فهرست مطالب ahmad muhammadi peyrow

The present study aims at presenting a precise explanation of the principle of ‘Unification of Lordship’ in Mulla Sadra’s view and its difference from similar terminologies. The research question is as follows: “How is divine lordship explained from philosophical aspect?” To investigate the issue, first we have given a clear explanation of various types of divine actions. Then, we have compared the quality of divine action with that of the human’s action, stated their differences, and enumerated – to explain the truth of divine attributes – various types of divine attributes, returning them to self-subsistence. Finally, we have scrutinized the difference between Unification of Lordship and unity of divine actions. The findings of the study show that what is realized, in the divine action, outwardly is the very innovation and effusion from whose various modes a variety of conceptions, including Lordship, is abstracted. This relative attribute returns to God’s subsistence without any change. Unification of Lordship, that is supporting and management of the creatures, means the very divine governance, but in a lower rank.

For Mulla Sadra, the criterion for “the argument of the truthful” is that it should start from the origin of existence. The origin of existence is nothing except the Almighty Necessary-Being. Thus, in such an argument, reasoning is from essence for essence. Although this seems to beg the question, in fact it is not, because when we look at the origin of existence, we see that the origin of existence is the same as the Necessary-Being and the reasoning is from essence for essence. Indeed, the Necessary-Being has not been assumed in advance to necessitate contradiction and beg the question. This reasoning is not a priori demonstration, because Necessary-Being has no cause to be liable to the rules of such arguments. This is true if external causality is considered the criterion for “a priori argument”. Therefore, we may consider it “semi a priori” since it leads to certainty. Besides, one may extend the a priori argumentation to analytic causes and consider this type of reasoning as a priori as well; and since analytic causality is also true causality, its being a priori will also be a true one.