برسي تطبيقي اصل بنيادين در فلسفه ارسطو و ابن سينا

A Comparative Study of the Fundamental Principle in Aristotle and lbn Sina

By a primitive analysis of physical objects, Aristotle concluded that they consist ofʹ two components rather than one. One of them is matter and the other is form. Matter or hyle enjoys faculty, and form enjoys actuality. the interactions and frictions hetween them create motion. Thus he defines motion as the object`s gradual departing with potentiality and moving toward actuality. The he importance of the principle of the distinction between matter and tin m was so much that in the light of which Aristotle succeeded to clarify his other complicated philosophical problems. Dividing existents into sensibles and disengaged entities, explaining the distinction of disengaged existents Lorna material ones, expounding activity as the natural agent, interpreting possibility or preparedness possibility. introducing God as the Unmoved Mover, mid qualifying Him with form, pure actuality, quiddity, and substance are among the most. distincttive achievements that he had after accepting the principle of ii alter and form and disseminating it all over the world. However, under the influence of religious teachings and due to his hclicf in Godʹs being the creator and the worldʹs being the created, Ibn Sina claims that the world is essentially originated and one must not suffice to matter and form when interpreting the world. As a result, in addition to the two material and formal components, he speaks of a third component called existence. Therefore. the principle of the distinction between existence and quiddity ti nu into a fundamental principle in his philosophy. Following this principle and extending it to the chain of worldly existence, lbn Sina had a number of great achievements including dividing existence into the necessary and the possible_ interpreting making activity and possibility as essential possibility, presenting the argument of the righteous (burhan-i siddiqin), posing the argument of necessity and possibility to demonstrate the necessary, and qualifying the Necessary with a Pure Being. which is free from quiddity and substance. Following a comparison of the above-mentioned two principles in Aristotle and Ibn Sinaʹs philosophies. we can compare some other philosophical principles and concomitants. Therefore, we must say that Aristotle divides existents into substances and accidents while lbn Sina divides them into necessary and possible existents. However, when analyzing the possible into two quiddative and ontological components, he considers substance and accidents as the different kinds of the quiddative component. Moreover, activity and possibility in Aristotleʹs philosophy are used in the sense of the natural agent and preparedness possibility. Nevertheless, they are used in the sense of making agent and essential possibility in lbn Sinaʹs philosophy. Aristotle employs the argument of motion to demonstrate Godʹs existence in his philosophy, whereas Ibn Sina resorts to the argument of the righteous to do so. Aristotleʹs God is pure actuality and substance, while Ibn Sinaʹs God is a Pure Being free from substance and quiddity.