نشریه حکمت سینوی
پیاپی 64 (پاییز و زمستان 1399)

Abstract The subjective considerations of "negatively-conditioned", "non-conditioned" and "conditioned-by-something" are of special importance in Avicenna's philosophy. For him, they are used both, in quiddity and in existence. What has been the focus of study and research in this article is that according to Avicenna, these subjective considerations are used in general concepts and as a result, the relationship between the subject and the object and the various aspects of indicating of a general concept are explained. The main usage of these subjective considerations is in concepts and quiddities, in order to explain the natural universal (and that how it exists in the concrete) and to reject Platonic Ideas and to distinguish between genus and matter. However, on the other hand, by running these subjective considerations in the concept of existence, portions of the concept of existence are obtained that, in addition to creating analogical gradation in existence, it makes the Necessary Being have a real determination in the mind and as a result we can deny or prove the attributes of God, so that it has epistemological validity. Avicenna defines the existence of God as "negatively-conditioned" in a way that it cannot be considered contrary to "non-conditioned" which is mentioned for God in the words of mystics.

Avicenna's Pleasureology texts are broader and deeper than concept of beauty and generally Aesthetics. In some of his most important works, he has tried to present an exact view of the pleasure. Although the concept of most of these texts are the same, there are some individual descriptions that are very important for making good understanding of pleasure in his thought. One of the concepts that he has mentioned in his texts of pleasure is beauty. In deed he has established a deep connection between pleasure and beauty. This issue has not been given much attention in researches of aesthetics in Avicenna's thought, and in many of them, the meaning and explaining of Avicenna's texts about beauty have been sufficed. It seems that if we analyze the beauty in the process of perception of pleasure in the thought of Avicenna, we will have the opportunity to present a new aspect of Avicenna's aesthetics. Therefore, in this study, the position of beauty in the pleasure and how beauty and pleasure are related has been discussed. The findings of this research, which has been done by descriptive-analytical method, show that according the Avicenna's pleasureology, the beauty or "Jamal" is the perfection of the perfection of a perceptive faculty or ”Molaem” in the Sight and hearing.

This paper evaluates editions and studies Ibn Sina's Risālah fī al-'ishq. The significance of the treatise resulted in the explanation of love from a philosophical approach on the basis of Aristotelian thought. Before Ibn Sina, there were treatises on love in a philosophical way by Plato, Plotinus, and the Ikhwân al-Safâ’ (the Brethren of Purity) which are conceptually different from what Ibn Sina discussed in his work. In this paper, the editions have been evaluated and then the quantity and quality of the manuscripts in each edition have been analyzed. The charchtristics of each study have been analyzed as follows: A) The analysis of the beginning sentences of the five editions permit us an comprehensive reading of the treatise: the words "Al-Hayyah"(Live), "Al-Muqziyyah" (Feeder), "Al-Mudabberah" (Aforethought) and "Al-Munba'eth" (Emitted), instead of the words "Al-Hessiah" (Sensual), "Al-Ma'dniyah", (Inorganic) "Al-Mudabberah" (designer) and "Al-Monilah" (Destiner), B) Analysis of the eighty copies of the manuscripts preserved in the various libraries in the world which is essential in any critical edition is an entirely new and different task that the editors of the treatise in our time relied on very few copies of the manuscripts that were locally accessible to them. C) How to select the exemplar as well as stemma codicum which is important in critical edition of the treatise. Moreover, the editorial aspects based on form and content of each edition have been evaluated – the aspects which have been regarded as a decisive role in philosophical analysis of the treatise.

Throughout the history, the fear of death or thanatophobia has preoccupied philosopher’s ideas and medical issues/ ethics. Since ancient times, philosophers have expressed their ideas about death and fear of dying in their books, alongside literary texts, stories, mystical and gnostic texts.In ancient Greece, in addition to Socrates and Plato, the Epicureans and Stoics played an important role in philosophizing death and thanatophobia. In the realm of Islamic philosophy, thinkers like as Muhammad ibn Zakariyyā al-Rāzī (Rhazes), Abū ʿAlī Miskawayh, and Mulla-Sadra have commented on death and thanatophobia. Nevertheless, the only monograph which deals with death and death anxiety in detail is Philosophical Approaches to Thanatophobia and its Treatments, the authorship of which is attributed to the great philosopher and physician of the Islamic world, Avicenna. The work, which is published in the collection of Avicenna’s treatises, has been translated under different titles. As an eminent philosopher and competent physician, Avicenna has aptly philosophized death and thanatophobia, the authenticity of have been acknowledge by the numerous references scholars and academicians have made to the work. However, the work, as this study suggests, is wrongly attributed to Avicenna. This treatise is, originally, a part of Abū ʿAlī Miskawayh’s Tahdhīb al-Akhlāq wa Taṭhir al-Aʿaraq (Refinement of character and purification of dispositions), wrongly attributed to Avicenna, whether intentionally or inadvertently. Examining different aspects of this wrong attribution, this study textually demonstrates that the treatise is written by Miskawayh.

Neirūzīyyeh is a treatise on commentaries of Qur'ānic verses compiled by Ibn Sina. In his treaties, Ibn Sina sought to interpret ḥurūf muqaṭṭaʿāt (the mysterious letters) through his philosophical thoughts and ḥisāb al-jummal (the Abjad numerals). Since the title of the treatise was not mentioned in the ancient biographical pieces of literature, it raises serious doubts about the attribution. Therefore, the treatise needs historically to be assessed and authenticated. In the introduction, Ibn Sina dedicated his treatise to "Sheikh Al- ʾAmīr" as a Nowruz (New Year) gift. But we are not certain about the identity of him. Based on written records, the most probable person is Abu ‘Abdillāh Barghi. Ibn Sina composed the treaties between ages seventeen to twenty-two, ca. 387-392 AH, during his stay in Bukhara. The textual criticism and structural analysis of the treatise show that the content is compatible with his other works. The key terms of the treatise including Necessary Being and other ontological terms discussed in the issues of the degrees of creations and the Theory of Emanation are the same as the ones that had been used in Ibn Sina's other philosophical works. This proves the treatise is truly attributed to him.

Based on Richard Frank's book, Creation and the Cosmic System: Al-Ghazali & Avicenna, this article examines some topics on the creation of the universe and al-Ghazali's thought about them, and proposes that al-Ghazali has been affected from Avicenna and has detached himself from the Ash'arite tradition .In the popular view, especially among orientalists, Al-Ghazali is known as an Ash'arite theologian who is opposed to philosophy. In the last twenty years, a new re-reading of Al-Ghazali's works, being largely based on Frank's researches, has taken place and changed the traditional view about him. By analyzing key texts in al-Ghazali's various works, Frank goes against the common view and reaches important conclusions about al-Ghazali's various views in his book, among which are the following: Introducing the world as a series depended on causal relations, proposing a theory which is similar to Avicenna's emanation theory, asserting the direct and indirect activity of God in the universe, necessity of the creation of the world, and the closeness of the position of al-Ghazali and Avicenna in the issue of the temporality or eternity of the world. According to Frank, many of the views that al-Ghazali rejected were insignificant compared to the views in which he followed Avicenna and it can be said that his views, more than being influenced by the Ash'arites, are Avecinnian. In the present study, by referring to Frank's other works and other works of the scholars of al-Ghazali, as well as various works of al-Ghazali and Avicenna and expressing their views, an attempt has been made to acquaint the reader with the views of the new scholars of al-Ghazali as well as Frank's views in the book, and to be able to judge them to some extent; at the same time, an attempt has been made to provide an assessment of their point of view.

Suhrawari’s syllogistic is based upon the three reductions: (1) the reduction of the negative propositions to positive ones by obversion, (2) the reduction of the particular propositions to universal ones by exposition, and (3) the reduction of the contingent and impossible propositions to necessary ones by definite necessity. Thus, the four moods of the first figure may be reduced to one mood, the four moods of the second figure may be reduced to another one, and the six moods of the third figure may be reduced to a third mood. from these three moods, the first is self-evident in its validity. But Suhrawardi proves the validity of the other two moods by two illuminationistic rules. I will show in this article that Suhrawardi is indebted to Avicenna in all these respects. Obversion is borrowed from Avicenna’s al-Mukhtasar al-Awsat; exposition is an Aristotelian method which Avicenna applies in all of his logical works; the definite necessity and one of the two illuminationistic rules are adopted from his al-Shifa’: Kitab al-Qiyas; and the other illuminationistic rule is extracted from his al-Najat. So Ziai and Walbridge’s opinion that Suhrawardi’s Syllogistic is a sharp divergence from Avicenna’s Syllogistic will be wrong.

The effort of Khaje Nasir al-Din -Tusi was to defend Avicenna against Asharite theologians Gazali and Fakhr Razi and other Anti-Aveciennen movements. He explained Avicenna,'s thought, however, he criticized some aspects of them and made a new paradigm for resolving problems, Many philosophers and theologians after him pursued him and profit by. His solutions were in a number of issues, such as the theory of Emanation (sudur) and knowledge of God. Tusi had solved the problem of how the multiplicity-the universe was generated from the One with the notion of aspects (Etebariat) and designed a model for creations that were based on logical progression and evolved Avicenna's theory. Al Tusi has some new ideas about the intellect realm and identified it with Actual Facts (Nafso-al-amr). In his view multicity in the intellect realm can solve the problem of knowledge in detail. Khaje Nasir with the aspect of shie wisdom emphasized the role of the teacher for achieving abstract knowledge and the necessity of guidance of Imam for it. He believed that somethings in religion are out of reaching intellect and for those things we need guidance and help like the corporal resurrection, he defined some ideas, like spheres and their numbers as an axiom from other sciences.

Expansion of breast (Inshirah) is an intermediary for regulating how to communicate with the people. It is influenced by epistemological insights and mystical authorities. Explanation of Inshirah, relationship between breast at Perceptual powers and Epistemological principles of Inshirah and its relationship with mystical authorities focusing on the views of Avicenna and Mulla Sadra are the main questions of this research. Examining the role of Inshirah in the development of art and vice versa, the role of art in the development of chaste love and Inshirah are other questions of this research. According to both sages, breast is imaginative. Inshirah has a hierarchy and its initial stage begins with the removal of grudges and reaches the lowest level of Inshirah is related to some middle- stage including solitude, Intoxication and sorrow and its final stage is at the end of the third journey and the intuition of the truth in the people that Avicenna interprets it as the breadth of power and Mulla Sadra as Inshirah. Sadr al-Din introduces the perfection of Inshirah as a necessity for arresting the people on the fourth journey.According to both philosophers, learning the sciences and arts is one of the factors for the delicacy of nature and the expression of chaste love, and chaste love is the path to true love and the source of the refinement of the soul. According to transcendent wisdom, chaste love is the source of Inshirah and facilitates the teaching of sciences and arts.

Worship as the goal of human creation is something that needs to be examined from a philosophical perspective in order to explain its truth. The research question is what is the truth of worship and what is the relationship between the appearance and the interior and the truth of worship and whether the levels of worship are the same among all human beings. The truth of worship is philosophically explained with the help of Sinai and Sadra principles. Ibn Sina and Mulla Sadra agree on the truth of worship, with the difference that Sadra, by considering his rich philosophical foundations, such as the originality of existence and the skepticism of existence, can explain the place of worship in his philosophical system more accurately. From the point of view of both philosophers, worship has an outward and an inward aspect. The appearance of worship cultivates the soul, and the cultivated soul finds the ability to find the truth of worship, that is, the knowledge of the truth. According to these two philosophers, knowledge has a two-way relationship with worship. Man, by thinking in himself and in existence, realizes the need of his existence for the deity, and with his will and authority, he bows before the deity. So basic knowledge leads to outward worship, and outward worship leads to self-cultivation. The cultivated soul eventually acquires the ability to attain the knowledge of the transcendent, that is, true worship.

St. Augustine, a Christian philosopher and prolocutor, and Avicenna, a Muslim philosopher and theologian, are both prominent personalties in philosophy and theology. “state Theory” is one of the key issues in political thought. Therefore, in this paper, it is studied and compared from the viewpoint of the two philosophers in terms of the origin and nature of the government and its relation with conceptual, functional, and structural perspectives. Thus, the research question is: How can we conceptualize and compare Government Theory in Avicenna and St. Augustine’s political philosophy in terms of the origin and nature (of the government)? To examine thequestion, it is hypothesized that in Augustine’s viewpoint, the government is rooted in the human beings’ “first sin” and rebellious nature, and having a customary nature, its only function is maintaining security and peace in society. However, in Avicenna’s theory, the government is originated in a divine and civilnature of human beings, and being religious in nature, its function is leading society towards the prosperity of this world and the salvation of the other world in an ideal way. The findings indicate that the starting point of each of the philosophers on human being’s nature determines the nature of the government in terms of the customary or religious nature and functional or structural perspectives. Therefore, in Augustine’s viewpoint, the government has an instrumental and mechanical approach; while, in Avicenna’s political viewpoint, the government has an organic approach from the conceptual perspective. Furthermore, Augustine’s theory is related to a realistic attitude, while, Avicenna’s theory is related to an idealistic approach. This research has used the descriptive-analytical method and the method of collecting information and data in the form of documents (libraries).

The important keyword "law" has long existed in the works of prominent political philosophers. They have had different perceptions and expectations of the law as well as law formulation stages, and these differences have occasionally been serious. This study used a descriptive-analytical method and a comparative approach to explain the foundations of Avicenna's and Kant's opinions to enact or formulate a "comprehensive universal law" and to highlight the similarities and differences between their opinions. The reason for the importance and selection of these two philosophers was their similar end in their pursuit of the universal law, but their point of difference related to this idea's emergence process. Avicenna considered social justice achievement to rest upon not only the honesty of government officials, but also a comprehensive and just law. He did not consider the general public to be worthy of legislation for two reasons: lack of knowledge and conflict of interest. This is why he linked the formulation of a comprehensive and just law to the necessity of prophecy and understanding of divine law.  However, Kant acknowledged the two mentioned shortcomings of the humankind, but argued that morally-oriented elites must endure legislation and formulate a comprehensive law based on past experience and the emphasis on the outer freedom of human beings. The common recommendation of both philosophers in the face of oppressive governments before the formulation and execution of the universal law was twofold: first, tolerance of rulers and abandonment of suicidal acts against them in order to maintain security in society; Second, the use of legal capacity to guide community leaders to comply with and reform the existing laws.