نشریه پژوهش های هستی شناختی
پیاپی 13 (بهار و تابستان 1397)

In creating artistic work, artist's inner is revealed and work of art like a mirror displays its creator, therefore, manifestation of inner beauties resulted of assuming the traits of God's names causes to create a beautiful artistic work. This research states the ontological relation between human art & beauty with divine attributes in order to offer a new policy to contemporary artist for creating beautiful & immortal work and revealing her/his existential beauties that are self disclosure of divine names and attributes. Descriptive – analytic method has been used in this research. The achievements of this research depending on Ibn Arabi's mystical ontology are that: Allah demonstrates Himself in the universe by art, universe is Allah's artistic work & it is the emanation of divine attributes or the realities of His existence. The realities of existence are very beauty. Thus Allah's art & beauty have been revealed and expanded in the universe by emanating reality. Allah's outstanding art is beautiful human. Beautiful human art is revealing divine attributes. Artist in the level of beautiful human reveals divine attributes by creating good deeds or virtues & creates esoteric artistic works. Also artist on the basis of knowledge, will and existential level, embodies his/her inner that is created in Allah's form in the artistic works, under domination of beautiful names of God. As a result it should be said that human art in meaning of creation and manifestation of human beauty has been related to God’s names and divine attributes ontologically.

One of the important issues concerning the motion in the substance of nature is the idea of intensity of the motion which has had different interpretation. The problem or challenge is how the invariable movement in categories of place and position –that currently is called invariable motion in space- can be consistent with the intensity of movement in substance. Different approaches for solving the problem has been proposed, however, none of them has given a final solution. The solution according to this article is that essentially the smooth movement in place and position is not a motion, but in relation to other things, the meaning of motion is truly attributed to it. This response, by proposing a new viewpoint to the meaning of change in the categories of the place and position, in addition to the solving of the mentioned problem, opens a new approach to the meaning of change and intensity in these categories.

The question of “quiddity” is among the most fundamental and important discussions in Islamic philosophy and Gnosticism; but nowadays, because of an existential perspective, the recognition of the concept of quiddity and the attention paid to it are left aside and became an inferior issue. Moreover, it is undeniable that using of the existent potentialities in Islamic philosophy and mysticism will help them to grow and flourish. The importance of this issue, for example in the philosophical system of Mulla Sadra can be seen. This article tries at first to clarify the concept of quiddity in Qeysari’s works, - one of the most important scholars and commentators of theoretical Sufism- and states that according to him, fixed entities which are in God’s knowledge are the quiddities. Then, this article tends to clarify the precise concept of quiddities in Allameh Tabataba’I’s writings – The founder of Neo-Sadraean philosophical system – and finally, it analyzes the concept of quiddity according to Qeysari and Allameh Tabatabaei’s. The authors believe that the quiddities in Qeysari’s works are defined as the immutable entities in God’s knowledge and that humankind’s knowledge is a shadow of God’s. According to Allameh Tabataba’i the quiddities are the limits of particular objective existences in the subject which are the result of an interaction between the subject and the object and are actualized in humankind’s knowledge as the abstractive existences.

One of the reliable arguments, among the majority of Muslim philosophers for proving the existence of God, is the cosmological argument. Avicenna, in his book “al_Ishārāt”, has a particular reading of this argument, which claims to be independent from the creation to proving the creator. So only by considering existence per se, he has proved the existence of God and has called this argument “The righteous” argument. Apparently later philosophers have initially accepted this term and have criticized him using his own criterion. They have questioned if the term is adequate. Two fundamental critiques have been raised. One is that this argument is based on impossibility of infinite and circular regress and the second is that in the argument, the quiddity has been applied as a premise. In this study it will be shown that the argument is not in need for impossibility of infinite regress, but it will be also explained that against Avicenna’s claims, in this argument the necessary being is not derived from the existence per se and the concept of quiddity plays a role in this argument. We cannot call this argument “The righteous” argument as regarded in Mulla Sadra’s philosophy. Nevertheless, in peripatetic school, it’s the most direct argument for proving the existence of God.

Place, in spite of modern physics, in Avicenna’s thought has two facets, physical and metaphysical. He has discussed on ontology of it and its essence criticizing the theories have been in or before his era. He by analyzing the essence of place has rejected the place to be regarded as a form, matter, extension and surface as well as the void. At the present paper, by analytical method, we attempt to evaluate his theory by using commentaries and the critics. He believes the place is a surface but not absolute one, it is a relative surface. On the basis of his philosophy, discussing on the existence and essence of place should be in Metaphysics not in the physics, although he has discussed in physics. Avicenna has criticized the other theories and finally approved his Idea on the Place. He has discussed on the accident of place in metaphysics trying to deny the theory of ones who believe it can be regarded as the substance. In spite of his effort to approve the existence of place and analyze the quiddity of it, he could not approve and analyze it successfully, so we cannot regard it as a category. It should be considered as a secondary intelligible.

Approach to issue of God for those who have considered the philosophical trend on it, is the vital one. Its important aspect is that if this approach does not have a precise and profound basis, effort of philosophers and scholars will confront the serious challenges. Avicenna’s approach to God for proving His existence is entirely derived from the intellect. He has tried to prove Him by firm and reliable arguments which have been known by his name, called as the calendar approach to God. While he has mentioned obviously the essence of God cannot be reached by human reason. Some has thought there are certain contraries in his thought. At this article tried by exploring his works on the issue of God to elucidate his theory showing that this opposition is apparently. There are some documents which denote he has believed that human beings have several epistemological levels, knowledge of God will be possible for everyone by the requirements. The existence of God which approved by rational demonstrations is the one of His requirements not its essence which cannot be obtained by human reason.

Miftah al-Ghayb, is the first work in theoretical mysticism has been written by Sadr al-din Qunavi and therefore, Sham al-din Fanari’s work, Misbah al-Uns, is its interpretation which has important role to make mystical discussions rationally. Mystics’ interpretation, such as Imam Khomeini among scholars, has been very useful in explaining and clarifying Misbah al-Uns purposes. In this essay, structure of arguments for oneness of Being , based on Imam Khomeini’s periphrases on Misbah al-Uns, have been derived and then assessed these arguments, by clarification, explanation and criticism of Imam. Imam's criticism of the arguments of Oneness of Being and obfuscations have been raised against them, is based on two axes: misunderstanding between intention and extension or between primary essential predicate with scientific common predicate and absolute Being with being regarded as absolute. According to Imam, these types of obfuscations derived from misunderstanding between concept with extension, do not distinguish between conceptual absolute Being and being regarded as absolute, While intended absolute on God is Objective Being. Imam believes that these arguments are not delivered on necessary being, but on the nature of being, claiming that if removed being as regarded absolute, necessary being will be removed. While being regarded as absolute is more general than necessary and contingent being or absolute and districted one.

The essay first of all tries to find some sort of precedence about one of the strongest versions of Muslim thinkers ' theory of truth - making (Nafs – al – Amr) in Aristotle – a theory that is without any doubt one of the most important and difficult problems in the Muslim Philosophy and Theology throughout history. Then, the paper tries to analyze and criticize Aristotle’s theory of truth - making by a systematic method. Moreover, since the problem of the negative affairs has been so problematic and important in Muslim philosophy and logic and theology as well, the essay has an especial focus on the negative truth - makers in Aristotle ' view. Finally, it will have some hints to the certain difficulties of Aristotle's theory of truth - making such as non - existents and the eternal essential affairs.