جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "علیت" 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.

Ibn Ḥazm (Arabic: إبن حزم) is a well-known theologian whose views are now being paid attention to by Muslim thinkers in the Arab world, necessitating an analytical re-reading of his views. He does not consider God to be the cause of the universe, because on the one hand, he believes that the Divine Names are non-restricted (Arabic: توقیفی, romanized: tawqīfī), and on the other hand, he considers God’s causality to require impossible things such as negation of God’s will, the limitation of Divine power and action, the passivity of the Truth (Arabic: حق تعالی), the eternity of the world, and the potential existence of the world in the essence of God. Ibn Ḥazm expresses most of his views on this issue in his criticisms of al-Kindī (Arabic: الکندی), without the individual al-Kindī being significant, and he denies the principle of causality from God while excommunicating (Arabic: تکفیر, romanized: takfīr) him. On the other hand, Mullā Ṣadrā (Arabic: ملا صدرا), based on his fundamentals, which critique Ibn Ḥazm’s views, does not only consider the Divine Names to be non-restricted, but he also affirms every attribute of perfection and existence for the Truth, after eliminating any additional qualifications. Mullā Ṣadrā’s intellectual foundations completely reject Ibn Ḥazm’s views and do not consider causality to be the cause of the negation of God’s will or the limitation of His power. The passivity of the cause in relation to the effect is only applicable in the material world, and even then, in a manner distinct from the effect of the cause. This article has been written in a documentary way and in processing the data in a descriptive way and with a logical and rational analysis of them.

Knowing God and His Attributes is the basis of all religious beliefs and a necessary condition for faith (Arabic: إیمان, romanized: ʾimān) and action. Therefore, Shubha (Arabic: شبهه, lit.: doubt, obscurity, or mis-grounded conceit) and theoretical disorder in this field will cause irreparable damage to the belief system and consequently to the practical conduct of human beings. The current research is going to resolve some doubts about Divine justice with the aim of the redefinition of Divine justice in the light of an inquiry into the ontology of theologians. The research method is descriptive-analytical and the research data have been analyzed through documentary review, note-taking and an argumentative approach. The books of Imām Khomeinī and Fakhr Rāzī are the research sources, and other sources related to the research goals have been used as explanatory and supplementary sources. The findings indicate that the act of bringing-into-existence from Fakhr Rāzī’s point of view is a direct act of God and man has no act of bringing-into-existence. Good and evil are based on the will of Shāriʿ Muqaddas (Arabic: شارع المقدس, the Sacred Legislator), and God’s justice is also due to the fact that He is God. However, Imām Khomeinī believes that humans, as voluntary agent (free agent) have a role in creation. Good and evil are intrinsic and are based on intellect. Therefore, God is just, as He does not commit evil deeds and the divine realm is free from imperfect creation.

Proposing the theory of influx, Francisco Suárez argued that each of the four causes “inflows” its being into the effect. This theory takes the concept of four causes, especially the final cause, to be similar to the efficient cause. By this move, Suárez can account for God’s purposeless and free will as well as His purposeful action through nature. Influenced by Suárez’s theory, Descartes excluded the final cause from his philosophy, which paved the way for the mechanical explanation of nature. It was thus possible for a theory developed with theological objectives to provide the basis for the scientific explanation of nature. In this study, we examine the differences and similarities between Descartes’s and Suárez’s natural teleology. Comparing these two metaphysical systems reveals how two theories may be influenced by the same principles but produce contradictory results. Thus, we will first analyze the concept of the theory of influx. Following that, we present textual evidence to highlight the impact of influx theory on Descartes and Suárez’s natural teleology. Subsequently, we examine how Descartes took causal (viz. efficient) necessity as the only good in nature by developing Suárez’s theory of causality.

The existence of nature and the occurrence of causality in its elements are accepted facts in various branches of knowledge. Except for a few skeptics or idealists, no one denies it, but the independence of nature from the non-physical elements and the exclusivity of causality within its constituents have their proponents. One corresponding claim is the physical causal closure. This principle asserts that physical phenomena arise from physical causes and the non-physical element either does not exist, or if it does, it does not intervene or have an explanatory role. Therefore, there is no need to consider the role of non-physical factors in explaining physical events. Muslim philosophers also believe that physical events are caused by the specific nature of objects, and nature itself is the "direct agent." Such a view is susceptible to being assumed same as the principle of physical causal closure. Philosophical investigations show that this perspective is not the same as the principle of causal closure because philosophers reject the exclusivity of causality in physical causes by accepting non-physical causes, soul and their involvement in physical events. Therefore, the confinement of the investigation methodology of nature to sense and experience is denied. ‘Allāmah Ṭabāṭabā’ī also holds this view. Therefore, he cannot be considered in agreement with proponents of the causal closure. This matter is examined through analytical and rational methods by referring to existing texts on these perspectives.

Causality and time are the most central subjects in Kant's philosophy. He considers phenomena as objects of experience that are possible only with the law of causality and determines them in temporal relation. Kant responded to Hume who considered causality to be purely empirical and habit-based, and saw the causality to be a priori. For Kant, there is an order among human representations; the current state in this order is correlated to a prior and past state, and this correlation is still undetermined. Determining the current phenomenon from the past phenomenon is possible through time; so this mental sequence becomes an objective sequence, and phenomena are determined through their temporal determination. This process for Kant makes possible an empirical understanding of the time sequence. Causality does not occur through sensory perception and comparison of phenomena by repetition, uniformly, and through a succession of previous phenomena; rather, causality is an a priori concept. Kant introduces time in any transition from one state to another state and thus deals with the empirical determination of time. From Kant's point of view, the relationships are not in the phenomena, but the links of time have an empirical structure, according to which we determine objectively these phenomena as perceptual objects of a single experience with the help of A Priori Principles.

It seems that causality is the most important issue that has undergone changes in line with the three phases of Sadrā's philosophy. It has many dimensions and divisions and goes with the evolutions of this philosophy in various aspects. In this article, we examine five basic issues of causality based on these three philosophical phases; as for the subject of causality, for instance, according to the quiddity-oriented and non-existential view, three options can be proposed, "'every being', 'every phenomenon' or 'every contingent (essential contingency)' need a cause" while based on the second phase, it can be stated as "every contingent (existential contingency) is in need of a cause", whereas according to the third phase of evolution, it can be stated as "every manifestation is dependent on the manifested". Also, in other issues of the causality similar results can be attained that have been discussed in this article.

René Descartes (1596-1650), the French philosopher and reviver of Western philosophy, based his philosophy on grammatical skepticism and the abandonment of all previous beliefs, even his own objective existence. He then came to his first definitive belief i.e. his own existence as "I think," by relying on the undeniable intuition known as Kezito, manifested in the proposition "I think, therefore I am". Afterward, he argued for the existence of God through the thinking soul, and considered the real existence of God, in addition to the assurance of divine power and will and the certainty that God is not deceitful, as the guarantor of the correctness of other conventional beliefs and scientific and philosophical doctrines. Descartes gave three reasons for the existence of God, the first of which is the "Trademark Argument". This article discusses this argument using authentic translations of some of Descartes' works. It will then briefly explain the criticisms leveled at this argument during Descartes' time as well as his answers, and finally evaluate the body of the argument and its criticisms and responses.

According to many evidences, Mulla Sadra has experienced three philosophical journeys of the originality of nature, the originality of the existence of gradational oneness, and the originality of the existence of personal oneness. Now, the main question is whether the following issues of causality are also affected by these three journeys or not? In this article, we have analyzed some important issues related to the issue of causality with analytical, citation and rational methods to determine how the event evolutions and to find out its connection with the three mentioned journeys of Mulla Sadra. In the issue related to precession and recency, the aspect of precession and recency which is based on causal and effectual relationship, have been transformed due to the difference of different interpretations of causation based on three journeys. The precession and recency of bẽl-māhiyyā (= in nature) is proportional to the first journey, the precession and recency of bẽl-ḣaqqiqậ (= in reality) is proportional to the second journey, and the precession and recency of bẽl-ḣaqq (= in veritable) is proportional to the third journey. In the issues related to the relationship of negation with the issues of philosophy, according to the first journey, the issues of negation are related to philosophy, while according to the second journey, the issues related to negation are left out of philosophy, and according to the third journey, these issues are replaced by arcane and manifestation. In the issue of divisions of cause and effect, according to the first journey, the division based on the originality of existence, sharing in spiritual, and the principle of gradation cannot be proposed. According to the second journey, the divisions of cause and effect are stages of a single truth, and according to the third journey, they are manifestations of a single truth; therefore, the divisions of cause and effect according to the three journeys have different characteristics. In the issue of the souls of the three models according to the three journeys, there are three types of existential, substantial, and accidental, but according to the final point of view of Mulla Sadra, existence is only unique in the first type and the rest of the existences are completely dependent on this Existence (= Allāh Taālā).

In the last century, some physicists challenged the principle of general causality in science, and claimed that in the subatomic world, some events happen that contradict determinism and causality. The positive interpretations of the thinkers of the Copenhagen school of the law of causality, especially in the interpretation of the path of particles, have formed a wrong argument and a pragmatic issue has been referred to an ontological issue, which brings physics into an abyss other than its specialized field. David Bohm, one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century, was able to present a causal formulation of quantum theory with his ontological interpretation and the use of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. From Mulla Sadra's point of view, the principle of causality is dominant in the world and no action will occur without a cause. Mulla Sadra's reliance on the primacy of being leads to the conclusion that if there is causality in the world of being, it is only in the context of being, and the criterion of the being's need for another lies only in thetruth of being as well as the poverty of being hidden in the essence of being. In his interpretation of quantum mechanics, Bohm has taken a general and philosophical view and by proposing hidden variables, he has taken an effective step closer to reality. What is necessary is to not return the hidden variables to a physical and material matter so that a comprehensive framework can be considered to solve the problems.

The theory of the existence of ‘the caused link’ (rābiṭ ma‘lūl) is among Mulla Sadra’s innovations and one of his most important foundations. In this theory, he negates plurality in existence and refers it to the states of existence to reach the personal unity of existence and plurality of the states of existence. Of course, it is difficult to deeply understand this theory and, to prevent misunderstanding, we must note that the theory of existence of a link and its consequence – that is, the personal unity of the truth of existence – neither necessitates denial of creatures and possible beings, nor does it necessitate incarnation of the ‘Necessary by Essence’ in the possible beings. In this theory, Mulla Sadra seeks to prove the claim that the existence of the ‘caused’ is neither the truth of the existence of the cause, nor is it independent and separate from it; rather, it is a truth between these two states. But this does not necessitate that the existence of the ‘caused’ have both the mode of dependence and mode of independence. In principle, in the sphere of dependence of the ‘caused’ on the cause, there is no ‘being’ dependent from one respect and independent from another respect; just as ‘independent’ means ‘absolutely independent’ not partial or relative. This is because in philosophy, existence is either purely dependent or purely independent. Consequently, for Mulla Sadra, the existence of the ‘caused’ (possible) is related to the existence of the ‘cause’ (necessary) in a pure form; and it has no independence. It is just the necessary being that is absolutely independent.

Mill's emphasis on the denial of a priori knowledge caused him, as same as empiricists like Hume, to put a psychological account to explain many of his beliefs. In his opinion, the intellect is a whiteboard on which observation and experience draw patterns. In the next stage, the human psyche gets to work and forces a person to accept repetitive phenomena. This belief is reconfirmed over time and after repeating the monotonies in nature repeatedly; it is as if the discovery of any new law not only proves that law itself but also helps to establish other laws that have been obtained using this method. This research aims to reveal the place of induction in the logic of John Stuart Mill and also show that his efforts to justify induction were not enough. For this purpose, Mill's book” The System of Logic” has been studied and the opinion of some commentators has been expressed about it. During the discussion, Mill's opinion on analogy has been tried to be expressed and finally, a general picture of John Stuart Mill's logic has been presented.

Contemporary English physicist, Stephen Hawking, by authoring The Big Plan and introducing the M-theory, brought the long-running conflict between science and religion to a new level. Despite Hawking's claim of the ‘death of philosophy’, he has used some philosophical principles in his M-theory. This paper, using the descriptive-analytical method, seeks to evaluate these principles. The most important philosophical foundations on which M-theory is based are: (1) Scientism, as the most fundamental basis of M-theory; (2) Instrumentalism, ccording to which laws and theories are merely some instruments for predicting phenomena, lacking any physical reality; (3) Denial of causality, which has been inferred from the ‘uncertainty principle’ and the ‘principle of accident.’ After explaining these foundations, some significant objections have been directed to them, the most important of which are: scientism neglects the limitations of the empirical-experimental method and excludes other epistemological sources; instrumentalism, besides denying the scientific realism, results in accepting contradicting theories; Denial of causality, which is due to a misunderstanding of this philosophical concept, destroys any real connections between the objects in the world. Finally, it is concluded that these fundamental criticisms really challenge M-theory’s validity.

The discussion of this article is about causation, especially active causation, and the author's foundation is to examine the matter through a comparative method between the heads and some elders of Islamic theological sects. In this article, first the definition of causality was stated in the form of a report, then the importance of this discussion was briefly explained from the philosophical and theological aspects, and the difference between the philosophical and theological views on causality was stated, and what is related to this category to Islamic theologians was determined. so that the path of the discussion is well clear. Then, respecting the relative precedence and backwardness of the four sects, the Mu'tazila, Ash'arite, Materidiyyah and Shia theories about causality were reported, according to the same point of view that was relevant to them, and at the end, after summarizing the contents in five paragraphs, the Shia opinion and In some ways, the opinion of Mu'tazila is accepted. It should be noted that the history and biography and views of the four sects and their intellectual developments throughout the centuries have not been detailed in this article, and the sects have been introduced only to the extent that was meant for reporting and researching the causality.

Authority and its relationship with the philosophical principle of cause and effect necessity is known as one of the most essential and challenging topical issues among philosophers and Islamic orators. Each of the scholars in the field has tried to express his own definition of the issue regarding his own line of thought.The present study deals with the problem regarding a library study data collection and using a descriptive-analytic method and it is fundamental considering the aim of the study. This research intends to investigate the viewpoints of Sadr-al-Motaallehin Shirazi regarding authority and cause and effect principle necessity. After probes of works and writings of Sadra, it was concluded that Sadra’s ideas were rooted in philosophical mysticism principles and he tried to represent authority compatible with cause and effect principle necessity. Believing in such a principle not only does not deny authority but also approves it. It accepts the principle that there isn’t any obligation but one can choose from among different options and this represents the borderline between responsibility and authority clearly and considers authority to be synonymous with being a follower.

The subject of this article is the existential belonging of humans in the cyber space. The relationship between man and old technology was instrumental; That is, technology was a human tool and he did not have an existence based on technology. But human consistency is new to modern technology. Or in other words, the new humanity has an existential poverty or an existential belonging in relation to technology. None of his spheres of existence are independent from technology, but rather are completely dependent on it. In other words, in the old technology, human beings were independent from it and lived without it. This technology was not more than a tool. But the existential consistency of the new human being is due to technology; Without it, his personal and social life will fall apart. By using the discussion of causation in Islamic philosophy, we can gain a special understanding of the relationship between humans and new technology and cyber space. It seems that this discussion can give a special model in this field, which will make understanding this relationship easier from a philosophical point of view.