Abul Abbas Fadl Ibn Muhammed Lawkari was a prominent literary man, mathematician, and philosopher of the 5th century (AH). Through one intermediary, he was a student of Ibn Sina and a student of Bahmanyar and, through three intermediaries; he was a master of Khwajah Nasir al-Din Tusi. Lawkari was a well-known literary man who wrote poems in both Persian and Arabic. He had a collection of poems (diwan) from which only a few couplets are left. In addition, he left a treatise in which he presented all the principles of all axiomatic sciences, that is, logic, physics, ethics, mathematics, and practical wisdom in verse in Persian and explained them in eloquent Persian prose. Lawkari was a prominent mathematician who was assigned to compile the history of Jalali Malekshahi with the cooperation of some other mathematicians and astronomers such as Khayam Nishaburi, Khazani, Asfazari, and Vaseti. In the month of Ramezan of 471 AH, they moved the beginning of the month of Farvardin to the first of “haml” (Aries).He was one of the great philosophers of the 5th century who enjoyed complete mastery over the PERIPATETIC philosophy and spread philosophy in Khorasan. He trained some distinguished and famous students such as Qutb al-Zaman Tabasi Marwazi, ‘Abdulrazzaq Turki, and Sharaf al-Zaman Ilaqi. He also wrote a book called Bayan al-haq biziman al-sidq, which was a complete collection on all the axiomatic sciences of PERIPATETIC philosophy, intended to be used as a textbook. This work includes a summary of all the main problems of PERIPATETIC philosophy from the time of Aristotle until Bahmanyar. Of course, in spite of its brevity, it makes students of philosophy needless of all books on PERIPATETIC philosophers.Lawkari lived during the reign of Ghaznavid and Saljuk dynasties, i.e. during the period of the decline of rational sciences. Finally, with the rise of Abu Hamed Muhammed Ghazzali, the sworn enemy of philosophy, the chain of PERIPATETIC philosophers came to an end with Lawkari, and he was in fact the last PERIPATETIC philosopher in its particular sense. However, it must be added that, although rational sciences were greatly damaged by his demise, later they came back to the field of knowledge even stronger than before.

Aristotle's definition of imagination is the beginning of philosophers' conceptualizations of this issue. Farabi, Ibn Sina, and Suhrawardi have greatly extended this concept. Farabi defines imagination with three types of function: preserving the pictures of sensibles, manipulating them, and imitations of sensibles and intelligibles by pictures. Ibn Sina conceptualizes what Farabi called imagination and imaginal faculty in four distinct faculties called the faculty of imagination, imaginal faculty, the faculty of estimate, and memory.Suhrawardi believes that imaginal perception is a kind of Ishraqi presential knowledge and clarifies it based on the observation of suspending images. The most perfect theology of imagination for the conceptualization of creativity is that of Farabi, based on which the four different levels of the creativity of imagination are definable. However, these levels are also realized in Ishraqi or Illuminative imagination, which differs from PERIPATETIC imagination only in the way it is clarified.

All historians and researchers of Islamic Philosophy think of 11th/11th Century (in Safavid Era) as a period of blossoming of Iranian-Shi'I philosophy and the emergence of figures such as Mir Damad, Shaykh Bahai, Mulla Sadra, and Mir Findiriski. Among them, Abul-Qasim Mir Findiriski has been less than other introduced, and scientific and practical aspects of his life have not been discussed in details. More important is his school of taste which, if we take into account his various spiritual And intellectual dimensions as well as his Sufi life style, cannot be classified under philosophical, intuitionist, and mystical schools then popular in the history of Islamic philosophy.On the one hand, he was teaching books such as Ibn Sina's Shifa and Qanun, and on the other, he was so interested in pious life of Dervishes and even life ,style of Indian Yugis. In addition, poems left by him under the title "Ya'iyah Odes" (odes ending in the vowel /i/), suggest mainly his mystical and Illuminationist-Platonist and Neo-Platonist-inclinations. And these poem, have caused various and even conflicting stories to be presented about his views and school of thought. Thus, it seems to be difficult and even impossible to specify his intellectual orientation and practical ,style. One of the analyses made in this regard is that Mir's thought and approach is described as eclectic, and he is regarded as the meeting point of different - and even conflicting - theoretical and practical attitudes. While neglecting the "Ya'iyab Odes" and the relevant commentaries, the author of this article has tried to describe and analyze Mir'c intellectual attitudes and possibly his philosophical system based on three works of him.

Nasir al-Din al-Tusi is accepted by a number of historians of philosophy as a PERIPATETIC philosopher who followed Avicenna. The main claim of this article is that the above-mentioned view does not fully reflect the truth. Namely, it is a fact that in a number of his works, such as Musari al-Musari and Sharh al-Isharat, Tusi defended Avicenna against Asharite theologians Abu al-Fath al-Shahristani and Fakhr al-Din al-Razi. However, he wrote a number of books, such as Tajrid al- I`tiqad and Fusul, where he criticized some aspects of Avicenna`s thought. Considering the abovementioned facts, it could be claimed that Tusi`s thought system is a synthesis of kalamic and PERIPATETIC traditions.

Using a descriptive- analytical approach, the present paper expounds the main issues of epistemology in PERIPATETIC philosophy and comes to a conclusion about its educational implications. The epistemology of PERIPATETIC philosophy is a coherent and methodical system which combines the issues about psychology with angeology in two falling and rising patterns, and makes explicit combined rational explanations of different issues, such as the nature, kinds, hierarchy and sources of knowledge. Such explanations provide the necessary bases of extracting the educational implications, which follows that the connection with active mind can be regarded an important educational goal. In addition to achieving this goal some intermediary and longitudinal objectives, such as developing the outer and inner senses and intellectual faculties will be attainable. Furthermore, achievement of the above-mentioned bases and goals can contribute to realizing some implications about the principles, methods and curriculum. Due to the fact that these implications are drawn from the Islamic approach, they can be of great importance in designing religious curricula.

The semantics of ethics, as a branch of moral philosophy, examines the meaning of concepts such as humility. PERIPATETIC philosophers, following Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean, regard virtue as a balance between extremes. From their perspective, humility lies between the two vices of excess and deficiency in modesty—namely, humiliation and arrogance. Some PERIPATETICs interpret humility as an individual trait, while others explain it in relation to social status. Each approach is further divided into three views: humility as an inner disposition, as an external behavior, or as a combination of both. Within this framework, both humiliation and arrogance are considered moral vices. In contrast, Islamic ethics allows for certain exceptions: humiliation before God and arrogance toward the arrogant or hostile enemies are considered praiseworthy. Accordingly, humility must be defined in a way that encompasses these dimensions. The most comprehensive definition of humility is modesty before the Absolute Superior, whose true instance is humility before God. God’s superiority is complete and real by virtue of His role as the giver of existence. Other forms of humility derive their value from, and achieve their highest perfection through, this fundamental humility before God.

The problem of divine knowledge with a subset of related issues, is one of the most difficult philosophical problems that sheikh al-Rais has been addressing and solving in its numerous works. The view of Avicenna, especially regarding the problem of divine knowledge, has been criticized and abused by many, and even charged with exaggeration by thinkers such as Ghazali. This paper seeks to refine the view of Avicenna in a reflection on the basis of the philosophical foundations of Avicenna. The most important basis for Avicenna is the metaphysical distinction between existence and quiddity. In this article, firstly, the design of the Sheikh's base and its difference with the Mu'tazilite view are discussed. Then, by examining his view of divine knowledge in the three stages of the knowledge of essence, the knowledge of other things and the knowledge of the details, the ultimate theory of the Sheikh with respect to his later works The most important of these is "Al-TALIQT". According to the final view, since God is the source, it is pure action and all things, its knowledge of itself and other things, as well as the details is the presential knowledge.

Human soul and powers, their abstraction or lack of abstraction and their relations to each other have provoked wide-ranging discussions since long times ago. Miracle is an equivocal reality from which one side refers to the nature and the other one to metaphysics. Having a brief attitude of PERIPATETIC philosophy about human powers, this study intends to analyze their position in explicating miracle and then to explain it from perspective of transcendental philosophy. In some of his written works, Mulla Sadra has dealt with some powers apart from the agreed powers-which the PERIPATETIC philosophers were agreed on, too. He has mentioned them as the inherent powers of the soul. Attention to the role of these powers will cause fewer problems in explicating the position of miracle.

It is widely known contrary to the Hikmat-Mota'aliyya, which believes in composition through unification of matter and form, the PERIPATETIC believes in composition through annexation of the two. The attribution of this opinion to the PERIPATETICs is so strong that no one doubts that they believe in annexation composition, despite research on the subject demonstrating that it is not so simple and that such an attribution cannot be attributed to the PERIPATETIC with such conviction and certainty. The goal of this article is to refute the assertation that attributed to the PERIPATETIC. Those who believe in union or annexation composition have provided arguments to prove their position. Seyyed Sadr al-Din Dashtaki, also known as Seyyed Sanad, was the first to consider the combination of matter and form to be a union, and Mulla Sadra agreed with him. They document their opinion on previous philosophers in the same way that those who believe in annexation composition do. Seyyed Sanad, the innovator of the unified composition, also considers his theory to be based on the opinions of Ibn Sina and Bahmanyar and cites evidence from them to prove that matter and form exist outside as a one entity, he used Ibn Sina's statement that matter and form are one according to the entity and multiple according to the meaning. Furthermore, the combination of soul and body, which represent matter and form, is annexed, according to Bahmanyar's statement. While rejecting Sadr al-Din Dashtaki, Fayyaz Lahiji, who some consider to be an Ibn Sina follower, believes that matter and form exist as two distinct entities, and most philosophers believe in annexation combination. The majority of philosophers who mentioned meant PERIPATETICs, because the majority of those at the time were PERIPATETIC. Contemporaries of Fayyaz Lahiji, Mirdamad and his student Seyyed Ahmad Alavi, also consider the combination of matter and form to be annexed, rather than the union combination in the mind, such as genus and differentia. Hakim Sabzevari, a admirer of Hikmat-Mota'aliayya and an interpreter of Mulla Sadr's works, disagrees with him on this point accepting annexation composition as the opinion of great philosophers, including Ibn Sina. As a result, The issue of composition by way of unification and composition by way of annexation is one of Sadr al-Din Dashtaki's innovations in the ninth century AH and has not been discussed previously. As a result, it was not discussed in the books of Ibn Sina, Farabi, Bahmanyar, and other PERIPATETICs prior to Dashtaki, and they did not discuss this issue, but during and after Sadr al-Din Dashtaki, many philosophers, mostly PERIPATETICs like Mirdamad and Fayyaz Lahiji, argued against Dashtaki on this point. If we present this issue to the PERIPATETICs before Dashtaki, we can find evidence in favor of both unification and annexation, so one of these two cannot be attributed to them, and only through tolerance can the PERIPATETICs be convinced of the annexation combination.

The main questions of this paper concern how the human mind attains the notion of the Necessary Being in PERIPATETIC Philosophy, and to what extent it can know Him in terms of concept and judgment.A short response of the present paper to the above questions is that our realist intellect, based on its first judgment, qualifies each existing object with a necessary or possible attribute and, in this way, learns the concept of the Necessary Being. Later, based on philosophical arguments, it tries to demonstrate its applications. However, in spite of attaining a conceptual system of God Almighty in the light of rational analysis and a justified and honest belief in His Existence on the basis of philosophical arguments, our intellect is not capable of knowing Him perfectly.Therefore, in this philosophical system the unique source of our knowledge of God is the intellect. Moreover, in spite of enjoying the capacity for entering this domain, this intellect, too, is not capable of perceiving the existence of this Almighty Truth due to its essential limitations and the infinity of the object of recognition. Rather, it merely knows that the concept of the Necessary Being and the other concepts that are based on it have referents the truths of which are unknown to us.