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

Nicholaus Cusanus, as one of the greatest theologians and philosophers in Germany, through his works has tried to revise his contemporary metaphysics and its basic assumptions. He announced ground-breaking theories about creation, man's relation to the infinite, movement, epistemology and meanwhile by revisioning the common beliefs about the original sin and creatio ex nihilo wanted to introduce a well-grounded philosophical approach. In this article first we try to show his important theories about the relation between man and the infinite and by doing this we will demonstrate that in his conception there is only one substantia in se and anything other than it is its necessary accident. In addition, it will be a discussion of concepts such as decomplicatio and complicatio and in the meantime it will be introduced the concept of the substantial movement in accordance with Cusanus interpretation. After discussing these ideas, we will try to reconstruct the intellectual context in which he succeeded to develop his philosophical thoughts. In this horizon we will make an investigation in Meister Eckhart's interpretation of one or two parts of Bible and examine some basic conceptions in Ibn Sina's metaphysics. In this way we hope to demonstrate that Ibn Sina's innovative approach and unpreceded interpretations of Meister Eckhart offered a new metaphysical frame which is essentially different from the traditional one and to make it reasonable that how this enriching understanding could shed a new light on the forthcoming investigations.

One of the main concepts in the words of philosophers used in metaphysics in its particular and general sense and in natural philosophy is infinitude with its different types. In the meantime, the sense appropriate for the Necessary is the infinite in terms of intensity which must be interpreted correctly. What is meant by infinite in terms of intensity is existential vastness and intensity. This interpretation is based on the specific principles of Mullā Ṣadrā’s philosophy, such as the ontological primacy of existence, particular gradation in its particular sense, causality in the sense of manifestation, and the simple reality. There are many proofs for God’s infinitude, whose most important consequence is proving the individual unity of existence. Analyzing the individual unity of existence leads us to conclude that there is a mutual implication between these two concepts, meaning that one can infer each from the other, and all the positive proofs for each will work for the other.

The concept of infinity in mathematics was one of the main points of difference between the four schools of philosophy of mathematics in the early decades of twentieth century and it is really interesting to review this puzzling concept from a historical perspective. Four schools, Platonism, Formalism, Logicism, and Intuitionism tried to have an acceptable justification on the ontological aspect of infinite numbers and sets but it does not seem that any of them succeeded in their mission. Among these schools, Wittgenstein followed his own unique way and with his Socratic Method criticized all of them. Most commentators and critics believe that Wittgenstein had a finitistic account in the last period of his philosophical work. However, this essay by referring to his lectures on foundation of mathematics, Cambridge 1939, challenged their views and came up with Wittgenstein's criticism of finitistic account.

One of the subjects that link mathematics and philosophy is the "infinite dimension". William Craig, an American philosopher and theologian, has attempted to prove through mathematics the non-realization of infinite events in the world and thus proves the temporality of the universe. Describing this argument as a Kalam cosmological argument, he draws on Al-Ghazali's Huduth (temporality) argument. The purpose of this article is to examine one of the philosophical reasons set forth by Craig in proving the second premise of this argument in a bid to answer this question: “Is this philosophical-mathematical reasoning capable of proving the temporality of the universe?” The present study, with a descriptive-analytical approach, elaborates on the first reason proposed for the second preamble of Craig's argument, which deals with the actual infinity debates and set theory, and then embarks on evaluating the views of Islamic thinkers. The findings of the research suggest that temporality argument, due to the impossibility of the deteriorating order of events in the world, does not meet the contiguity conditions, and therefore fails to contradict its infinity. Moreover, since a number cannot be attributed to an infinite set, it is impossible to determine the members of an infinite set. That is, the assumption of an infinite dimension, even actual infinity, does not produce contradiction. For this reason, most Islamic philosophers have been reluctant to subscribe to the universe temporality argument.

From Hegel's perspective, Christianity can be examined in three periods: Bern, Frankfurt, and Jena. Bern and Frankfurt belong to Hegel's youth or his verbal writings, but Jena belongs to the period of Hegel's perfection, where he builds his philosophy. Hegel in Bern compares Christianity to ancient Greece, and he argues that, unlike Greece, which is a religion of freedom, Christianity, through the necessities of its nature, has become a set of binding rules, that brings the denial of freedom. In this period he compares Christ with Socrates and says: unlike Christ, who believes in the salvation of the individual, Socrates is concerned with the salvation of the public, and for this reason he considers Socrates superior to Christ, but in Frankfurt his view is tempered and he finds a positive view of Christianity. There he insists that Christ replaces love with the irreversible sentences of Judaism, and this will bring human salvation, and finally, in Jena, which belongs to her perfection and maturity, Hegel says Christianity is the absolute truth as is philosophy. The only difference is in the way they are expressed; Christianity expresses the truth in the form of allegory and irony, and philosophy in the form of pure thought. In the end, of course, he concludes that he needs to escape from religion toward philosophy for Christianity is incarnate, not pure thought; and it is only philosophy that presents truth in a pure form. This paper is a descriptive-analytic study of these three periods.

Some believe that God cannot be considered "infinite" because, firstly, "infiniteness" is the modes of the quantitative entities. Secondly, an infinite being contains infinite plurality that is incompatible with God's true unity. Third, the infinite being, itself, is impossible to exist. Therefore, they argue that the narrations that speak of God's infiniteness do not actually mean that God is infinite, because the relationship between finiteness and infiniteness is the relationship between habitus and non-habitus. Hence, by denying finiteness in the quantitative entities, infiniteness cannot be deduced, just as with denying literacy in the stone, it cannot be argued that "the stone is illiterate." Since the followers of this view adhere to this idea because of their religious concerns for supporting narrative arguments, after analyzing the claims of the deniers of this view, we have proved God's infinity through the religious texts to provide a detailed answer to the deniers of God’s infiniteness. Using the rational and narrative method, this paper proves God's infiniteness, and evaluates the opposite view.

Overlapping (tadākhul) between God and His creatures is a novel theory which aims to explain the relationship between God and His creatures. But, it seems that this theory is controversial. Does accepting that God is infinite either entail that God is, in some sense, identical with His creatures – common view for explaining the individual unity of existence – or that God overlaps, in some sense, with His creatures – the view accepted by Gholamreza Fayyazi – or there is a third way? In this paper, we will reveal the weaknesses of Gholamreza Fayyazi’s theory and then we will present a new theory to explain the relationship between God and His creatures, which, in our point of view, is inspired by rational teachings of revelation. According to this third view, it is accepted that God is infinite and does not have any quantity while rejecting that God is identical and that God overlaps with His creatures. Indeed, since God does not have any finitude and does not consist of any quantity, He does not occupy (even infinitely) any place, which entails that God does not overlap with His creatures. Therefore, based on this view, the existence of finite beings and God’s infinite being are consistent.

Proposed in the fields of old geometry and natural philosophy, the problem of finiteness or infiniteness of bodily objects is one of the philosophical problems that had been demonstrated by appealing to mathematical propositions. The goal of exposing this problem to discussion was to demonstrate that the physical world has a boundary and to determine where the boundary could be find. However, the line of argument was not as saying that any physical object has three limited directions, and so the universe as a collection of these objects must have a limitation; but the focus of discussion is on the heavens, especially on what limits the heavens and what there is beyond them. Is it void or full? Or none of them? If it is void, whether it could be drawn an extension at there? And, if it were so, what kind of extension?
In response to the above questions, natural philosophers provided some demonstrations that lead to the finiteness of dimensions. In this paper, after discussing the viewpoints of Ibn Sina, Suhrawardi, and MullaSadra, who are the representatives of Peripatetic philosophy, illuminative philosophy, and Transcendent theosophy, respectively, the criticisms of Allama Hasan-zadaAmoli to these demonstrations will be given. According to him, because these demonstrations fail to prove the finiteness of physical world, and since the Divine works and deeds are not restricted to the visible world, and he do what he do beyond this bodily world, there must be another world or worlds with some other creatures. By doing so, he proves not only that the existential Words of God, which are His onomastic status and rank, are infinite, but also the Words of physical world and the very physical world are infinite.

Alain Badiou is one of the leading contemporary thinkers whose ideas in philosophy have seriously influenced theological discourse. His thought mainly relies on two pillars, ontology and theory of the event. Based on these ideas, he tries to remove religious/spiritual elements of contemporary thought. With his novel mathematical ontology of multiple, he tries to categorize and criticize all theological discourses, especially what relates to God and tries to block the return of religious thought. He uses mathematics as the Ontology of the death of God, which in this text called ‘Axiomatic Atheism’. Analyzing this title, we first describe the main principles of his ontology, especially what related to death of god. Then we examine these principles and his proposed model to show some possible criticism about his atheistic thought.

Descartes’ viewpoint on God is an infinite essence, eternal, unchangeable, self-existent, omniscient, omnipotent and creator of every other creature. His statement from the ontological argument to prove God is not so new and its attraction refers to the fact that he justifies his mechanistic and geometric viewpoint from the world by resorting to proving existence of God; accordingly, in Descartes’ philosophy, God has no ontological status but His status is epistemic which, therefore, provides a deep gap with the real God. Descartes believes that God has created world as a huge device from moving objects and has released it by its own to continue its movement that is addressed by the opponents’ criticisms. The question about Descartes view about God is that whether God is existential and real, Descartes’s belief is religious or God has been mostly proposed to guarantee the certain knowledge and to illustrate the Descartes’ worldview with a mechanical and geometric method. This paper is an attempt to analyze this question and to criticize Descartes’ viewpoint by some western scholars and Muslim philosophers.

The idea of an infinite system of philosophical thought could not be found in the ancient Greek philosophy. In the Islamic world, before the Sheikh Ishraq, infinite in number and infinite in time were be considered in the realm of quantity (essentially) and powers (accidentally). Abolbarkat and then Suhrawardi, referred infinite to the attributes of God and identified God’s perfection with the infinite. The basic questions of the author of this research are: What was Mulla Sadra’s philosophical explanation of the infinite? And what is the result of the accepting the infinite characteristic? The outcomes of this research are: in philosophical thought of Mulla Sadra, semantically, Infinite Including meanings such as Infinite in attribute, ontological infinite and metaontological infinite And from ontological point of view, the infinite Due to the existence of God is existent. Also, to establish God’s personal unity, Philosophical explanation of God’s authority to hearts and negative-positive theology are certain functions of Infinite in the three fields of metaphysics, theology and Anthropology in philosophy of Mulla Sadra.

The concept of “infinite essence” that is both philosophically and theologically important, has passed many different evolutions in western history of thought. Presocratics has evaluated it in two different ways. Anaximender and melissus agree that the principle substance is infinite and divine, but neither absolutly transcendent nor anthropomorphic. The infinite is the fusis in its substantial aspect. In another hand, many ancient Greek philosophers specially Plato and Aristotle think that the perfect thing can not be infinite, because in their point of view, the infinite is indetermind both ontologically and epistemologically, so not existant. But Philo in effect of jewish Bible and tradition, set the infinity and perfection together as attributes of God, and Christian theologists in agreement with him, considered God as infinite and transcendent being who is beyond of nature and psychologically person. In last ages of mediavel period some Christians changed their view in respect of transcendence and considered God as immanent but yet person. By the outset of new age, Descartes accepted the idea of infinite, transcendent and personal God and considered that perfection and infinity can be taken together as attributes of divine being.

Spinoza, one of the major rationalist philosophers following Descartes in the seventeenth century,has commented on God. He tries to resolve dualism arising from Descarte's thoughtsin a philosophicalmanner and for the same reason, contrary to Descartes who believed in three types of substances, heaccepted the existence of only one substance in the world and identified it withGod.This is the substance the existence of whichdoes not depend onthe existence of other things; nor does its conception depend onthe conception ofother things. In fact, according to Spinoza, the substance is “self-caused”, “absolutelyinfinite” and “self-existent”and the actual existence belongs to itand other creatures depend on it for their existence. In Espinosa’s view,such a being exists by necessity.In this paper, an attempt has been made to analyze the implications of “substance”, “being self-caused”, “absolute infinity”, “self-existence” and“the necessityof existence for God” from Spinozasperspective and philosophically explicatehow “necessityof existence” is associated with God.

Doctor Khalil Khan Thaqafi (A‘lam al-Dawlah), a physician, writer, and translator of the Qajar period and one of the first graduates of modern medicine in Iran, translated and wrote two treatises about time and place after he graduated from Dar al-Funun and before he went abroad. In the treatise that he wrote himself, Mirza Khalil Khan discusses the quality of the development of the idea of space, the distinction between the idea of environmental space and infinite space, the quality of the formation of the idea of infinite space, the idea of space as substance, the infinity of space with respect to its breadth and continuity, the development of the idea of time, and the idea of time as a predicate of space. In this treatise, he briefly explains and criticizes the ideas of such philosophers as Victor Cousin, Stewart Mill, and Spinoza. In the second treatise, which is a translation, he discusses whether time and place are substance or not.

Aristotle and Spinoza are two stream making Philosophers in thehistory of philosophy, and both has chosen the matter of substance astheir philosophical subject. The root of many disputes on a huge part ofwest philosophy can be obtained through comparing the characteristicsof the sub from their point of view. This is notable that thesephilosophers has some similarities in defining the substance, but theyget far from each other in defining the characteristics and instances ofsubstance. The article's first step to examining Aristotle's viewpoint intwo books of Arganon and Metaphysics, and analayzing Spinoza,stheory in book of Ethics. However, looking toward the meaning ofsubstance in the Avecina's custom context and expression, and hisinnovation can also help for better understanding of substance throughMashaism's views. The researchers scale for analyzing has been theamount of consistency of substance definition with the other parts ofphilosophical system. With examining the following the conclusionwould be that Spinoza's definition bears more logical stability andprovides a more solid system.