نشریه پژوهش های عقلی نوین
پیاپی 8 (پاییز و زمستان 1398)

The existence of motion in nature is an evident matter but there is disagreement among thinkers on its direction and purpose. Some of those living prior to Socrates considered nature as accidental and denied any purpose for it. In contrast, some regard purposiveness as exclusive in creatures with intelligence and will-power. Nature lacks these two characteristics, so it is not directed and purposeful. Mulla Sadra does not view purpose as dependent upon intelligence and will-power. In his opinion, motion in all nature is directed and purposeful, because there is difference between ultimate cause and purpose. Whitehead considers the constituent of nature to be process and with his principles views nature in motion and flowing. He considers orderliness for nature and in this way discovers the existence of God. Thus, motion in nature is a directed and purposive. The two philosophers of East and West have been able to achieve empathy and rapport in terms of purposiveness and directiveness of motion.

Metempsychosis is one of the Common approaches to justify and explicate eternality and Perennial Life. Although different viewpoints have been brought up in its definition and elucidation, Avicenna introduces any belief in the incarnation of the soul in a body other than the original body as a metempsychosis belief.  From his point of view, although the believers in metempsychosis may have some disagreements concerning the cause, the manner, or the kind of body in which the soul after separation enters, all of them share the same opinion in decisive distinction of the soul and the body and primordial existence of the soul in relation to the body. By his interpretation of the essentially cogent connection between the soul and the body and the creation of the soul with the body, Avicenna deals with two types of critique of the opinions of those believing in metempsychosis. In the first critique, by accepting the premises of those believing in metempsychosis, he shows that the theory of metempsychosis is incompatible and unjustifiable even with his own preconceptions;  and in the second critique, he considers metempsychosis as an improbable notion according to the principles of Peripatetic philosophy. With a descriptive method, the present research with reliance on Avicenna's works, especially “Al-Risāla al-Aḍḥawiya”, tries to explain his specific viewpoint concerning metempsychosis on the one hand and coherently express his critiques of this viewpoint, on the other.

In the beginning of his fourth book (Gama), Aristotle introduces metaphysics as an “existent qua existent” science and has called it “primary philosophy”, whereas, sometimes he has named it as “wisdom” and “theology”. Also, besides various names, he has set forth various and numerous subject for this science. Therefore, since long ago the commentators and interpreters of Aristotle have had trouble determining the subject of metaphysics and each has taken a separate path. With Avicenna entering the Middle Ages discourse, many developments have taken place on the subject of metaphysics. He knows metaphysics as existent qua existent, but he considers the existent generally, in such a way that it includes both God and the sensible beings and this is regarded as a development in metaphysics. Suaréz is a Middle Ages philosophers who has enjoyed the presence of Avicenna but has separated himself from Avicenna and others who came after him by a subject that he presents for metaphysics. His interpretation is an Aristotelian-Avicennan one that involuntarily leads to establishing the Modern metaphysics, which is different from the Aristotelian-Avicennan metaphysics system. This article is mainly intended to deal with metaphysics as compared between Avicenna and Suaréz and attempt is made to explicate and analyze the similarities and differences in the two Islamic and Christian traditions concerning metaphysics.

The relation between virtue, intuitive knowledge, and goodness is one of the basic pivots of philosophy of ethics. The kind of outlook on this relation would naturally lead to some outcomes concerning scientism or pragmatism or adopting a third viewpoint. In this field, Plato – the great Greek philosopher – and Mullah Sadra – the great thinker of Islamic philosophy – both have an exclusive outlook about virtue, which confirms a close relation between ethics, epistemology, and ontology. While studying the philosophical principles of Plato (including the idea theory) and Mulla Sadra (including the analogical gradation of existence as well as a specific perspective on soul and its ontogenetic motion) and with the use of an analytical-descriptive method, this research is intended to express the similarities and correspondence of their opinions and explore and analyze the differences existing in this respect. By expounding the notion of virtue and structural analytical of opinions as well as noticing the different philosophical principles of the two thinkers, one can find out the existential identity of intuitive knowledge, virtue, and goodness. The unity of the above three categories would be with an emphasis on the centrality of intuitive knowledge and its conceptual command on virtue and goodness; in such a way that the actualization of intuitive knowledge means attaining virtue and appearance of goodness.

The main point of this article is Mulla Sadra’s view about women.
Although interpretation of the nature of woman and explaining the mystery of her differences from men has not been an independent problem for Mulla Sadra, the answer to this question can be implied from his ontological and humanistic principles. From Mulla Sadra’s philosophical point of view, humanness, in the famous Peripatetic interpretation, is not the entire reality of human beings and what distinguishes between man and other creatures is not speech in the meaning of “intellection”, rather, it is speech in the meaning of “sacred rational soul”. The entire reality of human beings is determined in light of the intensifying substantial motion of this rational soul toward the highest ranks of existent, in such a way that each one of men and women would turn into a continuous unit that has the capacity for movement from the lowest ranks of being to borders of infinity. The criterion for superiority in this movement is enjoyment of the ranks of knowledge and action. Accordingly, the sexual and gender differences are not in themselves a factor of superiority of either man or woman over another; rather, it is the enjoyment of different ranks of existence in light of actualization of knowledge and action that indicates each human being’s level of felicity and perfection. In the ending part of the article a challenging phrase of Mulla Sadra about women and the justifications brought up for it would also be surveyed.

Ayatollah Shahabadi has made great effort in emphasizing on the role of inner disposition (fiṭra) in knowledge of God. One of the significant manifestations of this effort is his proof of fiṭra in love for perfection. One of the most important problems raised concerning the above-mentioned proof is the problem of the subjectivity of the conclusion of the proof, which Imam Khomeini has taken into consideration in his lecture notes on the master’s proof and has tried to remove this problem. We will show in this article how one can respond to this problem with the help of new modal logic and prove the scholarly efforts of the two contemporary philosophers. This important task will be carried out on the basis of S5 system of new modal logic.

Belief in religion plays a meaningful role in human life. Thus, many thinkers have undertaken to study the origin of religion, in a way that a group of scientists believe that this significant element of life has a Divine and supernatural origin and others view it as humanistic and originated from human illusions. Mulla Sadra represents the former group and Freud is a proponent of the latter viewpoint. With an exploration into religion and Divine commands and by relying on Mulla Sadra’s opinion, the present article clarifies that apart from the fundamental differences of the views of Sadra and Freud, the central core of the differences of Sadra’s ontological viewpoint and Freudian psychology concerning religion lies in answering to the question as to “whether or not religion has a determinate essence independent from human mind?” From Sadra’s ontological viewpoint the answer to this question is positive and from Freudian humanistic psychology it is negative. This writing presents a philosophical analysis of the origin of religion and its commands and admonishments through explaining Divine knowledge and explicating the conformity of religion and the “best possible order” (niẓām al-aḥsan) to Divine knowledge with reliance on Mulla Sadra’s opinion and proves that religion has a determinate essence independent from human illusions, and then, on the same basis, it criticizes Freud’s viewing religion and its obligations as illusionistic.