نشریه نسیم خرد
سال چهارم شماره 1 (پیاپی 6، بهار و تابستان 1397)

The present study aims at gaining a general image of God’s relationship with the universe. According to Avicenna, as compared with what we find in the Shiite hadiths, we have come up with an explanation of this relationship. Indeed, if we consider many of the discussions of Islamic philosophy in relation to other discussions, we would come up with an explanation of the subject of this study.
Altogether, we investigated Avicenna’s view as well as related hadiths and compared the rational worldview with the worldview taken from hadiths to conclude that some of the axes of Avicenna’s rational worldview are not in line with what we find in hadiths. This, however, has been resolved to some extent in the views presented by later philosophers, and we see some sort of convergence between the worldview taken from the intellect and the worldview taken from the hadiths in later philosophers.

After Mulla Sadra dealt especially with the issue of ‘principality of existence and relativity of quiddity’, later expositors attempted to present a right interpretation of this principle. Accordingly, four theories and interpretations were offered, but the selected interpretation, i.e. ‘objectivity of existence and quiddity’ is more precise and more certain than others. According to this interpretation, the reality of ‘thing itself’, for those propositions made of quiddities, is just right with essential possibility. Besides, correspondence of the mental existence with the external existence, definition of quiddity in particular sense as ‘what is said in answer to what is it’, definition of substance and accident as well as the type and division of quiddity into essential and accidental are just well and perfectly meaningful on the basis of this interpretation.

Discussion of the origination or pre-eternity of the human soul is one of the oldest and the most challenging discussions among the thinkers. The thinkers, with their various intellectual foundations and research methods, have different views in this regard. Many of the Islamic theologians believe in the temporal pre-eternity of the soul, except a small group including Khaja Nasir who believes in its origination. Among the philosophers, Plato – on the basis of his Ideas – believes in the pre-eternity of the soul. On the contrary, his pupil Aristotle, Avicenna, and Sheikh of Illumination reject the view of pre-eternity of the soul with their arguments, believe in its origination. Similarly, Mulla Sadra of Shiraz believes in its origination. He, however, uses the foundations of transcendental philosophy such as substantial motion to state his belief in corporeal origination of the soul and its spiritual survival – unlike Avicenna who believes in the spiritual origination of the soul. The mystics who have an important share in Mulla Sadra’s intellectual foundations seems to believe in the corporeal origination of the soul along with a belief in its integrative existence with its higher beings.

The [logical] argument is an analogy consisted of certainties and results in a certain conclusion. The argument is divided into two types of a priori argument and a posteriori argument. The former is divided into absolute a priori and non-absolute a priori. The latter is also divided into reason, absolute a posteriori and general concomitances. Logicians and philosophers maintain that among all types of argument, only a priori argument and a posteriori concomitances result in certainty.
Considering his special foundation in discussion on essential accident, Allama Tabatabai believes that in philosophy, one cannot make use of a priori arguments, and only arguments of a posteriori concomitances are applicable in philosophy. In the present article, we have explained various types of argument, then, mentioned Allama’s statement of the function of argument in philosophy, and finally, we have investigated and criticized the introductions of Allama’s statement regarding the function of a posteriori concomitance.

‘Unity of existence’ is a phrase in the possessive case, wherein the first noun (unity) is the same as the second noun (existence), not something added to it. And since the existence is a personal and unique one (essentially necessity existence), the unity is the same as the essence. One may prove in two ways that Ibn Arabi believes in unity of existence: first, Ibn Arabi’s explicit statements and analogies; and second, his opponents’ explicit statements. Among the necessities and subsidiary ideas of ‘unity of existence’ is that just one being has filled the whole existence and is the essential instance of existence. Therefore, the creatures are not the essential instances of existence. Besides, God is distinct from the creatures in embracing mode. Similarly, the unity of the God’s essence with creatures or His incarnation in creatures is negated, because incarnation and unity is possible where there are two beings. This is while, according to the mystical foundation, there is just one ‘being’ in the whole existence and the others are its states. Of course, this does not mean the negation of pluralities; rather, all pluralities take their reality, in a qualification not causation relation, from the very existence of God, and are realized through the existence of God. Besides, one must pay attention to the fact that since God’s essence cannot establish an existence relationship with things, it must be reduced to first determination and second determination so that the things may be created: the names and attributes in the position of essence are merged like names and attributes in first determination. However, there is no possibility of creation in the position of essence; but in first determination – although there is no creation – there is the possibility of creation. This possibility of creation in first determination prepares the ground for scientific detailed plurality in second determination. And these scientific pluralities of the names and attributes become the source of pluralities in creation in second determination.

One of the problems of humanity is the harmful mental stresses that bring about many mental and physical illnesses in human beings. In Albert Ellis’ view, intellectual factors such as wrong beliefs and having many worldly expectations of oneself, people, and social and natural conditions create mental stresses. One of the ways to cure these stresses is having faith in divine mercy. Divine mercy means God is the only provider of blessings in the universe. Of course, fixed and everlasting mental and welfare blessings go just to those who have faith in God and the life after death, and act according to divine orders and instructions. The research method in this study is documentary-analytical, conducted using the reliable exegetical and psychological sources to explain how faith in divine mercy affects treatment of the intellectual factors of harmful mental stresses.