muhammad hussein jamalzadeh

Sheikh Shihabuddin Suhrawardi, known as Sheikh Ishraq, and Mir Muhammad Baqir Astarabadi, known as Mirdamad, are two great philosophers who believed in the principality of nature in their philosophical system and organized the other issues of their philosophical system based on it. At first glance, it seems that these two philosophers principally agree on the principality of nature and the sub-principles on which it is based, but by examining the works of these two philosophers some differences appear, differences which have had a special impact on their philosophical system and have led to completely different results. By collecting data through the library method, this article addresses the differences between Sheikh Ishraq and Mirdamad on the principality of nature. Therefore, using the descriptive-analytical method, the views of these two philosophers on the principality of nature are reviewed. The research findings show that although both philosophers believe in the principality of nature, they differ in their interpretation and the sub-principles that are based on it.

Positivism as a specific notion to the realm of science and knowledge (ma'rifah) has been criticized by many philosophers. Among this, the critiques of martyr Motahari and Jürgen Habermas to positivism as philosophers with a realistic view in their period have been observed by others and have strengthened the critical approach to positivism in philosophy, humanities and social sciences. In this research with the comparative method, it has been investigated the evaluation of the origin, methods and the prerequisites of these two scholars’ critiques to positivism in three domains: epistemology, methodology and axiology and this result has been achieved: from one side the unification of the realistic opinion of both thinkers to the issue of knowledge has established the commonalities between these two thinkers in their critical views to positivism and the requirements and results of this opinion and from the other side the differentiation in the origin and the way of their critical opinions to positivism causes to emerge differentiation (polarity) between these two attitudes. Even though the critical look of both philosophers is lacking the criticism of positivism from the point of anthropology.