ماهنامه معرفت
سال بیست و پنجم شماره 2 (پیاپی 221، اردیبهشت 1395)

This paper seeks to explain the relationship between religion and morality. Morality is a part of religion and according to this view, morality has a religious character. Sometimes, by religion it is meant the content of the Holy Qur’an and Sunnah which consist of beliefs, morality and practical instructions. According to this view, religious morality refers to the ethical propositions in the books of religion. Morality refers to the good and bad characteristics and behavior, and one of the ways of recognizing them is referring to the Holy Qur’an and Sunnah. According to this view, religious morality is the morality for which has devotional and religious basis.
But in current ethics, morality, in addition to characteristics and habits, consists of behavior; and, in addition to good and bad characteristics, any voluntary act, good or bad, is considered as a moral value which, not only has devotional grounds but is demonstrable, too, because every man, seeks after perfection by nature. Therefore, perfection-seeking and truth-seeking, and attempting to acquire knowledge and awareness is a natural thing and an existential necessity, due to the fact that all people seek after perfection and happiness. Therefore, most propositions and moral values can be recognized by resting on rational and devotional evidence and they have reasonable grounds.

Philosophy in its strict sense is an intellectual discipline concerned with discovering the reality about existent qua existent and its rules. In these discussions the nature and reality of things and the idea of their existence and non-existence are discussed and the certain, discursive, abstractive, general and necessary property of the rule is among the characteristics of philosophical discussions. Proving the subject matter of every discipline, explaining the conceptional principles and proving their judgmental principles are among the main functions of philosophy. For this reason, each one of the added philosophies can constitute a branch of the philosophy in the science which is adjacent to added philosophy.

Nowadays, the question of philosophy of mind is seriously propounded in the philosophical circles in the West and has exerted its affect on such disciplines like anthropology, psychology, moral philosophy and philosophy of religion. It is also affected by the achievements of some other disciplines. However, philosophy of mind is not well known to the people in our country. Hence, the acquaintance with this kind of knowledge, applying its issues to the findings of philosophical psychology findings and the critical investigation of it can be one of the necessities.
The present paper which uses an analytical-descriptive method, is a short step expounding the most important topics which are discussed in philosophy of mind today.

The rule of ‘’Al-Wahid’’ is one of the main philosophical rules, according to which a single cause does not produce more than a single effect: ''exuno non fit nisisunum''.
Despite the consensus which exists over this rule among the philosophers, mystic's words show that they refuse this rule or at least think it is going through a reform process. Regardless of accepting or rejecting the very rule, the main challenge to philosophical and mystical assertion is to determine the instance for the first origin and first cause and explain how can a single cause produce multiplicities. Offering the philosophical and mystical perceptions of this rule and investigating the objections of mystics to philosopher's view, this paper seeks to make explicit the offered instances for the first origin and first cause in the two intellectual systems and explain its assertion concerning the way of producing multiplicities. It also proves that, firstly, regardless of the slight differences between philosophy and mysticism, the very rule is compatible with the mystical principles, and secondly, the objection of mystics to philosophers, views is answerable, even though the mystical assertion is not based on the acceptance or rejection of the mentioned objection.

As one of the seekers after truth, Ghazali's attention is directed to the group of philosophers more than any other groups. He believes that their way of discovering the truth is not efficient. He divides philosophers into materialists, naturalists and metaphysicians and proposes twenty issues in theology according to seventeen of which he considers philosophers as heretic and according to three of which as disbelievers.
This research which uses a descriptive-analytical method, deals with Ghazali’s motivations and stances towards philosophy and philosophers and the criticisms he directs to them. Investigating the views of Ghazali, the paper reaches the conclusion Ghazali's pretext for excommunicating the philosophers is not consistent with the religious and theological beliefs confirmed by him. Motivations have a great effect on Ghazali’s disagreement with philosophy which is not consistent with his reality-seeking.

Ibn-Sina's Azhaviyeh treatise which is concerned with the resurrection is, in some respects, different from his other works. This difference is mainly ascribed to two explicit views which Ibn-Sina has expressed in his treatise; the first about bodily resurrection and the second on the doctrinal propositions of religion, that is, the doctrinal texts of the Holy Qur’an and narrations. These two views which his adversaries have opposed and which suffer from shortcomings do not recur in this way in his other works. Using an analytical-descriptive method, this paper seeks to shed light on this treatise, review its different parts and comment critically on the intellectual ideas in it.

For addressing the issue of good and badness, we need to expound, three main questions: essential good and badness, rational good and badness and the type of the propositions of good and badness. The main question that arises is: Are essential good and badness associated with actions? Is man’s intellect capable of recognizing the goodness and badness of actions? Are the propositions of good and badness part of certain propositions which are rooted in the fact and fact-itself or part of the famous propositions in its strict sense, on which there is agreement among the sages? Using a descriptive-analytical method, this research seeks to explain and evaluate Mohaqiq Isfahani's views. Mohaqiq Isfahani considers good and badness which corresponds to essential praiseworthiness or blameworthiness as part of the essential accidents of actions, and seeking confirmation, he accepts the idea that sages can recognize the goodness and badness of things according to partial affirmation. He considers the propositions of goodness justice and badness of injustice as famous propositions in their strict sense and considers sage's unanimous agreement as the only way of confirming their validity. His views, though have certain strong points, have some weaknesses, on which this paper elaborates.