نشریه جستارهایی در فلسفه و کلام
سال چهل و پنجم شماره 2 (پیاپی 91، پاییز و زمستان 1392)

In this article، the compatibility of the opinion on the impossibility of reincarnation and belief in bodily resurrection in transcendental philosophy is studied. To this end، while defining and mentioning different types of reincarnation، some impediments that caused the transcendental philosophers consider reincarnation as impossible are compiled. Then it is specified، with regard to the opinions of these philosophers on the quality of bodily resurrection that none of those impediments exist in bodily resurrection، and consequently، the opinion on the impossibility of reincarnation is quite compatible with the belief in bodily resurrection.

Belief in matter of matters or the prime matter is one of the earliest human beliefs in the field of philosophical thinking. From among the Muslim philosophers، the peripatetics have confirmed it and come up with certain arguments; however، some others have not accepted it. In this article، it is tried to critically review the arguments on proving the prime matter and the objections that Muslim thinkers have raised against each one of them. To achieve this goal، the reasons mentioned by Avicenna as the greatest peripatetic philosopher in his various books are compiled and critically examined and analyzed. The argument through joining and separation (first reason) based on the critiques of Shaykh Ishrāq (Suhrwardī) and Ayatollah Muṭaharī، and the argument through potentiality and action (second reason) with critical views of Ayatollah Jawādī Āmulī and Ayatollah Miṣbāḥ Yazdī، and also contingency argument (third reason) with objections by Ayatollah Muṭaharī and Ayatollah Miṣbāḥ Yazdī are studied and analyzed. It is concluded in this study that the above-mentioned arguments are exposed to serious debates and do not result in proving the prime matter.

From the point of view of the mystics، “creation” in its conventional meaning does not have a real existence and whatever observed in the universe is but the manifestation of the Essence of Divine Unity. All creatures are “manifested” and the real “Being” is exclusive to the Divine Essence. In religious terms، whatever manifested in the world of existence is “The Face of Allah”. On the other hand، man is the vicegerent of Allah، who can have scientific and practical dominance over the world of existence because of the inclusiveness of Divine Names and the integrity of God’s Epiphany. Similarly، in view of modern physics، an amazing integrity governs the substructure of the world; and man، as the only conscious observer with a deeper outlook of a “participant”، plays a key role in elucidation or even evolution of the world، in such a way that it is impossible to imagine a world devoid of man. In this writing، the fundamental integrity of the world’s components and man’s relation to the world of being in the field of mysticism and physics is studied and brought up in a comparative way.

One of the most important issues of Abrahamic Religions is faith. Paul the Apostle and Fakhr Rāzī، two thinkers in two religious fields of Christianity and Islam، have expressed their opinions in details in this regard. In discussing the consequences of faith، Paul the Apostle talks about salvation، justness، new life، security from devils and enemies، calmness and reception of God’s promises. Fakhr Rāzī also believes that faith would remove the punishment of blasphemy. He views forgiveness of sins، safety in this world and the Hereafter، noble sustenance، Paradise and eternal well-being، dignity and affection as being among the consequences of faith. The views of these two thinkers concerning the consequences of faith are comparable. The present article addresses their viewpoints on the consequences of faith with a descriptive، analytical، and comparative method. This survey indicates that both consider salvation، calmness، security، forgiveness of sins، and a new life as the consequences of faith. However، there are some differences in their opinions as well.

The contraposition (musāmita) argument is among the arguments for proving the finitude of dimensions that has received attention in discussing physics and has yielded some philosophical consequences. Contraposition argument is based on the two concepts of motion and contraposition، and by proving the impossibility of the motion of circle in case of the infinitude of dimensions، it deals with the impossibility of presuming the existence of infinite dimension. By examining the key concepts of this argument، separating “mind” from “the exterior”، and specifying the scope and quality of each one of these dimensions، it is clarified that this argument cannot prove its claim in mind due to the particular manner of imagining motion، and fails to do so in the exterior due to the impossibility of restricting the condition of experiment and the contingent obstacles.

The subject of the present article is the problem concerning the unity of attributes and its relation to the unity of referent and multiplicity of concepts. In this problem، the theory of non-revealingness (‘adam-i kāshifiyat) of the multiplicity of concepts from multiplicity of referent is proved; and the rival theory، i. e.، the revealingness of the multiplicity of concept from the multiplicity of referent is disproved. The main purpose of bringing up the above issue is to elucidate the unity of attributes theory. The research method of the article is conceptual and propositional analysis and the approach is logical-analytical. The most important outcomes that this article has achieved are: 1. The concept of wāḥid (one) denotes referent only in terms of its meaning and not in other terms; thus، applying of multiple concepts to a single (wāḥid) referent of one is permissible; 2. The referent of existence integrates and originates the abstraction of multiple concepts; 3. Application of contradictory concepts to one essence would not necessitate contradiction in referent، except in modal difference or real contradiction.