ghasem pourhassan

The aim of this research is to study the nature of intercultural philosophy with a descriptive-analytical approach from the point of view of Ram Adhar Mall, who traveled to the West with an Indian background and founded the Association of Intercultural Philosophy in Germany. Using the relation between culture and philosophy, cultural other, overlaps, truth, pluralism, and tolerance, he has developed an intercultural philosophy with an Eastern reading, which, of course, comes from an Indian Dharma as a fact and different names; but he has transcended its spatiality and tried to critique European centralism and inverted Eastern ethnocentrism, speaking of a white philosophy that is inherently devoid of a particular color, language, and race, and has diverse roots in a number of different cultures. Four-dimensional hermeneutics is depicted between Europeans and non-Europeans. Thus, intercultural philosophy is an attitude or moral commitment and leads to a way of life. It also differentiates them based on the common and overlapping structures of cultures and moves towards a polyphonic discourse in the world without absolute self-concept and tries to re-read Indian philosophy in the world discourse. It also seeks an intercultural society and a world with unequal unity.

This article is entitled "Suhrawardi's Critique of Ibn Sina's Theory on Monsters and the Body" which is qualitative in nature and lacks hypotheses and variables. The purpose of the article is fundamental and theoretical. The main question is: How is Suhrawardi's critique of Ibn Sina's theory on the subject of monsters and the body explained? The research method is descriptive-analytical which uses the tools of formal logic and the position of data collection is library.Ibn Sina, while believing in the real existence of the monster, considered the appearance of the body as dependent on its existence and considered the body as a continuous substance composed of matter and independent form. On the other hand, Suhrawardi rejected the existence of monsters and considered them as purely mental and considered the body as simple, but included substance and width, and did not accept the sum of two inks in a single body and accepted it as a substantial connection and continuous quantity. In this article, the right or wrong of these two views is examined.

This article is entitled "Suhrawardi''s critiques of Ibn Sina''s theory on the subject of motion" and has been compiled with a qualitative nature without hypotheses and variables. The main question is: How is Suhrawardi''s critique of Ibn Sina''s theory on the subject of motion explained? Data collection is a library, and the research method is descriptive-analytical, which uses the tools of formal logic and its purpose is fundamental and theoretical. Ibn Sina called the gradual departure of the object from power to action and considered it in four categories: low, bag, here and the current situation. Before Ibn Sina and according to Aristotle''s philosophy, the category of status was not among the acceptors of motion, but Ibn Sina added this category to the discussion of motion. Suhrawardi, with the exception of the low category, agreed with the other three categories, and believed that the quantity of an object, which is always changing, is a matter of quantitative motion, not an absolute object. For this reason, he did not consider movement to be a minor category. He also, due to the rejection of the monster, does not make any connection between the movement of the monster and the body and face.

Leo Strauss held that the essence of society is opinion and the essence of philosophy is knowledge and thought of these two as rivals; thus, he maintained that philosopher has to use esotericism and writing between lines to avoid persecution. Doing so, Strauss advanced a kind of hermeneutics which is invented for interpreting philosophical texts. One could find supportive idea to this hermeneutics in works of Plato, Farabi, Avicenna, Suhrawardi, Ghazali and others; but, there are, at the same time, a number of problems which Strauss’ hermeneutics face them: first of all, there are philosophers who hold opinions by strictly adhere to other philosophers thoughts rather than seeking knowledge; secondly, a long-lasting tradition of philosophical commentaries and interpretation undermine Strauss’, because it is not reasonable that a philosopher do not have enough courage and bravery to express their idea but commentators have; thirdly, a significant number of philosophers have not used esotericism in the ancient times, those philosophers weaken the universality of Strauss’ hermeneutics. In this paper, it is showed that hermeneutics of Leo Strauss is authentic for some ancient philosopher, but it could not be used as a general theory of interpretation for any given philosopher and philosophical school.

Mysticism and Sufism are among the phenomena that have been influential in the fields of theory and social changes. They are considered as influential factors on Islamic civilization and different approaches have been adopted about them. In this research, three general approaches are presented for the phenomena of Mysticism and Sufism. The first approach considers the basis and essence of Islamic civilization as Sufism and Gnosticism, and interprets the foundations of Islamic civilization from the beginning to the present based on this idea. The second approach believes in the impossibility of establishing political and civilizational thoughts based on Sufism and Mysticism and considers this to be the main reason for the closure of reason and the decline of Islamic thought and civilization. The third approach regards the mystical stream as one of the most important factors leading to the development of Islamic civilization.

There are two main interpretations of the “fundamental reality of existence”. Some philosophers take the view that the real world is loaded with existence, but as quiddity is nothing more than the instantiation of existence, the two are identical. In contrast, there are other philosophers who argue that the world of reality is loaded by existence and quiddity is just an image of existence in the mind of human beings. According to the first theory, the unity of existence and quiddity is not but the real identity of the two. On the other hand, according to the second theory, the unity of these two means just the application of the concept of quiddity on reality. Although some statements of Sadrolmotalehin are in accord with the second theory, a comprehensive look on his philosophical principles and propositions leads us to the first theory. There are two significant types of evidence which confirm the claim: (1) similarity of the relationship which can be found between existence and quiddity with the relationship which exists between essence and qualities of the divine essence, and (2) Sadrolmalehin’s claim in his discussion of “mental existence” about the coincidence of mental quiddity with the quiddity which exists in the real world.

"Silence of text" is the basis for the theory of “contraction and expansion of Shariah” and this idea is based on the assumption of “being an absolute consumer of religious knowledge”. Soroush, like Gadamer and Derrida, adopts an audience-centered approach in answering the question of: Where does the meaning of the text come from? His answer is that the meaning of the text resides in the understanding that emerges from the audience’s interpretation of the text individually or through question and answer. This idea has a number of consequences including relativism, violation of order in sending messengers and the revelation of the holy book, and the negation of the possibility of achieving wisdom. The present paper aims at delineating the origins of the idea of "silence of text" taking a hermeneutical perspective.

Mulla Sadra is considered unanimously as the most influential philosopher in the Islamic Philosophy tradition in the last four hundred years. Mulla Sadra’s philosophy is founded on existence as the unique constituent of reality and its primacy, the intensity of existence, and finally transubstantiality or substantial motion of being. Mulla Sadra made the primacy of existence as the main basis of his philosophy. He distinguishes between the concept of being and the reality of being. The first, is the most obvious of all concepts and the most universal, while the second, is the most ambiguous, since it requires presence knowledge and pure intellect, which would be able to discern existence as reality. Farabi and Ibn Sina perceived that in the existence-quiddity relationship, existence is an accident. Al-Suhrawardi holds the theory more radical that existence is merely a mental concept with no corresponding reality and it is quiddity, which constitutes reality. Ibn Rushd had criticized this approach. Mulla Sadra despite all Islamic philosophy tradition and his teacher, Mir Damad adopts an opposite and new outlook. His fundamental doctrine is principality of existence, and then quddities are the mental constructs. Reality is then the base of existence, which is graded and existentiating the reality of all things. Mulla Sadra at first followed his teacher and only after visionary and Gnostic existence, came to realize that it is existence, which bestows reality and has primacy on quiddity.