نشریه حکمت سینوی
پیاپی 45 (بهار و تابستان 1390)

Man’s knowledge of Neccessary Being and attention to the limitations of this knowledge is among the subjects that Ibn Sina in his philosophy has paid a special attention to it. In Ibn Sina’s view, while man suffers from many cognitive limitations, but the way to divine knowledge is not completely closed. In his view human being has no ability to know the essence and truth of God and he knows them through their requirements and properties. This applies also to the recognition of the truth Most High through the same requirements which constitute his attributes. The most important requirement of the creator’s requirement is the neccessity of his existence. Other attributes of the creator is perceived through the neccessity of existence. On the affirmation of the Thruth most High, Ibn Sina has taken into account the difference in cognitive levels due to the capacity of human beings in different ways. He has considered the medium level of affirmation arising from natural proofs and on the part of the masses of people who argue from other creatures to the existence of God and he regards the high level of affirmation as due to philosophical arguments and no the part of true believers. In addition to demonstration, Shaykh also paid attention to the intellectual contemplation of Neccessary Most High.

Active Intellect, a being higher than natural world, devoid of matter and it’s rules, self - subsistent, without position and pure actuality. This intellect is a connecting link between incorporeal beings and material things and the source of emanution of multiplicities in the natural world and has gained a prominent role alongside all actions pertaining to the management of the world of matter. In Ibn Sina’s view the immediate and mediate role of active intellect in all the stages of human life is apparent. In the domain of creating man active intellect by undertaking a mediate role in producing temperament and an immediate role in effusion of soul to the disposed temperament shows itself. Also active intellect has a very difinitive role in the perfection of soul especially the rational faculty and actualization of theoritical and practical reason. Active intellect is considered as regulating the relation of rational soul with the invisible world in dream and in waking and in the problem of prophethood as well it appears as the angel of revelation. The mode of the survival of soul after death depends on the quality of the relation of soul with the active intellect and the souls which due to the intensity of conjunction have achieved to practical and scientific perfection, after death and leaving the body achieve the stage of complete union and survive according to the rule of active intellect, but incomplete souls which lack actual intelligible have no relation to active intellect but by belonging to celestial souls achieve to some stages of perfection.

Learning, besides having a very important place in psychology, it has also prominent denotations in theorical discossions and practical usages in education. Ibn Sin introduces ideas on this subject that are both compatible with Islamic culture and can be efficient in the formuation of a native educational theory in contemporary world. He considers learning as a process of knowing a matter which is unknown to the learner and he divides it into three kinds: direct and indirect learning, intellectual learning and illusory learning. Of these three kinds, what can play an important role in native psychology is the first kind of learning which has been ignored in contempory psychology of learning. Ibn Sina in explaining the process of learning also believes that the activities of teaching and learning are only providing the background of learning and the primary cause of learning is the emanation of sciences from Active Intellect. In addition to predisposition, he mentions effective factors such as occupation and devotion of soul and as well it’s power and honesty which have been neglected in contemporary psychology. Attention to these points can add to the ridness of contemporary investigations about learning.

In this writing the thoughts and ideas of Duns Scotus on the existence of God is studied and the influence of Ibn Sina on it from a realistic angle on the basis of documents will be elucidated. Scotus in his discussion of proving the existence of God in view of presuppositions or premises and principles and even by way of the structure of argumentation is quite under the influence of Ibn Sina: Following Ibn Sina, Scotus regards Aristotelian argument from the first mover as invalid, begins his argument with “existent in general”, considers the concept of existent as univocal, takes possibility in the meaning of contingency, regards God as efficient cause in the real sence and bestower of existence and as prefect, creative cause, and in his argument he uses the middle and around term. Besides the influence of Ibn Sina on Scotus there is similarities and differences among the ideas of these two thinkers: the result of the arguments of both thinkers in a God with similar characteristics philosophically, but different in religious point of view. In their argument to the existence of God as well Ibn Sina and Scotus are alike, except that in the philosophy of Ibn Sina in this way efficient cause is first proved, but in Scotus by the same way of argument the treefold supremacy of God as a whole is proved.

There is some doubts as to ascribing some unpublished works of Ibn Sina to him. A recognition of the cognitive system and evelution of the logical thinking of Ibn Sina depends on the sound judgement as to the truth of the ascription of these works of Ibn Sina. A Survey of the structure, style of writing, content analysis and relevant document can be resolver of difficulties in this direction. The logical work of “Miftah al Khazaen” is one of the afore-mentioned works. A comparison between this work and other books of Shaykh and passing from similar cases and apparent difference and achieving to the locus of real difference and agreement is necessary for the recognition the truth of ascription this treatise to Shaykh al Rais. Content analysis and comparative study of “Miftah al Khazaen” in relation to logical texts of Shaykh al-Rais confirms the differences and innovations of this treatise in relation to other works of Ibn Sina. In the present writing by comparing the text of the “Miftah al Khazaen” with in disputable works of Ibn Sina in view of stracture and content, the ascription of this work to Ibn Sina will be studies. This work has a strong similarity to Ibn Sina’s “Isharat” and if its ascription to him be confired it should be said that the above mentioned treatise is one of the works that Ibn Sina has written in the last years of his life.

Although the philosophical system of Ibn Sina is a purely intellectual one that many of its underlying principles is constituted by the principles of Aristotelian philosopy and his philosophy is called “peripatetic philosophy”, but Ibn Sina never commits himself to the preservation of all the principles of Aristotelian philosophy and in many cases criticises them. By accepting some Aristotelian principles and presenting his own philosophical principles, Ibn Sina is considered the founder of Islamic prepatetic philosophical system which is a philosophy based on existent. He regards the object of his metaphysics existent qua existent and founds his metaphysical principles of the basis of that concept. Throughout the history besides Ibn Sina many of the philosophers after him as well in the Islamic world and in the west consider the object of metaphysic as existent qua existent, but it does not mean at all that all these philosophers have a single metaphysical structure. In the philosophy of Ibn Sina existent is a univocal concept which by anological gradution applies to its exemplifications. The concept of existent qua existent is so universal and comprehensive that all the objects in the universe are the extentions and denotations of it. The wide scope of existent qua existent include all creatures, from the blessed and exalted God to abstract possibilities and then corporeal possibilities and at last at the lowest level of existence, the primary matter. Among these existents God has a pure self subsitent existence, depends on no other being and by contrast possible being have a correlative and dependent existence on neccessary beings and in their existence and survial need neccessary being.

Detailed knowledge of exalted God to the world of creation is one of the problems that been faced with many disputes and challenges. At the same time, Islamic thinkers have explained this problem, and tried to overcome the challenges posed by this problem as well; in one of these disputes compatibility of the concepts being used in the doctrine “unchangeable God is knower of other things” is the subject of study. One way of showing the success or failure of each of these thinkers is a appraisal of the reasons, presuppositions and requirements of their sayings about our knowledge of God. Ibn Sina regards the detailed knowledge of the Necessary Most High as a “requirement by essence” that has no object so that necessary Being for having a knowledge does not bring about a change in Devine Essence. Ibn Sina belives that this doctrine has an inner coherence; but analysis of his saying shows that this view includes presuppositions which some of them has been criticised by Sadra al Muta’alihin. He holds that Ibn Sina has confuesd between two kinds of “requirement by essence” and thereby is incapable to explain the above mentioned compability.