فصلنامه آیین حکمت
پیاپی 46 (زمستان 1399)

One of the rules of causality is the sinkhiyyat between cause and effect, and there must be a characteristic in the cause in order for a particular object to be its effect. Those who believe in sinkhiyyat consider it to be current between any cause and effect; Therefore, they believe in harmony between God Almighty, who is the first cause, and the creature, who are God`s effects. On the contrary, the people of tafkik believe in baynunat, being of different sort, between God Almighty and the creature and criticize the arguments of sinkhiyyat. In this article, while expressing the meaning of sinkhiyyat, some of the most important rational proofs of sinkhiyyat between God and creation, including the connection between the negation of sinkhiyat and the possibility for everything to be created by anything, the proof of lacking may not be giving and predicating the same word to God Almighty and the creature with the same meaning have been proposed and the objections of Master Seyyed Ja`far Seyyedan on these proofs have been analyzed and critically studied. In the end, it is concluded that sinkhiyyat between God and creation is rationally inevitable

Introducing the theory of "originality of existence in realization" from mysticism to philosophy in the eleventh century, Sadr al-Muta'allihin caused a great change in philosophy. He took this theory as being of two cases of usage: first, the unconditional truth of "existence" which also had a background in mysticism; Second, special contingent beings that had not background in mysticism. Therefore, according to his generalization, special possible beings also became original and existent in essence, and this required the acceptance of their inherent necessity, which was not acceptable and reasonable. Sadr al-Muta'allihin himself was aware of this objections and offered two answers to solve them: one based on the difference between the meaning of bidhdhat, by essence, in the two expressions of wajib alwujub bidhdhat, essentially necessary existence, and mawjud bidhdhat, essentially existing" and the other based on the difference between zarurat dhati, intrinsic necessity, and zarurat azali, eternal necessity; But neither of the two answers removed the problem, and this has created anxiety in the views of Sadr al-Muta'allehin; Therefore, in some of his works, he has retreated from his generalization

One of the harms of religious thought in Islamic society is the design of the humanities based on Western philosophical principles. The way to deal with this damage is to raise the fundamental issues of Islamic thought and compare it with contemporary and influential ideas in Western societies on new issues that have been considered in the field of epistemology. To this end, the present study, while introducing the epistemological foundations of Sadra's wisdom and critical realism, tries to evaluate critical realism in explaining reality based on the findings of Sadra's wisdom and seeks to answer this question. Is it possible for critical realism to have a correct explanation of reality based on its epistemological foundations? Therefore, this study, being library-based and using a descriptive-analytical research method, finally concludes that critical realism, after distinguishing between the necessary object of knowledge (what exists) and the transitive object of knowledge (what we can know), with the reduction of the field of science to its transcendental object, as well as with the reduction of the internal content of knowledge to its social dimensions, has suffered from cognitive difficulties and has still failed to explain reality. Whereas Mulla Sadra in his transcendent wisdom, unlike critical realism, does not return the designations of knowledge entirely to its social dimensions, but also discusses the designations and existential dimensions of science. And he considers the truths of the world to be rational matters, that what is perceived outside the senses is the descent of those truths perceived by the intellect.

Man, as a being having the power of reason, has always sought to discover the truth of existence. One of the main questions in the field lies in finding the origin of the universe and how it came into being. In the meantime, the divine religions and the prophets, following the answer to this question, explained the principles of monotheism. Acceptance of Necessary Being is counted as a common principle of all divine religions and divine philosophers; But some thinkers always consider the Necessary Being to be contradictory; In their opinion, the existence of God cannot be proven. One of these atheist thinkers is Jean-Paul Sartre, who in his most important philosophical work as Existence and Non-Existence, mentions two main reasons for rejecting the Necessary. These two reasons, which are in fact critiques of Descartes and Leibniz's views on the Necessary, are one that seeks to prove the contradiction of the Necessary Being and the other rejects the logical necessity of That. He also sees the existence of God as a mowjud ligheyrih an obstacle to the realization of human freedom. Sartre restores freedom to human beings and frees human beings from any restraint, and for this reason, in his view, anything that prevents the realization of this inherent freedom cannot exist, and human beings, intending to escape from this freedom and responsibility, has made the concept of God. By explaining these reasons, this research intends to critique them with the principles of transcendent divine wisdom in which the Necessary Being has a fundamental role.

Ibn Sina, one of the followers of the causal view in explaining the relationship between action and thought, believes that all voluntary human behaviors are realized after the stages of imagination, acknowledgment of usefulness, strong desire and will. He considers mental idea including that of sensation, imagination or intellect, necessary for the realization of behavior. In contrast, the late Wittgenstein, using the concept of language game and the world-image, denies the role of belief in behavior. By citing examples of breech, he shows that human behavior is instinctive and lacks a cognitive component. He even considers belief to be a function of human action. An analysis of Wittgenstein's examples of breech shows that he did not distinguish the element of cognition claimed by philosophers from conscious conception and concluded from a lack of actual attention that there was a lack of cognitive component; He also did not pay attention to the differences in the levels of awareness and considered the negation of certain levels of it as the absolute negation of ideas in practice. Some of Wittgenstein's examples are inconsistent with his principles in language games

Thinking about the desired order in human society has been one of the first concerns of philosophers. In ancient Greece and the Islamic world, the first philosophers were the first designers of the utopia. Doubt about the possibility of realizing the utopia is the most important challenge of utopia. Today, some Western philosophers and scholars have tried to provide a realistic interpretation of the utopia; Until the end of the nineteenth century, however, it was viewed from an imaginary perspective. Because some interpretations of utopia in Islamic civil wisdom have serious shortcomings, it is necessary to categorize the interpretations and select the correct interpretation of utopia in Islamic civil wisdom. In this article, which has been written in an interpretive way, the interpretations of Armanshahr in Islamic civil wisdom are organized into three categories: imaginary, allegorical and real. Based on the obvious evidence, the imaginary and allegorical interpretation of the utopia in Islamic civil wisdom is incorrect, and the utopia of Muslim scholars has a realist stance. The nature of civil wisdom, rooted in real affairs and having the ideal and compatibility of the civil system with the cosmic and natural system, is one of the most important foundations of the realism of the utopia in Islamic civil wisdom