Avicennian Philosophy Journal
Year:2018 | Volume:22 | Issue:59 |Papers Count:7

Attention to practical philosophy is of a special place in the works of Farabi, Avicenna and Khajeh Nasir. The home management is concerned with family system and the place and roles of woman and man in home management. These three philosophers have common points as regards the principles and issues discussed in this area, but there are also considerable difference in their ideas regarding family and particularly woman. Drawing upon Greek philosophers, Farabi considers man an essentially civil entity and approaches the personality of woman with a humanist and virtue-centered perspective regardless of her gender. Avicenna and Khajeh Nasir have more functionalist view and insist mostly on the role of woman and man in family system. Of course, Khajeh has a more gender-related and less humanistic notion of woman and considers her as the servant of man whose main task is being a mother and a wife. Contrary to Farabi, he defines woman as phenomenon who should stay hidden at home and her exit from home and being in the society can result in undesirable consequences. The current essay assays the ideas of these three philosophers as well as their commonalities and differences as regards woman and home management.

In various and sundry works, Farabi and Avicenna turn to art, its objectivity, and miscellaneous functions. In their writings, art’ s aims and functions become pronounced; however, art’ s goals and applications can be deduced from their theory of imagination. The power of imagination can depict the sensory forms, imaginary forma, as well as intelligible truths. The ultimate goal of the individuals vs. society is to provide the public with intelligible happiness; however, entertainment, wonder, and pleasure are reckoned as acceptable benefits of art. While Avicenna explicitly mentions wonder, Farabi doesn’ t examine the case on its own merits. The other properties are identified for both philosophers. Being first objective of artist activities, final happiness allows entertainment and pleasure just enough of pausing for breathes so as to take pains toward the ultimate cheeriness. As well, while Farabi underlines entertainment, Avicenna doesn’ t focus on the issue.

According to the Quranic teachings, prophetic revelation is the Word of God that is revealed to the prophets upon the prophets based on the special choice of the Lord. Thus, demonstration of prophetic revelation as the specific property of the prophets is among the most significant issues of the debates of revelation. Avicenna is one of the scholars who has sought to provide a new source of information for the demonstration of the stature of the prophets using two special advantages of the prophets – i. e. sacred intellect and powerful imagination – and also with an emphasis on the permission of God for the realization of the revelation. Sacred intellect as the special intellectual capacity of prophets sets the scene for the direct relation of the prophet with the active intellect (universal revelation) and the powerful imagination is a capability with the aid of which the prophetic soul is connected to the heavenly souls (particular revelation) and as a result of which he becomes informed of all details related to the material world. Moreover, this faculty helps the prophet to see the Arc Angel of Revelation and hear the Word of God. It seems that Avicenna's stance in such cases as the belief in the connection of the sacred power with the conjecture, exclusion of the revealed relation in the prophet's relationship with the Active Intellect as well as the role of the faculty of imagination in the formation of particular revelation is faced with some objections. In addition, Avicenna has not succeeded to reach a rigid distinction between the revelation of the Prophet and the charismatic gifts and knowledge of God's saints.

Abolbarakt was a great thinker who has critical sight on Avicenna. In this article, we try to mark him as a mind theoretician and we will give two evidences which can be considered as his innovations. One is conceptual limit (Hadde-Mafhumi) as an alternative for true limit, and the second is acknowledgment modal instead of modal of proposition. Then we analyze these thoughts and show how they are presented in subsequent logical texts. The theory of conceptual limit as an alternative for true limit (Hadde-Haghighi) is a consequence of our method of naming objects. That is, objects is named according to our knowledge with respect to them, so instead of knowing objects, it may be adequate to know limits of our knowledge and what we recognize from objects. Besides, by accepting acknowledgement modal instead of modal of proposition, we encounter with a new concept in modal logic. However, this theory is not useful, since the introduction of deduction is evident. We note that both theories exist in the heart of Avicenna’ s thoughts, but Abolbarakt use them in the other places.

One of the most important concerns of Avicenna in theology was systematic explanation of knowledge of Almighty Necessary. He wants to provide a theory for explanation of the omniscience of Almighty Necessary, which is unchangeable and comprehensive, without harming His simplicity. In order to achieve this goal, Avicenna introduced the theory of “ Imprinted Forms” . Avicenna held that these Forms are essential properties of the Essences and causes of beings and raising from the Necessary’ s intellectual thought, He also held that the knowledge of Almighty Necessary to the creatures come from knowledge to these Forms(causes). It is clear that the underlying ground of this view is the causal relationship between the Forms and objective beings. Although there is clearly this relationship in either Avicenna’ s works, and his commentaries, but, this point has been completely neglected in the phase of the creation of multiplicity of creatures. Avicenna didn’ t say anything about the role and participation of these Forms in emanation of the First Intellect and the other Intellects and heavenly Spheres. Conversely he held that the First intellect immediately created from the Almighty Necessary. He also thought that the Intellects and heavenly Spheres emanated from each other, and not from Imprinted Forms. We show, in this Article, that there is inconsistency between these two explanations.

The quality of the perception of nature has not been analyzed in detail in the works of Avicenna. By analyzing his theoretical principles in the analysis of perception process, it becomes clear that the phenomenon of sense in the stage of the animal soul as the source of knowledge (perception from the senses) and science (perception from reason) is not realized without the passivity of senses from the tangible. Beyond the sense, intellect, or illusion, with the formation of sense perception and imagination, it expressly perceives some obvious evident such as the "differentiation" of objects, and understanding of nature as an attribute of knowledge. Along with the sense perceptions, material and habitual intellects begin the intelligible perception as the first two orders of intellect in interaction with animal soul and through imagination. The material intellect that precedes other orders of intellect, as the first material, is free from any actuality and intelligible form. Therefore, all the perceptions received from imagination are attained for the rational soul at habitual or actual intellect level, and thus the human "self-understanding" is realized as an intelligible scientific perception from itself and beyond the consciousness and understanding of the nature from habitual intellect so far and based on the initial activity of the body and the sensory powers.

The philosophy of Ibn Sina is unique in terms of both principles and syntheses. Despite his significant role in explaining Islamic political philosophy, Ibn Sina's works have received little attention (gap in the literature). Deploying discourse analysis, this article analyses all Ibn Sina’ s works in order to comprehend his political philosophy (Method), which is based on ontology, epistemology, and anthropology. In outlining his political philosophy, Ibn Sina argues that the sources of knowledge (Maʿ rifat) are different. He avails himself of reason, intellect, senses, experience, and revelation in order to elaborate further on this point. The significant role of leadership of society, the link between prophecy and politics, the legitimacy of the Sharia law over politics, and the method of prophetic succession are the main components of his philosophy. Ibn Sina argues that the emancipation of the society lies in establishing a rational political system based on the Sharia law. While he never denies the truths that exist beyond the human mind, he considers all existing governments to be unjust and invalid (Findings).