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

It is widely known contrary to the Hikmat-Mota'aliyya, which believes in composition through unification of matter and form, the peripatetic believes in composition through annexation of the two. The attribution of this opinion to the Peripatetics is so strong that no one doubts that they believe in annexation composition, despite research on the subject demonstrating that it is not so simple and that such an attribution cannot be attributed to the Peripatetic with such conviction and certainty. The goal of this article is to refute the assertation that attributed to the peripatetic.Those who believe in union or annexation composition have provided arguments to prove their position. Seyyed Sadr al-Din Dashtaki, also known as Seyyed Sanad, was the first to consider the combination of matter and form to be a union, and Mulla Sadra agreed with him. They document their opinion on previous philosophers in the same way that those who believe in annexation composition do. Seyyed Sanad, the innovator of the unified composition, also considers his theory to be based on the opinions of Ibn Sina and Bahmanyar and cites evidence from them to prove that matter and form exist outside as a one entity, he used Ibn Sina's statement that matter and form are one according to the entity and multiple according to the meaning. Furthermore, the combination of soul and body, which represent matter and form, is annexed, according to Bahmanyar's statement.While rejecting Sadr al-Din Dashtaki, Fayyaz Lahiji, who some consider to be an Ibn Sina follower, believes that matter and form exist as two distinct entities, and most philosophers believe in annexation combination. The majority of philosophers who mentioned meant peripatetics, because the majority of those at the time were peripatetic. Contemporaries of Fayyaz Lahiji, Mirdamad and his student Seyyed Ahmad Alavi, also consider the combination of matter and form to be annexed, rather than the  union combination in the mind, such as genus and differentia. Hakim Sabzevari, a admirer of Hikmat-Mota'aliayya and an interpreter of Mulla Sadr's works, disagrees with him on this point accepting annexation composition as the opinion of great philosophers, including Ibn Sina. As a result, The issue of composition by way of unification and composition by way of annexation is one of Sadr al-Din Dashtaki's innovations in the ninth century AH and has not been discussed previously. As a result, it was not discussed in the books of Ibn Sina, Farabi, Bahmanyar, and other Peripatetics prior to Dashtaki, and they did not discuss this issue, but during and after Sadr al-Din Dashtaki, many philosophers, mostly Peripatetics like Mirdamad and Fayyaz Lahiji, argued against Dashtaki on this point. If we present this issue to the Peripatetics before Dashtaki, we can find evidence in favor of both unification and annexation, so one of these two cannot be attributed to them, and only through tolerance can the Peripatetics be convinced of the annexation combination.

The philosophical analysis of the changes in natural bodies led Peripatetic philosophers to the notion of hyle, which is a substance that essentially lacks actuality and remains fixed in the process of change. Peripatetic philosophers have employed this notion in many philosophical debates, including the famous division of existents into material and immaterial groups. Nevertheless, despite their emphasis upon this notion, Suhrawardī denied the existence of the Peripatetic hyle. Mullā Ṣadrā has not explicitly explained his views of hyle in any of his works; however, a careful study of his works and, particularly, philosophical principles indicates that the peripatetic hyle is not acceptable in the Transcendent Philosophy. In fact, some contemporary philosophers have even found the idea of the Peripatetic hyle to be self-contradictory within the framework of the Transcendent Philosophy. At the same time, the words hyle and matter are frequently used in Mullā Ṣadrā’s works because, apart from cases in which he explains the views of earlier philosophers, he also believes in a kind of hyle that should be called the “analytic hyle”. This kind of hyle is a secondary philosophical intelligible that is abstracted from the analysis of the trans-substantial motion. It bears a unity with from and can be used as a basis for the division of existence into fixed and fluid categories.

One of the most significant issues in epistemology is to examine the graded or individual unity from many different angles. To begin with, it is to be mentioned that not only the theory of graded or individual unity has been proposed by Sardaian theosophy, but also by Avicenna and al-Suhrawardi’s schools of philosophy. The main pivot of the essay is to critically assess the philosophical issues under the graded or individual unity.   What has been discussed in this article are: the differences between the necessary being as the being “negatively conditioned” under graded unity and as the being "Almighty" none-conditioned as the source of division under individual unity, the system of causes and effects under graded unity and the system of states or being in a state under individual unity, putting forward the theory of necessity and contingency under graded unity and its rejection under individual unity, res and quasi res predication under graded unity and he-is-he predication under individual predication, and the like

This article assumes that Islamic political philosophy exists, so it responds to the main question of what does Islamic political philosophy mean, and what expressions, interpretations and schools have taken shape under this concept. The nature and meaning of Islamic political philosophy have been analyzed by a variety of opinions, viewpoints and schools, some of which are close or similar to others. Some of them have dealt with one dimension of Islamic philosophy. The purpose of this article is not to approve or critique these expressions and viewpoints. It is rather to discover and classify them and to understand what is the substance and boundaries of Islamic political philosophy. The expressions and interpretations of Islamic political philosophy belong to contemporary researchers, and the schools of Islamic political philosophy belong to the scholars of the early or medieval period.

There have been numerous views on eternity or contingency of the soul as well as its being physically or spiritually originated. The Peripatetic philosophers have regarded the soul as an abstract substance originated along with the origination of the body while it is independent of the body. It is compounded with the body through an integrative addition. Accordingly، it has a correlation with the body. In Mulla Sadra’s view، however، the origination of soul is not as an abstract being; rather، it is the matter that is resonated in its essence. This goes on in a way that the soul، as far as the physiological features are concerned، in addition to vegetative orders and ideal abstraction، i. e. the animal order، reaches the level that deserves its becoming the rational soul and experiences intellectual abstraction. Master Fayyazi holds that the origination of the soul takes place before the body and as an abstract being. The soul، in order to be complete، dominates the body and governs it. The interest and affection established between the body and the soul results in mutual influence between them. He، due to non-efficiency of the intellect in this regard، relies more on transmitted traditions to prove his own view.

The theory of “creation out of nothing” is one of the central discussions in Mulla Sadra’s ontology. Based on the theory of the trans-substantial motion and through resorting to the Qur’an, he maintains that the world is temporally originated. However, in the Peripatetic philosophy, the world is temporally eternal and essentially originated. In Illuminationist philosophy, the world is considered to be the manifestation and epiphany of the light of all lights and essentially posterior to God. Moreover, in gnosis, through resorting to immutable entities, creation out of nothing is accepted and interpreted. In the Transcendent Philosophy, by criticizing and exploring the ideas of mutikallimun and philosophers based on the theory of continuous creation and through using intellectual reasoning and illuminationist intuition, it is proved that, no other existent, except the One God, is essentially and temporally pre-eternal. The followers of this school also argue that believing in pure oneness is only possible through believing in the theory of creation out of nothing and the essential and temporal creation of the world.

Our aim in this article is to investigate Khajeh Nasir`s effective role in emergence، growth and development of triple paradigms of Islamic philosophy، that are، Masha’، Ishraq and al-Hekmah al-Motealiyeh. Thus، first we present a summary of the meaning of “paradigm” and then discuss Tusi`s role in the development of triple paradigms of Islamic philosophy. We believe that، by using an interactive approach، Khajeh Nasir has attained a new approach to understand the paradigms. He is the first thinker in Islamic world who created a constructive and effective interaction between two paradigms of Masha’ and Ishraq، and paved the way for the emergence of al-Hekmah al-Motealiyeh. This can be explained with regard to either the conceptualization of al-Hekmat al-Motealiyeh or epistemological approach. Al-Hekmah Al-Motealiyah was influenced a lot by Tusi.

We face three well known philosophical schools i.e. Peripatetic, illuminative, and transcendent ones in the field of Islamic philosophy. An internal look at various issues raised in these schools and their analysis have formed the major part of books and articles in this regard. However, the external and holistic look at these schools and study of components forming a philosophical school and the process of its realization in a span of time are also very significant. Therefore the main questions are: 1. What are the features of a philosophical school distinguishing it from other ones? 2. Why do we face only three schools in Islamic philosophy? Explaining and analyzing these features, the present article seeks to apply them to the peripatetic and illuminative systems. The authors claim that the peripatetic and illuminative schools have a starting point, an especial philosophical method, necessary instruments for achieving their goals, and a harmonious ontological system. Carefully considering the teachings of these two schools, we can find out these elements and analyze why they are designated as philosophical schools and what distinguishes one from the other. Two points would be concluded from this analysis: firstly the macro foundations necessary for founding a philosophical school are explained. Secondly it becomes clear that the mere unity of the philosophical method of two philosophers or their consensus on one or more issues does not imply that their philosophical systems are one and the same. Thus the existence of even one new component can form the identity of a new school quite distinguished from the earlier ones.

The authors in this article try to suggest a new approach in Ibn Sina’s philosophical thought which is against the classical understanding of his philosophy. They suggest that Ibn Sina benefits from a mystical and intuitive mentality as well as his deductive methodology; but his intuitive approach is hidden under his rational arguments and discursive school. The authors assume the responsibility to explain the intuitive aspect, or the mystical experience of Ibn Sina which can be called “intellectual gnosis”. According to the authors, his intuitive treatises as well as three parts of his Ishārāt, have the same structure and goal. Furthermore, the whole of Ibn Sina’s philosophy is considered one philosophical system, and his intuitive writings are essential, rather than peripheral, parts of that philosophy. Therefore, Ibn Sina’s philosophy is distinguished form the philosophy of Aristotle in fundamental aspects.