The STOICS as psychological philosophers and Rumi as a religious psychologist, have paid close attention to enhancing resilience. The present paper is the result of an interdisciplinary study in the field of applied philosophy to describe, explain and compare the thought of the STOICS and Rumi regarding the ways resilience can be enhanced in dealing with the problems of everyday life. The significance of the current research is in providing practical solutions to enhance resilience against distressing events. The assumption is that following these solutions will bring happiness and peace. In the course of the research from the perspective of the STOICS and Rumi, we have identified points of similarity and difference in the of ways resilience can be enhanced. A point of similarity between the two is that both the STOICS and Rumi considered the origin and cause of good and evil to be internal,that is why self-knowledge and ultimately self-actualization are introduced as the most important elements in strengthening resilience in the teachings of these thinkers. On the other hand, the STOICS searched for peace and happiness in philosophy, while Rumi considers happiness in an intuitive connection with God.

The Stoic thought has been very influential on Western philosophy. The influence has been very decisive on the modern era, i. e. 16th to 18th centuries. In the following essay I analyzed and compared the ethical system of the STOICS and that of Spinoza seeking to explain the relationship between them. The pattern of Stoic-Spinozan ethical thought is importantly different from the pattern of Aristotelian ethical thought (which had a great impact on the Ethics of the Islamic era). There is a close bond between Aristotelians ethics and theoretical principles but such principles are not ultimately the foundations of morality. But ethics from the STOICS viewpoint is vehemently grounded on logic and physics. Ethics, in their view, was the most important part of philosophy, and other philosophical discussions are bases or mere preliminaries of Ethics. In the same vein, Spinoza, as it is obvious from the title and structure of his book, Ethics, . has discussed Metaphysics as the basis of Ethics. Delving into Stoic-Spinozan Ethics brings us to the conclusion that moral virtue and perfection necessitates deep knowledge of Man and Universe. Virtuous man is wise and therefore has stronger mental capabilities comparing to other individuals. On one hand, Virtuous man is positively active and some submissive feelings such as sorrow, fear, depression, disillusionment, on the other hand, are signs of weakness and inability. Virtuous man is not beset by these feelings. Therefore virtue is power. This inner power affects outer power.

Humility, in this paper, is described as the central concept in understanding Montaigne's philosophy. It is the common ground that relates all the themes and concerns in his thought. When speaking about theology, epistemology and politics, he just wants to revive the spirit of humility in these areas. This paper shows Montaigne not as a skeptic but as a humble philosopher and humility as the key to his philosophy in four areas of knowledge, virtue, theology and politics. His humility led to a reasonable skepticism in knowledge and a natural and spontaneous virtue in ethics and battling humanism of his age in theology and resisting against both dictatorship and revolution in politics. Finally, Montaigne is recognized as a philosopher who wants to dwell humanity in its right position and brings the importance of body, nature and emotions to attention. He reminds us again and again that we as humans are natural, bodily and emotional beings and our virtue and happiness is dependent on accepting these human conditions.

In this article Descartes philosophy is considered from on ethical point of view. At first the importance of morality in the big picture of his philosophy is demonstrated. Descartes is introduced as a sage whose philosophy is first of all an ethical and therapeutic one. We have considered Descartes similarities with STOICS and explored the most practical aspects of his philosophy illustrated in his letters especially. After that, two important passions in Descartes' ethics are clarified, i.e., generosity and love. At the end we have emphasized that- against some current conceptions about Descartes philosophy- his deepest and most ultimate concerns were about some ancient ideas such as good life, ethics, and wisdom.

The current study attempts to evaluate the claim that Mirdamad and his disciples, such as Mulla Sadra and Mir Seid Ahmad Alavi, considered Suhrawardi a Successors of the STOICS. Since the STOICS have been quoted in a small number of publications in Islamic works, by searching in these sources, all the narrations cited and related to the STOICS are compared with Suhrawardi's views, and about forty similar cases have been considered among their opinions. The results suggest: A) Direct effects: objects as quantity, the different definition of the substance and the accident, form as accident, denial of the prime matter, denial of real condensation and rarefaction, spherical revolutions, and etc. B) Indirect effects: the reduction of the ten categories, the hierarchy of existence, the immateriality of the soul, and etc. It is also examined that on the basis of what evidence Mirdamad and his disciples called Suhrawardi "successors of stoic". Previously, John Wallbridge (2000) attempted to answer the question of why Mulla Sadra regarded Suhrawardi as a "successors of the Stoic". But, his answer has been criticized, and it is hypothesized in the current study that due to link between the "al-aqdamin" (the ancients) in Suhrawardi's works and the stoic's views, Mirdamad Sheikh has called him as an "successors of the stoic".

It is one of the basic questions of the Logic that why Aristotle has not dealt with conditional logic. How has the very originator of logic not paid any attention to such an important topic? Has this carelessness been some kind of ignorance or has it been deliberated and Aristotle has had good reasons for that? In this article, after having examined the conditional logic (conditional syllogism and proposition) from the STOICS' point of view and explaining its significance for modern logicians, theoretical and philosophical bases of the two systems of predicative and conditional logic have been discussed.With studying Aristotle's philosophy and having in mind his specific views regarding categories and the insertion of the things in The Ten Categories we can conclude that Aristotle has had an essence-based way of thinking and this is completely different from empirical thinking of the STOICS, because STOICS deal with external laws of the things in their philosophical thinking, rather than with essence and nature of the things. Therefore, the STOICS have deviated from the predicative logic and have focused on conditional logic, because this kind of viewing the beings does not have the necessities of an insertion and predicative system. In the same way that, we cannot speak conditionally and dubiously with a class-based look at the world's beings. In other words, regarding Aristotle's philosophical and ontological bases, we cannot accept conditional logic. For this reason, Aristotle has not entered discussing conditional syllogism and proposition in his works, whereas Megara school have dealt with these discussions before Aristotle, and after him this discussion has been seriously followed by the STOICS, because it has been more compatible with their ontology.

The STOICS believed that valid arguments are reduced to “undemonstrated’s’’ through “thema’s”. This interpretation, implied by ancient authors, considers Stoic logic as an axiomatic system with argumental rules. On the basis of this view on Stoic logic, undemonstrated’s are used as axioms and Themas as transmission rules. Yet, SextusEmpiricus in his book, Against the Logicians, introduced two examples of Stoic reduction of valid arguments to undemonstrated’s in which he used undemonstrated’s as sentential rules. In this approach, undemonstrated’s are used as inference rules and Themas don’t play any different reasonable role than undemonstrated’ss; on the other words, undemonstrated’s and Themas are used as inference rules. Mates and Bochenski didn’t attention to this conflict and analyzed these two examples like Empiricus. This paper brings up this conflict and suggests two solutions for it. Based on first solution, Stoic logic has two various surfaces and in each surface, it includes one of argumental or sentential rules; Therefore argumental rules and sentential rules can be used simultaneously. In second solution, based on the historical development of Stoic logic, two mentioned interpretations are attributed to STOICS in different historical periods.

This article aims to review the theory of peripatetic hylomorphism and its foundations in the face of new physical perspectives (theory of Atom). For this purpose, two competing views of this theory in the history of Islamic philosophy, that is, the theory attributed to the STOICS (by Abolbarakat and Suhrawardi) and Atomism in its philosophical (small solid objects) and theology interpretations (a substance that cannot be further broken down), have been studied. Then, the approach of contemporary thinkers towards the theory of hylomorphism is examined. Furthermore, it has been shown that their views can be divided into three groups. Two groups of them have rejected the theory of hylomorphism. Furthermore, each of them has somehow supported one of its historically rival theories. Mohyeddin Elahi Ghomshei and Hassanzadeh Amoli have become interested in Atomism, and Mesbah Yazdi and Fayyazi have tended to the theory attributed to the STOICS. Others such as Fazel Touni and Allameh Tabataba’ i have tried to somehow reconcile this theory with the theory of small solid objects and a new perspective on physics. Nevertheless, some of the foundations of hylomorphism theory face various philosophical and empirical challenges. Such as knowing that the body is connected, the body parts are not present, and that the prime matter (Hyle) still exists.

Introducing chance into the domain of Ethics means that there are factors outside a person's control that intervene and have an effect in his happiness. Since Aristotle stipulates the attainment of happiness to be in possessing virtues and enjoyment of external desires and also considers «human beings natural happiness» to be an ethical issue, it seems that he has admitted a type of internal and environmental chance into man's happiness; but despite this, he does not consider chance to be effective in evaluating a person's responsibility and moral status. Therefore, Julia Annas– a contemporary Neo Aristotelian philosopher – considers Aristotle to have committed the paradoxical phenomenon of «environmental and internal moral chance». In this article, while examining how chance was introduced to the domain of Ethics by Aristotle, we will go into a review of Julia Annas's view in this regard. By choosing an unsteady approach, Annas ultimately concludes that considering all the studies that have been done throughout history, one cannot reach a certainty among the views of the STOICS and Aristotle in regards to this topic and therefore, by not ignoring the view of the STOICS based on the fact that «man's happiness is generally free of chance», she does not disregard man's responsibility and moral status and therefore, she concludes he is not affected by moral chance.

Stoicism was an outstanding one among the Hellenistic schools, and have had a great influence on Greek and Roman life. Among its teachings the so called conatus (self-preservation) specially has been asserted as the first command of every thing’s nature: the first instinct and the first desire of every living creature is an effort for preserving itself in accordance with nature. Thus, the virtual life for a man is a life according to nature. The so-called suicide, on the other hand, has been an act of frequency among Stoic philosophers: a considerable number of them committed a voluntarily death. Is this inconsistent with their so-call conatus? Though they sought to avoid Platonic dualism between the sensible and the intellectual, nevertheless they accepted that the logos was the true-self of man and nature, and human reason was immortal for them. They condemn any kind of suicide, as well rejecting the passion-rooted seeking of saving life for any price. According to the STOICS, the death of an ideal wise is the same as conformity to nature and reason, whether it happens so-called “naturally” or of her/his own free will; because for such a person, will, nature and reason are compatible with each other. But since they have not considered anyone, not even their leaders, as an example of absolute wisdom, in fact, no suicide attempt can be considered entirely approved by them. Readiness for death among the STOICS must be seen as a foundation of calm and active life in individual and social life recommended by them: calm spiritually, active practically.