معرفت فلسفی

A Reflection on the Evidences for Personal Unity of Existence

@ Muhammad Ali Mohiti Ardakan /PhD Student of Philosophy/ Imam Khomeini Educational and Research Institute                                                                                                                           mohiti@qabas.net

Muhammad Fanaie Eshkevari / Associate Professor/ Imam Khomeini Educational and Research Institute eshkevari@qabas.net

Received: 2014/10/17                            Accepted: 2015/05/09

ABSTRACT

The discussion on 'unity of existence' (with innumerable interpretations provided for it) is among the most complicated discussions in mysticism and philosophy. It is based on the mystic's intuition and has its roots in centuries before the advent of Islam. The present article is seeking to investigate the arguments for personal unity of existence, using the descriptive-analytical method and with a critical approach. It first explains the claim of personal unity and its distinction from gradational unity of existence in philosophy, and then investigates the most important arguments for unity of existence; and at the end, it mentions some principles for better understanding of the mystics' claim about personal unity of existence. The arguments for personal unity can be classified in four groups: intuition, consecutive report of this intuition, Quranic verses and traditions, and rational arguments. It seems that intuition may be introduced as the best evidence for the claim of personal unity, of course if its content is precisely the same as what the personal unity claims. The independence of practical mysticism from precise understanding of this issue in theoretical mysticism, the necessity of accepting plurality, the distinction between God and the creatures, and negation of incarnation and union are among the principles that must be specially considered in the discussion of personal unity of existence.

KEYWORDS: unity of existence, mysticism, philosophy, plurality, argument.          

The Cause - Effect Necessity in Ayatullah Fayyazi's View

@ Sayyid MuhammadJavad MirJa'fari Miandehi / PhD Student of Philosophy/ Imam Khomeini Educational and Research Institute                                                                                                                         jmj1ir@yahoo.com

YarAli Kurd Firuz-jaie / Associate Professor of Philosophy/ Baqer al-Ulum University

Received: 2014/12/02                            Accepted: 2015/06/19                Firouzjaei@bou.ac.ir

ABSTRACT

The cause and effect necessity is one of the important branches of the causality principle. Generally speaking, it means the necessary existence of the effect when its ultimate cause exists (necessity by comparison), and because of it (necessity by the other). This necessity, also called philosophical determinism, is quite endorsed and established by philosophers. Some theologians, especially the Ash'arite, however, completely reject it. Usūlīyīn (scholars of the principles of jurisprudence) accept this necessity just in non-free causes. Ayatullah Fayyazi rejects the anterior necessity by the other (according to its famous interpretation) in all causes, whether free or non-free; however, he maintains that this type of necessity is true in both cases with another interpretation. Necessity by comparison, in his view, is just acceptable in non-free causes. Ayatullah Fayyzi's view in negating some forms of necessity, though consistent with the views of theologians and scholars of the principles of jurisprudence, is basically different from them. Here, we have dealt with these distinctions in detail.

KEYWORDS: cause, effect, necessity, free-will, Ayatullah Fayyazi.

The Relationship between Satan and the Faculty of Imagination in Transcendental Philosophy

@ Muhammad Kazem Furqani / Professor Department of Philosophy and Theology/ Imam Sadiq University      forghani@isu.ac.ir

Javad Rezaei / MA of Islamic Philosophy and Theology/ Imam Sadiq University

Received: 2015/01/11                Accepted: 2015/05/22                      Rezaijavad84@gmail.com

ABSTRACT

There are many similarities between the faculty of imagination and Satan. Indeed, one may consider the imagination as the Satan of the minor world (i.e. human being), and consider Satan as the imagination of the major world (i.e. the universe). Thus, knowing each of these two (imagination and Satan) helps us knowing the other. This is just what Mullā Sadrā has done in his works. The role of imagination in Satan's existence is a basic role and Mullā Sadrā, in his works, maintains that imaginative perception is the highest point of Satan's perceptions and the ultimate level of knowledge he can acquire, and that he is unable to reach purely rational understanding. Thus, Satan is in the zenith of compound ignorance. On the other hand, the only way through which Satan can penetrate man's soul is the faculty of imagination, and he has no other way to mislead man. Accordingly, from this and other aspects, Satan and the faculty of imagination are closely related to one another. The more one of them is known, the more the other would be known as well.

This article is seeking to better identify and delineate Satan and imagination by comparing them and explaining their relationship; this would result in motivating one to seek knowledge, preventing Satan's penetration, and moving towards human perfection.

KEYWORDS: wāhima (faculty of imagination), reason, Satan, Desire, Wrath, Mullā Sadrā.

An Ontological Analysis of Expediency in al-Mīzān

@ Mahdi Burhan Mehrizi / PhD Student of Comparative Philosophy/ Imam Khomeini Educational and Research Institute                                                                                                                           marifat@qabas.net

Mujtaba Mesbah / Assistant Professor in Department of Philosophy/ Imam Khomeini Educational and Research Institute             m-mesbah@qabas.net

Received: 2014/09/11                            Accepted: 2015/04/27

ABSTRACT

Based on Allamah Tabatabaei's view, 'expediency' has a real existence. However, having a real existence does not mean having an external reality. Rather, 'expediency' is one of philosophical concepts with a real origin of abstraction. Various explanations have been put forward for the reality of expediency. Among them is the idea that expediency is an existential and continuous entity and a requisite of the nature of things; it is the foundation of conventional concepts, and the same as divine precept and action. It is the sign of the wisely done actions, and a criterion for inherent goodness. Careful examination of Allama Tabatabaie's works, suggests four modes of existence for expediency: real objective existence, an existence beyond objectivity and subjectivity, subjective existence, and conventional existence. Based on Allamah Tabatabaie's view, expediency has weak and strong existential grades. Here, we have explained gradation in expediency based on instances of expediency that are: the reality of things, goal, action, and society. We have, then, found the context for the realization of expediency in the two worlds of ‘creation’  and 'legislation'.

KEYWORDS: expediency, ontology, real existence, gradation, al-Mizan, Allamah Tabatabaie.

Mutual Circle

@ Hamid Reza Muqimi Ardakani / PhD Student of Islamic Theology/ Imam Khomeini Educational and Research Institute                                                                                                                     hmoqimi@gmail.com

Mahmud Fath-Ali / Associate Professor in Department of Theology/ Imam Khomeini Educational and Research Institute             marifat@qabas.net

Received: 2014/12/20                            Accepted: 2015/07/10

ABSTRACT

Whenever it comes to the impossibility of vicious circle, the examples such as two bricks relied on one another are put forward; examples that seem circular, and at the same time, not only possible, but occured. These examples are generally called 'mutual circle'. If such examples are instances of vicious circle and at the same time realizable, is vicious circle not possible? If so, many discussions in philosophy and theology which are based on the impossibility of vicious circle, would all be nullified. The authors have investigated three definitions for vicious circle (need, dependency, and causality) and distinguished them from one another. They conclude that  the first two definitions (need and dependency) are flawed, and 'causality' is the correct definition for vicious circle as an impossible phenomenon.

KEYWORDS: vicious circle, mutual circle, dependency, causality, correlatives.