فصلنامه حکمت معاصر
پیاپی 37 (پاییز و زمستان 1402)

The issue of death is one of the most important issues of human existence and one of his existential concerns. From birth to death, humans always carry the anxiety of death with them. Many thinkers have proposed solutions to reduce death anxiety. Yalom and Mulla Sadra have also discussed the nature of death based on their foundations. Yalom considers death as a pure nothingness and based on a naturalistic approach presents some existential solutions like relying on human communication, creativity, and rippling. Mulla Sadra based on a supernaturalistic approach also considers death as an existentiale. By analyzing his philosophical foundations some solutions like having a transformational and procedural approach to death could be deduced from his philosophy for reducing the anxiety of death. In this research, the authors first compare the views of these two thinkers and then try to find an integrated solution to reducing death anxiety.

Recently, Morteza Hajhosseini (2023) published his second edition of the book (2017) Two Non-Classical Logic Systems, A new Outlook on Elements of Logic, where he developed various non-standard logical systems based on specific philosophical foundations. His systems consist of the following five:  A truth-functional propositional system, A non-truth-functional propositional system, Adding the non-truth-functional implication of the second system to the whole first one, Adding the truth-functional conjunction and disjunction of the first system to the whole second one, Combining the whole two systems into a new comprehensive propositional.   In other papers, I reported extensively Hajhosseini’s logical systems and criticized them from a formal point of view only (Fallahi 2023a, 2023b, 2023c, 2023d). In a fifth paper, I regarded historical aspects of Hajhosseini’s logical systems and his claims of innovation (Fallahi 2023e). In the sixth paper, I delved into his epistemological incentives and showed that he confused logical and epistemological purposes (Fallahi 2023f). In this paper, eventually, I seek to criticize the philosophical foundations for Hajhosseini’s logical systems. Some of the philosophical foundations of these logical systems are mentioned with some brief descriptions as follows: Axioms and postulates are different. What is to be used in logic are the axioms, not the postulates. According to Hajhosseini, axioms and postulates are different from each other, and it is axioms that are useful for logic, not postulates; therefore, logical systems should have axioms and not postulates. I show that the traditional distinction between axioms and postulates is an epistemological one and is not useful for logic. Hajhosseini considered postulates also to be different from logical truths and theorems. Although the difference of axioms/postulates with respect to theorems can be accepted in a way, the difference of axioms/postulates with respect to logical truths is not very acceptable because the axioms/postulates are true in all models and a fortiori, they are to be considered logical truths. Also, Hajhosseini’s arguments that axioms cannot be deduced from other theorems are epistemological arguments and not logical ones. Also, Hajhosseini’s claim that the axioms are not even based on themselves is a claim that conflicts with some of Hajhosseini’s other words. Also, his claim that adding axioms or inconsistent propositions does not make arguments incorrect or invalid is in conflict with the definitions of "correctness" and "validity" in the book. It is impossible to infer a formula and its negation from the same premises. Hajhosseini’s arguments that impossible premises do not entail a proposition as well as its negation are epistemological arguments and not logical ones. A contrafactual conditional is actually a bi-conditional. Hajhosseini uses his logical systems to explain contrafactual conditional, but what I understand from his explanations, it seems to me that he interprets them as biconditionals. However, interpreting the counterfactual conditional as a biconditional is not consistent with the commonplace counterfactual conditional examples. Many well-formed formulas in mathematical logic are not meaningful. Hajhosseini claims sentences such as “if I am typing then two is even”, although well-formed in modern logic, are meaningless. It should be noted that the well-formed formulas of the language of the modern logics (both classical and non-classical) are all meaningful. The most that can be said about them is that some of them are very complicated or (very) false, but complicatedness—or even falsehood—does not mean meaningless. Also, some of these complex formulas are not logical theorems or logical truths, but some of them are even contradictory to logical theorems and therefore are logical falsehoods, but these do not mean nonsense. The antecedent and consequent of a conditional must be consistent. This is familiar under the name “Boethius rule” in the history of logic, which Hajhosseini named it “Hajhosseini's rule”. I think it is generally incorrect and must be conditioned by "consistency of the antecedent", otherwise it conflicts with numerous examples of conditionals whose antecedent and consequent are incompatible. Natural intuition (= our innate intuition of natural language) is the only (or the most important) criterion for evaluating logics. Hajhosseini has claimed in many places that his systems agree with intuition; and as a result, the existing classical and non-classical logics are all counter-intuitive. I show that the concept of "intuitiveness" is not so simple and accessible that he claims for himself with such intensity and severity and with this abundance and denial for others. I put forth the possibility that perhaps the logical concepts used (including, the concept of "implication" and "inference") are fundamentally vague and indeterminate, and the intuitions of classical and non-classical logicians, including Hajhosseini himself, are a kind of conventional but unconscious precision and not Intuition in the strict sense of the word. Despite such a possibility, one should be much more cautious in using the word "intuitive". Classical logic assumes that “rationality” is included in “extensionality”. Hajhosseini claims that the classical logic intentional or non-truth-functional languages are rational ones. I show that this philosophical premise of "confining “rationality” in “extensionality”" has not been well explained in the book and has not been referred to the sources in classical logicians’ works. Implication must be explained by causation. Contrary to this, I show that the analysis of the metaphysical issue of "causation" has nothing to do with the logical issue of "implication" and the two should not be compared. For example, circularity is impossible in "causation" but possible in "implication". Of course, when metaphysical causation is established, logical implication is also established, but the opposite is not true because every proposition implies itself, but it is not its own cause. Also, the implication can be symmetric but causation is not. Traditional logic as a source of inspiration. Hajhosseini often refers to traditional logic as if it were his source of inspiration. But it is debatable because the difference between the viewpoints of traditional logicians is so wide and surprising that without extensive familiarity with the history of traditional logic, it is impossible to understand that most of the objections of the new logic to the traditional logic were already raised in the traditional logic itself.

It is only in the last few decades that testimony has been seriously studied in epistemology. But in the Islamic world, testimony by necessity has been paid attention earlier. Epistemology of testimony, in Islamic tradition, began by jurists, who had nothing in their hand but the testimony of others for understanding religion and legal injunctions of God. Another line of study were philosophers and logicians, who regarded testimony as one of the principles of judgement. At the same time that he was participating in these two lines of studies, Suhrawardī initiated a third line of study in his theology. In this paper, we will show Suhrawardī's contribution in this topic with two analytical and historical approaches.

Suhrawardī's Epistemology of Testimony:

Suhrawardī has spoken about testimony in three places of his works: in logic when enumerating the principles of judgements, in methodology of jurisprudence when discussing religious proofs, and in theology when talking about the doctrine of the nobler contingent to prove platonic forms.

Testimony in Suhrawardī's Logic:

al-Fārābī and Avicenna had talked about propositions taken from the testimony of others in their logic when discussing the first principles. With this in his hand, Suhrawardī begins to contemplate on the issue. He identifies two kinds of propositions that are related to testimony: accepted premises (maqbūlāt) and widely transmitted propositions (mutawātirāt). Accepted premises are propositions that we accept from someone we have good opinion of. In al-Talwīhāt, he adds that this good opinion is because of something celestial in that person or because he is more intelligent or religious. Widely transmitted premises are propositions that we become certain of because of the plethora of the testimonies of others. He, against others, does not require for what is testified to be perceptual/sensible. This is a smart move because he demonstrates the credibility of religious experience for the non-experiencer using exactly the widely transmitted propositions.Suhrawardī makes four important movements that are contrary to the Avicennan peripatetic tradition-four movements that cannot be simply passed by. They become clearer only when they are considered in the historical context and with regard to al-Ghazālī's statements. First of all, he eliminates Peripatetics’ intuitive propositions and innate propositions from the list of certain principles. Second, he brings widely transmitted and experiential propositions under one title. Thirdly, he gives them the name of intuitive propositions, while what he means by intuition is its literal meaning, not its peripatetic terminological meaning. And the fourth is that he attends to the role of evidences in them.It seems, from what we have said so far in addition to what will come in the next section from al-Ghazālī and his influence on Suhrawardī, that he thinks of the accumulated opinions as the reason why widely transmitted propositions are certain.

Testimony in Suhrawardī's Methodology of Jurisprudence:

One of religious proofs for understanding religion and legal injunctions of God is what is transmitted by testimony. Here, Suhrawardī takes one of al-Ghazālī's books-i.e., al-Mustaṣfā-and writes accordingly. One of al-Ghazālī's contributions in this discussion is that he eliminates intuitive propositions from the six self-evident propositions and introduces another sixth way to knowledge base on evidences. Suhrawardī takes the idea of evidences and their role in knowledge firmly. It is from here that we can see the idea of evidences in his philosophical works.He also mentions some requirements for the one who gives testimony such as being just and having good vision. This, and other things, could show that he is not totally individualist and internalist about testimony.

Testimony in Suhrawardī's Theology:

In theology, Suhrawardī, innovatively and for the first time, brings forward the discussion of testimony to prove the epistemological credibility of religious experience for the non-experiencer. Sometimes, testimony is in important matters and by experts. When that is the case, Suhrawardī says, one or two testimony is enough to become certain about what is testified. For example, when one or two astronomers testify about something related to their specialty, that brings us knowledge and certainty about that thing. This is the way of science. He continues that when this is so, the testimony of religious experiencers should also bring us knowledge. Here, testimony is as valuable as testimony in science, and even more valuable. This is because the number of testifiers here are more, they are sages and prophets that moral truth is certain in them, and their testimony is about what they have seen directly not what they have inferred from their observations.

Although Suhrawardī relies heavily on al-Fārābi, Avicenna, and al-Ghazālī, he makes a great contribution to the epistemology of testimony. His point that the certainty of widely transmitted propositions is because of the accumulated opinions developed by Shahīd Ṣadr later on. His brilliant innovation is that he brings forward the discussion of testimony to prove the epistemological credibility of religious experience for the non-experiencer.

An action is an external behavior formed through an interplay between knowledge and inner tendencies, and then actualized via will or volition. On this picture, an action begins from a conception and assent (affirmation) within an epistemic process, leading to decision-making and will. Several factors, such as the imaginative faculty, the faculty of theoretical and practical reason, the craving faculty, and will, contribute to this process. Accordingly, various types of human action are formed given the order of functioning as well as the intensity and strength of these faculties. Hence, the existence of various possibilities and circumstances for the interactions of these principles demand different models for human action. A consideration and comparison of these factors can play a role in analyzing and explaining the human action as well as presenting various solutions to change, modify, or even reinforce human behaviors. To do so, a survey was conducted in the works of Mullā Ṣadrā deploying the descriptive-analytic method to identify various models of human action and pinpoint their differences and the conditions in which they occur. The main problem of this research is:What is the fundamental and basic model of the human action and what are the models branching from them? The secondary questions include the following: How do models of human action differ from each other and from the model of action in animals? What is the role of temperament in the model of human actions?

Thus far, several studies have been carried out concerning the philosophy of action and how an action is produced within the framework of Mullā Ṣadrā’s philosophy. Rezaee and Houshangi (2013) in “The process of the production of human voluntary action,” Shahgoli (2019) in “Principles of action in the views of Fārābī and Mullā Ṣadrā,” and Mirhadi (2018) in “Philosophy of action in Transcendent philosophy” aim to introduce the principles and preliminaries of action and the stages of the production of an action from the perspective of Muslim philosophers, particularly Mullā Ṣadrā. Vafaeian and Gharamaleki (2017) in “An ontological analysis of the process of the production of actions from the perspectives of Avicenna and Ṣadr al-Mutaʾallihīn” assert that they are concerned with the ontological status of the principles of the production of action. Soleimani (2020) in “The place of action in human existence in Mullā Ṣadrā’s view” provides an account of the formation of action and the longitudinal relationship between its principles, stating that Mullā Ṣadrā views the inner reality of an action as its longitudinal principles, while external action is solely a manifestation and expression of this longitudinal chain of the functioning of perceptual and motive faculties of the soul. Varzdar and Ketabchi (2022) in “The study of the function of practical reason in the process of action production in Transcendent philosophy” are focused on the role of practical reason in the process of the production of actions.The contribution of the present research, which sets it apart from the above-mentioned studies, is that it addresses the numerous models and schemas of the order and mode of the functioning of the formative principles and elements of action.

When doing an action, the human individual employs the numerous faculties and powers of their soul, including perceptual and motive faculties. Given the order of functioning as well as the intensity and strength of these faculties, various types of human action are formed. Thus, a model and schema can be determined for each type of human action. All conceivable models of human action involve a transition from the cognitive principle to determination, will, and production of the outer overt action. In other words, all varieties of human actions are formed based on a basic model. This foundational model shows the general course of the soul’s linear motion from the highest to the lowest principles that contribute to the actualization of action.Regarding the basic fundamental model of human action, stages can be devised as follows:In the first stage, the desired goal and objective are determined by theoretical reason. In the second, the proper action to fulfil the goal is selected and confirmed by practical reason. Inthe third, the requisite proper urge and motivation are produced by the craving faculty under the governance of practical reason. In the fourth, rational urge prevails and intensifies and then determination and will are formed for doing the action.In the model of deterministic action, the urge resulting from the confirmation by practical reason is not agreeable to nature, but the action is selected and preferred by the cognitive system and then confirmed by reason. Accordingly, an action not being agreeable is compatible with its volitional and free character.In the model of animal action, humans just like animals have a presence-based comprehension of an instinctive impulse and need within themselves, then conceive a particular action in their imaginative faculty as well as the pleasure or pain associated with the action, and then through appetitive or irascible faculties, an urge or repulsion towards the action ill be produced in the individual. If the urge is bolstered and prevails, the will to do or omit the action will be formed.In any event, Ṣadrā believes that urge and will in humans are governed by reason. It is only in this case that the will can be rational and human. However, if the urge and will are governed by instincts, senses, and imagination, which yields a speculative judgment by reason, the will is animal.When the action occurs, its wanted or unwanted consequences can have an effect on the constitutive elements of the action. This means that they have a reinforcing or undermining effect on instincts and inner impulses, knowledge, desire, and will. Nevertheless, this effect is only indirect. In case there is a positive effect, which reinforces the principles of an action, the action will be repeated frequently. This will lead to a particular psychological habit in the individual, which is called a “temperament” or “character.” According to the principles of Sadraean philosophy, a soul that possesses a temperament changes its substantial form, and given the new stage of its psychological forms, it comes to have new and stronger faculties and powers. Later, the principles of the action will be further solidified and their functioning in inducing actions will be quicker, such that the actions associated with that stage of the soul will be produced more easily.

Fateme Sadat Ketabchi[1]
Ancient physical principles assert that all bodies are constituted of four fundamental elements, each possessing distinct qualities. The amalgamation of these elements engenders a unique attribute within bodies termed "temperament," divergent from the inherent qualities of the elemental components (Avicenna, 1383: 57; Suhrawardī, 1373: 198; Mulla Sadra, 1981, vol. 5: 320). Notably, the constitution of the "temperament" differs between living and non-living entities due to varying degrees of element combination, prompting a consideration: why not attribute the distinctive accomplishments of living beings to "temperament" rather than to the "soul"? In "De Anima," Aristotle recounts advocates of this notion and offers critique (Aristotle, 2011, 407b 25 - 408a 10). Aristotle distinguishes between the concepts of "soul" and "temperament," affirming their disparity (Ibid).
In Avicenna's works, he formulates seven arguments to establish the non-identity of temperament and soul, based on criteria such as non-identity of temperament with its collector and maintainer, its active and ultimate cause, the involvement in the movements of living things, the composition as the constituent substance of living entities, the perceiver of perception, the perceiver of rational cognitions, and the self-aware nature in humans. These arguments uniquely position temperament as distinct from the soul, as there is no other candidate for these seven criteria except the soul.
This research aims to critically examine and analyze Avicenna's seven arguments rejecting the identity of "soul" and "temperament," with the purpose of highlighting the limitations of these arguments in distinguishing temperament from the plant soul and the deficiencies in four of these proofs.
Methods and Material
The research methodology employed in this study is descriptive-analytical. This approach involves thoroughly referencing Avicenna's various works to furnish a comprehensive depiction of his arguments. Subsequently, a meticulous analysis of these arguments is conducted through logical formulation to assess their effectiveness in establishing the non-identity between soul and temperament.
The first argument posits that the opposition among the four elements leads to their repulsion and conflict, necessitating a factor beyond temperament for their combination and sustenance — namely, the soul (Tusi, 1375, Vol. 2: 302-301; Avicenna, 1404A, Vol. 2: 26). Similarly, the second argument identifies the purpose of elemental intermingling as the creation of temperament, raising questions about the cause behind this interaction. If temperament is the prime mover of elemental motion, it would imply self-creation, a logical impossibility (Avicenna, 1404B: 63). The third argument contends that living beings' temperament exists in two states: either at pure equilibrium or dominated by a single element's quality. However, it faces criticism due to flawed assumptions about nature's formation from four elements and their inherent locations (Avicenna, 1371: 150).
The credibility of the first and second arguments is questioned due to outdated premises. Modern scientific discoveries reveal that bodies comprise numerous fundamental particles, each with distinct characteristics. Additionally, these particles do not inherently conflict; instead, certain particles, like electrons and protons, naturally attract one another due to opposite charges (Munowitz, 2005: 182). The third argument's foundation on the formation of nature from four elements and the assignment of inherent places to each element is also flawed.
The fourth argument contends that the origin of life in living beings is essential because it is intrinsic to their essence, which is substance (Avicenna, 1404A, Vol. 2: 26; Bahmanyār, 1375: 728-725; Mulla Sadra, 1981, Vol. 8: 27). However, it falls prey to the fallacy of circular argument by assuming that living beings' species are inherently "substantive species."
The fifth argument posits that sensory perceptions are not within the realm of temperament. This assertion is rooted in the observation that temperament doesn't fall into two definitive situations when confronted with sensory forms. It is argued that either temperament does not exhibit any passivity when engaging with perceptual forms, which would imply a lack of foundational conditions for perception (since sensory perception inherently involves passivity). Alternatively, if temperament becomes passive upon perceiving forms, it transforms into another temperament, thereby losing its status as the perceiver of perceptible forms (Tusi, 1375, vol.2: 301-301). Avicenna's sixth argument focuses on human rational perceptions and knowledge. He asserts that neither temperament nor any physical entity possesses the capacity to perceive intellectual forms. This conclusion leads to the impossibility of perceiving rational things through any physical body (Avicenna, 1382: 141-142). The seventh argument employs "self-awareness" to delineate the non-identity between the soul and temperament (Avicenna, 1404 A, Vol. 2: 13). This argument underscores the distinction between the self-awareness associated with the soul and the functions or properties of temperament, aiming to establish their fundamental differences.
It appears that the fifth argument could be supported by accepting certain modifications, effectively demonstrating the discrepancy between temperament and the entity perceiving perceptions. However, Ibn Sina's assertion that plants lack sensory perceptions renders this argument ineffective in establishing the non-identity between the temperament of plants and the plant soul. Regarding the sixth and seventh arguments, if Ibn Sina's arguments for proving the separation of sensible forms from matter are comprehensive, these arguments might not only establish the separation of the human soul from matter but also highlight the distinction between the soul and temperament. However, these arguments primarily focus on demonstrating the variability of the human soul and temperament. As a result, the sixth and seventh arguments primarily just emphasize the non-identity between the human soul and temperament, rather than effectively addressing the non-identity between the animal and plant soul with temperament.
 
"The theory advocating the identity of soul and temperament found numerous proponents historically, gaining support from many theologians and scholars in the field of medicine. Avicenna aimed to refute the validity of this theory through his elaborate set of seven proofs, seeking to establish the distinction between the souls of plants, animals, and humans from the temperament of their respective bodies.
In this research, it was revealed that the first three proofs are incomplete in proving the non-identity of the soul and temperament due to the fact that the principle of physical issues has been invalidated. The fourth argument is subject to circular argument. The last three proofs prove non-identity between temperament and soul; but these three proofs only reveal the difference between animal and human soul with temperament, and they do not have the ability to show the difference between plant temperament and soul.
 
 

Muslim theologians and philosophers debate the manner in which the world was created by God. Theologians assert that God’s role in creation is characterized in terms of agency-by-intention (fāʿiliyya bi-l-qaṣd), while Peripatetic philosophers argue for agency-by-providence (fāʿiliyya bi-l-ʿināya), and Illuminationist (Ishrāqī) philosophers propose agency-by-agreement (fāʿiliyya bi-l-riḍā). Mullā Ṣadrā and his adherents advocate for agency-by-providence, where their definition of this kind of agency closely aligns with the concept of agency-by-manifestation (fāʿiliyya bi-l-tajallī) as suggested by Muslim mystics. Twentieth-century Muslim philosopher Mahdi Elahi Ghomshei introduced another form of agency, which he calls agency-by-love (fāʿiliyya bi-l-ʿishq). He posits that the primary impetus behind the creation of the world by the necessary existent is His love and delight for His own essence, serving as the source from which all things emanate. Elahi Ghomshei pioneered this concept to explain God’s agency. The central question of this study is whether this concept has precedent in the works of earlier Muslim philosophers and, if so, how it was addressed within those works.
Research This research employs the analytic-descriptive method by examining library sources. Initially, we investigate the perspectives of the scholars concerning the agency of the necessary existent, and subsequently, we draw our conclusions.
Discussion and An examination of the writings of philosophers and intellectuals predating Elahi Ghomshei reveals that they did not neglect the significance of love in God’s agency. Indeed, dating back to Plato and Aristotle, the role of love in the agency of the necessary existent has been consistently emphasized. Furthermore, certain philosophers contended that the creation of the world without love is inconceivable. However, instead of employing the term "agency by love," they utilized alternative expressions such as attraction force, natural magnetism, love-based motion, and others, as will be elucidated below.
Plato and Aristotle delved into the concept of the love of the demiurge—the creator of the world—or the unmoving mover for its own essence, highlighting its significance in imparting order and motion to worldly affairs. Among thinkers, Muslim philosophers and mystics stand out for their emphasis on God''s love and delight in His essence. Al-Fārābī offers a nuanced definition of love and delight, positing that the love of the necessary existent for its essence represents the pinnacle of love. He contends that God possesses the utmost perception, directed at the highest perceivable entity—His own essence. Thus, in the realm of the divine, the distinction between lover and beloved collapses, as they are one and the same.
Avicenna contends that the ultimate form of delight is found in the necessary existent''s delight in its own essence. This arises from its perfect perception of all beings, making it impervious to the realm of possibility and nonexistence. Avicenna posits that God is loved for His essence and is the object of love for all beings, suggesting that their very existence is sustained through their love for God. Shaykh al-Ishrāq Suhrawardī and Ṣadr al-Mutaʾallihīn also emphasize God''s profound inherent love for His essence, depicting Him as the most delighted being by its essence, and asserting that this fundamental love and delight are the primary impetuses behind the creation of the world.
Ibn al-ʿArabī asserts that all motion in this world, culminating in the existence of the universe, emanates from love—primarily the love possessed by God and also by other beings and natural causes through divine love. Without such affection, the world would remain unmanifest. Similarly, Imam Khomeini contends that divine love serves as the guiding and directing force in both the natural and supernatural realms (Imam Khomeini 1989, 76). He argues that existence and the sustenance of existence stem from essential love, which acts as both the existence-conferring and sustaining causes of beings. Referring to these two realms as the facilitators of creation and the pathways to perfection, he emphasizes that without this love, no entity could come into being, and no individual or object could attain perfection; thus, the heavens themselves are erected by love.
We conclude that although Mahdi Elahi Ghomshei was the first philosopher to employ the term "agency-by-love" to explain the agency of the necessary existent, discussions regarding God''s love for His own essence trace back to ancient times. Plato, Aristotle, and several other ancient Greek philosophers explored the notion of the creator''s love for its essence. In the Islamic world, mystics, philosophers, and theologians engaged with and endeavored to explain the notion of God''s agency within their respective frameworks. While they present various explanations for God''s agency—such as agency-by-intention, agency-by-providence, agency-by-agreement, or agency-by-manifestation—they unanimously affirm God''s possession of agency-by-love. These philosophers argue that perception is the source of love, with the intensity of love corresponding to the brilliance and beauty of the perceived entity. As God''s essence epitomizes beauty and brilliance, and He is both the perceiver and the perceived by His essence, He possesses the utmost love and delight for His essence.