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

Master Mesbah considers the existence of God as "unlimited intensity." Emphasizing the gradation and longitudinal plurality of existence, he holds a hierarchical gradation to the extent that each level possesses perfections superior to and without deficiencies of the lower ranks. Therefore, the divine existence, being at the highest level of this hierarchical system, has infinite perfections and intensity of existence. He perceives, for the contingent beings, an existence beyond the cause. Consequently, the expansive essence of God's existence, as the cause of all causes, is limited by its contingent effects. He attributes his perspective to Mulla Sadra. However, this perspective has shortcomings: 1. Contingent beings do not have an existence beyond the cause, and nothing other than the will of the causal existence defines them. They cannot limit the expansive existence of the first cause, and God is the "unlimited intensity." 2. This perspective does not align with the explicit statements of Sadra al-Muta'allihin and the mystics. Mulla Sadra emphasizes that discussing the gradation and longitudinal plurality of existence is a preliminary framework that prepares the mind for the ultimate perspective. This research employs an analytical-critical method to elucidate Master Mesbah's perspective and evaluates it based on the ultimate viewpoint of Mulla Sadra.

The nature of “Man’s perfection”, as a critical issue in anthropology, has always been inquired into by Thinkers. Holding a particular theist view, the process theologians believe that human perfection is realized by becoming God-like. Though this view is consistent with those of Allamah Tabatabai and Ayatullah Mesbah Yazdi, it departs from them in the quality of Man’s perfection which is validly related to the way God is explicated. The adherent of the process theology believe that God is passible, mutable and evolving thus believe in human perfection in an evolution that emerge as a result of co-dependence on others. Thus, in their view God-likeness is faded and obscured. The current study adopted a descriptive-analytical method in a critical approach to prove that the underpinnings of such a view is unfounded and incompatible with some rational rule such as the impossibility of an infinite regress. Another criticism to which this view is subjected is leaving human perfection dependent upon environmental conditions and equate it with constancy of evolution while unknowing of the ultimate state or purpose of this perfectionism.

Methodology is a process knowledge that consists of several steps, and research strategies are one of these steps and among the key topics of this knowledge. Therefore, one of the necessary tasks for a precise understanding of the methodology of Islamic philosophy is to know the research strategies of this philosophical trend. The strategy is the direction of the research and the type of techniques, methods, approaches and attitudes used in the research. Explaining that when we face a problem, we must specify what our problem is? How do we approach the problem to solve it? Where is the starting point for problem solving? Do we have an end point for problem solving or do we reach an end point in the process of problem solving? That is, do we have a general answer that we want to reach or do we not know what answer we want to achieve? What are the techniques we want to use? What are the problem solving methods? What are problem solving approaches? What are the problem solving attitudes? What is our design to solve the problem? Facing these questions, we have to adopt a suitable strategy. Professor Mohammad Taqi Misbah Yazdi is one of the great Islamic philosophers and thinkers, who in Islamic wisdom, including the methodology of Islamic wisdom; He has a precise, critical and innovative view and has placed his philosophical thoughts in the field of confrontation with the thoughts of Western philosophers .

Method of Study:

 In this article, the authors focus on the book of Misbah's Philosophy Education using the interpretive strategy and explanatory-analytical method and extract the strategies of Misbah's mixed philosophical research from this work. Because this book is one of the important works of philosophizing of Islamic philosophy, which contains the philosophical views of Professor Misbah Yazdi, and is not a summary, description and interpretation of the views of other Islamic philosophers.

We have divided the strategies of philosophical research into two simple and mixed parts, which simple research strategies include deductive strategy, analytical strategy, inductive strategy, interpretive strategy and intuitive strategy. Also, mixed strategies are the result of mixing two or more simple strategies with each other. Professor Misbah in his philosophical views of the mixed strategies of 1- analytical-deductive; 2- analytical- deductive-interpretive second type; 3- analytical- deductive-interpretive second type-intuitive; 4- analytical-interpretive first and second type; 5- analytical-interpretive type two; 6- analytical-interpretive second type-inductive; and 7- analogical-interpretive second type has been used .

Research strategies are one of the stages and steps of the methodology of philosophy, which are not exclusive to a philosopher and philosophical school; Rather, every philosophical research has a research strategy. Of course, a philosopher may not use mixed strategies and believes in simple strategies or may use other types of mixed strategies. Research strategies, direct the flow of the philosopher's philosophizing and knowing these strategies and their application in philosophizing will make this flow purposeful.

The scholar Miṣbāḥ Yazdī affirms that value evils play a role in human moral perfection. This study seeks to answer the question: what relation is there between value evils and moral perfection? The result of this investigation is that he conceptually clarifies that one should use a typical conventional standard, not an individual one, for evaluating his own perfection and best interest, and it is human convention that serves as a criterion for identifying good and evil. The fact that there is much evil in the world lays out the groundwork for values to function properly in light of the different divine tests and to help man to become aware of his values, to get close to God, to benefit from revelation, to choose wisely, and to end his blameworthy attachments to this perishing world. These cases are analyzed in terms of divine grace for the servant to reach moral perfection, i.e. to recognize beings’ spiritual poverty, to get closer to God, and to lift the veil between himself and God.

Connective existence and, its sub-category, independent existence are among the issues and predicates of philosophy, which have been discussed in the transcendental philosophy, both in the sphere of propositions and in the world of entities. In the world of propositions, the connective existence, the reality of which is being connective and otherness, if it is the same as the relation of judgment (between subject and the predicate), is necessary as a part of the composite whetherness affirmative proposition; but if not, it will be one of the concomitants of preposition, which will be sticked in the mind following affirmation and judgement. In the world of entities, all contingent entities, including substances and accidents of existences, are connective, and only Allah Exalted is considered an independent existence. This has left a tremendous impact on other philosophical issues, and study it based on Allameh Tabataba’’'s theory is the subject of this paper.

Realization of philosophical rationalities is one of the epistemological issues. Basically, one of the main questions that ontology deals with is what is realistic in the universe? How is the realization of philosophical rationalities formed? The main question of this article is based on the realism of philosophical rationalities. Contemporary neo-Sadr philosophers have studied more than ever the way in which philosophical rationalities can be realized. These philosophers mean Allameh Tabatabai and his students. Allameh Tabatabai's initiative considers the science of presence to be a source of realism. Professor Motahhari has a critical and detailed approach to this issue, on the other hand, he tries to find a solution to the problem by expanding Allameh Tabatabai's opinion. In Javadi's expression, the concept of existence is emphasized before other concepts. Master Mesbah believes that human perceptual forms have a chance to be realistic.

The discussion of intellectual perception and the quality of intellection holds an important place in epistemology. Islamic philosophers have followed various approaches to explaining the mechanism of intellection. Mullā Ṣadrā has also used different expressions for clarifying the process of general perception. He views the intellect sometimes as a locus of manifestation or epiphany (listener) and sometimes as an emanator (source) of intellectual forms. Accordingly, each of the researchers and commentators of Sadrian philosophy has tried to justify the differences between the words he has used in some way. As a neo-Sadrian philosopher, Jawadi Amuli posits some discussions in his works that can introduce a new view of the process of rational perception. Following a descriptive-analytic method, the present study demonstrates that, Jawadi Amuli has directly referred to two types of rational perception and the necessity to separate them from each other. In one of them, the intellect is a listener, and the general perception is the result of conscious rational intuition and passivity of the soul. Here, perception is limited to a special group. In the other one, the intellect functions as a source, and the general perception is the outcome of mental and soulish activities. All people are capable of this kind of intellectual perception.

The rule “the union of the soul and its faculties” or “the soul in its unity is identical with all faculties” is one of the fundamental bases of the study of soul in transcendent theosophy whose functions and outcomes are to be sought in ontology and theology. This rule being proposed to explain the multiplicity of faculties in one single soul came under many criticisms and objections. Some contemporary philosophers who looked at it critically hold that they can hardly prove it or it hardly works or its for-arguments fail. The possible maximum use of this rule owes to the answer to those objections rescuing it from piercing criticisms. In his article, the author has studied the foremost objections against the rule –particularly those of Ayatullah Misbah and of Ayatullah Fayyazi- in order to come up with Mulla Sadra’s final word about the rule. He has adopted the descriptive-analytic method. The conclusion is that through Mulla Sadr’s words in his many works, his account of the chronology of the issue, and separating his earlier words from the final one, one can offer the answer to the most of those objections.

How the findings of the mind are realized is one of the fundamental issues of epistemology. In the philosophy of Sadr al-Muta'allehin, the realism of the mind is explained in two ways: the essential correspondence between mental existence and external existence and the adaptation of the worlds. On the other hand, due to Sadra's various interpretations of nature, commentators on Sadra's wisdom, including Mesbah Yazdi and Javadi Amoli, have discussed the nature and type of its relationship with existence.Therefore, considering the role of nature and essential concepts in the fact of showing the mind and the criterion of nature for cognition in Sadra's wisdom, the issue of realizing mental existence is also affected by what nature is and the type of its relationship with existence. Now, the main issue of the present study is that based on the type of relationship between nature and existence, in the view of Professor Javadi Amoli and Mesbah Yazdi, based on the originality of existence, the essential conformity of mind and object is possible?After reviewing in the present article by descriptive-analytical method, it was concluded that in the view of Mesbah Yazdi and Javadi Amoli, the nature of mental emergence and the place of nature is only in the mind and there is no research outside, hence the nature Mental refers only to external reality, so the objective correspondence between mental and external nature does not make sense, and in order to prove the reality of mental imaginations, another expression must be provided.

Kant contends that it is not principally possible to argue in favor of the existence of God through theoretical reasoning and attempts to consider the existence of God as the presupposition of necessity to attain the highest good through practical moral arguments, thereby proving God. The purpose of this article was to examine Ayatollah Javadi’s critiques on the moral argument from the perspective of Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi's philosophy of ethics. Javadi Amoli makes two criticisms of this argument. First, Kant's acknowledgment of the acceptance of God's existence has only moral and practical values and does not prove the "existence" of God as a fact per se. The other critique is the implication between "Ought" and "Is", while "Ought " always results from "Is" and not vice versa.When Kant awakes from his dogmatic sleep, he realizes that none of the arguments presented to prove the existence of God are correct. He goes beyond that by claiming that it is in principle impossible to argue in favor of the existence of God through theoretical reasoning because God is not temporal and spatial; as a result, the categories of comprehension cannot be carried over to Him. Theoretical reasoning is limited to experiences and phenomena and if it goes beyond sensory objects, it goes beyond its limits while it is possible to speak about that realm neither negatively nor positively (Kant, 1998: p.153). However, he understands that by rejecting God, everything would be permissible and maintaining morality and respect for others’ rights would be meaningless. As a result, he decides to prove God through practical reasoning and keep morality alive in the society. Therefore, from Kant's point of view, moral action is the source of happiness and requires belief in the existence of God; because if there is no God, the moral law cannot be the cause of eternal happiness. Then, practical reasoning must accept God as the presupposition; however, theoretical reasoning cannot prove it. In this article, we first described Kant's practical moral argument and then investigated Ayatollah Javadi Amoli’s criticisms. Afterwards, his critiques were examined based on the principles of Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi's philosophy of morality.According to Kant, his moral theory needs 3 presuppositions to be completed: Freedom: Freedom is the necessary condition for the possibility of commitment to the absolute moral norms since man cannot act with absolute morality unless he is free. Immortality of the Soul: No rational being can attain virtue in the sensible world; the soul must be eternal so that we can reach it after death. God: The third presupposition of Kant's moral theory is the existence of God.When Kant sees theoretical reason to be incapable of proving God, he tries to prove God through practical reasoning. He believes that virtue and happiness are the two elements of the highest good. The moral law considers the presumption of the existence of God as the necessary condition of the combined interest between virtue and happiness. In other words, happiness is the state of rational being so that everything is done according to man’s will and virtue is what man must do (Kant 1996: 5/124). Man must achieve the highest good, that is, union of what he wants with what he must do. This depends on the compatibility of material nature and human will, but man can never harmonize material nature with his own will because the ordinary being is not the creation of the universe and cannot establish the necessary relationship between happiness and virtue (Kant 1996, 5/113). The highest good in Kant's philosophy has a moral necessity and is attainable by every human being. The necessity of achieving the highest good indicates the possibility of achieving it (Kant 1996: 5/143). Thus, to harmonize between virtue and happiness, we must assume the existence of the cause of the world, which can establish harmony and unity between the virtue and happiness. Therefore, God, the Omnipotent and Omniscient, must exist to reconcile the moral virtue with a blissful result.Javadi Amoli presents two objections to Kant's argument:His first objection is that this argument is never an argument for the existence of God because, according to Kant, when rational concepts are not associated with sensory intuition, they have no anecdote about the outside world and do not tolerate any meaning concerning the reality; therefore, this argument has only a moral value and does not open the way to the real world. This argument does not convince the skepticism of the existence of God; rather, it only says that if one wants to think morally, he must accept the existence of God as the presupposition of moral rules. According to Kant, if one wants to acknowledge priori judgments of practical reason, which are the same as moral rules, he or she must also accept the presuppositions of these priori rules, which are the existence of the free will, eternal soul, and God. Nevertheless, from Kant's point of view, this acknowledgment of the existence of God has only moral and practical values and does not prove the "existence" of God (Javadi Amoli, 2007: pp. 284-285).Javadi Amoli's second objection is the implication of moral judgments on theoretical propositions, such as the existence of God and immortality of the soul. He says that moral judgments, which are related to practical reason, have special subjects and predicates. These propositions, as Kant acknowledges, contain some self-existent propositions that are inherently acceptable to practical reasoning. According to him, the propositions related to theoretical reasoning are never deduced from the propositions that are related to practical reasoning, but this implication is from the side of theoretical reasoning. He says that for man to reach a practical judgment, he always has to form some deductions, the minor and major of which are theoretical and practical verdicts, respectively. From the combination of these two propositions, a moral deduction is formed, the result of which is the quantity, quality, practicality, or theoreticality of the function of the lowest two propositions. Since one of the propositions is derived from practical wisdom, the result that is drawn will be always the result of practical wisdom and not the theoretical result (Javadi Amoli, 2007: pp. 285 and 286).Nonetheless, Mesbah Yazdi believes that philosophically, the “Ought” and “not-Ought” are deducted from the “Is” and “not-Is”, so there is nothing wrong with drawing an "Ought" conclusion from the premises, which are all about the “Is”. Therefore, it must be deliverable to the “Is” with no difference. As Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi considers moral propositions, both the informing and compositional propositions are deducted from the “Is”. As a result, Ayatollah Javadi's objections to Kant are not sound according to his views. Ayatollah Javadi Amoli believes that because moral sentences are compositional, they are the lowest compared to the informing sentences and combination of informing and compositional propositions. The result would be always compositional since the compositional proposition is the lowest and there is no possibility of deduction, one of the premises of which is a moral (compositional) proposition to give a conclusion that would contain the concept of "Is" and be thus informing. However, according to Ayatollah Mesbah, who maintains that moral propositions are also informing and can be delivered to the universe, moral propositions will no longer be the lowest; hence, it is possible to infer moral propositions from cosmological propositions and at least, there is no barrier to being compositional. In the end, we conclude that according to the principles of Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi's philosophy of ethics, Ayatollah Javadi Amoli’s objections do not apply to Kant's moral argument, while Ayatollah Mesbah's point of view seems more accurate.

The burhāni ṣiddīqīn, the proof of ṣiddīqīn, is one of the most important proofs of the existence of God. Various interpretations of this argument have been made from the time of Fārābī and Ibn Sīnā to the present day. Mullā Hādī Sabziwārī is one of the commentators of Ṣadrā's thought and sometimes among its critics who tries to open a new way in ilāhiyyāt bi`l ma`n al-akhaṣṣ, theology in its narrowest sense, by proposing four manners of expression for the proof. The purpose of this article is to re-read these manners of explanation to measure them. On the other hand, contemporary philosophers, such as Abdullāh Javādī Āmulī and Muḥammad Taqī Misbāh Yazdī, have also criticized these arguments while quoting them. In this article, we try to explain and analyze these critiques with a descriptive analytical method. As explained in the article, only in two explanations Sabziwārī has taken a step toward the proof on the basis of originality and simplicity of existence, and the step is also a case of objection. That is, both aforementioned bases are theoretical issues and need to be proven, and using such doubtful bases reduces the strength of the proof.

The problem of religious science and its contrast to secular science is an unending debate. Ayatollah Javadi Amoli and Ayatollah Mesbah, two great figures of the Islamic seminary and two prominent scholars of contemporary Islamic civilization, have theorized about the nature and possibility of religious science and its contrast to secular science. The present paper is a comparative study of the views of these two scholars concerning criteria of religious and secular sciences. While they provide different definitions and criteria of religious science, they present the same definition and instance of secular science. Being secular or anti-religious is not an essential feature of any science. Instead, it is a feature ascribed to a science given its background, philosophy, practitioner, and goals. Ayatollah Javadi categorizes science, with its divine reality, into two types in terms of its practitioner. If the practitioner believes in elements of divine philosophy, then the science will be religious, and if the practitioner is atheist and anti-religious, then the science will be atheist or secular. Ayatollah Mesbah evaluates science as religious or anti-religious in terms of its disposition for value-based descriptions. The latter view considers a science as religious insofar as it does not conflict the religion at any stage from its foundations to its problems and effects..

The present research aims to focus on the Science-Religion Conflict Resolution Strategies from the view point of Mesbah Yazdi in Terms of Efficiency and Originality.

The author of the article uses library based method In gathering information, and descriptive method in judgment of the Science-Religion Conflict Resolution Strategies in Mesbah Yazdi,s ideas and the method used to analyze the Western Thinkers benefits the Comparative- descriptive method, and analytical method is used to evaluate their efficiency and originality.

To face conflicts between Science and Religion, Mesbah Yazdi has offered Resolution Strategies based on the nature, realm, foundation, resources and criterion and epistemological aspect of science and some scientific ideas.

Resolution Strategies of Mesbah Yazdi is often based on Islamic philosophy of science. They are efficient Resolution Strategies and are not the repetition of Western Thinkers' resolution strategies.

The religious science is epistemic systems about the real world. The study of the philosophical foundations of science and the principles of theology is the first step towards the establishment of religious science. The emergence of the term religious science in the country's scientific community has become the center of some controversy, so that we encounter a number of contradictions among proponents and opponents. Given the extent of the controversy, the fact that the mere expression of the acceptance or non-acceptance of religious science by the thinkers, due to the various statements, does not clearly trace the theory of scholars. Frequent recurrences of views give rise to controversy and rigidity. Among those who believe in the possibility of religious knowledge, due to the importance of the theory of Ayatollah Javadi Amoli, Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi and Dr. Golshani, we compared their theories of religious science and based on this, pointed out the position of reason and revelation in the views of each of these thinkers. This article seeks to make a step towards the clarity of religious science by comparing views.

Among contemporary Islamic philosophers، Mesbah Yazdi has proposed a theory about primitive propositions. He claims، first، that primitive propositions are analytic and secondly that concepts they are made up of، are secondary philosophical concepts. Here، we first introduce his theory of primitive propositions and then give some counterexamples in order to show that this theory does not match with the classical characterization of primitive propositions. Some of these counterexamples are not analytic and others neither are analytic nor composed of secondary philosophical concepts. The upshot is that both Mesbah’s criteria for primitiveness are defective.

Among contemporary Islamic philosophers Mr. Mesbah Yazdi is the only thinker that has a theory to define analytic propositions. This article which study and evaluate the theory، contains two sections. In the first section we will present ‘first definition’ of analytic propositions which we have gained from his written works، and we present some examples which he considers as analytic proposition. Then argue that، according to ‘first definition’ we cannot count them as analytic propositions. In the second section we will present ’second definition‘ for analytic propositions which we have gained from his oral works، as a solution for objections to the ‘first definition’ of analytic propositions. In spite of this reformation، we will argue that his theory is not acceptable because of two reasons; the first reason is that his theory is vague and does not limit these propositions. The second reason is that there are some propositions that there is an agreement that they are analytic propositions، whereas his theory does not count them as analytic propositions

In Islamic ethics, Muslim thinkers have been divided into two groups concerning the problem of goodness and badness, Ashaira and Mutazila. Can we have a new compound theory which gathers some elements from each of these two groups? We will show that it is possible. This is exactly what happened in ethical Islamic theories, especially Shii theories. Theories of Muhammad Taqi Mesbah and Abdulkarim Surush are two samples of these compound theories. Mesbah Yazdi agrees with Mutazila that the universal principles of ethics are rational, but nevertheless agrees with Ashara that in assigning and determining applications of these principles we need to return to Sharia. On the contrary, Surush agrees with Ashara that moral values are derived from Sharia and God's will and commands, nevertheless he agrees with Motazila that to prove these we should return to reason. The above mentioned theories defend a compound way in the important problem of the "relation between religion and ethics". They hold that ethics is neither completely dependent on religion and nor completely independent of it.

The discussion of socialism has been considered as one of the principles of theoretical philosophy of history. This is the question: Is individualism correct or socialism or is it that according to a third theory, both of them are true. This discussion is comparatively new among Muslim thinkers and probably Allamah Tabatabai paid attention to this subject for the first time; then Shahid Motahhari and Professor Mesbah made some inspections on this subject. Shahid Motahhari defends the view of correctness of both (but along with his special analysis of the subject) and Professor Mesbah criticizes some parts of this view and completely denies the socialism. In this article, the purpose is presenting the perspectives of the two thinkers and a judgment between them and considering the emphasis of both sides on attributing their view to Quran, some verses of Quran will be studied as well. The course of discussion is that after a brief explanation of the three views of individualism, socialism and truth of both, the conceptual principles of the discussion (concept of originality and concept of combination of society) is explained; then explicating the similarities and differences between the two views, an analysis of their philosophical and Quranic reasons and a judgment between the two has been done.