نشریه حکمت اسرا
سال هفتم شماره 4 (پیاپی 26، زمستان 1394)

The present study is an answer to the question that “is there any difference between the two concepts of ‘religion’ and ‘religious’?” Since the true understanding of Ayatollah Javadi Amoli’s theory of religious science depends on having a true picture of basic concepts, and some objections has been put forward due to lack of attention to these concepts, the role of this paper is to explain some of the basic concepts in the thought of the author of The Geometry of Religious Knowledge. The other purpose of the paper is to answer to the Critiques expressed by some of the respected professors.
Appealing to books and papers of Ayatollah Javadi Amoli, with an analytic-discursive method, we present a new expression of his theory of religious science. We respond to objections in the light of the difference between ‘religion’ and ‘religious’, making clearer the concept of ‘religious science’ in the thought of this theorist.
The most important findings are: (1) The truth of religion is a kind of ‘knowledge by presence’, which is accessible to the Prophet and Infallibles; (2) Religious knowledge is a set of sciences that, except for Infallibles, are only accessible through ‘acquired knowledge’; (3) Religious knowledge is not restricted to the understanding of the scriptures, but it also includes ‘rational’ knowledge, even the empirical reason, but if it is based on the divine worldview; Religious knowledge means discovering the ‘word’ and the ‘act’ of the God, which is by reason or by the use of scriptures, or both of them.

Negative approach to speaking of divine attributes is an age-old discussion and has two main categories: the negation and silence and the negative-positive way. The negative-positive way has various interpretations and meanings. Some of them are in conflict with inexpressibility of the God, and others are not. Some of them are not in agreement with silence and have a positive approach about God. What is the meaning of negative-positive approach for Avicenna? What is the relation between this way and the inexpressibility of God for Avicenna? What is his purpose in using this way for expressing the divine attributes? In the present paper, after reviewing different meanings of negative-positive way for Avicenna and Aquinas, we will discuss Avicenna’s overall position (returning of all divine attributes to negation and relation) alongside the comparative analysis of Aquinas views.

The problem of evil is one of the most serious concerns of theologians and philosophers of religion. Process theologians like whitehead, hartshorn and Griffin adopt a new approach to this problem. Traditional theologians and philosophers, in most cases, by accepting the attributes of God (omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence) were trying to justify evils in the world, but process theologians deal with this problem by denying the divine omniscience and omnipotence. They regard the knowledge of God temporal, and attribute a creative power to the beings, and regard the power of God restricted, and it is in this way that they can resolve the problem of evil. In the present paper, alongside a presentation of their views, we will criticize them.

Transcendent Philosophy provided us with three ways for dealing with the epistemologically explanation of causality: the first way in the subject of knowledge, the second in the object of knowledge, and the third in the knowledge itself. In the subject, according to Sadra’s philosophy, soul is united with body and its faculties in the manner of ‘status restricting regard,’ but even has an existential unity with it, So that the problem of soul-body duality resolves, and soul connects directly with the world and perceives it. In the object, according to Sadra’s philosophy again, philosophical truths like necessity, causality, unity, actuality, etc. are united with external existence and objective reality in the manner of ‘condensation restricting regard,’ but even they have existential unity, so that the human knowing apparatus directly perceives it. And in the knowledge itself, according to Sadra, the cognition is existential, not quidditative, so that it could connect the knower and known and explain them. According to this substantive change in Sadra’s philosophy, reason directly perceives and intuits rationally the causality in the sensual perception and intuition itself, and in another stage abstracts it.

There are similarities and differences in the philosophies of Plotinus and Suhrawardi with respect to the beauty. According to Plotinus, Being has three Hypostases: (1) the One, which is the source of any beauty; the intellect, which is the greatest being; and (3) the soul. These three hypostases are originated in a hierarchical order. The philosophy of Shahab al-din Suhrawardi has its roots in the thoughts of ancient Iranian wisdom, Islamic philosophers and neoplatonic philosophy. He started the levels of being from the light of lights. Then he speaks of supreme lights. And, in the end, he talk about lights that manage the heavens and bodies.
In the present paper, after a discussion about the thoughts of these two philosophers on the definition, levels and perception of beauty, we will compare the aesthetics of Light levels in Suhrawardi’s philosophy with being levels in Plotinus’s philosophy. In the end, the strengths and weaknesses of these systems will be evaluated, and we will show the relation between human beauty and perfection in Suhrawardi’s philosophy and that of Plotinus.

Husserl’s philosophy, despite all of its complexities and its orientation, is under the influence of Descartes’ doctrines, so that it must be recognized that his overall view is Cartesian. For better understanding of Husserl’s philosophy, we can reflect on the Cartesian heritage in his philosophy, finding out the similarities and differences of these two philosophies with regards to their ends, methods and developments. The main similarity and difference of the two is in using doubt, its capacities and possibilities.