مجید ملایوسفی

Repentance (tawbah) is one of the key concepts in Islamic mysticism and has been extensively explored in the works of numerous thinkers and Sufis. Abū Ṭālib al-Makkī, in Qūt al-Qulūb, and Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī, in Iḥyāʾ ʿUlūm al-Dīn, have elaborated on this concept. Al-Makkī conceptualises repentance (tawbah) as a spiritual and psychological process involving inner struggle (mujāhadah) and self-correction. He emphasises the practical and ascetic aspects of repentance (tawbah), presenting it as the first step on the path of sulūk (mystical journey). In contrast, al-Ghazālī, adopting a systematic and rational approach, divides repentance (tawbah) into three stages: knowledge (knowing sin), spiritual state (feeling remorse), and practice (decision to abandon sin). In addition to accepting al-Makkī's views, al-Ghazālī, through philosophical and psychological analyses, presents repentance (tawbah) as a path to spiritual transcendence and the purification of the heart (qalb). This study employs a comparative approach to examine the views of these two thinkers and analyses their differences and similarities. The findings suggest that al-Makkī primarily emphasises practical and ascetic sulūk, while al-Ghazālī, utilizing rational and philosophical tools, offers a more systematic approach. Ultimately, this article demonstrates that while these two thinkers share common ground regarding the importance of repentance (tawbah), their divergent approaches reflect differences in their intellectual schools of thought.

 The existence of Haeccity property in objects is one of the solutions provided to solve the problem of differentiation and the problem of individuality in objects. The belief in the existence of such a property goes back to the Dance Scotts philosophy. His thought is often considered to be influenced by Avicenna. In the following text, first, some preliminary material such as the difference of opinion on the equality of Haeccity and individual essence has been stated in order to clarify the point of view of these believers. Then Avicenna's attitude about this issue is described and after that Avicenna's influence on Scotts as the author of the term of Haeccity is discussed. In the end, Avicenna's thoughts were evaluated based on the opinions of contemporary believers and the general conclusion was reached that although Avicenna had a prominent role in creating the question of identification and individuality in the mind of the first believer to Haeccity in the history of philosophy, Scotts; But it should be noted that in contemporary analytical philosophy, Avicenna's opinions are neither compatible with individual nature nor with Haecceitism. As a result, not only Avicenna cannot be considered to be of Haecceitism, but even it seems that he can be considered to be Anti Haecceitism as well.

In his collection of works, Plato has two approaches regarding ethical researchThe first is approach that he took against the sophists and denies that virtue can be learned, and talks about the unity of arete against the multiplicity of arete among the sophists, does not consider everyone worthy of education and emphasizes the monopoly of education The second is approach based on believes that all people are worthy of benefiting from a virtue like Aidos and introduces its education through true teachers of virtue as a source of stability for the state and its prosperity Plato's works, the views of three thinkers including Protagoras Socrates and Plato have been raised regarding the concept of aidos In the Socratic treatise of Charmedes from the series of dialogues, the question is directly raised whether Eidos is considered a virtue or not. In the treatise of Protagoras, the issue of the learnability of the virtue of aidos is discussed it is mentionedaidos is a virtue that is not specialized like other arts, it is a virtue that everyone should benefit from, of course, on the condition that they can cultivate it by learning. deals with the social nature of aidos and its role in supporting civil order In the treatise of the President and Phaedrus, in the topic of the three-part theory of the human ego, the internalization of the feeling of shame is stated, but in none of these dialogues, a specific description of the nature of theaidos is given.

Van Deurzen, an existential psychotherapist, identifies self-reflection and self-discovery as the core components of existential therapy through her examination of its various aspects. She posits that humans, distinct from other creatures, possess a fluid and dynamic identity. This, according to her, allows individuals to determine their own existence and identity. Mulla Sadra, on the other hand, acknowledging the fluidity and dynamism of human identity, proposes that human existence extends beyond this world, encompassing multiple worlds and levels of existence, and within each world, individuals find a corresponding level of existence, so that through their own free will, humans determine their position in this system of existence. By elevating their existence to the level of rational existence, they can transform themselves into a rational world akin to the objective world. This paper aims to demonstrate, based on the views of these two thinkers on human beings’ fluid and dynamic existence, the self-determining nature of the human self, the place of self-discovery in existential therapy, and Sadra's perspective on self-discovery, that Sadra’s view can potentially serve as the foundation for an existential therapy within Iranian-Islamic culture.

The concept of the will in the philosophical apparatus of Schopenhauer can be a result of his profound thinking about the concept of the thing in itself in Kant's philosophical system; the concept, despite its prominent position in Kant's transcendental method, was not explained. Although Schopenhauer, by asking what is the truth behind this world, ties the essence and institution of every phenomenon in the world of representation, which he understood through the principle of sufficient reason and its four forms, to the concept of the will, but by passing from the scope of the world as representation and by revealing the will as things in itself and the understanding of this will through the body, successive the will in the phenomena and in the container of life (which is the fundamental characteristic of the will) have shown themselves; On the one hand, it has led to continuous striving and the birth of stable suffering, and on the other hand, to unstable pleasure, and as a result, such an attitude has revealed the partial existence of pessimism in this world, and it can be considered as a tragic and sadness of life. In the following article, an effort is made to reveal that Schopenhauer called suffering a positive and stable thing, and on the other hand, pleasure a negative and unstable thing, and in this case, can suffering be considered as a part of the precondition for achieving any kind of pleasure and how does the result of the aforementioned concepts lead to a pessimistic attitude in the world.

Effective Altruism has discussed helping others both in the domain of theoretical foundations and in the domain of practical foundations. In fact, helping others includes helping other humans, animals, the environment, and any other thing that improves the conditions of men and the world, and the discussion of this issue is of a background as ancient as human existence itself. The Most Good You Can Do by Peter Singer, one of the contemporary thinkers in practical ethics, contains four parts and fifteen chapters. The book has discussed the issue of helping others in a very proper and, of course, effective and applied manner, and it is unique in its specific domain; but the most significant point of weakness of this book is its negligence of the role of global organizations in prevention from war, etc., which in turn can play an effective and even fundamental role in the domain of altruism.

Man is a communicative being and the meaningfulness of his life can be explained according to his relation with himself, God, the world and other people. In Eckhart's thought, the highest level of the meaning of human life is realized in his union with divine truth. Eckhart considers selfishness to be the biggest obstacle to the union between man and God. In his opinion, overcoming selfishness is achieved through a kind of cognitive uplifting and complete understanding of man's existential poverty; in the sense that all existence is nothing and all that exists is God. He believes that achieving this stage is possible only by removing all personal attachments. In Eckhart's viewpoint, removing the dependencies or the worldly attachments brings love to the Origin (mabda‘) and this love strengthens the will to forsake other dependencies and as the will becomes stronger, the love becomes more intense to the extent that, at last, man would reach the level of complete detachment as well as union with God.

Contemporary analytical philosophers have provided arguments to prove haecceity in beings. These arguments can be divided into two general categories. The first category is called conceivability arguments and the second category is the arguments known as the Chisholm’s paradox. All these arguments seek to prove a non-qualitative feature in objects or any of the possible worlds, which can exclusively distinguish that object or possible world from other objects or possible worlds. This special non-qualitative feature is specific to haecceity. This article while touching upon both categories of arguments that have been presented so far for haecceitism, has examined the critiques offered on these arguments and came to the conclusion that none of these arguments are inviolable from the perspective of opposition to haecceitism. On the other hand, by stating the consequences and challenges encountered by the opponents of haecceitism, it has generally assessed that haecceitism is an acceptable idea despite the fact that all its arguments are unacceptable or at least debatable; because, even irrespective of the challenges faced by the opponents of haecceitism, it seems to be a more acceptable explanation for understanding the distinctions of beings from one another.

The present paper investigates the relationship between philanthropia and paideia based on the texts of classical Greece. The term “philanthropia” was first used in a play called Prometheus Bound by Aeschylus and was later used repeatedly in some of the literary and philosophical works of the Classical Greece. In this play, philanthropy has been attributed to Prometheus because he stole fire from Zeus to give it to human beings and save them from destruction. In the comedy Peace by Aristophanes, the god Hermes has been introduced as philanthropist because he makes it possible for the humankind to access peace. In Isocrates’ speech, the term philanthropist is applied to political leaders and people who posses the highest level of virtues and share such gifts as knowledge with others. Moreover, in the fourth book of Laws, Plato introduces Cronos a philanthropist because, during his reign, he tried to consolidate the pillars of culture and civilization in society. In the dialogue Euthyphro, Socrates considers himself to be a philanthropist because he shares his knowledge with others. As attested by Aristotle, philanthropia is an essential and intrinsic quality; however, it develops a knowledge-based form through paideia. On the other hand, those existents who are called philanthropists try to develop paideia and spread it in their society.

The influence of non-cognitive factors, including sin, on human knowledge has become a matter of question in epistemology in recent decades. Religious and mystical texts of different cultures throughout history have emphasized that humans' existential realms are deeply interconnected. Masnavi-ye-Ma'navi is an important text that discusses the influence of sin on human knowledge. In Rumi's view, sin affects the hereafter and also our existence and rational faculties in this world. Rumi's emphasis is on the daily sins, not the original sin. According to him, sins affect knowledge by causing a person to lose mental concentration due to the sense of guilt he or she experiences after sinning. In addition, he believes that the damage done to moral virtues after sinning affects intellectual virtues and, therefore, human knowledge. While Mawlana holds that sin is effective on all types of human knowledge, both our knowledge of Divine and non-Divine realms, his emphasis is on the effect of sin on our knowledge of God and self-knowledge.

The discussion of atom among Muslim thinkers from the first century to the sixth century of Hijri is one of the significant and effective theological theories in the Islamic world. This theory was first introduced by the Mu'tazili thinkers with a theological approach in the Islamic world and later the Ash'aris acknowledged it as well. According to this theory, the world is the result of polycentricity and scatteration of individual and small components. According to the historical evidence, the origin of the adaptation of this theory is not only from ancient Greece, but also from Hindi opinions such as: Sutrananika, Ibashika Buddhist groups, in Jain religion and the Nyaya school, and three major viewpoints have been proposed regarding the atom: the first viewpoint, which is the predominant attitude of the scholars including Mu'tazili and Ash'ari, is that indivisible component has no quantity and is place-oriented like a geometric point. In the second view, Mu'tazili Basri theologians believe that the body is made up of place-oriented components that have dimension and extension. In the third view, which is specific to Muhammad bin Zakariyyā, it is considered that the origin of all substances to be hylomorphic, and the first hylomorphism is the atom that includes the possibility of distortion and change in bodies and as a result the creation of the world. These three different views have similarities and differences.

The relationship between the soul and the body is one of the issues that received much attention with the beginning of philosophical thinking. The influence of Cartesian subjectivism on various fields, including ethics and culture, has made solving the problem of dualism a concern. In this article, by comparative and descriptive-analytical method, it is specified that Ṣadrā and Heidegger, in a similar approach, consider human a being, a subject that, in their opinion, has been neglected. Although the two philosophers use different terms, they are of the opinion that the distinction between the soul and the body is a rational and abstract matter, and that human beings have their own existential characteristics. Ṣadrā believes that the soul is ensued from the body and is aligned with it; and although it has its own characteristics as an abstract thing, this does not mean that there are two independent beings and that there is no more than one being ontologically. Therefore, the multiplicity of this being as the soul and body is by the credit of reason, and these aspects are not existential matters. Heidegger also believes that man is unique in his lived experience. In his view, any other conception of lived experience is a subset of it and the product of intellectual abstraction, rather than an existential matter. In his view, the Cartesian distinction causes the subjectivist aspect of man to prevail in philosophy, and under this rubric, the specific existence of man as Dasein is forgotten.

By giving a new definition of Aristotle’s φυσις and Ψυχη Heidegger criticizes science and scientism. Through these interpretations and criticisms, we can infer his opinions about consciousness. Heidegger translates φυσις as “Being itself” and maintains that it is expressed by μορφη that demonstrate a change in the spectrum. The μορφη, indeed, is the consciousness, which is also referred to as lived experience by Heidegger. It has different layers namely behavioral-perceptional, social, and pre-personal layers. He argues that by objectifying experiences, science eliminates the non-objective aspect of lived experience. It is not possible for science to study lived experience. Therefore, a science of the consciousness about the nature of consciousness is not attainable; because, consciousness is no longer consciousness when it becomes the subject of scientific examination. Heidegger rents different terms to interpret consciousness such as μορφη, truth, λόγος, and categories. He argues that consciousness in all these terms includes a duality that its relationship with an external affair is preserved. It appears that consciousness, φυσις and Being are intertwined in Heidegger’s viewpoint. He emphasizes that consciousness is man or Dassin’s connection with the external world and whatever inferred from this connection, including science, is of second order.

Aristotle raises the general question of the just political order by addressing the most common and enduring of political disputes: that is the same as the division of ruling offices. For this, he examines the various political regimes and expresses the objections of those regimes in this regard. The maintenance and provision of the elements of existence and the organization of regime should be the criteria. He also states that the criterion for measuring the rightness and wrongness of these regimes is to provide as much "common advantage" as possible. In his view, the most important feature of the justice of ruler is to offer as much "common advantage" as possible. That is, regime that seek the benefit of rulers are wrong and unjust regime, and that seek the benefit of people are right and just, and then with this feature describe the best political regime and give it The power of the political system. He knows that individuals alternate between ruling and obedience, because that is the only way to attain complete virtue (justice). But in the end he proposes a mixed arrangement in which the best hold the ruling offices while the multitude share in deliberation and judging.

The difference between realism and anti-realism occurs in the world of being and its relation to the human mind. Nelson Goodman does not consider this difference to be a real and genuine difference, and in the meantime he has chosen a third view and calls it "Irrealism". Goodman's view of unrealism is fully reflected in his theory of "globalization." According to this theory, there is no world independent of the mind, but man creates descriptions and versions with his own mind and language, and these versions each create their own world. This article first examines Goodman's general views on the subject of realism -anti-realism and the motives and roots of his unrealism. In elucidating Goodman's view, we have shown that he is influenced by the principles of pragmatism and that his position does not fit into the realism - anti-realism dichotomy. Then, by explaining the theory of globalization and the criticisms made against it, we have tried to respond to these criticisms as far as possible. Although Goodman does not acknowledge the existence of reality per se, he does not deny it, but ignores it. We have also examined the criticisms and shown that many of their answers are implicit in Goodman's statements. The most important critique is against the criterion for distinguishing the right versions from the wrong ones. In Goodman's view, the criterion for the rightfulness of a version is the "proportionality in practice", and contrary to critics' viewpoint, this criterion is, in fact, an objective and valid criterion.

 In Plato’s Sophist, Heidegger interprets Book VI of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, particularly the discussion of Phronesis. In this book, he deals with five modes of Dasein’s opening, i.e. Episteme, Techne, Sophia, Nous and Phronesis. He has considered “Episteme and Sophia” to be a type of epistemic mode and “Phronesis and Techne” to be a type of calculative mode of Dasein’s soul. In fact, Heidegger introduces Aristotle’s five rational virtues as the modes of opening in Dasein. He has described Sophia as the highest type of the epistemic mode and Phronesis as the highest type of the calculative mode. It needs to be mentioned that Heidegger finally introduces Phronesis as the highest mode of Dasein’s opening. On the other hand, in Sein und Zeit, in the discussion of Dasein and particularly Dasein’s relations with other Daseins, one can understand Phronesis as a mode of Dasein’s existence. In fact, Dasein’s existential mode of being is its Phronetic existence. It is noteworthy that Heidegger in Plato’s Sophist presents the same interpretation of Phronesis that one finds in Sein und Zeit. Indeed, to express Phronesis, Heidegger refers to Dasein’s existential mode of being and finally he has fathomed the genuine mode of behavior as something in practice that lies in the call of conscience; this is what Heidegger presents as the forgotten conscience in Plato’s Sophist

The human shawl and the existential texture of the human body develops on the basis of the personality and temperament of the parent, and many of his or her temperament are formed from their inherited substance. As one of the most important issues in the science of spirituality, this problem is accepted and accepted in the main religious and scientific teachings, and human beings are forced and evolved on the basis of the genetic material and natural temperament of their parents. But does man have to oppose this religious-scientific principle and has no authority at all? Are the decrees of self-esteem and the severity of this affect on man deprived of liberty? In response to this question, several readings have taken place within the context of genetic conflict and the function of genes, one of which is the theory of two-faced genealogy. The first figure, assuming that genetic influences are immutable, believes in genetic determinism and denies human freedom. The second figure, relying on genetic studies and the development of appropriate technologies, shouts Promethean determinism and the conquest of the future that can apply the power of death and life to humanity by changing the mechanism of life.. In the present article, we have tried to explain and criticize the theory of gene myth and to prove the possibility of altering the temperament, freedom and personal will of the human being along with the principle of affective temperament and the central gene problem.

Aristotle's main concern in this discussion is the issue of merit in rule and the division of its offices. For this purpose, he examines different political regimes and expresses the objections of those regimes in this regard. He says the distribution of political offices should be based on everyone's contribution to the preservation and provision of the elements of existence and the organization of rule. He also states that the standard of correct and errant regime is provide as much "common advantage " as possible. That is, regimes that seek the benefit of rulers are errant and unjust regimes, and regimes that seek the benefit of the people of society are correct and just. Then, with this standard, he describes the best political regime. He says that this is the regimes consist in serious human beings are ruling and being ruled with a view to the life in accord with virtue. But in the end he concludes that this regime is not feasible, so he proposes a mixed arrangement in which the best hold the ruling offices while the multitude share in deliberation and judging.

According to Heidegger, Aletheia is a category by which one can understand the relationship between phronesis and Agathon; because Heidegger has used Aletheia in its Greek sense, i.e. disclosure and openness and not true in the sense of correspondence with the reality. Having accepted Aletheia as disclosure and openness, the relationship between phronesis and Agathon becomes possible in two ways. Firstly, phronesis, as conceived by Heidegger, refers to a mode of disclosure and openness or to put it more precisely, a mode of the existence of Dasein which is related to praxis and action and leads Dasein towards the best action, i.e. existential being. Agathon is also the source of Aletheia. To put it otherwise, it is the source of disclosure and openness as well as the source of being and Dasein. Secondly, Heidegger does not attribute the transcendence in Agathon to any supra-temporal and spatial existence, i.e. God, rather to Dasein himself. Said differently, Agathon includes the being and existing capabilities in Dasein and the latter’s transcendence lies in passing through the existing condition and reaching existential being which is possible through overcoming the habits and reaching disclosure and openness. Thus, Agathon is the touchstone of the behaviors of Dasein. This is what Heidegger refers to as the call of conscience in his discussion of phronesis and considers it a basis for phronetic action; this is a call that comes from Dasein and invites him to reach a mode of existential being that would allow it to know himself as a Dasein and act according to it.

The problem of knowledge and level of human knowledge of objects is one of the important issues of the history of thought and philosophy. Hakim Mulla'abdolrazzagh Lahiji (1072 AH) and John Locke (1632-1704) are among the philosophers who have investigated the subject of knowledge and level of human knowledge. Mohaghghegh e Lahiji believes in a theory that in Islamic philosophy refers to it as a "Phantasm of Representative" (Shabah e Mohaki).In his book, Shavaregh Al-Elham, he states that we when knowledge to objects do not achieve in the their essence and reality, but achieve the phantasm that represent from the outer object. John Locke, also, in his precious book, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding , recognizes two different meanings of essence and distinguishes between the real essence and the nominal essence of objects, and knows our knowledge of things about their nominal essence. The similarity between Lahiji and Locke is that both know power of human are more limited than they are to achieve the reality and the essence of objects, but they differ in the quiddity of knowledge and perception.

n a paper titled "The difficulties of the book of metaphysics," Amir Maziar argued that Aristotle, in the second book of Metaphysics (beta), described the difficulties that later metaphysics sought to find the answer to these difficulties. They are In this paper, it has been shown that the way that Aristotle has taken for his own philosophy has four steps that addressing the difficulty is the first step in this approach. The four steps of Aristotle's Apurianism are: (1) philosophical distortion (the expression of the difficulty of the subject), (2) the expression of opinions in response to difficulty, (3) the analysis of existing opinions, and (4) the discovery of truth (philosophical calm). Each of these steps has applications and goals that make it different from other methods. Aristotle's method, known as Apuria's method, is different from what has been called "dialectic" since philosophical philosophy, and philosophers such as Socrates and Plato. The first part of this article deals with the methodology of Aristotle, and stated the goals and application of each step of Apuria according to him. Zeta's book is one of the most important books of metaphysics, which expresses Aristotle's philosophical thinking. In this book Aristotle seeks to find the truth of essence In the second part of this article, how to apply Apuria's method in Zeta's book is shown. It has been shown in this section that although the arrangement of some of Zeta's topics and parts of the book is not precise, it is not only the logical order of these inferential arguments, knowing that the order of the sections of this book follows the method of Aristotle's theory. And it is better understood, but it also reduces the difficulty of understanding the topics of this book

Phronesis is comparable both in terms of its existence and essence in Heidegger’s and Mullā Sadrā’s thoughts. Heidegger believes in the superiority of phronesis over different aspects of Dasein's disclosedness and revelation such as episteme, techne and sophia, while following Aristotle’s viewpoint, Mullā Sadrā maintains that sophia could be human’s original contingency and mentions that sophia has superiority over all sciences even phronesis. On the other hand, although Mulla Sadra has openly spoken about the superiority of sophia, he has noted the unity of sophia and phronesis to achieve happiness. Moreover, these two philosophers’ opinions in issue, doer, end, and essence of phronesis are comparable. Following Aristotle, Mullā Sadrā believes that phronesis subject is human’s soul and its evolution, while Heidegger maintains that phronesis subject is from Dasein's existence. Such an attitude about subject, doer, end, and essence dominates phronesis, so that Heidegger considers phronesis as an aspect of Dasein's existence and Mulla Sadra considers it as an aspect of knowledge. However, both of these philosophers consider the end of phronesis as the achievement of human to the existence of the original, while they have given different definitions of the existence of the original based on their different bases. According to Mullā Sadrā, the existence of the original is remarkable due to the attention to the origin and resurrection, while Heidegger’s definition of the existence of the original is not directed toward the origin and resurrection, but instead focuses on issues such as self-discovery, attendance, and attention to death.

Aristotle is the first philosopher who specifically focuses on phronesis or practical wisdom in detail. He has dealt with it in three areas of essence, elements of phronetic act, and phronesis functions. For Aristotle, phronesis was a moral and intellectual virtue and a prerequisite for the prosperity of every individual and community. In his elaboration of the ontological position of phronesis, Aristotle differentiates it from other intellectual virtues such as episteme, techne, intuitive intellect, and Sophia. He argues that these last three items have to do with theory, while phronesis is about praxis and practice. He also differentiates between phronesis and Techne. lthough techne, like phronesis, is about practice, practice in techne is of poiesis and construction nature. Phronesis, on the other hand, is a comprehensive and applied type of knowledge that not only dictates the daily activities, but also utilizes knowledge as a guide and a calculator. Moreover, what is referred to as an action in phronesis encompasses a variety of elements like perceiving the goal, desire, rational deliberation and prohairesis or rational choice. Aristotle also believes that phronesis gives a valuable framework for leading man’s life.