The most important of the philosophy of Ibn-e-Sina is self-knowledge and below, he addresses the question of the perfection of the human soul and mentions his detailed thesis. According to Ibn-Sina, the perfection of the human soul is rational perfection, and it is achieved through the development of theoretical intellect and the attainment of the stage of the wisdom. Inventory is inherently rational and is achieved through the association with the divine and divine so-called active intellect from the rank of (...) gonadal intellect and potential to the actual and actual degree of reason. In other words, the evolution of the soul is in the area of theoretical reason, and practical reason is only an aspect of the introduction. Ibn-e-Sinai's view was throughout Sri Islam's philosophical thinking and was criticized and rebuilt by Mulla Sadra, but ultimately remained within the same boundaries and realm. The basic problem of Ibn Sina's view is the separation of the soul and the lack of attention to the essential intent of voluntary action and the material and physical aspects, and especially the issues of social and political life in the development of the soul. In the present article, while expressing the theory of Ibn-e Sina, which is organized in the face of Greek philosophical thinking, criticize the following views in term of internal and classical critique and externally criticized and out of the general framework of Islamic philosophy will be cited and analyzed. (shrink)

The leading theory regarding the number of basic elements in classical natural sciences is formulated in the peripatetic school of philosophy, which assumes four basic elements to exist. They propose three possible explanations in support of this theory: 1) Reasoning based on the position of objects in nature and their natural inclinations, taking into view the qualities of being light or heavy; 2) Reasoning by considering fundamental sensible qualities all objects share ; 3) Reasoning by dint of composition and analysis. (...) Then, instances of the four classical elements was determined through an inductive method of reasoning. Abou Reihan al-Biruoni and Suhrawardi were critical of this theory and refused to accept fire as a basic element, calling it hot air. Hence, by modifying the criteria behind the classification of basic elements, Suhrawardi categorized them according to their visual qualities and, therefore, reduced the number of elements to three: opaque, translucent and subtle. In this paper, the arguments deployed by the philosophers of the peripatetic school and constitutive of Suhrawardi's criticism about the four elements was investigated and it was revealed that Suhrawardi's motive in this new method of categorization, in which fire was removed from among basic elements, was more metaphysical, and did not, in fact, abide by the rules of natural sciences. (shrink)

The problem of this paper is “Matter mistake” and “Formal mistake” and its result is "Matter mistake is meaningless; what are in principle described as correct and incorrect, are forms". Studies showed Avicenna has no statement or proof about Matter Mistake and his definition of logic can be a start point for Classical logic. By accepting this statement, we need to accept a role for Matter Mistake in fallacy argument. Khajeh has used it and neglect all Matter Mistakes in fallacy, (...) but on the other hand, Ghotb considered a place for it and so his argument is not consistent with this statement. Ghotb believes that Matter Mistake has no meaning by comparing it to the real world due to casual and necessity of foundations of knowledge. This belief also exists in Khajeh's thought but it is due to premises of syllogism and logical definitions. Now I think since these traditional logical discussions are so general and denotation criteria is not the same, so it has no contradiction to consider mistakes accompanying matter. (shrink)