جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه ": copulative existence" در نشریات گروه "فلسفه و کلام"

Loneliness is not considered an illness by itself; however, it could be the origin of some physical and psychological diseases. In this paper, the authors introduce the different types of loneliness and investigate its physical and spiritual effects. Next, they explain Mullā Ṣadrā’s doctrine of the relationship between God and Man. Based on the principles of the Transcendent Philosophy, Man is closely related to God and desperately needs Him, and no separation between Man and God is imaginable. In such an atmosphere, the problem of loneliness is basically annulled. In other words, the feeling of loneliness is rooted in the ignorance of the structure of being. Thus, the removal of this ignorance, can lead to the removal of the feeling of loneliness and its negative effects. Such an approach is closely related to cognitive psychotherapy, based on which human feelings and emotions are not solely the product of people’s direct encounter with the external world. Rather, their interpretation of this world and the way they approach it play important roles in the formation of their feelings and emotions. Clearly, a change in an individual’s interpretations and views can lead to changes in their feelings and thoughts. Similarly, any change in one’s worldview can lead to a change in their analysis of their living conditions and place in the world of being. An individual who develops their worldview based on the Transcendent Philosophy will never feel separation from the world of being. Hence, they will never suffer from loneliness.

The theory of the copulative existence of the effect suggests that contingent realities are purely copulative and connected to the Necessary Existence (God), lacking any independence and entirely dependent on Him in their essence. Based on this theory, a fundamental transformation in ontology occurs. This theory, in fact, offers a fresh perspective since it provides a new interpretation of reality. Thereby, it will have various implications that are effective both in human epistemology and ontology. In this research, we aim to explore and describe the ontological aspect of this issue and examine its implications. Some of them are as follows: the particular unity of existence, the formulation of the argument of the truthful (Burhān Siddīqīn) based on the theory of the copulative existence of the effect, the falsity of infinite regress, the dependency of contingent realities on the Necessary Existence in their essence as well as in their attributes and actions, and the criterion of the dependency of the effect on the cause. We strive to investigate this issue in light of the critiques of Ayatullah Fayyazi.

"Language-based argument" is an argument from the structure of language to understand the structure of the world. Although this mode of argumentation has been represented in the context of analytical philosophy, examples of such arguments can be found in the tradition of Islamic philosophy. The influence of the issue of simplicity or complexity of the derivative (mushtaq) on the primacy of existence (aṣālat al-wujūd) is one example of these arguments. In this article, a general account of this influence is provided and examine ‘Allāmah's approach towards this argument. It will become clear that ‘Allāmah does not agree with such arguments in the philosophical tradition. ‘Allāmah's argument for the copulative existence apparently falls within the category of language-based arguments, and if so, a kind of inconsistency can be seen in ‘Allāmah's encounter with this model of argumentation. By presenting two alternative arguments for the externality of the copulative existence and critiquing the interpretation of the commentators of ‘Allāmah's argument, we will exclude this argument from the language-based arguments.

The personal unity of existence is the claim of mysticism and transcendental wisdom. In this claim, the multiplicity of existence of the universe is denied and everything rather than God is accepted as manifestations of God the Almighty. In claiming the personal unity of existence, mystics have an intuitive approach and invite the deniers to the spiritual journey. In theoretical mysticism, rational arguments are put forward to prove the personal unity of existence. In transcendental wisdom, after raising analogism in a specialized sense, Sadr al-Mutallahin has tended to the personal unity of existence and has tried to prove it. In the philosophical approach, reasons are presented to prove personal unity, the most important of which is the copulative nature of the thing caused. This argument has two premises: a. in relation to cause, the thing caused is the essence of the copulative existence b. The copulative existence cannot be interpreted nominally. The existing concept is nominal, and because of being copulative, nothing other than God has the ability to abstract the nominal concept. Therefore, the title of existence can only be applied to the Almighty God, and this means the personal unity of existence. The first premise of this argument is common among most philosophers of transcendental wisdom, and even some followers of transcendental wisdom, who deny the personal unity of existence, accept the first premise; but the second premise is incorrect, and this argument cannot prove the personal unity of existence.

The copulative existence is one of the initiatives of Sadr al-Muta'allehin, by which he has exalted his wisdom and brought about dramatic changes in his philosophical system. While expressing the value of this theory, Allameh Javadi Ameli, one of the prominent commentators of Sadrā'i wisdom, has taken effective steps in this field by dealing with the two semantic fields of the truth of the copulative existence and its ontology. With regard to semantics, by defining the copulative existence as the external truth that connects the subject and the predicate, he distinguishes it from the copula that has a mental position and flows in all simple and composite whether-nesses. With regard to the ontological aspect, he considers the copulative existence, which is a kind of existence by-itself, as existential, real, and a kind of truth with different levels of perfection and imperfection. Allameh also deals with the implications of this theory for philosophical issues in two areas of theology in the general sense of disintegration of nature and the transformation of the essential possibility into possibility in the sense of need; and theology in the specific sense, such as proving the existence of truth, transforming the realm of possibility into unity of divine actions, etc. During these discussions, while correctly explaining the copulative existence and proving it with two different interpretations of the argument of the possibility in the sense of need based on the principles of transcendental wisdom, he cleares the ambiguities of the followers of Sadrā'i wisdom and removes some flaws in this regard. Using a descriptive-analytical method, the author seeks to investigate these issues from the perspective of Allameh Javadi Amoli.

In the theoretical mysticism and Islamic philosophy, not associating any partner with God has always been subject to different interpretations. When Muslim philosophers refer to unity, what they mean is negation of associating any partner with God, as the Necessary Existence by Nature (Wajeb-e-Be-ahzat). From Mulla Sadra's point of view, God’s having no partner means that it is impossible to assume God with a partner. This extends to include the other attributes of God, like knowledge, power and thingness. Neo-Sadrian thinkers have proposed different interpretations of Sadra's view of associating a partner with God. The present article is an attempt to explain three Neo-Sadrian interpretations and try to show how close they are to Sadra’s views. Molla Abdollah Zanuzi, and Agha Ali Modarres try to explain Sadra's view based on the distinction between Per Se Existence and Per Accident Existence, or the Owner and property, but Allame Tabatabaee believes that in relation to the attributes that are common to God and humans, God has no partner due to the typicality of instance.

As a consistent philosophical mechanism, transcendental philosophy is celebrated. It has disclosed a new perspective through passing the philosophy of Masha and Eshragh in close cooperation with mysticism and intuition for transcendental philosophy and knowledge seekers.Therefore, it is so amazing for its philosophical followers to observe serious and acute contradictions in philosophical theories of this philosophy owner.Distinct theories of Sadr-Al-Moteallehin in important subjects such as principality of existence and credit of nature could be considered as the indication.The source of conflict is noticeable in the great philosopher's works.This research is going to answer the above inquiry and solve current contradictions through studying Mulla Sandra's expressions relating to the principality of existence and the credit of nature.

The term “copulative existence” was used in philosophers’ statements before Mulla Sadra in two cases: (a) copulative existence in propositions; (b) existence in-itself for something else. Mulla Sadra would regard, in the light of the bases of transcendental theosophy, possible existence the same as copulation and relation to Necessary Being, freeing it from any independence, calling it “copulative existence”. The discussion on no essence of possible beings (copulative existence in transcendental theosophy) is a point of disagreement. Allama Tabatabai would regard them of no essence, proving this by existence of a correlation between having essence and conceptual independence. This theory has different philosophical results some of which can be found in issues such as status of discussion on essence in philosophy, dividing possible being into entity and accident, interpretation of relative categories and interpretation of distance. In the present article, we have investigated the reasons and results of this view in a descriptive-analytical way.

Acceptance and affirmation of principality of existence, requires the acceptance of existence being made. Therefore, principality of existence is in cohesion with it's made; although there are some differences between the two subjects. On the basis of Transcendental Wisdom, criterion of being made is determined based on copulative existence. Copulative existence means total dependence on other. What is absolutely dependent on the cause, it is a real made of it. In Sadra's school, there are differences between the meaning of copulative existence and copulative existence in the proposition one, something that has been neglected in Kant thought. As critique to Anselm's ontological argument, Kant believes that the existence does not cause any increase in the subject, but it is only copulative existence. Criterion of being predicative is increase in subject. This expression is different of something research in transcendentalism; because Kant refers only to the copulative existence in proposition. But Mulla Sadra refers to another kind of copulative existence which obtained from the analysis of the principle of causality. According to this view, all possibilities will be absolutely related to God. He divided the propositions into composition whetherness and simple whetherness. Predicate in the second one, is existence. Kant says that these kinds of propositions are meaningless. He believes that proposition 'God exist's is not synthetic and not analytic. But Mulla Sadra says that proposition 'God exist's means: the affirmation of the self-identity of a thing. So, in simple whetherness proposition, predicative existence does not increase in subject, because of the quiddity being mentally-posited and fundamental reality of existence.

Proving the principality of the existence and the fiction of the quiddity by Mulla Sadra, the existence became the focus of the disputes, but the effects of the quiddity discussions can be seen among these topics. Mulla Sadra has provided a division of two sides from the existence based on the principality of the existence and the causal relation and he has divided the existence into copulative and inhering existence based on this rule. Copulative existence is the same as relation to its cause and in reality it has a connective nature and has no independence of its own. This analysis will have consequences on philosophical issues, including the complete alteration of the situation of the quiddity, because all possible existents that the quiddity is abstracted of them will become the applications of the copulative existence and have no independence of its own. So, they cannot be mentioned in response to the question of the nature of things, because nothing has the worthy of coming in response of quiddity unless they have existential or conceptual independence. This means that quiddities are removed and come under the scope of the concepts. Quiddity in the meaning of “that comes in response of the nature of the thing,” requires independence in concept, while the copulative truth of the contingent things takes the independence of them. Thus, what is said about essences is attributed to the concepts. On the base of the principality of the existence, quiddity in the meaning of “thing in itself” also includes only the existence and it is outside of the realm of quiddity.

One of the most important issues in philosophy is a discussion on the unity and plurality of existence. There are different views common among philosophers, ranging from the view of difference among beings to the view of the particular unity of existence. The theory of ‘unity of existence’, with its mystical origin, has an important status in Mulla Sadra’s transcendental theosophy. This theory, however, is not an axiomatic one and needs to be proved. Mulla Sadra attempts to prove this theory by putting forward some arguments and to use it in various philosophical discussions. Along with philosophical arguments, he has presented numerous transmitted evidences to show the verity of this theory. The present article is a review of the Quranic verses and traditions adduced by Mulla Sadra for unity of existence and its implications. These evidences can be classified into five categories. Naturally, we can accept the Quranic verses and traditions as evidences for this claim only if there is no flaw in inferring unity of existence from these texts.

This paper intends to find an answer to the problematic description of the difference between Mulla Sadra and Allameh Tabatabaei’s views on the ontological explanation of “predication” and also، tries to find the origin of this difference. Since subject and predicate are different degrees of one existence in Mulla Sadra’s philosophical structure، the reality of predication is the union of two things with one existence; moreover، the sufficient condition for a valid predication is a kind of causal relation between subject and predicate. But in Allameh’s philosophical structure، the in-itself existence of the subject differs with the predicate’s one; so، they are not unitary existence. But the “existence for something-else” of predicate is united in “existence foritself” of subject and makes a relationship between them through copulative existence.

The issue of the unity of existence is one of the major ontological issues which has come into being in mystic atmospheres and has gradually entered philosophy as well and influenced it to the point that accepting or rejecting it would overshadow all philosophical issues; this is because by accepting the unity of existence, the world takes on a new meaning as causality would depart this world and all creations. Moreover, the unity of existence will provide a different interpretation of Allah Almighty and the religion. Though the philosophers before Mulla Sadra have made arguments in this regard, Mulla Sadra claimed to have made a demonstrative reasoning about it and have defined it exactly and precisely. After Mulla Sadra, the followers of his school of thought also argued about such an issue, the most important of whom is Allameh Tabatabaaii. This paper seeks to present and study the statements of Allameh Tabatabaaii and his argumentations with regard to the unity of personal existence. Allameh Tabatabaaii has proved the unity of existence through the three ways of “copulative existence”, “pure being”, and “infiniteness”.

In the problem of the yardstick of effect's need to cause it is well-known that the pre-Sadrian philosophers believe in the essential possibility of effects, that is to say they held that the non-requirement of essence of effect in relation to being and non-being is the factor of effect’s need to cause. In contrast, Sadr al-Mutaallihin on the basis of fundamental principle of principality of existence and non-reality of contingent beings not in their quiddity and therefore believes in the theory of existential poverty. With further investigations and tracing the roots of this theory, in some of Ibn Sina's works it can be said that he also has paid attention to the theory of existential poverty. Ibn Sina by distancing himself clearly from Aristotelian tradition on the problem of causality and attention to divine agency, regards the cause as giving existence to effect and with different statements declares that the poverty of need of effect to cause lies in his existence. Therefore, besides rejecting the view of theologians who considered temporal contingency the yardstick of the need to cause, in comparison to previous sages says who regarded the yardstick of the need to cause in the nature of the non-requirement of effect, Ibn Sina goes a step further and in some statements explicitly states that the factor of effect's need to cause is the reason of its dependant existence which is the very reality of the effect. However, giving the scattered and different statements of Ibn Sina on the yardstick of effect's need to cause he can not be regarded as supporting the theory of existential poverty. But by tracing the indications of this theory in his works it shows that he can be regarded as the precursor of this novel Sadrian theory.

Rich and poor are the two terms of theological, mystical and religious, discussed by muslim philosophers, following the theologians and mystics. Absolute Rich in the view of Ibn Sina and Suhrawardi, is someone who is not in need of anything in his essence, acts and qualities, and also all creatures need him. Absolute Rich in the view of Suhrawardi; Like Ibn Sina; is the same of true king and by this way he argues to the unity of It. He makes Absolute Rich the same as Light of lights on the basis of his illuminationist theosophy. Mulla sadra also defines rich and poor on the basis of principality of existence. In the transcendental philosophical thought, by the analysis of the principle of causality and based on the principality of existence, this result is concluded that all things at the root of their existence are essentially poor and dependent to the Origin of the universe. The “effect”, which is considered all that is not God, in its existence is indiscriminately needy to its true Cause; meaning that other than dependency to the essence of God, no other truth is imagined for it. Since according to the principality of existence, in the outside world there is no other than Existence, all creatures are destitute to a true reason which is unique to the independent essence of Uniqueness. They have no existence separate from their reason and are entirely relevance and belonging to His Right, which is expressed using phrases such as absolute poverty of existence in itself, existential poverty and copulative existence. Therefore, just as mentioned in the word of God, poverty is an intrinsic property of creations, and wealth is unique to God.

Having a clear image of the nature of creation not only gives a true comprehension of the quality of the relation of man with his Creator, but paves the way for being a better servant before God. Considering the comprehensiveness of Mulla Sadra’s philosophy, the important question is what picture he gives of the reality of creation. Taking the works and thoughts of Mulla Sadra into consideration, we find out that he depicts creation in the framework of the theory of manifestation in the light of the theory of particular unity of existence. Based on this picture, the absolute existence, enjoying all existential perfections, creates the creatures through a process of retrogression and manifestation. What occurs in the process of manifestation is the appearance of the latent attributes and perfections of the absolute existence the absolute that is present within the determinations and manifestations. However the absolute essence has adopted certain determination and has descended from the position of absoluteness and absence of determination. Thus the reality of creation, from the perspective of Mulla Sadra, is nothing but limitation and determination of the unique absolute essence of God. Creatures are considered as the determinations of the very absolute existence. Of course, God — glory be to Him — is not the very essence of any creature, and no creature is the very essence of God.

Copulative existence has two applications, one in logic under the discussion of categorical proposition, and the other in relation to independent existence or existence-in-itself, which is called not-in-itself existence in philosophy. Some Muslim philosophers, particularly, the followers of the Transcendent Philosophy, have employed two methods in order to demonstrate the external realization of copulative existence: one is through analyzing categorical propositions, and the other is through analyzing the cause-effect relationship. The first method has been criticized because of its mixing logical principles with philosophical ones. However, the other method which is inspired by gnosis, views the existence of possible things in relation to the essence of the Truth the same as relation and dependence and demonstrates copulative existence based on this idea.

Unification of the intellecter and the intelligible which has been demonstrated in Mulla Sadra's philosophy concerns mostly conceptual knowledge. In this article, the author has tried to study the possibility of application of this rule to knowledge by assent (tasdiq). He has come to the conclusion that the copulative existence contained in propositions makes a structure for the reason, and the latter is somehow unified with the intelligible through such structure.