The accidentality of existence in Avicenna (Ebn Sinā, d. 1037) is related to his distinction between “existence (vojud)” and “quiddity (māhiyya).” Both these theories have been greatly criticized by Averroes (Ebn Roshd, d. 1198). The latter’s misunderstanding of Avicenna has been the cause of confusion for the comprehension of Aristotle (d. 322 bce) in Western Christian scholasticism. This misunderstanding has also extended to Western contemporary Aristotelian scholarship.

This paper will try to clarify how this phenomenon perpetuated a global confusion and misunderstanding between the East and the West and also created a disastrous situation for the comprehension of the Peripatetic School. This state of affairs has continued up to the present day among both medievalists and scholars of Aristotelian philosophy. However, it is not my intention in this paper to give a complete review of Western and Eastern scholarship on this subject. Rather, I shall limit myself (with some exceptions) to the works of Aristotle, Alexander of Aphrodisias (fl. c. 205) and other Greek commentators, Avicenna, and Averroes, which together constitute the primary sources for the ongoing discussion around the nature of “essence” and “existence” in Avicenna’s works.

阿维森纳（Avicenna）存在的偶然性（EbnSinā，卒于1037年）与他对“存在（vojud）”和“静默（māhiyya）”的区分有关。这两种理论都受到了Averroes的强烈批评（Ebn Roshd，卒于1198年）。后者对阿维森纳（Avicenna）的误解，引起了对西方基督教学派中的亚里士多德（约公元前322年）理解的困惑。这种误解还扩展到了西方当代亚里士多德奖学金。

本文将试图阐明这种现象如何在东西方之间长期造成全球性的混乱和误解，并给理解派学校造成了灾难性的局面。这种状况一直持续到今天，在中世纪主义者和亚里士多德哲学家之间。但是，我的目的不是要对西方和东方在这一主题上的学术知识进行完整的回顾。相反，我将我自己（有一些例外）限制在亚里士多德的著作，Aphrodisias区域的亚历山大（佛罗里达州。Ç。205）和其他希腊评论员，阿维森纳和阿威罗伊，它们共同构成的主要来源为各地自然正在进行的讨论在阿维森纳作品中的“本质”和“存在”。