Today, despite the welfare and technological advances, man still has not been able to achieve his ultimate calmness. There are both internal and external issues in human’ s world, if faced without meaning and connection to spiritual perceptions, each will be excruciating both mentally and physically, ultimately affecting his mental health by these apparently powerful little cognitive-behavioral obstacles, so that he loses the pulse of life. This is to say that spirituality leads to perceiving meaning, purpose, realizing moral values (1) and eventually guiding manners (2). Although whatever has been done so far in the area of treatment and prevention has been able to ensure relative prosperity and well-being, it seems that shorter and less time-consuming methods can be adopted in the area of prevention and treatment. Introducing the way with spirituality truth is one of those direct brief paths of human’ s salvation and happiness. The idea that health lies in soul is in fact the main subject of the relationship between health, religion, and spirituality. For Muslims, Christians, Hindus, and Catholics, from adolescence to adulthood, spirituality is a major factor in health (3)...

Reflecting on the comments of Avicenna and Aquinas loose doubt about opposition to them concerning how to communicate between human soul and the body. Two seemingly opposite theories; Avicenna believes that the human soul is required by communication with the body. However, Aquinas believes that the human soul does not need for intermediaries to unite with the body. To resolve the apparent opinions between the two theories; with analytical approach it becomes clear that each of the philosophers with two different perspectives to consider when considering the connection between human soul and the body. Firs t perspective s tates that human soul is related to the body as form, and the second perspective s tates that activity of the soul in the body begins. The resulting analysis is not only that the two theories are not contradictory of each other but, if a dispute occurs about the ques tion of how to make the connection between human soul and the body is due to their view of unity. As Avicenna rejects unity he calls the connection between human soul and the body as a kind of thoughtful connection, while Aquinas adopts unity, sees the connection between human soul and the body as a kind of union. However, both philosophers know the human soul needs to communicate with the body. Both philosophers believe that in order for the human soul to carry out its activities in the body, mediation is needed or as Avicenna puts it “ bokhari” spirit, and Aquinas corporal’ s (or vital) spirit.

The truth of the human soul is one of the fundamental issues of psychology and the basis of various ontological, anthropological, and epistemological theories. In expressing the truth of the soul, Plato believes in natural intellectual dualism, which is based on his view on the theory of remembrance and the allegory of the cave. By presenting two definitions of the soul, Aristotle tries to present the true limit of the soul, which seems to be a problematic definition. Fārābī agrees with Plato in dualism and the inability of man to reach the true limit of things, and unlike Aristotle, he denies that the man attached to the matter can understand and offer the true limit of essences; Instead, he considers definition possible only through the things’ properties and implications, which leads him to offer different definitions for the soul. Fārābī’s definitions show his special attention to the issue of happiness, its principles such as natural and voluntary characteristics in attaining the state of the actual intellect, and its implications such as the effects of the practical intellect of the rational faculty. The selection of the word “perfecting” shows the comprehensiveness of the philosophical discussions regarding happiness in the definition of soul. Fārābī dealt critically with the discussions in al-Jam‘, and considered the functional definitions in al-Jadal and Kitāb al-’Akhlāq as the duties of the rational soul.

Undoubtedly the theory substantial departure as a great innovation has been originally established by Molla Sadra and fundamentally affected Islamic philosophy. Another important theory explained by Sadra after Avicenna's opposition is the unity of the knowing and the known. Though the theories are deeply interrelated, they have caused various problems that solving them would prepare the ground to solve many other philosophical problems. As is claimed in the second theory, the known by essence is the same as the knowing with regard to existence. However, on the basis of the first theory human soul, as the knowing, while in gradual departure by arriving at new knowledge at every instance, would cause the known to change. Here the question arises that how we can argue for unchangeable knowledge? This paper has studied the question.

The soul is one of the most frequently used terms in Descartes&rsquo,philosophical works and one of the fundamental concepts employed in the structure of his philosophy. In fact, without considering the meaning and concept of the soul, one cannot perceive the essence of his philosophical system. He views the soul as an immaterial substance that is different from the body in the real sense of the word and can exist without the body. Descartes maintains that the soul is an essentially immaterial and decomposable substance that, after its destruction or the postmortem decomposition of the body, continues its life in the light of its essential immateriality bearing the memory of its union with the body. He has posed certain arguments on the immaterial nature of the human soul, such as the possibility of doubting the existence of bodies, the needlessness of the concept of the soul from corporal attributes, God&rsquo, s power as to creating two elements with each one being clearly and distinctly perceivable, and the oneness and indecomposability of the soul. Accordingly, he believes in three substances of God, soul, and body in distinction from each other. He intends a true distinction when he refers to distinction of substances,however, this reference has become problematic for him, and he must clarify how two truly distinct substances can affect each other in unison. He has tried to resolve this problem by placing the vapor soul, the &ldquo, pineal gland&rdquo, , and the faculty of imagination as intermediaries or by establishing a kind of balance or even substantial unity between them. Nevertheless, the more he has tried to resolve the problem, the more he has been challenged. He has also presented two completely different standpoints regarding the eternity of the soul, which must be demonstrated based on rational and philosophical arguments. However, in his second stance, he introduces the mortality of the soul as a completely religious category and states that the eternity of the soul cannot be realized merely within the framework of the natural intellect and without seeking help from faith. Descartes has also been unsuccessful in this regard and failed to prove his claim.

Human soul is an immobile variable (mojarrad) that at the same time posses the feature of movement (or flux) in its essence. The commonest proof for denying motion in incorporeal beings is the “argument of potentiality and actuality”, that as we all know is an invalid argument.Invalidity of this argument is for impossibility of containing simultaneously both deficiency (potentiality) and sufficiency (actuality) in one simple (naive) being.But if two different being contain these aspects, then there will be no contradiction.If we deny this argument, then it will be possible for one simple being (like human soul) that posses simultaneously potentiality and actuality, especially if we consider that these two features are secondary intelligible of philosophy.Thus human soul (as a simple being) can be actual in one aspect and potential in another one. In this way, Motion in the essence of the incorporeal soul is merely a gradual creation, rather than some gradual creative and destructive process.

In the paper, it is intended to explain descending of the soul and appearance of the soul as two harmonious aspects of the same theory in Sadra’s philosophical psychology. Therefore, descending of the soul, appearance of the soul and Divine sources of the truths have been described. It, then, is proved that the descending and appearance are in agreement. Since, one aspect lies in the corporeal nature of the soul and the other, in its divine origin. Finally it has been stated that all corporeal beings can be known of two aspects: the main and the lower grade.

We are... So, to reframe the inquiry: who are we on a metaphysical level? Which aspects of ourselves are the most universally representative of who we are? How do we fare in the face of the passage of time? For decades, philosophers have debated the concept of diachronic personal identity, which focuses on the question of what keeps us alive. An intricate debate has developed between those who hold the body view (animalism) and those who hold the psychological view (memory) on the question of who we are. The two groups will eventually become so firmly set in their views that they will be unable to compromise. Hylomorphic animalism, or the view that humans are rational animals, living bodies made of prime matter and a rational soul, is an alternative answer to this divisive question that I propose in this study, following in the footsteps of Aristotle and Aquinas. We only survive if matter and rational souls do.

Sadra’s view on immateriality of the human soul has been stood against the view considering the soul to be immaterial at the beginning of its life in this world. Presenting a bright explanation of Sadra’s on immateriality of the soul, one can attain a better understanding of material appearance and immaterial lasting of the soul, its way of being connected to human body and the way for a material to become an immaterial entity. Relying on the Sadra’s philosophical principles and their necessary ends, one may explain the how of immateriality of the soul. His view on immateriality state of being in two grades, in one hand and in the other, in the how of intellectual immateriality of the soul, differs from that of those saying immaterial occurrence of the human soul. On the basis of the essentiality of existence, unity and multiplicity have been established on existence. When the soul moves in the grades of existence in its essence, its very existence would be the same as the last grade, while the other grades before the last would be counted as its necessary states. Therefore, when the soul attains the intellectual immateriality, it does not change into intellect. In such a grade of intellectual immateriality, the soul in company with all its necessary states, being in connection with an intellectual immaterial substance, admits of such a title.