Avicennian Philosophy Journal
Year:2017 | Volume:21 | Issue:57 |Papers Count:7

Studying Avicenna's philosophy raised three main questions: Is his philosophy the continuation of Aristotle's philosophy? If yes, Can it be considered as the commentary to Aristotle philosophy? If not, what are the differences between his philosophy and the Aristotle's? Applying Averroes' views about Avicenna's philosophy, the present paper is reviewing the differences according to this important commentator of Aristotle- regardless of his critics of Avicenna and the answers to him. The Averroes’s point of view can be considered from three aspects: the phrases that show the differences, the Fundamental principles, and the philosophical details (more than fifty subjects). Averroes believed the philosophy of Avicenna is different from Aristotle's in more than fifty subjects and isn’t the continuation of it.

Avicenna – in the fifth Namat of his Isharat – reviews the issue of time. Commentators have different views as to his principle aim at this discussion. Some commentators maintain – of course incorrectly - that he is going to define time and prove its existence. Some others hold that here he is going to prove that before every temporal existence is matter. This reading is closer to reality but not exact. In this article we are going to show that Avicenna is going to prove that before every temporally coming to existence thing there is matter so the concept of temporally coming to existence is a paradoxical concept. His final goal is to prove by a reductio ad absurdum that the concept of temporally coming to existence is not rational and will result to paradox. So the discussion of time here is not random or marginal but is part of a complete proof which some of its premises are not mentioned.

Avicenna's views in philosophy have great influence on his medicine. One of the most important of them is the principle of causality and its branches which have been discussed in philosophical books. Before Avicenna, Greek philosophers like Aristotle tried to develop medicine sciences based on philosophical principles to avoid the expansion of superstitious in medicine and medical treatment. So, this article explains the role of philosophy in the view of Greek philosophers especially Aristotle and Muhammad Ibn Zakariyyā al-Rāzī and in the modern medicine as well as the role of Causality in Avicenna's medicine. Like philosophy, Avicenna's medicine is divided into two sections of theoretical and practical. Avicenna prohibited the doctors from interfering the philosophical problems of the second section. Because it is not his main field and the doctors' responsibility is to cure the decease. But his theoretical medicine is based on some philosophical foundations. In this regard and according to Avicenna's view, the real doctor is someone who knows the philosophy well. Avicenna's views in regard to the causality in medicine are discussed in these sections, four causes, congruence principle, and teleological view in medicine.

Applying analytical and descriptive approaches, this inquiry reveals the relationship between the meaning of life and the role of pleasure in achieving it Ibn Sina presents well-being as something which is desired for- itself and end for-itself and believes that well-being is a necessary and sufficient condition for a meaningful life. In his view, there is a deep relation between meaning and pleasure. Pleasure is the direct and innate perception of individual perceptual faculty to what in his/her view is good and perfect. The Ibn Sina’s psychology has a direct impact on well-being and pleasure topics. He, in regarding perceptual faculty of the psyche, intends different levels for well-being and pleasure which among them, intellectual or spiritual pleasures has a more important role to achieve meaning. Moreover, between psyche faculties, only the intellectual or spiritual faculty is immortal. This faculty, also, determines the ultimate well-being and pleasure in the hereafter. Ibn Sina seemingly believes that intellectual or spiritual pleasure is a necessary and sufficient condition for achieving meaning. Thus, looking for intellectual pleasures is the same as seeking well-being and meaning of life.

The rarest theory of God’s essential attributes is the theory of “conceptual and exemplary unity of essential attributes”, which is asserted in different books penned by Avicenna and Shaykh al-Ahsai. They adopted this approach based on certain theoretical basics, namely “generality of the notion of inherent attributes” and “impossibility of deriving different notions from a true indivisible notion”. However, since every independent notion associated with divine attributes contains different forms of significance and the theory of “conceptual synonymy of attributes” is challenged mainly in terms of semantic function, the present research objective is to prove that both of the theories cover the conceptual function of synonymous essential attributes in divine propositions by explaining and analyzing the semantic aspect of essential attributes in the light of their semantic synonymy. Avicenna first accepts “existence” as the first essential heavenly attribute and believes a more precise understanding of each essential attribute is contingent upon inclusion of God’s existence with a “privative” or “relative” notion or a combination of the two. However, using a different approach, Ahsai believes the semantic fruits of essential attributes rest on a positive concept and two relative aspects: negation of freeness of the self from perfection, freeness of God Almighty from contradictory attributes, and negation of similarities between divine attributes and earthly attributes. He believes there is an actual attribute that corresponds to each of God’s essential perfections, and Muhammad’s Truth carries and contains these actual attributes.

Cognition of the nature of things is so important that sometimes there isn’t any necessity to argumentation for proving various properties for them. “Justice” is one of the most fundamental human obsessions in the field of ethics and social issues that it is spoken so much about its properties, but the interpretation of its nature is sometimes neglected. The main question in this article is about the nature of justice. This research has done with a focus on the Avicenna's ideas and it has been concluded that because he refused to believe an independent nature for justice so Avicenna didn’t propose any essential definition for it. And then with the rejection of the Avicenna’s theory that Justice is the collection of three virtues of continence, courage, and wisdom, it is explained that the justice is original and triple virtues are branches of it. Justice has a unitary reality that in any faculty - due to that faculty - a certain virtue is abstracted from it. Thus, justice is the basis of all the virtues and other virtues are manifestations of it. Finally, the theory of the "fluid nature of justice" as well as theory of "separation Justice from moderation" has been answered and the relation between the philosophical and legal justice has been proposed.

Ammonius, Son of Hermias, is one of the noblest commentators of Aristotle’s philosophy. He taught most of the important Platonists of the late 5th and early 6th centuries. The beginning of his book, on Aristotle’s Categories, he mentions some points which are useful to have a better knowledge of Aristotle’s philosophy. In his book, he introduces and classifies Aristotle’s works. Then, he expresses Aristotle's purpose and the quality of representing his thoughts, as well as the way of studying the book and the features of the person who wants to study or comment on Aristotle’s works. Such commentary is necessary not only for Aristotle’s philosophy but also for understanding the general philosophy. In addition, it shows the important role of Aristotle in Ammonius' thoughts and his efforts to reach an agreement between Aristotle, Plotinus, and Plato. Farabi in the same book of Ma Yanbagi An Yataallam Gab Taalome alFalsafate Arasto (The points which are worthy to know before studying Aristotle’s philosophy) Except in some few cases, repeats Ammonius’ words; so we can assume that the book is completely under the influence of Ammonius' work.