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

Ibn Sina and Mulla Sadra, each founder of a philosophical school, are among those whose opinions have led to a tremendous and fundamental transformation in various scientific fields. The basic difference between these two philosophers in divine science is in the kind of attitude that each of them have about the nature of science. This kind of attitude towards science has caused the fundamental differences between Masha'in and Hekmat Sadrai. In Sadra's wisdom, knowledge is an existential matter and has weak and strong degrees, and in the system of walking, it is a physical bag. In the transcendental wisdom, God's knowledge of the essence and knowledge of the creatures before creation and after creation is present knowledge, but in the wisdom of Masha, knowledge of the essence and knowledge of the forms determined in the essence is present and knowledge of external beings, before and after Creation is the science of design, achievement and detail. According to Ibn Sina, God's knowledge is a superfluous aspect of his essence and in a way, it is general. This knowledge is present, not passivity, and its rise is obligatory, not a solution. External objects are obviously obligatory, not essential. Mulla Sadra used the principle of "simple truth of all things" in solving science as equivalent to essence, and explained the theory of detailed science united with essential essence, which is one of his initiatives. According to this divine sage, the knowledge of God is inherent in him. Since the Almighty is the source of all things, and the Wajib Ta'ala is aware of all things through the description of development and emergence, with only self-knowledge.

Concerning the issue of God’s knowledge of variable particulars, Fayyaz Lahiji relies on Ibn Sina’s theory of God’s knowledge of particulars, which is based on knowledge of universals, considering the God’s knowledge of objects as imprinted forms and acquired knowledge through causes. So, he tries to refer the change of the world of objects to the relationship of material beings with each other, and he responds the issue of change by the God’s active knowledge, and graduation in existence, and inherent simplicity of the Supreme Being. Finally, he offers a distinct interpretation of imprinted forms which is close to Mulla Sadra’s theory of undetailed knowledge as detailed unveiling. He says absolute perfection of God demands that, with the undetailed knowledge, all the forms are known for the Supreme Being in a detailed and distinct manner from each other. This article tries to investigate and criticize Lahiji’s attempt to solve the issue of change in God’s knowledge of variable particulars with the help of some philosophical foundations by using a descriptive and library method.

Perhaps it can be claimed that fewer philosophical and theological issues such as the issue of divine knowledge can be found about which this extent of different and sometimes contradictory opinions exist and it is due to these very differences of views that Shaykh Tusi states the following regarding the discussion of divine knowledge in his commentary on al-Isharat [Remarks and Admonitions]: Some people have completely denied divine knowledge and in this regard, Avicenna’s view as the chief of the Peripatetic philosophers in the Islamic world has kindled extensive disputes. So much so that Shaykh Tusi, a commentator of the book of al-Isharat, who at the beginning considers himself to be committed to the commentary of al-Isharat, does not stay loyal to this condition in the discussion of divine knowledge and follows Shaykh Ishraq in this issue.This issue has gained so much popularity that Avicenna considers divine knowledge of existents before their creation to be in the form of imprinted forms.Many books and articles have been written about divine knowledge in general and Avicenna’s view specifically and that which distinguishes the present study is that apart from a critical view of the author regarding the accuracy and reliability of the attribution of imprinted forms to Avicenna, the author, through analytical study and reflection on the expressions of Avicenna and the explanation of his foundations, believes that Avicenna must be considered the innovator of the theory of “Perfect Integrated-Comprehensive Knowledge” and in the first step of this study, after acknowledging the excessive difficulty of the issue of divine knowledge, the problem statement and point of conflict and Avicenna’s view regarding God’s knowledge of existents before their creation is explained and it is claimed that Avicenna must be considered the innovator of Perfect Integrated-Comprehensive Knowledge by citing his assertions and benefitting from all his other philosophical foundations. After indicating the nature of knowledge and by mentioning two essential features of imprinted forms in the Peripatetic system, the attribution of the theory of imprinted forms is analyzed and through presenting Mirdamad’s view regarding the circumstances of the attribution of imprinted forms to Avicenna, a solution has opened up before researchers. And in confirmation of the rightness of Mirdamad’s claim, Avicenna’s statements clearly show that there are serious challenges in the dogmatism and indisputability of those who claim the attribution of imprinted forms to Avicenna. In continuation, by explaining the compatibility of perfect integrated-comprehensive knowledge with Avicenna’s foundations, the difficult path to arriving at the reality of divine knowledge is smoothed to some extent and the ambiguities from the views of the most well-known philosopher of the Islamic world can be removed. Addressing Mulla Sadra’s doubts regarding Avicenna’s statements in al-Shifaʾ [the Book of Healing] along with his answers to them shows that according to Avicenna the divine realm is free of any type of acquired knowledge even actualized acquired knowledge and while refuting all types of multiplicity the idea that the divine essence is adorned and envisioned with the forms of existents is certainly not right and the three terms, essence, God’s knowledge of His essence, and God’s knowledge regarding others, are all expressing a single reality which is the essence of God. and in precise scientific and technical terms, the basis of the words of the claimants to the attribution of actualized acquired knowledge arises from this false idea that they consider the rationality of the forms to come after their existence whereas Avicenna’s statements, rational laws, and foundations assert that the existent that is simplex from all aspects possesses all the perfections at the essence level and all the acquired existents (immaterial existents) and contingent existents (material existents) are present for Him in the divine realm due to the rational existence they possess.Avicenna’s emphasis and assertion on the selfsameness of essence and attributes in the denotative and conceptual sense consider God’s essence to be free of all types of multiplicity even the multiplicity of aspects and in contrast to Mulla Sadra’s view, which considers that the multiple assumptions presented in al-Shifaʾ regarding the reality and depths of the essence show Avicenna’s confusion and helplessness regarding the topic of divine knowledge, it must be considered a sign of strength and philosophizing and, ultimately, it is worthy of attention and Mulla Sadra himself considers Avicenna’s assertions and admonitions regarding divine knowledge to attest to perfect integrated-comprehensive knowledge which is, in reality, another expression for comprehensive knowledge along with detailed revelation.

Prior divine knowledge, before the creation of creatures, is one of the most complex topics in theology no the subject of God’s attributes .Various opinions have been expressed about how it is, one of the most famous of which is Ibn Sina’s inverted forms. In this article, Lahiji researcher analyzes different readings of this theory. Scholar Lahiji first accepts the famous reading of Ibn Sina’s inverted forms. According to this theory, God Almighty precedes the creation of objects by Inverted forms that are based on the divine Essence and the essentials of essence. But this theory was criticized by many Islamic philosophers and theologians after Ibn Sina. Therefore, Lahiji objection a different reading of the theory of inverted forms to get rid of the drawbacks of this theory. According believes that collective knowledge is the same as detailed knowledge.And the differentiation is due to the analysis of the human mind, otherwise the knowledge of God is the same as this essence and is single and simple. And because of this, the different reading of the scholar Lahiji is close to the collective knowledge is the same as detailed knowledge of Mullah Sadra.

The main question of the present article is: What are the commonalities and differences between Ibn Sinachr('39')s and Khawaja Nasirchr('39')s approach to Godchr('39')s detailed knowledge? And to what extent have these two sages been able to answer the problem? According to the findings of the study, Sheikh al-Rachr('39')is, based on the principle of causality and formality, proves and explains the knowledge of God in detail, but Khwajeh Tusi presents other theories by presenting objections to Ibn Sinachr('39')s words about Godchr('39')s knowledge of small and changing beings; According to Khwajeh, Godchr('39')s knowledge of abstractions is attributed to specific external beings and to matter, in their forms in the intellect. One of the most important results of the present study, which was performed by descriptive-analytical method, is that: The presentation of these theories, despite the fact that it was incapable of proving the detailed knowledge that is the essence of God; But it paved the way for the acquisition of later philosophers such as Sheikh Ishraq in explaining the knowledge of God as action.

The problem of divine knowledge with a subset of related issues, is one of the most difficult philosophical problems that sheikh al-Rais has been addressing and solving in its numerous works. The view of Avicenna, especially regarding the problem of divine knowledge, has been criticized and abused by many, and even charged with exaggeration by thinkers such as Ghazali. This paper seeks to refine the view of Avicenna in a reflection on the basis of the philosophical foundations of Avicenna. The most important basis for Avicenna is the metaphysical distinction between existence and quiddity. In this article, firstly, the design of the Sheikh's base and its difference with the Mu'tazilite view are discussed. Then, by examining his view of divine knowledge in the three stages of the knowledge of essence, the knowledge of other things and the knowledge of the details, the ultimate theory of the Sheikh with respect to his later works The most important of these is "Al-TALIQT". According to the final view, since God is the source, it is pure action and all things, its knowledge of itself and other things, as well as the details is the presential knowledge.

That how Allah knows things is one of the most complicated issue of philosophy. In their reference to the principle of causality and through the imprinted forms, peripatetic philosophers have explained this kind of divine knowledge. In their resort to the theory of sovereign encompassment and that of the illuminative relation of the Light-of-all-lights to things, the illumination philosophers went to hold that divine knowledge is intuitive and the very realities of things are the direct objects of Allah’s knowledge. And at last, through the simple-in-nature rule and absoluteness of being, the Sadraian Philosophers have demonstrated Allah’s knowledge of things. Religious texts highlight the divine knowledge of things through the absoluteness of the Essence "He is the First, the Last, the Manifest, the Hidden” and “He knows everything", His Sovereign encompassment "He is with you wherever are", and that all things are present before His presence "And all of them will indeed be present before Us". In the following research, the author has shed light on the how-evolution of divine knowledge in peripatetic, illuminative, and Sadraian schools, and then come to compare their final views to the related religious texts as to the stations of essence and action. The conclusion is that intellectual observations in divine knowledge are confirmed by the revealed doctrines; that is to say reason and revelation are in particular agreement on the issue.

Most of the debates on the topic of divine knowledge target Almighty Necessary’s knowledge of what is other than Him. This paper aims to provide an answer to the question of which model of explaining the divine knowledge could not only demonstrate all levels of knowledge for God but also be compatible with His being the Necessary Being. In order to provide an answer to this question, Ibn Sina provides a model with imprinted forms at its center and, in this way, demonstrates God’s acquired knowledge of what is other than Himself. To explain the quality of divine agency, Ibn Sina once more focuses on divine knowledge and, through posing the idea of agency through fore-knowledge, maintains that, the creation of existents is the result of God’s active knowledge of the world and His satisfaction with the best order. However, Suhrawardi challenges the Sinan model in his philosophy. He believes that Ibn Sina’s explanation not only contradicts the simplicity of the essence of Almighty Truth but is also limited to the demonstration of a single faculty for God. Nevertheless, Mulla Sadra criticizes both of them and, based on the principle of simple truth, presents a transcendent explanation regarding the issue which neither suffers from the problem of the subjectivity of the Sinan imprinted forms nor, similar to Suhrawardi’s explanation, is incapable of proving God’s fore-knowledge. He demonstrates that all existents and types of knowledge are included in God’s existence and His knowledge of His Essence.

The two theories of immutable essences and imprinted forms which have been presented in order to explain pre-creational knowledge and which have a special role in the area of compulsion and choice, and predestination and fate, have been analyzed and studied by many intellectuals; some have accepted these theories and others have criticized them; Sadra has defended the theory of immutable essences and criticized the theory of imprinted forms. This paper seeks to critique Sadra's objections to imprinted forms by explaining the essence and manner of occurrence of immutable essences and explaining Divine knowledge through them, and also by studying the circumstance of Divine knowledge through Avicenna's imprinted forms by finding the common aspects between the two theories; it also seeks to show that Sadra's objections are valid if imprinted forms are quiddities and cause forms to occur in God's essence; whereas the study clearly shows that imprinted forms, like immutable essences, are prerequisites of His essence and are existential entities that God's essence is attributed with and the same way that God's detailed knowledge can be explained through immutable essences it can also be analyzed through imprinted forms so much so that the God's detailed knowledge is more deservedly applied to that than to immutable entities.

Avicenna suggests the theory of “imprinted forms” for solving the problem of divine foreknowledge of corporal beings. he believes that this theory can successfully explain divine detailed knowledge of corporal beings. Although Mulla Sadra agrees with some of Avicenna’s claims about the issue such as affirming divine foreknowledge of corporal beings، presence of beings’ intellectual forms to God and that the intellectual forms are requisite for the essence of the Necessary Being، He disagrees with his other assertions about the issue. For instance، he rejects intelligible forms to be accidents; instead، he counts them requisites for the essence of the Real Being. Besides، intelligible forms in his view are not merely subjective. In this article، I shall depict Avicenna’s theory and describe Mulla Sadra’s agreements and disagreements with Avicenna. Finally، I will portray Mulla Sadra''s final view about the issue.

In the Islamic Philosophical tradition, the two important theories about God’s knowledge of things (before and after creation) are those of Ibn Sina and Mulla Sadra. Ibn Sina, based on his philosophical system, interprets God’s knowledge through representational forms, while Mulla Sadra suggests the theory of “non-detailed knowledge and detailed unveiling” on the basis of the principle of “Simple Reality”, and other foundations of his Hikmat Muta‘āliyah, especillay the principality of existence.This article, first and foremost, wants to explain, and semantically analyze, Mulla Sadra’s theory in this regard. Then it tries to review the foundations and principles that have led him to this stance. And finally, it compares Mulla Sadra’s theory to that of Allamah Tabataba’i in order to show that there is still room for discussion on this important issue.

Divine knowledge has been considered one of the most difficult problems in theistical philosophy. In this paper, some religious texts in the field have been mentiond at first and then Avicenna and Sheikh-e Ishraq`s views have been examined. For the former,Divine essential knowledge is by presence, but His detailed knowledge is representative aquired by represented forms. The latter, though thinks about the essential as does the former and analyize it in the shadow of his basic philosophical concept of light, yet, opposes Avicenna on the detailed knowledge. Avicenna thinks detailed knowledge to be providential; while Seikh-e Ishraq denies it and believes that the detailed knowledge is also by presence. Since all beings of the worlds are existentially presence for God by an illuminative relation.