intellect

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.

Ibn Arabi's mystical and philosophical beliefs in knowing God, including the role of self-knowledge, intellect, heart and intuitive knowledge, etc., have influenced the beliefs of other mystics and philosophers, including Mulla Sadra. This research aims to examine the views of these two Islamic sages and philosophers, namely Ibn Arabi and Mullah Sadra, regarding the ways of acquiring the knowledge of God, and to explain the influence of Ibn Arabi's mysticism on Mullah Sadra's view of knowing God. The views of these two sages show that although Mulla Sadra was not an unequivocal follower of Ibn Arabi in many matters, they both believe in the knowledge of the Supreme Being in the three levels of nature, attributes, and actions, and they believe that human intelligence and existential capacities are abilities and capabilities. He does not understand the nature of God. Mulla Sadra, under the influence of Ibn Arabi, considers limits and boundaries for the intellect in knowing the Almighty and His Names and Attributes. Both Ibn Arabi and Mulla Sadra consider self-knowledge to be a very important way to know God, and in this regard, there is no difference between the two sages; Like Mulla Sadra, Ibn Arabi considers knowledge of God to be a matter of doubt, therefore, everyone is capable of knowing God according to his knowledge and cognitive ability.

This research examines the implications of hadiths related to the first divine creation in the thought of two famous figures in the Islamic world, namely Allameh Tabataba’i and Ibn Taymiyyah. The main goal of this research is to analyze the points of view of these two figures who represent two different schools of thought, namely the Shiite rationalist and the Sunni traditionist. With the descriptive-analytical method and the comparative approach, it is shown that Allameh Tabataba'i is trying to explain the truth of Muhammadiyah in order to present it as an acceptable explanation for the interpretation of the hadiths of the first creation. On the other hand, Ibn Taymiyyah considers all the hadiths that consider the first divine creation to be intellect to be fake and false. He considered all of them invalid without considering other topics in the field of criticism and research in hadiths.

Due to having a physical aspect, a human is equipped with faculties that are tasked with prompting him to perform actions that ensure the fulfillment of material perfection and pleasure. However, since the true nature of a human is his spiritual aspect, naturally, his spiritual faculties should be the primary controllers of his actions, with the bodily faculties serving the spiritual faculties. In this case, the human moves towards true happiness. However, if the spiritual faculties of a human do not have full control over him, and he is somewhat influenced by his bodily faculties, or if the bodily faculties have complete control over him, he falls into 'practical lust'. This research, by examining the views of Ayatollah Javadi Amoli, aims to investigate two aspects of the condition to which a person becomes afflicted: 'the process of the influence of practical lust on human perceptions' and 'the effects and consequences of being afflicted by practical lust on human perceptions.' In the first section, it is stated how the inner proof of God for a person becomes weakened and leads to destruction when the person turns away from the external proof of God. In the second section, five results and consequences of the weakening of the inner proof, or the affliction of practical lust, on human perceptions are examined, which are: 'refusal to accept boundaries', 'loss of practical resolve', 'denial of God's sovereignty', 'creation of division in society', and 'falling into compound ignorance'. In this research, the method of gathering materials is library-based, and in the analysis of the materials, a descriptive-analytical approach has been followed.

Intellect is one of the important topics in the history of philosophy since Aristotle and his commentators, some of Aristotle's commentators whom have written a treatise on Intellect. What made the issue of Intellect a challenging issue for Aristotle's commentators is the view of what First Intellect is as a part of the human soul or is level in the hierarchy of beings. Examining it can also explain the ontological position Intellect and its duties. The question is, what is the truth of First Intellect according to Kindy and what is its ontological and epistemological position in his philosophical thought? On this basis,In this article, with the analytical descriptive method, we found that tThe first intellect is always Actual and the cause for the Intelligible and the cause for the second intellects and precedes all of them, and the second intellects are the other three levels of intellect And these three levels of intellect, are a part of the Thinking soul and there is no clarity in expressing Al-Kindi to separate the first intellect from the Soul. Eepistemologically, it actualizes the soul that is potentially intellect. We have reached this conclusion through Kindy's theory of first intellect. And we have reached this conclusion Al-Kindi's theory of the first intellect is a combination of the Aristotelian, Platonic, and Book of Causes perspectives.

The analysis of the relationship between reason and morality is as old as the history of thought, and philosophers from ancient Greece have always had a serious concern for evaluating this relationship. Taha Abd al-Rahman, an important Moroccan philosopher who is considered among the important thinkers of the Islamic world, is also trying to do something new by examining the concept of reason and morality and measuring the relationship between the two. In his thought, modern rationality is an element that is opposed to morality. To understand the nature of reason, he mentions three types of reason, whose analysis is necessary to understand the relationship between reason and morality. These three types of intellect are Abdur Rahman's innovative division, which can be considered as the basis of his moral system. In his opinion, the difference between humans and animals is morality, not reason . A rationality that is based on morality and constantly considers ethics as a supervisor and ruler has value, not that rationality that is alien to morality. In this article, after analyzing the two concepts of reason and morality in Abdul Rahman's thought, we will evaluate his approach regarding the relationship between reason and morality.

Imagination is a mental activity with which we can imagine an event free from its temporal and spatial characteristics. This function of the mind provides us with the necessary conditions for secondary and internal observation of primary external observations. In a way, it can be said that imagination plays a fundamental role in human perception and not only makes a person capable of advanced theoretical understanding, but also gives a person the necessary ability to capture the outside world and achieve their goals. Farabi and Spinoza both paid attention to the importance and use of imagination. In a way, it can be said that for both, imaginative cognition is an important pillar in human perception. Farabi considers the re-summoning of the sensory form after its absence and the ability to analyze and combine sensory forms after the absence of sensory observation as the primary role of the imagination, which not only gives a person the ability to go beyond sensory perception and recognize external observations and their similarities, but also It prepares the human mind to understand the general perception. In a way, it can be said that the power of imagination is the link connecting sensory perceptions with intellectual perceptions. Spinoza considers the perception caused by the body's impressions from the outside world as vague experience or imaginative perception because this type of perception does not give us knowledge about the truth of objects and their relationships, and only gives us vague ideas that are useful for our living. Therefore, although Farabi accepts the realism of imaginary sensory perception, Spinoza places practical value on them and does not place theoretical value on them, and considers imagination to include sensory, experimental, and imaginary perceptions, knowledge resulting from the frequency of general concepts and even false notions.
 
 

This study initially elucidates the understanding of two contemporary theologians—both educated at the Islamic Seminary (Hawza) in Qom, Iran, in the recent century—regarding the concept of Intellect. It then explores their seemingly unified perspective on the role of intellect in comprehending the various levels of the Quran. Additionally, it critiques the viewpoint known as the “School of Separation” (Maktab-e Tafkik) from their perspective. The School of Separation begins with the distinction between Divine and human knowledge and, through its specific definition of intellect, assigns little significance to the role of non-infallible human intellect in understanding the Quran. According to the statements and understanding of these two theologians, there appear to be criticisms of the School of Separation, including the suspension of knowledge and the impossibility of engaging with the text with an empty mind. This paper also critiques the roots of the School of Separation, which is rooted in Akhbarism. In this study, while describing and analyzing Ayatollah Javadi Amoli's and Ashtiyani's works regarding the subject matter, efforts, in conformity with them, are made to utilize their method of faithfully integrating discussions with religious texts.

We know that apparent wine, of various types, is untouchable in the holy Shari'a of Islam and it is forbidden to drink. But in the literature of different ethnic groups and nations of the world, there are many topics and themes that are due to human nature, the relationship of ethnic groups and nations with each other and the presence and tangible existence of those themes about wine and its characteristics in human life. And they consider wine and drinking as a source of refreshment and uplifting of the human soul and psyche. Mankind has long sought to alleviate its pain, and the most accessible remedy to deal with the heart of the sorrows of the time, regardless of whether it is right or wrong, knew drinking. For this reason, the poems of different nations are full of descriptions and explanation of wine and its accompanying themes such as butler, goblet, wine and vintner, Vine and grape shrubs, and finally spiritual wine in Islamic mysticism. So that in some nations celebrations were held in honor of the goddess of wine. In this descriptive-analytical method, we seek to compare and apply the wine-drinking theories of two poets in the field of mysticism, namely Ibn Fariz and Hafez, in comparison with a contemporary poet who had libertarian and patriotic ideas, in order to answer the question of whether Their drinking is either metaphorical or real and the relief of pain is accompanied by divine love and passion or they have used some kind of real grape wine. And in spite of the elaboration of the subject and the conclusion, let us clarify the commonalities or differences of opinion in this field.

Mu'tazila are a group of Islamic theologians who fully believe in the originality of reason and consider theoretical reason to rule over revealed teachings. This principle has had effects on the whole intellectual system and their religious beliefs and has given a special understanding of monotheism and divine justice. The New Mu'tazila movement is one of the most important theological movements in the Islamic world. This movement finds its origin in the opinions of the old Mu'tazilies and seeks to renew the epistemological foundation of Islam. This group considers reason to be sacred and they believe that reason has limitations and man needs revelation to understand the truths of the world. These two schools of thought have many intellectual commonalities and differences, which justifies the necessity of applying the concept of rationalism; Therefore, this research is trying to compare the Mu'tazila and New Mu'tazila intellectual approaches using the descriptive-analytical method and show their intellectual similarities and differences. The findings of the research show that Mu'tazila and Neo-Mu'tazila generally have similarities in philosophising, the five principles, monotheism and justice, promise and promise, and status between al-Mazlatin and the well-known and forbidding evil, the accidental nature of the Qur'an, beauty and ugliness, but in concepts such as the type of rationalism, mechanism Rationalism and some rational foundations have distinctions.

Understanding the reality of entities can be approached through two methods a) positively, to discern the essence of the object, and b) negatively, to delineate what the object is not. This study investigates Avicenna's perspective on the essence of the soul. While previous research has extensively explored the positive attributes, this study delves into the less organized negative attributes, shedding light on the soul's distinctions from nature, the Spirit of vapor, temperament, body, corporeality, intellect, and vitality. The significance of the soul's divergence from corporeality lies in its implicit deviation from temperament, the Spirit of vapor, the physical body, and other material elements. Notably, disassociating the soul from intellect is essential to prevent misunderstandings, avoiding the misconception of the human soul as a purely abstract concept. Furthermore, examining the soul's connection with vitality elucidates shared attributes and encompasses a diverse spectrum of entities characterized as living.

The purpose of the present research is to understand the nature of reason and destiny and its end in resurrection and to present different meanings and interpretations about proving the survival of reason, which has been the subject of discussion since the past. Based on this, this research has been written by examining the verses of the Quran, especially the verses related to the creation and the definite destiny of man, and examining the sayings of scholars and philosophers. During the review of the sources, the certainty of reason in the existence of man in the second life (the Day of Resurrection) was proved with rational and narrative reasons by referring to the verses of the Holy Quran and inspiration from the descriptions of philosophers and scholars. One of the reasons cited in verse 27 of Surah S, and one of the convincing intellectual reasons is that God did not create man and the world in vain, and reason and logic do not accept that the oppressor and the oppressed are equal in judgment, so the resurrection and reckoning is a definite obligation for every human being; In this way, it is proved that reason is with man on the day of resurrection, because its absence removes responsibility and accountability from him, and by losing it, a person's humanity and identity are lost, and if this is the case, there will be no judgment and accountability, and this is impossible based on the sayings of the Most High, reason and logic. This is a deterrent answer to the words of the deniers who say that there is no resurrection and that man is destroyed by death and suffers eternal destruction. So, based on the general results, there is reason and resurrection, and reason does not disappear with death, and resurrection is for the realization of justice in the reward of the righteous and the punishment of the wicked.

The design argument is one of the simplest and most common arguments that connects humans to the material world. Since a long time ago, humans have acknowledged the existence of wise and intelligent moderators through thinking about the structure of creatures and their purposiveness. Various expressions of this argument with different degrees of strength and accuracy are seen in the talk of Islamic and Western thinkers who through argument, analogy, or induction and with dependence on partial or general instances of design in nature are trying to prove an intelligent moderator. Correct perception of this argument and a correct analysis of its preliminaries based on intellect can increase its validity and reliability in proving divine moderator and help us to answer the main part of doubts attributed to it. This descriptive-analytical study considers doubts attributed to this argument from an epistemology viewpoint and tries to eliminate and answer them by explaining the position and role of intellect in this argument relying on conditions of various logical reasons, and defending its validity and reliability in proving meta-matter moderator and abrogating materialists’ opinion.

The widespread development and increasing capabilities of artificial intelligence have led some scientists to believe in the dominance of artificial intelligence over human intelligence and intellect. However, considering the verses of the Quran (Al-A'laa: 1-2) and (Al-An'am: 102) and many other verses that identify God as the sole creator of the universe, as well as God's infinite knowledge (Al-Baqarah: 29) (Al-An'am: 101) of which human knowledge is a mere reflection, and the verses of human dignity: verses that speak of God blowing His spirit into man (Al-Hijr: 29 and Sad: 72) and appointing man as His vicegerent on earth and creating the creatures of the earth for man (Al-Baqarah: 30, Sad: 26, Fatir: 39, Al-An'am: 165, Yunus: 14, Yunus: 73, Al-A'raf: 69, Al-A'raf: 84, Al-Naml: 62), and philosophical arguments that view the universe as a reflection of God's will to be and a cause that is the very essence of dependence on its absolute cause, and considering the verses that identify man as the greatest creation and the most perfect of them (Al-Sajdah: 7) and (At-Tin: 4) to the extent that he is introduced as God's vicegerent on earth (Al-Baqarah: 30), human achievements are the result of human action and man is their efficient cause and the effect of the Most High as the absolute cause, an effect that derives all its power from the sole creator of the universe. Therefore, artificial intelligence, which is a product of man and human achievement, cannot be superior to human intelligence, which is a creation of the Lord of the Worlds. The research method is qualitative and comparative, and the results indicate the invalidity of the superiority of artificial intelligence over human intellect.

Allameh considers the intellect to be the soul of human evidence, and the heart is the soul of evidence, thus the receiver of revelation; Self is evidence and it is referred to as heart or intellect. It is clear that intellect in this application has a more general meaning than theoretical and reasoning intellect. But Aquinas only believes in the reasoning aspect of reason. According to the distinction that Aquinas makes between revelation and reason, he considers the most important popular belief of Christianity, that is, the Trinity, to be outside of rational perception, and emphasizes the primacy of faith over reason. But Allameh, first of all, defines faith in the realm of practical reason, secondly, he considers reasoning and theoretical reason to be prior to faith. The common denominator of Allameh and Aquinas is that they believe about the place of reason in justifying religious beliefs; Many religious beliefs, above all the proof of God's existence, can be justified by reason (proving evidence). Both philosophers use Aristotelian rational-argumentative philosophy to prove religious truths. In this article, we will examine the views of these two philosophers about the place of reason in the justification of religious beliefs with analytical and descriptive methods.

Perception and issues related to the quality of its attainment are crucial in Avicenna's philosophical discussions. He stands as the lone Muslim philosopher attempting to present a coherent theory on forgetting and recalling. Examining the possibility of forgetting and recalling in any scientific subject, and their occurrence for all people, is of utmost importance from the standpoint of epistemology in Avicennan philosophy. This aspect has been investigated in the present research in an analytical-descriptive manner. The questions addressed in this research include: What is the truth behind recalling and forgetting, the degrees of each, and the distinction between recalling and learning? Avicenna's discussions in this field are grounded in his theory about obtaining forms and their entrance into the mind from the outside world, as well as his categorization of different types of sensory, imaginary, apprehensive, and intellectual perceptions. Forgetting is a common attribute among humans and some animals, while recalling scientific forms is unique to humans. The non-materiality of imagination power and its perceptions, coupled with sensory evidence, fundamentally challenges Avicenna's perspective in this field. Learning is the acquisition of a new scientific form, marking a transition from the unknown to the known. On the other hand, recalling involves re-perceiving the scientific form that was previously apprehended.

The issue of distinction between existence and quiddity has been openly raised in Islamic philosophy; but there is not agreement regarding the origins of this issue. This article claims that in Uthulujiyya, in the topic of "intelligence", we can find the traces of “distinction between existence and quiddity". In the fifth Mimer of Uthulujiyya, he equates the term "Ma howa")ماهو))what question) with "Lema howa") هو لم)) why question) in the intellect and in other beings it is considered entirely different questions. What is meant the identification of these two sort of questions: the "Ma howa")ماهو)and "Lam howa") هو لم) in Intellect? Is it possible to consider the two terms "Ma howa")ماهو)and "Lema howa") هو لم) in Uthulujiyya in the subject of reason as "existential" in which the root of the problem of distinguishing "existence and nature" can be investigated? In this article, we intend to examine this issue conceptual-extensional and creatively. In terms of concept, let's explain it through definition, and its examples in the world of reason and matter, and in terms of innovation, we should examine the problem with complete innovation. Therefore, it is necessary to first explain the terms and words used for "existence" and "essence" in the Enneads Uthulujiyya and the understanding these books have of "existence" and "essence" and then to examine "Ma howa")ماهو)and "Lema howa") هو لم) and the issue of existence and essence in the intellect in terms of concept and examples. The method of this research is descriptive-analytical.

For Farabi as a philosopher and Syed Morteza as a rationalist theologian, reason has an incomparable role; For this reason, in order to compare the political philosophy of Farabi and the political theology of Syed Morteza, a comparative study of the role of reason becomes necessary. By examining the works of Farabi and Syed Morteza, this article has discussed the role of reason and its function in the political thought of Farabi and Syed Morteza and has clarified that Syed Morteza and Farabi agree on the value of reason, but their point of departure and direction in rationality is different. In Syed Morteza's political thought, reason is free from philosophical foundations and based on definite revelation and is busy processing to achieve worldly and hereafter happiness under the truth of Shiite Imamate, and reason according to Farabi is based on the foundations of Greek philosophy and with the intention of theorizing the Platonic philosopher-king and with a view It is transcendental and mixed with mystery and paying little attention to external realities, in reaching knowledge from the active intellect and lacks a fundamental view of the fundamentals and Shia Imamate.