List of Articles ابن سینا

• Open Access Article
  • Abstract Page
  • Full-Text
  
  1 - Review and critique of Ibn Sina's reasons for self-denial
  Faryal Eskandari Mohammad saedimehr amirabas alizamani
  Avicenna believes that human souls do not exist without their bodies, and then, they are created in their bodies. because if they exist without and before their bodies , they all have a single existence, but the Plurality is not permissible ;Avicenna says this because o More

  Avicenna believes that human souls do not exist without their bodies, and then, they are created in their bodies. because if they exist without and before their bodies , they all have a single existence, but the Plurality is not permissible ;Avicenna says this because of he believes that plurality is only relates to bodies that the souls join to them and cannot relate to souls, because the souls are single and there is not any plurality in singles; the plurality is only due to the bodies in which the souls join them, but the truth It is that, divine jewelry should be Multiplied and distinct too, and the opposite will lead to impossible. The other reason for Avicenna for the occurrence is the belief in the negation of the’ principle of closure’ but, moreover, this principle is not acceptable, it does not essentially include immaterial world because it only relates to to the nature. Manuscript profile
• Open Access Article
  • Abstract Page
  • Full-Text
  
  2 - Critical confrontations between Sinavi philosophy and Ash'ari philosophy in psychology and its effect on the issue of resurrection
  Narjes  Roudgar Zahra  Ziaie Fatemeh  Sharif Fakhr
  The purpose of this research is to examine the critical confrontations between Sinavi philosophy and Ash'ari philosophy in psychology and its effect on the position of each on the issue of resurrection. In order to defend the doctrine of incarnation, the Ash'ari theolog More

  The purpose of this research is to examine the critical confrontations between Sinavi philosophy and Ash'ari philosophy in psychology and its effect on the position of each on the issue of resurrection. In order to defend the doctrine of incarnation, the Ash'ari theologians established their theological eschatology by adopting the approach of physicality of the soul and matching it with the teachings of revelation. Ash'ari's view was criticized by Ibn Sina. Ibn Sina, by formulating a new nature of the science of soul in theology and natural sciences, achieved a new result in the unprovability of metaphysical rationality and the rational proof of metaspirituality. The present study, with descriptive and analytical method, in addition to reflecting the views of each, has dealt with Ibn Sina's critical encounter with Ash'ari in psychology and eschatology. Ibn Sina opened new horizons in philosophy by creating a logical relationship between intellectual achievements and the appearances of the holy Sharia.Acceptance of physical resurrection included in Sharia and proof of pure spiritual resurrection are among these cases. With the aim of harmonizing the theological foundations and the appearances of the Sharia, Ash'areh also took a similar path with Ibn Sina, which led to the proof of the resurrection. Finally, as a result of the theoretical frictions between Ash'ari and Ibn Sina, their different views on resurrection have been formed. Manuscript profile
• Open Access Article
  • Abstract Page
  • Full-Text
  
  3 - Comparison of the opinions of Ibn Sina and Ibn Arabi on the issue of free will and destiny
  Somayeh Heiran Abbas  Ahmadi Saiedi mohamad ali akhgar
  In this research, the issue of free will in humans and divine destiny in the views of Ibn Sina and Ibn Arabi are examined and then compared. The importance of the research is due to the distinction between Ibn Sina's philosophical approach and Ibn Arabi's mystical-theol More

  In this research, the issue of free will in humans and divine destiny in the views of Ibn Sina and Ibn Arabi are examined and then compared. The importance of the research is due to the distinction between Ibn Sina's philosophical approach and Ibn Arabi's mystical-theological approach to answer the question of free will in man and divine destiny, while both thinkers have the same procedure in explaining the issue of Qada, Qadr and free will in the philosophical discussion or There are mystics of unity. The most important similarity between the views of these two thinkers is in considering the will in humans as non-inherent, which they see in the light of God's innate will. The most important difference between Ibn Arabi's and Ibn Sina's opinions regarding divine judgment and destiny is Ibn Sina's reliance and emphasis on the knowledge of God's mercy and Ibn Arabi's emphasis on divine judgment. This difference is rooted in Ibn Sina's philosophical approach and Ibn Arabi's mystical-theological approach to analyze the subject. Regarding free will in man, Ibn Sina believes that by performing certain actions, a person has the ability to exercise his opinion and change his destiny, and God has decreed such that there is certainty and certainty in man's actions, and that judgment is based on his free will and will. And the divine decree has determined the free will in the actions of humans. According to Ibn Arabi, the judgment and fate of God's decree is in the order of fixed nobles and their requirements, and therefore the will and free will of man are also in their domain. And Qada and Qadr do not violate human free will. The method of this research is based on descriptive-analytical and using library texts. Manuscript profile