aristotle

The theory of "graded terms" (alfāẓ-e mušakkik) has been a subject of considerable debate among Muslim philosophers. The roots of this theory can be traced back to Al-Farabi and Avicenna. This article investigates whether or not the theory of graded terms is a legacy of Aristotle and identifies the problem it seeks to address. Aristotle's perspective on terms, especially the term "being", is examined through his works and then compared with the views of Al-Farabi and Avicenna. Additionally, Nasir al-Din al-Tusi’s claim that this theory was also articulated by Greek philosophers is critically analyzed. Aristotle categorizes terms exclusively as either homonymous or synonymous and makes no mention of graded terms (mušakkik). Al-Farabi categorizes graded terms under synonymous terms, while Avicenna, in his Logic of the Healing (Mantiq al-Shifāʼ), places them under homonymous terms. Nonetheless, Avicenna does not consider graded terms to be purely homonyms. This study demonstrates that Aristotle’s categorization of terms proves inadequate in addressing certain terms like “being.” The theory of graded terms emerges as a solution to this challenge

After the collection of Aristotle's works by Andronicus of Rhodes, the tradition of commenting on Aristotle's works began in a special and wide way. By examining the remaining explanations, it is highlighted that the tradition of commenting on Aristotle's works was carried out both for its own sake and for a better understanding of his opinions, which was usually used by the Peripatetics, or for a better understanding. Plato's philosophy that the Platonists usually interpreted Aristotle’s views with this aspect. A comparison of the comments of Ammonius, Boethius, and al-Farabi in the ninth chapter of the book on Aristotle on Interpretation indicates that each of these three philosophers had different concerns and approaches to the explanation of Aristotle's opinions. Ammonius, who is concerned with Aristotle and Plato, looks at the topics of this chapter with a theological approach, Boethius tries to defend Aristotle against the misconceptions of the essentialist Stoics in the space of propositions and the relationships between subjects and their predicates. Although al-Farabi is the inheritor of the tradition of Ammonius, he tries to explain this chapter in the same logical space and establishes the position of Aristotle's logic as a tool (organon) of philosophy.

Catharsis is one of the most controversial ideas presented in the realm of aesthetics and the philosophy of art. Aristotle's lack of a precise definition of this concept in "Poetics" is one of the reasons for its ambiguity. This issue has led critics and philosophers to speculate about this idea and offer various interpretations of it. In this article, we will attempt to address the most prominent interpretations that have emerged regarding this idea. From this perspective, we will examine three significant interpretations of this concept that have been proposed in three different domains: ethical (purification), psychological (refinement), and epistemological (clarity). Alongside this, we will also explore the relationship of this idea with other aesthetic concepts, including tragic pleasure, tragic flaw, and tragic knowledge. Additionally, we will review the views of some philosophers, such as Nietzsche and Hume, who have had concerns about tragedy and have written extensively on the subject—particularly those passages that have contributed to the clarification of the concept of catharsis. Ultimately, we will demonstrate that the idea of catharsis is one characterized by uniqueness and plurality, which cannot be reduced to abstract concepts of thought and cannot be confined within the framework of a singular grand narrative. Instead, it finds its meaning and specific functionality depending on the perspective from which it is viewed or the context in which it is employed.

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.

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 order to comprehensively describe and explain the intellectual system of Sheikh Al-Raees Abu Ali Sina, especially to recognize the amount and quality of his philosophical innovations, it is necessary to refer and cite his lesser-known works, including the book Al-Insāf. This necessity goes back not only to the need to complete the geometry of his "Eastern wisdom", but also to the correct presentation of the principles and foundations of the philosophical thought of the Islamic world and the degree of independence and identity of the phenomenon called "Islamic philosophy". Another aspect of the importance of this reference and research is that Ibn Sina, in the mentioned book, examines and evaluates the opinions of the old and new commentators of Aristotle, among the conventional philosophical traditions up to his time. Something that can be seen in few works of this kind. Despite the certainty of attributing the authorship of the work to Ibn Sina, there are many questions about the themes and subjects of this book. In addition, discussions have been raised about the time of creation and authorship of the work, the quantity and quality of the content, and the issue of its rewriting. In this article, an attempt has been made to answer some of the aforementioned questions by using historical and philosophical sources and parts of the text of the Al-Mubahasat as an important witness and proof. In general, it should be said that Al-Insāf has an original version and a rewritten version, and in each of them, Ibn Sina had a different treatment compared to the descriptions of Aristotle's books. His effort has been to resolve the ambiguities in Aristotle's books based on rational and definite criteria, while making a fair judgment between different opinions, by determining the principles that he obtained from the main books of wisdom. In the meantime, the process of Avicenna's and his students' scientific relations with the thinkers of that time, especially the people of Baghdad, has been clarified to some extent. In order to refer to Ibn Sina's own works and literature in this context, the translation of a part of the text and the appendices of Al-Mubahasat have been attached to this article.

The perception is one of the new fields of contemporary philosophy, which focuses on the main object of perception and the possibility of ordinary conception of perception. The core of the problem of perception is illusion and hallucination; In such a way that the response to the problem of illusion and hallucination is considered to determine our response to the true object of perception. Aristotle and Muslim Peripatetic Philosophers, especially Ibn Sina, paid attention to sensory error, but they did not consider it as a basis for the theory of perception. In this paper, relying on the argument of sensory error, we show that there are two meanings of sensory error in Aristotle, which lead to two conceptions of perception: The meaning that requires the sense data interpretation leads to the acceptance of indirect realism, and the meaning that requires the material object interpretation leads to the acceptance of direct realism. Commentators and philosophers after Avicenna, especially Tousi, often considering something similar to sense data interpretation, have promoted a kind of indirect realism interpretation from Avicenna’s views, which has finally been accepted as the theory of mental existence. We show that according to Razi’s considerations, it is possible to interpret a material object interpretation for sensory error in Ibn Sina, just like Aristotle, and therefore, a kind of direct realism can be attributed to Ibn Sina, which is consistent with sensory and imaginary perception being material in Ibn Sina’s philosophy.

One of the most important discussions in philosophy has been the formation of body from matter and form since long ago. This discussion began at the time of Aristotle and became accessible to Muslim philosophers through the translation of Greek texts. Following a descriptive-analytic method, this study aims to provide a response to the questions of what Aristotle meant by matter and hyle, and whether the trans-substantial motion is consistent with accepting the externality of hyle.  A study of Aristotle’s writings reveals that he did not believe in the external existence of matter, and that incorrect translations have led to a wrong perception of Aristotelean matter and form. He believed in a potency alongside objects that changes the quiddity of matter from being pure potency or non-existence to an ontological affair and yields some new outcomes. On the other hand, another misperception of his works dictates that creation from pure non-existence is impossible. Such incorrect translations have provoked the reactions of some Muslim philosophers to the objectivity and externality of potency against matter. In the Islamic tradition, the first step for negating the externality of matter was taken by Suhrawardī. By criticizing Ibn Sīnā’s arguments, he expressed his belief in the simplicity of matter. Mullā Ṣadrā, too, challenged the same view in certain places in al-Asfār, and the neo-Sadrian philosophers took the last steps towards the negation of the externality of matter through criticizing the related arguments and demonstrating the opposition of this view to the trans-substantial motion.

According to Plato and Aristotle, politeia (πολιτεία) is the soul (ψυχὴ; psyche) or form of the city (πόλις) and serves to address the problem of the unity of the city. The unity of the city (polis), its citizens (πολίτης; polites), citizen action (πολιτεύω; politeuo), and statesmen (πολιτικός; politikos) is achieved through politeia. According to Aristotle, politeia is the foundation and constitution that determines the type of government and ruling power, the regulation of government offices and checks and balances of power, and the purpose (τέλος) of the city and its communities.According to Mulla Sadra, civil wisdom (ḥekmat-e madani) belongs to the city (madinat), and civil man is a gradated concept that includes everyone from the people of the city to the ruler. Considering the principles of Transcendental Philosophy, the ontological primacy of existence, and the gradated unity of existence, this study aims to explore the unity of the city based on Mulla Sadra's civil wisdom. The research benefits from an analytical comparative method adapted to the library research method. Politeia is considered the central concept, and the metaphor of psyche (soul) is used as a medium to approach the concept of politeia. Mulla Sadra's civil wisdom is investigated in three parts, in terms of the detailed meaning of politeia, according to its definition in Aristotle's book of Politics.The article indicates that Mulla Sadra declares the unity of the livelihood (ʾal-maʿāš) principle and the resurrection (ʾal-maʿād) principle as the politeia of his city. This research is significant as it aids in investigating the opinions of Islamic philosophers in practical wisdom concerning the humanities and serves as a basis for detailed explorations of civility, politics, and law in the Transcendental Philosophy.

According to Aristotle, the character of tragedy must be morally good, that is, virtuous, and in order to be on the path to happiness, it must observe the rule of moral moderation through selective and conscious action. Accordingly, this study raises the question of how to explain the link between action and moral character. To ponder and explain the answer to this question, the Poetics is read and interpreted alongside Nicomachean ethics. The aim is to show the various aspects of action and its relation with character and morality, both positively and negatively, by relying on the relationship between action and moral character in the Poetics. The importance and necessity of this research is that it will help to clarify important parts of the Poetics, relying on its place in the system of Aristotle's moral philosophy. The conclusion to be drawn from this research is that the Poetics should be read in the context of Aristotle's philosophy - especially the Ethics - and also the action, in the thought that governs the Poetics, while it is related to moral character but also takes precedence on it.

The Socratic political philosophy is aimed at educating the competent souls to return to the best way of life, the philosophical way of life. The Platonic version of this way of life implies a narrow meaning, so that it cannot be achieved except through negating the political way of life as a naturally limited one. But the Socratic political philosophy is not restricted to the Platonic narrative. In the 7th book of the Politics, Aristotle contrives a plan of Socratic political philosophy that, according to him, can solve the insufficiency of the Platonic version. There, Aristotle tries to expand the meaning of the philosophical way of life to such an extent that it can be considered as a set of teachings of the best regime. In other words, in the Aristotelian narrative, there is an explicit reference to the desirability of the political way of life, while the Socratic purpose is not lost. This article is an effort to clarify this narrative and reflect on the most important Socratic moments in the 7th book of Aristotle's Politics.

One of the fundamental concerns of humanity since its inception has been the question of the meaning of life. Meaningfulness has two connotations: purposefulness and value. Certainly, the meaning of the meaning of life depends on the type of worldview and perspective of each philosopher. The present research seeks to examine the answer to the question of whether pleasure is related to meaningfulness or not. Does pleasure require pleasure to achieve the meaning of life? This research compares and contrasts the theories of Aristotle and Mulla Sadra on the relationship between pleasure and the meaning of life. In this article, the descriptive-analytical method is used to analyze the concepts. The most important philosophical bases that distinguish and differ between these two philosophers are the question of equivocation of existence. Aristotle does not believe in the equivocation of existence. From Aristotle's point of view, pleasure and happiness are a constant for all human beings and he does not believe in different levels of pleasure. He considers happiness to be limited to this world and exclusive to the rational part of man. He considers the way to reach meaning to be limited to the realm of virtue. However, Mulla Sadra, based on the principle of equivocation of existence, believes that pleasure has different levels, with intellectual pleasure being superior to sensory pleasure and being higher in terms of rank and existential dignity than the world of sense and matter. Mulla Sadra considers happiness to be related to the physical and spiritual dimensions, so Mulla Sadra believes in comprehensive happiness. He considers the way to reach meaning to be wisdom, imagination, and inner forces. He considers the way to reach happiness to be a human voluntary action. He considers the true example of happiness to be in the afterlife.

According to the privation theory of evil, evil is the privation of something that a thing should naturally possess on account of its species. This definition of privation is introduced by Aristotle, but Aristotle himself has never explicitly equated evil with privation. In Categories, Aristotle has clearly stated that evil is the contrary of good. This is despite the fact that according to the privation theory of evil, good and evil are an instance of possession and privation, with evil being the privation of good. However, certain passages in Aristotle's Metaphysics appear to support the privation theory of evil. This article will examine the evidence both for and against the privation theory of evil in Aristotle's works. It will argue that (1) the evidence from Metaphysics regarding the privation theory of evil should be considered in the light of the intricate relationship between the opposition of contrariety and the opposition of possession and privation in Aristotle's philosophy, and (2) the evidence supporting the existential approach to evil in Aristotle extends beyond just Categories.

Eliot Cohen is one of the contemporary pioneers of philosophical counseling. He considers philosophical counseling as one of the branches of applied philosophy. His logic-based therapy (LBT) or his logic-based counseling and therapy is also a subcategory of this claim. His reason is that a philosophical counselor, especially a counselor with Logic-Base Therapy (LBT), empowers the skill of applying philosophy in everyday life, and this method provides his audience with a coherent, clear, and most importantly, methodical framework for applying philosophical ideas and methods in solving psychological problems (Cohen, 2015, p. 34). Cohen has always sought to develop logic-based therapy as an independent and reliable branch among philosophical counseling approaches. We can see this specific trajectory in his works from the very beginning of using philosophy in treatment.
On the one hand, we know that Aristotle, as a systematic philosopher, in the practical dimensions of his philosophy, not only asked what happiness is in life, but also sought to realize it. Cohen was inspired by this issue and generally believes that applying Aristotle's philosophy in philosophical counseling leads to the "self-care" of clients (Cohen, 2003, p. 18). In his treatment system, he has used not only Aristotle's logic and especially his approach to fallacies and his theory of practical analogies, but also Aristotle's moral philosophy and the concept of virtue and its practical application.
The main field of this research is philosophical counseling with a focus on Cohen's logic-based therapy (LBT method). Our main goal is to see how Cohen was able to use Aristotle's philosophy, especially his logic and moral philosophy, in philosophical counseling in his logic-based therapy system.

The main issue of this research is, in what sense Cohen's logic-based therapy should be considered Aristotelian. Answering this question requires answering at least two other questions: first, what is the contribution of Aristotle's moral and logical teachings in the establishment of logic-based therapy; secondly, how Cohen used the classical concepts and themes of Aristotle's philosophy during the establishment and development of this contemporary treatment method.

Following the development of philosophical counseling in recent years, and specifically about Cohen's method as one of the contemporary counseling and treatment methods, numerous articles and books have been written. Some of these researches have generally developed and described Cohen's LBT method, but none of them have directly addressed the influence and role of foundations and themes derived from philosophy and especially Aristotle's logic and methodology in the establishment and development of this method. However, the past valuable research about the LBT method will certainly help us in advancing the goals of this research.
The article Metaphysics of logic-based therapy (LBT) in Cohen's view (Nazarnejad, 2021) is a research that overlaps with part of our research goal and explains Cohen's method and its theoretical foundations. But this article does not focus specifically on the Aristotelian foundations and Aristotelian methodology of logic-based therapy. Perhaps Cohen himself made the most review of the background of our research. In 2000, he published a book called Philosophers at Work, and in its seventh chapter, he discussed the role of Aristotelian logic in professions such as law and medicine. He also wrote a book titled What would Aristotle do? in 2003, where he discussed the role of Aristotle's philosophy in philosophical counseling. In fact, this book may have emphasized the importance of Aristotle in philosophical counseling among other important works of Cohen in his logic-oriented method, but so far, no independent or critical research has been published - especially by commentators - that simultaneously analyzes the effect of Aristotle's moral and logical foundations in logic-based treatment.

Our philosophical method in this research is analytical, and as one of its aspects, we have analyzed documents. In this step of the analysis, we first collected the documents and then organized the claims and their content. Then, by explaining logic-based therapy (LBT) and searching for the obvious and hidden Aristotelian roots in this treatment method, we have presented our analysis and evaluation in connection with the Aristotelian foundations of logic-oriented therapy, especially based on the three aspects of the hypothesis proposed in the problem statement section.

In a comprehensive statement, from Cohen's point of view, the field of human feelings, emotions, and decisions has an inferential structure that is often hidden. What endangers a person's psychological health is the transformation of these internal conclusions into pseudo-inferences or so-called fallacies. It is for this reason that a person's will and then his words and actions fall into error, and therefore the relationship of a person with himself, others and the world around him becomes restless and confused.
But at the same time, he believes in this Aristotelian teaching that human happiness depends on living according to virtues. The solution to this psychological confusion in logic-based therapy (LBT) is to identify and fix these fallacies by replacing them with appropriate virtues in the same field of thinking.
Our analysis of the Aristotelian foundations of Cohen's logic-based therapy shows that: 1. In some subjects, Cohen has completely taken the basics of his discussion and his method from Aristotle; topics such as the Doctrine of the Mean, some types of fallacies and virtues, as well as the role of practice in establishing virtues in a person's existence. 2. However, in matters such as the deductive nature of human emotions, feelings and decisions, as well as being inspired by Aristotle's theory of "logical slips" and Aristotle's theory of practical analogies, Cohen only has an Aristotelian framework. This means that the foundations of Cohen's claims are Aristotelian, but when applied to LBT, new results were obtained. Overall, it seems that the scope of this second meaning is wider.

At the beginning of Being and Time, Bergson's name comes alongside Aristotle’s name when Heidegger tried to distinguish the concept of temporality from traditional time. Now, the question is why after Aristotle, the name of Bergson comes? If he meant to name the last philosopher, why didn’t he mention Husserl, who was Heidegger’s professor and was supposed to have a lecture about Time-consciousness? Why not Hegel, whose interpretation of the concept of time is the subject of the penultimate chapter in Being and Time? Why not Dilthey, whose thoughts are the focus of Heidegger’s most critical early investigations of time? However, in the footnote near the end of Being and Time, Heidegger admits that he only wanted to distinguish his thoughts from Bergson about the concept of time. But our investigations show something different. It shows that Heidegger used Bergson’s concept of time to build his theory in Being and Time. Although, recently, researchers gave a great interest to Bergson's work and his influences on Gilles Deleuze's philosophy, but the questions about Bergson's influence on phenomenology and Heidegger's philosophy had been unanswered. The increasing attention of scholars toward these questions is promising, but not enough. This article tries to answer some of these questions.

The philosophy of music is a branch of philosophy that studies the meaning of music, the relationship between the artist and the creation of music, the relationship between the audience and music, and such issues. Since emotions and feelings constitute the meaning of music, the primary focus of theorists in this field is devoted to the fundamental question of where the emotional impact of music originates from. In the philosophy of music, there are two rival theories regarding the source of musical emotions: the expressive theory, which prioritizes the emotions of the artist in creating the work and considers the meaning of music in the expression of the artist's emotions, and the arousal theory, which gives priority to the emotions evoked in the listener and considers the meaning and purpose of music in eliciting the emotions of the audience.
The aim of this research is to facilitate the scientific examination of the relationship between music and emotions. The specific objectives of this research are as follows: _ Introducing and examining the most important theories and discussions in the philosophy of music. _ Investigating the most important criticisms that have been made on various theories in the philosophy of music and showing the efforts of theorists and philosophers to respond to these criticisms. _ Showing that old theories put forward by philosophers like Aristotle can still be relevant in current philosophical discussions. This highlights the importance of mastering the history of philosophy for researchers in this field. _ Demonstrating that music can (or even should) be subject to contemplation and philosophical inquiry. This research is classified as fundamental research in terms of the data collection method, which is qualitative research using a library research approach. Additionally, this research specifically utilizes up-to-date and primary sources in the field of philosophy of music.

Research Question(s):

Which of these two theories of Expression and Arousal provides a more comprehensive understanding of the relationship between music and emotions and offers a better explanation of our emotional experiences when confronted with music?
Which theory can better respond to the criticisms raised against it?
Literature Review
Some of the most important articles published on the arousal theory of music are as follows (in chronological order):Mew, P (1984) The musical arousal of emotions.British Journal of Aesthetics 25 (4):357-361.
Robinson, J (1994) The expression and arousal of emotion in music. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 52 (1):13-22.
 Beever, A. (1998) The Arousal Theory Again? The British Journal of Aesthetics 38(1):82-90.
Kingsbury, J (1999) Why the Arousal Theory of Musical Expressiveness is Still Wrong? Australasian Journal of Philosophy 77 (1):83 – 88.
Matravers, D (2007) Musical expressiveness. Philosophy Compass 2 (3):373–379.
 Arbo, A. (2009) Some Remarks on “Hearing-as” and its Role in the Aesthetics of Music. Topoi 28 (2):97-107.
Cochrane, T. (2010) Music, Emotions and the Influence of the Cognitive Sciences. Philosophy Compass 5 (11):978-988.
Eerola, T. (2016) Being Moved by Unfamiliar Sad Music Is Associated with High Empathy. Frontiers in Psychology 7.
Levinson,  j (2016) Music-Specific Emotion: An Elusive Quarry. Estetika 53 (2):115-131.
Wu-Jing He (2017) Emotional Reactions Mediate the Effect of Music Listening on Creative Thinking: Perspective of the Arousal-and-Mood Hypothesis. Frontiers in Psychology 8

This research is classified as fundamental research in terms of its objective. The general aim of this research is to establish a conceptual framework for the philosophical examination of the relationship between music and emotions

In response to the first question, we first need to see what each of these two theories offers in response to the most important issue regarding emotions and music, namely the issue of the "relationship between expressed emotions in music and evoked emotions in the listener." The expressive theory addresses this issue with the concept of "grounding," while the motivational theory uses the concept of "emotional codes." Our analysis shows that the concept of "emotional codes" is more effective than "grounding" for two reasons:"Grounding" is a concept that claims objectivity, while by definition, the meaning of music lies in its sensory content. The conflict between the expressive theory and the motivational theory is essentially a conflict over determining the place of sensory content in music. The expressive theory places the sensory content in the expressed emotions in the musical piece and considers these emotions as a crystallization of the emotions of the creator, while the motivational theory places the sensory content of music in the emotions evoked in the listener through music. Referring to an objective concept to explain the place of sensory content, if not a theoretical impossibility, is an additional effort that only complicates the conflict between these two theories.
The concept of emotional codes conceptualizes the issue at the mental (or intermental) level and provides an effective framework for explaining the position of the sensory content of music. Different and varied reactions to music are appropriate. Furthermore, by introducing the concept of emotional codes, one can pave the way for framing research issues in an interdisciplinary context. This way, the issue of the sensory content of music can be explored in the interdisciplinary fields of musicology, philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience.
Our analysis has shown that the theory of motivation with our experiential intuition is more compatible. This is because the basis of judging a musical work is the experienced emotions, not the assumed emotions that the artist intended to express. For example, when we label a piece of music as sad, it is not because the composer intended to express sad emotions, but rather it is simply and intuitively because that piece evokes a sense of sadness in us.
As a result, the theory of motivation provides a better and more valid explanation of the relationship between music and emotions.
In response to the second question, it is important to consider the main criticism that challenges each of these two theories and how they respond to it. Our analysis has shown that the main criticism of the expressive theory is the "expression of unexperienced emotions," and proponents of the expressive theory, in response to this criticism, question the principles of this theory. They do not necessarily consider the expressed emotions as belonging to the artist, but rather see the artist as simply a narrator of the emotions of another individual (or even a completely imaginary person). In this way, they raise the larger question of whose emotions are being expressed in music. Since the answer cannot be the audience (as that would essentially turn it into a motivational theory), this question remains shrouded in ambiguity and mystery.
On the other hand, in our research, we demonstrated that the responses that have been presented to the issue of "liking sad music" are not defensible and valid. Furthermore, by using the concept of catharsis from Aristotle, we were able to propose an acceptable response to this criticism. We showed that our proposed response can address all the criticisms that were present in other responses.

In the analysis of "Philia", Aristotle has deriving friendship from self-love in Nicomachean Ethics, speaking the importance of selfishness on achieving eudemonia. Dose books VIII and IX provide for an altruistic or egoistic view of friendship? Self-love is evident in Aristotle’s words; although the attribution of Aristotle's theory to moral-egoism has been rejected as a teleological theory. Altruism is expressed by the phrase '(to want good things for another 'for his sake and not for one's own'). The theory of Philia is a pattern including love to virtue found by a person in his own self first, and then extends it to the other. , i.e., our feelings or attitudes of friendship are derived from attitudes towards ourselves. The term “another self” represents a motivation for friendship that leads to altruistic goals, That is, attention to the other for the sake of other which arises from the similarity of people in intellectual part (nous).

The examination of the concept of mind in Aristotle’s psychology poses aconsiderable challenge within his work, De anima. This paper unravels thecomplexities by scrutinizing Aristotle’s expressions as both a response to and anadvancement of Anaxagoras’ Mind theory. Anaxagoras’ theory, whether explicitly orimplicitly, presents mind as both indeterminate and everlasting. However, thesecharacteristics contradict the primary function of the mind, namely, its capacity forknowledge and thought. Anything that is entirely indeterminate lacks resemblanceto anything else, thereby rendering it incapable of comprehending anything, in accordance with the widely accepted axiom that “like is known by like”. Besides, knowledge and thought involve a transformation from potentiality to actuality, implying the involvement of matter, while a material entity cannot possess eternity. In this paper, it is contended that the fourth and fifth chapters of the third book of De anima address these two dilemmas. Aristotle reconciles these attributes by endorsing and reinterpreting Anaxagoras’ theory.

In his book "al-Shifā" (The Healing), Avicenna distinguishes between the concepts of possibility and probability and presents three approaches to differentiate these two concepts, although it is evident from the conducted studies that he did not specifically and independently address the issue of probability. In this study, we investigate the distinction between possibility and probability based on the Avicenna's works. The findings suggest that the distinctions which Avicenna made between possibility and probability are rooted in their specific historical contexts. Although most logicians maintain that probability is subjective and possibility is objective, they cannot draw a precise distinction between the two concepts. The second distinction is, in fact, between the future-possibility and the probability of occurrence of an event in the future, which reflects the difference between Avicenna's future-possibility and Al-Fārābī's future-possibility. The third distinction also seems to be a confusion between the meanings of the words 'probability' and 'narrowest-possibility', which has its roots in the translation of Aristotle's works.