نشریه پژوهش های هستی شناختی
پیاپی 9 (بهار و تابستان 1395)

Ontology in natural and philosophical sciences that has been considered by Darwin and Mulla Sadra, is the mostinfluential theory of ontological domain which deals with how material organisms change and develop. Both scientists regard the material existents changeable and they maintain that all material species are allowed to be in evolution, but there are some differences between them. Thanks to evolution, Darwin believes that the organisms through genetic mutation and the related changes and by natural and sexual selection can be converted into another species more compatible to environment, and this conversion can also be led to actual changes. But Mulla Sadra, by explaining how material organisms developing, has considered the environmental factors as background for organisms’ changes and evolution and the gradation of existence can complete actualization of the species. Although afterwards the change proceeds and continues regarding substantial motion, but this change is longitudinal and intense, the nature and reality of substantial species which possessing evolutional(intensifying) motion, is maintained and will be reserved at all stages of development. The research method of this paper is descriptive – analytic and we try to evaluate and compare Darwin and Mulla Sadra’s doctrines regarding their own books.

Among Sufis who have criticized and redefined mystical concepts and principles, Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi(971/ 1564- 1034/1624) has had a remarkable role and position. While having avoided scoffing and rejecting other mystics, he states that they have not been able to pass all wayfaring stations. They are, therefore, in intermediate level and could not come to the end. Thanks to his unique intuitive knowledge, Which, as he claims, is beyond the other scholar’s sciences and saint’s Gnostic sciences, he has offered certain new definitions which sometimes entirely contradicted the formal Sufi concepts. The widespread impact of Ibn Arabi’s school on Indian Sufis and the heretical utterances of some who believed in oneness of being determined him to criticize Ibn Arabi’s Ontology. By introducing the intuitive unity instead of Ibn Arabi’s unity of being, he redefined Ibn Arabi’s ontological concepts. This article seeks to elucidate Sirhindi’s ontological Ideas such as intuitive unity, the relationship between God and the universe and being and non- existence.

Human beings have the perfectible truth and they in their developing movement ascend in material and immaterial stations without having stopped at the specific station. Being has corporeal, imaginary and intellectual levels, and consequently, human being has elevated in sensual, imaginary and intellectual stages during his existential perfection. Each faculty indicates to the cosmological and existential levels. Mulla Sadra, in his discussion on the substantial motion, believes that the perfecting of human being will never stop. Man will obtain his perfection by using his theoretical and practical faculties. Accordingly, theoretical and practical wisdom will have four stages in which human being must elevate to achieve his perfection.

Hartshorne leaves the idea of transcendence and incomparability aside in his explanation of active and mutual relationship between God and the Universe and develops the divine attributes including omniscience in order to provide a modern theological base for the God and cosmos nexus. Mulla Sadra, moreover, has represented a specific interpretation on mutual connection of the God and universe, which maintains the God’s transcendental being along with His existential presence denying the both incarnations ( i.e God’s incarnation in the universe and incarnation of universe in God). The main question at this research is: how is the existential nexus between God and universe in Hartshorne and Mulla Sadra’s approaches? The results can be mentioned as: in Mulla Sadra’s metaphysics, in contrary to Hartshorne, God’s abstractive pole has been refused and presented God as an objective, necessary and fundamental Real. According to Hartshorne, the God’s objective axis in process and God has been influenced by the creatures, which has been denied this process in Mulla sadr’s point of view as well. Accordingly, the motion devotes to the nature and human beings not to the God, mutable existents, that is the soul, has been affected by servant’s prayers. Moreovere, in Mulla Sadra’s theosophy against Hartshorne’s has not been seen any sign of incarnation.

Approving the faculty of Imagination has related to the acceptance of the world of Imagination and accepting the Immateriality of one of them concludes the Immateriality of the other. Accordingly, Ibn Sina who believes in the materiality of the faculty of imagination, refuses the imaginal world. Having direction and relation of the imaginaries is the base of Ibn Sina’s proofs to deny the immateriality of the Imagination and disapproving the world of Imagination. At this article, the author proves that this character belongs to material objects as they are temporal-spatial things which cannot be found in the imagination which impossible to be perceived sensually as well. According to Ibn Sina it is not feasible that something is characterized by some material and certain immaterial attributes. Proving substantial motion in material things approves that every species and each material individual are able to have different material and immaterial individuals by moving from material stage to imagination and from it to the intellects.

In the present article, "The meaning of reality and the derivation of quiddity Sadraen order" has been investigated and criticized. At that article, the principality of being in itself has been considered as the criteria for two meanings of fundamentality of being, But contemplating on Mulla Sadra’s metaphysics shows that the criteria of the difference goes back to the different approaches to the derivation of the quiddity. Since the authors have regarded two meanings of fundamentality of being as accidental and opposite to each other, lead them to believe in inconsistency of Mulla Sadra’s order. It must be noted that the both meanings in his thought has a vertical relation with each other and cannot be considered contradiction. As a result, his different point of view on certain subjects related to his general and specific doctrines. Initially, he has considered the meaning of fundamentality of the being generally and his final verdict is based on his own specific doctrine.

This article has explained one of the critical epistemological structures of transcendental wisdom in ontological domain: i.e. analytical multiplicity. Analytical multiplicity has a vital position in Sadraean wisdom, as far it has influenced many philosophical issues like: the relation between being and quiddity, matter and form, genus and differentia, substance and accident. The main problem of this article is the Semantic Analysis of the Analytical multiplicity and determination of its epistemological and ontological position. According to Mulla Sadra, Analytical multiplicity means: human reason can obtain the multiplicity through unity of existence by many concepts and meanings. Mulla Sadra explicitly declares the domain of factuality of analytical multiplicity. By the element of the origination and development of the multiplicity in the external world, we can achieve the existential unity and possibility of the various existents which denote to the oneness.