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

Scholars have provided various responses to the dilemma of evil. George Mavrodes, in his book "Belief in God: A Study in the Epistemology of Religion," addresses the problem of evil. He links the issue of evil with "belief" and asserts that this problem is related to belief, which, in turn, is dependent on the person and has personal diversity. Based on this, the dilemma of evil should be considered among epistemic dilemmas, and not a logical one. Moreover, a useful and effective solution to the dilemma of evil is for it to be able to impact belief. The foundation of George Mavrodes' thought regarding the connection between evil and anthropocentric epistemology is his particular perspective regarding proof (burhān), emphasizing that the "proof" is generally dependent on the person. This paper examines and critiques George Mavrodes' perspective. The research findings indicate that the basis of George Mavrodes' thought in linking evil and anthropocentric epistemology is flawed. The reasons for this flaw are as follows: “the necessity of epistemological certainty for the proof and the inadequacy of psychological belief as well as the difference between humans in cognition and understanding”. Additionally, his response to the dilemma of evil is also unacceptable due to the following reasons: “the relativity of knowledge, the lack of a comprehensive standard for distinguishing good and evil, and the transformation of objective evil into subjective evil"

The purpose of this article is to examine and criticize the famous theory "Evil is one of the essentials of the existence of good in the world" in response to the lasting doubt of the problem of evil. This point of view seeks to prove that there is no other way to achieve and realize good things in the world than to endure evil and pain and suffering, and this is how God made the world. One of the most important critics of this point of view is David Hume, who believes that God, who is omnipotent and purely benevolent and is the creator of the system and laws of nature, why did he not make it in such a way that good can be realized without evil or at least without great evil. According to this critique, God has not faced the work done so to speak. In other words, why does God use the means and purpose system that is specific to humans. It seems that David Hume did not consider the purity of God's benevolence and expediency.

Suhrawardi and John Hick, as Islamic and Western philosophers respectively, have discussed the problem of evil with specific theories and foundations; "The theory of the nothingness of evil, the necessary additional state of evil with regard to the superior good, the natural world, and the human free will" can be considered as one of Suhrawardi's solutions to the problem of evil. John Hick, with the theodicy "Education of the Soul", free will and relativity of evil, tries to provide an appropriate answer to this problem and prove the noncontradiction between evil and God's attributes. Each has offered solutions to the problem of evil in the world. The research method in this study is the descriptive-analytical librarian method. The method for data-processing is librarian and surveying the two thinkers views. Explanation and comparative study of their intellectual foundations and their approaches to the problem, the problem of research and comparison and evaluation of their specific solutions, while maintaining the main theorems, made it clear that no contradictions and inconsistencies may be found between their essential views.

The present paper deals with a comparative study of the views of Plotinus and Ibn Sīnā regarding evil. In spite of the existing differences concerning this problem in their philosophies, there are also some similarities, and Ibn Sīnā is influenced by Plotinus with respect to his response to the problem of evil. Among the similarities between them in this area, one can refer to the self-evident nature of the existence of evil, exclusivity of the realization of evil to the world of matter and the impossibility of its realization in the immaterial world, and the non-existence nature of evil and good nature of all beings based on a general view of the world. However, unlike Plotinus, Ibn Sīnā does not consider matter as being essentially evil and non-existential. Rather, he maintains that matter is a correlative, analogical, and existential thing. Plotinus views the relationship between good and evil of the type of opposition, while Ibn Sīnā sees it as a non-existential and habitual one. Moreover, according to Plotinus, matter or the same essentially evil thing is created from the particular spirit. Nevertheless, Ibn Sīnā argues that the essential possibility of the Active intellect causes the emanation of matter, and its otherness necessity aspect results in the emanation of form, on which evil sometimes occurs to.

The evil debate is one of the most important and at the same time the oldest problems of theological and philosophical issues. This is how the existence of evil in the material world, and especially in human life, can be justified, given the infinite knowledge and power of God and His benevolence towards creatures and human beings.It is one of the issues that has always occupied the minds of philosophers and theologians. The conflict between these attributes and the existence of evil is so serious and deep that some philosophers and theologians have been forced to deny the existence of evil altogether and others to deny their existence.In this article ،the descriptiveanalytical method of the philosophy of evil entering the system of creation has been studied by Avesina Leibniz and Spinoza. According to Avesina, true evil is neither inherently in the system of jurisprudence nor in breadth. Relative evil, although it is inside the system of divine judgment and predestination, is transversely inside and not in essence.The existence of relative evil can also be justified by the good system and there is no inherent conflict between them. Leibniz fully accepts this view and explains that the existence of metaphysical evil in the good system is a necessity. Unlike moral and natural evils that are not necessary. But Spinoza, in contrast to these two, considers calling things good or evil a human thing and a function of desires , and believes that there is no good or evil in fact.

Since Spinoza believes that every act in the universe is a mode of modes a single substance or God, and that the difference in the acts goes back to their difference in how they are emitted from the substance, good and evil will be relative, and therefore Corona Virus will be considered absolute evil It is excluded. Such thinking is the product of the imagination of a being confined to space and time who seeks only his own benefit, and thus transforms evil - here the corona -which is non-existent into something objective and absolute, which are expressed with bad conceptions, Confusion, ugliness and wickedness, but if we extend these matters to God from this perspective, it will cause the greatness of God to be hidden from the intellect. For Spinoza, man, as a mode of infinite modes of substance, is hardly small and insignificant, but at the same time, he is great; because has an intellect that enables to have this insight.Corona shows man the consciousness of his limitation before God and nature, and this consciousness of limitation is itself an element of the bliss of being in God, without which such consciousness would not have been realized.On the other hand, since according to Spinoza, anything that causes human beings to live together in a collective agreement is beneficial, and conversely, a difference in society is evil, it can be said that, Corona insofar as it causes this agreement and empathy in societies, especially moral societies, It is Good.

Farabi was the first person to consider this issue based on an explanation of the approach of Muslim philosophers to the issue of evil.  He distinguishes between natural and voluntary evils. Ibn Sina had a nonexistence approach to the issue of evil, which dealt with this issue in detail in various aspects after Farabi. This approach has often been considered for later philosophers such as Suhrawardi, Sadr al-Muta'allehin, and Allameh Tabatabai, Shahid Motahari, Ayatollah Javadi Amoli, and Ayatollah Mesbah after Ibn Sina.  We get results, by using a descriptive and sometimes analytical method, that Islamic philosophers express a combined solution to the problem of evil in this study. They consider evil to be a non-existent and relative thing that is necessary for the material world. They believe that according to the wisdom of God Almighty in creating a good system of existence, evils are few compared to the many good things in this world, and these evils have many benefits in the world.

Immanuel Kant, with the religious grounds of piety in the book of religion within the limits of reason alone, describes his desired religion in terms of the nature and mechanism of action and the duality of human nature in terms of goodness and evil that, after a struggle between the two principles of good and evil, ultimately leads to the overcoming of good and the establishment of the rule of God on earth. It can be said that his religious system is to improve human beings and to supplement his moral system. Eventually, the floodwaters of good will must be joined together and form the common moral community. It can be said that his religious system is for the purpose of reforming mankind and complements his moral system. Eventually, the floodwaters of good will should be joined together and form a common moral community, because salvation for Kant is an extremely influential process, and ultimately, Divine grace ensures this community. In this regard, he uses ethics, Christianity, the Church, and the Bible as a prototype and a tool for a pure moral religion. However, we face a kind of religious reduction, but surely he seeks to find the appropriate answer for today's human needs. Kant's thought can be seen as an example of human self- Autonomy that has been able to interpret the truth and realities of Important, such as religion, with the focus on man being.