فصلنامه آینه معرفت
پیاپی 49 (زمستان 1395)

There are two main interpretations of the “fundamental reality of existence”. Some philosophers take the view that the real world is loaded with existence, but as quiddity is nothing more than the instantiation of existence, the two are identical. In contrast, there are other philosophers who argue that the world of reality is loaded by existence and quiddity is just an image of existence in the mind of human beings. According to the first theory, the unity of existence and quiddity is not but the real identity of the two. On the other hand, according to the second theory, the unity of these two means just the application of the concept of quiddity on reality. Although some statements of Sadrolmotalehin are in accord with the second theory, a comprehensive look on his philosophical principles and propositions leads us to the first theory. There are two significant types of evidence which confirm the claim: (1) similarity of the relationship which can be found between existence and quiddity with the relationship which exists between essence and qualities of the divine essence, and (2) Sadrolmalehin’s claim in his discussion of “mental existence” about the coincidence of mental quiddity with the quiddity which exists in the real world.

The relationship between subject and object is an epistemological issue which determines the realistic or idealistic position of a philosopher. Among Muslim philosophers, Suhrawardi moves away from Aristotelian realism and proposes a new theory called ‘resemblance’. Denying the apprehension of the essence of things, he challenges the essential correspondence and advances the theory of the resemblance of the subject and object through gaining knowledge from trait complexes. An important problem with Suhrawardi’s theory of resemblance is its idealistic approach and its introspective interpretations. The current study attempts to use the relationship between argumentative philosophy (rational philosophy) and intuitive philosophy (tasted philosophy) to refute the problem referred to above. The major argument is that Suhrawardi’s illuminative realism which substitutes similitude for correspondence can move away not only from Aristotelian dogmatic correspondence but also from idealism and can put forth a logical philosophical model which can explain the relationship between intuition and realty.

A priori knowledge has many definitions in western philosophy; the most well known one is the independence of proposition’s justification from sensory experience. Experience in the above definition should necessarily refer to sensory experience, otherwise, the distinction disappears and there remains no application for a priori statement. Necessity, in this article, means Vojoob which is considered as one of the three elements of a logical proposition. It seems that although Plantinga’s separation between objective and propositional necessity is conceptually acceptable it lacks application. For the author of the present paper, there is an essential relationship between a priori knowledge and necessity, i.e. all of a priori knowledge is essentially necessary. But this claim that a posteriori proposition cannot imply necessity and that necessary knowledge is unique to a priori proposition is a false claim, although if we take necessity as modality, it will have correlation with a priori knowledge.

Postmodernism is the start of an era which is signified with uncertainty as its main epistemological characteristic. The way the Shia Islamic society faces the challenge of uncertainty manifest itself in different ways. The present article aims to focus on the challenges that postmodernism has created for Shia Islam and proposes strategies to combat these challenges. To this end, the paper enumerates the challenges including the negation of the superior narration, pluralism, historicity of the concept of reality, the relation between language and text, the empowerment of the marginalized, and discusses their positive and negative sides in relation to the Islamic ideology. The paper concludes with a number of strategies proposed to combat the challenges of this era. The aim is to find a proper answer to the question of the advantages and disadvantages of this trend of thought to Islam, and the way we should play our role in a world in which the culturally and religiously marginalized trends of thought are on the rise. The specific conclusion is that the positive aspect of postmodernism, which have somehow been ignored or less valued in our system of thought, can act like a catalyst for Islam in the postmodern world. The major finding of the study is that through making renovation and innovation in some realms of religion, and figuring out new insights with a fresh spiritual substance to rescue mankind from positive and negative nihilism, considering world developments, believing in our capacity, validating others, and shifting our psychological demands to historical ones, we can hope to play a significant role in the postmodern era.

Islamic theologians have set forth different ideas and opinions in relation to the question of whether eternal punishment is genetic or conventional. Some favor the genetic explanation and others oppose it. The Quranic verses and traditions appear to be consistent with both explanations. That is why a third group of researchers of this issue have confirmed both sides of the argument and have developed the belief in both types of punishments. In a sense they have accepted the apparently paradoxical verses. The present paper is an attempt to clarify the issue and the relevant questions, and to present the views expressed by the Islamic theologians in this regard. The position taken in this paper is that eternal punishment is genetic not conventional. Efforts are made to explain why the acceptance of the two types of eternal punishment conjointly is a false solution and why the correct solution lies in the correct interpretation of the seemingly paradoxical verses in the context of monotheism. The paper proposes a Quranic, theosophical and philosophical solution with aim of solving the problem.

The Question of Imamat, especially the Imamat of the12th Imam, is one of the most imperative issues in Shia Islam. There are numerous intellectual, traditional and historical arguments supporting the validity of Iamamt, among which we can refer to the following: verse 105 of Anbiya Sura, the Jaber Hadith, as well as historical accounts like Hakimah Khatoon’s account of Emam-al-Mahdi’s birth. Ahmad Al-Katib, the contemporary author, in his book Imam al-Mahdi has provided a number of traditional, historical and intellectual grounds to reject the existence of Imam al- Mahdi. He claims that Ja’afar, Imam al-Askari’s brother, was his true successor and that Shia came to a unanimous agreement on his Imamat. Adopting an analytical critical approach, the present paper tries to answer the questions raised by Ahmad Al-Katib through characterization of Ja’afar’s personality. It is argued that Ja’afar was not qualified to be the next Imam, and that Ahmad Al-Katib’s claims are unsubstantiated. In addition, the evidence provided does not adequately support Ahmad Al-Katib’s stand.

Every epistemic structure inevitably starts from postulates whose truth is taken a priori. Thomas Reid held the view that there are many postulates that sensible people assume to be true. They then build their knowledge on their basis. With a scientific method, he tried to infer these postulates which he called first principles of common sense, principles that underlie our nature, and form the basis upon which we conduct our daily interactions with others and the world. The present paper is aimed to explain these first principles with reference to Reid`s works, and to examine the role they play in human knowledge and the inevitability of their postulation. The paper concludes with the explanation of the importance of these principles from Reid`s point of view. The major conclusion is that without postulating these principles, we will lose a massive bulk of the knowledge we consider critical to acknowledge.