فصلنامه تاریخ فلسفه
سال دوم شماره 1 (پیاپی 5، تابستان 1390)

Socrates never left any written work from himself, but we can know about him through Plato’s coherent works. The Socrates portrayed in his works has been of interest to philosophers during the last 2500 years. Socrates stands at the beginning of the history of philosophy through Plato and is the symbol of philosophy, the same as philosophy, and a loveable picture of philosophy. He is truly the teacher of philosophers, and that is why philosophers like the Socrates introduced by Plato and wish to know more about him. This paper deals with some questions as follows: Who is Plato’s Socrates? How does he portray Socrates in his works? What are the characteristics of his Socrates, and why and how he developed them? Here, the writers also deal with the most important and basic feature of Socrates as explained by Plato.Socrates is a speaker of true words, and this feature unveils his particular wisdom; he speaks the right word as opposed to the speakers of wrong words. The writers have also tried to inquire into what the right word is, who its speaker is, and why he speaks the right word, as well as what the wrong word is, who its speaker is, and why he speaks the wrong word within the confinement of this paper.

There is a famous classification concerning the history of Islamic Sufism and gnosis in Iran and Iraq entitled “the Schools of Khorasan and Baghdad”. This classification is commonly used and referred to in the books on the history of Sufism and gnosis. Through a study of the important and valid sources of Sufism and gnosis as well as the sources that the writers of the history of Sufism have dealt with, the writers have tried to find an answer to the question of whether this classification has an essentially acceptable basis or whether it is open to criticism. They have criticized the geographic and/or sober and intoxicated bases of the above classification. Finally, they conclude that it requires a fundamental revision and reconstruction.

The history of dialectic is as long as the history of philosophy itself. This term has been used by several philosophers, each having a different meaning of it in mind. In this paper, after providing a brief explanation concerning the meaning of this term among philosophers, its meaning for Plato, Kant, and Hegel is discussed in detail.For Plato, dialectic has a perfectional meaning and is viewed as a method for attaining the unchanging essence of existents. Kant equates it with polemics or logic, that is, a study of the way that wisdom follows in order to attain the knowledge of things by essence and beyond-the-senses truths. Hegelian dialectic is always employed in order to bring the opposites together at a higher level. In fact, he believes that the main task of philosophy is to tread on this path.In the present paper, the writers, while examining and comparing the dialectical theories of these three philosophers, have demonstrated that Hegelian dialectic can be considered as a synthesis of those of Plato and Kant.

One of the admitted premises that has played a significant role in some of the discussions of Muslim philosophers and the formation of some of their ideas is the theory of the spheres with Earth as its center. This theory has significantly affected some of the important theories of Muslim philosophers so that some of them, such as Farabi and Ibn Sina, in order to interpret the quality of the emanation of spheres and their souls, brought faith in the inclusion of the three-fold directions in each of the intellects higher than the tenth intellect. Accordingly, they interpreted the quality of the emanation of a lower intellect and spherical body and the soul. Given the number of the spheres and the Earth located at their center, they also limited the number of vertical intellects to 10. Suhrawardi also believed in the unlimited multiplicity of vertical intellects considering the same spheres and the stars existing in some of them.The relationship between the created to the eternal, and the changing to the fixed is also one of the problems that Islamic philosophers (particularly, the Peripatetic and Illuminationist philosophers) tried to interpret and justify by resorting to the circular movement of the spheres. The philosophers advocating the Transcendent Philosophy solved the above problem based on the trans-substantial motion; however, they never completely denied the impact of the circular movement of the spheres on the sublunary world.Islamic philosophers also benefitted from the theory of the spheres in the interpretation of dreams. They believed that the spheres and spherical souls were the tablets and sources of particular perceptions and maintained that the knowledge of dreams and hidden affairs was the product of the connection of human souls to spherical souls. Moreover, some of these philosophers (for example, Suhrawardi) believed that the problem of recollection and reminding forgotten affairs is possible through the same connection with the source of particular sciences, that is, spherical souls.The corporeal resurrection of some of the human souls is one of the problems that some Muslim philosophers have tried to interpret by reference to spherical bodies. They believe that ignorant souls imagine their worldly ideas and affairs by connecting with spherical bodies and, in this way, feel imaginative pain or pleasure.The purpose of the present paper is to interpret and analyze the above problems and to examine and criticize the approaches of Muslim philosophers in this regard.

Science qua science must enjoy coherence of problems, and this by itself originates in a unifying element. Most philosophers called this unifying element the subject of science and considered it as the criterion for distinguishing different sciences from each other. The main purpose of the present research is to examine the views of Ibn Sina and Mulla Sadra on determining the subject of philosophy and distinguishing it from other sciences. As we read in logic, the subject of each science is what discusses its essential accidents. In other words, the predicates of the problems of a science are among its essential accidents. Hence, there is a tight relationship between the subject of each science and its problems. According to Ibn Sina and Mulla Sadra, the subject of philosophy, as the definition goes, is “existent qua existent”, and its problems are also among the essential accidents of existence. However, not only is there no proof to demonstrate this point, but also, as research shows, some of the issues existing in the works of these two philosophers are not logically among the problems of this discipline, for example, the issues of the soul, resurrection, prophethood, and leadership. The application of all logical principles to everything that is known as a philosophical problem is highly challenging. This is because, at the level of definition, philosophical problems must be among the essential accidents of “existent qua existent”; however, this is problematic at the level of realization, and it seems that this point has not been observed in some philosophical problems. Therefore, there is a gap between the definition and realization of philosophy, and some efforts are required to fill it. For example, if we wish to demonstrate our ideas philosophically, we can examine them in a separate discipline or in the fields of second-order knowledge. Thus it seems rational to define various fields of philosophy and their branches and, through considering different subjects and observing the principle of essential accidents, to gain the knowledge of particular and general philosophies.

This paper studies the conformity and consistency between Islam and Islamic philosophy through clarifying the existing views in Islamic philosophy in the past and present. Here, the writer initially introduces the two important and key approaches of conformity and consistency. Then, after explaining the theoretical and practical problems of the school of conformity, he votes for the consistency approach. He also deals with the religious or non-religious nature and features of Islamic philosophy.

The theory of analogy, the greatest defender of which is said to be Thomas Aquinas, has a noteworthy background in the history of philosophy, particularly in the Middle Ages. A. J. Ashworth is one of the most prominent contemporary commentators of this field. In the present research, based on his interpretations, the writer has dealt with the main topics of this theory which have often remained unnoticed in most theological-philosophical works on analogy.He finally concludes that the history of this theory goes back to a time long before Thomas Aquinas, and most of its interpretations are unclear and in conformity with Thomas’ main outlook. Accordingly, it is necessary to review the common interpretations of the theory of analogy.