A Comparative Study of Purposivism in Mulla Sadra’s Substantial Motion and Whitehead’s Motion in Nature

The existence of motion in nature is an evident matter but there is disagreement among thinkers on its direction and purpose. Some of those living prior to Socrates considered nature as accidental and denied any purpose for it. In contrast, some regard purposiveness as exclusive in creatures with intelligence and will-power. Nature lacks these two characteristics, so it is not directed and purposeful. Mulla Sadra does not view purpose as dependent upon intelligence and will-power. In his opinion, motion in all nature is directed and purposeful, because there is difference between ultimate cause and purpose. Whitehead considers the constituent of nature to be process and with his principles views nature in motion and flowing. He considers orderliness for nature and in this way discovers the existence of God. Thus, motion in nature is a directed and purposive. The two philosophers of East and West have been able to achieve empathy and rapport in terms of purposiveness and directiveness of motion.