his knowledge of universals as for the first it is what ibn sina chose. he claimed that he knows all things in a universal way that is not subject to time and he does not know the particulars that require renewal of comprehension of them by a change in the essence of the world. so we say the knowledge of the first of the existence of all species and genera that are infinite is the same as his knowledge of himself or of something else. if you say it is other than him then you have established multiplicity and refuted the principle. if you say it is the same as him then you have not distinguished yourself from those who claim that mans knowledge of something else is the same as his knowledge of himself and the same as his essence and whoever says that is foolish in his mind.
علمه بالكليات فأما الأول فهو الذي اختاره ابن سينا. فإنه زعم أنه يعلم الأشياء كلها بنوع كلي لا يدخل تحت الزمان، ولا يعلم الجزئيات التي يوجب تجدد الإحاطة بها تغيرا في ذات العالم. فنقول علم الأول بوجود كل الأنواع والأجناس التي لا نهاية لها عين علمه بنفسه أو غيره. فإن قلتم إنه غيره، فقد أثبتم كثرة ونقضتم القاعدة. وإن قلتم إنه عينه، لم تتميزوا عن من يدعي أن علم الإنسان بغيره عين علمه بنفسه وعين ذاته، ومن قال ذلك سفه في عقله.