Comparing David Hume and MortezaMotahari on a concept of causality

Causality, in metaphysics as well as natural sciences, has been discussed for long by western philosophy and Islamic philosophy.Metaphysical explanation of causality, however, has been of a great importance in Islamic philosophy. Empirical philosophy together with Hume’s criticism and finally philosophy of Kant who denied any metaphysical knowledge have made it impossible for causality to be metaphysically explained in western modern tradition.It was, then, hardly possible to prove divine existence by reference to the principle of causality. However, Islamic philosophy, particularly Mulla Sadra's metaphilosophy, has taken the principle intact. Comparing, at first, David Hume and MortezaMotahari on a concept of causality, this article outlines the differences in between in the end. Based on the very fundamental priority of existence and regarding western thinker’s literature, Motahari made a new look at Sadra’smetaphilosophy and attempted to a rational explication of necessity principle, and cause-effect cognation arriving at a point to regard it a real and external principle. Hume, however,aimed to an empirical explanation of principle of causality. And in doing so, he destabilized necessity and cognation principle coming to a subjective causality. Yet, it is, to some extent, difficult to appropriately answer some challenges made by Hume against natural causality. His criticisms are still in need of some refashioned answers.