نشریه جاویدان خرد
سال سیزدهم شماره 2 (پیاپی 30، پاییز و زمستان 1395)

Fleshing philosophical issues out by allegory, Suhrawardi constitutes the founder of the Illumination School. And his allegorical issues are deemed Avicennian all the way down the line, requiring us to point his other face out: Avicennian Suhrawardi.
I set forth three issues of sense perception, emanation, and cosmology which ever since Aristotle’s age has captured the attention of philosophers.
In the field of sense perception, ten interior and exterior senses are allegorized by ten towers, ten wide straps, ten graves, ten flyers, ten wardens, five chambers and five gates.
In the theory of emanation, the ten Separate Intellects are allegorized by the ten old men, whereas the Active Intellect by the father, the master, and the Red Intellect.
In cosmology, the spheres are symbolized by nine shells, eleven layers of a basin, eleven mountains, sons, and mills.
Ten sense perceptions, ten intellects, and nine or eleven spheres are modules of Avicenna’s philosophy, forcing us to reckon Suhrawardi as an Avicennian sciartist.
All of these allegories allude to Avicenna’s views. That being the case, Suhrawardi is reckoned as an Avicennian sciartist writ large, due to encrypt Avicenna’s stance by allegory, in lieu of his own illumationist views.

In this paper, some reasons such as affirmative provision for nonexistence, considering the abstract and nominal facts as portable for exterior facts and abstraction of general concepts, etc., are first introduced to prove the subjective existence problem. Then, the theory of addition relation proposed by some epistemologists like Fakhr al-Din al-Razi is introduced. The problem of subjective existence has been challenged by Fazel Ghoushchi’s idea about the disagreement of knowledge and apparent and identity denial of both, and also by Sadr-al-Din Dashtaki’s idea about the problem of existential counterfeiting and the theory of intuitive revolution.
These reviews have been discussed and answered by two theologians, Mulla Sadra Shirazi and Mulla Hadi Sabzavari. Finally, the epistemologist Sadr-al Mote’alehin Shirazi innovates the theory of ‘The revolution in the ontology of knowledge’ and ‘the coupling of knowledge and pure existence and abstraction’. This philosopher brings the discussion out of the issues and essences and considers the manifestation and origination role of the soul in knowledge and soul rising of the scientific forms and ruling out the immanent rising of them and consequently presents his final theory that is based on the conformity of the subjective and objective universes and ultimately proves the problem of the subjective existence.

In this paper, the teleology of God be rejected in three ways: first: teleology of God not the necessity which is taken from philosophical and intellectual foundations or principles. Second: it is not necessary for Aristotelian philosophy or school. Third: it is not used from religious teachings and legal texts whether verses and traditions. So assumption or necessity of teleology for God in creation is refuted and we proved that God has no teleology in his creation, but rather his creator according to all of the world is bounty. And all teleology are supposed here for God refer to his creation. Therefore from one hand to prove teleology and goal for the reality of God is impossible because it required that God be possible and imperfect and from another hand to reject teleology and goal from the action of God is impossible too because it required that God' action is non-purpose. so each assumption is impossible

Against the two most prevalent ‘extramissive’ and ‘intromissive’ theories of vision, shaykh al-ishraq, Al-Suhrawardi developed a third theory according to which, while visioning, the human soul gains a presential illuminative knowledge of the objects of vision themselves, rather than perceives them merely through perceptual forms. Sadr al-Muta’allihin saw Al-Suhrawardi's theory as faulty and criticized it. His criticisms were presented in terms of four objections. Al-Sabzawari who tried to justify Al-Suhrawardi's theory defended him against these criticisms. The present article deals with reporting, reviewing, and investigating Al-Sabzawari's responses to Sadr al-Muta’allihin's objections. Overall, these responses clarified some aspects of the debate, and were insightful in opening up new ways, but no one is sufficient to respond to those objections, but each one requires to be completed.

Various meanings for possibility (general, particular and more special possibility) and future contingency _as a separate meaning_ mentioned by Ibn-Sina, havent any example in al-Farabi's works. In logical works of al-Farabi "possible" relates to time's junctures as well as its potency. This shows that possibility in his view has only one meaning and it is is identical to future contingency or dispositional possibility and therefor it is particular to material world. In some of his philosophical works he repeated this without stipulating the relation to Time. But in other works that attributed to al-Farabi _like Ibn-Sina's work_ possibility bases on "being caused" and "its dependency on other", therefor contains all other than God. In the first group of al-Farabies philosophical works "celestial bodies" have a critical situation. By definition they are necessary but having motion makes this assertion doubtful.

Athir al-Abhari (d. ca. 656/1258) was an outstanding Iranian polymath who wrote numerous treatises, as Bayan al-Asrar, Talkhis al-Haqa’iq, Risalat al-Matali’, and Zubdat al-Haqa’iq. Each treatise contains three subjects: logic, physics, and metaphysics copied by Katebi al-Qazwini. Al-Abhari has written his ijaza at the beginning of each of the treatises. The four are preserved in MS Fazil Ahmed Pasha, 1618, in the Library of Kuprili, Istanbul. In this study, I have edited and introduced the Logic of Talkhis al-Haqa’iq. Abhari’s logic in this work is purely Avicennan.

The issue of primacy of existence or quiddity, is one of the important philosophical issues. Some philosophers have gravitated to primacy of existence and some of them have gravitated to primacy of quiddity. The preferred viewpoint in this essay (professor Khosropanah’s viewpoint) is primacy of existence and quiddity. According to this view, the external fact is the real, essential and without conditional mode of the referent belonging to the meaning of existence and quiddity. This viewpoint does not imply that one external thing becomes two things, because there is evidence that numerous meanings have filled the external world objectively not uniquely. Besides, it does not imply that essence and existence are co-ranked, because their status is different in terms of different aspects and from the viewpoint of two different analyses: rational and conventional. Primacy of existence and quiddity is considered to be of inherent propositions, i.e. the true conception of its premises brings about the result. In the end, some of the ontological and epistemological results of this viewpoint are mentioned in relation to the problem of generation (Al – ja’l), primary and secondary intelligibles and also the problem of correspondence.

The subject of this article is reviewing the relationship of concepts of the real posited notions (logical philosophical concepts) to the subjective and objective reality in regard to the one and many. The question is that dose the unity or diversity of the mental and external reality (origin of the abstract) of the logical and philosophical concepts require the unity or diversity of the concept? Does the unity or diversity of the logical or philosophical concept represent the unity or diversity of the origin of the abstract concept? In response to these questions, we formulate hypotheses and propositions.
The methodology of the research is analytic through conceptual analysis and the most important findings of the research are: 1- in logical predicate that does not fit with semantic character of its abstract origin, the plurality of the types of logical sense does not discover the plurality of the types of its abstract origin; as the plurality of the types of the origin of the abstract does not require a plurality of the types of logical sense. 2- In logical predicate that has a characteristic of an appropriate semantic with its abstract origin there is a bilateral correlation between the concept and its abstract origin in regard to the unity and multiplicity.