The Quarterly Journal of Philosophical Investigations

نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی- پژوهشی

نویسنده

استادیار گروه فلسفه و حکمت اسلامی دانشگاه شهید مدنی آذربایجان

چکیده

بر اساس تصور رایج از نفس­شناسی ارسطویی، جایگاه علم­النفس در طبیعیات است. نظریه دیگری نیز می­گوید نفس­شناسی ارسطویی دارای دو بخش عمده است به طوری که بخشی باید در طبیعیات و بخش دیگر در الهیات مطالعه گردد. در این مقاله با چند دلیل نشان داده خواهد شد که بر اساس مبانی علم شناختی خود ارسطو، علم الهی جایگاه مناسبتری برای علم­النفس ارسطویی است. این دلایل می­گویند که از نظر ارسطو، علم الهی علم به جوهر، علت­شناسی و شناخت موجودات مجرد است. از طرفی نفس هم جوهر صوری و به خودی خود مجرد است. به علاوه عباراتی از ارسطو هم موید همین نظریه است. در فلسفه ابن­سینا هم با وجود آنکه خود ابن­سینا مباحث مربوط به نفس را ضمن طبیعیات آورده است نشان داده خواهد شد که از نظر او جایگاه مناسب بحث از علم­النفس در طبیعیات نیست و علم دیگری باید متکفل بحث از نفس باشد.

تازه های تحقیق

 

The Place of Psychology according to Aristotle and Avicenna

Ahmad Hosseini

Assistant Professor, AzarbaijanShahidMadani University (corresponding author)

ahmadhosseinee@azaruniv.ac.ir

 

Etended Abstract:

 

A problem concerning Aristotle’s psychology asks where its right place of study is. Should it be studied in physics or in metaphysics or some part of it in physics and some other part in metaphysics? There are two views concerning the place of psychology according to Aristotle’s philosophy of science and both find evidences in Aristotle’s own books, but this article criticizes them and shows that in spite of the Aristotelian texts, one cannot consider psychology as a physical science. This paper tries to show that according to Aristotelian principles, psychology is a metaphysical science and Aristotle’s texts show nothing but the close relationship between psychology and physics. Likewise, although Avicenna himself puts the discussion of soul in his Physics but we try to show that according to him the right place of psychology is in another science.

Keywords: psychology, physics, metaphysics, Aristotle, Avicenna

 

  1. 1.      Introduction:

 A problem concerning Aristotle’s psychology asks where its right place of study is. Should it be studied in physics or in metaphysics or some part of it in physics and some other part in metaphysics? The place of psychology cannot be a problem for platonic and neoplatonic philosophers as they consider the soul as an immaterial substance which study falls in the field of theology.

 2.      A critique of two main attitudes towards the place of Aristotelian psychology:

 There are two views concerning the place of psychology according to Aristotle’s philosophy of science and both find evidences in Aristotle’s own books, but this article criticizes them and shows that in spite of the Aristotelian texts, one cannot consider psychology as a physical science. The first view sees the Aristotelian psychology as a pure physical science. According to this view, this is so because Aristotle thinks that a philosopher of physical sciences should study the soul (403a 27-28) and also the study of soul is beneficent especially for the physical science. (402a5) Similarly Aristotle defines the soul as a perfection of the body. The second attitude believes that the Aristotelian psychology is split up into two sciences: physical and theological. It has been shown earlier that these argumentations are not sufficient because primarily psychology is a unified science because of the allegory between different meanings of the soul and secondly psychology is not a physical science and the arguments presented above are not sufficient to prove that and they at their best prve that psychology and physical science are interrelated and interdependent. (Hosseini, 2017: 23-36)

 3.      The place of Aristotelian psychology:

 This article tries to show that according to Aristotelian basics, psychology is a metaphysical science and Aristotle’s texts show nothing but the close relationship between psychology and physics.

 3.1. Aristotle's phrase in Metaphysics:

 According to Aristotle, the physical scientist studies the soul insofar as it is not immaterial. (1026a4-6) this phrase shows that for Aristotle the science of soul does not fall into the field of physical science.

 3.2.Aristotle's phrase in Parts of Animals:

 According to Aristotle in his Parts of Animals, the physical scientist speaks about the soul, but not in an absolute meaning, rather those types of souls which belong to animals. (641a21-26) here Aristotle clearly confines the study of the philosopher of physical sciences to material souls.

 3.3.Metaphysics as a science of substance:

 For Aristotle metaphysics is the study of substances (1028b2-4) and souls are primary substances.

 3.4.Metaphysics as a science of being:

 For Aristotle metaphysics is the study of being qua being and psychology is the study of the essence and existence of souls.

 3.5.Metaphysics as a science of causes:

 For Aristotle metaphysics is the study of causes (981b29-30) and souls are causes of living bodies.

 3.6.Metaphysics as a science of immaterials:

For Aristotle metaphysics is the study of God and the immaterial beings (1064b10-13) and souls as themselves are not identical with bodies rather souls are the forms of the bodies.

3.7. The difference of the methodology of psychology and biological works:

 Aristotelian psychology differs from his physical and biological works not only in its subject matter but also in its methodology.

 4.      The place of Avicennan psychology:

 Although Avicenna himself puts the discussion of soul in Physics but we try to show that according to him the right place of psychology is in another science.

 4.1.Psychology as a physical science:

 At the first glance it may seem plausible that Avicennan psychology is a physical science as he placed it in his physics. But with a deeper look it becomes clear that his psychology cannot be a physical science as physics studies bodies insofar as they are in motion and rest but soul is not identical with body.

 4.2.Psychology as two physical and theological sciences

 Some think that Avicennan psychology is split up into two sciences: the vegetable and animal souls are studied in physics and the immaterial human soul is studied in metaphysics. But Avicenna himself sees psychology as a unified science.

 4.3.Psychology as a theological science

 Lizzini thinks that Avicenna psychology is a theological science as physics itself falls in the field of metaphysics. This is so because the origin of the physical world is in the metaphysical world. (Lizzini, 2010: 236-241) it seems that her argumentation is based upon an unacceptable mix between ontology and epistemology.

 4.4.Psychology as an independent science

 For Avicenna psychology is a unified independent science which falls neither in physics nor in metaphysics. (Avicenna, 1404: vol. 2, 1-9)

 

References:

 

-       Aristotle (1995), complete works of Aristotle, ed. By Johnathan Barnes, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

-       Avicenna, (1404), the Physics of Sifa, ed. Saeid Zayed, Qom: library of Ayatollah Marashi.

-       Hosseini, Ahmad, (2017), “a critique of two common attitudes towards the place of Aristotle’s psychology”, Hikamt and Philosophy, No. 13, pp. 23-40

-       Lizzini, Olga (2010), “l’âme chez Avicenne: quelques remarques autours de son statut épistémologique et de son fondement métaphysique”, Documenti e Studi Sulla Tradizione Filosofica Medievale, SISMEL, Firenze, XXI, pp. 223-242

-       Nussbaum, Martha C.; Rorty, Amélie O. (1992), Essays on Aristotle's De Anima, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Place and Status of Psychology According to Aristotle and Avicenna

نویسنده [English]

  • SeyyedAhmad Hosseini

Assistant Professor, Azarbaijan Shahid Madani University

چکیده [English]

A problem concerning Aristotle’s psychology asks where its right place of study is. Should it be studied in physics or in metaphysics or some part of it in physics and some other part in metaphysics? There are two views concerning the place of psychology according to Aristotle’s philosophy of science and both find evidences in Aristotle’s own books, but this article criticizes them and shows that in spite of the Aristotelian texts, one cannot consider psychology as a physical science. This paper tries to show that according to Aristotelian principles, psychology is a metaphysical science and Aristotle’s texts show nothing but the close relationship between psychology and physics. Likewise, although Avicenna himself puts the discussion of soul in his Physics but we try to show that according to him the right place of psychology is in another science.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • psychology
  • physics
  • metaphysics
  • Aristotle
  • Avicenna
-       ابن­سینا، (1326ق)، تسع رسائل فی الحکمه و الطبیعیات، قاهره: دارالعرب.
-       ابن­سینا، (1404ق)، الهیات شفا، تحقیق سعید زاید، قم: مکتبه آیه الله مرعشی.
-       ابن­سینا، (1404ق)، طبیعیات شفا، تحقیق سعید زاید، قم: مکتبه آیه الله مرعشی.
-       ابن­سینا، (1371)، المباحثات، تحقیق محسن بیدارفر، قم: بیدار.
-       اخوان­الصفا، (1412ق)، رسائل اخوان الصفا، بیروت: انتشارات الدار الاسلامیه.
-       ارسطو، (1369)، درباره نفس، ترجمه علی مراد داوودی، چاپ سوم، تهران: حکمت.
-       افلوطین، (1413ق)، اثولوجیا، تحقیق عبدالرحمن بدوی، قم: انتشارات بیدار.
-       اکبریان، رضا؛ غفاری، ابوالحسن (1388)، "جایگاه نفس در فلسفه ارسطو و ملاصدرا"، خردنامه صدرا، شماره 56، صص 17-4
-       پروکلس، (1977م)، الایضاح فی الخیر المحض، الافلاطونیه المحدثه عند العرب، تحقیق عبدالرحمن بدوی، کویت: وکاله المطبوعات.
-       دیباجی، سید محمدعلی (1385)، "نوآوری های ابن سینا در علم النفس"، پژوهشهای فلسفی-کلامی، پاییز 85، شماره 29، صص 90-53
-       حسینی، سید احمد (1396)، "نقد دو دیدگاه رایج در خصوص جایگاه علم النفس ارسطویی"، حکمت و فلسفه، سال سیزدهم، شماره دوم، تابستان 96، صص 40-23
-       کندی (1950م)، رسائل الکندی الفلسفیه، تحقیق محمد عبدالهادی ابوریده، قاهره: دارالفکر العربی.
-       Aristotle (1995), complete works of Aristotle, Ed. By Johnathan Barnes, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-       Bolton, Robert (1978), “Aristotle's definitions of the soul: "de Anima" ii 1-3", Phronesis, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 258-278
-       Bos, Abraham, P.; Ferwerda, Rein (2008), Aristotle on the life-bearing spirit (De Spriritu), Leiden: Brill.
-       Bos, Abraham, P. (2003), the soul and its instrumental body, a reinterpretation of Aristotle's philosophy of living nature, Leiden: Brill.
-       Heinaman, Robert (1990), “Aristotle and the Mind-Body Problem”, Phronesis, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 83-102
-       Hicks, R. D. (1907), Aristotle's De Anima, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
-       Lizzini, Olga (2010), “l’âme chez Avicenne: quelques remarques autours de son statut épistémologique et de son fondement métaphysique”, Documenti e Studi Sulla Tradizione Filosofica Medievale, SISMEL, Firenze, XXI, pp. 223-242
-       Nussbaum, Martha C.; Rorty, Amélie O. (1992), Essays on Aristotle's De Anima, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-       Ross, W. D. (1955), Aristotelis Fragmenta Selecta, Oxford: Oxford Clarendon Press.
CAPTCHA Image