number of patients with a residual disability. Not only that, and from a more scientific standpoint, thrombectomy offers us the opportunity now to combine cerebroprotective therapy with known reperfusion. Remember, before, we didn't know when the artery had opened, but now we do an embolectomy, we know there's reperfusion. It gives us the opportunity to know that we're combining our treatment with reperfusion. Dr. Negar Asdaghi:         So, in the paper, you discussed how hundreds of treatments have been studied and shown efficacy in reducing neurological disability in animal models of stroke, and yet failed in human studies. In your opinion, what were the top two most disappointing studies in terms of clinical failure despite pre-clinical encouraging data? Dr. Patrick Lyden:            Well, the first one I mentioned was personal because it was the first one that I led, and it was a molecule called clomethiazole that I had helped establish the rationale for in my very first grant. So, it was the first trial I led, it was multinational, and, of course, I firmly believed we were going to hit a home run, and we failed. But to the field, the real watershed moment in neuroprotective therapy was the so-called SAINT II Trial. SAINT II was a study of a drug called NXY-059, and it was the first drug that purportedly had satisfied all of the so-called STAIR criteria. The STAIR criteria came out of a roundtable between academics and industry on how to best qualify drugs preclinically before going to human trials. And the idea was, if you were a 10 out of 10 on the STAIR criteria, then you should win when you come to human clinical trials. And the SAINT II Trial, which I was a co-leader, a co-investigator, on, also failed. Dr. Patrick Lyden:            And so many, many, many drugs had failed by that point. Tens of millions, if not a hundred million dollars, had been spent by industry, and SAINT II really caused the field to stop. Industry stopped investing in stroke; academic investment in stroke dried up. NIH funding became more difficult to get after SAINT II, and that really was sort of the really historical low moment in the development of treatment for stroke. Dr. Negar Asdaghi:         I was a resident when SAINT II came out, and I remember that somber feeling. Dr. Patrick Lyden:            It was a sad day. Dr. Negar Asdaghi:         Yeah. So, in the paper, you outline a number of potential causes as to why this translational failure may have occurred. But you highlighted the absence of preclinical scientific rigor as the most responsible source. And you already alluded to this a little bit. Can you please tell us a bit more? Dr. Patrick Lyden:            Absolutely. And first, of course, we have to say that the ideal clinical trial design is not available. We really don't know the absolute best way to test the drugs in human clinical trials. But leave that for another day. Dr. Patrick Lyden:            On the preclinical side, what can we say we're doing wrong? We're not sure, but one thing that has been highlighted over and over is that we don't approach preclinical characterization with as much rigor as we should. What do I mean by that? Animal models recapitulate for us some of the biology of a stroke, but not all. For example, many, many times we test a drug in a young model, an animal that's quite young, corresponding to a late teenager in human terms. Well, that's ridiculous. Stroke occurs in elderly people, and so on. So, the NIH called in a landmark conference for additional rigor, enhanced rigor. And I should mention the STAIR criteria were a first attempt at this. STAIR put out guidelines that said animals should be elderly, the animals should be randomized, et cetera, et cetera. And so that didn't happen. Although the STAIR criteria were out there, very few laboratories really committed to full rigor. And so the NIH funded the Stroke Preclinical Assessment Network, SPAN, to implement every aspect that we could think of that would add the best possible scientific design, the utmost rigor. So, we implemented true blinded assessment, true randomization, complete case ascertainment where we follow every single subject in the study and account for dropouts and subjects that don't complete the treatment, and, most importantly, a proper statistical design with adequate power and very large numbers. And the hypothesis that we're testing is that additional rigor in SPAN will lead to a better positive predictive value when we think about drugs that should go forward for testing in human stroke trials. Dr. Negar Asdaghi:         So, I think you already answered my next question, which was basically, why do you think SPAN is going to achieve what all others have failed to achieve? But I wanted to simplify and repeat what you mentioned. So, in simple terms, what SPAN is trying to do is to bring all preclinical research to a level of scientific rigor that was not necessarily present and make it a multicenter effort. And can you a little bit tell us about the different stages, again, of SPAN? Dr. Patrick Lyden:            Well, I'm not arguing that all preclinical research needs to be done following a SPAN type of model. Where SPAN fits in is at the end of a development project. So, if you want to characterize the cellular and molecular mechanisms, you don't need to do all of this rigor that we're doing. Just study the drug in the lab and do the mechanistic studies that need to be done. If you want to do dose finding, it doesn't need to be done this way. But at the end of that, OK, first we establish the mechanism, that's the first stage. Then we establish the toxicity. Then we establish target engagement. At the end, we are looking for some evidence that the drug will have a beneficial effect on outcomes. And in previous animal models, the only outcome, generally, the most common outcome that was studied, was size of the stroke. But in humans, the FDA does not recognize stroke size as a valid outcome. Dr. Patrick Lyden:            We look at function, most often measured with the Rankin score and the NIH Stroke Scale. So, we had to create a functional outcome, and then we had to study it at multiple laboratories to make sure we could replicate the effect across multiple sites. And we chose what's called a multi-arm, multi-stage (MAMS) statistical design. All the drugs start out in the experiment at the end of the first interim analysis, which is 25% of the sample size. We cull any compounds or treatments that appear futile are removed. Any that appear effective move on. At the end of the second stage, there's more culling. There's a total of four stages, and we're about to enter stage four, by the way. That's starting next week. And in stage four, there will be, at most, two, maybe only one treatment that has appeared non-futile and possibly effective for final characterization. Dr. Negar Asdaghi:         So, really interesting. I just want to highlight two important comments that you mentioned for our listeners again. So this is multi-layer, as you mentioned, multi-arm, multi-stages. It's sort of filter by filter, just ensuring that what we're seeing, the efficacy we're seeing in preclinical studies, will potentially be replicated in clinical studies. And what you mentioned that's very important is outcomes that classically is measured in animal models are infarct volume that are obviously very important but not necessarily may translate to exactly what we look at in clinical studies, which is functional outcomes, modified Rankin score and NIH Stroke Scale. So, with that, I want to then come back to the treatments that are actually being studied as part of SPAN. You have six very different agents as part of SPAN, from tocilizumab to uric acid. Why do you think these therapies will work? Dr. Patrick Lyden:            Well, my job as the PI of the coordinating center is to remain completely agnostic to the treatments. So, everybody's equal, and they all come in on an equal playing field. We actually have a mechanical treatment called remote ischemic conditioning, as well, and then five drugs. And these were selected through a peer review process at NIH. And then we were informed at the coordinating center what drugs we would be studying. Five drugs and one treatment. And then, of course, the challenge to us was to somehow create a blinded, randomized situation. Now, this turned out to be a fascinating, it's more mechanical, but how do you blind when some of the drugs are given orally, some are given intraperitoneally, some are given intravenously, some are given once, some are given multiple times? So, we had to work with the manufacturers and inventors of these drugs and figure out a way to package them, and in the paper, actually, there's a photograph in the appendix that shows we had to find these bottles that were amber-colored and how to load them and lyophilize the drug. Dr. Patrick Lyden:            And it's actually pretty fascinating how we were able to get all of these different, wildly different therapies, as you say, into a paradigm where they could be tested one against another in a truly blinded, truly randomized way. Dr. Negar Asdaghi:         Do you think you can go on record and say which one is your favorite? Dr. Patrick Lyden:            My favorite drug's not even in SPAN. I am truly agnostic because where my heart is, is with a drug that I've been studying in my laboratory completely separately and not part of SPAN. Dr. Negar Asdaghi:         All right, so we don't have a favorite. So, in a recent review article in Stroke, you commented on treatments used by ancient Persians, Greeks, and Romans to remedy the brain affected by stroke and how the future generation of physicians will look back at our current practices of stroke with the same, how you said, awe and bemusement we hold for Galen, Aristotle, and Avicenna. How do you think stroke will be treated in the year 2222? Dr. Patrick Lyden:            Well, first of all, and to be serious for just one moment, 200 years from now, I worry more about the climate than about medicine. And I really believe our biggest efforts need to be spent on saving the planet. But assuming we make it that long, obviously diagnostic methods will be completely different. Using ionizing radiation to scan the body will be laughed at by physicians in the future. There'll be detection technologies that aren't even on our radar yet today. And then treatments will be cellular focused and regionally focused. We give a drug through a vein and it circulates throughout the entire body, and I'm sure physicians in the future will find a way to somehow get treatment into the part of the body that's injured, not the whole body. And then, who knows? All we can say is they will laugh at us in the same way that we laugh at Theodoric the Barber of York. Dr. Negar Asdaghi:         Let's move on from the future to the past. You're arguably one of the founding fathers of reperfusion therapies. You were instrumental in getting intravenous lytic therapy approved in 1996. It literally took the field 20 years for the next treatment to be approved, that's endovascular treatment. If you could go back in time and give your young self an advice on the subject of research, of course, design and execution, what advice would you give yourself? Dr. Patrick Lyden:            Don't listen to old guys. We got a lot of advice from gray-bearded folks back when we were putting together the tPA trial, and fortunately we ignored some very bad advice and did what we imagined was the right thing to do as young, headstrong up-and-comers do. The other thing is, we really believed that by publishing our science very objectively, without editorial comment, we would be listened to. And that was dead wrong. So, the data was printed in the New England Journal in a very neutral tone, and we felt people would read that data and they would start using tPA the day after the publication. And, as you say, it took 20 years for tPA to really gain widespread acceptance, thrombolytic therapy. Today, people view it as standard, but it wasn't that way at the beginning. And I would say to myself and my colleagues at that time, "Don't be afraid to promote a positive result." Yes, it has to be done with the utmost rigor, but once you have a positive result, there will be plenty of people around pretending they know more than you and telling the world why you are wrong. And it's very important to stand up for your science and stand up for your results and say, no, no, no, no, that interpretation is wrong. The data says what we said it says, and this is an effective treatment and should be used, as an example. Dr. Negar Asdaghi:         What a great advice. Just be bold and say it loud and stand up for your science. Pat, it's been a pleasure interviewing you and having you on the podcast. We really look forward to watching your research. Bring, let me say it again, 2222 closer to now. Dr. Patrick Lyden:            Thank you. Glad to be here. Dr. Negar Asdaghi:         Thank you. Dr. Negar Asdaghi:         And this concludes our podcast for the May 2022 issue of Stroke. Please be sure to check out this month's table of contents for the full list of publications, including two articles on quality improvement in stroke and neurohospitalist—inpatient teleneurology, which comes as part of our Advances in Stroke series prepared by our section editors. And as we close our podcast today, let's take a moment and ask ourselves the same question that I asked Dr. Lyden earlier. What is the next frontier in stroke treatment? Past reperfusion therapies, we have to find ways to preserve the neurons and not just the neurons, all components of the brain. So, is the future of stroke therapy cerebroprotection? Ever since the dawn of history, humanity has lived alongside of death with the conscious apprehension that as we age, we lose the very gift of life. But unlike our ancestors, the search for immortality isn't the quest to find a fountain of youth anymore. We learned that death is inevitable, but with medicine, we can reduce illness and suffering to prolong a life worth living, one with a healthy brain. And today we're closer than ever to this modern immortality with cerebroprotection in stroke, as we stay alert with Stroke Alert. Dr. Negar Asdaghi:         This program is copyright of the American Heart Association, 2022. The opinions expressed by speakers in this podcast are their own and not necessarily those of the editors or of the American Heart Association. For more, visit AHAjournals.org.  

To date, scholars have skilfully discussed aspects of Polqar's thought, and yet none of the existing studies offers a comprehensive examination that covers Polqar's thought in its entirety. Isaac Polqar: A Jewish Philosopher or a Philosopher and a Jew? (Walter de Gruyter, 2020) aims to fill this lacuna by tracing and contextualizing both Polqar's Islamic sources (al-Fārābī, Avicenna, and Averroes) and his Jewish sources (Maimonides and Isaac Albalag). The study brings to light three of Polqar's main purposes; (1) seeking to defend Judaism as a true religion against Christianity; (2) similarly to his fellow Jewish Averroists, Polqar wishes to defend the discipline of philosophy. By philosophy, Polqar means Averroes' interpretation of Aristotle. As a consequence, he offers an Averroistic interpretation of Judaism and becomes one of the main representatives of Jewish Averroism; (3) defending his philosophical interpretation of Judaism. From a social and political point of view, Polqar's unreserved embrace of philosophy raised problems within the Jewish community; he had to refute the Jewish traditionalists' charge that he was a heretic, led astray by philosophy. The main objective guiding this study is that Polqar advances a systematic naturalistic interpretation of Judaism, which in many cases does not agree with traditional Jewish views. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

To date, scholars have skilfully discussed aspects of Polqar's thought, and yet none of the existing studies offers a comprehensive examination that covers Polqar's thought in its entirety. Isaac Polqar: A Jewish Philosopher or a Philosopher and a Jew? (Walter de Gruyter, 2020) aims to fill this lacuna by tracing and contextualizing both Polqar's Islamic sources (al-Fārābī, Avicenna, and Averroes) and his Jewish sources (Maimonides and Isaac Albalag). The study brings to light three of Polqar's main purposes; (1) seeking to defend Judaism as a true religion against Christianity; (2) similarly to his fellow Jewish Averroists, Polqar wishes to defend the discipline of philosophy. By philosophy, Polqar means Averroes' interpretation of Aristotle. As a consequence, he offers an Averroistic interpretation of Judaism and becomes one of the main representatives of Jewish Averroism; (3) defending his philosophical interpretation of Judaism. From a social and political point of view, Polqar's unreserved embrace of philosophy raised problems within the Jewish community; he had to refute the Jewish traditionalists' charge that he was a heretic, led astray by philosophy. The main objective guiding this study is that Polqar advances a systematic naturalistic interpretation of Judaism, which in many cases does not agree with traditional Jewish views. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

What on earth is the Coptic Church? Most of us only know about the 21 Coptic martyrs of 2015, or about the Coptic Church rejecting the Council of Chalcedon in 451. But who are the Copts? Why did they part ways with the rest of the Church? And has persecution prompted us to reconsider if we're closer to them than we think? This week, Onsi (our resident Copt!) gets quizzed by Rhys and Colin.NOTE: most books below are linked via Bookshop.org. Any purchases you make via these links give The Davenant Institute a 10% commission, and support local bookshops against chainstores/Amazon.Currently ReadingOnsi: Three Arabaic Treatises on Aristotle's Rhetoric: The Commentaries of Al-Farabi, Avicenna, and Averroes  Colin: his own tweets Rhys: The Warden by Anthony TrollopeTexts Discussed"Unity Across the Chalcedonian Divide" by Lukas StockThe 21: A Journey Into the Land of Coptic Martyrs by Martin Mosebach"Cyril of Alexandria, letter to John of Antioch (Formula of Reunion)" by Cyril of AlexandriaSpotlightSubscribe to read the Winter 2022 edition of Ad Fontes

In the Golden Age of Islam, one twelfth-century philosopher seeks to reconcile pagan philosophy with the Quran. In this episode, we explore The Hidden Secret of Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī. When polytheism meets the Abrahamic tradition, where is truth?  Researched, written, and produced by Corinne Wieben, with original music by Purple Planet. Episode bibliographyStill curious? Check out Michael-Sebastian Noble's Philosophising the Occult: Avicennan Psychology and ‘The Hidden Secret' of Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2021).EnchantedPodcast.net   Facebook/enchantedpodcast   Instagram/enchantedpodcast   Twitter/enchantedpod  Support the show