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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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 main week point of Islamic philosophy is not its abstract nature rather it is the absence of practicality i.e. the Islamic philosophical issues have mostly been discussed in terms of mental aspects and have not been put into practice. Among all Muslim philosophers, Allama Tabataba’i seeks to synthesize the philosophical issues with practice and life. One of his attempts reflects in his explanation of Mulla Sadra's views on causality; Mulla Sadra employs connective existence innovatively in his theory of causality. Disciples of Mulla Sadra, including Allama Tabataba’i, followed his way too. Allama Tabataba’i employs Mulla Sadra's theory in his moral discussions which are inspired by the Holy Qur'an (the method of Ihraq). Also, he discusses the causality in a specific way in which finds expression in his Qur'anic commentaries. Based on the theory, the effect only represents the role of connective existence and is fully dependent on the cause. The theory and its monotheistic approach lead humans to avoid vice and immoral behavior. Because the vice behavior is rooted in the evil-prompting self and egotism. Therefore, Allama Tabataba’i's approach would leave no room for egotism

This paper explores the position of principle of causality in explaining the divine action based on the viewpoint of Mulla Sadra and its compatibility with the religious texts. It pursues the hypothesis that by analyzing the causality and explaining the copulative existence of contingent identities, the divine action, based on his thoughts, is the reflection of the divine attributes and the manifestation of the divine names in the contingent manifested beings. On this basis, the effect, because of its dependent identity and existential indigence, does not exist separate from its cause, as such that the perception of its existence is impossible without the perception of the one it is dependent on. Therefore, the divine action is the manifestation and the contingent beings do not have any reality but being the reflection of the divine in essence, attributes and actions. Their absolute indigence is explained by the three domains discussed in the paper, from the aspect of coming into existence (ḥudūth) and their continuance. The whole universe is the mirror of His beauty, of course proportional to the capacity of the contingent identities. Amongst the outstanding results of this philosophical account are: the unity in creation, mastership and lordship, absolute divine presence and manifestation, Allah being the only praiser and the praised one, the concomitance of divine action with the objective reality of praise in the entire universe in all its immensity and eventually the proper combination of intellect and narration. Therefore, God, as an originating agent, is ever manifested and omnipresent.

Causality as an existential cause serves as a basis for Avicenna’s philosophy and is one of the vital principles of philosophical and rational problems. As a rationalist philosopher, Avicenna has proposed some new insights including the idea that causality is based on existence. Proposing the distinction between existence and essence, he has provided a new model for the God-world relationship. He believes that the relationship between the creator and the created can be explained by examining the causality relationship. Among different causes, he prioritizes the efficient cause (Agent) which makes things exist out of nothing. As to the God-world relationship explanation, he argues that God governs the world of beings as the cause of causes. As for its existence and non-existence, the Being as the effect and the possible (non-aseity) needs a preponderance (Murajjih) that is the cause of causes. Avicenna believes that God’s essential aseity entails God’s necessitated existence. Not only he defines the dependency of the caused on the cause as “the necessity by virtue of another” (Wujub Bilghair) or existential possibility in Sadra’s words, but he emphasizes the existential relationship between the caused and the cause. Then he opens a clearer horizon towards the primacy of being which had a great impact on Islamic philosophers as well as Western philosophers like Thomas Aquinas.

Causality, as a general rule in the argument from origination,  has a central role in the system of Maturidi theology. Abu_Mansour Matridi believes that in the argument from origination, the minor premise, "the world is originated", is understood through three ways: sense, reason, and narration, and the major premise "every originated needs a cause" is the content of the rule of causality and is self-evident.  We, after considering this argument, address the subject of theology, i.e., the nature of God. In this article, by examining the structure of "the argument from origination", according to Maturidi's view, we examine what exactly the "origination", as a criterion of the need for the effect of the cause, means in this argument.  We show that this term, unlike other theologians, in Maturidi's views, does not only mean temporal origination, but first and foremost means "existential poverty and finitude", and this thought in Maturidi's words, can be considered as a kind of historical and theological foundation for the emergence of the "theory of essential origination" by philosophers like Avicenna.

Because of his philosophical method in studying nature and his attempt to intellectually prove natural propositions, Aristotle always sought to obtain perpetual and metaphysical results from the relationships in the universe. For this reason, natural philosophy lacked features such as falsifiability. With the scientific developments in Europe, this philosophical attitude, which was no longer considered as refelecting the reality of the world, changed and philosophers tried to introduce the method of observation, hypothesis, and induction as an efficient method in studying nature because they holded that this experimental method could describe the truth of the world. Thus, the philosophical and metaphysical view of nature gave way to the empirical and falsifiable view of experimental sciences. In addition to the distinctions created in the evolution of nature study, the method and goal of natural philosophy also changed to the new method and goal of experimental sciences. This major distinction in investigating the nature has had many consequences. In this article, we discuss these differences and developments.

The definition of proof means "definitely coherent analogy" indicates that it is important that the secret of the rise and greatness of this art in the science of logic must be understood on the one hand in relation to its purpose with the purpose of developing logic and on the other hand in the secret of truth for the purpose of the art of proof in case of compliance The rules contained in it searched. In this article, with the analytical-argumentative method, the conclusion is reached that firstly, the science of "logic" was compiled with the purpose of summarizing the rules of avoiding errors in thinking, and the art of "argument" was included in this knowledge with the purpose of summarizing the rules of the method of acquiring error-free knowledge. and secondly, since the acquisition of "certainty" depends on the two principles of "thinking on the basis of reality" and "using the element of necessity in thinking" and the law of causality is the only law that provides these two principles, the importance of "proof" depends on the law "Causality" returns.