Study of the Claim of Impressionability of Mullā Ṣadrā's Theosophy in Substantial Motion from the Opinions of Heraclitus and Zeno of Elea

Department of Islamic Philosophy and Wisdom, Zanjan University Bringing up the ancients’ views and asking about their ultimate condition in Mullā Ṣadrā’s thinking and that of his disciples has had a significant impact on the formation and development of the motion theory. Mentioning the names and bringing up the views of the ancient Greek Philosophers, as evidences for truthfulness in the discourse of substantial motion and the createdness of the world, indicates his possible familiarity with or impressionability from their opinions. The present research maintains that Mullā Ṣadrā’s inaccessibility to the ancient Greek’s works and the limited historical sources caused problems in quoting historical statements concerning substantial motion. Quoting the Wise Heraclius and Zeno the Great in discourses of motion bears witness to this claim. Mullā Ṣadrā quotes few of the Wise Heraclius and does not claim any familiarity with Heraclitus. Due to the apparent similarity in the names of the Wise Heraclius (the 5th century philosopher) and Heraclitus (the philosopher contemporary to Socrates), some contemporaries have assumed that the Wise Heraclius is the same as Heraclitus (the philosopher contemporary to Socrates). Mullā Ṣadrā brings up the Zeno of Elea’s theory in his discourses of substantial motion. He seeks to justify the Zeno of Elea’s statements (denying motion). As this research maintains, the opinions brought up by Ṣadrā and Fayḍ Kāshānī, are not ascribed to Zeno of Elea. While historically recognizing these two theosophists (Heraclitus and Zeno the Great), this article repudiates both above-mentioned assumptions.