فرفوریوس

Porphyry's work titled Isagoge is commonly seen as an analysis of Aristotle's Categories, focusing on universal concepts, with the five predicables considered as different types of universals. Often, the same view is ascribed to Aristotle, but in fact, it is an approach arising from a confusion between universal and whole, as well as a confusion between particular and part by Porphyry in the Isagoge. In Categories, Aristotle does not refer to "whole" and "part" as synonyms for "universal" and "particular. Porphyry, however, in some cases distorting this distinction, uses “whole” and “part” to mean “universal” and “particular”. Moreover, they disagree on the essence of the five predicables and their relation to the universal. Aristotle views genes and species as universals and their connection to individuals as universal to particular, but he distinguishes them from the concept of universal and does not believe every universal is a genes or species. Porphyry, on the other hand, reduces genes and species to mere universal conceptions and consider them as synonyms for universal. It appears that there are two approachs in the philosophical tradition that started with Porphyry. These approachs were perpetuated and broadened by later thinkers. Initially, he altered the understanding of whole and part to universal and particular. Furthermore, he reduced genes and species to mere universal.

Although the Neoplatonic school has been called as the last link and legacy of the chain of Hellenistic philosophical tradition, the combined and unifying characteristic of this philosophical school on the one hand, and the diversity of theoretical and practical tendencies and orientations within it on the other hand, raises a range of questions in the field of conceptual unity between Those trends are imposed on the researchers. Among the first questions, aside from the question related to the type and style of reading of the members of this school from the systems of Plato and Aristotle, it goes back to the ontological view of the philosophers of this philosophical tradition, which, although undoubtedly a reflection of the views of its founder - Plotinus - in the Enneads and especially the theory hypostasis. This article analyzes and compares the levels of existence among two early Neoplatonists - Porphyry , the student of Plotinus, and Iamblichus, the student of Porphyry - and their degree of affinity and loyalty to the basic structure of Neoplatonism's Ontology, and shows that with Iamblichus, there is a kind of fundamental rotation of the type of integration with the elements. Mystery and priesthood emerged in this system and were finally rebuilt in the framework of Proclus' school and his influential writings.

This paper is going to draw a comparison between pagan and Christian apologies for holy images. To this end, after giving a general history of the issue, the most important criticisms made of the images and veneration of them will be briefly considered. The next step is a detailed comparison between the two groups of apologies. These apologies are mostly concentrated on demonstrating the necessity of images, their functions, and their compatibility with the spiritual core of religion. The comparison will show that the Christian apologies are analogical in their basic aspects to the pagan apologies. In other words, the apologies that some Christian theologians made for images in response to the other Christians and Jews, was in a way the reproduction of apologies that pagan philosophers made in response to early Christians. A subsidiary result of this analogy is the transformation and restriction of the meaning of idolatry. Idolatry's definition in this transition becomes more and more restricted to the object of worship and no longer heeds to the rituals and appearances.

One of the important voids in Iranian, even World, logical Studies is absence of a comprehensive History of Islamic Logic. The works has been done in the East and West hitherto are steps for peregrinating a long road which should be continued many years. Writing a history of Islamic Logic naturally should be begun by the study of the development of Porphyry’s Isagoge, a book that always was the first part of all logical writings in the history of Islamic Logic. Doing this, in turn, should be begun by the study of Ibn al-Muqaffaʿ’s Isagoge, a paraphrase that firstly introduced Porphyry’s Isagoge to the Islamic World.

In the contemporary Iran, logical study suffers from a poverty of historical studies. Most prominently, the lack of an Islamic history of logic is an indication of this poverty. Writing such a history must start with surveying the transformation of Porphyry’s Introduction. The doctrines of this work not only changed functionally, but also developed and deepened in the Islamic period. It may be well observed that its development pivots on: 1) the addition of eightheadings, and 2) the addition of the prerequisites to understanding of the universals’ five-fold classification. Restricted to four logicians, namely Farabi, Avicenna, Ibn al-Tayyib, and Razi, the present study focuses on the first pivot, researches its historical background, studies the queries regarding it, and presents the attempts which were made to resolve these queries.

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.

To analyze the dialectical reasoning, in Topics, Aristotle reduces any dialectical proposition to a subject which is ‘species’ and a predicate which is either ‘definition’, ‘genus’, (‘difference’,) ‘property’, or ‘accident’, and then he says that the ten categories provide the matters of these predicables. Porphyry in Isagoge substitutes the ‘species’ for the ‘definition’ and exhibites these five universal predicates as the necessary or useful introduction to the Aristotelian doctrines of categories, definition, devision, and proof. Farabi combines Aristotelian Predicables with Porphyrian Five Universals and make a new catalogue of universals. He also explains that the five universals are final elements of all definitions and reasonings in all sciences. Ibn Sina in the logic of al-Shifa’ which is the best representative of the nine-part logicography in Islamic world, applies the five universals in the same function as Porphory does in Isagoge; but in the logic of al-Isharat which is the first compelet representative of his bipartite logicography, he applies them only as an introduction to the theory of definition

Circular definition and definition by equal are fallacies in the Aristotelian logic. But it is strange to see the two fallacies in traditional definitions of “genus” and “relative species”. Even some of the passages in Aristotle obviously suggest that he accepts the circular definition not only for the two concepts but for the all correlatives. In this regard, Porphyry imitates Aristotle completely and his Isagoge has nothing but the echo of Aristotle’s points. Farabi purges his definitions of “genus” and “relative species” from these fallacies and thereby pavs the ground for Avicenna. Thanks to Farabi, Avicenna realizes and removes the fallacies in a novel manner. In this manner he [8] purifies correlatives from correlation, [0] mentions the cause of correlation, and [1] dedicates definition to the relevant correlative by adding “from the point that it is so”. The current essay explains these matters to show the development of Isagoge in Islamic period and thereby to shed light on part of the history of logic in this age.

In his Isagoge، Porphyry provides circular definitions for genus and species; and to justify this point، following Aristotle، he attaches emphasis to correlation between the two concepts and that the definitions for two correlative concepts should be circular. Ibn Sina، however، interprets Aristotelian point in another way; and، in some places in his works، he rejects Porphyry''s definitions strongly. Jonathan Barthes، who is one of the most eminent editors (experts) of the ancient philosophy، provides a report and assessment other than those of Ibn Sina. The present essay concerns a comparative study of Ibn Sina and Bartes'' ideas and represents similarities and dissimilarities between ideas of the two commentators in this special field.