جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « اتحاد عاقل و معقول » در نشریات گروه « فلسفه و کلام »

In a previous scholarly contribution (A1), a critical examination was conducted wherein the foremost arguments substantiating and challenging the theory of the "amalgamation of the intelligent and the intelligible" were scrutinized. Through a meticulous critique, I advanced the proposition that a stance of reticence should be adopted concerning this theory. The approach characterized by reticence has encountered critique in another scholarly investigation (A2), wherein the author endeavored to salvage the "mutual correlation" argument from the perceived challenges presented in my article. In the present article, upon scrutinizing A2, I have demonstrated: 1-A2 effectively abandons the "mutual correlation" argument and advances alternative contentions not articulated by Sadra himself; 2-these contentions prove inadequate in substantiating the postulated unity of matter and form integral to the theory of the "amalgamation of the intelligent and the intelligible"; 3-none of the objections posited by A2 find incorporation within A1. It has been clarified that being non-material is not a condition of being intellectualized, and this matter does not contradict being non-material of perceptual forms. It is also known that the condition of being actually intellectualized is being non-material substance.

Mulla Sadra has divided the miracle into sensual, imaginary and intellectual. Now the question is raised, how are the mentioned miracles in Mullah Sadra's philosophical thought? In general, a miracle is a supernatural act that happens outside the system of natural causes and factors. Its cause is supernatural, unknown and associated with defiance and lack of conflict.The miracle in Mulla Sadra's thought has been studied in terms of three levels of perception with a research and analytical method. The goal is the intellectual and philosophical explanation of Mullah Sadra's miracle. In his thought, man is connected to the supreme principles through the servitude and austerities of the beginning and the acquisition of perfection and knowledge through the power of triple perception, and with the help of the unseen and the gift of divine power, he is able to perform miracles. As a result, the miracle has a supernatural and extrasensory cause.The categorization of miracles into sensory, imaginary and intellectual is derived from human perception. among these, the intellectual miracle is superior to other miracles due to its transtemporal and trans-spatial nature. The Holy Prophet of Islam is the master of all perfections and brought the best miracle.

The revival of the issue of intelligence and intelligible in transcendental wisdom and novel reasoning by Hakim Sabzevari, on the one hand, manifests an ascending trend in rationality; on the other hand, it shows the Islamic sage’s absorption in principles and purposes of human knowledge. During the periods before Sadra, principles of the unity issue had been investigated, mainly by Ibn Sina, and had reached sublimity. Hakim Sabzevari has reasoned for the issue by fortifying the same suggestions with transcendental meaning. Correlation is one of the arguments for the matter that is based on the abstraction of and conceptual and existential relation of intelligence and intelligible. Some researchers have cast doubt on this argument and claimed the issue of unity has no grounding. The investigation of the doubts posited by an article, after explaining the vital elements of the argument’s reasoning, and its role in proving the issue of unity, are the main focuses of this article.

In his al-Mabda' wa l-Ma'ād, Ibn Sina demonstrated the union of the knower and the known. This demonstration is presented exclusively in this book. The authorship of this book is certain because of manuscript evidence and historical documents. As can be seen from comparison of the results of this demonstration with passages from further works of Ibn Sina such as al-Shifā, al-Najāt, al-Ishārāt wa l-Tanbihāt, and al-Mubāḥaṯāt, Ibn Sina accepted the union of the knower and the known differently from Porphyry. Ibn Sina's view on the union of matter and form shows similarities and differences with this one, which is illustrated in two natural and metaphysical perspectives in his works. This article presents three main points: (1) a critical edition of the text; (2) an explanation of the demonstration of the union of the knower and the known in comparison with other Ibn Sina texts; (3) a critical analysis of the Leiden University Library manuscript (No. 1020a) that contains a different text than other manuscripts about this topic.

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.

Hakim Sabzevari in the atmosphere of transcendent wisdom and with the transcendent indisputable principles and passing through the framework of appeasement with the principles of previous philosophers, has tried to establish an argument to prove the unity of reason and the wise. Some of the principles and materials of these arguments are apparently, not the content, the same principles and materials of the previous scholars. One of the causes of suspicion for some novices is the neglect of this matter. One of Hakim Sabzevari's arguments on the rational union of the argument of "matter and form" is that in establishing it, on the one hand, he refers to the ontological principles of matter, form and soul, and on the other hand, Sadra's view of psychology underlies the completion of this argument. have given. Hakim Sabzevari has written an article in order to distort all the arguments and accuses Hakim of "gross sputum" in recognizing the basic contents of philosophy. In this regard, in rejecting the argument of matter and form, he has turned to two main accusations. On the one hand, he accused Hakim of using allegorical analogy instead of argumentative analogy, and on the other hand, he condemned the expropriation as desirable. An analysis shows that this argument is based on complete unity, and that the article has been distorted both in the position of the report and in the position of the judge, which has deviated from irrational positions.

There has been a big room for theorizing about epistemological issues and studies on human perceptions in divine wisdom. The milestone of this theorizing is the doctrine of unity of intellect and intellectual. Beside to respected arguments, one could see the intention of holders of this doctrine. Hakim E Sabzewari, with all awareness about the epistemological and psychological grounds of it, had tried to advanced a few short arguments for it; one of which is based on self-production of perceptions. For he thought Mulla Sadra put a lot of unnecessary details into the arguments; thus he eliminates what is neglectable. This briefness leads many to deny them. Therefore, restating the details, which are the source that support the argument, proves the validity and authenticity of the argument, and shed a light of the mistakes of deniers.

The discussion about rational perceptions and their emergence is important because it is one of the most important characteristics of man and it is so important that human perfection is in the development of his intellect. Ibn Sina and Mulla Sadra consider the power of reason and rational perceptions as immaterial, but they believe that the body is effective in the emergence of these perceptions in different ways. Ibn Sina and Mulla Sadra have different views on rational perceptions and the influence of the body on the emergence of these perceptions. Ibn Sina believes that rational concepts are obtained by generalizing partial forms and connecting with the active intellect; but Mulla Sadra has offered two explanations for the acquisition of rational concepts: one is the observation of abstractions from afar and the other is the connection and union with the active intellect. In the view of both philosophers, body and physical powers have a tool effect on the emergence of rational perceptions but their explanation differs from the quantity and quality of the body's influence in the emergence of general perception. In this study, we make a comparative comparison between the views of these two philosophers about the role of the body in the emergence of intellectual perceptions.

In Peripatetic Philosophy, soul is regarded as the capacity of perception and because of perception is a kind of alteration, the explanation of change in soul has an important place. In the fifth chapter from the second book of de anima, Aristotle says about some kind of alteration which demands the change in the nature of conceiver and so it is different from the natural alteration. This kind of alteration requires the perfection of soul’s nature in the course of intellection, so corresponds to the concept of substantial change and the unity of intellect and intelligible. But Avicenna has denied the possibility of this special kind change i.e. the change in the nature of intellect. Appealing to the concept of substantial movement and higher being of essence, a Sadraean solution to the Aristotelian soul affection has been proposed, which can explain the soul affection as a change in the nature of conceiver. Although due to two different conceptions of unity of intellect and intelligible, two solutions are possible to solve the ascription of perception to the nature of conceiver.

God’s knowledge and how it covers the creatures is among the important discussions in Islamic philosophy. Muslim thinkers have found the value of this subject through rational and transmitted points, and have attempted to discuss it to achieve the best analysis in line with reason and transmitted ontological statements.
In Mulla Sadra’s view, the quality of God’s knowledge is such that it does not lead to the necessity of God’s agency and capability or plurality in God’s essence – one of the most difficult issues in philosophy.
Similarly, he believes that even Avicenna despite his unparalleled ingenuity, and Sheikh of illumination despite his vivid mind and philosophy as well as his high rank in intuition, have made mistakes, let alone others.
This study explains eight theories about God’s knowledge of things, and criticizes them in brief. Among them are Pre-eternity subsistents, Platonic Ideals, representative active knowledge, immutable objects, intuitive illuminative knowledge.

Mulla Sadra Shirazi, by his own principles like Fundamentality of existence, existential gradation and the unity of being, believes that love equals being and explains how the love penetrates in all particles of the universe. He maintains that love is divine nature of human existence and it is full of wisdom and expediency as he considered. Although sages and Gnostics before Mulla Sadra, have written a lot about love, but Mulla Sadra's Transcendent Philosophy, has opened a specific approach to the subject in question. Mulla Sadra’s transcendent wisdom is based on principles and fundamentals which are not regarded before him as the elements of philosophical system, so he has presented a new conversation. Fundamentality of existence, existential gradation, equivalence of being with knowledge and life, substantial motion, unity of intelligence and intelligible and copula being, are some of the fundamental principles of Sadra's wisdom. This paper will examine and discuss the position of these fundamentals and their vital influences on Mulla Sadra's knowledge of love.

God’s Knowledge is one of the important philosophical problems whose various dimensions have continually been explored by different thinkers. In order to avoid the problem of change in divine essence, Ibn Sina argues that God’s Knowledge of particulars is possible through the knowledge of universals and causes. He also holds that the divine undifferentiated knowledge of existents is possible through imprinted forms. On the other hand, Muhaqqiq Tusi considers the necessary knowledge to belong to the category of relation and maintains that, in the Necessary Being’s Knowledge of changing particular affairs, some changes occur in the relation while the essence remains the same. Therefore, unlike Ibn Sina, Tusi accepts God’s Knowledge of particulars. He also criticizes Ibn Sina’s theory of the imprinting of established forms in the essence of the Necessary Being. Ibn Sina argues that the knowledge of divine essence through His Essence and the essential knowledge of imprinted forms, which is the cause of the appearance of existence, are of the presential type, while the differentiated knowledge of other existents is of the acquired type. In this paper, the writers explain and explore the philosophical principles of these two thinkers.

Like Mulla Sadra, Hakim Sabziwari is an advocate of the theory of the union of the intellect and the intelligible. However, unlike him, Sabziwari has spoken differently and adopted different positions regarding the correlation argument, which is Mulla Sadra’s most important argument for demonstrating the above theory. Sabziwari has sometimes called it imperfect and referred to its defects and, at other times, he has viewed it as a perfect argument and defended it. This paper analyzes and examines his different statements about the correlation argument. In conclusion, the writers maintain that Hakim Sabziwari’s interpretation of Mulla Sadra’s argument is a specific one which is, in some cases, inconsistent with Mulla Sadra’s words. They also question his reasons for rejecting this argument; however, they declare that Sabziwari’s various positions with respect to the correlation argument could be considered to be, more or less, consistent with each other.

The principle of the union of the intellect, the intelligible, and the intelligent is one of the most important principles of the Transcendent Philosophy. It was a philosophical problem long before the history of Islamic philosophy, but Muslim philosophers have adopted different approaches in dealing with it. Mulla Sadra, in addition to accepting this principle, made great efforts in order to demonstrate it and, in doing so, benefitted from the divine blessing. Moreover, owing to the fundamental principles of his own system of philosophy, he founded a new approach for explaining this principle at two levels which brought in its wake several important results. The acceptance of the idea that the rational soul wishes to become identical with its own intelligible at the time of absolute intellection initially seems to be impossible, and the human mind hesitates to accept any convincing proof in this regard without some necessary preparation and introductory explanations. That is why the writers have not examined the related proofs and arguments concerning this principle. Rather, they have presented eleven necessary premises before demonstrating it. In doing so, in each section, they have explained the intention of the Sadrian philosophers who believe in the union of the intelligent and the intelligible. After analyzing these premises and necessary conditions, the mind is ready for accepting an argument that can prove the related claim.

Among Sabzawari’s philosophical achievements are his achievements related to proving the union of the intellect with the intelligible (the knower and the known). He has presented his own arguments to prove this theory. This article studies his arguments that are based on comparing mental being with external being, the changes that occur in the next world, the intelligibility of the immaterial beings, observing latitudinal intellects, deriving and the source of deriving, soul as the giver of perceptions and the unity between the ineligible’s being in itself and its being for its knower. Though these arguments cannot avoid certain objections such as being based on contradictory foundations, they pave the ground for a better understanding of the theory of the union of the knower with the known.

Given knowledge is in fact the presence of the known in itself before the knower, it must be said that every sort of knowledge is in fact presential and thus all branches of the knowledge by acquisition are reduced to knowledge by presence. This becomes further clear after considering the theory of union of the intellect with the intelligible. Thus instead of defining acquired and presential knowledge as knowledge with or without intermediary, we can define knowledge by presence as knowledge that forms the sole criterion for its being known by its knower and knowledge by acquisition as knowledge that in addition to having been the criterion of being known by its knower constitutes something else for its knower. Thus when a knower encounters an object, he learns about it in the beginning without any intermediary and then finds in himself a state similar to that of a mirror through which he acquires knowledge by acquisition. The said state is the result of the knower’s undergoing a substantial movement and his attaining perfection. Given this account, one can reduce basic concepts to knowledge by presence. Primary assents such as the principle of non-contradiction can also be obtained from knowledge by presence. Thus we can, in this way, solve the problem of truth which is the most basic problem in epistemology and find a sure way for gaining true knowledge.

The argument from correlation is one of the arguments which Mulla Sadra made use of it to prove the theory of the union between subject and object of intellection. The philosophers after Mulla Sadra studied and argued for and against it in their works. Some of them have considered it incomplete to prove the theory, and some have insisted on its completeness. Among them Mahdi Haeri seems to have accepted the above mentioned argument, and has studied and analyzed it in detail. This article studies his viewpoints on the argument in ‘Surveys of Theoretical Reason’.

The problem of the unification of the intellect and intelligible can be found in the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle. Indeed, it has been explained more clearly in Plotinus’ philosophy and the Neo-Platonic School and its followers. This problem has also been tackled by the thinkers of the Islamic world however it reached its culmination in the Transcendent Philosophy. To prove the unification of the intellect and the intelligible, Mulla Sadra adduced two proofs, the ‘Argument of correlation’ and the ‘argument of light and obscurity’, which in the first one, he analyzes intellect existence and in the second analyzes intelligible existence. Misbah Yazdi in some of his philosophical books criticizes the mentioned proofs. In this article, after stating each of his refutals, I will evalute and cosequentley reject them.