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

The discussion of divine activity and the quality of the creation of existents has always been a challenging discussion, and different thinkers have provided different views, each based on their philosophical thoughts. Among them, Mullā Ṣadrā has sometimes acknowledged agent-by-foreknowledge and sometimes agent-by-self-manifestation regarding the quality of God’s Agency in his various works. These two apparently contradictory views have made the commentators of his works to try to reveal his ultimate intention. This paper, which has been written following a descriptive analytic method, discusses the views of Mullā Hādī Sabziwārī and Ḥassanzādeh Āmulī as two of the important commentators of the Transcendent Philosophy and concludes that, through referring agent-by-self-manifestation to providence in its general sense, Sabziwārī tries to reconcile these two views. However, with his particular interpretation of the Peripatetics’ view of God’s agency, Ḥassanzādeh Āmulī equates agent-by-foreknowledge with agent-by-self-manifestation. Nevertheless, the authors believe that the main basis of agent-by-foreknowledge that has persuaded Mullā Ṣadrā to acknowledge it is active knowledge. For this reason, by accepting agent-by-foreknowledge, he agrees with such affairs as the addition of knowledge to essence, which the Peripatetics have suggested in this regard. Accordingly, we can conclude from Mullā Ṣadrā’s different statements about the quality of divine agency that his view is based on active knowledge, which also exists in agent-by-foreknowledge. Hence, he speaks of agency-by-foreknowledge in relation to God’s Activity, which is consistent with agent-by-self-knowledge.

Only few philosophical works, such as Hadi Sabzavari’s Sharḥ al-manẓūma (literally, commentary on verses concerning philosophy), are used as textbooks. Consisting of didactic verses composed and explained by Sabzavari, the book is regarded as one of his valuable works and a main textbook on Islamic philosophy. The research question is how we can examine and evaluate this work as a textbook, or how we can re-write it to provide a more useful textbook.I aim to foster a discourse of critique and evaluation of existing textbooks, encouraging and motivating the academic community to enhance and supplement these texts, and to provide up-to-date and useful versions of philosophical textbooks. Some critical views of Sharḥ al-manẓūma have been proposed in a number of books and articles, including Teaching philosophy: a comparative study of Sharḥ al-manẓūma and Nihāyat al-ḥikma (Izadi 2013, 59), “Haj Mulla Hadi Sabzavari and his Sharḥ al-manẓūma” (Fani 1983, 44), “A Comparative Study of Sharḥ al-manẓūma and Nihāyat al-ḥikma” (Taba’i Izadi 2001, 58), “Teaching Transcendent Philosophy or obfuscating and destroying it?” (Shijari 2016, 51).Given its significance, Sharḥ al-manẓūma merits thorough examination and review to capitalize on its strengths and mitigate its weaknesses.  The present article contributes by discussing specific passages of Sharḥ al-manẓūma to illustrate certain educational difficulties within the text in a tangible manner. In light of these challenges, suggestions are put forth for the improvement of this and other philosophy textbooks.    

This article addresses a theoretical question using the library research method. In this method, after formulating the question and developing schematic and detailed plans, sources were provided, notes were taken, and an initial edit was conducted through thematic categorization of the notes. Subsequently, the finalized version was prepared after further reconsiderations. 

Apart from its strengths, Sharḥ al-Manẓūma, like all human creations, has weaknesses that are analyzed in detail in the article. One such weakness is its explanation of the content through versification and commentary mixed with the text. This has placed Sabzavari in a challenging position, making it difficult for him to clarify phrases and shape the structure of sentences, resulting in the complexity and difficulty of understanding phrases in Sharḥ al-manẓūma. Furthermore, other drawbacks of Sharḥ al-manẓūma include theoretical complications, criticisms of other views, and elaboration of objections. At times, Sabzavari unexpectedly adds fuel to the fire of lengthy theoretical debates and controversies, which do not align with the structure of the discussion and the reader’s capacity.Among other issues with Sharḥ al-manẓūma is its excessive optimism towards views, a tendency to justify them, and taking a charitable stance towards them without due regard for the facts of the history of philosophy. Moreover, Sabzavari attributes and justifies various views in terms of religious teachings. This approach has cast doubts on some of the citations in the book (Mutahhari 2011, 304). Furthermore, the prominence of Mulla Sadra’s Transcendent philosophical approach in Sabzavari’s Sharḥ al-manẓūma, and latter’s alignment with mystical principles and discussions, have sometimes led Sabzavari to make intricate mystical remarks. However, understanding these remarks requires a beginner in philosophy to be relatively or even fully familiar with the issues of theoretical mysticism.       

Conclusion and Suggestions:

Although sharing many outstanding characteristics of standard textbooks, Sharḥ al-Manẓūma suffers from issues such as the complication of its versification, difficulties arising from the blending of texts and commentaries, literary digressions, inclusion of mystical allusions, excessive justification and a charitable stance, neglect of historical context, digressions in explanations of reasons, and personal interpretations of Quranic verses and hadiths. In these respects, the book lacks some characteristics of a textbook. A contribution of this article is its content analysis of some parts of the text in a concrete and tangible way. Finally, this study suggests that Sharḥ al-manẓūma should be re-written preserve its authenticity and yet be transformed to an up-to-date and useful textbook with as many faults removed as possible.

The Transcendent Theosophy (Alhikmah Al-muta'liyah) is the result of the tireless efforts of Mulla Sadra (1050-979 AH), who was able to extract a brilliant gem from the innermost of two philosophical currents, the verses and words of the divine saints and Ibn Arabi's mysticism, and projected a rare wisdom from their hearts. The dynamics of this method, in an evolutionary process, finally led to Mulla Hadi Sabzevari (1212-1289 AH), the founder of a philosophical movement, based on the original principles of Sadra's wisdom and the initiator of a new method containing some innovative philosophical rules, grasped by his paying attention to his thought leader (Mulla Sadra)'s works, especially al-Asfar al-Arba'ah (Four Journeys), Souhravardi's al-Hikmah al-Ishraq, especially Qutb al-Din al-Shirazi's commentary on it, Ibn Sina's Isharat, especially Nasir al-Din al-Tusi's commentary on it, Mulla Abd al-Razzaq's Shawareq al-Ilham, and Ibn Arabi's Fusus al-Hikam. Sabzevari's philosophical works led to originating a new philosophical school, called the Sabzevari philosophical school. With descriptive and analytical method, this article tries to explain some of the Sabzevari philosophical school innovations.

The concept of "good" is one of the basic concepts in the areas of philosophy, psychology, and the value of ethical judgments. Carefully review and solve its complexities can open up many issues and misunderstandings. Both HajMullāhādī Sabzevari and R. M. Hare are two philosophers who have presented some good ideas about the concept of 'good' on the basis of their thinking framework. These two thinkers have revised their predecessors’ views according to the time in which they lived, and added complementary and effective points to them, then they removed its shortcomings. The late Sabzevari reasoned against the Asharite who argued that theories of good and evil couldn’t form demonstrative syllogism because they were not self-evident, that they can be applied not only in the accepted domains but also in the realm of certainty. Thus, these theorems provide the basis for the demonstrative syllogism. From the point of view of Haji Sabzevari, the intellect of all human beings can be aware of the theories of a good ethical concepts. It makes the theorems have the truth value and truth value false. Also, in his view, anything that is admired or condemned by the necessity of, or true argument of the wisdom; is also admired and condemned in the thing in itself. So, besides the rational validity of human beings, he believes in the vas of the essence of a thing for being knowledgeable and truthful and false. On the other hand, R. M. Hare disagrees with any schools of emotion, because they reduced ethical propositions to imperative propositions and, as a result, found these propositions not to have rational validity and reasoning. But Hare, by implying the introduction of the demonstrative, makes the demonstrative related to the concept of "good" rational and arguable. But since the ethical sentences are command and compositional in prescriptivism and have no logical truth and falsehood, thereby his view remains non-cognitivism. But what highlights the significance of this article is the analytical and comparative view of these two thinkers’ opinion, which we are going to discuss now. Ontologically, Haji Sabzevari summarizes the notion of "good" in the intellectual alignment of human beings (although it considers as a descriptive and knowledgeable perception, it does not have the exploration aspect of the reality), an non-realistic, and he is considered as a realist because he regards the good and the bad in the thing in itself admired or condemned. But on the other hand, Hare does not consider the propositions related to the ethical concept of "good" as a descriptive and exploratory issue about the world around it, so it takes on a prescriptive and non-descriptive aspect. So, his opinions can be described as an non-realistic one. From the epistemological aspect, both thinkers have considered being arguable and rational of the demonstrative related to the ethical concept of "good". For Haji Sabzevari, the propositions of the concept of good are self-evident and certainty; and based on the validity of human rationality one can attain its truth value and truth value false. This is because whatever is considered praised and condemned by human beings is also put in thing in itself, and thus corresponds to God’s sentences. His view about it, is therefore cognitive, but in Hare’s opinion, the propositions related to the ethical concept of "good" are neither descriptive nor epistemic. So they are not self-evident and certainty. In Hare’s view, ethical propositions including the concept of good are imperative sentences with the aim of promoting prescriptivism. Also, people's recommendation to one another may change based on the personal experiences and situations. Thus, it can be said that Hare’s prescriptivism is classified under the following ethical non-cognitivism. In moral semantic, both thinkers consider the analysis of the concept of "good" as an admirable issue. And they make sense the rest of the meanings in the domain of its value and ethical meanings, namely praise and admiration aspect. However, Haji Sabzevari returns the first two meanings of the concept of "good" (in the realm of objects and verbs) to its third meaning i.e. deserving the admiration and praise, if optional. Hare also interprets the meaning of the concept “good” (both in the realm of human acts and things), in its value sense i.e. being admirable. But however, Mohaghegh Sabzevari considers the criterion of the 'good' concept or admiration of something, whether it is the discernment of the intellectual community or God. In a whole and brief summary, it can be said that from the perspective of Sabzevari, the theories of the concept of good are self-evident and deterministic; so, his view is cognitive in this aspect. But Hare’s prescriptivism is classified as ethical non-cognitivism. Haj Mullāhādī is also considered as moral realistic and non-realistic, in two different readings of the “good” concept. But Hare is merely an moral realistic. Both thinkers, on the other hand, interpret the concept of "good" as an admirable issue; and the rest of the meanings in the realm of its value and ethical meanings i.e. praise and admiration. However, Haji Sabzevari returns other meanings of the 'good' concept to being praise and admiration senses, if optional. Hare also interprets the meaning of the “good” concept in the sense of its value i.e. being admirable.

There are several different interpretations of the intellect, and a number of different duties, types, and levels have been attributed to it in conformity with each interpretation. Among them, reference can be made to fitri intellect, theoretical intellect, practical intellect, universal intellect, active intellect, basis for obligation, etc. In the same vein, gnostics and sufis have even referred to obligation and escape from the intellect. In this paper, following an analytic-descriptive method and based on a new ontological and epistemological division, the writers have tried to examine the different types of the intellect from the viewpoint of Mulla Hadi Sabziwari. In the ontology of the intellect, this concept is considered as a level of existence or an existent which is discussed in the framework of universal intellects, particular intellects, and the ten-fold intellects. Moreover, the relationships and differences between them are explained therein. From an epistemological approach, the intellect is viewed as Man’s faculty of perception. The writers also explore the natural intellect, empirical intellect, theoretical intellect, and practical intellect and their levels, the simple intellect, and the differentiated intellect alongside the epistemology of the intellect. The findings of this study indicate that, when explaining the different types of the intellect, we sometimes deal with the human intellect (levels of the rational souls, particular intellect, or livelihood intellect) and sometimes with non-human intellects (universal separate intellects) and, since the ascended and descended intellects are two levels of the same species, they connect with each other in the arches of ascent and descent. The findings also reveal that the intellect which gnostics usually reproach is the imperfect particular intellect, which is under the influence of fanciful thoughts, and it is the habitual and natural intellect which is the criterion for obligation.

The quality of Divine knowledge of details is one of the most precise issues in Islamic philosophy. The multiplicity and variability of materials have made the problem more complicated to be explained. According to the results of this research, when explaining God`s essential knowledge and God`s action knowledge, Sabzavari has relied on the rule of basit al-haqiqah and the rule of izafi-e ishraqi respectively and believes that materials are essentially known by God and their materiality may not act against their bing intuitively known. While Allameh Tabatabai in the case of God`s essential knowledge, in addition to the principle of basit al-haqiqah, uses itlaqi zati and, in the case of knowledge of action, disagree with Sabzevari and believes that materials may not be essential cases of knowledge; he views incorporeality as the standard of becoming known. Therefore, regardless of difference in the method of reasoning in explaining God`s essential knowledge and in the how of percepting materials in action knowledge, the paper has studied the two philosophers` views comparatively.

In this paper one of human characteristic namely beyond abstract status is studied from view point of two great philosophers: Mulla Sadra and Mulla Hadi Sabzewari. In philosophic knowledge of human being, transcendental theosophy and its commentators, have paid a particular attention to this certain status and have proved its bases. In this article, opinions of Mulla Sadra and Mulla Hadi Sabzewari on this status are studied and it is concluded that from viewpoint of these two sages, human being, having no determined status, can pass all stages and reach to a stage that is abstract of both: matter and quality. Although these two sages demonstrate and express this subject in a little different ways and this lead them to two different horizon of vision about this status.

The problem of world’s origination has been a hot issue throughout the history of philosophy and theology, including Islamic philosophy and theology. One of the major factors that led thinkers to take different stances on this question was the debate over the principality of existence/quiddity.This article is an attempt to assess the role of this debate on the issue of the origination of the world in the Islamic milieu. It will study Allamah Davāni, as a representative of Shiraz School in 9th and 10th centuries A.H, who based his theory of “eternal creation” on the principality of quiddity and “theosophical tasting”. According to this theory, the world of eternity (dahr) is changeless and encompasses the temporal world, and therefore, its entities lack time, flux, and quantity. The article will study an opposite theory belonging to Mulla Sadra, as an eminent representative of Isfahan School, who establishes his theory of temporally perpetual creation on the principality of existence. His idea of essential origination is based on “existential poverty” and “contingency by poverty” which is different from other philosophers. And finally, it comes to Sabzevāri, from the School of Khorāsān, who suggests the theory of “nominal origination” with a mystical approach.

Looking a glance at the history and benefits of classification of sciences, the present essay firstly explains the viewpoints of some eastern philosophers (al-Farabi, Sa’in ad-Din ibn Turkah, Mulla Hadi Sabzawari) as well as western philosophers (Auguste Comte, Francis Bacon, André Ampère), and then enumerates some distinguished characteristics of Avicenna’s classification. In addition to the features such as rationality, totalizing induction, differentiation of types, universality and property, his classification enjoys special orderliness, normativity, and value-regarding, and also it can exhibit a clear approach to the philosophy of science.