نشریه حکمت سینوی
پیاپی 42 (پاییز و زمستان 1388)

One of the most important philosophical problems - and perhaps the most important of all-is the discussion of quiddity and existence and their relations to each other.After Farabi, Ibn Sina has dealt with quiddity and the quality of its belonging to existence in his works. Later, Nasir al din Tusi confirms Shaikh's view in response to Fakhr razi's objections to Ibn Sina's views. Meanwhile Ibn Rushd has sometimes put forwardcriticisms against the views of Ibn Sina and Ghazzali. It seems that the debate about the problem of quiddity and existence derives from a confusion between epistemology andontology. The explanation how the mental ideas originate by way of causality and the effects between external objects-whether sensual or extra- sensual-and bodily organs and perceptual faculties of soul clearly shows that only "outside" exists and mental ideascreated from it in the mind.Therefore, there remains no room for the subject of so-called quiddity, its relation with existence, its attribution by existence and many other problems derived from this subject.

Corbin regards Ibn sina as a predecessor in this orientation and inthis respect considers him as forerunner of Suhravardi. Henri Corbin holds that Ibn Sina's oriental philosophy is self-sufficient and opens the way for contemporary man.With this goal of opening Avicenian perspectives to the modern world he was the first thinker who took a brave step in this way. According to him Ibn Sina's philosophy in the East by keeping the celestial souls continues its way and Ghazzali's criticism had noeffect on this philosophy.Corbin was confronted by different concerns in western philosophy and believed that this oriental philosophy could be a suitable response to these crises.For this reason he believed in supremacy of Avicenian philosophy or oriental wisdom over the school of Ibn Rushd.He calls the method by which Ibn Sina's philosophy can be made modern interinorization. It can be said that by an inspiration of Ibn sina's angelology, soul by making a transformation in itself goes beyond this world and enter the world of archetypal images.In this way the imaginable world or ideas as a world of symbols again gains validity and modern man as well can participate in its experience.

Ibn sina has many works in logic. Comparative study of these works shows two kinds of evolution in his logical thinking: evolution in problem creating, conceptualization, theorizing, and evolution in logical writing.The subject of the present paper is to study the latter kind. Ibn Sina managed to organize the juxtaposed treatises, which were inherited from Greeks into a cognitive coherent system and with logical order.Gradually this structural evolution along with corrective and complementary orientation from Shifa to Isharat and in the course of writing more than fifteen treatises has taken place. Writers on logic in Islamic period after Ibn Sina have taken some of Ibn sina's works, in particular Shifa and Isharat as a model for writing their logical works. Meanwhile Isharat has become a starting-point for a new school in logic. In this survey of structuralevolution in Ibn Sina's logical works topics such as terms, categories, definition, and conversion will be treated. This study provides a context for hypothesis making in historicalarrangement of Ibn sina's works.

The most important topic in logic is deduction which is treated in logical books under the heading of argument. Ancients divided argument into the three classes of syllogism, induction and analogy.As to kinds of and the sort of division of argument some questions has been raised. On the one hand, besides the theory of syllogism which is without doubt Aristotle's masterpiece one of important works of Aristotle's in the field of logic is the topic of"conversion", "contradiction" and "contrast". Of course, in Organon these topics have been treated incidentally. Ibn Sina added some relations to those which Aristotlehad introduced and by finding the similarity of these topics brought them together in his logical works. After Ibn sina, logicians by following him introduced these relations under the heading "representative argument". The same topic has been treated in recent books of traditional logic with the title "rules of proposition". This title suggests that these logicians regard "rules of proposition" as a kind of deduction and argument.In this article the author defends the latter view and by assuming the conversion to be a kind of argument and examples like that has proposed a division of deduction in which the place of these arguments has been clearly defined and has no difficulties ofprevious division.

The topic of indication and its divisions has no precedence in Stoic-Megarian logic and it is regarded as logical innovations of Ibn Sina. On the whole he can be conceived more as the founder of the topic of indications and not its expositor.Among the threefold literal connotation, indication per nexum has been more controversial of the rest. Ibn Sina's statements and above all in the works of his commentators and followers there has been much controversies and doubts, as regards the nature, condition of actualization or even the validity of this connotation. Doubt about non-independence of indication per nexum and its mixture of two corresponding connotation, doubt about rarity of connotation and interdiction of its applicability in the science because of non-infinity of its literal connotation have been among the most important of these doubts.literal mode of this connotation, tries to show that this connotation used in sciences, and regards the validity of this connotation as "mental necessity" and of the kind of "necessity between absolute".

Like other Muslim philosophers, Ibn Sina believes in the objective truth of God's attributes. His point of difference from most philosophers lies in the fact that he believes in the divine attributes at level of conception; nevertheless other philosophersregard the concepts of divine attributes as concepts that are based on multiplicity and different from each other.Some people as a result of misunderstanding have accused IbnSina of confusing concept and denotation. But this theory which as given his principles is acceptable, because Ibn Sina regards the abstraction of multiple concepts from a fact that has no mode of multiplicity-even as regards its status- as impossible.On the other hand, given the particular condition of necessary being which makes him a distinct being from other beings, concept implying the attributes of being is a fact distinct from a concept which denotes to the attributes of possible beings, whereas aconcept denoting the attributes of possible being is different.

The role of Ibn Sina in evolution and expansion of logic is undeniable. The exact survey of this role and tracing the place of Sheikh-al Rais in the history of the science of logic requires gaining access to his whole logical heritage. A considerable part of Sheikh's works in this area remains in manuscript form.Some accounts of these manuscripts are unreliable and ambiguous. Recognition of these works and providing a correct account of them in some cases make a critical edition of them necessary.Information about these works which is available in books such as "Oyun – alhikma", "Small epitome in Logic" and "A Hint to Logic" is defective, erroneous and ambiguous. "Oyun – alhikma" has been mistaken with another work by the same title by another author and by different addition has been understood to be the sameas "Small Epitome in Logic". In fact these additions belong to another treatise by Ibn Sina with the title "Glosses in logic" or "A hint to the Science of Logic".The Logic of Oyun – alhikma is the same "Small Epitome in Logic" that because of its importance has been written again and taken on the name "Epitome".