فصلنامه قبسات
پیاپی 58 (زمستان 1389)

The author of this article will first explain four perspectives (mere corporeal resurrection, spiritual resurrection, ideal resurrection, and corporeal-spiritual resurrection) regarding the explanation of the Resurrection; he will then elaborately investigate and analyze the theory of the transcendental wisdom (the resurrection of the corporeal body without any matter). At the end his selected theory will be explained and some questions [regarding this theory] will be answered and criticized.

There are three theories about the creation of soul: it is created before body, with body or after body. The first theory is approved by some scholars of hadith and theologians, creation with body is the dominant theory of theologians and creation along with body is Mulla Sadra’s theory and his followers. Sadra’s theory is consistent with Quran’s verses but there are some opposite narrations which should be interpreted in accordance with Quran. In verses 12 to 14 of chapter Al-Muminun: “And indeed We created man from The breed of mud (12)…Then[by envoying soul into the body] We Made a complete creation (14)”, it clearly talks of the creation of soul along with body; there are some other verses which approve this idea as well and the narrations may be interpreted in accordance to this idea.

One of psychology’s most substructural matters in the transcendental theology is the corporeal creation and spiritual subsistence of soul. This subject can be investigated from many perspectives; but since it has been seriously criticized by some researchers, we will study its challenges in this article. The key point which solves the problem of the corporeal creation is paying attention to the existential intensification of soul. In fact the point that makes soul different from other abstract beings, in Sadra’s view, is soul’s existential intensification and evolution. Therefore most of the criticisms are either the result of soul’s movement of substances or the result of not paying attention to it.

The theory of ‘resurrection of the body’ is a new idea, theorized by MullaSadra, which rationally justifies and demonstrates, for the first time, resurrection of the body in addition to the resurrection of the soul. Sadra believes his theory is completely in accordance with Quranic resurrection but his critics believe there is no such accordance. Aqa-Ali Hakim (teacher Zenoozi), one of the followers of the school of transcendental wisdom, has tried to present a more complete description for the resurrection of the body which is more in accordance with Quranic resurrection. His description has been considered by scholars and theosophists. There are some differences in the theorization – despite their common bases – of these two great theosophists; yet investigating their theories shows that although both theories are not completely in accordance with Quranic resurrection, but Aqa-Ali Hakim’s theory has some other rational and theoretical problems as well.

Body reincarnation is the most challenging forms of reincarnation. In this article, contrary to the generally work that written is void of known evidence of nullity of reincarnation and to make to use of principle of Sadra philosophy, this concept has been to review. This study shows that in the sadra field exist compatibility between the dual of principle of existence and nullity of reincarnation, and this compatibility to be use as the best reason to remove this challenge.

Aristotle knows soul as: an actuality of the first kind of a natural body having life potentially in it. When explaining the essence of soul, he has used a special conceptual structure; the structure has been founded upon the concept of ousia. His statements, however, are not harmonious. And it is the fact produced by Aristotle himself, when trying to use two opposite views, those of presocratic natural philosophers and plato. Such being the case, he has failed to explain the essence of soul.

This article is a brief criticism of some of Gadamer’s views, known as “philosophical hermeneutics”, in which he theorizes the ontology of understanding and the essential historicity of understanding; his views can be analyzed and criticized from different perspectives, but due to the limited content of an article, only some subjects are chosen and discussed. The theory of the essential historicity of understanding is criticized in three ways in this article; first of all, the important discussion of relativity is discussed and is shown that one of the undeniable consequences of philosophical hermeneutics, despite Gadamer’s denial, is the relativity of epistemology, proved by substantial reasons. Then Gadamer’s view about the meaning of “reality” in liberal arts is explained and criticized. This is one of the most important and decisive discussions in liberal arts which desires a radical and extensive investigation. Another point insisted in this article is that Gadamer’s theory of the essential historicity of understanding is self-defeating. Finally the important topic of subjectivism in Gadamer’s theory is discussed and is shown that considering Gadamer’s bases in the matter of understanding, this reproof is not correct; although the base itself is discussable.