Avicennian Philosophy Journal
Year:2011 | Volume:14 | Issue:44|Papers Count:7

Pleasure and pain are two factors which are considered as human motive and stimulant for his attainment to physical and spiritual perfection; therefore, they are considered as the highest goal for human's life. Throughout the history, thinkers have done a great deal in trying to understand these two elements. The most important problems with regard to the subject of pleasure and pain consist in: knowing the truth of pleasure and pain; to be acquainted with kinds of pleasure and pain and the role each of them has in the development of different dimensions of human existence. Among Islamic philosophers, Ibn Sina has dealt with the problem of pleasure and pain in detail. In his explanation and description of the nature of pleasure and pain and to set forth the divisions of them, he intends to go beyond bodily pleasure towards intellectual and spiritual pleasures, and in the end he presents happiness as the highest stage of pleasure that is the specific quality of incorporeal beings and of the Infinite Divine Being. Ibn Sina regards the nature of pleasure and pain as the perception of the object of pleasant and unpleasant in human soul. He reckons this perception as a kind of knowledge by presence and on the grounds that the presence of sensual or imaginative forms or intellectual concepts is produced in mind be takes into consideration different kinds for pleasure and pain. In his view all these kinds have a role to play in the growth and exaltation or decadence in human soul and body.

Explanation of Inb Sina’s influence on the thoughts of Scotus and comparison of the views of these two thinkers in discussions about ontology is one the necessary steps in reading again the scholastic philosophy of Scotus and requisites of understanding the place of Ibn Sina’s philosophical thinking. Despite the fact that both thinkers in the extension of their philosophical thinking somehow have been under the influence of Aristotle and prepatetic tradition and naturally there are many similarities in the ideas of these two thinkers, but there are also differences between them which can be proposed and investigated. In this regard there is a logical ground to compare the ideas of these two thinkers. Of course, it should be noted that in any case Scotus has been thinking in the climate of Christian thought while the basis of Ibn Sina’s thinking is Islamic foundations and this difference of climate and culture should always be taken into account in any comparison, so that sometimes some religious and theological motives and incentives shows its influence in ontological discussion of Scotus. Scotus in ontological discussions such as considering "Existent" as the principal subject of metaphysic and using the similar reasons in proving this claim, attention to primary and secondary concepts, attributes of existent, not considering existents "genus" of existents, univocity of the concept of existent and considering analogical gradation or degrees of intensity and weakness in the nature of existent and finally distinction of being and quiddity is completely under the influence of Ibn Sina.

On the basis of Ibn Sina's reasons, the intention of Aristotle of "existent" in the subject of philosophy has been "existent qua existence". One of the aspects of the importance of this interpretation is to provide a scope for setting forth problems such as being and quiddity, necessary and possible. On the other hand, Ibn Sina has paid more attention than Aristotle to conceptual analysis of existence and mainly begins the discussion of existence by setting forth the problem of its immediate meaning. In principle, in philosophical discussions he does not only consider the concrete existence, but it seems that he sees existence in its origin and nature having an unbounded extension which contains both object and subject. From his early discussion of existence, on the one hand he has paid attention to the concept of thing and its proximity with the concept of existence and on the other to a kind of ontological distinction between being and quiddity. These considerations show that Ibn Sina's method in ontology in some respects differs from the method of Aristotle. He makes use of conceptual analysis more than Aristotle does. But on the other hand, he investigates the problems such as truth and necessity from its ontological aspect also which in Aristotle has more logical aspect that is it seems that Ibn Sina in his ontology, constantly vacillates between the concept of object and subject. In this way he has prepared the way for the appearance of the two meaning of gradation of being and possibility by poverty.

Nowadays specialists and students in modern sciences are faced with the problem of understanding the philosophical principles and subjects and mutually the people in philosophy and those interested in philosophical studies are hindered from understanding the scientific concepts and foundations. The cause for the rise of this problem is due more to the fact that knowledgeable persons in science and philosophy have paid no attention at all to acquaint the audience in the opposite group with the concepts of their specialized discipline. In this condition the assistance and cooperation of these two cognitive areas – science and philosophy – can more completely in a clear way lead to explain the common concepts such as body. Although the concept of natural body as it is presented in natural sciences is in practice groundbreaking but analytically and from intellectual point of view it contains basic deficiency. On the other hand, the same concept is presented in philosophical works in such a way that has no connection with the meaning of body as an external reality which is the most important subject of study and research in the natural sciences. In the meantime Ibn Sina as a philosopher who is familiar with scientific subjects of his day presents the concept of natural body in such a way that is compatible with both cognitive areas. His attempt can be used as a suitable pattern for researchers in this field.

Nowadays one of the major topics in different areas of philosophy, psychology and the sciences of neurology such as physiology and neuro– psychology is the problem of sensory perception. Among Philosophers, Ibn Sina is a philosopher who with special subtlety and deep insight has explained the problems concerning with sensory perception, in such a way that by opening new horizons in this regard has prepared the way for many philosophers and even physicians in these topics. Since studies regarding the perception are multi dimensional and interdisciplinary ,setting forth and explanation of it has been done with different foundations in different scientific and philosophical areas. By comparing Ibn Sina’s view-as a comprehensive hakim and philosopher-and scientists in the sciences of neurology in the field of "sensory perception" traces and influences from Ibn Sina’s view in the ideas of philosophers and physicians after him can be seen. This influence can be traced in topics such as justification of the problem of sense and process of sensory perception, recognition of double neural of brain, special function pertaining to the surface areas of brain, divisions of senses, and false sensory perceptions. In comparing these two views beside the explanation of their points of difference, both in theoretical and principles and in specific problems, the author has also analyzed and studied the many cases in common between them.

By a careful study of the process of formation of Islamic thought in Islamic world and its entering Andalusia and a look at Toledo’s school of translators and then its propagation in other Western countries and by a study and analysis of the role of each Islamic philosophers and their works we find out that Ibn Sina has been one of the main architects in building the edifice of thought, philosophy and science in the East and West, to the extent that Ibn Sina and Avicennian philosophy can be considered the fountain – head of growth and development of Western philosophical thought in the Middle – Ages. The effective and dynamic role of Islamic thought in Spain by virtue of its eight hundred years of historical identity under the influence of Islamic government in Andalusia made this country in the Middle Ages as a main conveyer of Islamic thought to the West. At the present age too realistic position of Spanish thinkers and scholars in the way they confront the role of Islamic thinkers in philosophy and its influence in scholastic philosophy and then in Renaissance presents the best picture of the place of role of Islamic thought in Western world. The present article intends to explain the process of course and degree of role and influence of Ibn Sina and Avicennian philosophy on Andalusia and contemporary Spain as a passage way for transfer of Islamic philosophy to Western world.

For the first time in the history of philosophy, Aristotle propounded the theory of four causes and used it as a means for the study of the structure of natural events and justification of changes in the world. Causes in the philosophy of Aristotle both bring about the actualization of a thing in external world and makes it possible to know it. Ibn Sina by using numerous sources of thought, from neo – Platonism to religious ideas in Islam interpreted causality in a different way and through it he could explain the order of creation philosophically. Causality in the philosophical system of Ibn Sina turns round the concept of existence, not movement; and causality explains the being of existences and not only their movements. Thus, despite the fact that causality and its functions have a pivotal role both in the philosophy of Ibn Sina and Aristotle, but the attitude of these two philosophers to this theory has been different. It seems that this difference has been formed by a mutual interaction with the development of the meaning of causes for clarification of the reason of this difference. It is necessary to explain the meaning of causality according to these two philosophers well so that it becomes clear that what kinds of word each of these two philosophers used for causality and cause and what kind of meaning and usage they expected of them.