نشریه خردنامه صدرا
پیاپی 46 (زمستان 1385)

According to Mulla Sadra, the purpose of wisdom is essentially the perfection of the soul or entelechy. Of course, the aim of the perfection of both faculties of the soul, including the faculty of the theoretical and the faculty of the practical intellect, is to attain happiness. This idea does not merely belong to Mulla Sadra. Other Muslim philosophers, following Greek philosophers, also believed in it. The important point here, which is also the source of the differences between their ideas, is the relation between theoretical wisdom and practical wisdom. The discrepancies here arise from whether it is theory which is prior to practice or vice versa, whether thought is prior to will or vise versa, and whether there is essentially any priority and posteriority at work.Aristotle introduces God as “the thought of thought”. From among Islamic philosophers who presented their theories within this framework and, as a result, viewed act and will as secondary and dependant issues, we can refer to Abu Nasr Farabi and, after him, Ibn Sina.In theoretical and practical dimensions, Mulla Sadra has a comprehensive view of being and mankind. Farabi and Ibn Sina believed that God was agent-by-foreknowledge and, thus, His Knowledge of the superior system of existence was enough for it to be realized. Suhrawardi was of the view that the activity of Almighty Truth was by-agreement, and His Knowledge of His Acts was enough for their realization. However, Mulla Sadra agrees with none of them. In his view, neither is knowledge primary and essential, nor are will and act secondary and dependent. Based on this view, Mulla Sadra discusses the relationship between theoretical and practical types of wisdom and presents some theories that are completely different from those of his preceding philosophers regarding practical wisdom, political philosophy, and the attributes of the first leader of Medina (city).The purpose of this paper is to clarify Mulla Sadra’s theory concerning the relationship between theory and act and introduce its philosophical consequences in the field of his political thought in comparison to the present status.

Following Aristotle, Islamic logicians and scientists believe that the subject of science is one of its pillars and maintain that each science has a subject matter and discusses its essential accidents. However, when clarifying the necessity of the existence of subject and determining the nature of its essential accidents and their relationship with the subject, they face great problems. These problems, which are basically rooted in ambiguity and common nomination in the meaning of essential accidents, have resulted in the rise of great disagreements among scholars when trying to bring them in conformity with scientific issues. In this paper, the writer has tried to study and analyze of the essence of the problem and the ideas of various scientists in this regard following a critical approach.

Undoubtedly, Islamic philosophy discusses the essential aspects of being within its own historical framework and considers the predicates of its problems as essential accidents of existence. Some of the issues propounded in philosophy are peripheral, and some others are primary and fundamental. One of the primary but influential issues is the univocality of existence. Commitment to either of them might have some constructive or destructive consequences.According to Mulla Sadra, the univocality of existence is a prerequisite for entering the field of metaphysics and theology in conceptual and judgmental terms. Moreover, negating it requires denying the knowledge of Almighty Necessary to the intellect and the existence of that First Cause to the world in absolute terms. Some of the basic arguments on the oneness of Almighty Necessary (such as the argument of superimposition) and the mode of the application of the ontological attributes and concepts abstracted from possible existents on His Existence are also based on the univocality of existence. The present paper deals with the concomitants of the theory of the univocality of existence in the domain of theology in its particular sense.

The theory of the individual oneness of being represents the most sublime level of intuition and the peak of the ascent of Muslim gnostics concerning the issue of God’s unity. It is also the most accurate philosophical theory regarding unity and plurality. This theory has a long history in its unsystematic form; however, it has appeared in a systematic form in the works of such prominent gnostics as Ibn Arabi, Kashani, Qaysari, Jami, Seyyed Heydar Amuli, and Ibn Turkeh Isfahani. Mulla Sadra has also explained this theory in al-Asfar and presented two arguments in order to demonstrate it. Moreover, he has considered it to be higher than the theory of the graded unity of being. After him, some gnostics and philosophers such as Aqa Muhammed Reza Qumsha’i, Seyyed Ahmed Karbala’i, Mirza Ali Aqa Qadi, Imam Khumeini, and Allamah Tabataba’i were among the thinkers who believed in this theory and defended it. According to the theory of the individual oneness of being, true being is exclusively limited to the Holy Essence of Almighty Truth, and all other than God are among the modes, manifestations, and epiphanies of that One Being and Single Truth. The application of the term “being” to His numerous manifestations is by accident and metaphorical. Some scholars, including Mutahhari, believe that this theory, due to denying plurality, is against rational and sense-related evident issues and accuse it of sophistry and idealism. This paper presents a critique of Mutahhari’s view in this regard.

Undoubtedly, Plato’s most fundamental and basic philosophical theory is his theory of Ideas. Not only his ontological and epistemological ideas, but also his political, ethical, and other theories are, either directly or indirectly, influenced by this theory. This Platonic view has greatly attracted the attention of thinkers, whether those for or against it, in the history of philosophy.For some reasons, the writer believes that Aristotle’s evaluation and critique of Plato’s theory of Ideas is very important and worth propounding. First, Aristotle himself was Plato’s student and studied under him for several years. Second, since, like Plato, Aristotle was one of the most prominent philosophers of the history of humanity, his critique of this theory will be more accurate and reliable.Nevertheless, Aristotle has unfortunately been accused of misunderstanding his teacher’s doctrine of Ideas and even having evil intentions in interpreting it. Moreover, in some cases, Plato’s theory of Ideas has been introduced as such a low and unimportant theory that it appears there is no way to defend or justify it.The writer has tried to choose a middle way between extreme positions and exonerate these two philosophers from the above accusations. He has also tried to be as just and moderate as possible in explaining and criticizing the Platonic theory of Ideas.

As we witness the rise and fall of phenomena in the world, we also observe the birth and death of certain scientific issues and terminology in various scientific fields. As we know, some of them have a short life; some have an average life; and some have a long life. We have witnessed the conceptual employment of some philosophical terms concerning possibility, including quiddative, general, particular, most proper, istikbali, predispositional, occurring, indigent, and ontological types of possibility since their birth until now. Nevertheless, some other terms such as natural possibility, fake possibility, rare possibility (coined by Abulhassan ‘Amiri), systematic and unsystematic possibilities (coined by Ibn Bajah), plural (‘al-alkathr) possibility, equal (al-altasawi) possibility, and minimum (‘al-alaqal) possibility (coined by Ibn Rushd) had a short life and were not used conceptually in the history of philosophy after the demise of those who coined them. From among the factors determining the lifespan of certain terminology we can refer to the scientific status of the people who create them, the preferences of the advocates of various philosophical schools, entrance of scientific terms in educational texts, and their efficiency and influence.

In this paper, the writer has dealt with hermeneutics from the viewpoints of two contemporary philosophers, Allamah Tabataba’i and Martin Heidegger. Both of them follow completely new and innovative approaches to this problem. The common characteristic of these two philosophers is going beyond the epistemology of hermeneutics and emphasizing its ontological dimension.Allamah Tabataba’i believes that hermeneutical interpretation pertains to the reality of the Qur’an and maintains that the essence of this Holy Book is not basically of the type of words, meanings, and concepts; rather, it is of the type of objective and external existence.Martin Heidegger, does not limit interpretation necessarily to texts, either. He ignores the exoteric concepts and meanings of the Holy Book and believes that the key to its reality is paying attention to the truth of human existence (Da-sein).

One of the most controversial issues in Islamic philosophy and theology is God’s Will. However, there are certain questions in this regard that require convincing answers. They include ‘What is the meaning of Will, how is it realized in human beings, and what are its prerequisites and concomitants?’, ‘How can we attribute will to God so that it is not accompanied with possible concomitants?’, ‘Is God’s Will one of the attributes of His Essence or Act?’, ‘How is it attributed to human acts?’, and finally, ‘How should we think about this issue so that we are not accused of following a determinist insight?’The present paper undertakes to explain this issue and provide answers to related questions.