Amin Shahverdi
Abstract
In this paper, the formation and development of Signification theory and its effect on Muslim thinkers are studied. In the ancient period, there were three important schools that investigated signals and issues surrounding them. First, Aristotle investigated signs at the outset of his “On Interpretation”, ...
Read More
In this paper, the formation and development of Signification theory and its effect on Muslim thinkers are studied. In the ancient period, there were three important schools that investigated signals and issues surrounding them. First, Aristotle investigated signs at the outset of his “On Interpretation”, as well as, at the end of his “Prior Analytics”. Second, physicians with classifying signs into two main groups made various comments about the argumentative role of them in inferences. Third, Stoics studied signs as a primary part of their logic and investigated arguments on the basis of them. In the Islamic period, Avicenna is the first logicians studying verbal signification meticulously and classifying it into three parts. Avicenna’s doctrines about verbal signification which are repeated in other logicians’ books are in accordance with Aristotle’s discourse at the beginning of “On Interpretation”. Natural verbal signification is added into logical books explicitly by Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī and after him, Afḍal al-Dīn al-Khūnajī and other logicians implied to it. Rational verbal signification is added to verbal signification in the works of Siraj al-Dīn Urmawī, Allameh Ḥelli, and Quṭb al-Dīn Shirāzī. Furthermore, Quṭb al-Dīn Rāzī with examining non-verbal signification extended the domain of signification theory, as well as he introduced a new definition of signification. This new definition of signification and attention to non-verbal signification possibly are rooted in Aristotle’s comment in the second book of Prior Analytics as well as Stoics and physicians' doctrines which were transmitted through theologians and Aristotle commentator into later logicians.
Seyyed Mohammad Ali Hodjati
Abstract
According to Muslim logicians, the quantifier, in categorical logic, shows the quantity of the individuals of the subject in a statement; so its place is before the subject. Hence, if it comes before the predicate there arises some deviation in the main form of the statement, and such a statement is ...
Read More
According to Muslim logicians, the quantifier, in categorical logic, shows the quantity of the individuals of the subject in a statement; so its place is before the subject. Hence, if it comes before the predicate there arises some deviation in the main form of the statement, and such a statement is called a "deviant statement" (al-qaḍiyah al-munḥarifah). In modern logic, by contrast, the main characteristic of a predicate is being general or unsaturated and since a predicate has a propositional function, i.e. has free variables (or arguments), it can or should be quantified; hence, putting the quantifier before the predicate is consistent with the conditions and rules on constructing a well formed statement. Among contemporary logicians Hamilton is famous for his claim that predicates should also be quantified just like subjects. The viewpoints of Muslim and modern logicians, concerning the place of the quantifier in a statement, seems to be conflicted. Among Muslim logicians, Avicenna is the one who considers no problem in using such statements, although he calls them “deviant”, and gives an explanation and analysis for them. In this paper, I have examined these views and shown that the conflict may be superfluous if Muslim logicians’ approach to predicates is extensional, which, of course, can hardly be attributed to them.
Mahmoud Hedayatafza
Abstract
Regarding the philosophical view of Shirazi, a persistent question is whether the efforts of Shiite thinkers in the use of different schools of thought, the knowledge coherent for him to be brought or the adaptations frequent votes of inconsistent from view, the combination of ideas led Is? Of course, ...
Read More
Regarding the philosophical view of Shirazi, a persistent question is whether the efforts of Shiite thinkers in the use of different schools of thought, the knowledge coherent for him to be brought or the adaptations frequent votes of inconsistent from view, the combination of ideas led Is? Of course, the surest way to reach the answer to evaluate each of the issues raised in transcendental philosophy, especially the issues that they claim Sadra innovation.In this context, the present article aims to examine what different Sadra on the "primary matter" is the owner of Asfar, while acknowledging the composition of the concrete body of matter and form, stating extensively to defend the idea of Peripatetic philosophers of external realization monster as it lacks only the ability to act and turns around and look for the critics, especially Hakim Suhrawardi's philosophical position is, but he described some of the primary matter, like a special statement on the implications of Suhrawardi. The lawsuit innovation Mulla Sadra on the composition of the union of matter and form and promises to delight in Monster, respectively, to the works of philosophers Ikhwan al-Safa and the essay "Ashaq" Bu-Ali denied the innovation Sadra these problems limited to some explanation and He is considered new arguments.
qassem pourhassan; sakineh abouali
Volume 11, Issue 43 , October 2015, , Pages 7-25
Abstract
Abstract
Evaluating and considering of immateriality and immortality by three philosophers naming Aristotle's (322-384 H.Q), Avicenna (370-428 H.Q), and Aviross (520-595 H.Q) constituted the core of this article.
Contradiction and ambiguities seen in some of Aristotle's ideas is considered as the origin ...
Read More
Abstract
Evaluating and considering of immateriality and immortality by three philosophers naming Aristotle's (322-384 H.Q), Avicenna (370-428 H.Q), and Aviross (520-595 H.Q) constituted the core of this article.
Contradiction and ambiguities seen in some of Aristotle's ideas is considered as the origin of the differences of his exponents about this matter. Philosophers such as Alexander Aphrodisias and (2 and 3 BC), Aviross attributed materiality and mortality of individuals’ souls and also Avicenna attributed immateriality and immortality to Aristotle. Some definitions of Aristotle on soul based on immateriality and immortality as well as his emphasis on soul simplicity is an expression of accurate viewpoint of Avicenna, not related to Aviross. Avicenna relying on the lack of dividing the location of intelligible forms and also according to personal science of self-esteem proves personal souls immateriality and survival of them. But, Aviross was not able to prove the personal souls immateriality based on the unity of intellect course and the relation of potential intellect and active intellect and eventually, Then did not consider them as immaterial and one.
Alirezā Sayādmansur; Seyyed Abbās Dhahabi
Volume 11, Issue 42 , July 2015, , Pages 23-42
Abstract
Recognized as the first philosophers who innovated some philosophical approaches to love in the Greek and Islamic traditions, Plato and Avicenna included love among the jewels of philosophical issues, and wrote some treatises on analysis of love that became the precursors of a novel philosophical approach. ...
Read More
Recognized as the first philosophers who innovated some philosophical approaches to love in the Greek and Islamic traditions, Plato and Avicenna included love among the jewels of philosophical issues, and wrote some treatises on analysis of love that became the precursors of a novel philosophical approach. Inspired by those who followed Plato’s Symposium to explain love in the Islamic tradition, Avicenna in his Risalah fil-'Ishq (A Treatise on Love), presents some ideas that are almost parallel to those of Plato's. However we should not ignore the differences that distinguish both treatises from each other. The resemblance often lies in their ontological analysis of love and their discrepancies can be found in their semantic and methodological analysis of love. Within both philosophical masterpieces, the position of knowledge in true love, interweaving of love and need as well as the objective of love are all exposed to serious scrutiny. But their conceptualizations of love and explanation method are thoroughly distinctive. In this comparative content analysis of the two treatises, we hope to reveal latent nuances in both thinkers' approaches to love.
zohreh abd khodai; hoseyn kalbasi ashtari
Abstract
The concept of time, its existence, ontology, and epistemology are considered as a pivotal philosophical issue from the ancient Greek time up to now. Aristotle explicitly deals with this subject. His notion of time can be also seen in Avicenna’s writings. This point have arisen many questions and ...
Read More
The concept of time, its existence, ontology, and epistemology are considered as a pivotal philosophical issue from the ancient Greek time up to now. Aristotle explicitly deals with this subject. His notion of time can be also seen in Avicenna’s writings. This point have arisen many questions and discussions concerning that whether Avicenna as a commentator of Aristotle simply narrates Aristotle’s view, or he elaborates and develops Aristotle’s idea and presents his own view. The aim of this paper is to study this issue and discuss about the viewpoints of some Muslim scholars who believe that Avicenna’s idea is not fundamentally different from that of Aristotle. In addition, we study the viewpoints of those who believe that although Avicenna uses the same structure as Aristotle did, his specific considerations make his theory of time distinctive. The paper elaborates that, in some senses, there are at least two differences between these two philosophers: regarding the derivative / non-derivative conceptions of time, and regarding the divisibility / indivisibility of time.
ala turani; fatemeh delshad
Abstract
This paper seeks to demonstrate Kant's and Avicenna's belief in the objectivity of time. First, their views on the generalities are studied and the manner in which they are extracted from tangible and external issues explained. Second, their views on the objectivity and nature of time are explained. ...
Read More
This paper seeks to demonstrate Kant's and Avicenna's belief in the objectivity of time. First, their views on the generalities are studied and the manner in which they are extracted from tangible and external issues explained. Second, their views on the objectivity and nature of time are explained. Time is a real perception according to Avicenna and a synthetic a priori concept according to Kant. Since the real perceptions and synthetic a priori concepts are the confluence of subjective and objective issues, the objective nature of time is established. Moreover, time-related issues, including the dependence of events on matter, time and its essence are addressed.
hoseyn kalbasi ashtari; hasan ahmadi zadeh
Abstract
The issue of “Finity or Infinity of Space and Time” is one of the most important problems in the western and also in the Islamic philosophy. The history of the debate about this problem is interwoven with the history of differnet views of philosophers and theologians. In the western philosophy, ...
Read More
The issue of “Finity or Infinity of Space and Time” is one of the most important problems in the western and also in the Islamic philosophy. The history of the debate about this problem is interwoven with the history of differnet views of philosophers and theologians. In the western philosophy, Aristotle is the first thinker who presents a detailed and articulated discussion about the finity or infinity of space and time. In On Heavens, he asserts that considering the Infinity is a crucial step in the way of understanding the truth. This issue is propouned again in the Islamic world, especially by Avicenna, in a different articulation, but by the same attitude. Avicenna presented arguments in an Aristotelean way in favor of finity of space and infinity of time. In this paper, we are to analyse and consider the views of the mentioned great peripatetic philosophers on the finity of space and infinity of time.
Mohammad Ali Ejeii
Abstract
In his book Asas al-ightibas Tusi speaks of a group of logicians who maintain that modality can be applied in order to modalize the quantity of a proposition. The standard view maintains that in a modalized proposition the modal term can only qualify the relation of the predicate to the subject. Avicenna ...
Read More
In his book Asas al-ightibas Tusi speaks of a group of logicians who maintain that modality can be applied in order to modalize the quantity of a proposition. The standard view maintains that in a modalized proposition the modal term can only qualify the relation of the predicate to the subject. Avicenna has argued for the first thesis, and a group of well-known logicians followed him. Tusi disagreed. As Tusi precedes some of these logicians the question remains unsettled. The purpose of this article is to articulate the thesis first, and then to discuss Avicenna's reason for proposing it. The article argues that the data he offers in support of his thesis can be interpreted differently, and thus, it is argued that the thesis remains unjustified.
