فصلنامه حکمت و فلسفه
سال هشتم شماره 2 (پیاپی 30، تابستان 1391)

Unlike Avicenna and Sohrevardi, Mulla Sadra believes in the creativity of soul in sense and imaginal perceptions while at first glance he seems to hold different and even contradictory views on intellectual perception. His most significant views on intellectual perception fall into three categories: distant observation of illuminative forms, expansion of images on the basis of Rashh and dissolution of soul in God to the point of Fana (self-annihilation). Mulla Sadra declared the third approach his final view; however, contemporary commentators of transcendental philosophy have sought to justify the three of them. The author of this paper supports the view that Mulla Sadra considered each of these approaches a stage of intellectual perception and believed that the soul observes the intellectual images from distance due to its weakness in the first stage; then unites with intellectual images in the second stage while moving toward perfection and finally becomes the creator of intellectual images as it reaches the pinnacle of perfection and self-annihilation. Therefore, the weaker the self is, the weaker its perception is and vice versa. In conclusion, only the steadfast seekers of knowledge and perfect men will attain the final stage of intellectual perception.

The modern hermeneutics era began with Schleiermacher's attempts to expand the scope of hermeneutics. He declared misunderstanding natural. While admitting its being customary and inevitable, he concluded that understanding is always an act of interpretation. In his view, every act of understanding involves two modes of interpretation, i.e. grammatical interpretation and technical (also called psychological) interpretation. The former addresses the linguistic functions and features of text while the latter views the text as the realization of author's individuality, and studies it according to his/her dealing with the language. In Schleiermacher's belief, in each mode of interpretation, understanding and interpretation take place in a circular process known as hermeneutic circle. The grammatical interpretation focuses on physical aspects of text, i.e. the whole text and its individual parts. On the contrary, technical interpretation addresses the author's individuality. Understanding of author's individuality is made possible only when the interpreter makes guesses and comparisons with himself in order to find a way to the author's mental world.

Maurice Merleau-Ponty has undoubtedly made extensive use of Edmund Husserl's works, particularly Ideas and Cartesian Meditations in writing his book Phenomenology of Perception. However, the difference between Merleau-Ponty and Husserl's views comes to light as soon as his approach to Cartesian dualism of body-subject is studied and his views are compared with those of Husserl. Although Husserl emphasizes on the close relation between body and subject in some of his works, Merleau-Ponty does not approve of his emphasis on elements like phenomenological interpretation and transcendental subject which imply the mind's independence from body. He surpasses Husserl in emphasizing the body-mind unity and believes that not only does the body have a subjective nature, but also the subject is a creature due to its embodiment. Like Martin Heidegger, he believes that the study of subject as a creature in the world makes the explanation of understanding possible.

Pseudo-Dionysius's view on evil was influenced by Neoplatonic tradition. Like Neoplatonic philosophers, he believed evil to be the absence of good and of no actual existence as all creatures were good and shared this quality. In other words, things lacking good would have no existence at all. Accordingly, Pseudo-Dionysius defined evil as lack of perfection and related it to the descent of the soul or the fall of man.In his view on evil, Pseudo-Dionysius was mostly influenced by Proclus, with whom he shared the belief that matter should not be considered evil, a view which stood in opposition with those of Plotinus. Furthermore, He was more concerned with philosophical issues than theological ones. Therefore, his views are penned in a language borrowed form Neoplatonic philosophers which bears little resemblance to the rhetoric of the Holy Scriptures.

Bihar al-Anwar is the most important and comprehensive hadith collection compiled by the Shia scholar Allameh Majlesi, who represents the philosophical thought of transcendental hikmah or al-hikmah al-mutaaliyah at modern time. The annotations Allameh Tabatabai made to this book are mainly criticisms of Allameh Majlesi's views and statements. A more comprehensive study of these annotations, thus, facilitates not only the revival of the annotation-writing and critical-thinking traditions but also the recognition of the differences and similarities of approaches and doctrines between these two great religious scholars.This research is an attempt to clarify, explain, analyze, criticize and study two of most controversial annotations Allameh Tabatabai made to Bihar al-Anwar. It is worth emphasizing that the criticism of Allameh Majlesi's views made the present researchers devote a large part of the research to studying and clarifying them. Accordingly, they sought to study his definitions of reason according to the terms and idioms of three main schools of philosophy and recognize the reasons for his cynicism about the philosophers and their views. In addition, his approach to the study of religion and religious texts and his concerns about the metaphysical reasons are examined, and Allameh Tabatabai's criticisms, claims and reasons are studied to demonstrate their veracity.

A lot has been said about religion and rationality and the possible conflict between them. Since the Renaissance, the West has claimed that they are involved in a constant conflict, the loser of which is religion and the winner is rationality whose era has begun.The present article is an attempt to demonstrate that there is no conflict but absolute harmony between true religion and true rationality. However, if one or both of them are untrue, then conflict emerges. This applies to the conflict between the distorted Christianity and untrue rationality. On the contrary, there is no conflict between the true faith of Islam and the God-given rationality which are both sent to guide mankind to the right path. The Holy Quran and collections of correct narrations both underline the fact that there is complete harmony between religion and rationality, and that religion is based on rationality which is itself the means of understanding religion and attaining obedience, happiness and salvation.

This paper seeks to demonstrate Kant's and Avicenna's belief in the objectivity of time. First, their views on the generalities are studied and the manner in which they are extracted from tangible and external issues explained. Second, their views on the objectivity and nature of time are explained. Time is a real perception according to Avicenna and a synthetic a priori concept according to Kant. Since the real perceptions and synthetic a priori concepts are the confluence of subjective and objective issues, the objective nature of time is established. Moreover, time-related issues, including the dependence of events on matter, time and its essence are addressed.