نشریه حکمت اسرا
سال ششم شماره 3 (پیاپی 21، پاییز 1393)

Ayatollah Javadi Amoli is one of the contemporary thinkers of Islamic world who pays attention to Religious Art and explains its characteristics and principles. Not only does this paper express the definition and the interpretation of Religious Art in his thinking system, but also its characteristics affected by original viewpoints of Transcendent Philosophy. For Ayatollah Javadi Amoli, the most important characteristics of Religious Art are: the supreme place of intellect and intellectual world as the origins of artwork, the role of imagination as the faculty of creating artwork, the importance of the ethical policies of art and artist as well as the cognitive functions and features of art. Given the two elements of motivation and thought in human being, he considers the illustrating world as the policy of Religious Art and the output of process of creating artwork by the projection of Mimesis as the invariable act of Religious Art.

Arguments on proof for the Necessary Being are classified into three different categories from the point of view of their relation to regression: (1) proof for the Necessary through rejecting regression; (2) non-condition being or lack of regression affirms the Necessary (3) the Necessary Being is affirmed through regression principle. Avicenna's argument is the third one. The present paper is formed in three stages. In the first step, Avicenna's argument is discussed and Mulla Sadra's critique is responded by the words of interpreter of Mavaqif. In the second step, there is a new projection to proof for the Necessary Being by the other argument of third category. The final step of the research is to compare the novel argument with Avicenna's argument and to express the similarities and the differences.

he theory of nominal temporality, which is one of Sabzawari's innovations, has undergone three stages in his thought. To explain the doctrine, Sabzawari's words have some ambiguity, complexity and contradictions. The first stage has been generally noticed by the commentators of Sabzawari's works. Given these stages and his three interpretations of nominal temporality, the contradiction between his different words is explained. The present article reports, analyses and reviews these triple levels or interpretations. In the first stage, the intention of "name" in "Nominal Temporality" is objective name (versus verbal). In the second stage, the intention is objective name, but he did not regard all objective names as nominal temporal things; rather, some names –like the most beautiful names (al-asma' al-husna)- are eternally nominal. In the third stage, the intention of name is not an objective one, rather only quiddities being in mind.

Mulla Sadra, according to his spiritual four journeys, pictures human being as his existence being in motion and becoming, so he actualizes a new level of existence every moment and becomes identified with it. This type of being has created deep relationships between human being and the world. This paper seeks to clarify these relationships. In this regard, we first explain the concept of substantial motion which involves the entire material entities including human being. After that we focus on the existence of human being as a level of indeterminate being and try to make clear his position in the world. What will be in final stage is a traveler who is traveling in oneself and at the same time, traveling in the levels of being, and if his journey in the middle of the self is accompanied with the hint by observing his sights of existence, one retrieves the levels of being because they are the same. Certainly, what moves us forward in the path is only the observation of human being in the mirror of existence.

God has created human in his own image. Since he is the main subject of creation, scholars of different religions discussed about him and mentioned some of his dimensions. The understanding of these dimensions is essential for the purpose of his creation, namely the perfection. The article studied the viewpoints of two outstanding thinkers of Islam and Hinduism, Ibn Arabi and Shankara, concerning the existential dimensions of human. Both thinkers consider the two physical and spiritual dimensions for human. His spirit is identified with the absolute One and then reaches perfection by removing the veil of material. They believe that the existential dimensions of human are only different in characteristics, but not in the origin of being.

Kant's attention to the causality is due to conflicts of processes of objectification in subjective concept of causality. The question has always been along the doubts of philosophers in modern era about the duality of body and soul. Philosophers such as Hume - one of the influential persons on Kant's thought - limited causality in mind in so far as denied the causal necessary relationship in external events. But Kant tried to implement causality in the reality of phenomenal objects, and by the help of experimental analogy, confirmed the necessity of irreversible succession of phenomena. Experimental analogy, the way in which the images of phenomena belong to the possible experience as consecutive relationship, becomes firm and irreversible by a universal and necessary rule. Given the perception form of time in which the possibility of appearance of objects consists and given the filling with time (i.e. it is not possible coming one phenomenon without overtaking previous phenomenon), Kant makes the causality as the invincible relationship.

Lock’s doctrine of substance has a lot of difficulties. On the one hand, He considers substance as an unknown thing of which we just have a relative and ambiguous representation. On the other hand, He believes in corpuscularian hypothesis in which the physical world ultimately consists of atoms and physical corpuscles. The main question for Locke is what the place of substance is; is it real, or just subjective? Can substance be considered the very atoms and physical corpuscles? In other words, how these two views of Locke, i.e., the corpuscularian and unknowable hypotheses of substance, are compatible? To get the answer, first, we briefly explain Lock’s doctrine of substance, and then evaluate the article author's response to the issue. The author believes that the solution is the distinction between Locke's fields of intention to substance (the epistemological domain) and corpuscularian hypothesis (the ontological domain).