Imagine a horse. You can think clearly about what makes a horse a horse, four legs, mane, hooves, capacity to gallop, without deciding whether any particular horse actually exists in the world right now. That mental maneuver, so natural it seems trivial, is the seed of among the most powerful ideas in the history of philosophy. Ibn Sina (Avicenna, 980–1037 CE), the Persian polymath whose works bridged Greek, Arabic, and later Latin thought, turned that maneuver into a systematic metaphysical doctrine that shaped everything from medieval scholasticism to Islamic theology.
For Ibn Sina, essence (māhiyya, literally, "what-ness") is what a thing is, considered entirely in itself, stripped of all questions about whether it exists and where. Existence (wujūd) is a further fact, added on top of essence. In every created thing, every contingent being, the two are genuinely distinct. Only in God, the Necessary Existent (wājib al-wujūd), do essence and existence collapse into unity, because God cannot not exist; His existence flows from His essence alone.
This distinction is not merely logical bookkeeping. It carries a radical implication for language. When you use a word like horse, you are latching onto an essence, the horseness, that floats free of any individual horse and even of whether horses exist. Ibn Sina calls this the "essence in itself" (māhiyya min haythu hiya hiya): considered on its own, horseness is neither one nor many, neither mental nor physical, neither existent nor non-existent. It is pure intelligible content, the precondition for meaning.
Ibn Sina develops this in Kitāb al-Shifā' (The Book of Healing), his encyclopedic masterwork composed around 1014–1020 CE, especially in the sections on Logic and Metaphysics (Ilāhiyyāt). The Logic volume distinguishes between the particular horse you see in front of you, the universal concept of horse that the mind forms, and the essence itself, which underlies both without being reducible to either.
In metaphysics, Ibn Sina makes a distinction between essence and existence; essence considers only the nature of things, and should be considered apart from their mental and physical realization. This distinction applies to all things except God, whom Ibn Sina identifies as the first cause and therefore both essence and existence.
— Ibn Sina (Avicenna), summarized from Kitāb al-Shifā' (The Book of Healing), Metaphysics section, c. 1020 CE
What does this mean for language? Words, on Ibn Sina's view, are tools for communicating essences. When I say "horse" and you understand me, it is because you grasp the same essence I am pointing at, not because we are both looking at the same physical object or the same mental image. The essence is a shared intelligible, available to any mind that is properly oriented. This makes genuine communication possible: language reaches the real because it reaches essences, which are the intelligible skeleton of reality.
Yet the picture is more complex. Ibn Sina is acutely aware that the same essence can be grasped under different descriptions, and that Arabic, the language of his philosophical maturity, forced him to coin entirely new vocabulary for Greek ideas. His Kitāb al-Hudūd (Book of Definitions) is almost a philosophical dictionary: short, precise definitions of terms like jawhar (substance), ʿilla (cause), and māhiyya itself. Each definition is an attempt to stabilize the link between word and essence, to prevent the meaning from sliding.
The "floating man" thought experiment, found in the Shifā' and the Kitāb al-Najāt, pushes the theory of self-knowledge to an extreme. Imagine a person created in mid-air, blindfolded, not touching anything, hearing nothing. Would they know they exist? Ibn Sina says yes: the soul knows itself directly, without any sensory mediation, without even a body. This establishes that the first-person essence, the I, is accessible to pure inner awareness. Language, then, is not just about outer objects; it is also the medium through which the self articulates its own intelligible structure to itself and others.
Quick reflection
If essence is separable from existence, does the word 'unicorn' refer to a real essence even though unicorns don't exist?