For Avicenna, ”one”, or ”being” or ”existent” are per se accidents of ”thing”. A per se accident is a predicate (something which is affirmed or denied concerning an argument of a proposition) that belongs to a subject in itself or per se, but not as part of its essence. When you think of a thing, any thing, its being or unity is not included essentially in itself. In order to exemplify this, I have picked the current prime minister of Finland, who became at the time of her confirmation by Parliament at age 34 not only the youngest-ever prime minister of Finland, but the youngest state leader in the world. I saw her on TV the other day, and that’s why she ended up here. Sorry girlfriend.

We already know that for Avicenna, essence is the most fundamental category there is. However, there are two different senses of existence of the essence of Sanna: in re, which means ’in matter’, and ante rem, which means in the mind or soul. Both of these senses are, according to Avicenna, superadded to the essence. Predicates such as individuality or universality do not belong to the essence of mrs. Marin: in herself, she is neither an individual nor a collective, neither a unity nor a disunity, ”neither potentially nor actually in any of these this in such a way that this would enter into [humanness]”.

For Avicenna, accidents such as race, length and body, do not define the human being. I am wondering, however, if gender does define the human being? Is there the essence of man and the essence of woman? This very interesting question aside, accidents are still crucial as they add to the idea of who one is, or who Sanna Marin is. The fact that she is the prime minister is not a part of her essence. Neither is her hair color, nor the fact that she is good at throwing hoops. These are the things that, however, make her recognizable to us. Would we be able to recognize the essence of Sanna? Do we have access to it?