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

Although in the Avicenna's philosophy, non-independent existence is considered only for relation, but proportions also have similar characteristics to relation. for Avicenna, proportion (in its more general sense) is any kind of connection between two things. This proportion causes proportional accidents to occur in the concrete. But in the mind, proportion refers to the connection that proportional categories require. When this connection is considered as a connection, inevitably, both sides are considered because of this connection, not because of their essence. And in this case, there is nothing but relation. But when this connection is considered from one side, it includes six proportional categories. And "proportion", in another sense, is assigned to them. From these meanings of proportion, it is concluded that in Avicenna's philosophy, proportion is the non-independent existence that is proved for relation. The categories that are based on such proportion, require an connection, according to which, that categories are conceived in comparison with others. From such an existence, relative concepts such as proportion and copulative are abstracted, which are considered as examples of relation and can be called existential relation in contrast to relations of quiddity.

The personal unity of existence is the claim of mysticism and transcendental philosophy. In this claim, the existential multiplicity of the universe is denied and all except Allah (God) are accepted as manifestations and appearances of His Majesty Haqq (Truth). The mystics have an intuitive approach in claiming the personal unity of existence and invite the deniers to follow mystical and spiritual method. In theoretical mysticism, rational reasons are given to prove the personal unity of existence. In transcendental philosophy, after a certain doubt, Sadrul Motaalehin has become inclined towards the personal unity of existence and tried to prove it. In the philosophical approach, reasons are given to prove personal unity, the most important of which is the fact that the effect is the relation itself. This argument has two introductions a) the effect in relation to the creator cause is the relator existence. b) It is not possible to derive a nominal concept from the relator existence. The concept of existent is a nominal concept, and all except Allah (God), due to being a relator, they do not have the ability to abstract the nominal concept. Therefore, only Almighty God has the ability to be applied the title of existence, and this means personal unity of existence. The first premise of this argument is the case of agreement among the most philosophers of transcendental philosophy, and even some followers of transcendental philosophy, who deny the existence of personal unity, accept the first premise; But the second premise is false and this argument cannot prove the personal unity of existence.

The personal unity of existence is the claim of mysticism and transcendental wisdom. In this claim, the multiplicity of existence of the universe is denied and everything rather than God is accepted as manifestations of God the Almighty. In claiming the personal unity of existence, mystics have an intuitive approach and invite the deniers to the spiritual journey. In theoretical mysticism, rational arguments are put forward to prove the personal unity of existence. In transcendental wisdom, after raising analogism in a specialized sense, Sadr al-Mutallahin has tended to the personal unity of existence and has tried to prove it. In the philosophical approach, reasons are presented to prove personal unity, the most important of which is the copulative nature of the thing caused. This argument has two premises: a. in relation to cause, the thing caused is the essence of the copulative existence b. The copulative existence cannot be interpreted nominally. The existing concept is nominal, and because of being copulative, nothing other than God has the ability to abstract the nominal concept. Therefore, the title of existence can only be applied to the Almighty God, and this means the personal unity of existence. The first premise of this argument is common among most philosophers of transcendental wisdom, and even some followers of transcendental wisdom, who deny the personal unity of existence, accept the first premise; but the second premise is incorrect, and this argument cannot prove the personal unity of existence.

Nahj al-Balaghah, which is a case of the manifestation of the deep connection between faith and reason, in many of its propositions, rational explanation and philosophical approach is evident. Assessing the relationship between faith and reason from two dimensions: ontological, epistemological and examining the meaning, angles, origin and interactions of the two using the descriptive-analytical method in Nahj al-Balaghah, is the issue of this research. The findings of the research show that in Nahj al-Balaghah, one part of faith is related to feelings and emotions, one part is related to practical intellect and one another part is related to theoretical intellect, and unlike the Ashchr('39')arites and the Muchr('39')tazilites who viewed respectively faith as only being on theoretical intellect and limited to practical reason, it includes both intellects, and the propositions concerning faith in Nahj al-Balaghah are compatible with rationality, and the prerequisite for believing is rationality. However, the share of practical reason in religious faith is greater.

The “Philosophies of”, are of different types, one of which is the “philosophy of value”. Using a descriptive-analytical method this paper seeks to provide an accurate and comprehensive definition of value. Hence, the types of definition are stated first. Analyzing the meaning of value, it was concluded that value is homonym between desirability and quantity. Since the intended meaning in the philosophy of value is desirability, this paper explains the meaning of desirability, its accessories and results. It is then discussed whether the meaning of value is obvious or theoretical, whether it is real or related, whether it is first intelligible or secondary intelligible, and whether it is univocal or equivocal. Finally, what can be qualified for value is explained.

Today, the relation of science and religion is one of the most controversial issues in Western and Islamic societies. This research is qualitative research component in terms of design and has been used in the framework of descriptive-analytical method. Ian Barbour and Professor Motahari, with two different attitudes, tried to recognize the complementarity of science and religion. On the basis of "sculpture philosophy," Barbour draws on four approaches to "conflict, distinction, dialogue and complementarity" which, according to Motahhari, includes critique of: the unity of science and religion within the framework of sculptural philosophy, critical realism, the equalization of God and the world, the preeminence of knowledge Empirical study of religious knowledge is presented in this paper by designing three questions: "The relation of science and religion in the viewpoint of martyr Motahhari", "The relationship between science and religion in the context of Barbour" and "The strengths and weaknesses of Ian Barbour based on the theory of Professor Motahari" it placed. Motahari examines the preconceptions of the minds of individuals in the pursuit of the complementarity of the relationship between science and religion and believes that science and religion need each other. Barbour's views in his latest commentary on the relationship between science and religion, relying on the theology, have changed the way in which the distinction between science and religion has become complementary to these two.

The aim of this study was to find a Quranic-mystical definition for “Ahadiat” (oneness). For the Quranic part, it focuses on Tohid Sura, as the one that informs of the notion of Ahadiat, which is at the apex of monotheism. This information comes in an impossibly simple form through a negative structure different from usual demonstrations. Mysticism is a practice whose fundamentals are also monotheistic and is rooted in the Quran. Therefore, this study first follows Quranic implications of “Ahad” (the One) using a semantic approach (i.e. through morphology, associate and succession relations, context) and by analyzing Islamic narrations and interpretations. It then compares the results with definitions in mystical tradition to illustrate the concept’s perceptual space. The Quran and Islamic narrations use negative descriptions for Ahadiat: presence, names and attributes, need, disjunction-based relationships, dissimilarity, similarity, and independence are all detached from this concept. Similarly, in mysticism Ahadiat is a degree detached from presence, names and attributes, divinity, relation, speech, and address. These detachments can be referred back to the detachment of “relation”, as the Sura is an answer to the question of the relationship between God and Being. This denial of relation should be defined together with the concept of “Samadiat” (needlessness), which signifies the closeness of God with Being. However, even “closeness” is unexpressive of the nature of this connection; it is so close that there remains absolutely no space for “otherness” or “independence”. This is why “relation” is detached from Ahadiat. The oneness of God with its creation has also been uncovered by pantheistic mysticism through the theory of manifestation. But, are Ahadiat and “unity of God and creation” really understandable? Ahadiat is, indeed, understandable, although it is used in an indefinite form. God (Allah) is both “Ahad” (the One) and “Samad” (needless); thus, it is as if the goal of being is oneness. Oneness is accessible, and only in oneness is oneness understood. It is a different type of understanding, totally beyond reason. It is only realized in “unity”. Both the Quran and Mysticism annunciate the possibility of unity with Ahadiat. This unity is achieved through love. Samadiat implies perfect goodness and something that can be loved, while Ahadiat is a degree beyond Samadiat, and therefore, even a loving relation is unexpressive of it. In Mysticism, Allah has two manifestations: one is a product of the quality of the recipient (the container) – the lover’s manifestation, and one emanates the quality itself – the beloved’s manifestation. Human being is the only creature capable of love of God, and can acquire the capacity to understand Ahadiat through the beloved’s manifestations and successive annihilations (unification with the beloved). In a sense, man’s existence is transformed in the course of perfection and moving toward the absolute truth: not only God is individualized in man, but also man is completely unified with God. In the latter, there is no bifurcation of the lover and the beloved – all is the beloved. The Muhammadia truth, which is the source of creation and worldly relations, is an example of this unity. It is seen that the Sura begins with “Ghul” (say), and the Prophet “says” about Ahadiat. It is worth mentioning that, this study implicitly shows that mystical knowledge is built on top of Quranic concepts.

For understanding origin and grounds of Hegel’s Logic, in addition to Science of Logic as main source employed by interpretations, we need to analyze First Hegel’s logical Treatise in his Jena period. There is no interpretation of this treatise available in Farsi while the English sources on the interpretation of the text are also scarce. The current paper will try to provide an account on process of the genesis of Hegel’s Jena Logic for the first time in Farsi. Thus, at first, it will consider the system as a whole briefly and then it will analyze three constituent parts of Jena’s Logic – ‘Simple Connection’, ‘Relation’, and ‘Proportion’, depending on English translation of the text (translated by Hegel Society of America). Finally, the study deals with a comprehensive outline of the remaining parts of the Hegel's System of Jena (such as Metaphysics, Philosophy of Nature and Philosophy of Spirit).

After graduation from Dar al-Funun and before going abroad, Dr. Khalil Khan Thaqafi translated and wrote two treatises on time and place. In the first treatise, which was introduced in the previous issue of History of Philosophy Journal, he discusses the idea of finite and infinite time and place. The second treatise, which is introduced in this issue, includes the translation of a short part of a huge philosophical book by Victor Cousin, the French philosopher of the 19th century, discussing whether time and place are substance or not.

The “derivative” is one of concepts that has attracted the attention of thinkers in the field of Islamic sciences and made them inquire into its constituent parts. Since Mulla Sadra’s view of the derivative has influenced his philosophical system regarding several theoretical issues such as the principiality of existence, demonstration of the trans-substantial motion, and a new approach to causality, a study of the various aspects of this concept is of great importance. Here, the writers first present the common ideas of philosophers concerning the derivative including the following: 1. The derivative consists of essence, the source of derivation, and relation, 2. The derivative consists of the source of derivation and relation, and 3. The derivative is simple and the same as the source of derivation. Then they refer to the applications of Mulla Sadra’s view concerning the concept of derivative, including some issues such as the principiality of existence, a new approach to causality, the critique of the theory of dhawq ta’alluh (taste of being devout), unity of the annexation and the annexed, demonstration of the trans-substantial motion, negation of the subject in the trans-substantial motion, unity of knowledge, the knower, and the known, and denying synthesis to the essence of the Necessary.

In this essay we have tried to research, analyze, and criticize the russell's correspondence theory of truth, considering the philosopher's developments during his intellectual life from his many works. The changes in his theory of truth are matched at every point by changes in his theory of belief. When he thought of belief as a mental attitude which was directed upon propositions, he hold truth and falsehood to be indefinable attributes of such propositions. When he came to think of belief as a relation between the mind and a multiplicity of objects, he adopted another version of correspondence. Later on, when turned propositions into contents of beliefs, he came to hold a correspondence theory of truth, in the most literal sense of the term. Consequently, he was led to adopt a different theory according to which an affirmative proposition of the observational kind is true if the replacement of each word by its meaning yields a fact.In this research we have shown that russell, in spite of the all ups and downs in the stages of his philosophical developments, always, had kept correspondence theory. He, indeed, has given a version of the theory, in accordance with his intellectual system in each stage.

In Islamic philosophy before Mullā Sadrā epistemology was not principal concern of philosophers, and what they have said in this matter was in relation to other problems. First Mullā Sadrā take this problem seriously and after examining sayings of prior philosophers, theorizes about it. Epistemological theory of Mullā Sadrā consist of three fundamental elements: scientific forms or images (object per se), the subject (soul), and mutual relations that scientific forms acquire in process of knowing. On the one hand, scientific forms represent beyond themselves and are intermediaries of our knowledge of other things, and on the other hand, they are in relation to the subject and are acquired in soul. Mullā Sadrā has novelties about all above-mentioned elements, and from all of them has made a novel and powerful theory of knowledge. While Mullā Sadrā theorizing is coherent with his system of philosophy, his theory lacks coherent justification. This diverge view of commentators on his theory. Assumption of this essay is that Mullā Sadrā system of philosophy has necessary tools and possibilities for justifying his theory. Hence, in this essay, at first we briefly introduce epistemological theory of Mullā Sadrā and compare it with theories of prior muslim philosophers,and then reconstruct its reasons, It must to be said that part of Mullā Sadrā theory that was more challenging, ie, relation of scientific forms with soul, is principal concern of this essay.