فلسفه

Intermarriage is an issue that is scattered among the ontological views and opinions of Muslim mystics and philosophers regarding the quality of the formation of the worlds of existence and marriage of the names and attributes contained in the levels of existence and the results thereof, from the essence of the One to the multiplicity. The attempt of this article is a new perspective, along with an ontological examining of the possibility of the generalization of intermarriage among the types of beings, in an infinite process, called the infinite specific intermarriage. In mystical and philosophical discussions, the species of beings, especially the species of human, cannot be limited to specific states and types; because with intermarriage, these types are transformed into other types or states. The present article aims to answer this question, "is the intermarriage of species up to the point of infinity possible?" And if possible, "what variables are effective in these intermarriages?" It enjoys a qualitative method for the study of variables through library sources, along with an analysis of related opinions, leading to practical results. Some variables also affect each other in an interactive way. The research finding is that these variables, by affecting each other, step by step, will provide the possibility of generalizing species to the infinite specific intermarriage and will support this new attitude.

The concepts of theosophy and philosophy are among the most frequent concepts used in the works of Muslim philosophers. The position and relationship between the concepts of theosophy and philosophy in philosophical works have not been clearly explained, and in some cases these two concepts have been used interchangeably. Different interpretations of theosophy and philosophy and the lack of attention to the distinction between philosophy and theosophy in the works of Muslim philosophers have led to problems and ambiguities. Different interpretations can be made of the definitions of theosophy and philosophy, which do not coincide and will entail different epistemological implications. In this article, by using a descriptive-analytical method, through a critique and examination of the relationship between the concepts of theosophy and philosophy and with regard to the intellectual potentials and possibilities hidden in Muslim philosophers' thought, an attempt is made to present a new explanation of the relationship between the meaning of philosophy and theosophy, whereby the borders between philosophy and theosophy are specified and the ambiguities and challenges are resolved. Accordingly, theosophy is the last station of reasoning in the field of philosophy, where the philosopher enters the field of theosophy by rationally accepting God and adhering to its requirements- both epistemological and practical. In other words, according to Muslim philosophers, it can be said that every man of theosophy is a philosopher, but not every philosopher is a man of theosophy. Therefore, the intellectual tradition of Muslim philosophers begins with philosophy and in the course of its development enters the field of theosophy.

The intersection of spirituality and philosophy is a thought-provoking subject, and this article aims to explore the concept of "philosophical spirituality" in Mulla Sadra's philosophical framework. The central question guiding this inquiry is: What is the meaning of "philosophical spirituality" as the relationship between philosophy and spirituality in Mulla Sadra's thought? The article posits that this relationship can be understood through the concept of "existential excellence." Spirituality is often associated with the pursuit of self-improvement and the refinement of one’s mental and existential state. Accordingly, Mulla Sadra’s philosophy presents three fundamental perspectives on spirituality that contribute to the understanding of philosophical spirituality: first, self-knowledge, which enables individuals to cultivate their self-awareness and direct their existential development; second, theoretical wisdom in spirituality, which involves striving for a deeper comprehension of existence and approaching absolute truth; and third, practical wisdom in spirituality, which is realized through voluntary actions that align with existential transformation.

Philosophy is a demonstrative science in order to know the truths of being qua being. Such a knowledge makes no reference to any holy and divine affair in its title. However, in the world of Islam, philosophy gradually was accompanied with certain religious and theological terms, the most prominent of which is “Islamic”. In recent decades, the term “Islamic philosophy” has been discussed by certain thinkers and each of them has presented some views in order to justify it. It seems that, in order to examine the truth of Islamic philosophy more accurately, it is first necessary to study its historical roots. When it was the time to translate Greek philosophy books during the Translation movement, the term “philosophy” became prevalent in the world of Islam with no prefix. Kindī was the first Muslim philosopher who only used the term “prime” before philosophy. Of course, he considered a role for philosophy similar to that of religion, which could direct man to the peak of divine perfections. However, he never used any term other than “philosophy” and “prime philosophy”. Fārābī, who showed his own innovations in several fields, was the first philosopher and one of the rare Muslim philosophers who described philosophy laden with ethical and religious semantic adjectives. He even divided philosophy into different layers, with some of them being abject and some of them noble, or described some as being defective and some as perfect. Accordingly, it can be said that Fārābī played a significant role in granting a religious nature to philosophy, after him, Muslim philosophers used many different attributes for philosophy. Abū Ḥayyān al-Tawḥīdī used the term “supreme philosophy”; Ikhwān al-Ṣafā used the term “spiritual philosophy”, and even Ibn Sīnā in some places used the term “divine philosophy”, as well as “polite philosophy”, “impolite philosophy”, and “Oriental philosophy”. Ghazzālī, whose opposition to philosophy is quite known to all, referred to “philosophy of divine people”. Fakhr al-Dīn Rāzī, Ibn Ṭabīb, and Shahrzūrī used the terms “supreme philosophy”, “best philosophy”, and “philosophy of truth”, respectively. Suhrawardī used the term “Illuminationist philosophy”, which referred to his philosophical method. Interestingly enough, none of these terms enjoyed an ethical, religious, and holy semantic load, and each referred to one aspect of the multiple aspects of the philosophy intended by different philosophers. However, unlike most Muslim philosophers who equated philosophy with wisdom, Mīr Dāmād, the Peripatetic philosopher of the Ṣafavīd era, granted philosophy a status lower than that of wisdom. In his view, philosophy was the same legacy of the Greeks, which had been developed and promoted to the level of wisdom in the light of Islamic teachings. He believed that philosophy can never reach the level of wisdom unless in the light of Islam and its supreme teachings. He was the first thinker who used the term “Islamic philosophy” for first time for a kind of wisdom that he considered to be nobler and more perfect than Greek philosophy. Mīr Dāmād viewed himself at the same level with Ibn Sīnā as the leader of Islamic philosophy and with Fārābī in teaching it. The term “Islamic philosophy” remained forsaken after Mīr Dāmād until the contemporary period. In the present period, even a philosopher such as ‘Allāmah Ṭabāṭabā’ī’ did not use it and, instead, employed the term “philosophy of Islam” or the “divine philosophy of Islam”, which could be semantically different from “Islamic philosophy”. Abdulraḥmān Badvī and Murtaḍā Muṭahharī began disseminating the term “Islamic philosophy” almost at the same time, that is in 1330’s (1950’s). The results of the present study reveal that what contemporary thinkers state in order to justify this title is completely different from Mīr Dāmād’s conception of Islamic philosophy. The required data for this study were collected based on documentary research and analyzed following a historical-descriptive-logical method.

The topic of the "afterlife" is one of the fundamental issues in philosophy and theology that has deeply intrigued Islamic and Western philosophers alike. This paper provides a comparative analysis of Avicenna's (Ibn Sina) and Descartes' perspectives on the afterlife based on their theories of the soul. It aims to identify the similarities and differences between these two prominent thinkers in understanding the fate of the soul after death. The central question of this study is how the differing philosophical foundations of Avicenna and Descartes have influenced their views on the afterlife. The research method is descriptive-analytical and comparative, utilizing primary sources and related studies to describe and analyze the theories of these two philosophers. The findings indicate that Avicenna, relying on the Islamic philosophical system and Peripatetic metaphysics, views the soul as an independent substance that reaches perfection through the active intellect, with its fate depending on its connection to the intellect. In contrast, Descartes, employing the dualism of mind and body and emphasizing divine will, sees the immortality of the soul as guaranteed. The fundamental differences in the epistemological and metaphysical foundations of these philosophers lead to differences in defining the soul, its quality of survival, and its interaction with the afterlife. The results of this study highlight the strengths and weaknesses of both perspectives and suggest that a comparative examination of these issues can foster interdisciplinary research in philosophy and theology, offering a deeper understanding of the concept of immortality and the meaning of the afterlife.

Khwaja Nasir al-Din Tusi and Ibn Rushd are among those who have defended philosophy, and in this regard, in contrast to Ghazali and Shahrashtani, they have written the books Tahaft al-Tahaft and Masara al-Masara, and each of them in a special way, which is actually the basic difference of this Two philosophers come back in defense of philosophy, they have defended philosophy or philosopher. In his defense, Ibn Rushd completely rejects the positions of theologians and believes that theologians have not achieved certain knowledge. In fact, his defense of philosophy is the defense of Aristotle’s philosophy. But Khwaja Nasir al-Din Tusi did not strongly oppose the positions of the theologians and by substituting argument instead of argument, he helped enrich it. Unlike Ibn Rushd, Khwaja did not consider any particular philosopher in defending his philosophical positions, and even though Shahrashani considered Ibn Sina the most among philosophers in his criticisms, and his criticisms were aimed at Ibn Sina’s views in the books of healing, references, and annotations, with Attention to the nature of philosophy has defended it. Based on the rational method, he explains and presents his arguments by bringing conclusive proofs and philosophical rules and responds to the city’s problems.

Some Western philosophers hold that certain truths exist within the human soul, as if the individual has brought them from another world or possessed them prior to earthly birth, or they have been embedded in human nature in some other way. These truths, from an ontological perspective, are not derived from experience. The knowledge of such truths is referred to as "innate knowledge." However, most Islamic philosophers, while accepting the principle of “Fiṭra” (primordial nature) in humans, reject the idea of knowledge being innate. The Qur'an, in the explicit wording of some verses, also indicates the absence of actualized innate knowledge; yet, the apparent meaning of other verses suggests a form of actualized innate knowledge. The claim of this paper is this paradox can be resolved in two ways: 1. By adopting the apparent meaning of the first set of verses and interpreting the second set in favor of the first (the exegetical method); 2. By distinguishing between “acquired knowledge” (al-ʿIlm al-ḥuṣūlī) and “presential knowledge (al-ʿIlm al-ḥuḍūrī), such that the first set of verses explains acquired knowledge, and the second set explains presential knowledge (the philosophical method). The conclusion is that, from the exegetical perspective, innate knowledge is not actualized at the beginning of creation. However, from the philosophical perspective, while innate knowledge is not actualized in the realm of acquired knowledge (which includes most human knowledge), it is actualized in the realm of presential knowledge.

Undoubtedly, paying attention to philosophical thoughts has a great effect on shaping film theory and the formation of artistic and cinematic works . The analysis of the film from the perspective of contemporary theories is derived from the foundations of nominalism and conceptualism, which cause many ontological and epistemological problems according to the philosophy that shaped it . The analysis of film representation from the perspective of phenomenology, in the analysis of different dimensions of the film such as image, sound, narrative, content, reception and perception of the audience, brings important and different results . By briefly examining the nature of artistic representation in the theory of phenomenology, while paying attention to the important components of this theory, this article tries to value the different and influential attitude of this thought in film representation, unlike traditional theories that focus on the content, structure and process of filmmaking. In this regard, with the analytical-interpretive method, how reality and meaning appear in the world of the film from this point of view and increase the audience's experience in a deep and comprehensive analysis of the various elements of the film, such as visual language and sound, time and place, space and phenomenal place . Light and color are treated . As a result, it can be stated that this phenomenological approach not only helps to gain a deeper understanding of the story and characters, but also strengthens the audience's connection with the context and story world and increases the cinematic experience for the audience . The theory of film phenomenology emphasizes that our consciousness not only communicates with scenes through our actions, but also plays a role in their construction . This role is subject to a specific logic that is not yet fully understood.

This paper deals with the possibility of interaction between the two rational knowledges, namely philosophy and mysticism, and reaches the cooperation of the two with each other. Mulla Sadra's philosophy has revealed the joining and combining of these two knowledges and has placed reasoning next to observation. This combination cannot be realized unless inconsistent or seemingly inconsistent factors are rejected. Just as the rejection of polemic method from the argumentative knowledge of theology has placed it beside the argumentative knowledge of philosophy, the predominance of common or consistent rules and foundations between the ability to argue and the ability of intuition in the power of reason has brought the two knowledges, namely, mysticism and philosophy, closer to each other. The reason, in the position of argumentation, although fundamentally unable to pass into a section of reality, it makes the passage of intuition into the revealed part rationable and understandable and places it available to all by demonstrative syllogism. In this way, the knowledge of logic was employed to regulate the finding of intuitions, and the two knowledges of mysticism and philosophy, came together with two sets of concepts and rules in a combined form.

Laurence Lampert (1941-2024) has been known as the greatest contemporary Nietzsche scholar in North America. The main theme of his works can be addressed as the explanation of the notion of a Nietzschean history of philosophy; a new history of philosophy in which the genuine philosopher commands and legislates. From this point of view, philosophy faces two important theoretical and practical challenges. The theoretical challenge in discovering the truth is to face the deadly truth, in which to be is to be will to power. The practical challenge of philosophy is to translate truth into a livable form; the challenge that Strauss recognized as the challenge for philosophy to rule religion. The article “Nietzsche’s Challenge to Philosophy in the Thought of Leo Strauss” was written in order to explain these challenges and Nietzsche’s solutions for them. In the explanatory introduction to this article, I have tried to briefly introduce Professor Lampert’s life and works, then show the basic points of Lampert's understanding of Nietzsche, and finally, provide the reader with an overview of the argumentative structure of the article.

A great number of Western historians of philosophy claim that philosophy emerged for the first time in Greece in the 7th-8th centuries BC. The question is why what is presently called philosophy came into being for the first time in ancient Greece and the West. The present paper focuses on the religious defects in ancient Greece as a determining factor in the rise of philosophy in this land. The main argument behind this response indicates that the religious culture of ancient Greece, because of its poverty in terms of worldview, epistemology, ethics, cosmology, and ontology, as well as certain limitations in subject, method, and end, paved the context for the rising and posing of some fundamental questions that were strange to that religion, which was naturally incapable of responding to them. It was at this point that philosophy emerged to answer such questions. The findings of this study indicate that if, instead of that poor and limited religion, there had been another religion there, ancient Greeks would have become needless of philosophy, or that part of philosophy that dealt with those questions. The replacing religion should have enjoyed the following features: 1) possessing a solid worldview and well-founded systems of epistemology, ethics, cosmology, and ontology; 2) being familiar with the raised questions in terms of method, subject, and end, and 3) enjoying the necessary conceptual and judgmental capabilities to deliberate over those questions.

Absurdity is a subject that has long attracted the attention of philosophers and theorists, with Thomas Nagel being one of the prominent figures in this discourse. Nagel presents two main arguments in defense of life's absurdity. His first argument suggests that absurdity arises from the unbridgeable gap between human desires (the ideal world) and external reality (the external world). In this, he follows the path of thinkers like Albert Camus, and before him, Schopenhauer and others. However, what makes Nagel's view particularly significant is his second argument, which centers on the nature of human rationality. He questions whether humans can possess a stable rationality that remains defensible across various circumstances. Nagel answers this question negatively, arguing that human rationality is defensible only from a human perspective. If humans can detach from themselves and view their lives from an external perspective (a transcendent vantage point), they will realize that their rationality is not as solid or reliable as it first appears. What initially seems rational, valuable, and serious becomes less certain and trustworthy when seen from above. The lack of solid rationality leads to a lack of stable values, as values are based on a rational foundation. Without such a foundation, values cannot remain constant, leading to a state of absurdity. However, from Nagel's viewpoint, absurdity is not inherently negative; rather, it reflects the way humans live, and we must learn to accept it. Understanding life's absurdity simply reduces the seriousness with which we approach life, suggesting that we should engage with existence in a more tolerant and humorous way. This study uses a descriptive-analytical method, relying on library research to explore Nagel's views.

There has been extensive debate and research on the functions of history, leading to the development of major historical schools of thought. The functions of history, as viewed by both Islamic and Western historians, is a significant and practical subject of study, which has attracted attention in both past centuries and contemporary times. In this research, we present the views of Islamic and Western historians on the functions of history. The findings are as follows: Islamic historians, drawing upon the Quran, Islamic law, and the overarching spirit of Islam, as well as the experiences of nations and anthropology, have defined the functions of history. In contrast, Western historians have approached the functions of history through rational experience, human experience, and anthropology. The aim of this study is to explain the functions of history for humanity from the perspectives of Islamic and Western historians, and to compare their viewpoints.

Studying the intellectual foundations and the position of philosophy and theology in the conceptualization of God among philosophers and theologians, can clarify their approach regarding the issue of God. How is the issue of God studied in the view of al-Ṭūsī and ʿAllāma Ḥillī- two "Ḥilla" theologians- according to their intellectual and philosophical-theological foundations and the position of philosophy and theology in their conceptualization of God? To what extent is their approach to the issue of God similar or different? In this article, we will study this problem from two aspects of form and method-content. As for the form, we will deal with the arrangement of the contents in their works according to their philosophical and theological foundations and the perception they have of God accordingly, and as for the method and content, we will discuss the method of knowing and proving God and explaining His attributes (both method and content). Al-Ṭūsī believes in a philosophical God and ʿAllāma Ḥillī, with a more inner-religious perspective, speaks of a religious-philosophical God. Regarding the content, in the method of proving the existence of God in the conceptualization of God, their opinions are similar, while in the formal structure and the issue of knowing God, they are different according to their intellectual foundations.

Philosophers, using their unique philosophical terminologies and language, have presented strong proofs for establishing the existence of the Almighty God. On the other hand, arguments for proving the existence of God can also be presented from the verses of the Quran. But is it possible to derive these philosophical proofs from the Quranic verses, and even claim that philosophers have derived their proofs from the revealed source? This research aims to provide an affirmative answer to this question by using the rational principles of logic to derive and elucidate the premises of certain proofs for God's existence in the Quran. The following will be illustrated: (1) rationality of the concepts in this holy book; (2) the inseparability of the Quran and logical reasoning; (3) an aspect of Qur’anic scientific miraculousness. The present study, using a descriptive-analytical method, examines two philosophical arguments for establishing God's existence in historical order: the argument of contingency and necessity, and the argument of existential indigence. The philosophers have extracted the first argument from verse 35 of Surah At-Ṭūr and the second argument from verse 15 of Surah Fāṭir.

The classification of sciences is a fundamental topic in epistemology and has a significant impact on determining the position, role, and function of each branch of knowledge. Considering the centrality of wisdom (ḥikmah) and Islamic law (shariʿah) in Islamic thought, the classification of sciences has sometimes been structured around these two principles. This paper investigates the relationship between philosophy and jurisprudence, or ḥikmah and shariʿah, as articulated in the classification systems of Al-Farabi and Ibn Sina. It examines the foundations, implications, and consequences of their approaches within their respective philosophical frameworks. The research employs a descriptive-analytical methodology. The findings reveal that both philosophers acknowledge the compatibility of philosophy and religion, but their prioritizations differ. Al-Farabi prioritizes philosophy, placing jurisprudence and theology under practical wisdom, which is subordinate to theoretical wisdom. In contrast, Ibn Sina prioritizes religion, considering shariʿah as an independent science within practical wisdom, distinct from human sciences and with a divine origin. Ibn Sina views shariʿah as an independent science alongside political science, not as a branch of it. By granting shariʿah an independent identity, Ibn Sina lends it credibility and creates conditions for its potential substitution for practical wisdom in the trajectory of Islamic philosophy. He lays the groundwork for the two sciences of usul al-din (theology) and furuʿ al-din (jurisprudence). It appears that Ibn Sina perceives the realization of philosophy in the Islamic society of his time in the Islamization of philosophy and the validation of religious sciences. Therefore, compared to Al-Farabi, Ibn Sina is more concerned with the Islamization of philosophy and seeks to harmonize the philosophy of his predecessors with his own society.

Religion, philosophy, and language are inseparable and important elements of every culture. Suppose a culture is supposed to be transmitted from one land to another and the target culture is assumed to become sublime due to this transmission. In that case, its components should be transmitted correctly, consciously, and fully observed by the cultural guardians to provide the required contexts for the acceptance, establishment, and growth of rationality and religion in society. Otherwise, a serious conflict occurs between the supporters of the previous culture and the supporters of the imported culture. In his works, al-Fārābī, while explaining the formation of these components in human society and their relationship, explains the way of their transmission and makes a good pathology. According to al-Fārābī, philosophy is created by developing language skills and man's acquisition of syllogism techniques. Philosophy uses religion to establish laws in society and guide people towards happiness.

Rousseau is considered one of the most prominent representatives of Enlightenment philosophy, who led education to new directions with his works and deeply impacted people's lifestyles. Therefore, the current research aims to explain Rousseau's point of view as a representative of naturalism in the field of education and the factors affecting it, and to achieve this, a descriptive-analytical method was used. In Rousseau's view, various factors impact human education and several stages can be considered for human development. The findings of the research showed that the central principle of Rousseau's educational philosophy is nature. From his point of view, children are noble noble savages who have a sense of right and wrong by nature and have natural plans for orderly and healthy growth. According to Rousseau, a person is virtuous at the beginning, and due to civilization and its effects, he is out of the natural state and moral vices appear. So, people achieve human values ​​from self-love with the help of natural education. Rousseau saw the child as innocent and considered childhood the most natural period of human development. Therefore, by emphasizing the natural, spontaneous, and necessary parts of a person's nature, he wished to return him to his childhood. Therefore, he gave up trying to change a person into a citizen of the state and believed that the law should be compatible with the natural force and spirit of the person.