فصلنامه تاریخ فلسفه
سال دهم شماره 4 (پیاپی 40، بهار 1399)

Researchers in the field of Islamic studies in the West have chosen the name of “Translation Movement” to refer to the trend of the translation of the books of different nations into Arabic during the Abbasid period. This trend, which continued for two centuries in different spontaneous or guided forms, received some reactions from the Islamic society. One of the important questions in this regard is what the attitude of the distinguished Muslim philosophers of that period, particularly al-Kindī, Fārābī and Ibn Sīnā, was to this movement. The present study indicates that, unlike the common response in the historiography of the translation trend, instead of a translation movement, during this time we are faced with a philosophical movement alongside a scientific one in the history of Islam. The philosophers mentioned above separated their judgments of three problems, namely, translation, translators and interpreters, and translated and interpreted works, from each other. Based on their own philosophical movement, which was in conformity with the principles of Islamic thought, they had three methodological, reformist, and critical reactions to this trend. They evaluated the translated works based on Islamic philosophical theorems and benefitted from them with some innovations in their own philosophical systems.

In the modern period, contemporary researchers of Aristotle’s philosophy have paid greater attention to the concept of prime matter, which is surrounded by a number of challenging discussions. In this paper, the authors have compared the two concepts of matter and potency, which are very close to each other, in Aristotle’s philosophy. Researchers have generally ignored the duality and separation of these two concepts from each other, while attending to their differences makes the explanation of the challenging issues in relation to Aristotelian prime matter much easier. One of such distinctions is the hypokeimenon or substratum nature of Aristotelian matter which prevents its confusion with the concept of potency due to its independence. In Aristotle’s writings, the terms hyle and dunamis (matter and potential) have always been used alongside each other, which has made it difficult to distinguish them from each other. However, it must be taken into consideration that this distinction plays a fundamental role in understanding prime matter and the related challenging problems, such as the quality of the combination of matter and form and the identity of new substance. Some philosophers, such as Ibn Sīnā, have paid attention to the various features of matter and differentiated them from each other. Among contemporary philosophers, Murtaḍa Muṭahharī has also posed some discussions in this regard, which are emphasized in this paper. An analysis of such views demonstrates that prime matter cannot be merely the same as absolute potency; rather, it is also a loci for receiving form. Hence, based on Aristotelian principles, the survival of prime matter is necessary.

Undoubtedly, Sīmurgh is one of the most important and attractive Ishraqi (Illuminationist) and gnostic symbols in the Islamic-Iranian civilization. The traces of this mythical bird can also be found in Avestan and Pahlavi texts as a near-stationed and heaven-residing bird as well as the name of a prominent philosopher in Zoroastrian philosophy. The correct pronunciation of the world Sīmurgh is mərəyō saēnō in Avesta, sēnmurw and saeno muruk in Pahlavi language, and siræng in some Persian texts. Orientalists have translated this word into eagle and royal falcon in English. Perhaps the translation of Sīmurgh into eagle is rooted in translations’ focus on the word syena in Sanskrit, which means eagle in this language. Admittedly, this Sanskrit word is quite similar to the Avestan saena. Suhrawardī has talked about sīmurgh in different parts of his works such as in the treatises of Ṣafīr-i Sīmurgh, ‘Aql-i surkh, and Fī ḥālat al-ṭufullīyah. In ‘Aql-i surkh, following an innovative approach and method of interpretation, he discusses sīmurgh’s support of Rostam in his war with Esfandiar; in Ṣafīr-i sīmurgh he explains the virtues of sīmurgh in the Introduction to the treatise, and in the last treatise he elaborates on sīmurgh’s living in heaven. Suhrawardī’s method of discussion in these works reveals the place and holiness of this bird in his mind and language and, most importantly, the depth of his knowledge of ancient Iranian philosophy. In this paper, the author discusses the place of sīmurgh in Avestan and Pahlavi texts and Illuminationist philosophy.

In the history of Islamic Philosophy, Shahrzurī has been introduced as the first and perhaps most important commentator of Ḥikmat al-ishrāq and Suhrawardī’s school of philosophy. This could be correct provided that no philosopher had ever paid any particular attention to Illuminationist philosophy in the time interval between Suhrawardī and Shahrzurī. If we learn that Shahrzurī himself was influenced by another philosopher, we need to revise the common view in this regard. This philosopher was Zayn al-dīn Kāshī, the author of Ḥadā’iq al-ḥaqāyiq, who studied the teachings of Illuminationist philosophy prior to Shahrzurī. Suhrawardī’s influence over Kāshī, in addition to the order of the chapters in Ḥadā’iq al-ḥaqāyiq, is clearly visible particularly in an independent chapter on the types of light (nūr). This chapter is in fact a summary of all the discussions in Ḥikmat al-ishrāq. Through a study of the order of the discussed problems in Ḥadā’iq al-ḥaqāyiq and a comparative analysis of some of the chapters of the book, the present paper reveals that Zayn al-Dīn Kāshī paid attention to Suhrawardī’s philosophy before Shahrzurī. Therefore, he must have adopted this approach prior to Shahrzurī and must have been the first Illuminationist thinker after Suhrawardī.

In the history of philosophy and philosophers’ thoughts, God has been discussed differently as the unmoved mover, thought of thought, cause of causes, and the first cause. One of the philosophers who greatly influenced the reformist movements of the church in the 16 and 17 centuries was Fancisco Suarez. His book of Metaphysical Disputations, which comprises 54 disputations on some topics such as general ontology and causes and particular ontology and types of cause, holds a supreme place in the history of philosophy. The present study aims to provide an answer to the questions of what place Suarez has allocated to the discussion of God, and which approach he follows in discussing Him. Another question here is whether one can conceptually reduce all the various names that he has chosen for God based on his own philosophy to a single concept. The findings of the study reveal that Suarez considered three places for God: God as the Efficient Cause, God as the Final Cause (in the first volume of Metaphysical Disputations), and God as Being (in the second volume of the same book). Given Suarez’s definition and explanation for each of these titles, all of them can be explained in terms of an ontological concept and meaning. He follows a philosophical approach to all three stations; however, he also adopts a theological approach to discussing God in the third one and connects the discussion of God to the text of the Holy Book.

Thomas Aquinas, who was inspired with Aristotle’s philosophy in developing some of his views, followed his path in considering art as a kind of imitation. However, the concept of imitation for him was not a purely Aristotelian one; rather, it was also influenced by the viewpoints of some thinkers such as Augustine and Pseudo-Dionysios the Areopagite. He employed mimesis in the texture of Christian theological discussions as well as in relation to the issues related to the metaphorical language of holy texts. Therefore, the concept of mimesis in Aquinas’ view was faced with an epistemological dilemma. On the one hand, it could result in both anxiety and relaxation in addressees or perhaps, through affecting their imagination, distract them from the path of rationality. On the other hand, it seems that the language of the Holy Book, which has been written for leading its addressees to the path of intellection and religiosity, shares the same features of the language of artistic works. Different types of mimesis have been used in the Holy Book and, more importantly, the relationship between the world of being and God is explained there on the basis of the concept of mimesis or imitation. In this paper, through analyzing the views of Aquinas and his references to such philosophers as Aristotle, Augustine, and Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, the authors try to provide a clear explanation of the concept of mimesis and the epistemological functions of artistic imitation in Thomism.

The School of Khorasan follows an anti-philosophy approach and believes in the separation of the fields of revelation, intellect, and gnosis from each other. It also attends to the surface meaning of religious texts and has a different view of the soul and its subsistence. The advocates of this School believe that the soul is a delicate body which is different from the soul only in terms of its accidents. They also maintain that it receives certain perfections such as knowledge and intellect, which are luminar (nūrī), immaterial, single, and external realities, merely through Almighty’s blessing. Man will always remain a corporeal being not only at the moment of creation but also to the end of what they unite with. In the School of Khorasan, self-knowledge is a necessary introduction to demonstrating the subsistence of the soul so that immortality is considered to be secondary to the knowledge of the truth. The soul, which lives with the body in worldly life, continues its life in the intermediate world needless of the body and independently in a body-like form. However, it is returned to the worldly body in the Hereafter and is rewarded or punished alongside it. This view suffers from some problems as follows: 1) equating the soul with body requires spiritual and corporeal resurrections to refer to the same process; 2) the approach of this school lacks internal consistency at times, and some diversity and conflict of ideas can be observed there, and 3) some of the concepts and related problems have not been explained correctly. Following an analytic library method, the present study explains and evaluates the views of three prominent figures of this school regarding the truth of the soul and its subsistence.