جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « good » در نشریات گروه « ادیان و عرفان »

Dimensions of the centrality of justice in the Islamic confrontation with the problem of evilIn facing the problem of evil, various theoretical and practical approaches have been adopted by different individuals and groups outside the field of Islamic thinkers. Many of these approaches have gaps or defects in terms of justice as the center of gravity of the universe order to justify evil and repel or eliminate some of them. The basic problem of this article is that "by rereading the legacy of Islamic thinkers, what doctrine can be found in facing the evil problem that will be the axis of unity and comprehensiveness of their views?"; Also, "What dimensions and levels does the mentioned common axis include and what points does it cause from competing viewpoints" are other issues that are pursued in this article. The result of the author's research is the introduction of justice as the focus of the responses of Islamic thinkers and the explanation of its different levels in the total realm of Islamic theology and philosophy. From a theoretical point of view, the just system of creation, legislation and punishment issued by the Most High is derived from his just scientific image and is in accordance with it, and in distinguishing between true good and evil, human insight is also important. In the practical confrontation with evil and establishing a just social order, human moral and behavioral justice is a factor that plays a central role.

One of the most fundamental topics of mystical and theological schools is the matter of "good and evil" and its attribution to the origin of creation; being issued from one source or two sources. Being influenced by the culture and beliefs of various nations, especially the influence of the Orient, the Gnostic school, which emerged at the beginning of Christianity, has special views about the origin of good and evil and their authenticity and relationship with God. This essay tries to provide a descriptive-analytical explanation of these views to answer this fundamental question: what are the examples of good and evil in the Gnostic thought and how is their relationship with the realm of divinity? The special sign of the Qumran community in the Old Testament is the dualistic tendency, which was not extended to the realm of divinity in the initial stages of its division or assignment by Simon Magh, the father of the Gnostic religion, in the early stages; but in the second century AD, the Gnostic Marcion who raised questions about the nature of good and evil and their relation to God, established polytheism. He accepted the principle of "duality", just like his like-minded Gnostics, such as Kerdo and Lukyan, in imitation of ancient Iranian mysticism, and later with the appearance of Mani, this principle became one of the Gnostic teachings and became global. However the orthodox Christians believed that the Gnostics have doubted the unity of God in the religion of Jews and Christ by proposing the God of evil and the supreme God; and this was not acceptable to them at all. What led, in fact, to the belief of dualism and the separation of the God of good and evil by the Gnostic leaders of the second century, was the inability of the Gnostics to recognize the relativity of evil and its familiarity among all beings other than God and the introduction of the character of "Sophia" as the divine female face by Simon in the following centuries.

The good and the evil are among the matters that have always been considered by the Shari’ah and its position and key role is not hidden from any thinker in order to fulfill the divine commands and decrees. There is a traditional view on the issue of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil and mentioning various examples and examining its effects and social consequences. But the thing that has been ignored is the Ta'wīl,  of good and evil and in other words, it is the example of Atamm and Akmal or the great Ta'wīl,  of these two phenomena. For this purpose, this article will seek to examine the good and the evil from the perspective of Ta'wīl,. The author believes that the realization of the good - with its definition and Ta'wīl,  - will be the basis for the emergence of all examples of good deed, and on the contrary, the denial of such a good deed will lead to the denial of other good deeds, and the command to all the evils. For this purpose, we will first have a short discussion about Ta'wīl, and penetration in science, and then we will examine all types of Ta'wīl,  due to the narration of Nu’mānī  and quoting Amir al-Mu’minin (AS) and then we will consider a part of the types of this Ta'wīl, l that is related to the subject under discussion.

The existence of evil has been a problem for worshipers for centuries. It seems difficult to believe that the world, with its large number of evil creatures and under the absolute control of the supreme good, the omnipotent, the omniscient. The importance of the worldview regarding evil is such that it is seen as one of the most important and prominent themes, not only in theological, philosophical and theological texts, but also in literary texts. In this article, after brief references to the answers given to the problem of evil, the authors deal with the examples of the problem of evil in Sanae'i Hadiqat Al- Haqiqa by descriptive-analytical method. Hakim Sanaei is a follower of Ash'ari-Maturidi in terms of doctrinal and theological principles and has thought about it in this field of thought. The conclusion obtained from this research indicates that Sanaei agrees with the divine sages on the issue of evil and rejects evil in general. According to his system of thought, the divine will is pure good, and this principle is one of the most basic foundations of his worldview, and he has spoken about it in different interpretations.

The problem of evil and its solution is one of the issues which has been the special concern of man for a long time. The book “Shikand-gumanig Vizar” written by Mardan-Farrukh is one of the very rare books of Zoroastrian theology and the author believes that his chosen religion offers a logical solution to the problem of evil, and thus violating monotheism. The present article expounds the correlation referred to by Mardan-Farrukh and explores the principle of justice, which is one of the most important foundations and concerns of the Muʿtazila school. Moreover, raising the objection against Mardan-Farrukh and analyzing the components of monotheism, this article rejects the idea of the mentioned correlation, stating that according to the Muʿtazila’s solution to the problem of evil, it is in principle, absurd to attribute evil to God and the sad and tragic which have divine wisdom and common good are to the benefit of the servants of God and a real blessing for them. Mardan-Farrukh raises the question of God's justice in the discussion about man’s evil deeds and their not being attributed to God according to Muʿtazili interpretation. The Muʿtazila’s solution is given approval by this article, which, rejects Muʿtazila’s solution by providing a new solution and an appropriate answer.

Among Ashari thinkers, Fakhr-e-Razi sometimes as a philosopher, considers evil to be non-existential, and in other occasions claims it is existential, just like a theologist. He tirelessly tries to show that human beings have no free will and there is nothing in the world but determinism.His particular view on unity of divine acts, leads to declining some of the most important philosophical principles, like causality, system of the causes and effecteds, cause-effect necessity, Al-Wahid rule, etc.As a consequence of these beliefs, free will is denied, and the only way to explain why this constrained human being commits evil acts, is to attribute these actions to God, so avoiding fatal questions. But he neither succeeds in solving the problem of evil, nor delivers a correct interpretation of the unity of divine acts. He doesn’t consider human beings responsible for their actions, and can not explain the relationship between human beings and evil. He also believes that a person’s destiny from birth to death is pre-determined and therefor unchangeable

“Good and Evil”, and their relation to the origin of being, as well as their being issued from the single principle, or dual and multiple principles, are the most critical topics in the teachings of mystical schools. Sufism and Kabbalah also have particular views about Good and Evil, their relationship with each other, the source of their authenticity, or their relativity in the world. This paper attempts to explain these views using a comparative study. Sufism and Kabbalah consider God as an absolute Good, but at the same time, they can not deny the existence of evil in this world. Meanwhile, Sufism has solved the paradox of attributing evil to absolute Goodness by grabbing the concept of relativity. But most of the Kabbalists ignored this contradiction and attributed the evil directly to God. The great figures in Sufism consider the good as innate and the evil as accidental. But some Kabbalists regard certain evil as intrinsic, and others, like Sufis, regard evil as accidental.

One of the most important issues in metaethics is the meaning of "Good". There are different cognitive and non-cognitive theories regarding this issue. Nowell-Smith, the contemporary British philosopher, believes that the meaning of Good is not anything other than its uses in different contexts. "Good" is a genus and multi-functional word. We have to notice the different contexts of using "Good" to know its meanings. He divides the uses of "good" into two sections: 1) two main uses of "good" for choice and advice and 2) six other uses of it for praising and applauding, commanding, verdicts and appraisals, efficiency, skill and description. Dividing the words into (A), (G) and (D) words, Nowell-Smith believes that "Good" can be used as an emotional word for expressing interest and as an ought word for expressing an action being apt to do or choice. He criticizes other ethical theories because of reducing the functions of "good" to a single case. He believes that "good" has two functions at least in one of its uses. For example, the sentence of "Justice is good" could be used to advise justice to others or command it to them or praise it or encourage people to do that or other things.

The main purpose of this paper is to examine Moore's view regarding the indefinability of good: is good undefinable? On his view, the concept of good is not derivable of any other concept. Therefore "good" is irreducible to other concepts. According to him, goodness is simple and undefinable. What is meant by definition? Among different definitions, Moore focuses on the most important sense thereof. In addition, Moore considers the "good," as a non- natural quality. He thinks that any effort to identify the good with other natural qualities is a fallacy. It is a naturalistic fallacy as he calls it. He supports his idea by the open question argument. In this paper we will argue that Moore's argument shows at most that the meaning of good and pleasure, for example, are not the same. They are conceptually different but it does not preclude the supposition that they both refer to one and same property.

The attitude towards and belief in purposefulness and the journey towards final end are among the main principles of all divine religions. Like the Islam, the religion founded 7 centuries before christianity by Zoroaster ca is considered, a monotheistic religion. However, the passage of time and lack of due care to holy Zoroastrian texts against human manipulations have led to the inherent separation and differentiation between these two religions. Reanalyzing the basis and prerequisites of the origin and the resurrection in Zoroastrian faith and bringing out the various similarities between Islam and this religion, the present paper tries to prove the monotheistic nature of the origin of Zoroastrian faith and support the idea that the true Zoroastrian teachings concerning the world after death and its quality can conform with Quranic teachings.

With pay attention to the point that Islamic philosophers and theologians introduce the Necessary Being pure good and they believe decisively to be good world of being, the question is mooted that why God has scared his servants from punishment and why punishes sinners in the last world? Is the scare and punishment agreeable with to be good world of being and to be benevolent God?
For the reason that above questions are general disturbance, this writing proceeds to explaining different solutions that Islamic philosophers and theologians have presented and finally with criticize of theologian solutions, concludes that solution of philosophers for the problem is correct.

A deep gap between semantic and ontological features of value-categories has been encouraged by some moral theories, in particular, the ones proposing a monotheistic account of moral values. However, it seems that any successful ontological account of values should be based on our conceptual and semantic intuitions. In this paper, I will propose a semantics for good and bad, on the basis of which I will show that we find some praiseworthiness and admirability in valuable and moral things and this is what has been ignored in a theory like that of necessity in comparison to something else which is proposed as a theory of value and a famous version of which is a monotheistic one. Such a theory would suffer an unwanted consequence: our primary conceptions of the valuability of the moral would not be reliable and our epistemic access to values would be difficult, and for such difficulty, the epistemic and thus the moral deviations and disputes would be more likely.