According to the theory of "Hylomorphism", the structure of material objects is composed of two components, matter and form. "Avicenna" and "Kit Fine" believe in Hylomorphism. The main point of the article is to find out, what is Avicenna's response to contemporary Hylomorphism? This effort is focused on the form and has several stages; 1. The nature of the form, 2. The proof of the form, 3. The possibility of presenting a hierarchical structure of the metaphysics of objects. According to Fine, the form is an immaterial part and constituent of the object. In material objects with timeless components, form is a property or relationship between the material component of the object, and in objects with temporal components, form is a function of time on objects and maintains the survival of the object over time. Avicenna believes in at least two types of face; Physical form is an essence property common to all objects and at least one form is a type. Avicenna, like Fain, considers the form in composite objects to be a substantial and immaterial part, but according to him, the nature of the form is the same in all composite objects. Although Avicenna's argument to prove the form is different from Fine's, but according to Avicenna and Fine, essence property is constitution, and this constituent is the form. The most important proof of Avicenna's form must be reconstructed. Summary of the revised argument: essence means the constituent, and the constituent is the form. So Fine and Avicenna accept that a property that is essence is a constituent and vice versa, and the constituent is nothing but form. One of the advantages of Fine's theory is that material objects have a hierarchical structure, in Avicenna's philosophy, it is possible to present hierarchical structure of the metaphysics of objects

Explaining individuation and mind-body relation are the two salient challenges for substance dualists. Hylomorphists following Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, like Oderberg, claim that they have met these challenges adequately. In this paper we focus on the first problem. At first we explain Kim’ s challenge of pairing for substance dualism. Accordance with this problem, there is no necessary relation between soul and body, so Cartesian dualist can’ t explain how a soul relates with a body not another one. After that, with focus on Hylomorphism, we argue that this view faces the same problem. For this, we argue that although form has a necessary relation with matter but because of form and soul are not identical, so this view faces the pairing problem. For doing this, we distinguish between substantial and accidental changes and argue that corruption of form and generation of soul is substantial change. Then we argue that there is no identity between previous form and soul, so hoylomorphism is not in a better position with respect to substance dualism to solve the pairing problem and individuation of soul. Then we argue that there is no identity between previous form and soul, so hoylomorphism is not in a better position with respect to substance dualism to solve the pairing problem and individuation of soul.

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.

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.

In this article, we have examined and analyzed Avicenna's view of composition in material objects under the theory of Hylomorphism. First, we showed that the issue of composition of material objects according to existing definitions has logical and metaphysical problems regarding the presence of material components in the composition. Then, we proposed a new idea of true composition, but this new idea is not corresponding with Avicenna's other principles, so it would be flawed in this view. In the second step, by reconstructing Sabzevari's argument, we have shown that the concrete composition (considered by Avicenna) is more acceptable because it does not face any logical problems compared to the union composition. In the third step, we examined the true composition based on the condition of the material components and the formal components. At this stage, six possible and different options were presented about the metaphysical condition of matter and form, and we answered two issues with their design: A) which option is closer to Avicenna's view? B) Which option is more acceptable? Finally, in forth section, we showed from another angle that the analysis of composition from Avicenna's point of view is not also possible through instantiation of the relation of solution or belonging. But this Avicenna' statement can't be an answer to the issue of composition because it is not informative and is a kind of similarity.

The individual has been one of the contentious issues in the different knowledge. This has formed certain knowledge that its developments have had some important effects on other knowledge including politics. French technologist Gilbert Simondon, put a serious effort in this field. The purpose of this article is to describe briefly Simondonian theory of individuation and to specify the possibilities the theory has for the field of social sciences. The main question is which new possibilities are introduced by the late version of the theory of individuation for politics? Simondon rejected any principles of individuation. He insisted on the process of individuation and defined the becoming as an endless process, while encountering with various versions of Hylomorphism, especially Jungian analytical psychology, and maintaining a critical distance from cybernetics and mainstream phenomenology. This theory has numerous implications for politics, such as increasing the political credibility of the collective, de-principlizing, phase analysis, the return of the technical body to political analysis, and providing the equipment for revising the radical political theory. Simondon's theory gives political analysis a means of passage to Tranindividual. This makes it possible the dominant meaning of the individual to be questioned.

This research with a descriptive-analytical method seeks to answer the old question "What is the body? " This question has been a topic of debate in the works of Ancient Greek and Islamic philosophical and theological scholars. The aim of this research is to achieve a precise definition of the body in order to obtain the conceptual foundations of various philosophical and religious topics. For this purpose, the lexical definitions of "body" and then by observing the chronological order of various scientific viewpoints, are reviewed. The most important of these viewpoints are Democritus, the Mutakallimun (theologians), and Peripatetic philosophers, Sheikh Ishraq, and Mulla Sadra. After examining and criticizing these viewpoints, the selected approach of this article will be presented: any entity possessing extension, whether it is tangible or intangible, or whether it consists of parts or is indivisible, is deemed a body, and from it the existence of the unit of intellect understands Hylomorphism concepts, physical form, and kind.

Introduction: Explain the unity of objects, including human beings.Method: Using conceptual analysis and philosophical argument to examine structuralism theory and the (Kathrin) Koslicki reading of Aristotelian hylomorphism.Results: In this article, I have shown that, contrary to Koslicki, the unity of objects such as a human being requires both Aristotle’s assumptions (the indivisibility and the need for the object to be a single agent). Secondly, the form cannot be reduced to structure. For this purpose, we outlined the Koslicki’s view according to which if we consider form as a part of objects and continue to follow the two assumptions of Aristotle, we will still encounter the problem of regress. so in the view of Koslicki it is necessary to abandon the two assumptions of Aristotle. By doing so, she opens the way for structuralism theory. We have shown that her argument cannot be defended in rejecting these two assumptions.Conclusion: The theory of structuralism in general and in the Koslicki’s view does not specifically convey the correct interpretation of the form.

Introduction: William Shakespeare, the Renaissance Dramatist, Influenced by the Bible, the Middle Age-Crusade-Renaissance relationship between England and Islam, and knowledge of Latin, with religious debates, inaugurates a new Islamic discourse in the tragedy of Hamlet based on the Holy Qur'an. In his discourse, the nature of the man, as the pure God’s creature, is cognized through the existence of vice and virtue of the soul, and the inherent tendency of the soul for virtuous perfection even after death, for some human beings, which is called evolution of the soul, thus re-creates a good human. In this metaphysical approach, based on physics, the relationship between matter and form is like the intrinsic relationship between body and soul in which the soul as the essence and body form, has endowed with movement and evolution, and in addition to life-giving, identifies the changing matter and body to which it always belongs. This is called hylomorphism which is the basis of Substantial motion, physical resurrection, and causality. Aristotle's theory of hylomorphism and Mulla Sadra’s Islamic views are examined in this religious discourse. This research results in, inter alia, the re-presentation of Muhammad (PBUH) and depletion of constant accusations.Introduction: Aristotle, the ancient Greek philosopher, is the founder of Islamic philosophy including transcendental wisdom while Christian thoughts have not been influenced by the Greek philosophies (Brague 252). Mulla Sadra as the founder of Quranic thought succeeded in uniting the four currents of thought, namely theology, mysticism, Plato’s, and Aristotle’s. Mulla Sadra’s thoughts are based on the Shiite religion of Islam including the principles of the Quran, Hadith, reason, and consensus leading to human salvation. Mulla Sadra’s philosophy is specific to the Quran in terms of an all-inclusive essential change such as ascending and descending purgatory and substantial change in everything, constant and new occurrence, and God as the pure cause (existential ontology). Additionally, purgatory in Islam is a place such as the grave where the souls of dead bodies reside (BRILL 100). William Shakespeare, the renaissance dramatist, was affected by the Anglo-Islamic rapport from the Crusades to the16th. Century renaissance in which different attitudes to Islam and Muhammad (PBUH) have been held. The allusion to Muhammad’s name is testified completely only in the Holy Quran and not the Bible. The Holy Quran was translated into Latin almost 5 decades earlier than Shakespeare’s time, and Shakespeare knew fully the Latin language. To get to know Bible, one should be familiar with the Holy Quran. The renaissance period was the rebirth of ancient Greek thoughts inter alia Aristotle, Plato, etc. pinpointing the evolution of man’s soul. Shakespeare attempts to inaugurate an Islamic discourse based on the evolution of man’s soul in this world and purgatory for some men to reach a virtuous perfection which results in a variety of findings.Background of Study: Dolat Abadi (1388) in comparing Hamlet with Imam Hossein, considers both martyr and hero fighting against evil and cruelty traced in all human society which is targeted at accomplishing an ideal, religious and virtuous morality. This is deeply rooted in the mind of a true man which bespeaks the inclinations of a virtuous soul as well. Thind (2014) represents Hamlet as a true religious hero who has a faith in Christianity and the doctrine of the renaissance. Therefore, he is precluded from committing any evil action or crime for his revenge. In other words, his revenge is carried out for a promising achievement based on religion which destroys evil and leads towards virtue and morality. This revenge tragedy is different from its contemporary tragedies in terms of its moral and virtuous predispositions.Methodology: Considering Shakespeare’s view seems to manifest the Islamic Philosophy of Mulla Sadra originated in and was proposed earlier by the Greek philosopher, Aristotle, whose philosophy is based upon physics regarding the dynamic relationship between matter and form as an embodiment of body and soul, a comparative philosophical methodology hinging upon a spiritual-religious outlook has been selected for this study. It suggests, on the one hand, the antiquity of (Islamic) philosophy founded on the Holy Qur’an and Hadith with its specific categories hinging on the principles of existence and essence including God’s existence as the pure and first cause (existential ontology), and constant and new occurrences in substance as essential change dedicated to the Qur’anic thoughts, and on the other hand, the significance of the inspiring Greek thought. The philosophical theories of Mulla Sadra and Aristotle will be the foundations for our research method which are applied in the content analysis as observed in the behavior of characters in the tragedy.Conclusion: The tragedy of Hamlet exhibits a virtuous perfection and enhancement of the soul for some men before death and in purgatory based upon the Islamic philosophy of Mulla Sadra which is rooted in the ancient Greek philosophies. Such a substantial change in man’s soul will bring about a myriad of findings among which one is noteworthy, i.e. a virtuous re-presentation of prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and depleting affronts carried against him by the west unaware of Islam and Muhammad.

Abstract Ibn Sina has put forward two arguments of "continuity and disconnection" and "potentiality and actuality" to prove the prime matter. Based on the arguments of continuity and disconnection, a change is not possible unless there is the prime matter, , a common and constant component providing identity during variation and change.  In this article, we argue that this argument does not support its claim to prove the prime matter, nor can it solve the continuity and disconnection. Another argument of the prime matter is called the potentiality and actuality. in this article, we have shown that, based on the argument of potentiality and actuality, it is not possible to prove the prime matter. It is concluded that the two main arguments of the prime matter cannot prove the prime matter of Ibn Sina.   Keywords: Ibn Sina, Prime matter, Arguments, Continuity and Disconnection, Potentiality and Actuality   Introduction "Hylomorphism" is a theory in which the structure of material objects is explained based on matter and form. Traditional Hylomorphism has a significant background. The center of Aristotle's metaphysics is the distinction between matter and form. Although this theory started with Aristotle and continued in the metaphysics of some different philosophers, some aspects of it is still needed to be analyzed. Ibn Sina is one of the proponents of Hylomorphism theory. In his opinion, the central idea of Hylomorphism is that, material objects are composed of the substances of matter and the form. The focus of this article is the analysis of two arguments to prove the Prime matter according to Ibn Sina. This analysis is based on the opinions of some analytical philosophers. The subject of the this article is to find out whether Ibn Sina has been able to adduce satisfactory arguments for proving the Prime matter? Methodology In this article, the research method is descriptive-analytical based on analytical and logical investigation. In this way, first, we collected information by studying different books and then analyzed the information by using logical analysis methods. Finding Ibn Sina has presented two arguments to prove the Prime matter: "Continuity and Disconnection” and "Potentiality and Actuality”. Examining the argument of Potentiality and Actuality shows that in every material object there are two characteristics of Potentiality and Actuality, and these two characteristics are separate from each other, but it is not enough to prove the Prime matter and as a result, it is not possible to present Hylomorphism interpretation about the structure of material objects. Also, based on an argument, we showed that the Continuity and Disconnection argument cannot prove the prime matter. Basically, the Prime matter is supposed to maintain the identity between objects during change. But we have shown that the monster cannot be a suitable answer to the problem of identity during change Because according to the Continuity and Disconnection argument, the Prime matter was not proved; we thus showed that the Prime matter cannot be a suitable answer to the problem of identity during change. To solve the problem of Continuity and Disconnection, we provided two solutions; the first solution is based on a three-dimensional analysis and the second solution, which does not require the assumption of the Prime matter, is based on a four-dimensional analysis. In short, in this article, we have shown that there are problems with both arguments to prove the Prime matter. In other words, two arguments cannot prove the Prime matter. Conclusion and discussion The claim of the proof of Continuity and Disconnection is that it is not possible to change the Continuity and Disconnection unless there is the prime matter. This component is a constant component during change and provides identity during change. we showed that, this argument cannot fulfill its claim, i.e. proving the Prime matter, as well as solving the problem of changing, that is, the assumption of the Prime matter cannot give a suitable answer to the problem of Continuity and Disconnection. To solve the problem of Continuity and Disconnection, we provided two solutions; The first solution is based on a three-dimensional analysis and the second solution, which does not require the assumption of the Prime matter, is based on a four-dimensional analysis. Another argument to prove the Prime matter is Potentiality and Actuality.  This argument cannot prove the Prime matter. The claim of the argument is that the proof of the characteristic of the Potentiality comes to the proof of the Prime matter, but A) The attribution of this characteristic can also be explained in the framework of the Bundel theory, without the need Hylomorphism. The property of being potential, along with the property of being actual, assuming a Bundel theory, are two properties and two constituents of the material object that can be considered as form, so there is no place to prove Prime matter, while it was supposed to be an argument in favor of proving the Prime matter. b) Also, with modifications in the Bundel theory, the Prime matter will not be proven. c) Also, by insisting on the many problems of the Bundel theory, it cannot be used in favor of Hylomorphism, because it has some assumptions that are sometimes not accepted by Ibn Sina. One of the assumptions of accepting the objection is to believe in the realism, while according to many evidences, Ibn Sina believes in tropism. So, Potentiality and Actuality argument, under the standard Bundel theory and even its modified versions, cannot prove the Prime matter. d) The Potentiality and Actuality argument will not work even within the framework of the Substratum This argument under the Substratum theory has more flaws than its proposal under the Bundel theory. Because under this potential, they can neither prove the Prime matter nor can they be the form of the object. References: Ibn sina. (1404 AH). Al-shifā, Al-elahiyat. Tashih: Sāeed zayed. Al-Ab Qhānāvati. Qom: Mār’āshi Nājāfi ----------. (1404 AH). Al-tālighat. Qom: Al-māktābāh Al-ālam Al-eslami. ----------. (1404 AH) Al-shifā, Al-tābi’eyay. Tashih: sāeed zayed. Qom:  Mārāshi Nājāfi.   ----------. (1404 AH) Al-shifā, Al-māntegh. Qom: Mārāshi Nājāfi. ----------. (1363 SH). Al -mābādā vā Al-mā’ad. Be ehtemam: Abdolleh Norani. Tehran: mo’asseseh motale’at eslami ---------. (1375 SH). Al-esharat vā Al-tānbihat. Qom: nāshr Al-bālaghāh ---------. (1379 SH). Al -nājat men AL-ghārgh fi bāhr Al-dālalat. Tashih Muhammad taghi Danesh pazhuh. Tehran: Daneshgah Tehran. ----------. (1989). Al-hodūd. Ghahereh: Al-heyā’ah Al-mesri Al-ālemah Al-ketab. Sābzevari mulla hadi. (1379 SH). Shārh Al-mānzūmeh. Mohaghegh: MāSūd Talebi. Tehran: nashr nab. Sohrevārdi, shāhab Al-din. (1375 SH). Hekāmāt Al-eshrāgh. Mājmūeh mosānāfat sheykh Eshragh (jeld 2). Tashih Hanri Corbān. Tehran: pazhuheshgah olūm Ensani. Sādr Al-din shirazi, Muhammad ebn Ebrahim.1981. Al-hekmāh Al-motā’aliyāh Fi Al-āsfar Al-āghliyah Beyrut: dar ehya Al-torāth.  (mājmū’eh asar jed 5) Tehran: nāshr sadrd. Michael J. Loux.2006. “Metaphysics: a contemporary introduction.” — 3rd ed. (Routledge contemporary introductions to philosophy Sellars, W. 1963, "perception and reality". Science. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.