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

Avicenna has based his philosophical system on the principle of distinction between existence and quiddity. However, this principle has been criticized by some other philosophers and thinkers in the Islamic world. It has been accepted by many scholars since past times that some of these critics such as Suhrawardi and Ibn Rushd, have misunderstood Avicennian view of this distinction. But, is there really such a misunderstanding? Our response to the question of misunderstanding is that, as for Ibn Rushd, yes he did, but, as for Suhrawardi, the answer is no, he did not. Because Ibn Rushd sees Avicenna as a commentator who had misinterpreted Aristotle. While Suhrawardithinks differently. The analysis of Suhrawardi's 'iitibarat aqliyyah' (rational considerations) shows that, understanding the basic differences between Aristotle and Avicenna and basing himself on the new elements of 'anvar-I ilahiyyah' (metaphysical lights]) and 'idhafah ishraqiyyah' (illuminative relation) which are the philosophical explanations of the theorem of 'iijado-shey la min shey' (existentiating the thing not from something), makes him a different critic of Avicenna’s philosophy. Avicenna himself in some cases has mentioned that he has never meant external distinction between existence and quiddity; what he had in mind is a metaphysical and not an external distinction. Suhrawardi was aware of this kind of distinction precisely. Indeed, Suhrawardi's criticism is about metaphysical distinction, not external distinction, though the structure of his specific objections is similar to those which Avicenna and Ibn Rush pose against external distinction. This may be the reason why some have formed the idea that Suhrawardi misunderstood Avicenna’s distinction between existence and quiddity.

The issue of the “relationship of God with the universe” in the system of thought of Aristotle and Avicenna is the question dealt with in the present study. The article tries to support the idea that the views of these two peripatetic philosophers with regard to this issue are different. Relying on the natural cause and the concept of movement, Aristotle accomplishes to prove the existence of an ultimate stimulus which he calls essence and his commentators God. From his perspective, essence is the ultimate cause of all possible movements in the universe. On the other hand, from Avicenna’s perspective, God is considered the necessary being from whom the existence of the universe is derived. views God as the ultimate cause but his causality is instigatory while Avicenna views the causality as existential rather than instigatory. Dividing the existents into the necessary and the possible and proving the contingency of the existent possibilities to the necessary being, Aristotle provided an innovative model for the relationship of God and the universe with the feature that contingent existence is continually in need of the grace of the creator. According to Aristotle, God is not the creator of the universe and is unaware of its existence. While according to Avicenna, God possesses the ultimate knowledge of the universe. The present article presents a comparative study of the philosophical theology of these two peripatetic philosophers to show the supremacy of Avicenna’s theology.