نشریه حکمت سینوی
پیاپی 62 (پاییز و زمستان 1398)

In Islamic philosophy, the essence has many properties in which the considerations of essence are one of them. After this issue had been brought up, three key concepts had been raised in the works of Islamic philosophers around the essence that the connection of these concepts created a great deal of difference and conflicts. These three concepts are the concept of 'natural universal', the concept of 'Quiddity qua quiddity' and the concept of 'Nonconditioned quiddity'. There are two popular views among philosophers regarding the relevance of these concepts. The first view considers 'natural universal' and 'Quiddity qua quiddity' to be in accordance with the non-conditioned as a source of division. The second view, contrary to the first view, holds that both of these concepts are consistent with non-conditioned. Ibn Sina is the first one who invented this problem and falls into the second group, and Agha Ali represents a third view that explicitly considers the views of other philosophers to be unfinished and offered a new idea which is the last step in the philosophical improvement of this idea. From Agha Ali's point of view on the considerations of the essence, we can have a better analysis of Essential primary and technical common predications, consideration of the essence of God and some other philosophical issues.

Shams al-Din al-Samarqandi, one of the Avicenna’s followers in 7th century A.H, is unknown in the history of logic, despite his logical talent and innovations. As is discussed in this article, the reason for this negligence is that Samarqandi`s logical writings, including his most important logical book Sharh-al-Qestas,  are still in manuscript form, unlike Avicenna whose books such as al-Shifa, al-Nijat, and Al-isharat wa al-tanbihat were available in most of the times. In this article, by indicating some of his innovations in logic and other subjects, the necessity of textual criticism of Sharh-al-Qestas becomes clear and necessary. In writing his book, he was aware of his previous logicians` books and referred to them frequently, so finding his unique ideas needs deep and exact research. Also, he has deep effects on the subsequent logicians; therefore by reviving his book, it would be possible to find his real position in the history of logic.

Philosophical anthropology is one of the main issues in Ibn Sina's philosophy. Defining the concept of the soul, Ibn Sina states his ideas about human perfection. Thus, questions raised what is the ultimate perfection of a rational soul and what are the sensible criticisms of it? Would Ibn Sina's philosophy answer the questions of modern man on the related issues? Ibn Sina is of the opinion that human perfection is a kind of intellectual perfection achieved through reaching al-ʿaql al-mustafād (acquired intellect). Therefore, perfection is achieved in the light of theoretical intellect and practical intellect preliminary paves the way to reach perfection. Ibn Sina's view on perfection flows in the body of Islamic philosophy until the advent of Mulla Sadra's philosophy. He criticized Ibn Sina's thoughts and rebuilt his theory, but he didn't go much beyond it. The crux of Ibn Sina's problem is that he divided various degrees of the soul and didn't pay enough attention to the interference of human will as well as the corporeal and worldly aspects rooted in social and political life.

What factors are considered in a proper scheme of a family pattern and how to boost their effects in a society are serious questions raised in Greek and Islamic practical reasoning as well as modern sociology. The first step in providing a proper family pattern is to review the theoretical ideas in mainstream sociology. One of the leading Muslim philosophers dealing with the issue of family studies and household management is Ibn Sina. In Western Philosophy, on the other hand, Anthony Giddens, a contemporary sociologist, has extensively discussed the issue of family structure. Thus, the present inquiry aims to compare the two scholars' views on a proper family structure and reveal their differences in the theoretical basis and fundamental factors. Carrying out careful analysis and evaluation of the existing literature, first, we study the three aspects of family types, family social functions and the role of relations according to Ibn Sina's views and then study Giddens's ideas about the issue in the light of his theory of democratic family and the pure relationship. Marriage and divorce, development of gender power system, the role of gender relations, and the norms of giving birth to babies are some of the issues of debate between Ibn Sina and Giddens. In other words, Ibn Sina forms a traditional social structure of the family in which gender relations are developed on the traditional structure of gender inequality legitimated at the time, while Giddens promoted an agenda of gender equality and democracy in families based on modern approaches that avoid the traditional patterns.

The main problem of this paper is “Matter mistake” and “Formal mistake” and its result is "Matter mistake is meaningless; what is in principle described as correct and incorrect form". Studies showed Avicenna has no statement or proof about Matter Mistake and his definition of logic can be a start point for Classical logic. By accepting this statement, we need to accept a role for Matter Mistake in the fallacy argument. Nasir al-Din Tusi has used it and neglects all Matter Mistakes in fallacy, but on the other hand, Ghotb considered a place for it and so his argument is not consistent with this statement. Ghotb believes that Matter Mistake has no meaning by comparing it to the real world due to the casual and necessity of foundations of knowledge. This belief also exists in Nasir al-Din Tusi's thought but it is due to premises of syllogism and logical definitions. Now we think since these traditional logical discussions are so general and denotation criteria are not the same, so it has no contradiction to consider mistakes accompanying matter.

The current essay is a comparative study of the views of Avicenna and Mulla Sadra concerning the interaction of the Creative Faculty with other human perceptual faculties in three fields: i) interaction of creative faculty with external faculties, ii) interaction of creative faculty with internal faculties, iii) interaction of creative faculty with rational faculty. Both philosophers believe in the direct intervention of the creative faculty in the dreaming process and consider the role of this faculty for special humans to be like a type of revelation and inspiration. Moreover, they are unanimous that the interactions of creative faculty with external, internal and rational faculties facilitate some actions like an abstraction of generic natures, finding the lost forms of memory and imagination, influence on practical reason and also create the ground required for the veridical dream. They also believe that in order to improve the function of creative faculty and as a result, its better interaction; we can be benefitted from such solutions as strengthening the rational faculty, truthfulness and moral health. Despite some similarities, there are also some differences between the views of Avicenna and Mulla Sadra including the fact that Mulla Sadra contrary to Avicenna, considers creative faculty to be immaterial (ideal) and thus he replaces the theory of “presence” with the theory of “impression”.

One of the oldest and most important metaphysical problems is the creation of the multiplicity of things and their relations to oneness. Avicenna adopted a viewpoint on the issue that Aquinas has recited it in his works. Aquinas' narration from Ibn Sina would be criticized on two grounds; First, Aquinas has not acted carefully in choosing some of the Latin words to reflect the Avicenna's point. Second, in the Aquinas' narration, the term "potential" is used referring to everything except God, while such a term does not appear in the Avicennian literature- especially in Shifa (Book of Healing). Thus, the main problem of this study is that, why did Aquinas present such a reading of Ibn Sina's creation system? According to the authors, there are pieces of evidence that show Aquinas learned about Avicenna's viewpoint through al-Ghazali’s treatises. This had a great influence on his recitation of Avicenna. Although reading and terms of Aquinas are in some ways different from the Avicenna's, it can be considered compatible with Avicenna's philosophy.