javad parsaee

Explorations concerning the faculties of the soul are among the most important discussions within Sadrian psychology. Based are two aspects, the discussions on faculties of the soul are interconnected with natural assumptions. Firstly, philosophers prior to Mulla Sadra have discussed psychological problems in the section on natural sciences. Secondly, the soul and body have a close relationship, to the extent that addressing certain issues related to faculties of the soul necessitates discussing bodily issues. In this paper, compiled data have been analyzed and examined using a rational method. It is established that natural assumptions, such as the theory of the four elements, the mizaj (temperaments) and the nine spheres of heaven, as well as empirical propositions regarding the effects and functions of animal body parts, have been employed in three ways in discussions related to the faculties of the soul. Some of these assumptions have been utilized in proving problems, such as enumerating and proving the faculties of the soul, the necessity of the faculty of touch, and proving the faculties of the heavenly souls. Other assumptions have been employed in expounding issues, such as defining and specifying faculties of the soul, elucidating the functions of faculties of the soul, and clarifying the position of tools and faculties of the soul. Some natural assumptions have even originated specific problems related to the discussions on faculties of the soul, such as the problems of faculties of the heavenly soul.

Experimental sciences and Islamic philosophy have different explanations for pleasure and pain and the role of the soul and the body in perceiving them. Scientists’ explanation of pleasure and pain is completely physicalistic, and for this reason, they reduce sensual states to purely physical states. Regarding sensual pleasure and pain, Avicenna believes in the equal role of the soul and the body but considers illusory and imaginary pleasure and pain to be among the properties of the physical soul. From his point of view, only intellectual pleasure and pain are properties of the soul as such. On the other hand, according to Mulla Sadra, since pleasure and pain are kinds of perception, and all perceptive powers are abstracted from matter, pleasure and pain are also abstracted from matter. Therefore, what is said in the experimental sciences about the mechanism and physiology of pleasure and pain doesn’t have any relevance in the true explanation of pleasure and pain; they only provide requirements and occasional causes. Examining Avicenna and Mulla Sadra’s explanations of pleasure and pain, we will discuss the positive and negative roles of the soul and body in their formation.

The discussion about rational perceptions and their emergence is important because it is one of the most important characteristics of man and it is so important that human perfection is in the development of his intellect. Ibn Sina and Mulla Sadra consider the power of reason and rational perceptions as immaterial, but they believe that the body is effective in the emergence of these perceptions in different ways. Ibn Sina and Mulla Sadra have different views on rational perceptions and the influence of the body on the emergence of these perceptions. Ibn Sina believes that rational concepts are obtained by generalizing partial forms and connecting with the active intellect; but Mulla Sadra has offered two explanations for the acquisition of rational concepts: one is the observation of abstractions from afar and the other is the connection and union with the active intellect. In the view of both philosophers, body and physical powers have a tool effect on the emergence of rational perceptions but their explanation differs from the quantity and quality of the body's influence in the emergence of general perception. In this study, we make a comparative comparison between the views of these two philosophers about the role of the body in the emergence of intellectual perceptions.

One of the most important issues of purgatory and resurrection is that of the embodiment of deeds, which has been discussed by philosophers, theologians and commentators. The question of the research is whether the embodiment of deeds means that all the rewards and punishments of purgatory and the hereafter are the same worldly deeds of man that are embodied and exemplified for him/her in different ways in the hereafter, or that there is no resemblance between the punishment of action and action itself but man will be rewarded or punished in the Hereafter for what he does in this world. Sheikh Bahachr('39')i and Allameh have two different and contradictory views on the embodiment of actions. In this article, by examining and explaining the views of these two prominent scholars on verses, narrations and rational arguments related to the embodiment of deeds, we have achieved the following results Sheikh Bahachr('39')i believes in the sameness of the worldly deeds and the punishment of the hereafter. While Allameh Majlisi not views those believing in the embodiment of deeds as being outside the religion and the circle of Islam only, but, presenting various reasons, he considers its occurrence impossible also.

Ontological discussions of knowledge and perception are one of the important issues that philosophers and scientists have commented on. Among the Muslim Philosophers, Ibn Sina and Mulla Sadra have discused the issue of knowledge and perception in detail. According to the view of these two philosophers, the conceptual knowledge is divided into sensual, imaginative, illusory and intellectual. From the viewpoint of Ibn Sina and Mulla Sadra, rational (or intellectual) perceptions are abstract, but they differ about the nature of partial perceptions (sensual, imaginative, illusory), that is, whether they are abstract or material in nature. Ibn Sina believes that partial perceptions are impressive in the brain and matter, whereas, Mulla Sadra believes in the abstraction of all perceptions irrespectively. This article, first, provides an explanation about the definition of science and the degrees of perception; then, it critically looks at Ibn Sina's argument about the materiality of partial perceptions The article points out that the arguments of Ibn Sina is controversial and his view of the materiality of the partial perceptions is not acceptable. The article then investigates the arguments of Mulla Sadra about the abstract nature of partial perceptions.

One of the problems that is a subject of debate in philosophy is the manner of the composition of matter and form. The majority of the Peripatetic philosophers say that this is a composition by way of annexation. Some however, such as Mulla Sadra, say that the two composed  together by way of unification. He follows Sadr al-Din Dashtaki Shirazi in this regards. In order to substantiate his claim he  offers some proofs. An examination of the arguments of Mulla Sadra shows us that they are objectionable. Nevertheless, he used the philosophical foundations of the Transcendent Wisdom to present a new version of the argument of ‘potentiality and actuality’ [for the existence of matter and form] that coincidentally also proves the unification of matter and form. In this paper, first the subject of debate is clarified. It has been explained that the debate is concerned with primal matter and form in the sense of that which sustains something. Also, by ‘composition’ a real composition is referred to. Also, in this paper some of the objections that might prevent one from accepting the unification of matter and form have been addressed. Finally, a more profound explanation of the unification of matter and form has been presented based upon the philosophical foundations of the Transcendent Wisdom

The first level in acquired knowledge which is achieved by human beings, is sensory knowledge. By sensual knowledge, the imaginary and rational knowledge are made. Hence, discussion on the quality of sensual perception is important. Since the sensory knowledge is provided by external senses, the question arises about the process of emergence of perceptions, what role does the body and its faculties play? Do the body and its faculties have played a role in itself or by accident? Ibn Sina and Mulla Sadra's discussion on psychology and knowledge and perception has certain principles which lead to the different views on this issue. first of all, in this paper Mulla Sadra and Avicenna’s elements on the question have been explained and then their approach to the body role in appearance of sensual knowledge has been taken into consideration. As a result, according to Avicenna’s sensual perception is material and done by the brain, therefore, the body and its faculties have the main role in emergence of the perception, but according to Mulla Sadra, sensual perception is immaterial entirely, and body and its faculties are regarded as an instrument and preparatory cause.

The phrase “the one does issue him only the one” is content of a rule which is very important in Islamic philosophy. Muslim philosophers such as Ibn Sina and Mulla Sadra accepted this principle and presented certain proofs to prove it. On the other hand, some theologians denied this rule, and through violations and objections were seeking to undermine this principle. This rule, in accordance with the principles of transcendental wisdom has certain elements, so that deniers of that rule fail to understand the correct meaning of these elements. In this paper, firstly, we explain the elements of this rule, and with Sadraian approach, arguments and objections to this rule has been analyzed, and although some Peripatetic arguments against this rule is not without problems, but according to principles of transcendent Wisdom we presented the more stronger argument in witness of this rule and answered the violations and the objections to it.