نشریه خردنامه صدرا
پیاپی 53 (پاییز 1387)

Generally speaking, Islamic philosophy is the legacy of Greece and is modeled on Aristotle’s works in particular. Like the collection of his philosophical works, it consists of logic, general metaphysics, physics, theology, and practical wisdom. Concerning the definition and subject of philosophy, following the Aristotelian tradition, Islamic philosophy has referred to “existent qua existent” and “separate substances” and posed the discussion of whether each is separately the subject of philosophy, and whether they are the same as each other or one includes the other. Moreover, it asks how, if the former is true, this sameness is justified, and if the latter is true, which is general and which is particular.In all the philosophical systems of the East and the West, these two issues, that is, the accidents of existent qua existent and separate substances are mixed with each other and cannot sometimes be separated from each other. However, in Islamic philosophy, particularly after Mulla Sadra, they were separated from each other under the titles general theology and particular theology or theodicy. However, both are subcategorized under the all-inclusive title “prime philosophy” or theology. There have also been debate concerning the scientific borderlines between the two issues; nevertheless, they have not led to any conclusions in practice. This paper deals with a methodological demarcation between them.

Undoubtedly, among the numerous theories posed in the history of Islamic philosophy in particular and even in the history of philosophy in general, the theory of the union of the intellect and intelligible can be considered as one of the most difficult, complicated, and extensive issues that has been discussed by philosophers in the field of epistemology or, specifically, in Islamic philosophy under the title of “mental existence”. Since Ibn Sina is clearly and certainly known as an opponent of the theory of the union of the intellect and intelligible among philosophers, the present paper intends, on the one hand, to examine this issue and, on the other hand, review his theory of perception through vision.In line with the purpose of this paper, the writer has tried to briefly explain Ibn Sina’s sentences regarding this issue as indicated in his various works and discuss the duality and confusion witnessed in these ideas regarding this theory. Moreover, he has quoted the views of contemporary philosophers concerning the particular interpretation of the theory of the union and its being a turning point in the evolution and development of issues in Islamic philosophy by their creative innovator, Mulla Sadra.

The issue of God’s knowledge is one of the key topics in Islamic philosophy, and philosophers have presented various ideas about it. One of the well-known ideas in this regard has been propounded by Shaykh al-Ishraq. On the one hand, he introduces Almighty Necessary the same as light and the manifestation of infinity and equates knowledge with manifestation. On the other hand, he believes that the truth of Almighty Necessary is “Pure Existence”, “Universal Existence”, “Absolute Needlessness”, “Infinite”, and “the Giver of all things and their truths”. Therefore, we can say that, in line with his philosophical system, he believed in the absolute and a priori Knowledge of Almighty Necessary and tried to demonstrate it based on the fundamental principles of his school of philosophy. Accordingly, one cannot base criticism of him and his philosophical system on the negation of God’s a priori and differentiated knowledge of objects.Moreover, Shaykh al-Ishraq considers God’s knowledge of the objective existences of all objects, including material and immaterial things, to be of the type of presential knowledge based on illuminative force and domination. He also believes that no existent and particle is hidden from God’s knowledge and vision. Therefore, all possible existents are also included in the presential knowledge and all-inclusive vision of Almighty Necessary after they are created.The present paper aims to analyze Shaykh al-Ishraq’s view concerning the above issues, report contemporary philosophers’ objections to his view, and criticize those objections based on Ishraqi (Illuminative) philosophy.

Man’s salvation is the of the Transcendent Philosophy, and the key to this happiness is the entelechy of man’s rational soul in the light of theoretical philosophy and general guidelines of practical philosophy attained through the mystic journey and the trans-substantial motion.The first basic question in this regard targets the place and role of politics and government in Sadrian practical wisdom. This question concerns both their station, i.e., existence, and their functions and effects in the Transcendent Philosophy.The second basic question concerns the necessity of utopia. Without political organization and the establishment of utopia, politics and government will not have any certain effect and, instead of influencing social life, will remain useless and unproductive alongside individual life.The third basic question concerns the role of leadership and management in utopia and the development, evolution, and transcendence of society.The fourth fundamental question is related to religiousness and politics in utopia. On the one hand, man is at the center of politics and a part of it, and, on the other, religiousness is the cause of man’s existence. Is this relation a philosophical and ontological one or a governmental and accidental one? In Mulla Sadra’s practical wisdom, law has a quiddative role. Without law utopia cannot be realized. Nevertheless, the question is which law and honor consolidate the pillars of utopia and are the causes of its continuity. The focus of this paper is on the “transcendent law” upon which utopia is based. Likewise, Sadrian politics and government and the Transcendent Philosophy will not attain perfection without transcendent law. The secret of the Sadrian utopia is this law, and, perhaps, in the light of clarifying the transcendent law and its role in practical wisdom and Sadrian politics and government, a ray illuminates the horizon and the outlook of future.The last basic question in this regard concerns the role of transcendent politics, government, and practical philosophy in man’s future government and politics. Will the people of the future need Mulla Sadra’s philosophy and political thought? Will future politics and governments search for the elements of Mulla Sadra’s practical wisdom? The utopia of the Transcendent Philosophy is related to the future, and we can discuss it following a futuristic view and approach.

This paper presents a comparative study of the views of Mulla Sadra and Heidegger concerning the subject, method, and purpose of philosophy. It concludes that if the subject of philosophy for Mulla Sadra is “existent qua existent”, it is “existence” for Heidegger, and if Mulla Sadra follows a rational method in his philosophy, Heidegger refers to phenomenology in this regard. Finally, it emphasizes that the end of philosophy for Mulla Sadra is attaining happiness, while it is merely gaining the knowledge of existence for Heidegger.

Esoteric exegesis or ta’wil is a necessity in Mulla Sadra’s philosophy. In his view, it is a more perfect form of “interpretation” and is related to the interior and the hidden face of affairs.Mulla Sadra’s perception of exegesis is greatly influenced by his “ontology”. This study initially deals with the relation between his ontology and his ontological approach to exegesis. Paying fundamental attention to existence, emphasizing its principality and gradedness, and the two philosophical principles of “the trans-substantial motion” and “the union of the intellect and the intelligible” are among the basic features of Mulla Sadra’s philosophy which have influenced his approach to esoteric exegesis. There is complete harmony and conformity between the three elements of “creation”, “collection”, and “the soul” concerning this meaning of esoteric exegesis, i.e. ontological exegesis. Accordingly, the unveiling and manifestation of each of the levels of being and Qur’anic interiors are due to the unveiling of man’s ontological levels and grades.Secondly, this paper focuses on a comparative study of Mulla Sadra’s “ontological exegesis” and “Heidegger’s hermeneutics”. Among the important elements that justify a comparative study of Mulla Sadra’s ontological esoteric exegesis and Heidegger’s hermeneutics are the attention paid to “existence” instead of “existent” or quiddity, the conception of the “truth” as the “unveiling of existence”, the explication of “man” as the only existent who has no ontological limit, and the attention paid to the issue of the “world”.Both philosophers have based their approach on various principles and, in fact, adopted two different ways. However, in the middle, they have sometimes come close to each other in certain cases, but, due to their pursuit of different ends, they have parted with each other again. The clarification and analysis of the above issues comprise the most important aims of this paper.

‘Aziz al-Din Ibn Muhammed Nasafi is most probably one of the greatest divine philosophers of Iran in the 7th century. Unfortunately, he is not well-known to the people of philosophy. The important characteristic of this gnostic-philosopher of the Kubrawiyyah School is his philosophical balance in a period which was the most difficult time during Mongols’ invasion, and two of the most conspicuous features of which were violence and radicalism. Nasafi has explained and analyzed many philosophical concepts in his books one of the most important of which is the process of man’s entelechy and, essentially, the trans-substantial motion, which was later elaborated on by Mulla Sadra. Apparently, one can perceive Islamic philosophy only when one manages to find the lost links of the chain of philosophers. Nasafi can be considered one of the links that connected gnosis to philosophy and later influenced the Isfahan School to a great extent. This paper examines the ways in which Mulla Sadra was influenced by ‘Aziz Nasafi regarding the concepts of the trans-substantial motion and the process of man's entelechy.

Some philosophers maintain that acquired knowledge and presential knowledge can be distinguished from each other by the presence or absence of perceptive faculties as mediators. Some others hold that they are different from each other in terms of the mediation or non-mediation of mental form. The writer of this paper has made it his aim to deal with both of these theories.Accordingly, he has tried to present a new theory concerning the distinction between these two types of knowledge indicating that presential knowledge is all-inclusive, while acquired knowledge is limited to one of the states of imaginal knowledge.The peripheral distinctions between them consist of the following: presential knowledge is free from correspondence, while acquired knowledge is not; presential knowledge is free from errors, while acquired knowledge is prone to them; there is access to the existence of objects in presential knowledge, while it is impossible in acquired knowledge; acquired knowledge is open to mental judgments, while presential knowledge cannot; presential knowledge cannot be divided into concept and judgment, while acquired knowledge can.