جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "necessity by something else" در نشریات گروه "فلسفه و کلام"

The principle of “One” (Al-Wahid) is one of the most famous philosophical principle admitted by philosophers, but theologians such as Ghazali and Fakhr Razi did not accept this principle and tried to refute it. The most important proof is provided by Avicenna, and efforts have been made after him to strengthen these proofs and respond the criticism of it. Mohammad Husayn Gharawi Isfahaani ( the theologian and philosopher of 20th century), who has accepted Al-Wahid's principle, has argued and propounded some arguments that by using The” Necessity by something else”,” Essential possibility” and” Existential possibility” give clear explanations of it. By referring to necessity and possibility he concluded that multiplicity of these things result in the multiplicity of the essence of cause and effect and their respective aspects, and in contradiction with unity. The purpose of this essay is to provide a clear explanation of his arguments.

The free will, that means the possibility of both to do and not to do, contradicts three philosophical rules of “the necessity of the cause and the effect”, “the final cause is the cause for the agency of the agent”, and “the impossibility of preference without preponderant”. And from the other hand, because it is a possible meaning, it is impossible to be an attribute for the Necessary. The resolution of philosophers for this problem is to introduce another meaning for free will that is known as the “philosophical meaning of free will”. But in addition to corrupt consequences of the “philosophical meaning of free will” which the philosophers themselves also do not acknowledge them, their method in solving this contradiction is in contrast with logical principles and bases. Because, in the case of contradiction of an evident knowledge a theoretical one, logically we must reject the theoretical knowledge or, at least doubt about it and reexamine its arguments. Explicitly explaining this contradiction and mentioning the failure of philosophers’ resolution, the main purpose of this writing is to prove the necessity of revise in the abovementioned philosophical principles and rules.

The law of 'previous necessity' known among Muslim philosophers as 'that which is not made necessary will not be brought into existence' is a sort of 'necessity by something else'. According to Muslim philosophers an effect will not be brought into existence unless it is made necessary. In other words, when a complete cause comes the effect will be firstly made necessary and then brought into existence. This law is also known as philosophical determinism. To safeguard an agent's free will, theologians have negated the necessity by something else suggesting that 'priority' is enough. They assume that with the coming into being of a complete cause the priority will lie with the existence of its effect, though its existence is not yet a must. They believe that free will will be void if the effect is necessitated by its complete cause. In other words, theologians are of the view that the law 'that which is not made necessary will not be brought into existence' implies the negation of free will. Distinguishing between a free and compelled agent, some scholars of the principles of Shiite jurisprudence have suggested that the law is applicable only to compelled agents. From among the contemporaries, it is professor Fayyazi who being strongly opposed to causal necessity presents arguments against it. Following a comprehensive approach, this article tries to find out the origin of the belief in this law through evaluating the arguments presented for it.