Awareness of the soul and its definition has had a special position and has. This position is somehow reflected in experimental sciences. Aristotle and Proclus, two representatives of the greatest and most influential ancient philosophical schools, namely the philosophy
More
Awareness of the soul and its definition has had a special position and has. This position is somehow reflected in experimental sciences. Aristotle and Proclus, two representatives of the greatest and most influential ancient philosophical schools, namely the philosophy of Masha and the Neoplatonic school, have paid special attention to this field and have dedicated a part of their main writings to this topic. The present article, focusing on the two main sources of the psychology among these two philosophers, aims to identify the points of commonality and difference in their views and to study the evolution and development of the subject, the definition, and what the soul is.
While expressing two natural and metaphysical definitions, Aristotle considers the soul to be related to the body in the natural definition. He considers it independent of the body in the metaphysical definition and calls the soul the principle of life of a living being. By expressing natural and metaphysical definitions and a description of the soul, Proclus pursues a path close to Aristotle in his natural and metaphysical definition; But in the descriptive definition, he chooses a different path from Aristotle. He considers the truth of the soul to be self-made, self-animated, self-formed, and self-realized, and he believes that the soul is the principle of life, the cause of bodies, the reason for the existence of objects and their preservation, and in other words, the creator of their uniqueness and continuity.
Manuscript profile
