جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « unity of soul » در نشریات گروه « فلسفه و کلام »

Sabzavārī, with technical knowledge of the principles of ontology and the knowledge of soul, has established reasons for the unity of intellect and the intelligible (ittihad al-‘aqil wa-l-ma‘qul), including the proof of the objectivity of the mind and the mental. The basis of achieving the purpose of this argument is the precise ontology of the levels of mind and object and how the mind and mentalities are related. Rereading this reason and its validity to prove the unity of the intellect and the intelligible, and the separation of the first-order and consistent elements from the peripheral and second-order elements, as well as the statement of some foundations related and special to the Transcendental Philisophy, such as the quality of truth that exists on mentalities, the thing (or fact) itself’ (nafs al-amr), the affirmative and negative relationship of mind and mental, the identity and nature of science, and the unity of soul and powers, is unprecedented, and this article aims to point out the strength of the issue of the unity of intellect and the intelligible with the approach of proofs.

Method of Study: 

Studying the main elements of the argument and its foundations, with explanatory and analytical methods, can show the degree of implication of the argument and its effective role in proving the problem.

The relationship between mind and mental has two negative and positive aspects. The negative aspect negates the relationship between the placed and the place and the immanent rising in order to reach the affirmative position and the relationship of the emanational rising, which is of the illuminative correlation (al-idafa alishraqiyya) style. This negative aspect is enough for Sabzavārī to establish a proof of unity. Just as the nature of external exists is the same as the external so the nature that mental exists has a relationship of objectivity with the mind. Many problems and defects on the mental existence are caused by blaming the view on the negative side, but the dignity of the mind in relation to perceptions, even to sensations and imaginations, should be changed from passivity and ability to activity and creativity. In addition to paying attention to the negation of the relationship between the placed and the place and the establishment of the relationship of the immanent rising between the mind and the mental, the posieive position of the transcendental theory should be sought in two other things, which are: attention to the identity and nature of science and the relationship between the soul and the powers.

From this point of view, the proof that the sameness of mind and the mental, explains and proves the issue of unity, that the mind is the levels of reality and does not have duality in the reality, reality and external. With a step-by-step approach to seek confirmation, first the mind and the mental are compared with the reality and the external, but according to the ontological criteria of the Transcendental Philisophy, there is no analogy and comparison, and the same principle of the unity of the reality and the external is also true for the mind and the mental, and different principles the sameness of reality and external is the guide to this.

This article shifts from doubt about the meaning of a commonly neglected phrase in Aristotle’s Metaphysics about the relation between metaphysics and myth into a fundamental question about the relation between metaphysics and emotions. The contemporary philosophical trend of reviving emotions, with all of its advantages in different felids of philosophy, has been almost silent in the field of metaphysics. The historical cliché of reason/emotion (also, reason/body) separation, among other things, has overshadowed the possibility of revising/ re-reading metaphysical texts through the lenses of constitutional emotions. This article develops a different narrative about the nature of metaphysics in Aristotel’s thought through re-reading some of his works. According to this narrative, certain emotions, including wonder (thauma), praise, pleasure, and desire, alongside the “nous”, play a constitutional role in the construction of the Aristotelian structure of metaphysics. I will discuss that the concept of “nous/ reason” cannot suffice for giving a comprehensive explanation for the tools and methods of metaphysics. According to the constitutional role of emotions, reductive interpretations of Metaphysics should be radically challenged in that they have ignored the emotional foundations of metaphysics during the history of philosophy. Moreover, I will suggest that the new narrative of metaphysics can provide some material to revise the traditional understanding of the soul’s parts, the soul’s unity, and relation between soul and body in Aristotle’s thought.

Peripateticists believe in the existence of a causal relationship between the human soul and its powers and consider the powers to have a dependent and inseparable status of the soul. A certain kind of existential nature is possible. Because; Sankhit requires the superiority of creative agents over their causes and indicates the existential doubt between them. Therefore, the causal relationship between the soul and the forces is no exception to this, and the type of ontological relationship between them is based on the main rules of peripatetic wisdom. The principle of sankhit; In this cognition, any kind of pure plurality and contrast between the soul and the forces can be identified; Essential and existential contrast; It requires a definite denial of the causal relationship between them and violates the evolutionary relationship and the inseparable status of the powers inseparable from the soul, so the attribution of causality to the soul along with words such as principle, origin, source; It means the existence of the objective existence of the soul in relation to the powers, and the attribution of disability to the powers of the soul in addition to words such as causes, sub-functions and functions; It means the acquisition of the objective existence of forces by the human soul, and how is it possible that the forces that are the branches, sub-branches and accessories of their actual cause have an existence in their entirety with the objective reality of that binet ?!

Fatwās are based on titles and topics. Although the customary attribute (conventionary) prevails over jurisprudential issues; but there are many ways to identify issues, and some issues are based on rational principles, reasoning, analysis, experience, and referring to expert opinions belong to fatwā. The jurist thinks and deduces based on his intellectual foundations, and the philosopher jurist must rule on real subjects based on his foundations in theology, cosmology, or anthropology. Body, limbs and external powers based on the unity of soul and the body that the jurists following the transcendent wisdom are required to do are considered as the hierarchy of the truth of the soul and they are united with it in terms of existence and the body is the appearance of the soul in a natural order (degree), and the ruling of not dominating over the souls will spread to it. Now the question is whether the acceptance of this basis will affect the jurisprudential fatwā related to the issue? In this article, with analytical-example (extensional) method, it is shown how the basis of the unity of soul and body in Islamic wisdom in the jurisprudential issue of soul monarchy has an effect on the body and its subdivisions (extensional, branches) such as amputation, transfer, donation, deprivation of life, etc., and can be considered a new argument for denying domination to members.

The Cartesian viewpoint on the relation between soul and body is based on certain principles such as substantial differentiation and their essential unity. He believes that the reality of human is not his body but his soul whose basic feature is thought and awareness. However, these two have unity with each other and a casual relation. In order to elaborate the relation between soul and body, Descartes puts forth the pineal gland and unity between the soul and body. There are six main faults with this viewpoint of Descartes which include: A: Impossibility of interaction B: Unexplained the nature of union C: Lack of physical contact D. Irrationality of the mental causality E: Disagreement with the principle of causal obstruction and lack of multilateral determination F: Denial of Causality Based on Theory of parallel Using the referential methodology and content analysis, this article elaborates the interaction of soul and body from the Descartes viewpoint and then the sixfold faults to this viewpoint are been reviewed and evaluated.

Mulla Sadra assumes two approaches toward the issue of the soul’s acquisition of absolute, thing-in-itself knowledge. In his general approach based on common sense, he sheds doubt on the ability of the soul in gaining knowledge of the true nature of things. In his special approach, Sadrolmote'allehin reiterates the existence and perfection of soul perceptions and the unity of these perceptions and soul in the perception proces to clarify this issue. From Sadra’s perspective, the physical occurrence and existential Niggardliness of soul is the reason why it does not move beyond the perception of appearances and accidentals. He attributes the soul’s intensification to the unity of soul and its existential perception process. Mullasadra believes that the more the soul expands in its unity with perception, the more it acquires the capacity to pass through the appearances of objects to obtain perceptions derived from the true nature of objects.

The question of plurality or unity of human soul is among the topicswhich basically originate from Plato's and Aristotle's works. Platoconsiders the subject from two approaches and finally accepts theplurality whereas Aristotle deems it unreasonable to reckon the soul tobe plural and divisible and consequently admits the unity of the soul.Regarding these two theories (i.e. the unity of the human soul and theplurality of it), the philosophers have to either confirmed one theoryand reject the other at the same time. Therefore the two PeripateticIslamic and Christian philosophers, Avicenna and Thomas Aquinas areinclines toward the “unity of soul “theory. The difference of these twophilosophers is in that Avicenna’s requires clarifications due to someconflicting aspects in his theory. This conflict arises from therepeatedly emphasis on soul unity on one hand and in the meantimeattribution of human activities to three other souls. To integrate theseevidently clashing points it is possible to set forth two status namely“definition and realization” (essence and existence). Aquinas assessesthe subject more rigorously and in more detail comparing to Avicennaand while considering different views including Plato’s, proves thedominance of Aristotle's theory over Plato’s.