is like that of a definition to what it defines, a name to what it names, knowledge to what is known, and so forth.

Knowledge, speech, number, definition—which is an expression indicating its object—estimation, and the like inhere in the one who knows, speaks, counts, defines, and estimates. If number is a meaning inhering in the one who counts, it is governed by the same principles as the other things of this kind that inhere in a human being; their locus is the person himself. As for what is determined by them, it depends on their locus, as with other accidents of the same kind.

[The third response]

It may be said:

These numbers belong to the class of universals, and discussing them is like discussing the universals of species.

It is well known that when the followers of Pythagoras affirmed an abstract number existing independently, the great majority of rational thinkers, both among their fellow philosophers and others, rejected this view. Their position was weaker than that of Plato’s followers, who affirmed independently existing abstract universal realities, which they call “Platonic Forms.”

Since the argument based on universal realities has already been shown to be invalid, the argument based on universal numbers is even more clearly invalid.

[Section: Continuation of al-Rāzī’s discussion in al-Arba‘īn]

Al-Rāzī said:

“Having understood this, we say: What is meant by a thing’s being situated in a particular direction and place is that it can be physically pointed to as being here or there.

The world is situated in a particular direction and place in this sense. If the Creator