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

After Darwin's theory, the teleological argument from design faced numerous challenges and transformations to the extent that it could no longer explain order according to modern science, as the final cause was unable to account for Darwin's theory. In fact, there was a need for an argument from nature that could, in line with the transformation of Aristotelian natural philosophy, explain the existence of order and its connection to the creator of order within empirical sciences. This is because the teleological intent in Aquinas's argument from design, based on the final cause, suggested the will of an intelligent agent behind the world. But it seemed, the theory of evolution - understanding nature through the "efficient cause" – has rendered this transcendental intelligence unnecessary. Thus, the teleological argument from design failed to align with modern science and gradually, its application to the existence of God was deemed unscientific and unnecessary. Therefore, it is necessary to articulate order in such a manner and utilize it differently in theology and in the defense of theism, so that the empirical order of the world continues to necessitate the existence of God. In reality, it can be shown that the efficient naturalistic order is the only common point between monotheism and atheism that cannot be effective in attributing to the existence or non-existence of God. It is necessary to refine and complete this natural order in defense of theism. Based on this, the teleological argument from design remains significant in its own right.

Sheikh Ahmad Ahsaei, as the leader of the sheikhiyah, has independently stated the claim of imams as the active cause in the creation system and has drawn important active roles as the results of considering them as the active cause, among these roles is the creation of beings, feeding creatures, reviving the death, causing people to die, and auditing the servants in the Day of Judgment; Also, Ahsaei considered obedience and worship possible through and for the innocent, and listed them as examples of worship. The analysis and verification of the claims of the leader of sheikhiyah has been the problem of this research and in this research, his points of view have been analyzed and it was revealed that his claims do not have a valid document and his perceptions of the verses and traditions are based on his own taste, and on the other hand, it is against the beliefs of Imami great scholars.

The issue of cosmos occurrence has always been one of the most essential philosophical topics. This topic was so many important for Proclus as well as the other philosophers. This paper has tried to make clear his special point of view about this topic by analyzing his fundamental ideas. The most important platonic cosmological concept is The Demieurgous, and this paper has analyzed Proclus' comment of Demieurgous and creation of material world.

Causality as an existential cause serves as a basis for Avicenna’s philosophy and is one of the vital principles of philosophical and rational problems. As a rationalist philosopher, Avicenna has proposed some new insights including the idea that causality is based on existence. Proposing the distinction between existence and essence, he has provided a new model for the God-world relationship. He believes that the relationship between the creator and the created can be explained by examining the causality relationship. Among different causes, he prioritizes the efficient cause (Agent) which makes things exist out of nothing. As to the God-world relationship explanation, he argues that God governs the world of beings as the cause of causes. As for its existence and non-existence, the Being as the effect and the possible (non-aseity) needs a preponderance (Murajjih) that is the cause of causes. Avicenna believes that God’s essential aseity entails God’s necessitated existence. Not only he defines the dependency of the caused on the cause as “the necessity by virtue of another” (Wujub Bilghair) or existential possibility in Sadra’s words, but he emphasizes the existential relationship between the caused and the cause. Then he opens a clearer horizon towards the primacy of being which had a great impact on Islamic philosophers as well as Western philosophers like Thomas Aquinas.

In Islamic philosophy, cause is divided into efficient cause (‘llat-e ījādī) that bestows existence, and occasional or preparatory cause (‘llat-e i‘dādī). Based on the definition and criteria of cause proposed by Muslim philosophers, preparatory cause is only metaphorically called a cause. In this article, with a philosophical method and with the aim of explaining the real position of the preparatory cause among the causes and rereading some philosophical issues concerning causality, it is proved that causality is a graded reality that enjoys a wide range of intense and weak levels. Causality is consistent and harmonious with existence in this sense; cause and effect are among the modes of existence, and existence is graded. High levels are efficient causes and weak grades are preparatory causes. Therefore, though possessing a weak and low level, the occasional cause is also a real cause. According to the criteria of a cause, “co-existence” (ma‘iyyat) and/or “being directly and originally created” (ibdā‘) are not conditions of being a cause, and considering these two as the criteria of causation is due to the part-to-whole fallacy. The method of this research is analytical-rational and its purpose is to explain the true position of the preparatory cause among the real causes.

In this paper, the concept of causality in Mulla Sadra’s philosophy is considered. Having explaining of some crucial ingredients of his philosophy, such as genuineness of being, gradation of being, kinds of being, contingency of poverty and motion, an amended definition is represented, which is based on the concept of gradation. In this vein, then, we construct a model of the gradation in Mulla Sadra’s philosophy that seems it is a good apparatus for scrutiny analyses in his philosophy. Eventually, by the natural, efficient cause and the motion concepts, a reading of adjuvant cause is put, which supply a unitary approach to causation in both the abstract and the material realms. In this approach, motion is in the extreme weakness in the hierarchy of being. This is in contrast to approaches that merely consider existence to be existing in the present, so the notion of existence is not limited to the present.

In the history of philosophy and philosophers’ thoughts, God has been discussed differently as the unmoved mover, thought of thought, cause of causes, and the first cause. One of the philosophers who greatly influenced the reformist movements of the church in the 16 and 17 centuries was Fancisco Suarez. His book of Metaphysical Disputations, which comprises 54 disputations on some topics such as general ontology and causes and particular ontology and types of cause, holds a supreme place in the history of philosophy. The present study aims to provide an answer to the questions of what place Suarez has allocated to the discussion of God, and which approach he follows in discussing Him. Another question here is whether one can conceptually reduce all the various names that he has chosen for God based on his own philosophy to a single concept. The findings of the study reveal that Suarez considered three places for God: God as the Efficient Cause, God as the Final Cause (in the first volume of Metaphysical Disputations), and God as Being (in the second volume of the same book). Given Suarez’s definition and explanation for each of these titles, all of them can be explained in terms of an ontological concept and meaning. He follows a philosophical approach to all three stations; however, he also adopts a theological approach to discussing God in the third one and connects the discussion of God to the text of the Holy Book.

The argument from design for the existence of God has been considered by almost all religions and religious preachers. This is because of the persuasive power of this kind of argument. In the 18th century, Hume and some modern philosophers severely criticized the argument and the emergence of evolutionary views reinforced these criticisms. Recently, there has been a new version of the argument which presupposes the validity of evolutionary view and gives a consistent account of theism and theory of evolution. There are instances of this new effort among Christian and Muslim philosophers. Using physics, mathematics, biology, and complex probabilistic calculations, Richard Swinburne formed an inductive argument which claims that theism is consistent with the evolutionary viewpoint. Among Muslims, Murtiza Mutahhari not only believes in this consistency, but also maintains that the evolutionary viewpoint is the best interpretation of God’s purposefulness in the world. These two thinkers are different in respect of the level and form of their discussions, though the content and the results of their arguments seem akin.

This article aims at giving a 'causal explanation' of empirical understanding of human agency in his deeds and behaviors. Causal explanation cannot be restricted to explaining other creature's deeds which are in accordance with certain rules. The author tries to show that each one of man's behavior belongs to specific longitudinal and latitudinal spheres each of which lies under a specific causal relationship. In the causal relationship existing in these spheres, man's behavior emerges as an integrated entity. The distinction between natural sciences and humanities are the difficulties one faces when one attempts to present a causal explanation of human behavior, social or individual, depicting it as an effect of multiple but gradual existential causes. The solution to this problem is not to reduce to sphere to another nor is the solution to neglect one sphere for the sake of another. The solution to this problem is to carry out investigation for longitudinal and latitudinal causes on the basis of human being's common nature.

One of the arguments made for proving the existence of Allah which was considered to be a valid argument before Mulla Sadra، was an argument which was based on the concept of the set of possibilities and their need of a cause beyond themselves. Avicenna had put forth this argument and Sheik Shahabeddin Suhrawardi considered it needless of the refutation of infinite regress. The fact that this argument was not in need of the refutation of infinite regress made it very significant، but Mulla Sadra considered this argument، without the refutation of infinite regress، a void argument and، even with the addition of the refutation of infinite regress، he did not consider it an independent argument. The present paper seeks to investigate this argument and answer the critiques leveled against it by Mulla Sadra and، ultimately، it considers this argument to be valid with an aggregate perspective taking it as a mirror of the contagion of command، though Mulla Sadra’s critiques of those، who consider an existence for the aggregate beyond the beings، seems to be valid.

The issue of efficient cause is one of the important discussions which can be studied in ancient Greek philosophy. The present paper first examines the issue in the pre-Socrates philosophy and then in the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle. A number of the Greek philosophers believe only in the natural cause، that is، the matter of matters، whereas others are convinced of the existence of the unnatural non-life-giving efficient cause. They think that being does not come from non-being، so the universe is eternal and cannot have a life-giver. So، ancient Greek philosophers'' belief in being coming from non-being is contrary to the foundation of their thinking. Given the external aspect of their works، they do not believe in the mode of creation forwarded by the Abrahamic religions. Their god is، therefore، different from God in divine faiths.

The causality principle is a existential relation between two existences that one of them needs to another.The Islamic philosophers had defined the cause in different form. In the view of peripatetics "cause" is divisible to four parts:Material cause, formal cause, efficient cause and final cause that the well-known philosophers accepted this division.The final cause on the one hand was named "end" and the other hand "final cause". And this word was meaned "effect", "purpose" and "profit". In the view of philosophy it is thing that the act was accomplished for it.But sometimesthe efficient cause is as matter of purpose and some times is as form of efficient. In fact final cause is complementary of efficient cause.So the final cause is according to Quiddity cause of efficient cause and according to existence is effect it. And every act is for purpose and every efficien is for end that the first meaning indicates Gods’ self-love to his substance and the scond is stating love of all created bings to him.

In this paper the views of Aristotle and Ibn Sina has been investigated. For Aristotle, existent has different meanings, but not by way of homonymy. Besides homonymy and univocity, Aristotle presents a third view which he calls it a relation “in regard to”. By contrast, Ibn Sina regards existent by homonymy; however he believes that the existents are in a gradational relation that have intensity and weakness and priority and non – priority. Discussion about the meaning of existence in ontological debates and especially in theory of causality in each of these two is worth considering. Aristotle does not regard existence as a distinct metaphisical element but for him existence immediately divides into categories, yet for Ibn Sina existence is a distinct reality from quiddity that is inherent in all existents as a philosophical element. In the same way, Aristotle considers the causality of God of the kind of theological causality, so that every existent in an independent direction is moving towards the first mover, where as Ibn Sina regards God as the efficient and generative cause who confers a common element, that is, existence to all existents. In this paper the views of Aristotle and Ibn Sina has been investigated.For Aristotle, existent has different meanings, but not by way ofhomonymy.Besides homonymy and univocity, Aristotle presents a third viewwhich he calls it a relation “in regard to”. By contrast, Ibn Sina regardsexistent by homonymy; however he believes that the existents are in agradational relation that have intensity and weakness and priority andnon – priority.Discussion about the meaning of existence in ontological debates andespecially in theory of causality in each of these two is worthconsidering. Aristotle does not regard existence as a distinct metaphisicalelement but for him existence immediately divides into categories, yet forIbn Sina existence is a distinct reality from quiddity that is inherent in allexistents as a philosophical element. In the same way, Aristotle considersthe causality of God of the kind of theological causality, so that everyexistent in an independent direction is moving towards the first mover,where as Ibn Sina regards God as the efficient and generative cause whoconfers a common element, that is, existence to all existents.

Among those people who regard the existence of whole world as deriving from accident and disregard the law of causality, some only attribute the emergence of individual beings to accident and maintain that in the genesis of material individual entities we can not disregard accident and defend the concept of causal necessity.
Aristotle besides believing in the law of causality throughout the universe, understands chance ad accident among causes.
But he does not believe in the conformity and affinity of chance and accident with necessity and considers accident and necessity as two opposite poles. Also Ibn Sina following the head of Peripatetics deals with the problem of chance and accident and thinks it does not contradict the law of causality. But in the framework of his specific cosmology and a different perception of existential causality explains them and does not consider them the real and positive causes of things and somewhat proceeds the discussion more successfully than Aristotle. But finally it is worth discussing which philosophical problem makes Aristotle and Ibn Sina to adopt such a position as regards chance and accident. This subject needs more investigation in the case of Ibn Sina. Because by accepting the best possible world, existence and sovereignty of causal necessity in the world and fore knowledge of Most High to creatures, there remains no place for such theories as chance and accident which has a more vulgar rather than a philosophical aspect and is deriving from man's ignorance with true causes.