philosophy
Seyed Amir Ali Mousavian
Abstract
The inappropriate use of "cause" in the translation of Aition and transferring the conceptual and metaphysical content of active cause to other causes, especially the ultimate cause, has caused misinterpretations and misunderstanding of this concept. If the relationship between cause and explanation ...
Read More
The inappropriate use of "cause" in the translation of Aition and transferring the conceptual and metaphysical content of active cause to other causes, especially the ultimate cause, has caused misinterpretations and misunderstanding of this concept. If the relationship between cause and explanation is not taken into account, there will be confusion between the meaning of cause in the new philosophy and Aitia, which is caused by not taking into account the difference between "view to fact" and the mind, or the distinction between proof and evidence. In this article, the why and how to enumerate the Aristotelian causes and the ontological and epistemological strains of the relationship between cause and explanation are discussed from his point of view. The reason for Aristotle's fourfold classification of causes and the understanding of the causal relationship should be found based on the category of change and movement or the relationship between the creator and the artifact. The role of change and movement can be considered as the foundation of the natural analysis of causality based on the teachings of physics and metaphysics, in parallel with Aristotle's theory of causality in secondary analyzes based on the concepts of the middle ground of evidential analogy and general causal innateness. It is possible to consider the cause as a type of explanation or as a part of the explanation known as the causal explanation in such a way that it is both an explanation and an explanation of the cause.
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.
