Extended Abstract

A  Comparative Study of the Octet Vertices in Sina' S Philosophy and Sadra' S Wisdom

Abdollah Nasri¹ SeyedMokhtar Mousavi²,

¹Full Professor, University of Allameh Tabataba'i

²Phd Student of Islamic Philosophy and Theology, University of Allameh Tabataba'i

ABSTRACT

Ibn Sina’s philosophy after Farabi's philosophy, with accurate search of opinions of the ancient Greek scholars, is the basis of Islamic philosophy and one of the basic foundations of the transcendent wisdom. The relation between the philosophy of Sina and Sadra is still susceptible numerous thematic studies. In this research, opinions of Ibn Sina and Mulla Sadra have been studied comparatively with regard to octet vertices. Among octet vertices, it was emphasized on the importance of four subjects: "Definition of Philosophy and its Importance", "Fundamentals and Problems of Philosophy", "The Position of Philosophy among the other Sciences", and "The Benefit and Place of Philosophy". The views of these two philosophers on the octet vertices of philosophy (as entrance to philosophy and some kind of looking from the outside into philosophy) are largely in line and compatible, although there are some disagreements. In many cases, Sadra makes assertions about Ibn Sina’s opinions and mainly criticized and analyzed it from the Sina’s viewpoint. And in spite of the supreme power of Sina’s philosophy, he has sometimes forced to use transcendent wisdom because of its conceptual failure; therefore, it can be said that not only in the entrance of philosophy, but also in philosophical opinions, if the prophetic power of Sina’s philosophy is combined with the conceptual richness of transcendent wisdom, we will have a more powerful and effective philosophical heritage for the contemporary philosophical dialogue.

KeyWords: Comparative Study, Octet Vertices, philosophy Ibn sina, Mulla Sadr

Introduction and scope

In the past, Octet Vertices has been introduced as an introduction to science, but in philosophy not as an introduction, but as a part of philosophy itself. In this paper, some of the topics of Octet Vertices in philosophy are comparatively reviewed from the point of view of philosophy of Avicenna and wisdom, and the aspects of their sharing and disagreement with Mulla Sadra's reading of Avicenna. No research has ever been done so far.

Methodology

In this article, the views of both philosophers regarding Octet Vertices are firstly discussed, and their differences and their commons emphasizing the Mulla Sadra's reading from Avicenna are considered.  In this way, we take into account all the works of the two philosophers.

Findings and Arguments

The position of philosophy

Regarding the position of philosophy in science, these two philosophers disagree due to differences in the fields of science division ("subject" and "destination"). Sadra has accomplished interpretational attempts to explain that Avicenna paid attention only to the "subject" as the only criterion for the division of science, and the rest would return to the "subject", but Mulla Sadra's perception was wrong.

The Subject of Philosophy

 Both philosophers are regarded the subject of philosophy as "existing to what is existed" slightly difference in the meaning of the argument. Also the concept of existence is trivial and no need to definition. Sadra has been argued its being trivially, and both of them consider subject of philosophy as a trivial one and its proof is Impossible.

Definition of philosophy

 In the definition of philosophy, both philosophers have cited several definitions that can be categorized. For both philosophers, "the superiority philosophy (Oola philosophy)" is a science that discusses the "existing to what is existed".

Intrinsic Contingency (Araz)

Regarding the intrinsic contingency, Sadra, while confirming the comment of Avicenna, mistakenly considered misplacing others' perceptions of Avicenna's words for not paying attention to the criterion of intrinsic contingency. Sadra describes the verses of Avicenna regarding the determination and definition of the subject of philosophy and intrinsic contingency in the Healing (Shafa) Book, which expresses the implied confirmation of their provisions. 

Concepts and Philosophical Issues

In describing philosophical concepts without referring to a philosophical second conscionable, Ibn-e Sina has described the features that distinguish them from the logical and the material concepts. But there is also a word that destructs this notion. Sadra explained the Ibn-e-Sina's statement that the being contingency of philosophical concepts influenced by Sadra's principles (such as the existence of an interface, etc.) were not the same as the principles of Avicenna's argument.

According to Ibn Sina and Sadra opinions, only the primary divisions of existence are of a philosophical issue, however, on the basis both of which, in all matters of a science, must be discussed about the intrinsic contingency. If the intrinsic contingencies only including primary divisions are, then this division is not a primarily one, and includes secondary divisions as well, and should not be entered in philosophical discussions. The solution to the problem is to determine the criterion of "intrinsic contingency". According to both philosophers' opinion, there will be irreparable mistakes unless we consider the matter as valid and do not provide proof.

Sections and Components of Philosophy

Ibn Sina and Sadra both consider philosophy as three components, but Sadra, in some of his works, considers the components of philosophy to be numerous, and its three components are merely the ability to categorize it. Sadra justifies the lack of insertion of natures into the components of philosophy by Ibn Sina either because of the non-existence of the components of philosophy, or the controversy of the discussions of the natures. Sadra confirming the Avicenna's wisdom, considers nature to be a parasite one. Otherwise, in the final view, Sadra considers nature as an existing contingency. But, according to both their opinions and regarding intrinsic contingency, justification of both opinions is a problem.

The Benefit and Degrees of Philosophy

 Both philosophers consider philosophy to be beneficiary in special meaning (the proof of the origins of other sciences) that is worthy of itself, but Sadra, specifying the vision of Avicenna, says that as the existence of the eminent self-existence creating the origin and cause of other beings is, the related science (superiority philosophy) is the origin and the reason for the other sciences. But this justification is acceptable only on the basis of Sadra (the relative existence of events), not based on the Avicenna's opinion. Perhaps Ibn Sina's purpose has not been a foreign cause.

Ibn Sina has considered philosophy inherently prior to other sciences, but because of the necessity of teaching or weakness of man to make a lemma argument in philosophical matters, it is considered as a conclusion science. Sadra has also interpreted such view of the philosophy in a different way. It seems that Khajeh Nasir's view of considering the conditions of a pupil at the beginning of learning is the best justification, that is, the order of the familiarity of the mind with natural, mathematical, and philosophical concepts.

Conclusion

Sadra's reading of Ibn Sina has not been uniform, but generally, in the domain of the   Octet Vertices without the intervention of his bases, he has had a singular reading of the ideas of Ibn Sina.  A careful analysis shows that Ibn Sina's words have the potential to explain some of Sadra's views, but the scarcity of the conceptual system of Masha wisdom regarding lexical and conceptual weakness is a barrier. Undoubtedly, the power of the philosophy of Ibn Sina, along with the richness and the precision of the words of the transcendentalist wisdom, gives contemporary Muslim thinkers the capacity and philosophical heritage of philosophy to enter into meaningful philosophical discussions with the owners of other philosophical and metaphysical systems.

References

Ibn Sina, Hossein Ibn Abdullah, (2002), Research by Mojtaba Zarei, Alesharat and Altanbihat, Qom, Bustan Ketab.

Ibn Sina, Hossein Ibn Abdullah, (1326 AH), Tasse Rassail, Cairo, Dar Al-Arab.

Tehran, Islamic Culture and Ideology Research Center.

Aristotle, (1998), Metaphysics, Translated by Sharaf al-Din Khorasani, Tehran, Hekmat.

Sadr al-Din Shirazi, Mohammad ibn Ebrahim, (1981), Al-Shavahed Al-Robobeih, Correction and Pendency of Seyyed Jalaluddin Ashtiani, Mashhad, Al-Markaz Al-Jamei  Lelnshar.

Sadra.

Tusi, Khaje Nasir-al-Din, (1996), Explanation of Alesharat and Altanbihat ma’a al-Mohakhemat, Qom, Al-Balaghah publishing.