جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « فلسفه نوافلاطونی » در نشریات گروه « علوم انسانی »

The present paper explores the role of Christianity in the transfer of Greek sciences, particularly philosophy, to Iran during the Sassanid period. Initially, Christianity enjoyed a brotherly and cooperative nature; however, later, in order to consolidate the status of theology and teaching it, Christian teachers and saints had to use a philosophical system, which they adapted from Greek philosophers, including Plato, Aristotle, and their followers, such as neo-Platonists. Some innovative branches of Christianity such as Monophysites and Nestorians began teaching their theoretical theology based on certain philosophical ideas. Moreover, the Syriac-speaking Christians of Mesopotamia, who were mainly Nestorian, translated the works of Plato, Aristotle, and neo-Platonists into Syriac in their schools so that, while teaching philosophy, they could use them in their own religious field. The emigration of these groups to Iran, whether as refugees or captives, resulted in the transfer of Greek sciences to Iran. In this paper, the writer has discussed the above issues based on library resources and following the descriptive-analytic method.

Islamic mysticism is a phenomenon formed on the grounds of philosophical and theosophical thoughts. This rich cultural process holds many meanings and teachings of previous schools of thought. Neo-Platonic philosophy is an important origin for Islamic mysticism and Sufism, reflected in the works of the outstanding mystics of the 6th and 7th Hegira centuries: Farid al-Din Attar Neishaburi and Jalal al-Din Mohammad Balkhi. Discovery, classification, and explication of the components existing in the Neo-Platonic philosophical system in Attar’s and Mowlavi’s poems reveal deep influences of Plato on these two summits of Islamic mysticism. The present article tries to present some evidence for this deep and basic influence.

There are similarities and differences in the philosophies of Plotinus and Suhrawardi with respect to the beauty. According to Plotinus, Being has three Hypostases: (1) the One, which is the source of any beauty; the intellect, which is the greatest being; and (3) the soul. These three hypostases are originated in a hierarchical order. The philosophy of Shahab al-din Suhrawardi has its roots in the thoughts of ancient Iranian wisdom, Islamic philosophers and neoplatonic philosophy. He started the levels of being from the light of lights. Then he speaks of supreme lights. And, in the end, he talk about lights that manage the heavens and bodies.
In the present paper, after a discussion about the thoughts of these two philosophers on the definition, levels and perception of beauty, we will compare the aesthetics of Light levels in Suhrawardi’s philosophy with being levels in Plotinus’s philosophy. In the end, the strengths and weaknesses of these systems will be evaluated, and we will show the relation between human beauty and perfection in Suhrawardi’s philosophy and that of Plotinus.

The separation between ideas and particulars, known as KHORISMOS, leads to some ontological as well as epistemological problems for Plato. On the supposition that Ideas and particulars are separated, we’ll face with a problem in ontology that how is it possible that Ideas be the cause of particulars which have no link with each other. In epistemology this question has to be replied that if the Ideas have no link with particulars, how is it possible to know Ideas through particulars? Plato and the following philosophers, applying their own methods and principles, suggest different solutions. To solve the problem, Proclus makes use of two principles which could be designated as “middle term” and “all in all but appropriately”, both of them have been preceded by the previous philosophers and even Plato, but he was the first who began to use them so vastly and explained them. According to the first principle, there are mediators between Ideas and particulars which transfer the emanation of Ideas to particulars and also prepares the possibility of knowing the former through the latter. According to the second principle, a form of the Idea corporifies in particulars and at the same time, particulars exist potentially in the transcendant Idea.

According to Plato the ideas are the main object of the names and the signification of names to the particular things is possible only in a secondly way and only because of their likeness to the ideas. Aristotle denies the existence of the ideas and, contrary to Plato, believes that names signify firstly to the particulars and their signification to the abstract conceptions is possible only in a secondly way. The neoplatonic reconciliation of Plato’s theories with that of Aristotle made the neoplatonists , following Aristotle, considere the names as signifying to the particulars. Plotin and Proclus were the only ones who realized the false reconciliation between Platonic and peripatetic theories and, following Plato, emphasized that names signify first and truly to the ideas. But the difference between the ideas and the particulars is so extensive that Plato considers the applying of names to both of them as synonymously and this makes him some problems: on the one hand causality implicates the likeness between cause and effect but, on the other hand, how is it possible for the ideas to be the cause of the particulars, if the ideas and the particulars are so different that the names are applied to them synonymously. Plotin and Proclus try to explain the signification of names to ideas and particulars in a manner, so that not their likeness to each other nor the subsequent causality between them would be refused.

Porphyry or porphyries (meaning clad in purple) is the name of one of the most prominent exponents of Neo-Platonic Philosophy. Both the philosopher himself and his school exercised an undeniable influence over Islamic philosophy in the past. His doctrine of the five universals can be seen in the preface of all logical books of the Islamic period in a more analytic and extensive fashion. His theory of the union of the intellect and the intelligible was first degraded by Ibn Sina and then accepted and expanded by Mulla Sadra. Becoming God-like as the end of ethics was a doctrine which Porphyry had borrowed from his master Plotinus, and which Muslim thinkers unanimously accepted. Moreover, a taint of Porphyry’s belief in transmigration can be observed in some of the words of Farabi and Ibn Sina. However, both of them rejected the Greeks’ idea of transmigration. Porphyry placed logic at the top of the educational system of the Neo-Platonic School, which influenced Muslim Neo-Platonists’ attention to logic. He believed in the fundamental agreement between Plato, Aristotle, and perennial philosophy, both of which clearly affected Farabi’s ideas in particular.

Interpreters of classical philosophy, especially those concentrating on the philosophy of Plotinus, mostly believe that he, in contrast with Plato who laid the foundations of political philosophy, was not concerned with politics and the introduction of an efficient political system as the basis for the classical political philosophy. While Plotinus did not explicitly address issues such as administration, government, freedom, and justice, the authors of this paper believe that his non-political philosophy carries some political implications which can be tapped to compile his political philosophy. Therefore, they seek to find and fit these implications together in order to complete the picture of Plotinus’s political philosophy.

Exploring Naser Khosrow’s -the eminent theosophist of the fifth decade A.H- neoplatonism basics of Imamology, and comparing it with some fundamental assumptions in Greek thought reflected in Plotinus philosophy as the founder of Neoplatonism philosophy, this article attempts to reach to some conclusions regarding the Islamic thought. Therefore, our main perspective in this study is rather a political perspective than a theologico-philosophical one. On this account, emphasizing the political aspects of Naser Khosraw’s thought; we attempt to explain his Imamology. This study reveals that despite the fact that Naser Khosraw’s Imamology has borrowed from the Neoplatonist philosophy, Naser Khosraw’s Ismaili thought has fundamental incompatibilities with this philosophy, incompatibilities which bear the utmost importance in terms of discussing political thought. Posing no claim on a-priori authority of The Neoplatonist philosopher, the Neoplatonist philosophy stresses on the civil virtues as the initiating stage of attaining salvation and happiness. It is while the Naser Khosraw`s Ismaili Imam, has a unique specificity, e.g. the esoteric knowledge through which he posses both the worldly and heavenly authority. On the other side, there is basically an Eastern or in a sense, Iranian, concern lied behind Naser Khosraw’s Imamology and that is the essentiality of an individual bringing about both human and divine salvation and happiness.

Kashf-ol-Mahjub of Hujwiri is one of the most authoritative ancient sources of the mysticism in Persian literature. So it might be useful in searching for the unknown sources influential in forming Persian-Islamic mysticism, which have mostly been used by the author without mentioning them since during the translation movement, mainly from Greek into Arabic, the exact titles or authors of most translated works were ignored, and remained unknown for Muslim writers. This was because, traditionally, ancient authors rarely mentioned the source of their citation. This resulted in the fact that some considered the second author the true owner of the quotation. In this article, introducing the sources of some phrases used in this book, we have tried to show the common sources in forming Islamic and Christian mysticism and to investigate their traces in Kashf-ol-Mahjub. Clearly, it might be the case that association of ideas has developed common thoughts between these two cultures. It is hard to render every similar idea to adaptation, or a direct influence of one on the other.