DIdn't he just rip off Avicenna

What are Avicennas best known works?

>>8584539
idk

>>8584532
err no. He did not. Avicenna's theory of the uncaused cause is rooted in contingent existence while Aristotle's notion of the unmoved mover is rooted in motion/time. They're different arguments and they are only similar in the sense that they both attempt to retrace existence to one thing via causality. However, their methods for doing so are different and crucially different at that.

Dun Scotus is another medieval philosopher that 'traced' God's existence, yet he did it through 'producibility.' However, none of these philosophers are "ripping off' one another and their proofs are fundamentally different.

>>8584720
Not OP, but is medieval philosophy easy/possible/profitable to get into if I'm familiar with classical metaphysics, but then my knowledge skips forward to the early moderns and onward? Anything post-Boethius or post-Porphyry is a big gap for me.

If possible - How would you characterise studying medieval philosophy seriously, if you're coming from a modern philosophy background? Will it involve more stumbling blocks?

>>8584532
>Didn't he just rip off Avicenna
No, he ripped off Aristotle
>none of his work is original
Arguably correct, but I still love Dominican Catholic Aristotle