نشریه حکمت صدرایی
سال پنجم شماره 1 (پیاپی 9، پاییز و زمستان 1395)

Proposed in the fields of old geometry and natural philosophy, the problem of finiteness or infiniteness of bodily objects is one of the philosophical problems that had been demonstrated by appealing to mathematical propositions. The goal of exposing this problem to discussion was to demonstrate that the physical world has a boundary and to determine where the boundary could be find. However, the line of argument was not as saying that any physical object has three limited directions, and so the universe as a collection of these objects must have a limitation; but the focus of discussion is on the heavens, especially on what limits the heavens and what there is beyond them. Is it void or full? Or none of them? If it is void, whether it could be drawn an extension at there? And, if it were so, what kind of extension?
In response to the above questions, natural philosophers provided some demonstrations that lead to the finiteness of dimensions. In this paper, after discussing the viewpoints of Ibn Sina, Suhrawardi, and MullaSadra, who are the representatives of Peripatetic philosophy, illuminative philosophy, and Transcendent theosophy, respectively, the criticisms of Allama Hasan-zadaAmoli to these demonstrations will be given. According to him, because these demonstrations fail to prove the finiteness of physical world, and since the Divine works and deeds are not restricted to the visible world, and he do what he do beyond this bodily world, there must be another world or worlds with some other creatures. By doing so, he proves not only that the existential Words of God, which are His onomastic status and rank, are infinite, but also the Words of physical world and the very physical world are infinite.

In the contemporary epistemology, many theories have been advanced about the nature of sense perception and the way it represents the external world. As one of such theories, “epistemological realism” argues that knowledge of the external world is possible and this world exists independent from man’s knowledge; and, our knowledge is a description of this world. Epistemological realism may be classified under two groups: “direct” and “indirect”. At the first look, it seems that there are some common points between Mulla Sadra’s theory of sense perception on the one hand and each of direct and indirect realism on the other. When one reflects upon the case, however, he will find that there are some differences between them and Mulla Sadra’s theory regarding his views about ontology; and, inevitably, some sort of “indirect Sadrean realism” will emerge which will be explained in this paper. In the doctrine of “unity of the knower and the known object”, immaterial reality of knowledge has been introduced as an intermediate between the knower and the external known object; and, “the correspondence between the vertical beings of the same quiddity” explains how the sense perception represents the external world. It will be argued in this paper that perceiving a material object in the light of perceiving an immaterial and Ideal being in a world other than the world of nature (even though it is internally consistent with other Sadrean doctrines) is somehow far from ordinary understanding of sense perception

Principality of existence is a fundamental concept in transcendent theosophy. One of the objections to this philosophy is that principality of existence mandates the necessary existence of a being by itself. Mulla Sadra offers two responses to this objection the first of which is based on differentiating the dual meaning of the term “by itself”. The second response emphasizes on the indigence possibility and need for distinguishing between logical and philosophical inherent necessity. Majority of thinkers have focused on one of these responses; yet, this approach will not be able to solve this contradiction and the right pass to do so is using both responses to change the principle of the need for a cause from an essential need to an existential possibility. Therefore, an image is initially represented form the necessary existence allegation and then the famous objection of Mulla Sadra to the necessity of existence is discussed. Later on, his repose is stated and, according to this response, the main problem which is also the subject of this study is scrutinized.

The phrase “the one does issue him only the one” is content of a rule which is very important in Islamic philosophy. Muslim philosophers such as Ibn Sina and Mulla Sadra accepted this principle and presented certain proofs to prove it. On the other hand, some theologians denied this rule, and through violations and objections were seeking to undermine this principle. This rule, in accordance with the principles of transcendental wisdom has certain elements, so that deniers of that rule fail to understand the correct meaning of these elements. In this paper, firstly, we explain the elements of this rule, and with Sadraian approach, arguments and objections to this rule has been analyzed, and although some Peripatetic arguments against this rule is not without problems, but according to principles of transcendent Wisdom we presented the more stronger argument in witness of this rule and answered the violations and the objections to it.

The Quran has two different approaches to human; idealistic and realistic view. In the first look, the Quran says that all human beings have the ability to achieve its ultimate perfection and the expectation of all people, is right expectation. But from another perspective, it believes that the majority of people will not be able to achieve this task. According to Mulla Sadra With principles such a existentialism, Substantial motion of soul, unity of perceiver and perceived and other principle of Transcendent Wisdom can be said that The human soul with its substantive motion And with the right choice of right Comprehensions and in total by Proper training of practical and theoretical reason can reach his self to a full Immaterial. Yet the majority of people are Unaware of this important task and choose another way in the personal life. idealistic, realistic, full immaterial. existentialism. Substantial motion. m m m

Mulla Sadra's exposition of the judgment day (hashr), is a comprehensive and complete exposition that helped rationalizing many religious teachings and will result in affirming many scriptural texts. He applied most of his principles and innovations and used in full capacity, his Transcendental philosophy. One of his cosmological basis on the gathering of human beings in the day of judgment (hashr), is the threefold realms of being. He pays attention to the ascending movement of ego, by proposing the the two realms of Idea and intellect as hereafter, and also by considering the correspondence of human senses with these realms and his substantial motion, and explains different estates of humans Gathering in the Day with regard to each realm. He will then rationally explains the presence of the sinners in animal forms based on these theories and tries to prove the scriptural texts and answer many questions in this regard.

In the history of thought, reason and intuition are two ways considered to reach the truth. In this context, what primarily led scholars to think about is which of the two has been more reliable and functional. The two methods shows that, although each of them alone are certain advantages, but Content to one of the two arguments and witnesses, in the path of truth, does not help, and the ability to solve many of the problems of intellectual is not thinkers. The combination of these two methods is considered by some scholars. In fact these Islamic thinkers, their philosophy of intuitive tools, which can Mulla Sadra those cited. This article is a basic question: how witnesses Mulla Sadra his philosophy compatible? In this article referring to some of the criticisms raised by the use of intuition in philosophy And respond to them with regard to the wisdom Sadraee will show that some of the witnesses in the philosophy of Sadra able to use not only the dignity of rational philosophy into not compromise, but such use is perfectly synchronized with Sadraee philosophical thought.

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.

The problem of Resurrection has been an important part of the Abraham’s religions and these religions have tried to deal with this issue in different approaches.In this article, with an emphasis on comparative theology approach by reviewing various theories about the physical and spiritual resurrection in Islam and Christianity, will compare Mulla Sadra approach as a Muslim philosopher as well as a Christian philosopher St. Augustine approach in Faced with the question of the resurrection , and in particular the bodily resurrection. We show that the type of anthropology and cosmology Mulla Sadra highlighted the rational and textual proofs of bodily resurrection which emphasizing the importance of the material world in a divine pre-order as one of the stages of human development and live in it as a creation of God has great significance for human excellence to Armageddon. This approach provides the importance of the various aspects of the physical and natural world for Islamic theology. But the kind of theological anthropology and cosmology Augustinian denied the importance of the material world and this world was considered as the area of human punishment where he fall in as a result of original sin. Material and mundane aspects of human life and even death understood and interpreted in the light of God's punishment and wrath. And prosperity and human emancipation will be possible only with the grace of God on the Day of Judgment. So the natural world In the Christian theology, contrary to Islamic theology , rejected and will be negative in many aspects .

Mulla sadra Presents "Individual unity of existence" theory as his final vision in discussion of existential unity.
In this view, the only actual existence is God and another is his manifestations. Here is where the "Cause and effect principle" violates and "dignity principle" supplants it.
Cause and effect converts to existence and appearance and all diversity are considered as manifestations and appearances of existence.
In preset treatise by studying negation of cause and effect principle and diversity which are essential for "Individual unity of existence" principle, we were problems, including believing in continual creation, negation of preparatory causality denial of science and thinking and fatalistic determinism.
We concluded that above, topic is irrational and has no position in philosophy, because intuitive and non-discursive topics have not any value in philosophy and it is the place of true and allowable belief and incredible statements have no position in Epistemology, so its entry into the philosophy is wrong.
However, Mulla sadra at that beginning of Asfar claims that he has skill to convert his intuitions to argument topics.

In transcendental philosophy "knowledge" is deemed to be existence. Although analysis of Knowledge in the light of existential interpretation, can provide the specific features of two types of Propositional and intuitive knowledge in epistemology of transcendental philosophy. This issue of the current study is to analyze the relation of these two types of knowledge under "epistemic justification" and to determine the scope of the epistemic justification of these two types as well. The analytical-logical approach in terms of Sadrolmoteallehin has brought proof for the requirement (due to the duality of scientific and its objective existence) of propositional knowledge to Justification theory and its monopoly in "proof". Since intuitive knowledge is gained by objective witnesses, in its different types (sensory and extra sensory), it is needless of epistemic justification.
Since intuitive knowledge is gained by objective witnesses, in its different types (sensory and extra sensory), it is needless of epistemic justification.

Belief in acquisition the nature of things in mind, in the discussion of mental existence is caused numerous difficulties in this context, such as description of mind to antithetical affairs, description of mind to accessories of nature and above all union two topics. Many scholars seek to answer to these difficulties. One of these responses belongs to Fazil Qoushchi in explanation of abstraction of opinion. He tries to solve these problems by stating the distinction between a thing is appeared in the mind and a thing is relied upon the mind that is caused to form a new view about mental existence. Two issues have been raised about his view: Javadi Amoli states that his view is somewhat distinct from the MullaSadra's opinion but yet Javadi Amoli considers it acceptable by distinction between four matters: existence of knowledge, nature of knowledge, mental existence of apparent thing and nature of apparent thing. Hasanzadeh Amoli regards Qoushchi's view and MullaSadra's view as one view and regards their difference in interpretation and lack of expression the correct interpretation of Qoushchi's view is considered as the reason of impediment about his view that Mulla Sadra proposes it. In this research by readout the Fazil's view and by accepting two interpretations, we introduse his view as a planning for next views. This research shows that Qoushchi's view is capable to response to Proposed doubts in the context of mental existence.