فصلنامه پژوهش های فلسفی - کلامی
سال بیست و پنجم شماره 4 (پیاپی 98، زمستان 1402)

Are the meanings of “chance” and “guidedness” consistent? The goal of this article is toprovide an affirmative answer to this question and thereby defend compatibilism (or accommodationism), which is the position that evolutionary theory and interventionist theism can coexist harmoniously. Compatibilists, such as van Inwagen (2003), Bartholomew (2008), Dowe (2011), Bradley (2012), and Sober (2014) argue that certain components or features of the biosphere exhibit both chancy and divinely guided aspects. What is chance?The concept of chance, in its scientific sense, is closely related to the concept of probability. One can interpret the probabilities used in scientific theories ontologically. If so, by “chance” we mean whatever objective property in the world the term “ontological probability” picks out (Suárez, 2022).[1] The received view suggests that chance and randomness are identical but technically speaking, “chance” describes the process that leads to the production of an outcome, while the term “random” describes the outcome itself.(Von Mises’ definition of randomness): A sequence, such as a sequence of zeroes and ones, is considered random when no successful gambling strategy can be made to predict the next number in the sequence. In other words, a sequence is random if it cannot be exploited by a gambling system for prediction. (Eagle, 2021)Furthermore, “chance” is often used synonymously with “coincidence.” Coincidence refers to the co-occurrence of two independent deterministic chains of events. In this sense, being chancy implies having a cause. Sometimes “chancy” is used synonymously with “accidental.” In this sense, a chance event does not possess a specific purpose. It is important to note that not every coincidence is considered an accident (Dowe, 2011).Genetic mutations serve as quintessential examples of chance events in evolutionary theory, as they do not occur in response to environmental threats or opportunities faced by species. In other words, there is no statistical relationship or correlation between the usefulness to a particular species of a potential mutation and the probability of that mutation occurring.The compatibility of “chance” and “guidedness”The incompatibilist might argue that chance processes cannot be divinely guided because the very meaning of being guided is not compatible with the meaning of being chancy. In response, van Inwagen (2003) points out that 1) the term “chancy” has multiple meanings, such that (2) some of these meanings can coexist with the idea of being guided, and (3) the meaning of “chancy” relevant to evolutionary theory falls within this category. Therefore, the argument just presented is not valid. Van Inwagen believes that the compatibilist perspective favors considering “chance” as coincidence. Being a coincidence requires having a cause, but having a cause does not necessarily imply having a purpose or being divinely guided. The question facing the compatibilist is whether chance is compatible with being divinely guided. Hence, van Inwagen mistakenly conflates having a cause with being guided.However, van Inwagen's approach can be modified. There are meanings of “chance” and “guided” according to which these two concepts can be considered compatible. To illustrate this, let’s consider a chain of events as follows:Mutation 1, the occurrence of feature 1 in species A; mutation 2, the occurrence of feature 2 in species B; mutation 3, the occurrence of feature 3 in species A; mutation 4, the occurrence of feature 4 in species C, and so on.This chain is random in the sense that knowing one part of it does not allow for predictions of the next event with significant probability. Genetic mutations are chance events; there is no statistical correlation between the usefulness of a particular mutation and the probability of its occurrence. If such a correlation existed, probabilistic predictions would be possible. However, it can still be argued that this chain is guided, meaning that its members are deliberately chosen by an intelligent agent. Having a pattern is a property that describes the relationship among the members of the sequence while being deliberately chosen is a property that results from the fact that each member, and consequently the whole sequence, is somehow related to an external entity, say an intelligent agent.Thus, there is no prima facie contradiction in considering a sequence of events to be random and at the same time divinely guided. One might object that although it may not seem contradictory at first, no truly random sequence can be guided. However, it remains unclear what kind of argument could support this claim solely through an analysis of the meanings of “chance” and “guidedness.” One might argue that being random suggests a lack of direction while being guided requires having a specific direction. Alternatively, one might argue that being random implies that attempting to regenerate the same sequence via a chance process would most likely fail, whereas being guided suggests otherwise. While these objections carry weight, they all require an additional premise beyond the mere meanings of “chance” and “guidedness.”One way to understand “chancy” as opposed to “guided” is to define chance within the incompatibilist sense as follows:The incompatibilist meaning of “chancy”: not being intentionally brought about by an intelligent agent, either human or non-human, nor being necessitated by the laws of nature. (van Woudenberg, 2013)In this sense, a chance event cannot be guided. However, it is worth noting that evolutionary theory itself does not make any claims about intentional agency. The defender of the incompatibilist meaning seems to have assumed ontological naturalism, but not methodological naturalism. It is evident that ontological naturalists tend to favor the incompatibilist meaning. Van Inwagen (2013) highlights that methodological naturalism does not necessitate a scientific theory to explicitly deny the existence and effects of supernatural agents. If a methodological naturalist wishes to adopt the incompatibilist meaning, she or he must make an additional argument that goes beyond merely considering the meanings of “chance” and “guidedness”. [1]. For a defense of the existence of chance in the world, see van Inwagen (1995), Sober (2010), Bradley (2012), and Emery (2022).

Scientific theology is one of the branches of Christian theology which, as opposed to traditional approaches in theology such as theological theology, believes that the only way to defend theology is to resort to the method, foundations, and findings of “science”. German theologian and philosopher, Pannenberg, is one of the first theologians who proposed a project for scientific theology. The main problem of the article is what Pannenberg’s scientific theology is and how is it evaluated. Christian theology faced challenges of modernity before Muslims and tried to solve them, so presenting such topics will be beneficial to Islamic thought. To answer the main problem of the present article, we will use the descriptive-analytical method and the findings indicate that Pannenberg enumerates four conditions for theology to become scientific but the most important condition is to prove that theological propositions are cognitive. From his point of view, to prove their cognitive status, we must use the scientific method. In science, hypotheses are measured on their implications, and the same method should be used to make theology scientific so if theology can interpret our current experiences from the finite reality, it will be scientific. Despite its strengths, Pannenberg’s project cannot solve theological challenges. One of the most important problems of this plan is that it cannot ultimately prove the cognitiveness of the theological propositions because he is limited to a pragmatic approach and the usefulness of a proposition is not equal to its cognitiveness.
 
After the Middle Ages, Christianity, and Christian theology confronted events including political, social, and cultural events, and none of them were pleasant. So gradually there were attacks on Christian theology, and in the Enlightenment, these attacks became stronger. The impact of these attacks was so great that the authority of the Bible was destroyed and miracles were rejected as important bases for theological beliefs. After all, fundamental beliefs such as the Trinity, Redemption, and Incarnation were also rejected because they were recognized as irrational. Thus, Christian theology was faced with an identity crisis and the theologians had to find a solution to save Christian theology against the challenges. One of the important theological tendencies that tried to defend theology in the contemporary period resorted to “science” and finally created a new branch of theology called “Scientific Theology.”
German philosopher and theologian, Wolfhart Pannenberg (1928-2014), who was concerned with the rationality of theology, has used this method. The main problem of this article is what Pannenberg’s scientific theology is and can this theology lead him to the considered goals? The importance of such discussions is the fact that Christianity and Christian theologians before Islam were faced with modernity and intellectual and atheist tendencies and tried to solve the problems they had caused. Undoubtedly, familiarity with their research and findings will help Muslims in facing new challenges.
In this article, we will answer the main issue with a descriptive and analytical method; that is, first by referring to Pannenberg’s works, we will give a detailed explanation of his scientific theology and we will subsequently evaluate it.
Wolfhart Pannenberg’s scientific theology
According to Pannenberg’s knowledge of science and religion, he presented his scientific theology in the “Theology and Philosophy of Science” and defended Christian theology. Pannenberg’s scientific theology was formed in the framework of his discussion of the relationship between science and religion and due to this, Pannenberg rejected the “conflict” and “independence” between science and religion. In his view, the “interaction” between them is the correct view. He then lists four conditions for theology to become scientific and the most important of them is “proving the cognitiveness of theological propositions.” That is, if it can be proved that theological propositions report on the “state of affairs” that are independent of humans, they will then be scientific.
But how is such a thing possible? “Logical positivism” does not accept the cognitiveness and meaning of religious propositions. Thus, Pannenberg tries to criticize logical positivism but his criticism does not prove that religious propositions are cognitive. Pannenberg realizes that theological propositions cannot be tested directly like observational and material propositions. In contrast to observational propositions, the state of affairs that theological propositions claim is not available.
Pannenberg believes that to prove they are cognitive, they should be measured and tested on their implications. In his view, such a method is also used in scientific theories; that is, the only way to prove the hypothetical laws of natural sciences is to prove them on their implications, and a theory must be evaluated based on its results. Pannenberg uses this method in theology and in his point of view, this method guarantees that theology becomes scientific.
Thus, theological beliefs should also be measured on the implications that they have for “understanding finite reality.” That is, theological propositions define the meaning of finite reality for us, and if they can do this better than their rivals, their cognitiveness will be proven and they can become scientific. Pannenberg, of course, later retreated a little from this position and said: because reality has not yet ended and has not been determined, and on the other hand, we cannot wait for the end of history, if theological propositions can explain the meaning of our experiences of the final reality, their cognitiveness will be proved. Therefore, theology will become scientific if it can interpret the ultimate reality better than other rivals.
Although the strengths of Pannenberg’s scientific theology cannot be denied, this view has several problems. One of the most important problems is that he has chosen a pragmatic approach to proving the cognitiveness of theological propositions. Although this approach can show the usefulness of a statement in practice the pragmatic approach proves that the statement also refers to external reality because practical usefulness can also be compatible with the non-cognitiveness of theology. On the other hand, it is doubtful if science uses a special method to prove its hypotheses, and if science uses a special method, it is “inference to the best explanation.” On the other hand, the methods of science have also changed throughout history, and relying on the methods that may change, theological propositions will face the problem of being temporary and transitory.
As a result, according to the problems that were mentioned and other problems, it does not seem that this theology can achieve its goals and defend the rationality of theology against the attacks that have been made against it. However, in the Islamic environment, presenting and criticizing such theology cannot be completely useless; some of its approaches can lead the way in solving the conflict between science and religion, and the Islamic society cannot consider itself needless of the experiences that Christian theology has had in confronting modernity including science. Sometimes even the failure of such theology can be useful.

The issue of moral luck is one of the interesting and influential issues in contemporary philosophy of ethics. The main question of this discussion can be expressed as follows: Do matters that are beyond the authority and control of the moral agent affect his moral standing or the extent of his worthiness for moral praise or blame? The “Principle of Control” replies negatively to this question while “Moral Luck” gives a positive one. In the first encounter with the jurisprudential tradition after Shaykh Ansari, it seems that there are two stances in this regard. Through the analytic study of this jurisprudential tradition, the authors have strived to identify, review, and explain the views presented in this intellectual tradition. The emphasis of the jurists that an involuntary act is outside the scope of duty, at least apparently, is an emphasis of the Principle of Control; however, we will see that this principle derived from the principles of jurisprudence is different from the Principle of Control raised in contemporary philosophy of ethics. On the other hand, the views of some jurists in the discussion of tajarrī, and their jurisprudence and interpretation regarding some narrations supports the acceptance of moral luck. A comparison of the collection of prevalent views in the principles of jurisprudence of contemporary Twelver Shiites leads us to the conclusion that the stance of most of them is to accept moral luck along with a particular reading that is compatible with the Principle of Control.
 
The issue of moral luck that was raised at the end of the twentieth century by Thomas Nagel and Bernard Williams can also be pursued in Twelver Shiite principles of jurisprudence. The aims of the authors of this paper are to identify, review, and analyze the prevalent view or viewsamong contemporary Twelver Shiite jurists in dealing with the issue of moral luck. In the jurisprudential tradition after Shaykh Ansari, there is a stance that approves the Principle of Control. However, a point to note is that the jurists have a particular reading of this principle which is different from the prevalent reading in contemporary philosophy of ethics. Some of the stances of contemporary Twelver Shiite jurists also support the acceptance of moral luck. As a result, moral luck is situational and dispositional. In this paper, we will show that many of the contemporary jurists accept moral luck and the Principle of Control that is compatible with it.
The principle of control in Twelver Shiite principles of jurisprudence
Based on the existing literature in contemporary philosophy of ethics, the Principle of Control can be explained as follows:The Principle of Control 1: The moral agent can only be morally evaluated to the extent that moral evaluation is based on factors that are under his free will and control.
In contemporary Twelver Shiite principles of jurisprudence, free will is considered a necessary condition for duties or moral judgments. It seems that this view approves of the Principle of Control; however, not precisely the Principle of Control 1. The principle that can be attributed to the jurists is as follows:The Principle of Control 2: The moral agent is only assessable for the performance of an action that is under his authority and control. Or if it is not under his authority and control, the agent himself has caused this lack of authority through a voluntary act.
Moral luck in Twelver Shiite principles of jusrisprudence
On the other hand, some jurists do not consider a person who is a mutajarrī (one who has performed an act that he thinks is a sin which is not actually a sin) to be deserving of punishment; in contrast to a sinner whereas the difference between the two is in something that is beyond their authority and control. Similarly, it is well-known among jurists that a marja[1] who has arrived at reality will receive twice the reward while one had not arrived would receive one, whereas reaching reality is not completely under his authority and control. Two marajiʿ may strive to the same extent; however, only one of them will arrive at the correct view. The third stance that some contemporary jurists have raised regarding the worthiness of reward or punishment due to an involuntary action is their interpretation of narrations that state: The reward of someone who establishes a good tradition increases to the extent of adherence to that tradition and the punishment of someone who establishes a bad tradition increases to the extent of adherence to that tradition. Obviously, the extent of adherence to a tradition is not completely under the control of the founder of that tradition and two founders may strive to exactly the same extent to promote their traditions; however, one tradition will have more followers.
The view of this group of jurists in these discussions requires that something outside the control and authority of the agent influences his worthiness of reward or punishment and this is equivalent to the acceptance of moral luck.
Considering the differences between the Principle of Control 1 and 2, it seems that the Principle of Control 2 can be combined with moral luck and, as a result, with situational and dispositional moral luck. Based on the Principle of Control 2, for an agent to be properly evaluated, it is sufficient that his action is performed voluntarily, or if it is involuntary, the agent himself caused this involuntariness. However, based on the Principle of Control 1, the agent is only assessable to the extent that moral evaluation is based on factors that are under his authority and control. In reality, in the Principle of Control 2, only the voluntariness of an action is important and if the action itself is voluntary, the moral evaluation of the agent is not limited to the extent that the action is voluntary and under one’s control.
Some contemporary Twelver Shiite jurists believe that sometimes a matter beyond the authority and control of an agent is influential in the extent of the worthiness of praise and reward, or blame and punishment of an agent and, therefore, they accept moral luck; except causal luck. Similarly, the jurists also believe in a specific reading of the principle that is compatible with it.

Physicalist Philosophers of the mind in the 20th century put forward a long list of various theories in defense of a materialistic explanation of the mind and mental events and states. Identity theories were only a part of this list. Saul Kripke, by proposing several arguments, challenged the identity theories and the physicalist philosophers of the mind. In this article, I will examine separately Kripke’s criticisms on the person-body identity and the token-token identity. I will analyze and criticize Feldman’s detailed criticism of these two versions. Then I discuss Lewis’s alternative scheme and his counterpart theory against Kripke’s argument and Feldman’s critiques. I will try to show why Feldman’s materialistic claims in criticizing Kripke’s arguments are not correct. IntroductionKripke has argued against several versions of physicalist identity theories on the mind-body issue. In the last decades of the 20th century, many analytic philosophers have written various papers in defense of or in criticism of his arguments. Among the most famous criticisms are those of David Lewis (1971) and Fred Feldman (1974), which I will try to answer in this article.BodyFeldman, in defense of the person-body identity and also against Kripke’s modal arguments, claims that based on a reading of materialism, ‘the property of being alive is an accidental property of the things that have it. Something can have it for a while, and then cease to have it, without thereby ceasing to exist’ (1974, p. 667). So entities (bodies) that were persons can exist even after death. Or in simpler words, bodies are alive in a contingent and accidental (and not intrinsic) way. And of course, sometimes they would not be such. In my view, the requirement of this claim would be that just as there can be two types of living and non-living bodies, there must also be two types of persons: a living person and a dead person! And it is also assumed that these two, that is, the living body and the living person, are the same, just as the dead body and the dead person are considered to be the same. My claim is that we intuitively and from a commonsensical point of view, accept that the body can be alive or dead, and in both cases, we intuitively accept that the body exists. But we consider being alive or at least having a mental state (such as any kind of consciousness) necessary and essential for being a person (personhood). So a person is alive as long as he or she is a person.I will also try to reinforce this point by offering two counter-examples. In the first counter-example, I try to show that accepting the last bit as a criterion for a person’s survival is based on strange things or leads to non-intuitive ideas. In the second case, I explain that the last bit of a person’s body may be gone, but intuitively we can still consider him a person because his mental states still exist somehow.I also design an ontological test to criticize Feldman’s claim. Since Feldman claims that a person is identical with his body, then as a rule he must accept that as long as there is a dead body in a special place, for example, in a room, exactly in that place a person (a dead person) also exists. A rival view (in defense of Kripke) is opposed to such restrictions; that is, we need not accept that when a person dies, in the exact same place and as long as his dead body exists, a person also exists at the very location. Based on this criterion or the ontological test, the materialist theory gives rise to many limitations as well as unwarranted consequences.Then I explain that Feldman tries to present and criticize various formulations of Kripke’s first argument. But he does not explain in any way what the personhood of an entity, for example, Descartes, depends on. Is it solely dependent on his body and physical properties? Or just dependent on his mind and mental properties? Or a mixture of both types of properties? How long is Descartes the same person as before? How can we know that Descartes (as a person) at time B is the same person as the previous Descartes, for example, Descartes at time A? How long is Descartes the same person as before and since when does that person no longer exist? I think such questions can help us understand why Feldman’s criticisms against Kripke are not so clear and mature; he does not sufficiently explain what he means by the person, and to the necessary extent, he does not clarify why his materialistic conception is superior to Kripke’s or why Kripke’s view against the person-body identity is insufficient or unacceptable.In defense of Kripke’s position about the token identity, it seems that some properties are involved in the individuation of pain, and therefore are intrinsic to pain. The phenomenological position of a pain is intrinsic to that pain. For example, a toothache cannot be a leg pain (the phenomenological position refers to the position where the pain is felt phenomenologically, even though there is no such physical injury in such a bodily location/position). But many relevant aspects of pain are not intrinsic to pains. For example, the physical output of a pain is not essential for it. For example, in the actual world, pains may cause persons to cry only as a contingent fact. It even seems that pain can occur a little earlier or later, or its intensity can vary a little and be the same pain. Thus all properties of pain are not essential to it. Now, why is the coexistence and co-occurrence of pain with C neural firing intrinsic to it?ConclusionThe claim that pain is individuated by C firing is actually without any reason, and on the other hand, Kripke has a good reason to show that C neural firing is not intrinsic to pain because a separation between the two is easily conceivable. Overall, it seems that Feldman’s claims are not correct, and he has not well illustrated the options available to Kripke. Lewis has also criticized Kripke’s argument based on his own metaphysical and semantic foundations (in the counterpart theory), which are not intuitive and acceptable to many. The foundations are, per se, doubtful. Therefore, Kripke’s anti-physicalist modal arguments are still thought-provoking and interesting.

One of the most significant topics in the philosophy of science literature is the debate between scientific realism and anti-realism. In recent years, a considerable amount of literature has emerged on scientific progress accounts. The aim of this article is to explore the relationship between scientific realism/anti-realism and scientific progress accounts. Scientific realism, in this article, refers to epistemic realism, which posits that mature and successful scientific theories offer an (approximately) true description of the world. In contrast, advocates of epistemic anti-realism reject the possibility of acquiring knowledge about unobservable entities. Scientific progress accounts fall into four categories based on their intended epistemic, semantic, problem-solving (functional), and noetic. This article argues that the epistemic and semantic accounts, which rely on the concept of truth, are based on scientific realism. The problem-solving account is considered an anti-realistic approach since it replaces the criterion of truth with the ability to solve problems. The primary argument of this article is that although the noetic account appears to use the concept of truth in its explanation, it prioritizes understanding over truth in determining the preferred theory. This means that the criterion for selecting the preferred theory is not approximation to the truth, but rather understanding. As a result, the noetic account is based on an anti-realistic approach.
 
The thesis of epistemic realism posits that successful and mature scientific theories are (approximately) true. Also, various accounts of scientific progress focus on specific objectives within science. This article argues that the epistemic and semantic approaches align with a realist perspective, while the problem-solving (functional) and noetic accounts have anti-realist foundations.
Scientific realism
Generally, three theses of scientific realism can be identified: the metaphysical (ontological) thesis, the semantic thesis, and the epistemic thesis. The metaphysical thesis asserts that the world exists independently of the mind. The semantic thesis claims that propositions concerning unobservable entities can be evaluated as true or false implying that all scientific propositions have meaning whether they relate to observable or unobservable entities. The epistemic realism thesis argues that we can acquire knowledge about reality including knowledge about unobservable entities. To be more precise, the claims about theoretical entities in scientific theories are not only meaningful but also provide an almost true depiction of reality.
In this article, realism refers specifically to epistemic realism, which encompasses three main aspects: 1) the existence of a mind-independent world, 2) the attribution of truth or falsity to scientific propositions concerning unobservable entities, and 3) the claim that the propositions in mature scientific theories regarding theoretical entities are nearly true. On the other hand, one advocate of epistemic anti-realism is Bas van Fraassen’s constructive empiricism. According to this perspective, van Fraassen denies the capacity to acquire knowledge about unobservable levels. In this view, the goal of science is not truth but rather empirical adequacy. This means that the objective of scientific endeavor is not to uncover the truth, but rather to construct models that are empirically sufficient.
Scientific progress accounts
Regarding the concept of scientific progress, four accounts have been presented. In the epistemic account, the goal of science is to increase knowledge or justified true belief. Therefore, scientific progress occurs as we accumulate knowledge. In the semantic account, the objective of science is to approach closer to the truth (verisimilitude). This implies that science progresses when our theories are more truth-like. In the problem-solving (functional) approach, the concept of truth is set aside, and the focus shifts to problem-solving or fulfilling specific functions within science. In this account, scientific progress is marked by the development of new theories that effectively solve more problems compared to previous ones. In the new functional approach, scientific progress is defined in terms of the usefulness of the problem-defining and problem-solving. Advocates of the noetic account consider increased understanding to be the goal of science. In other words, science advances when scientists grasp how to correctly explain or predict more aspects of the world.
Scientific progress accounts and scientific realism
In both the epistemic and semantic accounts, truth plays a pivotal role. Justified true belief serves as a necessary condition for acquiring knowledge. In the epistemic account, it is possible to acquire knowledge about theoretical entities. Thus, we can infer that the epistemic account is rooted in scientific realism. In the semantic account, the ultimate aim of science is to achieve complete truth. While achieving complete truth in theories may not be certain within this approach, it is possible to demonstrate their approximate truth. Therefore, according to this account, mature scientific theories are considered to be almost true. Consequently, this account aligns with scientific realism.
In presenting the problem-solving approach, Laudan explicitly argues against truth being the objective of science, as there is no criterion available to gauge the attainment of truth. In other words, if we define the success of scientific theories based on their ability to solve scientific problems, this success does not necessarily indicate the truth of the theory. While mature scientific theories may demonstrate success and possess the capability to solve numerous problems in comparison to earlier theories, this accomplishment does not directly correlate to the truthfulness of the theory. Consequently, this approach adopts an anti-realist perspective towards science.
In the noetic account, priority is given to understanding over approximation to the truth, despite the presence of both criteria. To clarify further, if there are two competing theories, with one being more aligned with reality but the other providing a greater level of understanding, the second theory is considered preferable. Moreover, the concept of the model in the noetic approach resembles the concept of the model in the doctrine of constructive empiricism. This implies that scientific theories do not necessarily provide a true depiction of the world, but rather act as models designed to enhance our understanding. This perspective on scientific theories is anti-realist since it contradicts the thesis of epistemic realism, which asserts that mature scientific theories offer an (almost) true description of the world.
In summary, this article puts forth the following assertions:l The epistemic and semantic accounts offer explanations for scientific progress within the framework of scientific realism.
l The problem-solving (functional) account takes an anti-realist standpoint by explicitly discarding the notion of truth. Although some argue that the new functional approach can be classified as a realistic perspective, the article contends that it still remains anti-realist.
l The noetic account inherently embraces an anti-realist position. It considers scientific theories as models that prioritize enhancing understanding rather than providing a relatively accurate description of the world.

Thoughts and theoretical reflections about “governance” in Islamic society, whether theorizing about the desired structure of government or describing the characteristics of an ideal ruler, is one of the most important topics studied in the field of political thought and philosophy in Islam, to which great names such as Farabi, etc. are connected. In this context, this research, through a comparative approach, seeks to examine and analyze the views of Farabi and Sohrawardi about the ideal ruler from the perspective of a judicial approach. Based on such an approach, a philosopher like Farabi considers the different ways of connecting to the active intellect as the separation of the theoretical intellect from matter and the connection to the active intellect, and a divine sage like Sohrawardi also speaks of the separation of the theoretical intellect and the separation of the power of imagination, which is manifested in a prophet. In the eyes of both thinkers, human reason has the ability to overcome material existence. This type of excellence is a condition for achieving complete metaphysical knowledge and theoretical perfection. The ultimate happiness is the achievement of the active intellect. “The Absolute First Leader” and “Quṭb (Imam or pole)” have both achieved this position.
The ideal government and ruler, in the system of Islamic philosophy, are based on the approach of philosophers to wisdom and their opinions and ruling foundations. The philosophers’ approach to wisdom and intellect in the system of Islamic philosophy has changed and developed from Farabi to Sohrawardi and later. Based on this change in the method and approach to wisdom of the sages, philosophical issues and topics including the issue of government and the ideal ruler, have also undergone changes and transformations.
Despite the significant evolution of Islamic philosophy in the two Peripatetic and Illuminative systems, it seems that the ideal ruler in Sohrawardi’s philosophy, which he refers to as “the pole/Imam (quṭb),” is compatible with the first leader of al-Farabi’s utopia. The problem of this research is to investigate the characteristic features of “Qutb” and “First Leader/Philosopher” in the Peripatetic and Illuminative systems of philosophy based on Sohrawardi and Farabi’s approach to wisdom and its types.
“Qutb” in Sohrawardi’s thought
In the wisdom of enlightenment, the perfect human being and the “Qutb” to whom the position of caliph belongs, is perfect in intuitive and argumentative wisdom, and in other words, he is both adept in reflection and adept in discussion.
In Sohrawardi’s thought, the rulers must know wisdom as well be practical wayfarers, that is, they must possess a combination of theoretical and practical wisdom. On the one hand, Sohrawardi’s theory is influenced and consistent with Plato’s theory, both of which emphasize the “ruling sage,” and on the other hand, it is influenced by the Iranian tradition and the benefit of the ideal kings from wisdom and intellect, and “Khurra-yi Kiani”[1] and the approval of God, which is in the interpretation Religious and close to Sufism and Shiism, it is interpreted as Qutb and divine sage. A Qutb or an Imam is one who is connected with the active intellect, receives grace from the higher realm, and spreads goodness, prosperity, knowledge, justice, and virtue among religions with a divine plan.
“The First Leader” in Farabi’s thought
The First Leader is someone who does not need the guidance of another human being; rather, all sciences and knowledge are obtained by him in esse and he is able to infer appropriate actions and behavior from general reasoning. He can also best guide others to perform these meritorious deeds; the same actions and actions that bring a person to happiness. These abilities are realized in people of great and outstanding nature by connecting to the active intellect. Such a person, in fact, in the eyes of the ancients, is a king and ruler and worthy of revelation. The rule of such a person is the first rule and his leadership is the first leadership, and the rule of others that is through his rule will be the subordinate rule, and people under the rule of this leader and leader are virtuous people, the chosen ones, and the fortunate ones.
In examining and comparing the two viewpoints, it should be said that a philosopher like Farabi considers the different ways of connecting to the active intellect to be the separation of the theoretical intellect from matter and the connection to the active intellect, and a Godly sage like Sohrawardi also speaks of the separation of the theoretical intellect and the power of imagination, which manifests itself in a prophet, where we witness detachment from matter and the ability to remove the soul from the body.
In the eyes of both thinkers, human reason has the ability to overcome material existence. This type of excellence is a condition for achieving complete metaphysical knowledge and theoretical perfection. The ultimate happiness is the achievement of the active intellect.”First Leader”and “Qutb” have both achieved this position. Based on this, the complete transcendence of material existence is possible for certain people.

According to Kant, Synthesis is temporally structured. However, the "transcendental I" which serves as the foundation for temporal Synthesis, is out of time. In the analogies of experience, the "transcendental I" does not put into any moods of time (persistence, succession, and simultaneity). This may seem contradictory, as it raises the question of how the timeless "transcendental I" can form the basis of a synthetic judgment while also being out of time. This article aims to show that, based on the discussion on synthesis and the analogies of experience, the timelessness of the transcendental self does not entail a disconnection from time. Because the disconnection with time will render the transcendence of the self meaningless in Kant's philosophy. Although the "transcendental I" is not "in" time, it is always "with" time. Being "with" time means that the subject, as pure spontaneity, constitutes objectivity through time. This is because the existence of phenomena and their objective knowledge is only possible through objectivity as a determination in time. By giving time to itself a priori, the transcendental self affects itself and thus guarantees its transcendence through its finitude which is the constant companionship to time.IntroductionKant's philosophy posits that every synthesis, such as apprehension, reproduction, or recognition, is temporally structured. However, the unity of these combinations requires the existence of the transcendental self as their a priori ground for knowledge. According to Kant, the transcendental self, as the ground of the temporality of combinations, exists outside of time. In the analogies of experience, Kant goes beyond this and claims that the transcendental self is even outside of any of the modes of time (persistence, succession, and simultaneity). This raises a problem: if the transcendental I is outside of time, then its transcendence would be meaningless in Kant's philosophy. We will show that the synthetic unity of knowledge occurs in all its stages in connection with time. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that the possibility of a priori synthetic knowledge depends on the relationship between time and the transcendental self. This article has tried to show with the phenomenological approach and by examining the discussion of synthesis and analogies of experience that the temporality of the transcendental self does not mean its "being in time" but rather, it means the constant companionship of the transcendental self and time itself.The relationship between time and SynthesisAccording to Kant, multiplicity needs synthesis to be known. The multiplicity of time cannot be understood unless the unity of time is assumed beforehand. The unity of time is the formal and a priori condition of the intuition of all phenomena. The synthesis of apprehension is related to the present. The synthesis of reproduction that is related to the past is the synthesis of the current moments with the previous moments. This is the responsibility of the transcendental imagination. The synthesis of recognition is related to the future because the a priori identity of the two moments will be the end based on which the imagination can order the multiplicity of intuitions (moments).The combination of recognition or the identification of understanding itself requires a fundamental identity that unites all three combinations. This second identity is called “Transcendental Apperception” which according to Kant is outside of time. How can the timeless transcendental self be the ground of the temporal combination? If the transcendental self is outside of time, it is no longer transcendental, and if it is in time, like other phenomena, it becomes an object of knowledge. How can this conflict be resolved in Kant? The answer to this question can be found in the section on analogies of experience.Analogies of experience: relation of time with the transcendentalself-consciousnessIn the analogies of experience, In analogies of experience, Kant talks about the moods of time. The moods of time are persistence, succession, and simultaneity. Even in analogies of experience, although Kant proposes these three modes of time, the above conflict is not resolved. Therefore, not only is the transcendental self not placed in any of the divisions of time, but also according to the analogies of experience, it is not placed in any moods of time.The conflict is resolved only when we note that all three analogies are related to the categories of relation. In addition to being related to the categories of relation, analogies reveal the meaning of "relation"; The "relation" between the subject and the predicate of the sentence and the relationship between the subject and the object in general. The pure unity of time - which is assumed by the transcendental subject - is the necessity that makes possible not only the knowledge of objects but also the realization of objectivity. Therefore, transcendental self-consciousness, as the necessary condition for knowing objects, must always consider its connection with the pure unity of time. If these rules - the analogies of experience - do not exist as transcendental time- determinations, the unity of nature and the temporality of phenomena will be lost. As a result, experience in the sense of a priori synthesis of phenomena also becomes meaningless.Therefore, even though nothing has been directly said about the relationship between time and transcendental self-consciousness in analogies, there is a fundamental connection between transcendental self-consciousness and time. The objectivity of synthetic judgments depends on time; Although, time is neither something outside the transcendental subject nor inside the subject. Rather, time is the way by which the subject affects itself. According to Heidegger, time is the continuous self-affecting of the subject.ConclusionAccording to what has been said, in the discussion of the analogies, it becomes clear how the transcendental subject, though it is not "in" time, makes it possible to be "in" time, And this is the same constant companionship of the transcendental self with time itself. Time and transcendental self are two sides of a pure combination. The transcendental self makes possible one side of knowledge - that is, subjectivity - and time - the other side - that is, objectivity. Neither time nor the transcendent self is "in" time. At the same time, both of them are a priori to all of the intra-temporal objects.Moreover, the transcendent self is not "in" time but "with" time. And in being with time, The transcendent self can make all the moods of time possible. This companionship means the persistence of the relationship.Finally, only being "with" time can justify the paradox of receptivity of self in intuition and spontaneity of understanding. The transcendental self as pure spontaneity accompanied with time can pose the receptive self in front of itself as objectivity and it guarantees the transcendence of the subject.