ali karbasizadeh

Unity of intelligent and intelligible has its supreme formation in philosophy of Mulla-Sadra. But this fact according to many philosophical texts is rooted in the philosophy of ancient Greek. For instance, it is recognizable in Plato, Aristotle and even Parmenides. Plotinus’s Enneads are ample of arguments about union of intelligent and intelligible and explanations and applications of this important philosophical principle. This essay tries to trace this principle in Plato by investigating his own texts. Of course, this is not going to be a kind of imposing Sadra’s philosophical views on Plato but rather to unveil common fundamental weltanschauungs and to show innate correlations and beyond-historical kinship of this philosophies. This essay tries to achieve this kinship in Plato by reconstructing his arguments for union of intelligent and intelligible and by this means contributes to study the historical development of this idea. To accept or deny the union of intelligent and intelligible makes important and meaningful divergences on reading and understanding Plato. The conclusions of Unity of intelligent and intelligible in interpreting plato’s Doctrines are discussing at the end with some instances.

Since Vattimo's interpretation of Nietzsche requires examining the views of Heidegger and Dilthey as his main points, Therefore, in this article, we intend to first mention Heidegger's interpretation of Nietzsche, as the last metaphysical philosopher of the West, in which Heidegger to justify his goal; which is a re-evaluation of the history and experience of the West, deals with Nietzsche's interpretation. Then, briefly, we discuss Dilthey's interpretation of Nietzsche, as a philosopher of life, in which the closeness of Heidegger's and Nietzsche's thinking is emphasized. In the end, by explaining Vatimo's interpretation of Heidegger's Nietzsche, we show that, contrary to Heidegger's opinion, by examining Nietzsche's interpretation of modern nihilism and its connection with postmodern nihilism, he calls him the first postmodern philosopher. And it shows that it is Nietzsche who should be read as the first postmodern philosopher, not Heidegger, and the reason for these different perceptions and interpretations presented by Nietzsche, itself expresses the sensitive position of Nietzsche's philosophy at the end of metaphysics

History, under the influence of Hegel's thoughts in the 19th century, took a high place. In the following, some historians with a positivist way of thinking proposed the idea of scientific historiography. Based on that, history becomes a definite science and, like natural sciences, it is separated from the researcher's mentalities. The problem starts from here that German historicism, believing in the normative force of history, emphasized the importance that the historian should provide a direction for society and culture by discovering the pure facts and revealing their historical meaning.Based on this idea of history, the social and cultural function of philosophy was challenged. In this chaotic situation that made philosophy face the crisis of identity, Nietzsche's and Dilthey's projects, i.e. the broad and diverse movement of "philosophy of life," became the driving force of the renewal of philosophy in the 19th century.Nietzsche and Dilthey agreed on the issue that comprehensive historiography in its understanding of human beings has created the problem of relativism, which causes "dissolution" and "pessimism" and cannot predict the future of human culture. Therefore, they called for a new philosophy that should reveal the purpose of human culture and support its progress towards reaching its goal. Although they chose a similar path to confirm the cultural authority of philosophy against the results of historical criticism, they arrived at a completely different solution.Nietzsche calls the antidotes against historicism "supra-historical", which includes the art of forgetting history and living in an enclosed and determined horizon; It means having the talent to know when to sense history and when to leave it aside.In his opinion, both of these methods are equally necessary for the health of a person, the health of a nation and culture. Dilthey, unlike Nietzsche, considers history to be an antidote and a cure for the failures of the philosophy of life: If history creates a wound, it must also heal it.

At the beginning of the fourth book of metaphysics, Aristotle speaks of knowledge as "existing as existing and its inherent effects" and in other places he refers to this book as "the first philosophy" or "the first philosophy", "wisdom" and "theology". Which is later called metaphysics. As he has given different names to this science, he has also raised various topics for this science. The most fundamental subject in metaphysics of Aristotle is existence. In metaphysic, Aristotle has expressed the knowledge of existent in different ways and it is displayed various matter on this scale in a proper position. In the beginning of forth book of metaphysics, it is said that metaphysics is a knowledge of being as such, but metaphysics is a divine science in other parts so that its subject is an immovable and spiritual being. Also, it is a science to discuss the highest principle and elements and it is described as the knowledge of substance or primary substance too. So, the commentators of Aristotle encountered with some contradictions to identify the exact subject of metaphysics from the earlier of time.

In this article, we discuss how body plays a role in cognition. For this purpose, constitutive and causal approaches in the cognitive science are reviewed. This review addresses the problems of these approaches, including that both of them ultimately lead to a Cartesian-objective understanding of body-cognition relationship as well as reduce the body to the physical body. In addition, proponents of constitutive approach such as Clark cannot reconstruct the phenomenological formulation of constitution at the embodied cognition, which results in return of Cartesian approach to cognition. Given Heidegger's phenomenological approach, we explain these problems and suggest a way to overcome them. Heideggerian foundations help us to formulate two notions of embodiment: ready-to-hand embodiment and fundamental embodiment. Both notions of embodiment deny the physicalist understanding of embodiment which is dominant in cognitive science. In the next step, we examine Heidegger's attempt to move to a more fundamental level in the analysis of being in view of his hints about embodiment in Being and Time and explain why Heidegger does not remain at the embodied analysis of being.

 One of the most important issues facing medieval philosophers and theologians, both Islamic and Christian, is the position of God in relation to the metaphysical subject raised by Aristotle. Aristotle considers the subject of metaphysics to be ‘being as being’, and most Greek philosophers believe that being as being is God. But Ibn Sina and Suarez provide a new interpretation of the subject of metaphysics and state that God can not be the subject of metaphysics, while at the same time, He is not separated from metaphysics. The main purpose of the present study is to compare the views of Suarez and Ibn Sina as two Christian and Islamic philosophers about the place of God in metaphysics. This research has been done by the analytical-library method. These two scholars have similarities and differences in this regard in several respects. The most important difference between them is that Suarez, given the topic of the Three Chronicles of Christianity or the Trinty that ruled him, could not have the same meaning of ‘being as being’ in his mind as Ibn Sina. Aristotle, on the one hand, believed that the validity of a science is to have a single subject buton the other hand, he introduced 3 or 4 subjects for metaphysicscausing confusion among philosophers and commentators after him. One of the issues that seriously added to the confusion of philosophers was the God's place in the subject of metaphysics. In general, different opinions and interpretations in this field can be expressed in two general perspectives: 1) For the Greek commentators of Aristotle, the subject of metaphysics is the special kind of being that is supersensible and immobile. For instance, Alexander Aphrodite, the first Greek commentator on Aristotle, considered metaphysics as a genus of which theology and divine sciences are of its types. 2) In the Middle Ages, according to the book of Exodus, the first Christian philosophers tried to equate the ‘being as being’ with the existence of the Bible. With Ibn Sina and Suarez’s entry into medieval Christian philosophy, the medieval metaphysical philosophers realized that the being expressed in the subject of the metaphysics could not be merely a specific being such as God. Rather, this being is generally the same as the absolute being, which includes tangible and intangible beings, and this is separate from the first being. Ibn Sina’s view is contrary to the view of Aphrodite and the Greek tradition which sought to prove that Aristotle's three definitions are different aspects of one thing and they have no inherent difference with each other. So, Ibn Sina at the beginning of his book Elahiyate Shefa says that “the subject of metaphysics is neither God nor the final four causes of things, but its subject is ‘being as being’ and God and the four causes are metaphysical issues”. Suarez also presents new ideas that set himself apart from Aristotle and the other medieval predecessors by presenting and explaining the real existence as the subject of metaphysics. In order to determine existence as a real existence, he provides a set of pairs of concepts such as the formal concept versus the mental concept, as well as the nominal existence versus the descriptive existence. Suarez distinguishes between the formal concept as a mental actuality and the concept in the mind as an act that is directly perceived by the mind, and here he approaches Ibn Sina.

One of the greatest divine blessings in the mystical journey is spiritual life, which is considered by many mystics and wise men. Mrs. Andril Sufi, the Christian scholar and Mulla Sadra Shirazi, an Islamic philosopher, also tried to understand what the spiritual life and the quality of their achievement were. These two thinkers, in a common approach, consider human being as having three intellectual, voluntary, and emotional contexts, but in the primacy and superiority of these areas and the influence of each one on human spiritual life, they disagree. With the priority of feeling on reason and will, Andrilil considers spiritual life to be one of the three virtues of worship, cooperation, and loyalty, and on this basis, the individuals who live in this life have the characteristics that include harmony, mildness and confidence of the heart. Knows that they will be away from any fuss. Mulla Sadra of Shirazi, with prior knowledge of the field of thought on other places of the soul, believes that spiritual life is created with the first stage of theoretical rationalist movement, and the soul, after being immersed in theoretical reason, can be practiced through practical actions such as the notion of omnipotence, meditation and love Mutafat has a number of life that is the result of the acquisition of special abilities for the soul, including the rebellion of certainty and insight, the creation of forms, the avoidance of evil and the deceit of the darkness.

One way for Islamic philosophy and Western philosophy to form connection with one another lies in presenting their questions to one other demanding their answers. Accordingly, in this paper, it is intended to find a solution for Hume's difficulty on the origin of the concept of empirical causality in Sadra`s philosophy. Hume, denying the possibility for perceiving causality, disagreed the objectivity of the concept of empiricist causality. In response to Hume's question, it can be said that, based on the possibilities contained in the texts of Mulla Sadra on knowledge, the relation between soul and body, the human mind in the same level of sensation perceives causality directly and, in another step, with mental analysis arrives at the concept. In other words, contrary to Hume, who denied the rational intuition of causality, based on the possibilities of Sadra's philosophy, rational intuition of causality may be explained. Therefore, in response to Hume's difficulty and along with idealistic explanations such as Kant's transcendental idealism, a completely realistic explanation of the concept of causality may be presented

the role of the "Critique of Judgment" in the explanation of empirical causality in the transcendental idealism of Kant, could be considered from two aspect. first is the explanation of meaning of experiential causality in the "Critique of Pure Reason", and another is the explanation of relation between a priori law of experiential causality and a-posteriori laws of experiential causality. Kant in the "Critique of Judgment", with assertion on distinction between a priori, constitutive, and absolutely necessary principle of causation and a-posteriori, unnecessary, and experiential causality laws, tries to fill the gap between the two classes of laws by a priori and regulative principle and of purposiveness that mechainism and organism(teleology) are it's applications and so completes his explanation about his transcendental idealism about experiential causality.Kant in the "Critique of Judgment", with assertion on distinction between a priori, constitutive, and absolutely necessary principle of causation and a-posteriori, unnecessary, and experiential causality laws, tries to fill the gap between the two classes of laws by a priori and regulative principle and of purposiveness that mechainism and organism(teleology) are it's applications and so completes his explanation about his transcendental idealism about experiential causality.

“Nihilism” is one of the basic keywords in Nietzsche’s thinking, and because of its strong connection with his other teachings, it is considered to be a principle subject in his philosophizing. In fact, nihilism is Nietzsche’s criterion to evaluate whatever is relevant to the fate of human and human society. On one hand, he accused the most fundamental organized systems of thought and belief in religion, philosophy, and science of a kind of nihilism (passive) which in his view is somehow despicable and rejected; and therefore deserves to be destroyed. On the other hand, he, asking for the help of a Savior called “Super human”, invites us to another kind of nihilism in order to replace what has been destroyed. This paper intends to presents Nietzsche’s argues in his critique of these systems and also to provide a detailed description of the types of his nihilism.

One of the major disasters era of postmodernism is environmental crisis that many factors are involved in causing this global catastrophe. This crisis is a crisis of knowledge not a biological crisis.The role of ideas and philosophical foundations is in creating this crisis or provide a solution to solve the very important and necessary.We believe one of the main causes in creating this crisis is philosophical foundations and ideas of Francis Bacon. On the other hand Mulla Sadr's philosophical ideas and principles have high potential in solving this crisis .The aim of this research is to explain the role of cognitive reasons in the fields of scientific methodology, anthropology and cosmology at the birth of environmental crises and achieving philosophical solution to solve this problem.In fact, the implementation of the philosophical foundations philosophers of the sixteenth century scholars will be facing with an Islamic solution - according to Mulla Sadra.

A philosophical rule which is of prime importance in transcendent wisdom is the rule expressed as basit ul-haqiqah koll ul-ashya wa laysat bi shayin minha، the simple truth is all things and، at the same time، it is none of them for adducing the unity of God، it has other applications which could be obtained through enumerating its latent features. Among these features is the proof of to the environmental field. As it is known that existence is a single transmissible reality which flows into all creatures in gradation، itsessential and actual attributes such as knowledge، will، power and life are flown in all of the creatures. Therefore، all of the creatures not only enjoy the grace of the existence but also they enjoy its characteristics which are nothing but its mere inherence. In other words، all of the creatures، even inanimate objects، also have life، knowledge، will and power. Accordingly، whole of the existence، from the highest rank to the lowest levels، are alive and of life. The paper intends to explain the rule along with introducing theproposed environmental theories and then، to criticize each one of the theories in the mentioned rule. The result of this criticism is introducing the Molla Sadra.

The transcendent unity of religions is one of the components of the discourse of traditionalism, which represents the result of traditionalist's approach towards religions. Relying on such things like diversity of revelations, principle of orthodoxy, difference between the domains of inward dimension and outward one, and internal unity of religions, traditionalists try to brush aside the differences among religions and concentrates on the common ground between them. Consequently, the difference between religions is, to them, superficial and untrue, and all religions unite transcendentally level. Elaborating on the content of the aforementioned principles adopted by traditionalists, the present paper analyzes and criticizes this concept according to the discourse of traditionalism, evaluates traditionalist's views, and assesses their words in the light of Islam and Quranic teachings.

In the course of history، philosophers have witnessed many developments among which is Kant''s Copernican revolution. When he emerged، views towards philosophy changed completely and a new era began in philosophy. After him، every philosopher has been somehow in interaction with this view. Though Kant was claiming that he had created a fully critical system، it seems that، even in his own system، one cannot be fully faithful to the critical methodology intended by him. Some scholars advocated attempts made to improve Kantian system so that replies might be provided for those who claimed that there were deficiencies in his philosophy among whom we may mention Reinhold and Fichte. Fichte tries to provide firm foundations for philosophy and، in this way، uproot uncertainty. In his writings such as Theory of Science، he tried to explain his own methodology and improve Kant''s critical philosophy. Here، we try to discuss grounds for formation of the ideas of Fichte as one of the German philosophers and the way he faced problems in Kant''s critical philosophy.

God has created the being in an unrivalled order and astonishing unity. A small part of this order is nature and man. Nature with all its existents is in relation to another part of being، i. e. man. According to the teachings of Abrahamic (monotheistic) religions، the whole being and thus nature are worshipping their Creator. This implies an alive and perceiving creature، which has [because of its being perceiving] some rights and obligations. God has granted nature and all its good things to man so that، enjoying it، he may attain his ultimate happiness which is the same as closeness to God. This is an interactive relation between two living creatures and not a relation according to which one side (man) may exploit the other side (nature). The link between man and nature is the fundamental issue of the ultimate goal of creation of man. While analyzing the existing teachings of the Abrahamic religions concerning the subject matter of the present study، the article has provided some reply for the question «What is man''s role in producing evil (whether natural and supra-natural)?» The methodology of the present study is an analytic-philosophical view to the phenomena of the world while discussing teachings of the monotheistic religions. Among the results of the present study، we man mention discussing environmental crisis in a new and religion-based light، providing fundamental religious solutions for the problem، and existence of evil in the being if man comes into conflict with the environment.

There are various and sometimes contradictory ideas about Rousseau's thoughts. Some classify him in the group of enlightenment thinkers and some acknowledge him as an anti-enlightenment philosopher. There is no doubt that Rousseau's thought was affected by some elements of enlightenment, however, he criticized most of its characteristics as well,and challenged rationalism in the age of mastery of reason. The significance of humanity and the freedom of human beings is one of the central concepts in Rousseau's thought, but he considered reason and rationality as a tool for decreasing the very freedom. In Rousseau's view the culture of modernity not only has been constituted due to absence of morality, but also the development of science and art has not improved human's life at all. He believed that only the natural state of human's essence can release him. This paper will explain the enlightenment principles in Rousseau's thought, and compare the affinities and dissimilarities of his beliefs with the other thinkers of the age of enlightenment.