فصلنامه حکمت معاصر
پیاپی 5 (بهار و تابستان 1391)

Semantic of Divine attributes and names is one of the key doctrinal issues in philosophy of religion، philosophy، kalam، mysticism and contemporary scholars. This topic often brought up as assimilation and purification in the field of Islamic Sciences. Ibn Arabi knows purification and assimilation are exactly the same. In his eyes، the similarity between Divine attributes and possibilities is that Divine attributes are His manifestations and possibilities attributes are appearances of His attributes. In his idea، assimilation is in existence itself and purification is in limits of manifestations. But Molla Sadra based on emanationism and «cause and caused cognation» knows creature’s perfections completely in God. Therefore، with demonstrative approach based on three fundamental principles in this school (fundamental reality of existence، content participation in concept of existence and analogicity in reality of existence) believes in content participation and analogicity in Divine existence and attributes and with this way، he tries to get rid of absolute assimilation and divesting God of His attributes. Allame Tabatabaei in some positions expresses Molla Sadra’s theory but in other positions he knows the definitions of attributes non-compliance with God due to the fact that it is impossible to take away limitations such as lack of sameness among attributes from definitions of attributes. We will see by criticism and description of these approaches that all of them are based on ontological foundations that don’t give permission to put assimilation aside completely، however they deny absolute assimilation. But Allame’s second approach denies semantic assimilation

Foundationalism is considered the most important approaches in epistemology. Traditional foundationalism is expounded in present article. Its main claim is the division of beliefs into two kinds: Basic beliefs and deductive beliefs. Because of the regressive argument، all deductive beliefs finally should be referred to basic beliefs. In present essay، meanwhile explaining the objections to foundationalism، I would offer the responses regarding to Tabatabaii’s epistemological system. Fallibility and corrigibility are considered the main deficiency of foundationalism theory. Tabatabaii explains both the possibility and the method of grasping certain knowledge on the basis of three principles. He emphasizes that all deductive beliefs should referred syllogistically to basic particularly self-evident propositions

In search for the roots and causes of Arab world undevelopment Al-Jaberi criticizes religious discourses and their philosophical elements and points to the age of establishment as the initiation and decline spot of Arabic-Islamic civilization. The age of establishment is a period in which Islamic wisdom was formed based on text of the Holy Quran in the framework of different Islamic philosophies (Religious Rational Concepts) along with unreligious philosophical systems (Foreign Rational Concepts). From the Al-Jaberi’s point of view epistemic internal systems based on religious rational concepts are the outcome of Sunni scholar’s scientific jihad and other epistemic external systems are represented by Shiites and/ or other denominations. From a geographical view he also describes a distinction between the Arabic west and east. He considers the initiatives of sheer Islamic reason and philosophy to root in the west of the Arabic-Islamic world and relates eclectic philosophies and foreign unreligious conceptual systems to Iran or east of the Arabic world. He claims that the answer to the question of Arabic decline is to get rid of ideologies and philosophies of the east of Arabic world and to join the sheer wisdom of the west Arab world especially that of the Ibn Rushd: 6th to 8th Hijra centuries. This paper criticizes the foretold dogma of argue against Shiite school of thought as part of the existent discourses in domain of Islamic world and rules out his refutation of Islamic scientific and philosophical realities.

The Agent intellect of Aristotle has different position in later philosophers’ thoughts. Each، according to their need and the vacuum in their philosophy would determine the position of the agent intellect. Plato considered ‘Universals'' as self-subsistance، immaterial and permanent which were not in the sensible world. He had not felt that there would be a need for agent intellect; however Aristotle، contrary to his master put ‘Universals'' in sensible things، and to be able to explain the concept of universals، required intellect. Since Aristotle discussed vaguely about the intellect and compared it with the sense، after him، exponents and commentators، extracted agent intellect from his philosophy، or like Alexander of Aphrodisias who considered it as a transcendent and supernatural being or put it beyond the human soul like، Muslim philosophers، Al-Farabi and Avicenna to resolve the issue of the relationship between plurality and unity as well as Knowledge. In contrast، some philosophers in the medieval age، like Thomas Aquinas despite the influence of these Muslim thinkers، regarding agent intellect took a different position and offered another explanation about Aristotle and put Intellect as part of the ‘soul''. Avicenna''s agent intellect has the same position in Plotinus’ intellect. In the ontological realm، the link between separable intellects (tenth) and sensible things is offspring of emanation of the plurality of the material world. And in the epistemological realm، diffusion of the universal forms and ‘intelligible'' on ‘rational soul’ and transformation from potentiality to actuality is one of its functions. Agent intellect for Thomas، according to him، is more Aristotelian and merely has epistemological position. Agent intellect for him is abstractive agent; it abstracts the intellectual forms from sensible things and actualizes them. In the ontological realm، agent intellect located in human soul and has no ontological and causal functions.

From the standpoint of Seyyed Hossein Nasr the most challenges of human is due to demystification of knowledge. That’s why Scientia sacra is very important in his thought. His method is completely different from epistemologists’s method. He believes Primordial Tradition is able to overcome challenges. In this paper Scientia sacra from the standpoint of Seyyed Hossein Nasr is described and finally it is criticized

The term of ethics of belief is appeared for the first time in Clifford''s well-known essay by the same title in 1876. According to Clifford''s saying that became known afterwards as Clifford''s Credo or Principle «It is wrong always، everywhere، and for anyone، to believe anything upon insufficient evidence». This debate from the time of its presentation by Clifford has been the subject of different controversies. The main problem behind these controversies was that whether human beliefs are principally under the will of human beings to be evaluated morally or they are، like many of mental states، involuntary and passive and so excused of any moral evaluation. Some say that our beliefs are involuntary and are not under our control. In contrast، some believe in the impact of the will on our beliefs or the doxastic voluntarism. Depending on the amount of influence of the will on our beliefs، doxastic voluntarism is divided into two general kinds: direct voluntarism and indirect voluntarism. The doxastic voluntarism (direct/indirect)، on the other hand، can divide into descriptive voluntarism and normative voluntarism. In normative voluntarism، we can say about a kind of epistemic deontologism in our beliefs and it is this epistemic deontologism that entails the ethics of belief. In effect، only when we can say about the ethics of belief that we believe in the epistemic deontologism in our beliefs. Martyr Motahhari believes that the reasoning (ta‘aqqul) and the thinking (tafakkur) as mental actions are in direct control of our will. For him، there is a difference between opinion (‘aqida) and thinking (tafakkur). In his view، thinking is the opinion based on a rational process which can bring about the knowledge. Taking in consideration the process of forming knowledge from him، shows that he believes in a kind of epistemic deontologism. Thus he gives some advices about the ways of acquiring the knowledge that we can place them under the title ethics of belief such as avoidance of intellectual stagnation، distinguishing between belief and the owner of belief and like that.

The study of Two Minds scholar and Imam Khomeini''s views on Four Journeys، given the similarities between the two views at the same time، there are also differences. Imam and Qomshei both see the origin of the first trip as the created existents but unlike Qomshei who introduced the destination of the trip as the absolute Reality، Imam cosiders it as the qualified Reality. At the second trip، the Imam like Qomshei believe in similar provisions in the tour، vanishing intrinsic qualities and actions، including the necessity of divine grace to withdraw and return to Ananyt destruction of Leishmaniasis، a seeker''s journey is outlined. However، as noted in tour، the site of the Imam against Qomshei who knows loss of mortals، for the traveler on this journey، just as the show is doomed. Instead، the trip to visit Imam''s absolute right to know and secondly. However real nature and destination of the trip with created clear interpretation are consistent with this interpretation، traveler departing on the trip، his destination as the One and it is his justification for destination variable is the fourth trip. Both believe that the prophecy for the traveler on the trip is a prophetic other legislation because the seeker still no better field facility، descent and has not returned. Imam and Qomshei have most closely resembles in the interpretation of the nature and characteristics of their fourth trip. In terms of both، at first this trip is from created existents to created existents with along with the Real and secondly legislation prophecy has been obtained on this trip fully for the seeker