263

NATIONALPARK-FORSCHUNG IN DER SCHWEIZ, 101(6), 263-269

Vol. 101, No. 6; June 2012, 263-269
NATIONALPARK-FORSCHUNG
IN DER SCHWEIZ
(Switzerland Research Park Journal)
http://www.naukpub.com



Aristotle and Avicenna: The Subject of Philosophy
Dr. Hossein Falsafi1, Masoumeh Shahbazi2

1 Faculty board member, Khorram-Abad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Khorram Abad,Iran
2 MA Student of the Islamic Wisdom and Philosophy, Khorramabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Khorram-
Abad, Iran



ABSTRACT
The summary of any science is what it talks about its problems and inherent in it in virtue of its own nature. And by
its change, the problems will be changed. Aristotle proposes few items as the philosophy subjects. Most
philosophers and commentators enumerated "being as being" as the subject of "philosophy" and made their theory
upon that. One of those persons was Avicenna, the famous Iranian philosopher. In this article, by observing
precisely the "Metaphysic", it will be at first cleared that the subject of philosophy is the substance and not being as
being, and at the second, by observing the "Shafa" book of Avicenna, it will be cleared that Avicennas
understanding from the Aristotle metaphysic was a wrong understanding. And his reasons for the subject of "being
as being" was completely wrong and were without logical support.
Keywords: Aristotle, Avicenna, Subject of philosophy, Being as being, substance


Introduction
The eternal written of Aristotle (piototcq,
Aristotls, 384 BC 322 BC) the great Greek
philosopher is known as "Metaphysic".Aristotle
believes that there are three kinds of knowledge:
a- Speculative science; which is not looking
after any benefit and it looks only after the
reality.
b- Productive science; which is dealing with
the force and art.
c- Practical science; which is not out of the
man who do it.
From his point of view, the variations of these
sciences are concerned sometimes to their
beginnings, to their aims or to their processes.
The beginning of the Speculative science is at the
outside of human beings, and the beginning of the
Productive science and the Practical science is in the
inside of human beings. He says:"...because, the
origin of made thins is inside the human beings that
means wisdom and art (technique), or a kind of
potential. But the origin of the Practical science is
who does it, that is the choice or selection, as what
has been done and what is selected are the same "For
in the case of things produced the principle of motion
(either mind or art or some kind of potency) is in the
producer; and in the case of things done the will is
the agentfor the thing done and the thing willed are
the same." (Aristotle. Met. 6.1025b)
Each of these kinds of knowledge is divided in
sections. The Speculative science has three sections;
mathematics, physics and theology. Aristotle believes
that the Speculative science is more important than
two others, as this is honorable science and among
the Speculative science, the theology is more
valuable than the mathematics and physics. (Aristot.
Met. 6.1026a).
Aristotle calls this knowledge as "prote philosophia"(
Aristot. Met. 11.1061b), wisdom "Sophia"( Aristot.
264
NATIONALPARK-FORSCHUNG IN DER SCHWEIZ, 101(6), 263-269
Met. 3.996b), the study of truth (Aristot. Met. 2.993a)
and divine"theologika" ( Aristot. Met. 1.983a).
He knows the subject of this science as follows:
1- Investigation the forms separated of the
mater (Aristot. Met.11.7 ).
2- Investigation the form or shape (Aristot. Met,
12, 7-9).
3- Beginning of the movement of
unmovable(Ibid)
4- Goodness and
kindness(Aristot.Met.1.982b4&.2.996b11&.1
1.1059a34-35)
3- Truth (Aristot. Met.1.993a3&.1.983b1)
6- The first wager and the eternal moving
(Aristot. Met.11.sec.7&8)
7- Knowing of the valuable things (Aristot. Met.
6.1026a.21)
8- Knowing being as
being(Aristot.Met.1.984b28&4.1003b15,16&
1003a20&1005b1)
9- Substance.
(Aristot.Met.2.996b&997&4.1003a13,1005b
11,)
10-Cause (Aristot.Met.1.982-983&2.996a35-
b&4.1003b2)
11- Investigation of the force and action(Aristot.
Met.9&12)
12- Substance separate of the mater, specially the
God (Aristot. Met.9.1046a&11.1069b)

Being as being (on hei on), the first causes (prote
aitiai kai archai) and the first substance ( prote ousia),
among the mentioned subjects are more valuables, as
Aristotle has paid more attention than the other
subjects, and we can refer the other subjects to them.
Each of the who know Aristotle, have selected one of
the mentioned subjects.. Some people concerned
them as the substances separate of the mater, and
others took as the general existence (owens, 8, 12-
13&67). David Ross, the substance and inappreciable
substance(Ross,1998,p243) and Marta Nussbaum,
believes to the meaning of the
substance(nussbaum,1981,p46).
Most of the Iranian philosophers, such as Farabi,
Avicenna, Sadra have accepted the 8
th
choice from
the different suggested subjects of Aristotle, and they
have closed their eyes to the others, and made their
philosophy palace over it. There are few questions
rise here and challenge the wisdom of any wise.
1-Truely, whats the subject of philosophy from the
point of view the Aristotle?
2- What kind of reasons has these philosophers for
this choice?
3-Do the reason of these philosophers has a solid
pillar or not
4- Does the subject of philosophy can be out of all
suggested choices or not?
5- Why the choice of being as being is the subject of
philosophy and not the other choices, and...?

Methodology
In this article, at first it is proved that from the
Aristotle that the subject of philosophy is the
substance not being as being , and secondly, the
understanding of the Iranian philosophers is wrong in
this regard. To illustrate this point that the subject of
philosophy from the Aristotle point of view is the
substance and not being as being, we review the
metaphysic. And secondly, to prove the wrongness of
the Iranian philosophers regardless the Aristotle view
about the subject of philosophy, we analyze the
Avicenna point of view upon the great book of Shafa.
A. From our point of view, none of the mentioned
views is not the Aristotles saying about the first
subject of philosophy. The reason of we guess that,
the reason for the inaccuracy of these sayings is that:
everybody had a part of the metaphysic book and not
all of it. By evaluating the book from the beginning
to the end, we can conclude that the first subject of
philosophy from the Aristotle point of view substance
as the substance, and it's reflect is being as being.
After rewriting an introduction concerning the
metaphysic, Aristotle believes that upon the general
view, the doktorine"wisdom" is the knowledge about
the first causes and starting points, he himself accepts
this view and says: "Thus it is clear that Wisdom is
knowledge of certain principles and causes". (Aristot.
Met. 1.982a).
Aristotle iterates the various views concerning the
wise man and believes that as the first philosophy
investigate the first causes so it is the most general ,
most precise and the most wrathful sciences (Aristot.
Met. 1.982a).
He talks about four types of cause: Superficial,
Material, Subjective and Ultimate(Aristot. Met.
1.983b).
Aristotle begins the understanding of the primary
causes by investigating the ancestorss view in this
regard and says"- let us call to our aid those who
have attacked the investigation of being and
philosophized about reality before us. For obviously
they too speak of certain principles and causes."
(Aristot. Met. 1.983b). Upon this retell; existence,
reality, principles and the first causes are all the
same.
Then he investigates the various views about the
existence and the first causes. Most of the first
philosophers believe that the nature is the beginning
of everything. Even though everything are created
from them and then will be destroyed, but the
beginners are eternal." since this sort of entity is
265
NATIONALPARK-FORSCHUNG IN DER SCHWEIZ, 101(6), 263-269
always conserved"( Aristot. Met. 1.983b).Some
(scientists) believe that; this starting point is the
water, others believes the air and so on.. In
addition to the material staring points few people
talks the subjective causes. For example; Lokipus and
Demokritus say:" the full and the empty are the
elements, calling the one being and the other non-
being."(Ibid).
Upon Pitagurian" it is obvious that these thinkers too
consider number to be a first principle, both as the
material of things and as constituting their properties
and states." (Aristot. Met. 1.986a). But they appear to
reckon their elements as material; for they say that
these are the original constituents of which Being is
fashioned and composed. (Aristot. Met. 1.986b).
Aristotle after investigation of the view of these
mindful peoples says a phrase that without any doubt
it means that: the existence is the same as the
mentioned elements such as water, air and they
have the same meaning. Concerning the Pitagourian
he says:" since they do not, while assuming a unity,
at the same time make out that Being is generated
from the unity as from matter(Aristot. Met. 1.986b).
Parmenides is a philosopher who believes the
unit(henos) is the first element. What s the unit? It
appears that Parmenides conceived of the Unity as
one in definition, [20] but Melissus as materially one.
Hence the former says that it is finite, and the latter
that it is infinite (Aristot. Met. 1.986b).
The difficulty of Aristotle work is with deep Platonic
thoughts. I saw that before him, the first principle
was the substance and the existence is material and
sensitive, but plato talks about the immaterial,
insensitive and general existence in addition to the
material existence... This is the main reason of the
Aristotles perplexity. In other word, up to the plato
time, till this point is proposed by him (plato).
plato is somehow one of the Cratyluss friend's m,
and due to this reason he is aware of the Heraklatius s
thoughts who said:" the whole sensible world is
always in a state of flux, and that there is no scientific
knowledge of itand in after years he still held these
opinions (Aristot. Met. 1.987a). and from the other
hand he is the Socrates s follower. Who has no
relation with the substances and was searching the
generalities or universal( to katholou).He was the
first man who focused the thought over the
definitions. Plato also believes that the definitions are
of the insensitive things, because the general
definition is not obtained from the passing sensitive
things. These entities he called "Ideas"(Aristot. Met.
1.987b).
. Aristotles understanding, which is not even told by
Plato, is that: Plato places the ideas over the sensitive
things and just in the same size. The ideas are not the
sensitive things but they are just homonymous. For
any individual thing, there is always a homonymous
thing" homonumon" separate the natures and for the
all other things you may find one over the many. That
means:"For the Forms are as many as, or not fewer
than, the things in search of whose causes these
thinkers were led to the Forms; because
corresponding to each thing there is a synonymous
entity apart from the substances (and in the case of
non-substantial things there is a One over the Many),
both in our everyday world and in the realm of
eternal entities" (Aristot. Met. 1.990b).
That is why, the world is divided in two moieties for
Aristotle: a moiety of it is sensitive and the other
moiety is insensitive, which they have no bonding
with each other.
Based on the Aristotle report, till the Socrates time,
the existence and the substance were all material. So
by Socrates and his follower that the immaterial
world is born with the material world. And resulted
in the perplexity of thoughts. The world of the ideas
is separated from the world of the materials, and spite
of this, that world is the origin of this world. So
Aristotle cries that the nothing is separated from the
nature and the ideas are not the generalities of the
nature principle, consequently, the ideas has no share
in the sensitive things (Aristot. Met. 1.991a).
From our point of view, the main points of Aristotle
in "the metaphysic" are an effort to decode this
problem that plato made it. My witness is the
Aristotles critics over the platos ideas, and the
difficulties which Aristotle faces with them and he
tries all over the "Metaphysic" to find a response for
them.
Now, Aristotle faces with the generalities separated
from the things, so he is thinking what to do with
them Accepting or refusing that world, will cause
many difficulties. If we leave them, the quantity of
the knowledge will be clopped, as the knowledge
evolves with the generalities, and without those
(generalities) there is no knowledge (Aristot. Met.
3.999a).If we accept that the ideas has no bonding
and relation with the sensitive things, because they
are not the nature(origin), we can see that Aristotle is
blocked over the fork of platos thought, and he tries
to find the solution. In my point of view, Aristotle
has opened the blind knot by making subjective the
ideas, the platonic generalities and investigating the
world of out of mind. In other word, he has selected
the intermediate way through those (two) ways. In
"Metaphysic", he started few works, and finally he
finished them:
A. Plato thinks about the existence and the substance.
In his point of view, the existence and real substance
are the idea and the generalities which are stood over
this world. On the contrary, Aristotle places them in
the mind. He shows many times being subjective the
266
NATIONALPARK-FORSCHUNG IN DER SCHWEIZ, 101(6), 263-269
generalities, which their head are the existence and
the unity (Aristot. Met. 3.1003a, Aristot. Met.
7.1038b).Being subjective of these generalities with
the other generalities such as animal (genus) and
human being (species) are not the same.genus and
Species of the substance are the sensitive things, but
the existence and the unity of the substance are not
anything, so their place is in the mind. And their role
is ontological role (Aristot. Met. 3.998b). the
equivalence of the generalities and the things are
three kinds: Homonymous of one idea of thing with
that thing, ;such as the application of animal for
Hushang and Bahram and the equivalence of the
third kind that is separated from these two kinds and
it applies for the existence and the unity (Aristot.
Met. 4.1003b).
B. Aristotle takes, Ideas such as animal and human
beings, the preliminary concepts upon the Muslim
philosophers, from the world of ideas to the inside
the sensitive things. The same manner he takes ideas
such as existence and unity, the secondary
philosophy and logical concepts upon the Muslim
philosophers to the inside of mind. Many people
thought they are the same, and consequently made
the incorrect judgments about Aristotle.
C. Existence and subjective unity in front of nature or
character (means instead) has an outside, and the
philosopher duty is to know the outside world and not
the mind concepts. Now, the question is that what is
the outside thing? It can be easily told: " the
substance, which is equivalent to Greek word of
"ousia' delivered from ousa, that itself is the feminine
subject from "eima" infinitive in Greek., that means:
to be or is"( Aristot. Met.1987,147).
From point of view of "the substance in its realest
meaning is the first subject( to hupokeimenon
proton)( Aristot. Met. 7.1029a). the first has different
meanings, and the substance upon all meanings, is
the first.
"Now "primary" has several meanings; but
nevertheless substance is primary in all senses, both
in definition and in knowledge and in time. For none
of the other categories can exist separately, but
substance alone; and it is primary also in definition,
because in the formula of each thing the formula of
substance must be inherent; and we assume that we
know each particular thing most truly when we know
what "man" or "fire" is "( Aristot. Met. 7.1028a).
upon to the origin, the concept of existence is just the
nature and nothing else, from the Aristotle view."
Indeed, the question which was raised long ago is
still and always will be, and which always baffles
us"What is Being?"is in other words "What is
substance?(Aristot. Met. 7.1028b,).
There are some people who put under question this
saying that; the substance is not the being, because
Aristotle, himself at first believes that the being is
equivocation, and not the substance (Aristot. Met.
7.1029a&Aristot. Met. 7.1029b). Secondly, the
concept of being is more universal than substance,
because it includes substance and accident (Aristot.
Met. 7.1005a). thirdly, the concept of being is clear,
and the substance is not like this (Aristot. Met.
7.1041a) and The subject of philosophy should be
something clear, and has no need to have any
definition. Thus "in our point of view, the western
philosophers did a big mistake in the Aristotles
divisions. Being neutral, I would say that the Muslim
philosophers did not do this mistake. Aristotle
divides the being into the experimental types, and
that refers to the examples and its cases. In fact it is
not a division, but by the expression, giving the
decree upon to the examples. Aristotle has given the
examples, and the commentators thought that
Aristotle has in fact divided the meaning of the being
this kind. For the Islamic who follow the logic. This
is a kind of misunderstanding of what comes from the
consequences to what comes from the origin. Or in
the other word, chicanery of concept to the case.
Aristotle has shown the cases of being (applications
in their saying), that being has few kinds of
applications. But they took these cases as the logical
and conceptual definition of being. For example, he
says that; being is sometimes substance, such as
existence of human being, mountain, and body which
are the case of being. At this time, he uses the being
as the meaning of substance which is as the case.
Now the westerns think that Aristotle took the being
equal to the substance " (haeri,1981,3-4).
I think that these critics are inaccurate, as Aristotle
has clearly given their responses. At first, being
equivocation is related to the substance. Both the
material and form are substances, but the form is
more substance than material (Aristot. Met. 9.1049b - (
Aristot. Met. 9.1051a).Secondly the most general
concept is the being, and the most external general
thing is the substance, because the substance the
same type as the materials, there is no other thing
more important than that. In addition to this, if we
look deeply to the Aristotle talks, we may find that
the accident and related being are truly the substance,
not the other thing separate of it. In other word,
dividing the being to the substance and accident is
somehow subjective and not external. Therefore, the
substance includes also the accident, and the accident
is not something next to the substance. "Clearly then
the study of things which are, qua being, also
belongs to one science. Now in every case knowledge
is principally concerned with that which is primary,
i.e. that upon which all other things depend, and from
which they get their names. If, then, substance is this
primary thing, it is of substances that the philosopher
267
NATIONALPARK-FORSCHUNG IN DER SCHWEIZ, 101(6), 263-269
must grasp the first principles and causes"( Aristot.
Met. 4.1003b). and also" the primary being is not that
special being, but it is the absolute being (on haplos),
that should be the substance (Aristotle. Met.
7.1028a), and thirdly, as the substance is the same as
the things, cant have a definition. I think, this type of
critics started from the mixing the mind and outside,
which we can avoid this chicanery by the exercises.
It is cleared up to now; the subject of the philosophy
is the substance. Now we should ask up to what
extent, philosophy will discover the substance? It is
the place where it is talked about properties without
inherent in it in virtue of its own nature. The
substance without any property is still subjective. The
outside substance has the properties with and without
inherent in it in virtue of its own nature, which is
investigated in the philosophy of the primary
properties. If you search whole outside extent, except
these items, there is no more; the sensitive substance
and the insensitive substance. The sensitive substance
are either destructive or not. The destructives are
monster, shape or body. Those which are not
destructive are spatial matters. The insensitive
substances are either God or intellect, that they are
two groups: the intellects of the universe and the
intellects of the man, so the duty of philosopher is to
know these things.

Avicenna believes that there are two kinds of
knowledges: speculative and practical. He and the
other Muslim philosopher did not talk about the
productive knowledge of Aristotle. The speculative
intellect is; "we want to accomplish the subjective
power of soul. Awareness of the things that their
being is not related to our behaviors and situations"(
Avicenna,1974,3). Practical knowledge is that" to
accomplish the subjective power of soul with the
awareness and approving the things which their being
is related to our behavior and situation" (Ibid,10)
speculative knowledge is for passing the subjective
power, and the practical knowledge is for passing the
acting power, so the human being has two separated
powers. In the book of soul in"Shafa", they call
clearly the two soul powers on the base of
homonymous or similar as intellect. thus, we can say
that Avicenna believes in two speculative and
practical intellect(Avicenna,1974,37). He says about
the extent work of both: human being soul has two
layers: a layer to the body and the other layer to the
active wisdom. The fist layer will look after bonding
the soul and body, and the second layer prepares
knowing the realities. The first layer is just the moral
knowledge (Ibid, 38). Avicenna, like Aristotle thinks
that the speculative knowledges composed of three
parts: mathematics, physics, and theology. Each of
these knowsledges have a subject. Avicenna
suggests few subjects for the theology :
1-the things which do need neither the being nor
knowing the material.
2- The main primary causes of being of natural
andmathematical things.
3-God which is the main primary cause of anything.
4- Being as being (Ibid, first article, second chapter).

He first leaves the third suggestion, because if God
be the subject of primary philosophy, we cannot
solidify the being of God on this kind of knowledge.
If we cannot solidify the being of God on this
knowledge, you should either build it on the other
knowledge or we should accept that the being of God
will never be solidified. From the point of view of
Avicenna, These two statement are not correct, as , at
first, in the speculative knowledges, such as
mathematics, moral, and.., it cannot be find any
knowledge that the being of God can be illustrated.,.
Secondly, if we are not looking after the
solidification the God being, the reason and human
wisdom has the ability of knowing him. Avicenna,
does not know the being of God be cleared and does
not need of any reason, from one side, because the
being of God is not clear by itself, and from the
other hand, to know him the human wisdom is
capable. Because if the human wisdom was unable,
he was also unable to bring the reason, and we know
that bringing the reason for Gods being is the sign of
wisdom hope. Besides, if there were no hope to bring
the reason for Gods being, how we can solidify his
being, so the subject of philosophy is not Gods
being.

Avicenna illustrates that the subject of philosophy is
not even the primary causes. We know that, from the
Aristotle point of view, everything has four causes:
Material, doer, formal and final. The causes of every
thing are either near or far. Here we look after the far
causes, which we talk about them in the philosophy...
Some people, thought, the subject of philosophy is
those four causes, some others, thought there , two or
even one of them are the subject of philosophy.
Therefore, from Avicenna point of view, the primary
causes cannot be the subject of philosophy neither
based upon their cause, nor upon their being. (Ibid).
After leaving the God and, and the final causes,
Avicenna, found that there are some problems that
will not be included in any kinds of these knowledge.
So it should exist certain section or branch of
knowledge that has an overall subject, in which
these problems be its characteristic. This overall
section is just the primary philosophy. The subject of
this section is being as being, because, first, it is
overall, and secondly it does not need to any
268
NATIONALPARK-FORSCHUNG IN DER SCHWEIZ, 101(6), 263-269
definition, and approve, consequently it is needless of
the other knowledge (Ibid, 13).

Conclusions
Avicenna, did not look after the first choice, and
leaves the second and third one, but he knew the
fourth choice as the subject of philosophy. This
talk(point of view) of Avicenna was accepted by the
majority of philosophers, which they made the
base(structure) of philosophy upon that, and make the
wall of philosophy incline, they did not look after
any right bar, was happened what was happened.

In our point of view this understanding of Avicenna
form the subject of philosophy is not correct from
different views. which here we do mention few of
them;
The understating of Avicenna form Aristotle talks
about the subject of philosophy is a desired
understanding. He named four choices of ten choices,
and reach quickly to this conclusion that the subject
of philosophy is the being as being. And no more. It
seems that the being as being is not the subject of
philosophy. Here we talk about some reasons;
The most fundamental word in the Islamic culture is
the word of being and existent, which the other
problems is turned around it. This word should be
obligatory from the deepest words. And its
philosophy meanings must be illustrated from the
others. But this fundamental word has neither this
nor that.

The Arab language for the geek (to on), being and
Persian "hast" and "ast", has no word. The translators
for translating (to on), made few words such as "is",
"hoviat", "eniat"(fakhri,1993,107)
As Farabi has told; the Arab language has never a
word for Greek and Persian "hast". While during
Arab acquaintance with philosophy, they needed
badly this word... A group used the word "hova' that
means"ast", and the others the word"being' that
means"hasti" and existent as"hast'. From the view
point of Farabi, the application of the word
existent"vojoud" is strayness because it is a derivate
word, and the derivate words are something in the
other thing. Such as the existent, that means being is
in something. In addition to that, the application of
derivated word from being means creation of work
from a man(farabi,1990,sec,14)

The clearest meaning of"vajd' is finding and
knowing .Therefore, being and existent have this
meaning.. Build the base of philosophy on this base
may not be right. This talk means that the existent is
subjective(etebary), and not objective. Because, in
any language, for the outside matters, such as
extended and valuable being, if we took it external,
it should be a word.
The reasons of Avicenna for the being;A)Being is the
knowledge of primary philosophy and B) being as
being being the subject of philosophy, has no logical
support Because first,For proving the being, the
knowledge of primary philosophy he profit from two
introductions: first, he divided the philosophy
knowledges in natural, mathematical, and logical. He
knows the body, as the subject of natural science. The
body has various shapes. The body is created upon
this base that is a body... which is a mixture of
material and form.and the body on this base which
moves or not. Avicenna knows the body as the
subject of natural science from this point that it
moves or not... he knows the subject of mathematic
as a measure and the properties without mediator.
From the Avicenna point of view, the subject of logic
knowledge, are the second reasonable that are jointed
with the primary reasonable.
Secondly, problems such as "unity" and multi-unity
and. Means that they do not open to the said
subjects, and they will reach to this conclusion that,
the section of the primary philosophy should be with
the subject of learning the being as being.
With a deep look, it can be found that both
introductions are weak and sick, because dividing the
sciences to natural, mathematical and logical, is not a
wise classification, and because we have problems
that are not opened to any subject of natural,
mathematical and logical sciences, we cannot
conclude that we should have a science, named the
primary philosophy with the subject of being as
being. We can conclude that we have the various
knowledge that the subject of each one is one of
those problems, or all of them will be investigated in
the other knowledge such as subjective acquaintance
and theological sections.
B-Avicenna, knows the reason of being as being, two
things:
1-being overall of the being as being.
2-Needless of its definition and approve. Being weak
of both reasons is son clear like, a camel on the scale;
especially the unity and being a thing are being
overall of equivalent being. Giving the priority of one
to the other, for example, unity or good is a desired or
illogic work. Because from the Aristotles point of
view, being and unity are the same (Aristot. Met.
4.1003b,1005a,1030a,b, ). Avicenna also took the
unity equivalent of the being, and he intends that he
counts the subject of philosophy knowledge.(
Avicenna,1991,493) Second, It is cleared for
everybody, that the second reasonable are the simple
meanings, and none of them are definitive., and in
this way none of them has priority to the others, and
to be proved, they are surely the same,. Consequently
269
NATIONALPARK-FORSCHUNG IN DER SCHWEIZ, 101(6), 263-269
make prior to the others is chicory, and Avicenna did
so.


References
Greek text with English: Metaphysics. Trans. Hugh
Tredennick. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library 271, 287.
Harvard U. Press, 1933-35. ISBN 0-674-99299-7,
ISBN 0-674-99317-9.
Owens,Joseph,The doctrine of being the Aristotelian
metaphysics,flunter Rose company,toronto,canada
,1987.
The Complete Works of Aristotle. Revised Oxford
Translation. Edited by Jonathan Barnes. 2 vols.
1984 The Jowett Copyright Trustees. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1984.
Ibn Sina, Alshfa Theology, Grand Ayatollah
Almrshy Alnjfy Glossary Mktbh verse, Qom in 1404
AH,1984.
Ibn Sina, references and punishments, translated by
Hassan Malekshahi Tehran, Soroush, 1989.
Ibn Sina, Alnjah, edited and foreword by Mohammad
Taghi Daneshpazhooh, Tehran University Press2000.
Aristotle, post-paranormal, translated Sharaf al-addin
Khorasani, broadcast speech, Tehran 1986.
Aristotle, about self, translation and source text
Alimorad Davoodi Tehran 1988 Wisdom
Publications.
Haeri Yazdi, doctor Mahdi, the pyramid of existence:
a comparative analysis of the principles of ontology,
the Institute of Cultural Studies, Tehran 1982.
Ross, David, Aristotle, translated by Mehdi Ghavam
Safari,Tehran,ThinkingDay1998.
the development of philosophy in the Islamic world,
Majed Fakhry, Tehran, Center for Academic
Publications,1993.
Alfaraby, Abu Nasr, Book Alhrvf, R Mohsen Mahdi,
Beirut,Daralmshrq,1990.
Nussbaum, Martha, Aristotle, translated Ezzatollah
Sher, Tehran, New Design, Second Edition 2001.