maslow

The understanding of humans in any philosophical school influences their ultimate purpose, affecting their way of life and how they resolve conflicts. Building on the foundation of humanistic psychology, Maslow posits the theory of self-actualization, asserting that transcending basic needs related to deficiency allows for the full manifestation of innate talents to their highest potential. Fārābī, a philosopher of happiness with a special focus on the functions of the mind, thought, and aptitudes, links human perfection in material life to perfection in the afterlife, offering a comprehensive theory on perfection and happiness within the realm of the mind through the flourishing of innate talents governed by the bestowing of intellects. Despite their different worldviews, both thinkers ultimately regard human perfection and happiness as aligned with the blossoming and utilization of innate talents. This perspective redefines primary human experiences, such as suffering and transient pleasure, replacing them with satisfaction and happiness. This paper presents an analytical-comparative study of these two philosophers’ views on the definitions of perfection and happiness. It addresses how humans resolve worldly conflicts and problems and examines their solutions within physical, relational, emotional, intellectual, and meaningful perfection.

Maslow, as a humanist psychologist, and Mullā Ṣadrā, as one of the greatest thinkers of Islamic tradition, have provided different views regarding the whatness of human beings. Given the fact that both thinkers have paid particular attention to explaining the required features and pre-requisites for Man’s perfection itself and the process of Man’s perfection as well as the characteristics of perfect Man, a comparison of their anthropological principles can yield some valuable results. Some of the shared principles of these two philosophers’ include enjoying essential dignity; free will; the ability to move towards perfection, and pre-mordial nature and accepting spiritual experiences and the infinity of the process of Man’s perfection. However, they have provided various interpretations of these principles. Moreover, they have different views regarding the centrality of God in Man’s life, existential dimensions, fundamental needs, stages of Man’s growth, end of Man’s perfection, and characteristics of Perfect Man. Mullā Ṣadrā has managed to present a system based on cognitive principles through benefitting from religious, gnostic, and philosophical fundamental rules, synthesizing them with each other, and introducing a comprehensive and consistent portray of Man’s truth. An all-inclusive and meticulous analysis of such principles can be of great value to related discussions in modern philosophy. A synthesis of gnosis, religion, and reasoning is one of the most important features of Mullā Ṣadrā’s philosophical thoughts, which affect all the acceptable elements of Man’s Whatness.

Presenting definitions for (1) theoretical and practical as well as (2) instrumental and non-instrumental rationality, this paper provides a mechanism for defending the practical rationality of commitment to religious teachings or religiosity. First, relaying on the Abraham Maslow's theory of hierarchy of needs and the theory of Thaddeus Metz and Susan Wolf on the meaning of life, the rationality of “meaningfulness of life” as a fundamental goal in human life has been advocated. Thus, based on the descriptive viewpoint of Ninian Smart, the contemporary phenomenologist of religion, about the various dimensions of religion, the paper provides a mechanism for defending the practical instrumental rationality of religiosity. It is shown that if religions, regarding their various dimensions, be able to provide a certain level of human needs in Maslow's theory, and give meaning to life of believers according to Metz and Wolf, then defending the instrumental rationality of religiosity would be able. The need to the theoretical rationality of religious teachings to defend the instrumental rationality of religiousness; the comprehensiveness of the concept of "meaning of life" as the goal of religiosity in explaining the practical rationality of religiousness, compared to other purposes of religiousness; the ability of religions to give meaning to human life, or at least to the lives of believers, as one of the criteria .