With regard to the importance of interrelations and interplays of topos and logos in ancient theory and practices, here I will appropriate Aristotle philosophizing of topos and logos and apply it for the ancient persian Empire as reflected in related inscriptions.

Although Ibn Sina’s metaphysics is heavily indebted to Aristotle’s, with regard to the substantiality of the rational soul and God, Aristotle and Ibn Sina take opposite positions: Aristotle holds that theos is a substance, while Ibn Sina denies that God is a substance; Aristotle holds that the soul is not a substance, while Ibn Sina claims that it is. In both of these regards we observe the movement toward greater abstraction in Ibn Sina. The concept of God is more abstract (...) when considered outside the categories, and the soul is understood more abstractly, not merely as the form of an organism, but as independent of any materiality. God is freed from the constraints of substantiality while the soul is freed from the constraints of corporeality. Ibn Sina argues that since God transcends the categories, God is not a substance. Another argument is that everything that falls under the categories is contingent in its existence, God, however, is necessary in His existence. Hence, God is not a substance. Ibn Sina’s main argument, however, is that a condition for being a substance is, according to Arsitotle, not to be in a subject. This condition should be understood in such a manner that it does not imply the existence of what satisfies it. The existence of a necessary being, however, is implied by such a condition. Hence, God does not have the condition, and, thus, is not a substance. (shrink)

This study aims to focus on the eight chapter of first article of Avicenna al-Shifā: Metaphysics. The necessity of the study on the sophists in the aforementioned chapter in terms of metaphysics, the mental background, the method used here and the reasons for this preferred method formed the general scope of the study. In the history of philosophy, leading philosophers such as Plato, Arsitotle and Avicenna had to answer the claims of the sophists by examining them, and especially the (...) last two philosophers' examination of these claims in the most advanced field of philosophy, such as metaphysics, shows the importance given to the subject. I have also made some references to the contact between the views in Aristotle’s Metaphysics book which deal with similar problems with the problems Avicenna examines here. In the article, I tried to highlight the connection that Ibn Sînâ established between the mind and the mind in order to make the analysis and analysis required by the method followed. I aimed to show that the mind is in a contradictory position to the claims of the sophists, by stating that the main determinant in the propositions about existence is not the mind but the external. I aims to explain that outside manifests itself in the mind by actualizing it, and there for, the rules known as basic proportions of the mind or logic are actually and primarily the principle of the existence. (shrink)

RESUMEN En Acerca de la adivinación, Aristóteles afirma que "la naturaleza es demoniaca". El adjetivo es difícil de traducir y tiene connotación sobrenatural tanto en griego como en español. Pero si Aristóteles no explica lo natural apelando a lo sobrenatural, ¿por qué utiliza este adjetivo? Para resolver la dificultad se propone una lectura mitigada del adjetivo demoniaco. "Maravilloso" es una buena traducción, porque sugiere que la naturaleza es sorprendente y no por ello carente de explicación natural. ABSTRACT In On Divination, (...) Aristotle states that "nature is demonic". The adjective is difficult to translate and it has a supernatural connotation in both Greek and Spanish. But if Arsitotle does not explain the natural by appealing to the supernatural, why does he use this adjective? In order to resolve this difficulty, the article proposes a moderate reading of the adjective demonic. "Marvelous" is a good translation, because it suggests that nature is surprising but that this does not mean it lacks a natural explanation. (shrink)