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

The importance of designation (anecdote, description, implication) in Epistemology and acquired knowledge is clear. In the field of designation, there are various viewpoints and some of them can be combined with each other and some of them are contradictory and cannot be combined. One of the famous opinions of philosophers is that the relationship between the concept and the described object is intrinsic to the concept.Some believe that the intrinsic description view has indefensible flaws. For example, in the article "Intrinsic Designation under Scrutiny",  the view of famous philosophers about "Intrinsic Designation" (Hekait-e dhātī) has been criticized, and more or less the view of the Allameh Mohammad Taqi Mesbah Yazdi has been confirmed and strengthened under the title "Potentially Designation" (Hekait-e Shaani; Contingent Designation). In the mentioned article, the authors have made seven objections to the "Intrinsic Designation". In our opinion, all the mentioned objections towards the view of "Intrinsic Designation" have several problems; And on the contrary, "Potentially Designation", as presented in this article, is both wrong in itself and inconsistent with principles of Allameh Mesbah. A detailed treatment of all the objections raised around the "Intrinsic Designation" and all the problems of the, "Potentially Designation", as presented in the mentioned article, requires the writing of a book in the field of the designation. Therefore, inevitably, in this article, we have evaluated the first two objections briefly and left the criticism of other objections to a wider field.
It is necessary to mention:First of all, rejecting the objections raised about "Intrinsic Designation" does not logically require the truth of "Intrinsic Designation" and in order to establish this point of view, we should have a positive discussion about its ontological, anthropological and epistemological foundations, and about its consequences.
Secondly, in this article, our defenses of the "Intrinsic Designation" and our objections to the "Potentially Designation" are based on this common basis between the famous philosophers and Allameh Mesbah that on the one hand, the knowledge of ordinary people about the material world is exclusive to the acquired knowledge, and on the other hand, the mental image has two aspects: from one aspect, it exists in the human soul and itself is known, and it is a presentational knowledge, and from the second aspect, it presents something else and it is acquired knowledge.
Thirdly, our main discussion in this article is, first of all, the defense of the "Intrinsic Designation", not the criticism of the "Potentially Designation".
Our method in this article is analytical and descriptive.
In our opinion, objections made to the theory of "Intrinsic Designation" and affirmations raised in the field of establishing the "Potentially Designation" are debatable. Some of the disputes are as follows:(1) Involving the characteristics of Arabic words in semantic and philosophical analyses; (2) Not paying attention to the difference between conventional understanding and conventional analysis; (3) Confusion between the role of the knower and the specific role of knowledge in the designation process; (4) Inserting the concepts of existence and non-existence into whatness; (5) Confiscation and self-explanatory nature of some claims and arguments; (6) Ignoring the differences between mental images and external forms, or ignoring the differences between what is reasonable in itself and what is reasonable through an intermediary; (7) non-distinction between of designation (hekait, description, implication) and transmission.
At least some of the problems that have entered the theory of "Intrinsic Designation" are due to the lack of correct understanding of this theory, and this theory is more accurate than the theory of "Potentially Designation".

The philosophical analysis of universals needs to clarify two terms: the world and the mind. If we can understand the relation between these two, it is possible to answer two questions. First, what are universals? And second, how to make universals? The present research aims to compare universals from the viewpoint of Shahab Al-Din Suhrawardi (1154-1191 CE) and Duns Scotus (1266-1308 CE). Both of them follow the Greek legacy and are under Abrahamic religions.They distinguish between common and special features of the world when they describe it. In Islamic philosophy, these features are called "existence" and "quiddity". But Suhrawardi, by the revival of the system of light, recognizes them as the "light" or the "being". He distinguishes between existence (Wojoud) and being (Maujoud). This distinction is linguistic and ontological. Existence is always in the mind while the being is found in the world outside of the mind. He believes that the specific feature of the world is shown by the beings (Maujoudat). But Suhrawardi does not search for the common feature in existence. He explains that feature by the light (Nour) and the layout of the system patterned by the lights (Anwar). This cosmos system includes the longitudinal and widthways orders. The results of the two orders are two versions of universals.The first version (it could be named the Aristotelian version) belongs to the longitudinal dimension. This version is presented by mind functions. Suhrawardi is among a few Muslim Philosophers that highlights the mind’s function. He believes that the mind has an active and a passive role. The passive one is only a place for perceptions and memories, but its activeness or agency is introduced by the intellect-mind relation. The intellect-act (ontological and epistemological) relation is limited by the mind.Suhrawardi discusses platonic ideas in a widthways order. It results from the second version. But it is important to mention that Suhrawardi’s reading is a wider view of the universals. Suhrawardi’s reading of platonic ideas explains upward and downward lights. The upward light is the result of illumination (Ishraq) and the downward light is the result of observation (Mushahadah). The upward one expresses the Aristotelian universals, and the downward one shows the platonic version.On the other hand, in the medieval period, the term “common nature” express a major problem of universals. This term originates from the Natural Universals of Avicena. The Avicenian concept was so ambiguous, i.e, what he describes is not in the world nor the mind. So, medieval philosophers and commentators had a problem with Avicenna’s quote. The problem was how to interpret universals. Avicenna confirms that the term universal is neither in the world nor in the mind, that is, it has no necessity.Scotus confronts such a strange ontological state. He doesn’t make the Natural Universal in the mind or in the world; rather, he tries to go out of it from its contradictional state. At first, Scotus rejects the theories that consider universals only in the mind and only in the world. He stands in the middle of these two. With two ideas, the common nature goes out from its pureness: non-numerical identity and commonness. The first refers to the idea that everything that has a real identity hasn’t a numerical identity. The real identity of nature exists from the pure state, and, at the same time, it is not an objective nature. But it seems to be in the mind while it is a conceptual issue. Thus, Scotus explains commonness as opposed to universality. Considering this idea, he says that commonness belongs to actual quiddity, not to quiddity in the intellect or mind. It is noticed that two interpretations be possible from the actual quiddity; the first is the objective quiddity, and the second is the quiddity Scotus has proved, i.e, the absolute quiddity that has someplace in the world, but not a sensual object. The commonness belongs to the second interpretation. The reason why the quiddity has commonness is the quiddity itself.Scotus represents the Aristotelian version of universals. He believes that human knowledge achieves experience and separation from particulars. Cognition is divided into sensual and intellectual aspects. The beginning of cognition is sensual but it results in an intellectual path. These are the general roles of the mind. But non-numerical identity and commonness are particularly mental acts. The separation of common nature’s features is by seeing the objective order. The non-numerical identity is obtained by considering the numerical identity. Also, commonness is obtained by considering the real quiddity. Concerning the above explanations, Scotus sees the particulars’ features as real or non-numerical identities and the common features as commonness.Both philosophers believe in active and passive roles of the mind. But, the reading of the mind’s activity is different. Scotus thinks like Aristotle, i.e, perceptions are just obtained from particulars. But Suhrawardi confirms that the mind makes some concepts without world interference, which means some of the universals are made only by the mind. While Scotus believes in the Aristotelian version of universals, Suhrawardi expresses both versions of the universals, although he does not make any connection between the two versions. It is to say that their ways for the explanation of universals are different, but they consider theories on the common and special features of the world. Suhrawardi expresses the light as the special feature and the quiddity (i.e, diversity of quiddity) as the common one, and Scotus proves the real identity (or non-numerical) as the special feature and the commonness (in front of pure universality) as the common one.

Conflict, meaning disturbance and incompatibility, has always attracted the attention of human beings and they have faced the question of why there is some kind of war and conflict and even numerous differences between the parts (components) of the universe. The present article seeks to make a comparative study of this issue from the perspective of two philosophers of East and West, Mullā Ṣadrā Shīrāzī and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and to express the similarities and differences between their views. This is explained by their intellectual, theoretical and philosophical foundations. In such a way that Ṣadr al-Muta'allehin considers contradictions and conflicts to be due to multiplicity; because wherever there is multiplicity, there is no escape from contradiction. He considered contradiction as a necessity of the world of possibility and has a graded unity that reaches its maximum in the material world, and then there is the realm of archetypes (archetypal realm, mundus imaginalis, world of archetypal images) and intellects, in which contradictions are minimized due to the intensity of ontological status and appear as differences. Hegel considers it as something in the nature of objects that takes place during the dialectical movement by stating the principle of contradiction as the most important principle of dialectical principles and imagines it as something in the nature of things that takes place in the course of dialectical motion, and a sign of the potential for the emergence of absolute thought, which is thought to move by moving from lower categories to the absolute image and has interpreted this as a dialectical course of contradiction.

A Muslim ruler has the highest position in an Islamic government over him nobody rules. A Muslim ruler, Shaikh Ishraq and Mulla Sadra argue, is the vicegerent of Allah on the earth. Since divine providence demands that the His vicegerent be present on the earth at all times, factually, there must be qualified people to rule over the earth each at every time. A close look into Shaikh Ishraq’s view suggests that an Islamic ruler in the majority of cases ought to be a prophet and must be perfect in his three faculties of rationality, imagination and sensation. In the minority cases, he says, the ruler can be a person in the highest taste of divinity and his unique gift in intellect makes him superior to rule. Mulla Sadra follows Shaikh Ishraq in that the ruler ought to be one individual person in his qualifications in the majority of cases and in the qualifications of a prophet. Nonetheless, since he introduced Imam as the qualified ruler after the prophet, in the minority of cases, Mulla Sadra holds, due to his knowledge of things the seen and the unseen, Imam deserve to be the ruler. He considers Imam’s knowledge of the unseen as the central qualification, though.

Maritain, a twentieth century Neo-Thomist philosopher, who criticizes modern philosophy and believes in returning to Thomas's views on all philosophical subjects, introduces the pillars of human knowledge as object (the mental form), external thing, and subject (the knower). He criticizes the views of some modern philosophers on knowledge, arguing that the knowledge of the self cannot be the basis for other human sciences, as Descartes puts it, or, as some existentialists believe, it is the main subject of philosophy. Maritain said this knowledge which is called "subjectivity", is later than other sciences due to its understanding as to the subject of other objects, and it is not basically through the object; In the sense that man, after knowing other things, realizes that he is the subject of all objects, and therefore has a different position and application from other human knowledge. This knowledge is equivalent to the knowledge of the self in Avicenna’s views, and accordingly one can create a dialogue between him and Maritain about "knowing itself" in order to reveal its points, as well as to show that the Avicennian views are up-to-date . On the other hand, Maritain regards the place and application of this knowledge as a basis for esoteric contemplation and mystical knowledge, in which he goes beyond the views of Thomas and enters the mystical tradition. In this position, Maritain seems to be strongly influenced by Avicenna’s mystical views, in addition to the mystical Christian tradition .

From the perspective of the transcendent wisdom, God is the source of eternal and everlasting grace. The purpose of this essay is to examine the meaning of this grace and its relation to the creation of other beings in order to clarify the philosophers’ positions on the subject of the universe. By this grace is meant the first thing that the title of the creature does not apply to, though it can also be applied to the development of the concept of the "creature". These cases, as well as the discussion that follows, illustrate the fact that scholars’ minds do not share the same key concepts in the subject matter of the creation or the step of "creature", "world" and "grace" and provide evidence of the multiplicity of terms in the texts. This paper deals with the analytical-documentary method and by disambiguating the notions of the words "creature", "grace" and "the universe", it makes the clarity of the complex and challenging issue of the universe and step more clear.

This article elaborates Heidegger's statement that "freedom is the ground of ground". The notion of freedom is a key concept in a period of Heidegger's thought that he himself has called it "metaphysics of Dasein". Freedom for him is not primarily a political discussion, nor a question of causality, but an ontological principle, an answer to the question of how the world can be opened to Dasein, and why things become questionable for man and on which ground is based his search for finding reasons, proofs and demonstrations. The freedom is "the ground" of our thinking by means of reasons. Heidegger's way of description how to achieve this foundation begins with Dasein's prior understanding of Being (Sein), which is the condition of possibility to be related to other beings. But the possibility of understanding of Being (Sein) itself depends on the transcendence of all beings. In transcending, Dasein gets beyond beings and moves towards their totality, which is the world. The fundamental characteristic of the world is "for the sake of" (Umwillen). There is an intrinsic interrelationship between "for the sake of", which is the primary attribute of the world and being-in-the-world and the freedom of Dasein.

Reduction of Souls as Theorized by Mulla Sadra The human articulate soul is one of the most mysterious phenomena of the world of existence in that it has attracted the attention of several scholars and Muslim philosophers. Muslim philosophers have endeavored to unfold the secrets of its existence and nature. One of the main concerns of the present study is an analytical appraisal of the issue whether the articulate soul had belonged to the body prior to its creation, and in what manner(s) it got attached to the natural world state of the body. Plato, Aristotle, Avecinna (Ibn Sina), and Suhrawardi gave various answers to this query; however, Mulla Sadra’s answer proves remarkable in this context. In his scheme, it is expressed in the descending (reducing) chain of being that starts from the Transcendental Being from the world of the abstracts (intellects), to that of the ideas, down to that of the nature. According to him, the human articulate soul has several existential levels. In the world of the abstracts (intellects), they exist as abstract and collective phenomena, hence devoid of multiplicity. When an appropriate body is ready, the soul reduces I its level of abstractness and comes down to the level of ideas that has certain characteristics of the material world. This reduction and decrease in abstractness continues until it reaches the world of nature and gets incarnated in the body. In the meantime, the abstract (intellectual) existence of the soul in the world of the ideas continue. Despite the novelty of Mulla Sadra’s scheme and interpretation, it is not devoid of any problem, e.g., granted that accepting an abstract, communal phenomenon which lies outside the arena of conflict here, its acceptance might imply pre-existence of souls, a principle that he rejects.

This paper has attempted to answer the question: what is the relationship between ideal and religious knowledge? In order to obtain this aim, Mulla Sadra's various and scattered discussions are integrated about knowledge, knower and known in a proper framework. By this approach In addition to the new details have been represented in Mulla Sadra's thought, we encounter a new doctrine which is resulted in study of ideal knowledge, knower and known. It seems that Mulla Sadra by this discussion has wanted to make the philosophical knowledge close to the religious knowledge, and finally he believed that the both of them are two sides of one reality which can lead to conclude the essence of religion is nothing but wisdom and the rest served merely as a shell to protect this precious core.

The present article investigates about different rational approaches to God’s relationship with the universe. The agentive-causal relationship is among the most common relations delineated by philosophers. Besides, maximal and minimal approaches to God’s relationship with the universe are also assessable. In the present article, through scrutinizing some of the rationalist scholars of the ancient Greece and the Middle Ages, as well as the mechanical view of the universe and the views of Muslim philosophers, the maximal emphasis on God’s agentive-causal relationship with the universe has been delineated. Then in a second step, we have assessed and investigated the capacity and success of the explanation presented; and finally, we have passed through exclusivism about God’s relationship with the universe, criticizing it to achieve a comprehensive and far-reaching analysis of relationship with elements such as efficiency. In this model, the relationship is not merely agentive-causal; rather, it includes other relations such as governing, subsisting, all-sustaining, witnessing, and knowing relationships.

Reflection on Mulla Sadra's philosophy helps us to find out that man has unlimited capacities which take on meaning in the world through realization. Since man as a limited being is existentially dependent upon infinite being, he tries to realize his existence and make a meaning for it. Therefore, we can understand the relationship between man and the world and his motion toward the Most High God, which is final end of all his motions, by taking into consideration man's belonging existence and the role of the world in making a meaning for his existence. However, "subjectivism" and confrontation between man and the world as one of its most important outcomes in western philosophy was developed as the result of Descartes's use of "self" as "subject" and "the world" as "object". The aim of present paper is to elaborate on the relationship between man and the world, given his mode of belonging existence in Sadrian philosophy contrasted with duality of man and the world which is an inevitable result of "subjectivism". Finally, it concludes that man's attachment and belonging to God in substantial motion and consequently his essential poverty is the factor that makes Sadrian man superior to the man in subjectivism and any kind of subjectivist thought.

The unity of the knower and the known is one of the fundamental principles of the transcendent theosophy, which Mulla Sadra explained and proved it by inspiration from the Neoplatonic philosophers. This unity is divided into the two orders of plurality in unity and unity in plurality, and the correlation argument is one of the most important proofs of it in the order of plurality in unity. This argument has three basic points: (1) the Perceptual existence of the abstract beings, (2) that the material beings are not essentially known, and (3) the correlation between the known and the knower. Ehsaee's criticisms are also focused on these very points. According to Ehsaee, Mulla Sadra's argument must be faced with some fundamental criticisms, because (1) there is a sense of act in the meaning of the perception, (2) if the material beings were not known they would be eternal and uncreated, and (3) the correlation between the knower and the known requires their division. Nevertheless, because the unity of the known and the knower belongs to the order of plurality in unity or because this argument is in the order of the essence, and because the material beings are accidentally known and their scientific forms are essentially known, and that correlation doesn’t necessarily followed by division, Ehsaee's criticisms have essential problems.

According to Mulla Sadra in his famous work، al-Asfar، God’s pre-knowledge is a set of epistemic forms which are (1) inseparable from His essence، (2) uncreated، (3) beyond the universe، (4) devoid of real possibility، (5) eternal per se، and (6) extant by His extance. Tabatabayi in Nihayat al-Hilmah believes that the term، “inseparable”، in (1) does not mean “out of essence”; otherwise، (1) would contradict (2) - (6). Furthermore، if the epistemic forms were out of God’s essence، then if they were known by presence، the theory of Ideas would be true، and if they were known by acquisition، the theory of “depicted Forms” would be true، while both of them are rejected by Mulla Sadra. Tabatabayi، therefore، says that these epistemic forms are identical with God’s essence، and that pre-knowledge in Mulla Sadra’s view is the same as God’s essential knowledge of the details of creature. In my opinion، but، this claim and its arguments، both، are incorrect، because the mentioned epistemic forms، in Mulla Sadra’s philosophy، are identical with abstract intellects which have all six properties without any contradiction. Again، Mulla Sadra، in contrary to Tabatabayi’s strange claim، believes in the existence of Ideas as thesauruses of divine pre-knowledge.

It can safely be said that, realizing divine names and theiracknowledgment in hierarchy of existence,forms the basis of mysticism. Turning away from this notion means putting aside mysticism as a whole.It is within this degree of conduct that the mystical seekerexceeds the level of certain states and positions and reaches the level of cognition. Likewise, the topic of the relationship between divine names and different levels of existence is one of the basic issues of Kabbalisticmysticism.This is quite similar to the topics discussed in its counterpart in Islamic mysticism.In Kabbalistic Jewish mystical way, discussions about the kingdom of heaven,the functions of each angel assigned to different tasks in every heaven and the relationship between divine names known as "Sephirot" and each of the heavens, play significant parts inthe issue. From the perspective of Kabbalistic mystics, the realm of emanation of existence is divided into four main sections: Names of God, the Throne, the Heavens and the world of matter.The first Kabbalistic world also known as Asilut, includes the main ten names of God, among which the first three emanate particularly at the level of throne or as it is called Beriyah, and the other seven names emanate in the seven heavens, meanwhile the world of matter or Asiyah is the place devoted to the manifestation of all divine names. As it is indicated in various parts of this study, similar issues can be traced in Islamic mystical literature. Accordingly, the present article consists of three parts: In the first part, referring to the two main Kabbalistic sources, i.e. SeferYetzirah and Sefer Zohar, the ten main names of God have been introduced without which the understanding of Kabbalah is impossible. The second part is devoted to elaborating on the level of the throne and describing its conveyers and clarifying which divine name is relevant to which of these mysterious elements. In the third part, the seven angels have been described and their corresponding divine names have been introduced.Here, we have also tried to indicate that according to Islamic texts, how various angels and the seven heavensare connected with different stars and are the manifestations of which divine names. The fourth part concerns with other levels of the heaven. Also included in this part, the comparative study of the fifteen-level Planetariums and their residents inIslamic and Jewish mysticisms.This leads to the disclosure of the fact that which level is the emanation of which divine name.

From among the challenges facing religious and moral education is the inefficiency of the educational methods used by the teachers who work in these fields. Therefore, its outputs are sometimes ascribed to their lack of learning and sometimes they after a time, deviate from the right way of religious and moral values. Attempting to present to teachers the world of religious man, this paper seeks to highlight the exiological necessity of such a world in order to enhance the effectiveness of religious and moral teachings. A qualitative method and an analytic- deductive approach is used in this research. The results show that, being a world owner, the instructor can exert influence on his/her students from two aspects. The first and foremost is that the instructor can spiritually attract the student towards becoming world-owner, and the second aspect, is enhancing the ability of the teacher in his/her career to exert influence on the student’s spirit. Hence, instead of using material, instrumental and forcible approaches, the instructors of religious and moral education should use ontological, inner and illuminative approaches, the most fundamental of which is getting into the world of religious man.

The basic question of the present article is about the world in which we dwell. It will be indicated that the essential character of this world is its east-west orientation، which appears in different aspects of our life: in our geographical understanding and directions، in politics، in ideologies that push politics ahead، in history of culture and finally even in the history itself. This historicity of east-west orientation in the world has four aspects. Firstly، it is made by modern human. Secondly، its root goes back to the Christian world view of the Middle Ages and an important theological theme has been arisen from it at that time. Thirdly، in the modern understanding of history the Christianeast-oriented theological-historical conceptionhas been turned over to make a Eurocentric world view. Finally، the east-west framework has been turned into a schema within which the history and its important events areinterpreted; examples of it will be given from Jaspers، Hegel and Hölderlin. In contrast to such a Eurocentric view، Goethe''s essentially unificationistic stand will be presented.

Tabataba’i has defined knowledge as the presence of one abstract inanother abstract. The first abstract which is the known has its existencein knowledge by presence and its essence in knowledge by aquintance.The second one is the very knower’s mind. Tabataba’i and hissuccessors have deduced some argument in order to demonstrateabstractedness of the two mentioned case. It seems that suchargumentation would be the first step in ontology of knowledge. Othersteps and themes are the realms of being, overlapping of these realms,unification of knower and known and that of knowing [world], andreduction of knowledge by acquaintance to knowledge by presence.

The present paper aims at investigating Imam Muhammad Ghazali's political thoughts in terms of the manner his use of intra-religious sources to enable his contemporary society to lead a better life. This case study which relies on the available evidence and sources, particularly Ghazali's main works attempts through an analytical method to study his political thoughts. The most important research finding shows that it is impossible to analyze Ghazali's political thought on the basis of religious foundations without considering the four agents of politics (i.e.ruler, faqih, religious scholar and preacher). The ruler and faqih are to correct the social and external life of the elite and the masses, and religious scholars and preachers are to set right the internal and private life of the elite and the masses. These four agents will make successful in managing the society if the knowledge about the principles of religion, and the philosophy of existence of man and his position in the universe is found in the area of education.

According to Heidegger human existence is not encapsulated and limited in itself, rather it is a transcendental existence which is standing out in the world. This ecstasy is rooted in the deeper relation between human existence and Being. In Heidegger philosophy this necessary relation between man and world is an essential element in the existential structure of man. That is why he uses the term Dasein for calling such entity. Referring to Mulla Sadra’s philosophy one can reach to a deeper and more fundamental analysis of transcendental structure of human existence. According to Mulla Sadra human existence is a relative entity. Its existence as a finite entity is wholly dependent on infinite and absolute being; accordingly, although man is existentially finite, its existence is wholly toward unlimited and infinite being. According to Mulla Sadra, this contradictory state of human existence is the foundation for his transcendental structure and it’s existential orientation to the outer world and it is the ultimate basement for the existential relationship between man and world.

The term, “Barzakh” (inter-world) has different literal and technical meanings, and confusing them leads to misunderstanding. This preoccupation was the motive behind this article to sift through to works of philosophers, gnostics, and theologians in order to clarify the exact meanings they invest this term with. The authors conclude that Muslim philosophers use the term “barzakh” to refer to a world between the material and the intellectual worlds, and they divide it into distinct and indistinct ones. Gnostics, on the other hand, divide it into ascending and descending ones. They together form parts of the philosophers’ distinct mithāl. For theologians, however, barzakh represents the intermediary gap between one’s death and the one’s resurrection in the hereafter. It differs, conceptually, from that of philosophers and Gnostics, but it refers to the ascending curve of barzakh in Gnostics.