جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "مصباح" در نشریات گروه "فلسفه و کلام"

In order to revive the role of religion in the field of science and confront secular science, some Muslim thinkers emphasize the Islamization of science. Based on this, it is necessary to examine and choose the most valid theory in the mentioned field. Mohammad Amara Nomutzali and Ayatollah Misbah have proposed theoretical sciences for Islamization. In this research, with a descriptive and analytical method, focusing on the works of these two personalities, we will do a comparative and critical examination of their opinions in the aforementioned field. Dividing sciences into neutral sciences and sciences with the ability to become religious and Islamicizing the sciences of the second part in the light of Islamizing their epistemological, ontological, anthropological, theological and value-based foundations and Islamizing the applied part of science is one of the common points of view of these two thinkers. Among the points of difference between these two thinkers are things like Ayatollah Misbah's belief that the Sunnah of Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon him) is a source for the Islamization of sciences, and Amara's disbelief in it, and Ayatollah Misbah's view on the neutrality of the descriptive part of the human sciences with regard to Islamization and its non-neutrality from the point of view of It is a building. Another result of this research is that Ayatollah Mesbah and Amara's view on the neutrality of natural sciences towards Islamization is not justified.

Plantinga and Ayatollah Mesbah, as two theist sages, Christians and Muslims, with two different but rational approaches, have researched the issue of evil and argued against the view of the incompatibility of the existence of natural and moral evil. This issue has been investigated based on the descriptive-analytical method of library collection. According to the theory of human free will, Plantinga does not accept the claim that there is a logical contradiction between the problem of evil and the existence of God. Ayatollah Mesbah, while accepting the solutions of Muslim philosophers, such as the non-existence of the evil, the relativity of the evil, the transcendence of the evil, the domination of charity over the evil, has emphasized the goal-oriented strategy or perfection and happiness of all human actions. The findings show that although these two thinkers, in principle, believe in an absolute perfect God (omniscient, omnipotent and pure good), but differ in the method and type of confrontation with the theory of justice and Divine wisdom. At the same time, Ayatollah Mesbahchr('39')s view responds to all natural and moral evils, but Plantingachr('39')s theory responds only to moral evils.

The relation between science and religion has been one of the most important disturbance of scientists in recent centuries. Expressing thus issue was started in west countries since renaissance seriously and it expanded to all countries even Islamic countries. Mesbah as a philosopher and an Islamic scientist chooses completion idea which is based on his basis; e.g.  philosophical foundations with reasonable relativity, paradigm acceptance which means thought basis, experience acceptance which means revelation and inspiration by innocent, monopoly on legitimacy acceptance with salvations pluralism and behavioral pluralism, general rules of conversation acceptance agreement and required backgrounds and transcendent wisdom. Also, Ian Barbour as a philosopher and a western physicist chooses compilation idea which is based on his basis; e.g.   science and religion methodology parallelisms, critical realism, paradigm acceptance which means mindset, religious experience, religious pluralism, philosophic hermeneutic and scanning philosophy. Mesbah leads to separate levels of knowledge in case of its value recognizing and to accept that knowledge is multilevel and is necessary to face systematically in phenomena analysis, but Barbour works on relativity.

Whenever reference is made to the process and structure of gaining knowledge, one may argue that the possibility of gaining it is rooted in one’s destiny. In fact, if someone absolutely doubts or has some suspicions concerning the possibility of gaining knowledge, he can never portray its process and structure. Given the fact that Descartes accepts the possibility of knowledge, the question is which strategies, processes, and stages he proposes for a knower to gain knowledge. Here, he appeals to intuition and inference and asks God not to deceive him. In his study and critique of Descartes’ theory of the process of knowledge, Misbah maintains that it is wrong to assume that the existence of nothing is as clear and certain as the existence of doubt, and even the existence of the skeptic has to be proved through the existence of doubt. He also rejects the innate ideas intended by Descartes. In this paper, the writers have explained Descartes’ theory of the process and structure of knowledge and reviewed it critically from Misbah’s point of view.

The study of Two Minds scholar and Imam Khomeini''s views on Four Journeys، given the similarities between the two views at the same time، there are also differences. Imam and Qomshei both see the origin of the first trip as the created existents but unlike Qomshei who introduced the destination of the trip as the absolute Reality، Imam cosiders it as the qualified Reality. At the second trip، the Imam like Qomshei believe in similar provisions in the tour، vanishing intrinsic qualities and actions، including the necessity of divine grace to withdraw and return to Ananyt destruction of Leishmaniasis، a seeker''s journey is outlined. However، as noted in tour، the site of the Imam against Qomshei who knows loss of mortals، for the traveler on this journey، just as the show is doomed. Instead، the trip to visit Imam''s absolute right to know and secondly. However real nature and destination of the trip with created clear interpretation are consistent with this interpretation، traveler departing on the trip، his destination as the One and it is his justification for destination variable is the fourth trip. Both believe that the prophecy for the traveler on the trip is a prophetic other legislation because the seeker still no better field facility، descent and has not returned. Imam and Qomshei have most closely resembles in the interpretation of the nature and characteristics of their fourth trip. In terms of both، at first this trip is from created existents to created existents with along with the Real and secondly legislation prophecy has been obtained on this trip fully for the seeker

Most Muslim philosophers believe it self-evident that mental images actually present their referents. Ayatullah Mesbah has a different idea in this regard, and thinks that presentation is, in most of its stages (both in concepts and propositions) potential, and it only becomes actual in “true judgments”. In this article, the author tries to analyze and explain this view. According to Ayatullah Mesbah, in order to find out how mental images present their referents, one has to study the use of “presentation”, so that one is able to analyze those instances of presentation we find in ourselves through knowledge by presence. In this way, one can identify conditions necessary for mental images to present something. Then through qualifying universal concepts by such conditions, one is able to define “presentation”. Consequently, “presentation is a psychological reality, pointing to a natural transference of mind from a presenter to what is presented because of complete resemblance between the two.” Complete resemblance can be stratified, and hence presentation may be classified into purely possible, non-propositionally apprehensive, propositional apprehensive, judgmental, and true presentation.