Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Chapter Four: Is Learning Philosophy Necessary?

In this chapter we shall try to discover whether learning philosophy is necessary and if it is for whom? In order to answer this question we have to enumerate all the things this field of study can accomplish and briefly explain it uses. We have to study these one by one and show whether any of these function makes learning philosophy necessary and if so will it be necessary for all people or only for certain group and in the latter case which groups are these ? but before listing and discussing the use of philosophy we have to clarify what is intended by ‘necessity ‘ and what is the standard o criterion for being necessary .Therefore , we begin our discussion by defining ‘necessity ‘ and its criterion and then list the used of philosophy and discuss their necessity of philosophy and then explain its uses.

Necessity and its Criterion

Clearly enough what intended my ‘necessity ‘ here is not religion necessity or legal obligation in contract to prohibition for the study of such obligation belongs to the domain of jurisprudence rather than philosophy. It is intellectual or rational necessity. For example, if the intellects determine that acquiring a certain benefit is necessary and philosophy is used to acquire such a benefit, it naturally declares that learning philosophy necessary.

Now, let us turn our attentions to this benefit and ask why it is necessary from a rational point of view, to acquire such a benefit? In other word, what is the criterion by which reason declares a certain benefit as necessary and another as unnecessary? It is certain that according to the judgement of a sound mind all those things are necessary whose absence would 1. Harm man’s individual or social life, and 2 expose man to eternal punishment in the hereafter.

There is problem with the first criterion but regarding the second there is a problem in that many people do not believe in a divinely revealed faith and therefore have no reason to believe in eternal life and its rewards or punishment s. On the other hand, so far in this book we have not proved the existence of these things so that intellectually they have to accept them.

Therefore, this criterion cannot be accepted under these conditions.

However, this objection is not acceptable since acceptance if this criterion does not require certitude concerning the existence of eternal life and the mere fact that it may exist would suffice, and no doubt logically speaking such possibility exist.

The possibility mentioned above exist since, firstly no irrefutable proof or convincing reason denying God existence, the next world or other spiritual matter has been set forth. Therefore, we cannot be certain of the non-existence of these things and the negation of the certainty of their non- existence would lead to the possibility of their existence. Secondly this is not a week possibility, for history shows that even those who denied the prophet admitted that in their behaviour,intelligence, andunderstanding of the truth they were far ahead of their time. Thus those who have no faith in the divinely revealed religions and the prophets still cannot deny the truthfulness and intelligence of this prophet s. Moreover the holy scripture and the history of religion show that all prophet, from Adam, peace be upon him, to Mohammed, the seal of the prophet, peace be upon him and his household, without exception have informed the people of the existence of God and his oneness, the existence of the next world, the different degrees of closeness to, or remoteness from God and paradise and hell. Moreover many mystics from different nation and sects throughout history have borne witness to some of these things. To a sound intellect his great volume of evidence greatly increases the probability that such things do indeed exist.

The reason tat for the acceptance of that criterion the mere probability of the existence of these things is enough is that firstly from a logical perspective not only preventing a definite harm is necessary but so is a avoiding a probable one That is if someone thinks that there is a chance he be exposed to certain harm and avoiding that harm would not entail similar or greater harm, reason dictates that he should aroid that harm.

According to the Quranic verse , Prophetic tradition and the teaching of other holy scripture, the intentional denial of the spiritual truths mentioned above and disbelieving them will incur internal punishment the mildest of which is incomparably this world. The same dire consequence is also in store for those who neglect issue concerning the hereafter.

Secondly from the rational perspective the mathematical expectation (the amount of probability multiplied by the value of the probable ) of dealing with spiritual and otherworld thing and also the mathematical expectation of reflecting over and investigating these matters are infinite , while the mathematical expectation of the greatest worldly pleasure and joys is limited and as any sound reason would decree, once in doubt , we should choose the thing whose mathematical expectation is greater.

We can conclude, then that the second criterion also unproblematic and on its basis we can infer the rational necessity of thing. On the ground if these two criteria we can have an assessment of the uses of philosophy and shoe that it is necessary for the following groups to learn it.

1- Those who fear that natural sensuality may lead them into philosophical sensationalism.

2- Those who have doubt abut their worldview.

3- Those whose worldview is exposed to doubts.

4- Those who are obliged to defend their religion rationally.

5- Those who feel the necessity to search for a deeper understanding of divine knowledge.

6- Those scholars who are intellectually qualified to learn philosophy.

We should not forget, however , that in cases where learning philosophy is declared to be unnecessary this should not be taken to mean that it is undesirable In general there is no doubt that learning philosophy is desirable.

The uses of Philosophy and their evolution

1- Satisfying the Sense of Curiosity

Philosophy, like any other field of scholarship satisfies mans curiosity concerning question related o its subject matter. Clearly enough, if we overlook its other characteristics and consider only this single quality , learning philosophy would not be necessary for, although ignoring the sense of curiosity altogether by completely repressing it is essentially impossible , satisfying it cannot be said to make the study of philosophy a necessity. Both in the past or at present there have been many people who do not study any field of scholarship. Including philosophy and so have ignored their instinctive curiosity, nevertheless, they have enjoyed relatively comfortable lives and who have attained spiritual stations.

2- Removing Double Ignorance

All forms of learning, including philosophy, put an end to man double ignorance concerning issues related to their subject. For example, many people wrongly believe in chance and accident, or mistakenly believe that spirit is material, and by philosophical demonstration we can make such people aware of their mistakes. Still however, if we overlook other characteristics of philosophy and evaluate philosophy would not be necessary. For in general man‘s ignorance of certain things neither disrupts his life in this world nor ruin it in the hereafter. It is true that it would be right to say that doubt ignorance about issues discussed in philosophy can be harmful to his life in this world and the another issue altogether and will be discussed in due course. Therefore the mere removal of double ignorance does not make learning philosophy necessary.

3- The Indispensable Foundation of Life.

What is meant by the above title is that life without philosophical statement would be impossible. In order to understand the turn of this claim we may consider one simple routine occurrence. Suppose that you have returned from your friend’s house but you suddenly remember that you have left your ring on his dinner table. You call him, describe the ring to him and ask him if he has found it. After looking for it, he tells you, “there is no ring on the table, but there is a ring under the table which is yours.” The analysis of this simple occurrence shows that it cannot be justified without presupposing a number of philosophical statements.

For example, let us consider the statement; we have to presuppose the concepts of existence, nonexistence, object or thing, essence or substance (by which is meant the body of the table or the ring), space and time. All these concepts are intellectual rather than tangible. Moreover, to make this statement true, we have to assume the truth of the following philosophical statement:

1- ‘A thing that is seen in a certain place must be there’.

Without presupposing this statement we cannot accept that there is a ring under the table.

2- ‘A visible thing which is not seen in a certain place is not there.’ Without presupposing this statement we cannot accept that there is no ring on the table.

3- ‘Behind these visible appearances, such as colour, shape and size, there is a substance or an essence, in short a body, such as a ring or a table, etc.’ Without presupposing this statement we cannot speak of the ring or the table.

4- ‘The spatial position of a particular object is an accidental issue and changing it would not result in turning that object into something else.’ Without presupposing this statement we cannot be sure the ring under the table is the same that was on the table.

5- ‘The temporal position of an object is an accidental issue and changing it would not cause the thing in question to turn into something else.’ Without presupposing this statement we cannot be sure whether the present ring is the same as the one that existed before.

6- ‘The agreement of two contradictories or their simultaneous elimination is impossible,’ which, applied both true and false, or neither true nor false. It must necessary be either true or false. Without presupposing this statement we can argue that your formed statement is both true and false or it is neither true nor false.

7- Every body occupies a space and space is not an illusory or imaginary things. Although this statement has nothing to do for the ring here and there is based on ones belief in the existence of space.

Further reflection will perhaps rival more statement and presupposition. If we look closely into our and other daily affair, we see that we use much other philosophical statement, such ad causal necessity the law of causal homogeneity, the law of the simultaneity of cause and affect the impossibility of regress and so on. These philosophical statements exist in all human minds people believe in them and constantly use them, though perhaps not consciously. We many appreciate the function of these statement in our every life if we imagine a situation in which they were complete erased from the people minds for a shirt time or everyone seriously believed them to be false we would seaside perceive , then , that in such a situation life would degenerate into utter choa.

Does the benefit just allude to make the study of philosophy necessary? No for all people gradually perceive these statements and unconsciously use them without any need to learn philosophy. Why these statement are also called common sense conviction. Furthermore, no doubt they are not clearly or precisely understood in their common sense usage. In philosophy they become more exact, their meaning are clarified their limit and boundaries are defined and objective to be answered. In short their ambiguity is removed <Still, we do not need this clarification to manage our daily affair s and can content ourselves with their common interpretation.

Defining the Border between Sense and Reason

In order to delineate the border between sense and reason must return to the hypothetical situation mentioned above.

Prior to our analysis of that situation , we could not recognise that intellectual presupposition employed in it, believed it to be a completely sensible occurrence and thought that in similar situation , namely in simple routine events, the intellect does not play an important role.

However, after the analysis we begin to realise our mistake. Now what kind of analysis is that? Certainly it is a philosophical analyse a simple ordinary occurrence to determine precisely the contribution of intellect in that occurrence and show that even in the simplest and most sensible issues we cannot overlook the contribution of intellect and say that our only mean id knowledge are the sense or only those statement are valid that are confirmed by sense and experience. So, one of the uses of philosophy is that it teaches man that the role of the sense in his life is much more limited and that of the intellect much greater, than what he be lives. In other words, learning philosophy liberates man from that natural sensationalism which because of our natural life affect.

However, does this benefit make learning philosophy fro all or most people , since natural sensationalism does not create any problem for our everyday life as most people are affected by it and still face no difficulties in their lives. It is also not incompatible with admitting intellectual accepts propositions or demonstrations so that it should end with blasphemy and denial of life in the hereafter, and so come under the second criterion. He who is affected by y this sensationalism also admits the self-evident intellectual concepts and proposition and accepts and employs their demonstrations that are founded on them and can prove the existence of God and the next world by them. His only mistake is that he thinks that many of these concepts and propositions are sensible and empirical rather than intellectual. it is true that those who fear that natural sensationalism nay lead them to philosophical sensationalism, according to which all intellectual concepts and study of God or the hereafter is possible, may find it necessary to learn philosophy to understand the undeniable contribution of intellect indifferent field of learning.

1- A Holistic Outlook

In the first chapter it was says that the subject of philosophy unlike the subjects of other branched of knowledge is general and logistic and therefore in contrast to other field of scholarship philosophical investigation is not limited to a particular aspect of the world. This difference makes philosophy unlike other kinds of knowledge, holistic and comprehensive in its outlook that is it give us an outline and picture of the whole world of being?

Does this characteristic make learning philosophy necessary? No for acquiring such a picture to the required extent can also be obtained through the conviction if a intellect and there is no need for learning philosophy. No doubt the picture provide by philosophy is much more exact and complete than the one set more desirable, but such an exact picture according to the two criteria set forth earlier is unnecessary .

2- A Profound Outlook

Most of the people often look superficially at the phenomena they encounter in this world. They see many things that are apparently diverse and different and see no connection or similarity between them, such as the fall of different bodies on earth the rotation of the moon round the earth the flow and ebb of the sea, the arrow -like route of the of canon shell, and the change of season However, scholars look at these things more profoundly. On the basis of certain philosophy and non- philosophical presupposition s and by experiment and reflection, they look into phenomena are indeed similar to each other for it is only one law (that appears in different forms) such as general gravel which in one place appears in the form of the fall of bodies to earth and in another place in the form of the rotation of the moon round the earth and so on .Second on the basis of this one dominant law all apparently diverse things and phenomena are linked with each other in a causal relationship In short scientists do not content themselves with the appearance and the surface of things and phenomena, but by probing them deeply look at roots and see a united and coherent world. But how far does this probing and looking in depth continue? It continues until they come to presuppositions. As soon as they reach this point they stop and scientific investigation comes to an end. However, philosophy start precisely at this point and philosophical investigation begins here. In its analysis confirmation, negation, endorsement, and explanation of philosophical presuppositions of science, philosophy looks even more deeply into things. Therefore in this journey from the surface of phenomena to their depths, and in this profound investigation, philosophy begins where all other branched of learning stop. It deals with the roots on which other discipline depend and by the help of which try to explore the phenomena we encounter in the world, philosophy looks at root of all other field of learning and this is why it is deeper than other discipline. This profound approach is not limited to philosophical discussion about the presupposition of science but rather philosophy discussions and perspective in general are essentially profound and deep.

However does its deep outlook make learning philosophy necessary? The answer is negative for most people, for though the deep philosophical perspective is interesting and desirable its absence will not disturb man life either in this world or in the next. we have all know ,many people who did not have this deep outlook but incurred no great material or spiritual harm because of it , it is true that if a society lacks such deep thinkers altogether it ill face culture decay and deterioration and no doubt this decadence may disturb its social life .

Therefore this characteristic makes it necessary that in every society some learned and qualified people should study philosophy and specialise.

Providing The Presuppositions of the other fields of Study

It was explained in the last chapter that all branches of knowledge posses some general particular philosophical presuppositions without which research in those discipline would be either meaningless is impossible. The principle of non- contradiction , the principle of the possibility of knowledge , the principle of causality, the law of causal necessity, the law of causal homogeneity , the law of the simultaneity of cause and effect , the impossibility of circle and degree , the impossibility of opposition , the principle if simplicity the existence or nonexistence of nature , the existence or nonexistence of nature movement, the existence or nonexistence of absolute space the existence or non-existence of the whole as something independence from the part determinism versus free will. The existence or non - existence of quantity in the external world and many other philosophical laws and proposition are among there presuppositions. Some of these are discussed in philosophy , some other in type of philosophy that is used in genitive constructions, such as the philosophy of the empirical science , the philosophy of mathematic , the philosophy of the social science and the philosophy of science and skill other problems, in their different aspects are studied in both. We can say, then that it is philosophy that provide many of the presupposition of the other field of study depend, each discipline is dependent on a certain form of philosophy and when that discipline is accepted and finds current and as soon as that philosophy associated with it also become as that philosophy is destroyed that particular discipline will also be undermined. In short it is not the case that every philosophy can permit any intellectual discipline to grow out of it or to be more evident in the humanities and especially in the social science.

Does this characteristic make learning philosophy necessary?

The truth is that if we consider only this characteristic and disregards the impact of these branches of knowledge on man private and social life, still according to our two criteria the answer would be in the negative, for the mere fact that philosophy provides the presupposition of the other field of learning does not make learning ir necessary. It is true, however that if we consider the impact of these intellectual disciplines on man individual and social life it world is a different story and we shall do this in 2.8.

Providing The Fundamental Principle of Systems and Movement

As every intellectual disciple is dependent on true or false philosophical presuppositions or in other words as every field of learning is dependent on a type of philosophy, every social movement and every human system are also dependent on a philosophy. The Nazi Fascist and Marxist movement were dependent on the philosophies of Nazism Fascism and Marxism. Less important movement such as those of the Hippies, the Beatles, the Punks and the Raps are also dependant on their philosophies. In general al big or small movement that have emerged or will emerge have been influenced and will be influenced by a particular philosophy. Every kind of human systems whether ethical, political, legal economic or educational also depends on principle and presuppositions most of which are essentially philosophy.

Thus it is the task of philosophy that provides the principle and presuppositions of systems and movement. In short every true or false social movement or human system is based on a particular philosophy true or false. Social philosophers deal with these philosophies directly. However other social classes also have some understanding of these philosophies and in a general way and directly are affected by them through the circulation of the ideal promoted by this philosopher and because of this influence a particular philosophy becomes current in the society and is widely accepted by the public. Clearly enough a society will accept only those movement and system that are compatible with its accepted philosophy. Accordingly, every with any type of philosophy. Form this we can understand the hidden role of philosophy in man individual and social life As we have already seen, because of this characteristic philosophy plays a hidden role individual and social life of the people so that absence of a true philosophy may lead to confusion in those spheres and even lead to their Nazim Fascim and Marxism imposed on the human society or on a part of it, proves this claim. Hence according to the first criterion, there is no doubt that the existence of a true philosophy is necessary to avoid such damages and this in true make the study of philosophy necessary. Would it, however be necessary for all people? The answer is no .in fact the existence of a number of learned philosophy would be enough for once their thoughts circulate in the society other will be duly influence.

Therefore because of this characteristic, it is necessary that you should be some learned and well-qualified people to learned become experts in philosophy.

Laying the Foundation of Worldviews

We have all seen or heard about sages whom no worldly joy or bliss could make happily nor any misfortune or defeat downcast and forlorn. In contract, we have seen many people who have been destroyed by small miseries and misfortunes. Where is the root of this difference? it lies in their attitude towards existence , themselves their future their happiness or misfortune the world and its joy and pains. In short it lies i their attitude toward the world and the position of man in it, that is, in their ‘’ worldview’’ it would be no exaggeration if we say that no aspect of man could be more important than his worldview for this affects or rather determines all this action, his life in this world and in the hereafter and all his private and social affairs. Therefore in light of the two criteria already set forth, having a correct worldview is necessary for every one A worldview or as it has been described above, the individual attitude toward the world and man positions in it contain three basic questions:

1- Is the cause of the world phenomena, including man only material action and reaction and no non- material power has an role in their creation or even the creation of matter its lf? And essentially is existence equal to matter or is it rather that the material world is only a part of the world of existence, depending for it realization on another being that lies beyond it? in other words, does the world need a god and if it does , does it need gods, or is it that the existence of gods is impossible and the one God satisfies all that needs of being including man?

2- Is man life confirmed to his life in this world, or does he also have another life after death? And if he has another life is it limited or eternal? In my case, what is its relationship with his life in this world? This question entails another question Besides his corporeal body does man have something else called ‘spirit’

3- What is the surest way to find the right plan for one private and social life? Besides the conventional plans available to people, which in practice result in contradictory conclusions; is there any other plan whose validity is certain? The importance of the last question becomes more apparent when the answer to the second question is affirmative; that is, we come to the conclusion that man has an eternal life after death and he has to prepare, with his voluntary work in this mortal life, for felicity in the one to come. In that case, finding a sure means that shows the relationship between the two lives and an exact plan that can ensure eternal happiness becomes more urgent, and to the extent that life after death is valued more, finding the way to ensure happiness in it becomes more important. The first question is discussed under the title of “Monotheism”, the second under ‘Resurrection’ and third under ‘Prophet Hood’, which collectively account for the basic convictions is also necessary.

Does this make learning philosophy necessary for all people? Still the answer is negative. For most people, whose minds are not used to critiquing and raising questions can, on the basis of common sense convictions, find the correct answers to the philosophical questions related to worldview. What makes people err in their attempt to find worldview is the fact that they are prey to opposing inclinations rather than lack of proof or ignorance of philosophy? Hence, the philosophical nature of the questions discussed in worldview does not oblige people to learn philosophy. It is true, however that his characteristic makes learning philosophy necessary for the following two groups:

4- Those who have doubts about their worldview and are not certain whether it is right or wrong. Their mind is active and meticulous, and they cannot be satisfied with the simple proofs with which common people are contented. No doubt such people need the help of philosophy.

5- Those who have the right worldview, the monotheistic worldview, and have no doubt in it for the time being, but

Questions

1- How many factors does the necessity criterion include? Name them.

2- What are the uses of philosophy?

3- Which groups have to learn philosophy?

4- What is the difference between philosophical propositions and their corresponding common sense convictions?

5- By giving an example, show that philosophy looks at phenomena more deeply than science and science looks at the phenomena more deeply than convention!

6- Name the essential questions of worldview and explain them briefly.

7- It is possible that in Muslim countries, as long as the people believe in Islam, economic systems that abolish private ownership to be established and stabilized? Why? (In your answer you may also consider the philosophical aspect of the question).

8- In the holy verse “When you threw, it was not you that threw, but God who threw” (Anfal “8”:17) which refers to a pebble or an arrow thrown by the prophet, peace be upon him and his household, two issues have been admitted simultaneously:

1- Throwing is the Prophet’s action , peace be upon him and his household (because of the expression “when you threw”);

2- Throwing is God’s action (becaus e of the expression “but God threw”).

Explain on the solution of what philosophical question deep understanding of the compatibility of the two depend?

3- Explain how deep understanding o f the verse “And God created you and what you make” (Saffat “37”:96) depend on solving the philosophical problem on solving the philosophical problem of how one action may have two agents.

4- On understanding what philosophica l issue does deep understanding of the holy verse “But you will not unless God wills” (Insan “76”:30) depend?

Chapter Five: Necessity, Impossibility, and Possibility

In this chapter terms such as ‘necessity’, ‘impossibility’, ‘necessity by essence’, ‘impossibility by essence’, ‘possibility by essence’, ‘necessity by others’, and ‘impossibility by others’ are introduced.

Therefore, we start our discussion by giving a brief and indefinable concept in philosophy, and then we will try to explain these terms in the light of the two self-evident concepts of existence and non-existence.

Necessity

If we consider such items as ‘flower’, ‘even’, ‘white’, ‘sweet’, and ‘eight’, we will see that among these items only ‘even’ can be related to ‘eight’, and ‘white’ to ‘flower’, and these relationships are reflected in the mind of man in the two statements of ‘eight is even’ and ‘flower is white’. No doubt because ‘even’, ‘sweet’ or ‘eight’ have nothing in common with ‘flower’, or ‘flower’, ‘white’, or ‘eight’, or finally ‘white’, ‘sweet’, and ‘even’ with each other, there can exist no statement in our mind describing their relationship, such as ‘eight is sweet’ and so on. In other words, the statement ‘eight is an even number’ expresses the relationship between the attribute ‘even’ and the number eight and the statement ‘the flower is white’ indicates the relationship between the attribute ‘white’ and the flower.

Now we turn our attention to the two mentioned relationships. It is clear that the attribute ‘even’ and the number eight, unlike the attribute ‘white’ and the flower are inseparable related to each other. We cannot imagine any number eight that is not even. However, we can imagine a flower that is not white, or even imagine certain states and conditions where the white flower loses its whiteness and acquires another colour. In philosophical terms it is said that the relationship between ‘white’ and ‘flower’ is unnecessary. We can also put the necessity or non-necessity of this relationship in a statement, and say, for example, “Eight is necessarily even,” and “Flower is white but unnecessarily.” In these two statements, besides showing the relationship, we have identified its kind. In technical terms, words such as ‘necessity’ or ‘non-necessity’, which show the kind of relationship, are called ‘modes’.

We should know that concept such as necessity and non-necessity, or necessary and unnecessary are evident and certainly need no definition for their presence in the mind, and even such concepts cannot be defined. These concepts are gradually and automatically are formed in the human mind. Therefore, we do not intend here to define these concepts, and have only tried to show to which concepts of the mind the philosophers refer by the terms ‘necessity’ and ‘non-necessity’.

Necessity and impossibility

The above-mentioned necessity and nonnecessity were not specific to any special attribute. In general, the relationship f each attribute with the thing it describes is either necessary or unnecessary, that is, it is either an attribute inseparable from that thing, or it is a separable attribute.

‘Even’, for example, is the necessary attribute of number eight, whereas whiteness is the unnecessary attribute of the flower. Now we turn our attention to existence and non-existence.

As the relationship of one thing and its attributes could be either necessary or unnecessary, the existence or nonexistence of one object could be necessary or unnecessary. In other words, the existence of one things can be necessary or unnecessary, and its non-existence can also be necessary or unnecessary. In technical terms, things that have a necessary existence are called ‘necessary’, and those whose non-existence is necessary are named ‘impossible’. The necessity of existence is also named ‘necessity’, and the necessity of nonexistence is called ‘impossibility’. So, when we say something is necessary, we mean its existence is necessary, it must exist, and its non-existence is impossible.

On the other hand, when we say something is impossible, we mean its non-existence is necessary, it should not exist, and its existence would be impossible.

For further clarification of the issue, let’s consider one of the phenomena, the storm, for example. Suppose that we know all the factors responsible for the existence of the storm, and decisively judge that the storm must exist. In other words, with this supposition the storm will necessarily exist, and, in philosophical terms, it is necessary. Now, suppose that some or all of these factors do not exist; then, according to the judgment of the intellect, the storm should not exist. In other words, with this supposition the storm would be necessarily non-existent, and in philosophical terms it would be impossible.

Impossibility by essence and impossibility by other

If we suppose that the causes and factors necessary for the existence of a storm do not exist, the storm will never exist. With this supposition, the storm should be impossible. Moreover, we are all familiar with concepts of ‘circle’ and ‘angle’, and we know that a circle can never have and angle. Therefore, an angled circle or a circle with an angle would be impossible.

Here we are faced with two impossible things; the storm and an angled circle. Is there any difference between these two impossible things? No doubt there is a difference. Although the storm is now impossible, we can do something to remove this impossibility; in other words, its impossibility is removable and separable, whereas the impossibility of an angled circle can never be lifted.

What is the origin of this difference? What is its cause? Its cause is that the impossibility of an angled circle emanates from its essence. What we mean by the essence of a particular thing is the thing itself, regardless of the existence or nonexistence of other things. Therefore, if we want to consider the essence of a thing, we must consider only that thing, irrespective of the existence or nonexistence of any other thing. The essence of an angled circle, then, would be impossible. Why? Because it is contradictory in its essence, circle being a closed equidistant curve that has no angle. An angled circle would be, then, a curve that both possesses and does not possess an angle. This, obviously enough, is a contradiction, and every contradiction, no doubt, in essence and in itself would be impossible. The storm, however, is not contradictory in itself; its impossibility is not a part of its essence so that it should be inseparable from it and make its existence automatically impossible; rather, its impossibility is caused by external factors, that is, things outside it have caused its impossibility.

There are certain obstacles, for example, preventing its existence, or there are certain factors that are necessary for its existence and have not been realized yet.

It is clear that once those barriers are lifted or those necessary causes are made available the storm will no longer be impossible. This is why philosophers argue that the existence of an angled circle would be ‘impossible by essence’ and its impossibility would be ‘an impossibility by essence’ or ‘essential impossibility’, whereas the existence of the storm, whose causes do not exist yet or there are certain obstacles preventing it, is ‘impossible by other’ and its impossibility is ‘impossibility by other’.

From what has already been said it becomes clear that the impossible by essence can never exist, and it is impossible to find any extension for it in the external world. It would not exist simply by changing states and situations, by stipulating new conditions, or by changing particular factors. The impossible by essence is absolutely nonexistent in any state, unlike the impossible by other, which though in the present state and situation and in the present condition cannot exist and can never have an extension, in certain cases by changing the state, situation or condition, and, in short, by changing the factors responsible or its impossibility, it can exist.

Necessity by essence and necessity byother

We are already familiar with the philosophical term ‘essence’. The essence of a particular thing is the thing itself regardless of other things; therefore, our conception of the essences of a thing would be equal to our conception of the thing without conceiving or stipulation the existence or non - existence of any other things. Considering the meaning of essence and the explanation given on the impossible by essence and the impossible by other, we can easily understand at the meaning of the necessary by essence and the necessary by other.

If there essence of a thing is necessary that is if exist necessary without the mediation of any other the influence of any other factor, dependence on any cause or condition or in short if it exists necessary by itself and in more simple term, if its non- existence is self-contradictory , such a thing would be necessary by essence it is evident that if the essence of a thing is not necessary , but it becomes necessary on stipulating certain causes and factors , such as thing would be necessary by other , for in fact , it is made necessary by external causes and factors ; it’s necessary is the result of those cause Therefore necessity by essence is that necessities which results from the thing itself and is dependent no on external factor necessity by other however result from something other than the thing itself.

From what has been said we may after that it impossible to annihilate the necessary by essence. We cannot make it non-existent by simply changing some states situation as or conditional or my producing certain factors the necessary by essence enjoys absolute existence under all circumstances. However though in the present situation , state and condition the necessary by other is necessary and con not be annihilated once the situation , state and condition change or in short as soon as the removal of the cause of it necessity become possible , it may lose its state of necessary existence and become non-existence .

We many mention many examples of the necessary by other. All the existent we may observe in our surroundings, such as different kinds of element, plants animal and men are necessary by other. The tree that we see is the effect is a claim of cause, such as water, air, certain, degree of temperature and many other factors that may not be easily enumerated. If this chain of cause stays as it is and none of the cause change, this tree will necessary continue existing, and it will never become non-existence. To destroy it, certain changes have to take place in this chain. In that case, the tree would not be necessary and is would become nonexistent.

This means that it the chain of these causes that makes the tree necessary and its non - existence impossible. Accordingly, by changing this claim its necessary might be lifted and it would become non-existent. The necessary by essence is limited to the existence of God. Philosophers have proved that it is only God who is necessary by essence.

Possibility by essence

So far we have understood that the impossible by essence is the thing which when conceived without conceiving the existence or non-existence of any other thing with itwe understand that is existence is self - contradictory, and therefore impossible In itself rather than because of any other factor. On the other hand, the necessary by essence is that which is necessary by itself - contradictory and is impossible and therefore its existence is caused by essence, that is it essence is necessary neither in its existence nor non- existence and neither its existence nor selfcontradictory such a thing would be possible by essence Possibility then means that neither existence nor nonexistence is necessary.

Therefore in order to understand whether a thing is possible by essences or not we have to conceive only that thing without considering the existence or non - existence of other things and examine it in regard to existence and non-existence and consider it position. If we find that it not contradictory i its existence that is tots existence is not impossible and also it is not contradictory in its non- existence, that is it non-existence is not impossible it will be possible by essence.

We can mention many examples of the possible by essence. All the things we find in our surroundings, including ourselves are possible by essence. However let us take the aforementioned storm as an example. you may be asked to consider only the existence of it cause or factor , or, in more philosophical; term to conceive only the essence of the storm, say if the thing you have considered can ever find an extension band whether its existence is self - contradictory. Your answer will be negative, and your reason will be that in the past there have been many storms. You might also be asked whether the non-existence if the thing you have considered is impossible, and if is non- existence will be lf contradictory.

Once again your answers will be negative, for usually she weather is claim and there is no storm. Therefore, the storm is essentially neither necessary nor impossible or in other words it possible by essence.

Compatibly of possibility by essence with necessity or impossibility by other

There is no doubt that possibility by essence is incompatible with necessary or impossibility by essence. In other words, the possible by essence can never become necessary or impossible by essence, for the possible by essence is that which in itself is necessary neither in its existence nor in its non- existence, whereas the necessary by essence or the impossible by essence is that which is necessary in its existence or in its non -existence , respectively. Therefore , there would be a contradiction and an impossibility if a thing could be both possible and necessary in its existence , Similarly there would also be a contradiction and an impossibility if a single thing could be both possible and impossible by essence , that is its non = existence be both necessary and unnecessary .therefore the possible by essence cannot be necessary or impossible by essence , that is possibility by essences in incompatible with necessity or impossibility by essence.

Now is possibility by essence also incompatible with necessity or impossibly by other? In other words, will there be any contradiction if the possible by essence could be the necessary or the impossible by other? The answer is no!

from the rational perspective there is no contradiction if a thing whose existence or non- existence is essentially not necessary to become necessary in its existence or non-existence by external factors just as it is not impossible for a thing that is not luminous in itself to become luminous by external factors, like iron for example which is itself is not luminous and becomes luminous through heating. Thus possibility by essence is compatible with necessary and impossibility by other. However this is not all for as we shall demonstrate in chapter eleven by priming the law of ‘causal necessary ‘everything that is possible by essence is simultaneously necessary or impossible by others.

Turning to the example of the storm mentioned above, this is why once we know that all the causes and factor of the storm are realized we will judge at once that the weather must necessary be stormy, and that is impossible for it to be otherwise. In other words the storm is necessary, by which of course, we mean it is necessary by others for allegedly this necessary is imposed on it by the cause and factors that create it. Now if at the time we proclaim the necessity of the storm we are asked if the same storm, irrespective of the causes of it creation, necessarily exists and is necessary in it, we will definitely reply in the negative at say that in itself it is still only possible.

The meaning of theses two simultaneous judgements made you the intellect is that from the rational point of view the mentioned storm is simultaneously possible by essence and between these two. In the same way, possible by essence is show to be compatible with impossibility other.

Question

1- What is the meaning of necessity, impossibility or possibility?

2- What is the difference between the necessary by essence and the necessity by other?

3- What is the difference between the impossible by essence and the impossible by other?

4- Can the necessary by essence be possible by essence, too? Why?

5- Can the impossible by essence be possible by essence too? Why?

6- Which of the following items have necessary relationship with each Earth and the situational movement Equilateral triangle and equal angles Man and existence A man whose factors of creation have all been realized and existence Dinosaurs and non- existence in the present states of nature Edible salt and saltiness.

6- Can the possible by essence be necessary by other, too? If so, demonstrate it by giving an example beside the one mentioned in this book.

7- Can the possible by essence be impossible my others, to? If yes, demonstrate it by giving an example besides that given in his book.

8- Give three example for things that are possible or impossible by essence.

8- Which of the following is necessary by essence impossible by essences our possible by essence and which are necessary or impossible my others?

A monster whose head alone is bigger than the earth, Phoenix, you dinosaur and equilateral triangle with three unequal angles, earth the movement of the earth round the sun, the movement of the sun round the earth.

Chapter Three: The Relation between Science and Philosophy

In the last two chapters we learned that both the subject of science and philosophy and their research methodology are different and thus science can no more solve a philosophical problem than philosophy can solve scientificone. In short philosophy and science cannot replace each other.

However, this does not mean that the two disciplines are totally disconnected and have no influence on each other. The present chapter aims at explaining this point and is divided into three section 1The impact of science on philosophy 2 The impact of philosophy on science and 3. The priority of philosophy over science, which is the conclusion draw from the two previoussection.

The impact of science on Philosophy

Philosophy questions are divided into two groups the first group is not independent from science, in the sense that it is influenced by changes and development in scientific theories while the second group is independent for science. The first group is called philosophy after science and the second Philosophy before science lets us now consider these two types of philosophy issues.

Philosophy after Science

The reason why the change and development of scientific theories influences the outcome of the questions of ‘philosophy after science’ is that in this group of questions scientific theories, in different ways, are taken as presuppositions for philosophical questions. By a presupposition we mean a statement that in a certain field of learning is assumed to be true independent of any proof, for all or some of the questions in that are dependent upon it. The reason its validity is assumed independent of ay proof is either because it is self-evident, or it has been taken for another discipline where it validity has been proved already, or has been accepted with n evidence or reason whatsoever. In what follows we will discuss the different ways in which scientific theories are taken as presuppositions for philosophical questions.

The Scientific Theory raises a Philosophical Question

In some of the questions of ‘philosophy after science’, the philosophical question can e discussed essentially on the basis of a scientific presupposition. In such cases, science discovers a certain thing with characteristics that are either apparently contradictory to some philosophical laws so that the removal of this opposition would create some new issues for philosophy or, at the least, application of clear principles of philosophy to which will necessitate a new intellectual analysis. For example, the discovery of energy, the consequent appearance of the theory of the transformation of matter into energy and the emergence of particles of matter from condensed energy have the raised the questions in philosophy as to what the essence of energy is. Does it have mass or not? If it does, what differentiates it from ordinary bodies? If not, how can something possessing mass change into something that has no mass? In any case, a new material form that has not been discussed in philosophy heretofore has to be accounted for.

The Scientific Theory as a step to Philosophical Demonstration

In such cases the philosophical issue is discussed on the basis of tangible or intuitive issues or according to previous philosophical discussions, rather than on the basis of scientific presuppositions.

However, the philosopher in his attempt to prove the validity of the philosophical position must depend on the scientific theory as one the premises of his demonstration. On other words, in these cases the philosophical question has only a rational-experiment solution. For example, in the philosophy of Avicenna, in order to prove that the number of the abstract immaterial incorporeal existents is ten, the Ptolemaic geocentric theory is employed.

The Scientific Theory determines the Extensions of the Philosophical Theory

In these cases, in the premises used in proving a certain philosophical theory or in the philosophical theory itself the philosopher employs a concept that has a tangible extension, such as the concept of body, the concept of expansion and the concept of contraction, which in the old physics were called ‘penetration’ and ‘condensation’. The role of the scientific the scientific theory is to make the extension of that concept known to the philosopher. For example, the atomic theory, at the time of its advent, showed that the true extensions of the body in different philosophical precepts proved for body are not these observed bodies, but rather the electrons and nuclei. With the fission of the nucleus and the discovery of nuclear particles it has become clear that the true extensions of body are electrons and nuclear particles, and so on. In these cases, besides showing the extensions, the scientific theory often corrects mistakes made by philosophers.

It is clear that in the above cases any change or development in the scientific theory will result in a corresponding effect on the dependent philosophical question. However, it should be kept in mind that few philosophical questions fall within the category.

Philosophy before Science

It has already been said that ‘philosophy before science’ includes that group of philosophical questions that are independent from science and are therefore unaffected by any changes and developments that occur in scientific theories. This group in turn is divided into two further groups. One group does not take any scientific theory as a presupposition at all. Here, not only philosophical questions introduced independently from scientific theories but their solution also is purely rational. No scientific theory is used in proving them and the determination of the extension of the concept employed in them is not based on scientific concepts. The fundamentality of existence, proving the existence and attributes of God, the unity of divine essence and His attributes and actions, the possibility of resurrection predestination, freedom, and in general the most important philosophical questions are included in this group. The other group consists of those that have both a purely rational solution and also a rational-empirical solution that depend on the scientific theories and presupposes them. It is clear that this group is also independent of science, for if developments alter the scientific theory in question and invalidate the rationalempirical solution, it will not leave the question without a solution independent of all experimentation can always be relied upon; the issue of the immateriality of the soul, for example, is one such question.

The above issues, meanwhile, clearly show that the claim made in the last chapter to the effect that philosophical propositions are a priori is only applicable to ‘philosophy before science’ , which includes the main philosophical questions, rather than to ‘philosophy after science’. All the questions of ‘philosophy after science’ are of the posterior type, for the validity or invalidity of their presupposed scientific propositions can be determined only through experimentation. Thus, demonstrating either the truth or the falsity of these questions ultimately depends on experimentations as well.

The Impact of Philosophy on Science

In the last section we explained the different types of scientific propositions relied on in philosophy in order to investigate the way science influences philosophy. In this section, however, we shall explain the different types of philosophical presuppositions relied upon by science so as to show the manner in which philosophy influences it. For that purpose, we must first study the way in which the sciences are dependent on philosophy, for every need necessitates presupposition of particular philosophical law or laws.

The Dependence of Science on Philosophy in Proving a Subject

It was said in chapter one that every real field of learning, including every science, has a subject that in effect acts as an axis that gathers the different propositions of that discipline around itself and gives them the form peculiar to that particular field in such a way that all the propositions of that knowledge in one way or another deal with that particular subject; that is, they delineate it types and divisions, the relationship between these divisions and the laws governing each of them. It goes without saying that the subject of every field of learning must exist outside the mind; otherwise its study will be a kind of fancy rather than a scientific activity. Therefore, in every field of learning, before we begin our studies, we must make sure that its subject has objective existence.

If the existence of the subject of a certain field of learning is evident, it will not need proof; however, if it is not evident, we have to prove it or may even have to discuss its nature. Now, where can we deal this issue? Is it in the particular field of learning itself? No! For, every kind of knowledge begins with the assumption that its subject exists, and no scientist qua scientist needs to prove the existence of the subject of his study. Keeping in mind what was said in the first chapter, proving the existence of things and determining their nature are activities that belong only to the domain of philosophy and not to that of any other intellectual discipline.

Therefore, those fields of study the existence or nature of whose subject is not evident are dependent on philosophy.

Thus, the existence of the subject of these fields of learning and the nature of this existence is a presupposition taken from philosophy.

Dependence of Science on Philosophy in Ensuring the Universal and Necessity of its Laws

By law here we mean the genetic (takwini) laws employed in different fields of learning, including science, which describe phenomena and existents, rather than the conventional laws which are promulgated by the legislative bodies of different countries. The salient characteristic of every genetic law is its universality and necessity, in other words, every law is universal and necessary.

The universality of a law means that, firstly, its subject does not refer to a particular thing, or, technically speaking, it does not refer to an individual; that is, it is a universal rather than a particular concept. Accordingly, the terms used in a proposition indicating a certain law should be common names, such as man, electron, or metal rather than proper name such as Avicenna, Iran, or Rakhsh.

Therefore, the proposition ‘Avicenna is a scientist’ does not express a law, for the term, ‘Avicenna’ which is the subject of this proposition is a proper name and refers to only a particular person.

Secondly, the judgment and the predicate expressed in a law which admits no exceptions include all the extensions of the subject the law applies to, be they extensions that existed in the past, exist now, will exist in the future, or any other hypothetical extensions. Accordingly, a proposition indicating a law should be begin with a universal quantifier, for instance, a word like ‘every’ or ‘none’ or other synonymous words, but not with an existential quantifier, such as ‘some’ or its synonymies. Therefore, the proposition ‘Some metals are expanded by heat’ does not express a law, but the proposition ‘every number is either even or odd’ expresses a law. In logical terms, universal proposition can express a law rather than particular (existential) or personal propositions. In short, every law expresses a particular judgment that includes all the things the subject of the law is applicable to.

The necessity of a law means that once the condition is stated in the law are present that law will never be violated; that is. With the stated condition the subject of the law cannot exist without the judgment mentioned in the law.

Therefore, the fact that all the previous, present and future extensions of the subject possess this quality will not be enough for the law; rather, besides these, once the conditions are present, the law must not be violated. If we claim that the proposition ‘the freezing point of all types of pure water under one atmospheric pressure if 0°C’ is a law, this means that, firstly, this rule include all kinds of water in the past, present and future, and even covers everything that is supposed to be water. Secondly once the stated conditions are present, it will be impossible for any type of water not behave in that manner. The result is that in general, the universality and necessity of scientific laws indicate that in equal conditions similar natural elements would invariably behave in a similar fashion. In short, nature always behaves in a fixed and unchanging manner.

In order to understand the importance of the universality and necessity of scientific laws it will suffice to note that all the progress man has made in industry and technology and the great civilisation he possesses today is due to the discovery of these laws, and their whole importance is due to their predictability. With their help, especially when they put into mathematical terms, we can perceive the past, the present and the future behaviours, conditions and states of phenomena, such as calculating the age of the earth, perceiving the invisible symptoms of a disease on the basis of its visible symptoms, predicting the exact time of eclipses, predicting the exact time and place of landing of a missile fired from a certain station, and so on. Finally, the power of prediction of scientific laws is due to a number of factors that include their universality and necessity. For if a scientific law were not universal or necessary, even if we knew and provided all the necessary conditions for the application of that law, there would be the probability that the law would not be valid, and, therefore, in cases that are supposedly similar to those that have been already experienced, the law would not be applicable. There would also be the probability that even in cases where the law has been applicable up to now, though nothing has changed, the law would not be applicable any longer, and it is clear that with the existence of such probabilities prediction would be impossible. Therefore, because of the possibility of prediction according to scientific laws, we cannot deny the universality and necessity of these laws.

Now, on the one hand we know that the instruments of science are sense and experience and, on the other, according to what was said in the second chapter regarding the domain of those things that are understood directly or indirectly by the senses, the universality of a scientific law (continuous invariability in the behaviour of nature) and its necessity (the impossibility of alteration in the behaviour of nature) are not tangible objects, and according to all philosophers, including the philosophers of science, they cannot be experienced. Therefore, n science can possibly provide the required universality or necessity for its laws. It is here that the sciences once again show their dependence on philosophical presuppositions. For this purpose, they take as their presupposition the three philosophical laws, namely ‘the principle of casualty’, ‘the homogeneity of cause and effect’ and ‘casual necessity’.

Relying on these presuppositions, the scientist forms the scientific law in his mind in a process compromised of four stages. In the first he realizes that in general, on the basis of the principle of casualty, some natural phenomena have a causal relationship with others. In the second stage, he turns to nature and in the special samples selected for the experiment, by employing empirical methods, he discovers in detail which phenomenon is the exact cause of another phenomenon. For example, he discovers that in a few samples of tested metals, heat has been the cause of expansion. In the third stage, on the basis of the law of ‘the homogeneity of cause and effect’, he declares that the discovered relationship is universal (invariable and permanent); that is, in similar samples the same relationship always exist. Therefore, when heated, all other untested metals must also expand. Finally, in the fourth stage, on the basis of the law of ‘casual necessity’, he declares that the stated relationship is necessary and once these conditions are present it cannot be violated.

Of the above four stages, the second stage is not certain; that is, in the tested samples the scientist cannot be certain he has discovered the real causal relationship. For example, he cannot be certain that in those samples heating has been the only real cause of the expansion of the metal. In this stage, ancient scientists used to employ the philosophical presupposition, ‘something accidental cannot be persistent or nearly persistent’. The purport of this law is that two phenomena that always or often happen simultaneously, such as heating and metal expansion, would necessarily have a kind of causal relationship with each other, otherwise it would be impossible for them always o often to occur at the same time. Philosophers of science reject this law, and some famous philosophers, such as Avicenna, have also treated it with great caution. In other words, they have been hesitant to employ it. In any case, rejection of this law or hesitation over its use indicates that in the mentioned example it is possible that the cause of the expansion of the metal could be something other than heating. In that case, in the mentioned samples the coincidence of expansion and heating could be only accidental, and in some other metals that have not been tested such a thing may not happen, and, consequently, at the time of heating the metal may not expand. Therefore, we cannot be certain that in the second stage we have discovered a real causal relationship. Accordingly, though the other three stages are certain, the scientific law, which is the result of all four stages, is not certain and there will always be the possibility that certain new phenomena may be observed or new experiments may be carried out where the scientific law in question may not be applicable. In other words, a posterior proposition is falsifiable and could be invalidated, or, as was said in the previous chapter, exceptive. Therefore, this falsifibility and invalidability stem from the negation of the law, ‘something accidental cannot be persistent or nearly persistent’.

One must take note of the fact that the falsifibility and invalid ability of the scientific law stems from the negation of the law ‘something accidental cannot be persistent or nearly persistent’ (in the second stage) and does not negate the law of ‘casual necessity’ (in the fourth stage).

Therefore, though the scientific law is falsifiable and can be invalidated, it is necessary, otherwise it would necessitate that the scientific law which applied to a certain number of samples in certain conditions in the first test may not apply to the same samples in exactly the same conditions in another test, and this would be unacceptable, even by the scientists.

This is proved by the way scientist deal with invalidated scientific laws. Modern science admits the invalidity of the laws of Newtonian physics, nevertheless it still employs them in a certain domain of nature where physical bodies have normal dimensions and velocity - in technology and industry, for example - and on its basis it makes predictions and is certain of the accuracy of these predictions. What is the cause of this certainty? It is their belief in the law of ‘causal necessity’. The scientist unconsciously believes that though these laws are invalid and only by approximation - apply to the domain in question, rather than exactly and without approximation, nevertheless these laws, with this level of approximation, are necessarily always true in this domain.

We cannot say that sometimes they are true in this domain and sometimes they are not, or sometimes they are true with a certain level of approximation and at other times with another level, etc. This is nothing other than the application of the law of ‘causal necessity’.

We can conclude, then, that the principle of causality and the law of ‘the homogeneity of cause and effect’ and the law of ‘causal necessity’ are some of the necessary philosophical presuppositions of all sciences.

Dependence of Science on Other Philosophical Presuppositions

In addition to what has already been said, sciences are dependent on philosophy in other ways too and this indicates that sciences require other philosophical presuppositions. For example, each science studies its subject by describing it.

In fact, the goal of science is to understand the laws related to its subject.

Therefore, before starting any investigation, every science must assume that it is possible to know natural phenomena - including the phenomena considered as the subject of that science - otherwise its entire would be no more than an exercise in futility. Now, the question arises as to what kind of knowledge determines the validity or invalidity of this assumption or its limits and boundaries. The answer is that field of learning that examines the question of knowledge, namely the field of “epistemology” in philosophy. Therefore, the principle of ‘the know ability of the world for man’ is one of the philosophical presuppositions of all sciences. Moreover, all sciences employ the ‘principle of noncontradiction’ and we know that philosophy is the proper place for careful investigation of contradiction and for defining its conditions. Thus, this principles is one the philosophical presuppositions of all sciences. Moreover, all sciences, more or less, employ the principles of impossibility of contrary and the impossibility of circle and infinite regress, while proving these principles and solving problems with them belong to the domain of philosophy. Therefore, these three principles are also among the philosophical presupposition of sciences.

Besides the above mentioned philosophical principles, which are needed by all sciences and are among common philosophical presuppositions, there are other principles in philosophy which are needed only by certain sciences; in other words, they are philosophical presuppositions particular to those sciences, such as the principle of simplicity, the question of the existence or non-existence of natural movements’, the question of ‘the existence or nonexistence of absolute time’, the question of ‘the existence or non-existence of absolute space’’, which are used in nonhuman empirical sciences, and the question of ‘the existence or nonexistence of the whole as something independent of the parts’, the question of ‘determinism versus free will’, which are used in human empirical sciences.

However, here we do not intend to list all the philosophical presuppositions of sciences, and no doubt further investigation will reveal more presuppositions.

The Priority of Philosophy over Science

So far we have seen that philosophy is assisted by scientific presupposition and sciences are assisted by philosophical presuppositions, with the difference that scientific presuppositions re used only in some philosophical questions (philosophy after science) and there is no scientific presupposition on which all philosophical questions (philosophy before science) do not need the sciences all together.

However, all scientific questions use general philosophical presuppositions, such as ‘the principle of noncontradiction’, the principle of ‘the know ability of nature’, ‘the principle of causality’, the law of ‘the homogeneity of cause and effect’, the law of ‘causal necessity’, and so on, especially the first and the second principles. Consequently, all scientific questions without exception need philosophy. Thus, we can have philosophy without science but no science without philosophy. In other words, philosophy is not dependent on science, but science is dependent on philosophy.

Couched in philosophical terms, philosophy has priority over science. Moreover, the above distinction necessitates another difference related to the way presuppositions are used. In explanation, we can say that the general presuppositions on which all the questions of a science or a number of sciences are dependent are not used as “means”, but the presuppositions on which one or some questions of a particular field of learning depends on often are. When we speak of a presupposition being used as “means” we mean that it is used as a premise in demonstrating a statement or statements in a particular field of learning. This kind of presupposition is productive, because from its combination with other premise of demonstration a kind of deduction is formed, which in turn produces a conclusion, such as the principles of Euclidian geometry, which are used as the premise of the demonstrating for proving the propositions of that geometry. When we speak of a presupposition that is not used as a “means”, on the other hand, we mean that presupposition that is not used as a premise of a demonstration in any arguments; nevertheless, the truth if that presupposition must be accepted in any field of knowledge that includes it. As examples we can mention the rules of interference in logic, the ‘principle of noncontradiction’, the principle of ‘the know ability of the world’, the principle of causality, the law of ‘the homogeneity of cause and effect’, the law of ‘causal necessity’, ‘the principle of simplicity’, assuming the existence of the subject of a field of learning where the existence is not evident, and so on. The philosophical presuppositions of the sciences are often “non-means”, while the scientific presuppositions of philosophy are often “means”. Closer to Islam. It is because of his endeavours that today the philosophy of Avicenna is considered the most nature complete and important expression of Peripatetic Philosophy in the Islamic world. Thomas Aquinas the great medieval European philosopher is one of his book admits this with great respect and modesty.

At the end of his life Avicenna directed his attention to a philosophy he called ‘the philosophy of the select’ and common people. What this philosophy of the select is, is still most entirely clear for as it has already been motioned his Al-Hikmah al- Mashriqiyyah (Oriental Philosophy) that discussed this philosophy is not extant.

Nevertheless some philosopher in their study of the esoteric philosophy of Avicenna, have come to the conclusion that the philosophy of the select or the Oriental Philosophy is not purely demonstrative but rather a kind of philosophy whose ultimate end is resting man from the imperfect and limited either world and guiding him to the higher spiritual world and the pure light, For further explanation see.

1- Ibn Qifti Tarkh al-Hukama edited by bahin Daraie Tehram Tehran University press 137 pp 555 - 570

2- Hanry Corbin History of Islamic Philosophy Henry Thomas The great Philosophy M.Notahharii Collected works nol 13 pp 80-86

3- See Avicenna Al-shifa section of Al-

Mantiq (Logic) and Al-Burhan (Argument) Qon the Library of Ayat Allah Al-Masrashi al-Najafi 1404 AH 4 vols 3 pp 96 - 97

4- for further explanation se hastishenasi (Ontology) by the present author fifty edition Chapter 4 the Second Problem pp 58-64

5- The principle if the Knowability of the world and the principle of noncontradiction are both self-evident and therefore do not belong to the question of any particular discipline, however because they the law and precepts of the absolute existent and therefore, naturally, defining their exact purports, investigating the condition of their validity and refuting the objections made to them mainly belong to the domain of philosophy, they are counted among the question of philosophy. Perhaps in such cases using the term ‘question’ denotes a ‘statement’ that has to be proved.

Therefore it would be better to call such principle ‘philosophical statement “rather than” philosophical question ‘’

6- According to the principle of simplicity, nature performs its task in the simplest way possible. This principle is employed in cases where in order to explain a certain nature phenomenon there are two or more acceptable theories. In such cases according to the principle of simplicity the theory that provides the simpler explanation should be preferred. The preference which scientists given to non- Euclidian geometry concerning is very vast space is based on this principle.