نشریه خردنامه صدرا
پیاپی 87 (بهار 1396)

One of the most important philosophical problems which has been discussed and explored in both physics and theology is time. A few theologians have considered time to be a non-existent entity and an illusion. However, those theologians and philosophers who view time as an existential entity have presented various theories regarding the way of its existence and its truth. A group of theologians believe that time is an illusory thing, that is, it lacks an objective referent in the outside but has an origin of abstraction. Nevertheless, those who attribute an objective existence to time can be divided into two groups: some consider it to be an immaterial substance, and some others believe that it is a material and corporeal substance. However, the dominant theory holds that time enjoys an objective existence under the category of “quantity”; in other words, it is a “non-static continuous quantity” which is equal to the amount of motion in a sense, and the number of motion in another sense. Time measures the amount of motion over a specific distance. In fact, the relation of time to motion is similar to the relation of mathematical body to physical body. As a mathematical body grants determination to the ambiguous dimensions of a physical body, time also determines the amount of motion. Among all thinkers, Mulla Sadra treats this issue more meticulously and introduces time as the fourth dimension of material existents. This paper analyzes the various views of Muslim philosophers and theologians regarding time.

One of the differences between Ibn Sina and Mulla Sadra in the field of anthropology pertains to their approach to soul-body relation. This difference is rooted in the principles underlying the philosophical school of each of them. The soul-body relation, according to Mulla Sadra, is an essential and existential relation, which is the reason why he argues for the elemental body functioning as the material cause of the soul’s physical level. In contrast, based on Ibn Sina’s views, the soul needs the body merely for the acquisition of existential perfections and not for its very existence. Moreover, he maintains that there is no essential causation between the body and the soul. Next, Ibn Sina holds that the soul and the body enjoy composition by way of unification, and so does Mulla Sadra; however, he maintains that it is only through accepting some of the basic principles of the Transcendent Philosophy that one can justify this union. The next problem is that if the body and the soul have an ontological relationship with each other rather than an accidental one, is it possible for the soul’s dependence on the body to be disrupted? Besides, if it is certainly obvious that the soul is graded, should one not consider the body to be graded so that it could maintain its unity with the soul at its different levels? Due to the differences between the underlying principles of their philosophies, Mulla Sadra and Ibn Sina provide different responses to the above questions. This paper aims to study such responses analytically and evaluate the efficiency of these underlying principles in addressing their intended targets

Based on the studies conducted by a group of Orientalists and Islamologists, the effects of Hermetic thoughts on not only Western religious and philosophical traditions but also on Iranian culture and Islamic philosophy, in general, and on Shaykh Ishraq’s works, in particular, have been quite noteworthy. As a result, a more accurate study of this topic could introduce some new horizons in the realm of comparative religions. Henry Corbin’s studies of Iranian wisdom and spirituality, which follow a phenomenological approach, have paid particular attention to this issue. In a sense, Hermes and Hermetism play significant roles in deciphering the messages of his works in this regard. In his research endeavors, Corbin has focused on Hermetic philosophy as the key to understanding the meanings of spirituality and wisdom. This paper is mainly intended to provide an analytic account of Hermetism, its relationship and interactions with Sufism and Shi‘ism with an emphasis on Corbin’s works. To this end, the writers initially review the structure and basic principles of the Hermetic tradition. Then they provide an analysis of the relationship between Hermetism and Sufism and Shi‘ism from Corbin’s point of view. Finally, they explore his Batini (esoteric) approach, which lies at the heart of his philosophy and underlies his distinctive method of scientific and spiritual wayfaring.

The principles of the Transcendent Philosophy as well as empirical observations indicate that people are different from each other in their primary nature. This explains why they are different in terms of their free will and voluntary acts. The present paper investigates Mulla Sadra’s view of the effects of human nature on their voluntary acts and examines its role in accepting responsibility. The formation of human nature in Mulla Sadra’s philosophy is different from that in other schools of philosophy. In the Transcendent Philosophy, the human nature originates in the material mode of the soul, and the differences among the natures of different human beings are rooted in the differences among corporeal substances. The attachment of this affair to the necessity of the cause-effect relation is the reason why moral responsibility is not explainable in Mulla Sadra’s philosophy. This problem poses certain challenges to Sadrian practical wisdom, the most important of which is the challenge of explaining the system of duty and recompense.

The most important point in the “Adam” chapter of Ibn Arabi’s book of Fusus al-hikam pertains to the whyness of the creation of Adam and the world. Within our religious and Islamic context, the first response to this question is based on the famous holy hadith that considers the Divine Knowledge as the basis and reason of creation. However, this knowledge-based response is too vague and insufficient to explain the whole story and needs to be expanded. One can view this problem from another perspective: there are, in fact, two different views; one is based on a general image of believers in Abrahamic religions, and the other rests upon the oneness of being. In the latter image, which is the most important image for epistemologists in the field of Divine Knowledge, God is both the outermost and the innermost; He is both the beginning and the end. Adam (human being) is both creation and truth; he is the gathering point of all divine names, and the world is a mirror in which God and Adam see themselves. The angels are also the powers of the world; glory and beauty are the two hands of God. Moreover, the perfect Man is the same single soul. Finally, it is noted that God’s vicegerent on Earth possesses both the image of God and the image of the world. In this paper, the writers have tried to explore this image from various angles and, ultimately, provide a comprehensive picture of the problem under debate.

In the Transcendent Philosophy, valid knowledge sources include: external senses, internal senses, intellect, intuition, testimony, and tradition. In Mulla Sadra’s view, the first source of knowledge acquisition is external senses, and common sense is the most important internal sense of human beings. The intellect which distinguishes Man from other beings has a limit which restricts the magnitude of knowledge acquisition. Mulla Sadra divides the intellect into theoretical and practical types and, while considering both of them as knowledge sources, he sees their difference in their objects. It is only intuition which can access anything that is recognizable. Testimony, if widely transmitted and related to sensible affairs, is valid as a dependent knowledge source, and a transmitted reason, particularly in religious discussions, is an independent and infallible source.

Religion and politics and the relationship between them are among the important problems in Mulla Sadra’s philosophy. In fact, the issue of politics, which is one of the noteworthy realms of human life, never escaped his attention. Mulla Sadra always emphasized Man’s social nature in his works and did not consider individual life to be enough even if it were intertwined with religion. In his view, the development of Man is possible only through living a social life. He also maintained that a society which is geared to provide the context for the growth and development of its members should be governed based on Islamic laws. Politics is different from religion in terms of origin, end, act, and passivity; however, it is completely melted in religion, which is the innermost and truth of politics. Mulla Sadra considered the relationship between religion and politics to be the same as the one between the intelligible and the sensible or between the inward and outward aspects. He argues that as the knowledge of physics is incomplete without the knowledge of metaphysics, using politics without resorting to religion will result in Man’s plunge into forms and ignorance of transcendent truths. This will cause some irreparable damages to human life. A correct clarification of Mulla Sadra’s philosophy is the best barrier against secularism, which emphasizes the separation of religion from politics.