جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « قوای نفس » در نشریات گروه « علوم قرآن و حدیث »

The Power of Imagination in Ibn Sina and his followers` philosophy is introduced as the container of those partial forms perceived by the common sense. Sadr al-Mutuallihin, however, when defining the power of Imagination, presented two distinct, but coherent and logical, perspectives inferential and describable by his methodological analysis. The main issue of the current study is to describe Sadr al-Mutuallihin's true theory of the what of imagination and then compare it with the common Peripatetic view to discover the true commonalities and differences between these two views. The main finding, on an analytical-logical approach and the propositional and systematic analysis of Sadr al-Mutuallihin's statements in the two positions of "explaining the fundamentals of the cognition of the imagination" and "presenting the functions of this power", suggests that Sadra has adopted two approaches. At the beginning of his epistemological debates and his powers, he is subject to the famous view of the Peripatetic, and then, in a process of transcendence, with a view to the possibility of forming a self-power, offers another perspective on the recognition of the imagination. Mulla Sadra defines the imagination as the animal soul and the real species of man in the animal system, which itself is based on the three-fold power of the human soul in his philosophical system

One of the fundamental topics in philosophical psychology is the criterion of the multiplicity of the powers of the soul. The main research question is: What has been taken as the criteria for mental powers as being numerous by Ibn Sina, Suhrawardi and Mulla Sadra for multiplicity of souls? How one may view on what they said in the field? Ibn Sina introduces five criteria in terms of differences in intensity and weakness, rapidity and slowness, existence and absence, contradiction and sexual difference as the criteria, and, relying on the rule of alvahid accepts only the fifth criterion. Sheikh Ishraq, limiting the rule of alvahid to the very essence of God, explains the difference and multiplicity of mental powers in terms of different directions and modifications of the soul. Mulla Sadra, having criticized Ibn Sina`s, also examines the distinction of powers based on the criterion of the separation of one power from another and contradiction in the functions of the soul. In this study, while analyzing these criteria critically, we discuss the drawbacks to them, and prove that none of them may be taken as a criterion in the field.

The faculty of imagination in the philosophy of Avicenna and his followers is known as a mental capacity for preserving particular forms perceived by common sense. Sadr ul-Mutuallihin, yet, when defining the faculty of imagination, has given two various, but interconnected and logical, views, that are inferential from and describable on his methodological analysis in the field of human soul. The basic issue of the current research is to describe Sadra`s final view of the what-ness of the human soul and to compare it with that of peripatetic philosophers. The main finding, being achieved in a logical and analytical method and relying on the propositional and systematic analysis of the statements of Sadr al-Mutuallihin in two positions of "explaining the foundations of the knowledge of the faculty" and "giving the Functions of the faculty," has shown the validity of the claim. At first, he thought as the well-known peripatetic and, then, relying on the gradation of the mental faculty gave another view on which the faculty of imagination is known as the animate soul and as the very logical particularity of human being in animate level, which is based on power-regarded state of the three levels of the human soul in his philosophical system.

Some of the philosophical views of Sadra had impact on his understanding of Kuranic verses. This is the subject of this article in which the issue is examined and its examples, where he has chosen an exoteric meaning accordingly, have been gathered from all his philosophical and exegetical works. Subsequently, his understanding has been evaluated according to other verses, traditions, rational and narrative proves, and also the occasion of revelation. Finally we have reached the result that none of Sadra's thirteen perceptions of the Kuranic verses are correct.