Avicennian Philosophy Journal
Year:2016 | Volume:20 | Issue:55|Papers Count:6

Many logicians have considered guess as one of the origins of certain principles, but they have not clarified this issue. In the works of Avicenna and consequently of his commentators, one can see meaning expansion in using this term. Avicenna brings the guess also in spiritual sciences and knows the prophecy as one of the fields of guess efficiency. Fakhr al-Din al-Razi as well as Avicenna emphasized on the role of the guess in revelation. Avicenna believed guess is related to Sacred Intellect which is above acquired Intellect, while Fakhr al-Din al-Razi held that guess is the highest level of Intellect in the sense possession and through three reasons did not consider guess as one of the certainties. According to the words of Avicenna about the relationship between revelation and certain guess, it reveals that the meaning of guess in soul discussions is mystical rather than logical.

The unity of existence is one of the disputed issues in Islamic Mysticism and philosophy. This subject has appeared somehow in Sadrian philosophy (known as Transcendental Philosophy) as the Islamic mainstream which gathered its previous Islamic ideas. One of the questions here is about the roots of this discussion in Islamic philosophy; a question that is meant to be answered in this article according to a discussion in Avicenna which may be called “truthiness (haqqiyah) of God”. It seems that the Quranic trends which dominates the discussion (i.e. truthiness of God) is the very thing that has led to the distinction of truth (haq) and void (batil) in Islamic philosophy; the distinction which was interpreted as a distinguishing between “existence” and “non-existence”. This distinction finally led to an exclusive view in attributing “existence” to God and result in a smooth kind of belief about unity of existence in Mulla Sadra.

Following understanding the necessity of interdisciplinary study about mind and soul, a knowledge named cognitive sciences was created in the 20th century. In an analogous approach, Avicenna has worked on understanding the soul from different aspects and utilized different medical, neurological, mystic and mental sciences in this issue. This paper is to understand Avicenna’s method and methodology in soul’s problems so that it can be compared with the cognitive sciences method. Despite general similarities of Avicenna’s approach in soul’s problem with cognitive science, there are some major distinctions that have caused different content and results about soul in each of the studies. Avicenna’s method which is alike the cognitive sciences method in general lines and been existed further before these sciences is an interdisciplinary method. This method hasn’t been continued among Muslim thinkers in the field of psychology.

Recognizing truthfulness of basic self-evident premises is one of the important concerns of epistemology. Ibn-e Sina considers these propositions as self-evident truths (classical theory). Among the contemporary thinkers, Mesbah Yazdi does not consider this solution as sufficient and has found it as problematic. According to his opinion, verification of the truthfulness and the true totality of the propositions are dependent on transcending concepts and using intuition knowledge instead. This is how one can make sure that self-evident premises are not abstract and mental textures, but objective and general truths. The following essay includes 3 parts: first is statement of problem. Second part is the explication and criticism of mesbah′s classic theory. And third part is dealing with resolving questions posed about it. There are two major issues in this sphere: first, both concepts of reference of basic self-evident premises to intuitive knowledge are true. The second issue is that verifying the truthfulness of general proposition over a specific one is due to a mistake concept in respect of significance for it in respect of existence. In conclusion, we think there are some traces of Mesbah′s theory in Avicenna's too.

One of the recent questions about happiness is that whether happiness is due to one thing or there is more than one item which leads to happiness and also the other items mentioned as causes of happiness could be considered as introduction to actualize the main cause or not. The first idea which assumes such an end to which all other ends are subordinated is known as "dominant end" and the latter is described as "inclusive end". Scholars attempt to analyze the causes providing happiness based on the extent of their affection on actualizing happiness. In this research we try to review Avicenna’s view about the question. We see that Avicenna identifies the notion of happiness in terms of obtaining perfection in psychic faculty of human and holds that soul has got a two-aspect perfection: intellectual perception is the essential aspect and the other aspect referring to the natural body and dominating it in order to reach the ethical virtues. Avicenna, however, considers the action of ethical virtue as an introduction to intellectual perception and introduces the connection to the Active Intelligence and this very intellectual perception as the real happiness. As a result, he believes that feeling complete pleasure of real perfection is depend on the departure of soul from body and would occur in hereafter. Thus, we can conclude that Avicenna interprets happiness as dominant end.

According to Peripatetic thought, Specially Avicenna, material particulars are known through two minor ways: sometimes through perceptual organs and the other whiteout getting help from perceptual organs. The perception that occurs through perceptual organs is called sense perception. And the other without getting help from perceptual organs and is occurred by object causes is called perception of particulars in universal or general mode. Some of the latter perception's characteristics are: mediation of perception of general causes in knowing the unique general example and its effect, obtaining knowledge without object known and consequently the knower's ignorance of sensual object known. Avicenna used this perception in three places: first the knowledge of soul to her perceptional and moving tools. Second a prior knowledge to particulars (materials) which is obtained intellectually by its causes and third God's a prior knowledge to changing particulars (materials). Peripatetic thought in man a prior knowledge to particulars is functional however there are some problems in the two others.