Reflecting on the comments of Avicenna and Aquinas loose doubt about opposition to them concerning how to communicate between human soul and the body. Two seemingly opposite theories; Avicenna believes that the human soul is required by communication with the body. However, Aquinas believes that the human soul does not need for intermediaries to unite with the body. To resolve the apparent opinions between the two theories; with analytical approach it becomes clear that each of the philosophers with two different perspectives to consider when considering the connection between human soul and the body. Firs t perspective s tates that human soul is related to the body as form, and the second perspective s tates that activity of the soul in the body begins. The resulting analysis is not only that the two theories are not contradictory of each other but, if a dispute occurs about the ques tion of how to make the connection between human soul and the body is due to their view of unity. As Avicenna rejects unity he calls the connection between human soul and the body as a kind of thoughtful connection, while Aquinas adopts unity, sees the connection between human soul and the body as a kind of union. However, both philosophers know the human soul needs to communicate with the body. Both philosophers believe that in order for the human soul to carry out its activities in the body, mediation is needed or as Avicenna puts it “bokhari” spirit, and Aquinas corporal’s (or vital) spirit.
Human Soul , Body , Avicenna , Aquinas
- حق عضویت دریافتی صرف حمایت از نشریات عضو و نگهداری، تکمیل و توسعه مگیران میشود.
- پرداخت حق اشتراک و دانلود مقالات اجازه بازنشر آن در سایر رسانههای چاپی و دیجیتال را به کاربر نمیدهد.