نشریه جستارهایی در فلسفه و کلام
سال چهل و پنجم شماره 1 (پیاپی 90، بهار و تابستان 1392)

Dream as a window to the invisible world is brought up in the works of most philosophers، theologians، and mystics، denoting the importance of dreams. From among the philosophers and mystics، Ṣadr al-Muti’allihīn of Shīrāz and Ibn ‘Arabī have dealt in detail with discourses concerning dreams. Mullā Ṣadrā and Ibn ‘Arabī accord an extensive role concerning dreams to the world of Imagination and the relation of human faculty of imagination to the discontinuous world of Imagination. Ibn ‘Arabī considers dreams as the most extensive expanse of activity and creativity of imagination and has employed such terms as “restricted paradigm” and “absolute paradigm” in this respect. According to Ibn ‘Arabī and Mullā Ṣadrā، veracious dream and death are both ways for uncovering of veil and transferring to a higher world; however، this uncovering of veil in a dream is temporary and transient and in death it is permanent. Dreams and their manifestation and how to interpret them are among other discourses propounded in the issues concerning dreams and Ibn ‘Arabī and Mullā Ṣadrā believe in the existence of veracious dream and its being needless of interpretation. In contrast، the dreams that are the product of imitative image need interpretation and the confused dreams، which are the product of imitative mischiefs، have no foundation and origin، and have no interpretation; rather، they are the by-products of imaginative imitation. This paper is aimed at undertaking a comparative study of these two thinkers concerning dreams and extracting their similarities and differences in this philosophical issue.

Religious experience argument is one of the most significant arguments in proving the existence of God in the West. Swinburne – the theistic philosopher – has presented a particular exposition of this argument based on the specific principles he calls “credibility principle” and “witness principle”، which have attracted the attention of the philosophers of religion. It is attempted in this research to explicate Swinburne’s exposition of this argument as well as explaining the above principles.

Exclusivism is among the matters of dispute among the theologians and advocates of religions، which has since long ago been of interest to the Christian theologians and emphasized by them and now is facing various challenges. In this writing، only their out-religious reasons، such as referring other religions to Christianity، the Resurrection of Jesus and similar issues are presented from major sources and then critically reviewed. The most significant critiques leveled are the ones that the Christians and even their theologians have brought up، such as lack of logical reasons، incompatibility with comparative studies of religions، the shortcomings and historical performance of Christianity، etc.

In this article، after an introduction، two more or less detailed reports of history of science – from the realm of medical science – are provided to clarify that when the scientists face a problem، how they practically solve، interpret، and elucidate it. Then، other various types of elucidation are touched upon، defined، and described. Further on، these same various elucidations are critically reviewed. In conclusion، first، empiricism is explained and then the mind-bending complexity in empiricism is pointed out and argued that without resolving it empiricism cannot be undertaken.

The concept of Logos is seen figuratively before Christianity in ancient Greek philosophy and Judaism (Old Testament and some works of Filon of Alexandria). In ancient Greek philosophy، Logos is counted as the first principle، at least up to the middle Platonism period، and more importantly، until the Platonism period; that is to say، as it will be pointed out، Logos was the first principle with Heraclitus and later on with the Stoics and is directly related to the universe without being mediated by any one. On the other hand، Logos has for the first time been identified with Jesus (A. S.) in Christianity (Introduction to Gospel of John). Therefore، here Logos is not used figuratively as it was in the ancient Greek philosophy; rather، it is embodied. First، it is presumed that the reason for the embodiment of Logos in Christianity is the graveness of human sin، as Paul has mentioned in his Letters. However، the truth is that study of Gospel of John and the works of the Church Fathers reveal that the reason for the embodiment of Logos in Christianity is primarily not due to the graveness of human sin but for the revelation of Lord، the Father. Thus، it can be said that the concept of Logos as being a mediator was for the first time brought up in Christianity in opposition to the Gnostic thoughts. Of course، we do not deny the issue of the graveness of sin in the phenomenon of embodiment، but this issue was brought up in Christianity after the prevalence of Paul’s opinions.

Infinite regress is among the most important philosophical issues which is imaginable in three forms: ascending، descending، and a combination of the two. Philosophers have considered the invalidity of infinite regress as based on two conditions: successive order of regression individuals to each other and the potential conjunction of all individuals in existence. Mīrdāmād believes that the condition for the potential conjunction of individuals does not include descent; thus، this regress is impossible in this respect. In contrast، Muḥaqqiq Sabzevārī and ‘Allāma Ṭabāṭabā’ī، each in some way reject this allegation. It is indicated in this article that what Mīrdāmād means is non-transmutation in terms of atemporal existence and the objections raised are incorrect.