majid sadr majles

Avicenna in two parts of the book of Al-Shifa (کتاب الشفاء) or The Book of Healing reports the theory of Platonic Ideas or Forms: first account is in the chapter 10 from the second book in the Demonstration Treatise (رساله البرهان) and second account is in the chapter 2 from the seventh book in the Theology Treatise (رساله الالهیات). Both reports have explanations of the theory of Platonic Ideas and then some critiques of the theory. Here we will discuss only Avicenna's description and explanations of the theory of Ideas; what is Avicenna's understanding from Plato's Ideas? At the present essay it is necessary to investigate the range of familiarity that Avicenna has with Platonic Ideas, Aristotle's role in this familiarity and the philosophical functions of the Ideas in Avicenna's understanding and identification of them. First of all, Avicenna thinks that Platonic Ideas are universals and, on this description, he erects other descriptions of their truth. It is vital to know that Avicenna's familiarity with Platonic Forms is essentially mediate; that's by way of Aristotle's works including both descriptions and criticisms of those forms. Review and analysis of Avicenna's texts brings us to the three arguments of Platonists for the existence of Ideas: the argument from the sciences, the one over many arguments and the object of thought argument.

In the present essay we first briefly introduce the book Routledge History of Philosophy: From the Beginning to Plato. Its Persian translation is by HasanMortazawi and published in Iran at the year 1390. AH (2011. AD) byCheshme Press.After introductory matters my study focuses on two aspects: the formal aspect of printed translation and 2- the content of Persian translation. Of course this study of the Persian translation is based on the original English text and a comparison between them. On the formal aspect I consider factors as title, order and completion or deficiency of translation. At the study on the content of the Persian translation in comparison with the original text, I consider factors as printing errors, names’ spelling in Persian, fluency and validity of the translation text. The result of this study demonstrates that the Persian translation of the first volume of Routledge History of Philosophy: From the Beginning to Plato is subjected to some unwanted deficiencies. Of them are these: 1- Sometimes the Persian spelling of the special names especially Greek names are not exact or correct. 2- Some of the philosophical terms arenot translated in uniformity. 3- The text of Persian translation is not edited by an editor that is expected to be specialist in the ancient Greek philosophy and maybe 4- Translator’s nonsufficient acquaintance with the Greek philosophy. Translation of philosophical works as other subjects in theoretical disciplines is a technical work and in addition to the skills of writing and grammar needs special information of the subject matter. I’ll be glad if this essay may include some useful points for Mr. H. Mortazawi in revising his translation at the second edition.

In the present essay we study the Persian Translation of Routledge History of Philosophy:Renaissance and Seventeenth-century Rationalism. This work is volume 4 of ten ones and published first time in 1993 by Routledge. Editor of this book is J. R. A. Parkinson. Persian translator of the book is Seyyed Mostafa Sharaeeniwith the editorship of Hassan Fathi and in Iran first published in 1392.
After a brief introducing the English text, our studying divided to two parts: 1- Study on the formal aspect of the Persian translation and 2- Study on the material aspect. For the both aspects we compare some pages of Persian translation with the original text at random. Our relative conclusion is this: Persian translation is credible, understandable and useful for Iranian students of philosophy. Experience and expertise of Persian translator and his attention to the philosophical terms are mainly from factors that make his translation as an academic reliable work. Of course there are some unwanted slips that their correcting depicts ethical task and philosophical originality of translator against readers.

In the Meno there is a paradox (aporema) claiming that research and therefore learning is impossible; because we know a something or not. If there is knowledge, we dont need to research and if there isnt, we cannot search; because we havent any idea of a subject-matter. Plato resolves the paradox by the theory of Anamnesis: knowledge/learning is recollection. This theory presupposes the pre-existence of the soul and its transmigration. In the Posterior Analytics Aristotle discusses the paradox and resolves it by separation between previous universal knowledge (of major premise) and the particular knowledge of things.
Al-Farabi in the treatise Harmonization between the opinions of Plato and Aristotle, tries to reconcile their principal views which one of them is on the paradox of Meno. He relates their views from Plato's Phaedo and Aristotle's Posterior Analytics and then harmonizing them. Al-Farabi as a Muslim philosopher has no attention to the theory of soul transmigration in the Phaedo and looks at the arguments of the immortality of the soul as a witness that Plato uses in answering the problem of knowledge/learning. Because of this interpretation and his focusing on the essence of recollection theory, Al-Farabi eventually reconciles the recollection theory (of Plato) with the theories of deduction and induction (in Aristotle).

In this article we will examine the Persian translation of a famous book name “God and Philosophy” by Etienne Gilson. Here we compare between two parts of the translation and its original text: 'Preface' and the first section 'God and Greek Philosophy ."For this comparison we have two reasons: 1- The Persian translation ( )ﺧﺪÇ æﻓﻠﺴﻔﮫ is a much referred book in teachers and students of Islamic and Western Philosophy in Iran. This is because of the importance of the subject, the outstanding Writer and the famous Translator: Shahram Pazooki. 2- In the second edition the Translator speaks of some revisions; while there are many points that are necessary for new revising and editing. In my opinion first of all this is a writer or a translator that can revise his/her work better than others. On the other hand a writer or a translator must not forget his/her cultural and ethical duties.

In addition to the immortality of the Soul (psyche) as a principal issue, there are other issues in the Phaedo. One of them is claiming that the pure knowledge is attainable only after death at the afterworld. In the first, the function of the present article is describing and explaining the claim. To this end, we must inquire the meaning of the pure knowledge in the Phaedo. Based on the point of view of the Object and the Subject of knowledge, we can issue two meanings: a) Pure knowledge means a Direct cognition, and b) Pure knowledge means the Form of Knowledge (Knowledge itself). In the second phase we are trying to reconstruct proofs for Plato's claiming. Why the Pure Knowledge in this world is Impossible? In attention to the two meanings of the pure knowledge, it seems that we can project two reasoning: a) Proof by the distinction of the direct cognition from the indirect and b) Proof by the falling short of the sensible things from their Forms (Ideas).

The “Digression” in Plato’s Theaetetus (172-177) compares between philosopher’s life and orator’s of which I’m going to render an analytic report. There are some questions: how and why Plato’s discussion on the general definition of “Knowledge” is led to the “Digression” and what are the key themes of it? What is the role of the “Digression” in the Theaetetus? The “Digression”, apparently and besides the content, not conflicts with the whole of the Theaetetus. Because Plato, naturally and not conventionally, transits to the “Digression”, from the process of a judgment on the superiority of some people to others. After all, the content of “Digression” is in consistence with Plato’s doctrines. The apparent conclusion of the Theaetetus, relying on the individuals, is negative. However, the “Digression”, explicitly or implicitly, refers to the previous existence of the Forms. But, regarding to the “Digression”, the impossibility of the definition of “Knowledge” without universal Forms is the important message of the Dialogue.