نشریه حکمت سینوی
پیاپی 40 (پاییز 1387)

Muslim philosophers in their logical-Philosophical philosophy of science regard the subject of science as something in that science which discusses the essential accidents of it. The concern of philosophers for offering this definition has been to give consistency to the problems of a science, distinction of science from each other and proposing a criterion for the classification of science. The subject of science has also been considered as a criterion for essential priority and inferiority as regards to its honour and solidness. Discussion about the subject of science and its role originates from Aristotle's works and reaches to a degree of perfection in Farabi's philosophy.But the height of its development and consistency has resulted in the philosophy of Ibn Sina. Ibn Rushd showed a delivberate disregard to Ibn Sina's achievements; but it was the pattern of Avicenian philosophy of science that left its permanent influence on many Muslim scholars-with two philosophical approaches and the eight Principles.

In this article a comparison is made between Aristotle's general outlook-of course, according to one of the valid interpretation of his thought-and general outlook of Ibn Sina with regard to supreme science of first philosophy and its central theme, which according to some of the well-known and definite Aristotelian teachings the true and central subject of this science, in his view, is eternal and separable beings and in the end First Mover. On this basis discussion about other beings in the first philosophy is a secondary discussion and because of it would bean attribution which in being called as "existent" owe to it. It is evident that this attitude is contrary to the common tradition of Islamic philosophers in their encounter with the first philosophy and its subject matter because these phibsophers, as well as scholastic Philosophers influenced by Ibn Sina regard the subject of this science with a wider circle, and consider the proof of the Necessary Being among the subject, of this science. Therefore a distinction is made between two sections of this science, ie theology in general sense (general principles) and theology in specific sense (Devine Attributes), a distinction which is not found in Aristotle's philosophy, but for him the first philosophy is considered an all - out theology.

Discussion about God's Attributes, the nature of it and the reason why it is such a controversial topic is one of the serious concerns in the two areas of kalam and philosophy. This problem takes on a more serious form in theology in specific term; because on the one hand this discussion relates to the subject of models of creation and on the other it makes clear the concept of God for believers. Muslim philosopher Ibn Sina has dealt with this discussion with both concerns in view and in this respect treats the matter like plotinus the influential Western philosopher. So when we speak of the models of creation in the theory of emanation the names of Plotinus from the West and Ibn Sina from the East immediately comes into mind. This article tries to show that in the explanation of Ibn Sina's theory of emanation which attributes are applicable and in its Plotinu's model which attributes are not allowed to be used and how for Ibn Sina has been influenced by Plotinian model in the problem of emanation and ascription some of the attributes to God. By investigating some of Farabi's beliefs and convictions as a medium for transmission some of Plotinian concepts to Ibn Sina it becomes clear that despite general similarities between Plotinus and Ibn Sina on some of the attributes of the first cause and the model creatures emanate from him there are fundamental difference between these two philosophers which its example is Ibn Sina's justification of the theory of emanation is based on the ascription of attributes of intellect, existence and life to God that Plotinus in his theory has avoided to speak about them.

One of the most important concerns of human beings is the problem of fear of death. Thinkers from different circles have put forward theories for treatment of this fear. On the basis of philosophical thinking fear of death has its roots in humans outlook toward the truth of death. For this reason in order to remove this fear one should correct his or her attitude towards death. Death as a necessary and undeniable reality has been the subject of study and analysis by different schools of philosophy and each of these schools on the basis of its understanding of human nature has its own specific judgement about this important concept. Material thinking regards all human existence limited to the body and considers death as nothingness and a final end to life. Therefore in this school fear of death is equal to destruction and annihilation. But in divine thinking the reality of man is an transcendental and spiritual truth other than his bodily form and body is a instrument for it. According to this group, death is only a severing of relation between body and spirit, and Consequently fear of death is the result of our ignorance towards this truth. Ibn sina and Mulla Sadra, on the basis of their philosophical thinking, confirm the second theory, although each along with his own philosophy propounds several factors for this fear. But both in the end proclaim that the major cause of the fear of death is man's ignorance of the reality of death and the events after it.

Ibn Sina in most of his logical works has added the stipuliation "remaining of falsity" to the definition of conversion, a stipulation that has been repeated in the logical works of thinkers such as Fakhr Razi and Abhari; but most logicians has challenged this procedure. For example, Khajeh Nasir Tusi believes that the above – mentioned stipulation has been generated by the scribe's mistakes.In this article by emphasis on the existence of above-mentioned stipulation in six logical writings of Ibn Sina it is shown that this stipulation can not be ascribed to the scribe's mistakes. By proposing and evaluating the opposing and favourable reasons of this stipulation it will be evident that the acceptance of above - mentioned stipulation brings about inconsistency in the logical system of Ibn Sina. Within this article two solution have been proposed for resolving this problem. The first solution which has been formed on the basis of elimination of above mentioned stipulation has been offered by khajen Nasir and other logicians in later times, and the other solution which deals with the changing relation of conversion has been proposed by the writers of this article. It has also been shown that each of this two solutions has its own privileges and defects.

Ibn Sina in his discussion of the reason of existents need to a cause, contrary to theologians, believes that it depends on the possibility of existents and not to their temporal existence. Considering that there is a difference between coming into being and possibility he regards the object of agent's is action the existence of possible thing. Therefore Ibn Sina believes in essential coming into being of the world.But Hakim Sabzawari with a completely mystical approach has advanced the theory of nominal coming into being.In his view the existence of contingent beings subsists in the source of divine lordship and thus are not preceded by nothingness and no coming into being has any access to them. On the other hand, extended being as the realm of God's action in the world has different orders such as the order of intellect and then the order of soul, suspended ideas, specific forms, bodily form and prime matter. These orders are preceded by nothingness and later than the order of oneness. Because these names and customs are contingent, in the end they fade away.

The writing of some treatises has been attributed to shaykh-al Rais Ibn Sina on logic that so far remain in manuscript form. The ascription of some of these treatises to him is in question. The study and analysis of these works and their comparision to the works that are definitely written by Ibn Sina is necessary for determining the degree of possible ascription of these works as well as maximum elucidation of his views in his field. One of these treatises is "Allusion to the Science of Logic" that as its title shows alludes briefly and in passing to some of the problems in logic. The questions which are discussed in these short glosses include the nature of logic and its usefulness, ten categories, kinds of analogy, definition of genus, definition of speech, category in answer to "what", mixed analogy, kinds of predicate and predication of arguments that Ibn Sina offers his critical views on what he had previously said about some of these cases.