عنوان مقاله [English]
Ibn Sina and Suhrawardi as representatives of peripatetic and Ishraqi schools have disagreements over different topics which the most serious of them is dispute over “prime matter “as something which lacks actuality and is mere receptibility. By reference to philosophical books -in particular those relating to Avecennian wisdom- it can be observed that at most three arguments in proving the prime matter from Ibn Sina’s works is observable that its results is a belief in the composition of body from matter of bodily form. The author of Hikmat-al- Ishraq considers one of these arguments as nothing and criticizes the other two arguments seriously and regards the body as lacking prime matter and is mere substantial connection; but he in his “Talvihat” under the influence of the ideas of Ismaili sage and Ikhwan-al safa subscribes to the existence of prime matter in bodies.
Following this dual reaction, these questions can be raised: is Suhrawardi in agreement with Ibn Sina in Talvihat, but disagrees with him in Hikmat-Al Ishraq? Is his dispute with Ibn Sina on this problem a literal disagreement? The purpose of this reaserch is to present the differences of opinion between Suhrawardi and Ibn Sina, remove controvercy from Suhrawardi's point of view regarding prime matter.
On this basis some ideas of contemporary thinkers are studied and criticized.