Hamidreza Bayat; Hasan Abasi Hosain Abadi; alireza parsa
Abstract
Comparing philosophies is an effort to find ways of interaction and synergy between these schools. It seems that finding the commonalities and differences between these structures and the appropriate method of achieving this are important. The method can be considered at two levels: macro and definite ...
Read More
Comparing philosophies is an effort to find ways of interaction and synergy between these schools. It seems that finding the commonalities and differences between these structures and the appropriate method of achieving this are important. The method can be considered at two levels: macro and definite levels. The problem here is that if for this adaptation we choose the phenomenological method with carbon as a macro method, and to give objectivity to this macro method, the adapted structures in the context of the "Axiomatic method" in the contemporary time using the theory of the "model" has become more formal, we implement, then the most fundamental similarities and differences that are emphasized in the phenomenological method, in which components of the structures of the thematic principle in question are determined. How is the relationship between these two categories of components explained to each other, so that in the light of this explanation, the other points of commonality and differences of the matching devices are clearly and systematically identified? Therefore by using the context of the Axiomatic method and the capacity to formalize model theory in a limited circle in Islamic philosophy, an attempt was made to show that "undefined concepts" the most fundamental similarities and their "interpretations" or the emergence of differences in these interpretations are also the main factor of differentiation and creation of different devices, and the ratio of the two to each other is the "absolute" relation to the "constraint".
Hasan Abasi Hosain Abadi
Abstract
The discussion of perfection is of different natures in the ideas of Aristotle and Avicenna. Both have divided perfection into first perfection and second perfection. What is the difference between the two? What are the meanings of each of these concepts and what is the domain of their usage? Has Avicenna ...
Read More
The discussion of perfection is of different natures in the ideas of Aristotle and Avicenna. Both have divided perfection into first perfection and second perfection. What is the difference between the two? What are the meanings of each of these concepts and what is the domain of their usage? Has Avicenna been influenced by Aristotle or has he exceeded him? To discuss perfection, Aristotle has employed the two terms of "energia and entelecheia’, and he has discussed it in different positions in metaphysics, sciences, natural sciences and ethics. He has discussed first perfection and the second perfection in On Soul and talk of movement. To him, the first perfection of the primitive stage is secondary perfection. In the On Soul, the first perfection has potency, and it is imperfect perfection in motion. In his works, Avicenna has used the first perfection and the second perfection as related to natural subjects such as movement, soul, and sometimes regarding God and His relation to creatures. Avicenna perceives the soul from two perspectives: in terms of its relation to the body, as well as the abstract view of the two. And for him, perfection is existential and intensive, and the second perfection is subordinate to the first. The purpose of the present paper is to discuss this division into first and second perfection and its position in Aristotle and Avicenna’s reasoning.
