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

The problem of the unity of the body or its plurality for every human being, like the problem of the unity or plurality of the soul, is one of the controversial issues in classical philosophy. In the religious documents, though in the initial view, there seems to be an apparent conflict, but in general, a favorable conclusion can be reached. This article has investigated the documents in this regard with the descriptive method and content analysis. Research findings show that according to religious documents, every human has two "material" and "imaginary" bodies. But regarding the number of souls, there is a difference of narrations, some narrations consider man as having two spirits "Al-Hayavan" and "Al-Aql" and some narrations consider man as having five spirits "Al-Quwwa, Al-Shahwa, Al-Madraj, Al-Iman and Al-Quds". Also, it seems that the second category of narrations can be combined with the first category, and the narrations about the five spirits refer to the powers of the animal soul and the soul of the mind.

Hannah Arendt's views on the political and the results that flow from them are central themes that occupy an important place in contemporary political thought and have given rise to new fields in politics and ethics. In her recent approaches, Judith Butler has been influenced by Hannah Arendt's political thought for nearly two decades in some of her most important works. At the outset, one might think that Butler's influence of Foucault's ideas, especially regarding the power and importance of individual agency, as well as her tendency to analyze and examine gendered approaches, prevent her from being considered an Arendt thinker. If we consider his views on the importance of the public sphere and the analysis and study of contemporary political, economic, and social assembly, its influence on Arendt's political thought cannot be denied, especially in her recent books, the place Arendt's political thought has in creating important and influential concepts. She has referred to coordinated action, collective action, group resistance, plurality, and the space of appearance, concepts neglected in Foucault's thought. Here, Butler proposes new forms of politics and social ontology and attempts to answer the central question of what conditions we need for the possibility of action. Instead of focusing on Arendt's philosophical question, who is man and what is his capacity for action? In the context of contemporary social changes, it answers the philosophical question of who can fundamentally be considered human.

In this study, using a descriptive-analytical and comparative method, we will first describe and analyze, in two separate parts, the concept of the intersubjectivity of the political, as well as its connection with the central themes of appearance space, plurality, coordinated actions, embodied actions, and performativity in Arendt's and Butler's thought. Then, in the evaluation section, while comparing and analyzing the opinions of these two thinkers, we will see what possibilities Butler offers as a result of examining the possibility or impossibility of the political in Arendt's thought in order to rethink new forms of social identities with a deconstructive approach.

Butler cannot be presented as Arendtian thinker because, unlike Arendt, his concern in dealing with politics and conceptualization in political sphere is not to stay in the field or to call it original, but to deal with the new political, social and economic phenomena. And she considers it important to rethink political concepts from the point of view of finding a way out of the current crises. Therefore, agency cannot be reduced only to the public sphere, but its root must also be sought in the social ontology of life. Starting from these lines, her critical reading deals with issues such as the irreconcilable conflict between the public and the private, the transformation of the concept of plurality and its extension to the meaning of otherness, and the place of the embodied actor in the assembly, in order to confirm the positions of those commentators who, in their opinion, Butler used Arendt's thought against Arendt. Butler finds in Arendt’s thinking resources to read Arendt against herself, a methodology that allows Butler to correct and complement Arendt’s work. From this point of view, it is not possible to define the stratum only by its rhetoric and coordinated action. Agency and power in society has given (Arendt), but it should be considered with different performances by the body and by those whose lives are often and perhaps never with the project of accumulating new definitions of human concepts, agency and presented contemporary movements (Butler). The realization of coordinated action (Arendt) and the implementation of assemblies (Butler) requires overcoming the concept of individualism. Although change can occur at the individual level, the experience of contemporary political and social movements has shown that people change in the context of relationships, creating new structures and dismantling previous ones.

Arendt's remarks on coordinated action are limited to people acting in a coordinated way to achieve the will of the political unit. Butler extends the question of how different groups with different aspirations can act harmoniously in an all-round and comprehensive reading of the performative dimension of otherness. Contemporary politics needs more than anything else the will of the people, not an individual will, a will that can only be strengthened through the gathering of performances and the acceptance of the internal conflicts of groups. The internal conflict about the meaning of otherness in social and political life will also be particularly linked to the debates about radical democracy, social justice and identity politics.

Theists believe that God has various perfection attributes such as knowledge, power and life, and just as his being is the highest and most transcendent existence, the perfection attributes are also ascribed to God in their highest level. There are differences among Muslims about how the attributes are ascribed to God. It is stated that the Mutazilites deny the attributes of God and consider His essence as a substitute for the attributes. The Asharites consider the attributes of God to be superfluous to His essence, and the philosophers consider them to be identical to His essence. Accepting the fact that the attributes of God are identical to the essence, the question arises: how can the many attributes that are one with the essence of God not lead to multiplicity in His essence? Various answers have been given to this question. These answers seek to prove the attributes of God and to unite these attributes with His essence, while accepting the assumptions in the question. In this article, these answers are quoted and evaluated, and finally the view of mystics is preferred.

This article seeks to demonstrate, through a hypothetical dialogue between Hannah Arendt and Emmanuel Levinas, that the essence of politics must be sought beyond "real politics" and its agent, namely, the state. For this reason, politics requires a fundamental, radical and serious rethinking. This rethinking, however, must be carried out by first deconstructing politics to prepare it for emerging new possibilities; second deconstructing Ethics and extending it from the individual level to the level of "I in the We"; third reinterpreting the relationship between politics and ethics, which are already in the process of constructive judgment and are ready for a relationship that has no master or servant. As a result of such simultaneous reflections, the foundations of what this article views as Ethical politics could probably be clarified in general terms. This essay thus raises three long-standing questions: What is politics? What is ethics? What is ethical politics? The response to the first question is founded on Arendt's views. This paper draws attention to concepts such as plurality instead of unity, public realm instead of private realm, and peace instead of war. Relying on Levinas's philosophy of ethics, the second question is answered by emphasizing the primacy of understanding over cognition, the other over self, and the person over the land. Last but not least, the third question is addressed by establishing a link connection between the mentioned thinkers’ views and their shared ideas such as responsibility for the other, the primacy of the interest of humans over national interests and a new concept of state.

Contemporary world is full of religions that have different teachings and adherents. Meanwhile, there are significant differences and commonalities among divine and non-divine, theistic and non-theistic religions. Such a plurality with regarding religions’ geographical and historical spreading and their adherents’ interests to a special religious tradition, is faced us to some questions as follow: What is the relation between divine justice and religious plurality? Does religious plurality, in different times and places, is based on divine will? With regarding appearing some divine religions in the Middle East, can it indicate that divine grace and salvation was/is limited to the people of this region? And what is the duty of those people who have not heard the voice of divine religions or that religions have not properly introduced to them? For answering such questions and doing more research about the relation between divine justice and religions’ plurality, is tried to show that the requisite of divine justice is providing plural ways and paths concerning human beings’ guidance that sending divine Prophets in the form of divine religions are as its’ clear samples. Also, prior to sending Prophets, the most significant path for guiding human beings is relying on internal Prophets that human being’s intellect and innate indicate this aspect. In addition, as human beings live in different cultural, spatial and temporal circumstances, logical requisite of their divine guidance is plurality of guiding’s methods and their justly participation of the divine grace of truth and salvation.

The authors of this article believe that the conflict between the Principality of existence or Essence is not only verbal but also an important metaphysical challenge between the Originality of Unity and the Originality of Plurality, each of which can have different theological consequences. Regarding the attribution of the the Principality of Essence to Suhrawardi among contemporary scholars, three important views can be distinguished: First, a view that denies the attribution of the Principality of Essence to Sheikh Ishraq and even considers him the originator of the Principality of Existence. Second, a view that does not explicitly deny this attribution, but based on evidence of the Principality of Existence in his words, concludes that the Principality of Existence is the basis of Suhrawardi''s philosophy. Third, the view of Ayatollah Javadi Amoli and some other scholars who consider the system of Suhrawardi''s philosophy based on the Principality of Essence and plurality and therefore contrast it with Mulla Sadra''s philosophical system, which is based on the unity of existence. In this article, the authors use a critical analytical method, based on the study of the works of Suhrawardi and his researchers, while criticizing the three views, to explain the superiority of Ayatollah Javadi Amoli''s point of view and to present their arguments for rejecting other views.

The realization of multiple significances in a unified reality is a significant principle that may seriously disrupt our epistemology and ontology if an adequate interpretation is not presented or accepted. Based on this principle, in the external world, no consequence is basically realized, and at the same time, reality can be considered as an instance of significance and various consequences. Reality is absolutely non-complex and through its non-complexity, it is an instance of various consequences. The mind does not self-foundedly take significance from the external world, rather it is the non-complex reality that allows the mind to abstract its significance. Thus, the significances are indeed realized in the external world, and at the same time, the reality is an absolute non-complex and no consequence and plurality can make it pluralistic. This is obviously manifested in Existentialism. according to the correct interpretation of Existentialism, reality is not merely of existence or essence; neither existence is the source of abstraction of essence nor conversely, rather the non-complex reality is the source of abstraction of both and the plurality of both. Thus, reality is actually derived from both, but with its non-complexity. The difference between the significance of existence and other significance is that it can be realized through its essence, but other significances are the true realization of the consequence.

The importance of knowledge about the path of the spiritual wayfaring (sulūk), which will have undeniable functions in practical mysticism, something that the conscious sufi disciple (salek) in his journey towards God needs to know its nature, because in spiritual wayfaring (sulūk), such elements are important: 1- sufi disciple (salek) 2- the place of spiritual wayfaring 3- the spiritual wayfaring to 4- spiritual wayfaring (sulūk) on the other hand, beginning and end the spiritual wayfaring (sulūk) until intuition from the other side. Therefore, one of the fundamental questions of mystical spiritual wayfaring (sulūk) is, first what is the path of spiritual wayfaring (sulūk)? Secondly, what is its extension? In the present article, the answer to the mentioned question was given with a combined method (narrative and rational) and the output and finding of it is that it can be caught and deduced in the revealed teachings and philosophical-gnostic teachings, that is, the path of spiritual wayfaring (sulūk) is the soul of pious sufi disciple (salek). and the knowledge of the soul plays a major role in the occurrence and survival of the spiritual wayfaring (sulūk), and its nature will be innate, poverty, unity and existential. The structure of the article is also in the form of an introduction about the capacity and existential structure of man with the aim of achieving maximum perfection and unstoppable actuality in the arc of ascent, and then have been explained the importance, necessity and key role of the knowledge of the soul and the unity of the path and the multiplicity of ways to should be explained and analyzed sufi disciple’s existential becoming and ascending in the path of spiritual wayfaring (sulūk).

Cities are the essence of human civilization in the context of time, which today are the most important settlements of contemporary man. In this research, in line with this, the position of the city in Sadra's intellectual system has been explained and its role in reaching perfection has been studied. The city as a biological bed in this world is itself in the world of martyrdom. Man is created by the substantial motion of matter and in order to reach perfection he needs a biological bed in this world called the city. This brings to the fore the place of the city in Sadra's wisdom. This is also important in Arba'a travel. The city as a constrained being (according to the order of existence in Sadra's intellectual system) and a work of art created by the artist, provides a basis for understanding beauty. The presence of beauty in a space makes it possible to understand it. Understanding beauty also has different levels due to the simplicity of the concept of beauty. Understanding beauty moves the intellect. And this important premise creates a context for human perfection. Explaining the position of the city in Sadra's intellectual system can be considered as one of the important principles and achievements in this research. It could bring a new perspective on the study of citizenship rights and more specific issues in urban life in future studies.

In this article, we try to show that contemporary philosophy and its main philosophical currents are rooted in the thoughts of modern philosophers, and the influence of these philosophers is still understandable with ups and downs in the present century, although scathing critiques of modern philosophies. It has been done by contemporary philosophers. In this article, we briefly refer to the role of the philosophical ideas of Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Marx, Darwin in the development of contemporary philosophies such as poststructuralism, existentialism, phenomenology, and American pragmatism. Understanding the philosophical foundations of contemporary philosophies can be understood directly in relation to the philosophical foundations of these philosophers. We can evaluate the role of these philosophers in contemporary philosophies in three areas. First, we can point to the historical aspects of the thinking of these philosophers and the contemporary reception of such an attitude. Almost

In this article, we try to study the philosophical or metaphysical foundations of Islamic art by relying on the main currents of Islamic philosophies such as Peripatetic and philosophies and transcendent wisdom to focus on several key concepts such as the principles of light, the principle of unity and plurality, the principle of imagination. Explain the principle of manifestation, etc. and show that understanding philosophy of art or aesthetics in the general sense of the word in Islamic culture, unlike Western culture, feeds on philosophical, religious and even mystical principles. Mosques as an example of Islamic architecture as a work of great Islamic art throughout history have gathered all four principles in their various forms. The Islamic artist wears his mind and psyche on religious and mystical teachings before engaging in artistic creation. In this article, relying on the sayings of philosophers and mystics such as Suhrawardi or Ibn Arabi or Mulla Sadra, we try to show the elements or rather the above four supernatural principles by quoting the works of these thinkers and commentators of these thinkers that the content of Islamic art is completely spiritual and The boiling of this spiritual matter has been the boiling point of Islamic art throughout its long history.

Investigating the issue of “unity of being” from Ibn Arabi’s angle of look has a particular significance because he was a mystic who tried to bring rational dimension into his mystical experience. The theory of unity of being is faced with several problems and ambiguities amongst which is the dissolution or non-dissolution of the essence of the mystic. Some evidences in the writings of Ibn Arabi submit proof on his adoption of plurality and non-dissolution of essence while some other prove the reverse, i.e. absolute unity and dissolution of the essence. Though it seems that Ibn Arabi believes that a level of annihilations is the annihilation of the essence, a more profound analysis of his view reveals that he is not intending an absolute annihilation or extinction of the mystic’s essence. In addition to that, justification and understanding the evidence on the dissolution of existence is possible on the basis of the foundations of theoretical mysticism. Accordingly, four different justifications are available: consider all the interpretations proving absolute unity and dissolution of human essence or any other type of plurality as proofs on unity of intuition; or as proofs on annihilation of the attribute of the mystic; or explain these evidences through analyzing the meaning of existence and nothingness in thoughts of Ibn Arabi; or conclude that when the Sheikh (Ibn Arabi) rejects plurality in an absolute terms, he has been in a state of annihilation or revelation and the mystic say in the state of annihilation denotes a different meaning from the say in the state of annihilation.

Is Divine origin of religion consistent with its human diversity? When Divine unique truth is revealing to human sector, it implies plurality, adaptation and limitation. Indeed, the plurality of religions is result from diversity of Revelation according to the human capacities and receptacles, and this plurality and diversity is according to Divine wisdom and compassion. In other words, Divine unity of religion isn’t in contradiction with its human plurality and limitation. So there is a human margin wherein ethnic or cultural factors have the first word, and many of the speculations of exoterism and theological systems belong to this sector. Through emphasizing on Frithjof Schuon’s view, in this paper the Divine origin and transcendent unity of religions is accepted, and diversity of religions according to human margin is explained.

Allah's knowledge of the universe is the same entity, and as divine essence is constant and unlimited, his knowledge is also constant and non-existent, on the other hand, we always see a constant change in a vast material world. The question is, how does the change in the partial and diverse affairs of the universe not change the trait of divine knowledge, and therefore does not change in the unity of God? The Islamic philosophers have explained the science of God in such a way that in the scientific relation of the constant and unique nature of God with the changing beings, no change in the divine nature is required. Therefore, philosophers considered the science of God to be a detailed science after nature, an exaggeration of essence. Ibn Sina referred to this syntactic science of material knowledge of variable as a partial knowledge of a variable.Al-Ghazâlî excused them from the views of the philosophers. Ghazali's forms to philosophers were that, although God would be in all aspects of the universe, but his knowledge of them would only be general and God's knowledge would be limited to general concepts and concepts.Mulla Sadra proved a glimpse at the same time as the detailed discovery of God and responded to al-Ghazali's forms. According to the basic rule of the divine knowledge of the divine beings, the presence of objects is in the right. God is in the degree of the nature of science to things, without plurality in its very nature, and information with all its richness and exuberance exists to the existence of a single universe and is manifested in the absence of plurality in it.

Avicenna has provided a solution to the problem of abstraction plurality of the unit. In order to eliminate problems such as plurality in the divine essence and abstraction plurality from the unit, he must first solve the problem of plurality in Properties. Unlike theologians, he believes in the identity of essence with Properties and the identity of Properties with Properties. And he believes that the divine essence, in terms of example and concept, is the same as his knowledge, and his knowledge is the same as his power, and his power is the same as his will. And this approach is based on the Assumption that it is impossible to abstract plural concepts from an example that is simple in all respects. With the analytical-rational method based on comments, it is concluded that Avicenna for run away from the problem of abstraction plurality from the unit, tries to eliminate the plurality in essence by preserving the attribution of Properties to the God by believing in the semantic synonymy of Properties with essence and Properties with Properties. Despite the belief in the innovativeness and importance of Avicenna's view, this view faces criticism That One of them is the neglect of emphasizing the conceptual differences between Properties due to the importance of diversity and multiplicity and function of divine attributes.

In the case of Sadr al-Muta'l-al-Sharīī, we can say that in his works, the opinions of all the preconceived scholars regarding the quality of the issue of the plurality of unity have been mentioned. Hence, it is difficult to analyze his real opinion about this issue. However, in this article, we have tried to summarize and review all the comments that he has made in this regard. From the examination of the various views Sadra makes on the issue of issuance, one can conclude that he, however, expresses these views from various philosophical, verbal and mystical points of view, and in the works of philosophers and theologians And the mystics before him are equally found, he has somehow tried to defend the rule known as Al-Wahid and actually combine these views with this rule. But in this article we are seeking to show that the combination of these different views and the rule of Al-Wahid did not only help Sadra in explaining the quality of the exodus of the Almighty, but also confronts him with more conflicts, Explaining and justifying his views did not rely on this rule, his arguments were more justified and acceptable.

Mulla sadra and his philosophy descriptors, inspiring by Quran and Mysticism also by contribution of existential attitude, talked about various human biotypes. Here, the main question is that: how does Mulla sadra explain the multiplied human biotypes. Result are as follows: 1. Based on Ontological and anthropological foundations of Mulla sadra, human has unity and polarity at the same time. Mulla sadra, considers ten human dignities by help of Quran, seven human biotypes by inspiring from mystical heritage and finally, three big human biotypes from his existential attitude. 2. From Mulla sadra’s point of view, the way to achieve human dignities is to pass mystical Quadr-trips. 3. Human, unlike other creatures in universe, has no certain and limited position. Thus one cannot limit him in 7, 10 or any certain number of biotypes; unless to express human biotypes as 7, 10 or 100 dignities. Moreover, not a unit prescription with unit coordinate, can be considered for human life due tovarious biotypes.

The explanation on how plurality has come out of the One Almighty has passed A process of several phases. First  peripatetic philosophy  spoke of the ten intellects and nine celestial spheres which mediate vertically between Allah Almighty and the material world. Then, Suhravardi elaborately spoke of both vertical and horizontal intellects, while the latter mediate between the former and the plurality of this world. Finally, all those discussions left their space to the extending existence theory in Sadraian philosophy, driving a great evolution in the issue. In the Qur'an and hadith, however, some mediators between Allah Almighty and the material world are mentioned revealing similarities with the philosophers such as the unity and simplicity of Allah, the first emanation and creation, the Throne, angels and holy Gabriel to whom the extending existence, Platonic Ideas, and the Active Intellect might be applied respectively. There are, nonetheless, some differences such as that the number of mediators do not match that of the intellects, and the creation of all things from water. Our method here is to clarify and explain the views of Muslim philosophers through their texts and grasp the apparent  meaning of the Qur'an and hadith hermeneutically.

AbstractAlthough the issue of “the Others” has not been considered among the Muslim philosophers as an independent issue, but this potential exists between all intellectual ideas in Islamic world especially in mysticism. Accordingly, we can present asking about “the Others” in Ibn Arabi’s work as Islamic mysticism and find his intellectual basis in this field. The unity of existence as the most important Ibn Arabi’s worldview can be seen in every places of his mystical system and it is one of the most important determinants of his behavioral strategies towards “the Others”. In the issues about ontology, the right and creation are the unit truth; and if its unity direction being considered it is truth, and if the plurality being considered, it is creation; so the most comprehensive view to the universe is considering both unity and plurality. This is a comprehensive view despite accepting plurality, it considers a unity over pluralities and provides a ground for accepting “the Others” with all contradictions and differences. This approach by extending towards epistemology clarifies the special Ibn Arabi’s approach against epistemic contradictions.

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.