جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « تبعیت » در نشریات گروه « فلسفه و کلام »

Mullā Ṣadrā’s most famous reason to prove the substantial movement (al-ḥarakat al-juharīyyah) is the one that persists in the existence of a special relation between the accident and the substance and is explained by such expressions as the accident’s being subordinate (tābiʿīyyah) to, caused by, inseparable from, and an affair (shaʾn) of the substance: since the accidents are subordinate to the substance, so they must be subordinate to it in their movement too. Thus, the substance moves a fortiori. Such proofs are comprehensively evaluated and criticized in this paper. According to the substantial rest critique, the accidental rest too is evidence of the substantial rest and the substance must contradictorily be both moving and in rest. In addition, since all material substances are not proved to actually move, the universal substantial movements cannot be proved. In the not being causal relation between the substance and the accident critique, the claim that the accident and the accidental movement are effects, affairs and existence manners of the substance is criticized by means of several proofs and counterexamples. Again, the critique of the existence unity in the essence and its accidents questions the movement of the substance existence to be proved. In proving the substantial movement by means of the subordination and of the relativeness of movement critique, it is shown that Ṣadrā has incorrectly generalized the rule that the correlatives are equal counterparts (mutakāfiʾān). So, the difficulty of the coexistence of the substance and the relation accident and the difficulty of the presence of one unique thing in the essences of two different objects are appeared and such strange things as the substantial redness is proved if this substantial movement proof is correct.

The most basic intellectual basis of Salafieh is the reliability (hojjiyat) of the predecessor’s (salaf) understanding. They believe that the predecessor’s understanding [of sunnah] is more correct, wise and valid in comparison with the descendent’s (the khalaf) understanding , due to factors such as better understanding of the texts, being closer to the Prophet, and being close to the time of the Qur’an’s revelation. The Salafieh have argued in favor of their view by various verses of Qur’an. One of their most important arguments for this claim is verse 100 of surah Al-Tawbah. Relying on the general sense of this verse and connecting obedience and understanding, they have sought to prove the authority of the predecessor’s understanding. Although a predecessor who obeys the Prophet’s teachings in his/her thought and practice is more virtuous, but there is no reason to claim their absolute obedience. Proving this claim by verse 100 of surah Al-Tawbah has many drawbacks including: confusing the meaning of practice with understanding, lack of generality of the verse, lack of connection between consent and authority of understanding, lack of the absolute meaning of obedience and narrations indicating the superiority of successors over predecessors. In addition to explaining the Salafieh’s claim, I have tried to examine and critique their arguments in this article.

Some of logicians like Avicenna، Khaja Nasir al-Din Tusi and Dabiran Katebi believe that indication follows volition and indication never is existed as long as volition isn’t existed. Some others like Qotb a-Din Razi compeletly disagrees with them and believes indication just follows knowing convention. Some of Methodologicians of jurisprudence have presented a new interpretation of Avicenna and Khaja Nasir al-Din Tusi’s point of view. This article has tried to check these opinions and concludes that Qotb al-Din Razi’s view is right.