Being is the first basis of recognition and the first issue for the metaphysics. Aristotle has said in different pages of the metaphysics on "being qua being" means “ to on” and emphasized, " Being has various meanings. " He, rather than 'Being', has used "being" or existent. He, in the seventh book, has said: What has long been a source of confusion is that “ what is being? ” What does “ being” mean? These meanings of existence, what effect does have on Aristotle's metaphysical system? Whether these meanings can be delivered to each or not? The meanings of "being” in Aristotle’ s thought are controversial issue among scholars. Someone like Thomas Aquinas takes five senses and Farabi three senses and Avicenna five meanings for the existent. In this paper, while analyzing Aristotle's view based on metaphysics and looking at Thomas Aquino's perspective, we have delivered four meanings for "being" in Aristotelians. (Being of per accident, being of per true, being of potentiality and actuality, being of categories) And in fallowing, for the adventure of the meaning of "being", we will pay attention to the PERIPATETIC PHILOSOPHERS, especially Farabi and Avicenna, according to their philosophical principles who have considered various meanings for the existent which are very different with Aristotle's meanings.

This article aims to review the theory of PERIPATETIC hylomorphism and its foundations in the face of new physical perspectives (theory of Atom). For this purpose, two competing views of this theory in the history of Islamic philosophy, that is, the theory attributed to the Stoics (by Abolbarakat and Suhrawardi) and Atomism in its philosophical (small solid objects) and theology interpretations (a substance that cannot be further broken down), have been studied. Then, the approach of contemporary thinkers towards the theory of hylomorphism is examined. Furthermore, it has been shown that their views can be divided into three groups. Two groups of them have rejected the theory of hylomorphism. Furthermore, each of them has somehow supported one of its historically rival theories. Mohyeddin Elahi Ghomshei and Hassanzadeh Amoli have become interested in Atomism, and Mesbah Yazdi and Fayyazi have tended to the theory attributed to the Stoics. Others such as Fazel Touni and Allameh Tabataba’ i have tried to somehow reconcile this theory with the theory of small solid objects and a new perspective on physics. Nevertheless, some of the foundations of hylomorphism theory face various philosophical and empirical challenges. Such as knowing that the body is connected, the body parts are not present, and that the prime matter (Hyle) still exists.

The issue of the Imaginal realm, as a realm between the Immaterial and Material realms, is one of the issues in which the PERIPATETIC PHILOSOPHERS disagree with PHILOSOPHERS of Illuminationism and Transcendental Philosophy. The PERIPATETIC PHILOSOPHERS were opposed to the existence of such a realm, but the Iluminationist philosopher and those of and Transcendental Philosophy defended the existence ofthe Imaginal realm and strived to prove it. Despite the fact that Mīrdāmād considers the existence of such a realm to be intellectually impossible and considers it to be a result of poetic feeling, he endeavors to present an interpretation of the Imaginal realm that would be accepted by the Illuminationist PHILOSOPHERS as well. On one hand he emphasizes the intellectual impossibility of the Imaginal realm and Imaginal existents on a PERIPATETIC basis and refutes their suspended state and on the other hand – due to Suhravardī's influence and following him – he accepts the existence of the Imaginal realm, within a particular interpretation - not as an independent realm, but rather as a higher and more etherean level of the material world. In this article, while presenting Mīrdāmād's view regarding the possibility of the Imaginal realm and its existents, we will indicate that Mīrdāmād's particular interpretation of the Imaginal realm is inconsistent with the views of the advocates of that realm and ultimately, Mīrdāmād is considered as one of the rejecters of the Imaginal realm.

Abul Abbas Fadl Ibn Muhammed Lawkari was a prominent literary man, mathematician, and philosopher of the 5th century (AH). Through one intermediary, he was a student of Ibn Sina and a student of Bahmanyar and, through three intermediaries; he was a master of Khwajah Nasir al-Din Tusi. Lawkari was a well-known literary man who wrote poems in both Persian and Arabic. He had a collection of poems (diwan) from which only a few couplets are left. In addition, he left a treatise in which he presented all the principles of all axiomatic sciences, that is, logic, physics, ethics, mathematics, and practical wisdom in verse in Persian and explained them in eloquent Persian prose. Lawkari was a prominent mathematician who was assigned to compile the history of Jalali Malekshahi with the cooperation of some other mathematicians and astronomers such as Khayam Nishaburi, Khazani, Asfazari, and Vaseti. In the month of Ramezan of 471 AH, they moved the beginning of the month of Farvardin to the first of “haml” (Aries).He was one of the great PHILOSOPHERS of the 5th century who enjoyed complete mastery over the PERIPATETIC philosophy and spread philosophy in Khorasan. He trained some distinguished and famous students such as Qutb al-Zaman Tabasi Marwazi, ‘Abdulrazzaq Turki, and Sharaf al-Zaman Ilaqi. He also wrote a book called Bayan al-haq biziman al-sidq, which was a complete collection on all the axiomatic sciences of PERIPATETIC philosophy, intended to be used as a textbook. This work includes a summary of all the main problems of PERIPATETIC philosophy from the time of Aristotle until Bahmanyar. Of course, in spite of its brevity, it makes students of philosophy needless of all books on PERIPATETIC PHILOSOPHERS.Lawkari lived during the reign of Ghaznavid and Saljuk dynasties, i.e. during the period of the decline of rational sciences. Finally, with the rise of Abu Hamed Muhammed Ghazzali, the sworn enemy of philosophy, the chain of PERIPATETIC PHILOSOPHERS came to an end with Lawkari, and he was in fact the last PERIPATETIC philosopher in its particular sense. However, it must be added that, although rational sciences were greatly damaged by his demise, later they came back to the field of knowledge even stronger than before.

Aristotle's definition of imagination is the beginning of PHILOSOPHERS' conceptualizations of this issue. Farabi, Ibn Sina, and Suhrawardi have greatly extended this concept. Farabi defines imagination with three types of function: preserving the pictures of sensibles, manipulating them, and imitations of sensibles and intelligibles by pictures. Ibn Sina conceptualizes what Farabi called imagination and imaginal faculty in four distinct faculties called the faculty of imagination, imaginal faculty, the faculty of estimate, and memory.Suhrawardi believes that imaginal perception is a kind of Ishraqi presential knowledge and clarifies it based on the observation of suspending images. The most perfect theology of imagination for the conceptualization of creativity is that of Farabi, based on which the four different levels of the creativity of imagination are definable. However, these levels are also realized in Ishraqi or Illuminative imagination, which differs from PERIPATETIC imagination only in the way it is clarified.

Abu `al-Barakat al-Baghdadi, before explanation of his selected view about the problem of the quality of emergence of multitudinous from unit, expresses the theory of PERIPATETIC PHILOSOPHERS with a historical outlook. He then critics the viewpoint of PERIPATETIC PHILOSOPHERS and finally explains his view in the course of four descriptions. The following points are proposed when criticized his views: He has a historical fault when criticizing PERIPATETIC point of view. There are similarities and dissimilarities between his view and some of theologians’ one. Abu `al-Barakat doesn`t have perfect mastery over Farabi`s and Avicenna`s views, even is unstable in expressing his theory. In his point of view, the relationships between the existences in different worlds aren`t expressed exactly. Abu `l-Barakat is inattentive toward Ptolemaic astronomy, and his critic is not correct about the theory of PERIPATETIC PHILOSOPHERS.

Nasir al-Din al-Tusi is accepted by a number of historians of philosophy as a PERIPATETIC philosopher who followed Avicenna. The main claim of this article is that the above-mentioned view does not fully reflect the truth. Namely, it is a fact that in a number of his works, such as Musari al-Musari and Sharh al-Isharat, Tusi defended Avicenna against Asharite theologians Abu al-Fath al-Shahristani and Fakhr al-Din al-Razi. However, he wrote a number of books, such as Tajrid al- I`tiqad and Fusul, where he criticized some aspects of Avicenna`s thought. Considering the abovementioned facts, it could be claimed that Tusi`s thought system is a synthesis of kalamic and PERIPATETIC traditions.

All historians and researchers of Islamic Philosophy think of 11th/11th Century (in Safavid Era) as a period of blossoming of Iranian-Shi'I philosophy and the emergence of figures such as Mir Damad, Shaykh Bahai, Mulla Sadra, and Mir Findiriski. Among them, Abul-Qasim Mir Findiriski has been less than other introduced, and scientific and practical aspects of his life have not been discussed in details. More important is his school of taste which, if we take into account his various spiritual And intellectual dimensions as well as his Sufi life style, cannot be classified under philosophical, intuitionist, and mystical schools then popular in the history of Islamic philosophy.On the one hand, he was teaching books such as Ibn Sina's Shifa and Qanun, and on the other, he was so interested in pious life of Dervishes and even life ,style of Indian Yugis. In addition, poems left by him under the title "Ya'iyah Odes" (odes ending in the vowel /i/), suggest mainly his mystical and Illuminationist-Platonist and Neo-Platonist-inclinations. And these poem, have caused various and even conflicting stories to be presented about his views and school of thought. Thus, it seems to be difficult and even impossible to specify his intellectual orientation and practical ,style. One of the analyses made in this regard is that Mir's thought and approach is described as eclectic, and he is regarded as the meeting point of different - and even conflicting - theoretical and practical attitudes. While neglecting the "Ya'iyab Odes" and the relevant commentaries, the author of this article has tried to describe and analyze Mir'c intellectual attitudes and possibly his philosophical system based on three works of him.

Using a descriptive- analytical approach, the present paper expounds the main issues of epistemology in PERIPATETIC philosophy and comes to a conclusion about its educational implications. The epistemology of PERIPATETIC philosophy is a coherent and methodical system which combines the issues about psychology with angeology in two falling and rising patterns, and makes explicit combined rational explanations of different issues, such as the nature, kinds, hierarchy and sources of knowledge. Such explanations provide the necessary bases of extracting the educational implications, which follows that the connection with active mind can be regarded an important educational goal. In addition to achieving this goal some intermediary and longitudinal objectives, such as developing the outer and inner senses and intellectual faculties will be attainable. Furthermore, achievement of the above-mentioned bases and goals can contribute to realizing some implications about the principles, methods and curriculum. Due to the fact that these implications are drawn from the Islamic approach, they can be of great importance in designing religious curricula.

Since the emergence of modernity, and in response to its myriad aspects and potentials, which are constantly unfolding, countless reactions have kept emerging in almost all quarters of the globe. A large variety of anti-modern reactions, the common core of which is perhaps the idea that modernity, in one way or another, is illegitimate, stand out among these responses. According to some of these anti-modern responses, modernity has usurped the characteristics and features of religion, which has been the soul as well as the main shaping force of the pre-modern era and has reproduced it in a corrupted form. Two German-speaking PHILOSOPHERS, Karl Popper and Hans Blumenberg, are among the intellectuals who have defended modernity against the onslaught of anti-modern tendencies. In this paper, I briefly, though critically, compare and contrast the approaches as well as some of the arguments of these two thinkers in defence of modernity.