In Greek philosophy, the later thinkers of Socrates paid more attention to the subject of “anthropology” than their predecessors, and especially in the works of Aristotle, issues related to this subject were presented in a special way. In parallel with him i
More
In Greek philosophy, the later thinkers of Socrates paid more attention to the subject of “anthropology” than their predecessors, and especially in the works of Aristotle, issues related to this subject were presented in a special way. In parallel with him in the East, “ontology” was at the service of “anthropology” from the very beginning, and it received considerable attention, including in the Sankehye school. Naturally, in both intellectual traditions, knowing the human soul has been more important and complex than the human body. The present research is responsible for explaining the intrinsic characteristics of the human soul from the perspective of the founders of the mentioned schools in a comparative way. Although Aristotle considered the soul to be abstract from the monster and the incorporeal, he considered it to be the first perfection of the organic natural body. In his view, the rational soul of man was also the sum of the powers of the vegetable and animal souls. But according to the sage Capila, the soul or Purusha has a very transcendent, transcendental and eternal identity which was neither the cause and the creator of something nor the effect and artifact of something. Purusha is entirely abstract from matter or precreity, but it is the stimulus for the emergence of beings. Belief in the multiplicity of populations is also a necessary necessity for the definition of the soul in peripatetic thought, but considering the attributes of the soul in Sankehya thought, the idea of multiplicity seems very strange.
Manuscript profile
