فهرست مطالب حسن لاهوتیان

How explaining practice which is the point of linking this new branch of philosophy with the philosophy of the humanities is one of the main questions of contemporary philosophy of practice. Some philosophers have explained this issue scientifically and based on the causal relation of reason to action (with practice) and others have attempted to rationalize it and interpret it differently from scientific explanation. ʿAllama Jaʿfari while analyzing human action and emphasizing the element of free will has tried to show that the voluntary action can be explained despite the dominance of the factor over doing and quitting. ʿAllama while distinguishing between rational explanation and scientific explanation, although accepted causal explanation in the field of scientific research, but does not limit it in explanation by reason; rather, by emphasizing the role of free will and human freedom, considering of the four factors of intrinsic (intrinsically) variable, intrinsically fixed, extrinsically variable and extrinsically fixed in scientific explanation. ʿAllama also, divides explanation into two stages before and after operation and introduces a priori explanation method as inductive and based on probability calculus and introduces posteriori explanation method as syllogistic. The present study, in addition to extract and adjust ʿAllama Jaʿfari’s theory in explaining action, explains three important challenges of normativeness (the quality or state of being normative), logical relationship and deviation in the chain of action that are discussed in causal theories and shows that these problems that based on analysis of human action and freedom of the will can be answered.

The philosophy of action is a trend in contemporary philosophy that has a close relationship with the fields of philosophy of mind, ethics and human sciences, and the pursuit of its issues about human action and what it is will have implications for the scientific and philosophical discussions of these different fields. Despite the extent of the discussion of action in the history of Islamic thought, the study of Allameh Jafari's works shows that few Muslim thinkers like him have analyzed human action in detail. Realizing the necessity of this discussion for human sciences, Allameh has followed this issue and during his discussions, he has examined the points that are important for the philosophy of action today. In Jafari's theory of action, action is introduced from the category of action (or, in other words, event) and its attribution to the human "I" has a special place. Also, Jafari considers the three components of will, decision and discretion as the means of "I" to realize action, among which the component of discretion is considered the most important component. Finally, the action is defined based on the causal relationship between these components with the human soul, psyche and body in such a way that the basic action is the movement of the soul and after that, the change in the psyche and then the nervous system of the body.

The question of how to determine ethical good or bad made philosophers propose three general approaches: consequentialism, deontology and virtue ethics. From among the most celebrated deontological theories, Kant's theory is known as the maximal one. In contrast, there are theories of deontology that take consequences into special consideration, as well. Shahid Sadr's view is an example of such theories that not only introduces practical reason as a faculty to determine duties like Kant, but also as per his world-view considers divine pleasure as an aim and criterion for values.  Since many studies have been carried out about Kant's theory, the main aim of this comparative research is to bring out strong and weak points of Shahid Sadr's view whose findings are as the following: a) to suggest a more precise analysis of the role of intention in ethical values; b) to propose a criterion of consequentialism free from objections raised against Kant's theory; c) to well analyze and answer the counter-examples that demonstrate Kant's view contrary to the commonsense.In contrast, Kant's strategy in his analysis of the moral law -contrary to Sadr's deontology- has the characteristic of coming out of internal orientation and thus can be presented in the frame of other concepts

The term "Tajarry" disobedience is a specific behavior that has been studied in the science of the principles of jurisprudence(alemalosul) from different angles, but this issue can also be extended to the field of ethics in such a way that whenever a person acts against a false belief and with the intention to oppose to do with an illusory moral thing is to be a moral recalcitran. The concept of "moral recalcitran" has three components: "false belief as an epistemological error", "bad intention" and "external action", from which the title of recalcitran is abstracted and becomes the subject of the problem of Tajarry.
In examining this issue, after extending the concept of  “Tajarry” to the field of ethics and explaining the possibility of raising the issue of “Tajarry” from different perspectives, this article expresses various types of subjective ugliness and finally argues that “Tajarry” is an example of "acting to immoral act"and is ugly and the doer deserves condemnation.

Sadr, as one of the pioneers in the field of production of religious knowledge, has presented a substantial theory in this regard, according to which he has tried to establish Islamic economics. This theory can be generalized to other fields of humanities and is called "the theory of the scientific birth of religious community" in this research. According to this theory, Sadr believes that humanities is always dependent on and within the framework of a doctrine that has been accepted by the community studied by scholars. The focus of Sadr's theory of religious science is the dependency and relationship between science and doctrine; and on this basis, he explains the possibility of producing such science and its necessity.
The process of production of religious knowledge, from Sadr's point of view, is explained as follows: First, with the help of religious insights and commands and applying the ijtihad method and the approach of coherentism, the jurist uses the superstructure of the Divine law to discover the substructure and basic theories of the school. Then, if this school is implemented in the society and the events of the Islamic society are considered as the data for experimental methods, religious sciences will be born by the hands of scholars of different fields of humanities from the heart of the religious community.

The contrast between causal necessity and human free will has been a major challenging problem throughout the history of Islamic philosophy and theology. Many intellectuals have tried to solve the problem. Shahid Ṣadr is a contemporary incompatibilist Muslim scholar who contributed to the problem by borrowing and modifying Nāʾīnī’s ‘theory of will’ (ṭalab). He has formulated the problem as follows: as long as the human action is not necessitated as an instance of the principle of causal necessity it cannot exist, and such necessity is incompatible with free will, so human actions are deterministic. He then believes that the philosophical principle of “necessitation by the other,” as an aspect of causal necessity, finds an exception in free agents, and by adding the matter of dominion (salṭana) to the three philosophical matters (i.e. necessity, possibility, and impossibility), he has changed the principle from “the thing is not made existent as long as it is not necessitated” to “the thing is not made existent except by necessity or dominion.” In this paper, we seek to provide an analytic account of the ‘theory of dominion,’ establishing its cogency and accuracy by replying to objections, and in this way, we try to do justice to the free will and the problem of determinism.

This study seeks to investigate the moral practice and the place of consciousness and knowledge in the realization of moral behavior based on the two general approaches of Kantian moral conscientiousness and Bentham pragmatic utilitarianism as well as the approach of Martyr Sadr. The main challenge is what effect do the two elements of consciousness and will (intention) have on the morality or non-morality of an action? And in the case of moral experience, if our awareness of the correctness or incorrectness of an action is wrong, and we will the wrong action, which is in fact true, what role do this awareness and will play in the content of that action; Do we consider that verb right or wrong?To address such a challenge, Section 1 addresses the issue of epistemic access and knowledge of the justification of normative propositions. In Part 2, he states that by accepting Bentham's pragmatic utilitarianism, even under the premise of moral realization, rebellion and rebellion have not taken place, and that the doer of the act does not deserve to be condemned. Section 3 also states that, on the basis of Kant's moral conscientiousness, a kind of rebellion has certainly taken place with moral practice, and that the behavior of the practitioner is immoral, and that person deserves condemnation. In Part 4, Martyr Sadr's approach to the executor is examined and compared with Kant and Bentham.

According to Mulla Sadra and his Transcendental Wisdom which considers reality being equal to existence to be a self-evident matter, ontology means recognizing reality. However, Muhammad Baqir Sadr tries to show reality to be general and inclusive of existence by denying the self-evidence of this equality. Even though this claim has other advocates like the Muʿtazilites in Islamic thought; however, Sadr is distinguished from them in the purpose of declaring such a claim, its content, and in the arguments presented for it and has formed a well-established view in this regard. To recognize reality, Sadr designates an identifier and strives to discover instances of it based on that. The identifier of reality is that it is independent of the agent’s understanding and validation, and the mind is not active in perceiving it; rather, it is passive concerning the external world. Therefore, any true proposition that denotes the external for us and does not arise from the mind or validation shows us a part of reality. He concludes the actualization of another type of external reality by citing the truth of external theorems where either the subject or the predicate or both do not exist externally and suggests essential reality alongside reality actualized through existence. Although the matter of which theorems are true and essentially what is the criterion of the truth of theorems is an epistemological issue to which Islamic philosophers have responded with the “logical thing-in-itself” argument. However, Sadr pursues the discussion of philosophical thing-in-itself with an ontological approach. Based on the aforementioned identifier, the real world, according to Sadr, is formed of different and heterogeneous matters which are not necessarily present externally. The category of substance, quality, and quantity are realities externally existent; while the reality of connectives, philosophical intelligibles, the category of genitives, the requisites of quiddities, perceptible of the practical intellections and non-beings, are all realities that do not exist externally and are essential. In contrast, according to Mulla Sadra, reality is explained through the foundation of the principality of existence. Principal reality is the individual of existence and all else, like the ten categories of quiddity, philosophical intelligibles, and even … possess reality through existence. The present study strives to first explain reality’s relationship with the following three concepts: 1) existence; 2) quiddity and 3) secondary philosophical intelligibles and examine the way it is affirmed and its important instances. It then compares Sadr’s real world with Mulla Sadra’s ontology and after responding to some of the issues raised against Sadr’s view, concludes that despite the foundational differences in the self-evidence of some of the propositions, they have both utilized similar methods in recognizing reality and have paid attention to the difference between “lack of existence” and “the existence of non-being” in the conflict between argument and self-evidence and have advocated for argument by revising their view regarding an issue that manifests as self-evident. Mulla Sadra considers “the necessity of attribution of the existence of both sides in the context of attribution” to be an argument through which he shunts the self-evidence of the proposition that “non-being attributes do not exist externally” and does not see the inexistence of these attributes externally to be a proof that they do not exist. In contrast, Sadr rejects that “reality equals existence” by citing that “the truth of theorems which do not have a matching existence externally” and the lack of existence of a correspondent of such theorems externally Mulla Sadra,  does not mean that they are not real.

While the criteria for measuring ethical values have not been assessed by Muslim thinkers independently, such criteria can be inferred based on the intellectual foundations of each of them. Martyr Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr was one of the Muslim thinkers, whose thoughts can be assessed to introduce a criterion for measuring moral values. In the assessment of the good and the bad of actions, martyr Sadr attacks the sayings and opinions that have been raised in Islamic thought and considers other possibilities about good and bad criteria in his criticizing of possible types of teleological theories and introduced deontology to be rule-based by accepting the practical reason and its absolute evidence. Nevertheless, he accepted a destination called the divine paradise to be equal to the deontological criterion and regard defects and errors of practical reason to be compensable through this way. Therefore, the present study showed that from the perspective of Sadr, neither deontology nor teleology is absolute. In fact, he chose a combination of both, and in a way, he introduced God-oriented deontology, which also emphasizes virtue ethics.