فهرست مطالب

الهیات تطبیقی - پیاپی 17 (بهار و تابستان 1396)
  • پیاپی 17 (بهار و تابستان 1396)
  • تاریخ انتشار: 1396/06/20
  • تعداد عناوین: 10
|
  • مسلم نجفی *، سید مرتضی حسینی شاهرودی صفحات 1-28
    انسان جدید، به علل گوناگونی همچون پیشرفت های علمی و فلسفی، ضعف مراجع دینی (یهودی و مسیحی) در پاسخ گویی به نیازهای فکری و عملی او، رفتار نامناسب کلیسا با اهل اندیشه و رشد فزاینده سرمایه داری و مصرف گرایی، دچار بحران تعبد گریزی و آزادی خواهی شده است. پوچی و بی معنایی و به دنبال آن، اندوه، دلهره و نومیدی در زندگی فردی از یک سو و ناامنی و بی عدالتی در زندگی اجتماعی و جهانی از سوی دیگر، پیامدهای گریزناپذیر تعبد گریزی و آزادی خواهی بوده اند. در این میان، آنچه مغفول مانده، ساختار ماهوی و فطری در انسان است. انسان جدید، ماهیت و فطرت را انکار کرد تا با پشت کردن به سنت، به آزادی در فکر و عمل دست یابد. در این مقاله تلاش شده است تا راه رهایی از بحران پوچی و بی معنایی از نگاه علامه طباطبایی که مدافع ساختار ماهوی و فطری در انسان است و از نگاه سورن کرکگور که مخالف این ساختار است و مواضعی ناسازگار دارد، با روش فلسفی و کلامی و با بررسی تطبیقی، ارزیابی و تحلیل شود.
    کلیدواژگان: ذات، فطرت، معنای زندگی، دین فطری، طباطبایی، کرکگور
  • سید مرتضی طباطبایی *، غلامحسین توکلی صفحات 29-44
    در این مقاله، دو رویکرد متفاوت سیدحسین نصر و اندرو فینبرگ برای رهایی از مشکلات تکنولوژی مدرن، اجمالا معرفی و سپس مقایسه شده است. نصر با نگاهی ذات گرایانه و منفی به تکنولوژی مدرن، به آسیب های فردی، جمعی و زیست محیطی فراوانی اشاره می کند.
    راهکار نصر عبارت است از طرد کلی تکنولوژی مدرن و بازگشت به تکنولوژی سنتی. درمقابل، فینبرگ تکنولوژی های مدرن را با نگاهی ساخت گرایانه و تجربه گرا بررسی می کند و ضمن بررسی آسیب های گوناگون این تکنولوژی ها، راه رهایی را توسل به تکنولوژی دموکراتیک اعلام می کند. تکنولوژی دموکراتیک، تکنولوژی ای است که عموم مردم در طراحی و تولید آن مشارکت داشته باشند. پس از مقایسه همه وجوه اختلاف و اشتراک نظر نصر و فینبرگ، نخست روشن شد اساس اختلاف نظر فاحش آنان در ارائه راهکار، به برداشت متفاوت آنان از ماهیت تکنولوژی و قبل تر از آن به جهان بینی های متفاوت آنان بازمی گردد؛ دوم، نشان داده شد که با استفاده از قابلیت های هریک از این دو رویکرد و نیز با توجه به مشترکات عقاید ایشان، راهکاری مرضی الطرفین به دست آمد و آن «مقاومت مردمی در برابر تکنولوژی های ناهمخوان با سنت» است. بر اساس این، در جوامعی که به حفظ سنت های اصیل خود مایل هستند، مقاومت دموکراتیک در برابر تکنولوژی های ناسازگار با سنت، تامین کننده هم زمان دغدغه های نصر و فینبرگ است.
    کلیدواژگان: تکنولوژی مدرن، تکنولوژی بدیل، سنت گرایی، نظریه انتقادی تکنولوژی، نصر، فینبرگ
  • سید مهران موسوی *، محمود کریمی صفحات 45-62
    در مقاله حاضر، با بررسی تطبیقی «چگونگی مراحل آغازین آفرینش عالم هستی» در قرآن کریم و تورات که با نام مشترک «آسمان ها و زمین» یاد شده، وجوه شباهت ها و البته تفاوت های در ساختار و محتوای دو کتاب بیان شده است. بی شک علت اصلی وجود شباهت بین محتوای قرآن و تورات، داشتن منشا و مبدا واحد است که هر دو ریشه در وحی الهی دارند. با مقایسه دو کتاب، علاوه بر پی بردن به شباهت ها و تفاوت های دیدگاه دو دین درباره آغاز پیدایش جهان، گامی درجهت فهم و تفسیر بهتر آیات هر دو کتاب برداشته شده است. در هر دو کتاب، خداوند، خالق اولیه جهان است و همه چیز را آفریده است و جهان مادی، مسبوق به ماده اولیه نیست. هر دو کتاب از وجود «آب» در ابتدای خلقت نام برده اند که در نقل تورات از این آب، آسمان آفریده شده است؛ ولی طبق قرآن، آسمان ها از «دود» آفریده شده اند. در دو کتاب، آفرینش جهان مادی محصول شش روز است؛ با این تفاوت که در تورات از روز هفتم آفرینش و استراحت خدا در آن روز نیز یاد شده است؛ ولی در قرآن، چنین چیزی نیامده است. هر دو کتاب، برای مراتبی از آسمان، شان معنوی و غیرجسمانی نیز قائلند و قرآن به صراحت از وجود هفت آسمان یاد کرده است؛ ولی در تورات چنین تصریحی نیامده است.
    کلیدواژگان: آغاز آفرینش، مراحل خلقت، تطبیقی، تورات، قرآن، جهان
  • ناصر گذشته *، علی رمضان دماوندی صفحات 63-76
    اسلام در زمان و مکانی ظهور کرد که مناطق هم جوارش از سطح تمدنی پیشرفته تری نسبت به جزیره العرب برخوردار بودند. این سرزمین ها از نظر ظهور و حضور عقاید و باورهای گوناگون، پیشینه ای بسیار طولانی داشتند و این امر، رواج و گسترش مباحثات و مجادلات الهیاتی در این مناطق را موجب شده بود؛ ازاین رو، اسلام در مکانی ظهور کرد که زمینه مساعد برای مجادلات الهیاتی و کلامی داشت. قرآن کریم مروج و مشوق تفکر و تعقل در دین بود؛ به همین دلیل، مباحث کلامی و الهیاتی و درنتیجه، عالمان این علم در اسلام و بین مسلمانان جایگاه بالایی داشتند. دین پژوهان و خاورشناسان و اسلام شناسان، بارها نقش باورهای پیش از اسلام را در شکل گیری دستگاه های کلامی اسلام بررسی کرده اند. معتزله در گیرودار بحث و مناظره و ردیه نویسی با دیگر فرقه های مسلمان، همیشه با این اتهام روبه رو بودند که شما زرتشتی گرا (مجوس)، ایرانگرا (شعوبی) و زندیق (زندیک یا اهل تاویل؛ یعنی کسی که متون مقدس را تاویل می کند) هستید. معتزله همچنین به قدرگرایی (تقسیم حوزه کارهای خیر و شر میان انسان و خداوند) و عقل گرایی و عدل گرایی متهم بودند. به عبارت دیگر، آنان را به خوانش و تفسیر اسلام بر پایه آموزه های ایرانی، متهم و از این رهگذر، آنان را تکفیر می کردند. در این مقاله تلاش شده است که آیا این اتهام ها، جدای انگیزه های سیاسی، رقابتی و فرقه ای، رنگی از حقیقت دارد یا ندارد. این امر واقعیت دارد که شماری از اعتزالیان، موالی (ایرانیان) و غیرعرب بودند و در محیط عرب های مسلمان زندگی می کردند؛ مانند بصره و کوفه (که یا سابقه سکونتی نداشتند یا موالی و اعراب به شکل هم زمان آن ها را ساکن کردند). در پژوهش حاضر، این مسئله با رویکردی تطبیقی و مقایسه ای بررسی شده است. شبهات زیادی در مسائلی مانند: صفات خداوند به ویژه صفات ذات، مبحث رویت، آزادی اراده و گزینش، استطاعت پیش از فعل، لزوم و وجوب ایمان عقلی، حسن و قبح ذاتی، مبحث الم، صدور خیر محض از ذات پروردگار و ناتوانی او در ارتکاب فعل قبیح، موجب شده است تاثیرپذیری دستگاه کلامی معتزله از انگاره های زرتشتی، امری ممکن و حتی متحقق دانسته شود. سرانجام نتیجه گرفته شد ایرانیان با توجه به پیشینه یزدان شناسی رسوخ کرده در ذهن و زبانشان، خوانشی عقل مدارنه و عدل مدارانه از اسلام به دست آوردند؛ مکتب معتزله محصول این خوانش بود.
    کلیدواژگان: اعتزال، تبارشناسی، عدل گرایی، کلام تطبیقی، متون زرتشتی
  • محمدحسین کیانی * صفحات 77-90
    «تجربه معنوی خودگرا» آگاهی بی واسطه فرد از حالات، ویژگی ها، قابلیت ها و توانایی های درونی خویش است. این تجربه، هم زمان با تجربه فعالیت های غرق شده در بی فکری و تعمق در ذات خویش، به شکل کاملا درونی و فردگرایانه ظهور می کند. نمود بیرونی این تجربه از واکاوی یگه و مدیتیشن بر محوریت درک خودبنیان فرد به دست می آید که یکسره با نگاهی ابزارگونه به تحصیل خودآگاهی و آگاهی درونی نائل می آید. نگارنده در این مقاله، با نظر به دغدغه انسان گرایی در جذب بصیرت های تجربه دینی، نشان می دهد که لازمه چنین تلاشی در ورطه عمل، به ظهور تجربه معنوی خودگرا می انجامد. این تجربه جدید و ملموس که با تحلیل سه مفهوم تجربه، معنوی و خودگرا تشریح می شود، به شکل خارجی در استقبال بی نظیر انسان معاصر از یگه و مدیتیشن رخ داده است. درواقع، این استقبال که ریشه در انتظاری کارکردگرایانه دارد، خواهان تجربه درون نگرا و تامل درونی، کسب احساس تمامیت یافتن خویش، رشد و ارتقاء ابعاد وجودی فرد، کسب نیروی درونی، خودپویایی و خودشکوفایی معنوی، کسب احساس مقدس بودن، شادابی جسمی و روحی، تحصیل آرامش و... است. این ماهیت نگاه انسان گرایانه بر تعالیم سنتی در باب تجربه دینی است که در عمل، به ظهور «تجربه معنوی خودگرا» منجر شده است.
    کلیدواژگان: تجربه معنوی، خودآگاهی، معرفت درونی، یگه، مدیتیشن
  • مهدی مطیع، سمیه نادری * صفحات 91-110
    احدیت، قله توحید است که سوره توحید این مرتبه را گزارش می کند؛ آن هم در ظاهری سهل و ممتنع و ساختاری سلبی که از معرفی های اثباتی معمول، متفاوت است. در نوشتار حاضر با روش معناشناختی (واژه شناختی، روابط هم نشینی، جانشینی و سیاق) و تحلیل روایات و تفاسیر، مفهوم قرآنی احد، واکاوی و سپس با احدیت عرفانی، مقایسه و موازنه و درنهایت، فضای ادراکی آن به تصویر کشیده شده است. توصیفات سلبی از احدیت به شناخت پذیر نبودن آن اشاره دارند. خدایی که در وهم و اندیشه و وصف بیاید، نه خدای مطلق که خدای مخلوق در اعتقاد است. همچنین اوصاف سلبی از نسبت بسیار نزدیک ذات با موجوات حکایت دارد؛ نسبتی که حتی تعبیر نزدیک نیز برای آن نارسا است و جایی برای غیریت و استقلال باقی نمی گذارد؛ چنانکه عارفان وحدت وجودی با نظریه تجلی، از راز عینیت حق و خلق پرده برداشته اند. احدیت در یگانگی ادراک می شود. این یگانگی با تجلیات محبوبی و فنای محب از محبی و ورود او در محبوبی حاصل می شود. به نوعی انسان تبدل وجودی می یابد و خدا در انسان فردیت می یابد (قرب نوافل) و او در خدا فانی (قرب فرائض) و با خدا یگانه می شود.
    کلیدواژگان: احد، الله، صمد، واحد، نسبت
  • سید مهدی امامی جمعه، سپیده رضی * صفحات 111-124
    در این مقاله، یکی از منابع اصلی شالوده فکری فلسفی ملاصدرا یافت و بررسی شده است. شاکله وجودشناسی صدرالمتالهین بر مبانی بساطت، وحدت حقه حقیقیه، سریان وجودی و... استوار است و مطابقت بسیاری با بیانات حضرت علی(ع) در وصف خداوند متعال در نهج البلاغه مانند مطلقیت، وحدت غیرعددی، دوگانه و منفصل نبودن خداوند از موجودات و... دارد؛ به گونه ای که الهیات حضرت علی(ع) یکی از ارکان اصلی شاکله عقل شیعی و اساس و بنیان وجودشناسی ملاصدرا است؛ ازاین رو، ساختار معنایی و محتوایی این دو نظام الهیاتی – خداشناسی حضرت علی(ع) و وجودشناسی ملاصدرا – هم به لحاظ ویژگی ها و خصایص و هم به لحاظ اصول و مبانی تحلیل و بررسی شده اند. از این بررسی و پژوهش، نتیجه ای سودمند و چشمگیر حاصل شده و آن اینکه بیشتر تفکرات فلاسفه اسلامی خصوصا صدرا برگرفته از کلام معصوم(ع) است و این نشان دهنده اصالت هویتی فلسفه ملاصدرا و غیریونانی بودن آن است.
    کلیدواژگان: خداوند، حقیقت وجود، وحدت، تشکیک، تجلی
  • محمد علی دیباجی * صفحات 125-138
    اصحاب لوکیوم (مدرسه علمی فلسفی ارسطو) عنوان مابعدالطبیعه (متافیزیک) را بر مجموعه ای از دست نوشته های ارسطو - که آنها را فلسفه اولی نامیده بود - اطلاق کردند. این عنوان در تاریخ فلسفه پیش از اسلام، تفسیر دوگانه یافت. در تفسیر اول، جنبه تعلیمی و در تفسیر دوم، جنبه رتبی فلسفه اولی در نظر بود. فارابی در مفهوم و غرض از مابعدالطبیعه و شایستگی این عنوان مسائلی را درانداخت و ابن سینا سخن از مشکل بودن یا مفهوم نبودن آن گفت. سوال مطرح شده از حیث تاریخی و معناشناختی این است که آیا بوعلی پس از آشناشدن با کتاب «اغراض مابعدالطبیعه ارسطو» باز هم بر موضع قبلی خود بود یا این اصطلاح را تلقی به قبول کرد. دیگر اینکه در صورت نفی آن چه عنوانی را و به چه دلیل جایگزین آن می دانست و بالاخره دیدگاه او در میان فلاسفه بعد چه وضعیتی پیدا کرد. مقاله در پی پاسخ به این سوالات است و این مباحث را مطرح می کند که موضع ابن سینا در نارسایی مفهوم مابعدالطبیعه برای فلسفه اولی حتی بعد از آشنایی با کتاب «اغراض...» نیز باقی بود. او به همین دلیل الهیات را برای جایگزینی مابعدالطبیعه مطرح کرد؛ زیرا بر این بود که الهیات – بدون نیاز به تاویل- جامع معنی تحقیق در امور عامه و مفارقات است و فیلسوفان و متکلمان مسلمان و مسیحی پس از او، اصطلاح الهیات را در آثار خود به کار برده و جایگزین مابعدالطبیعه کرده اند.
    کلیدواژگان: مابعدالطبیعه، الهیات، علم الهی، تاریخ فلسفه، ابن سینا، حکمت مشرقی
  • حمید کاویانی پویا * صفحات 139-156
    در بین اساطیر ملل مختلف جهان، پیدایش انسان و چگونگی آن تنوع زیادی دارد؛ با این همه، عناصر مشترک فراوانی نیز در آنها یافت می شوند. در این پژوهش سعی شده است با مطالعه متون و اسناد کتابخانه ای و چینش و پردازش آنها به شیوه توصیفی تحلیلی، فلسفه آفرینش آدمی در باورهای ادیان و اساطیر ایرانی، مانوی و میانرودانی، توصیف و تبیین شود و وجود تشابه و افتراق بین آنها به گونه ای تطبیقی و با تاکید بر چرایی این تفاوت در نگرش به خلقت انسان، براساس منابع دست اول تاریخی بررسی شوند؛ بنابراین با توجه به چنین مسائل و بر مبنای فرضیه ارتباط پیدایی و تکوین اسطوره با شکل زندگی انسان در دوره های مختلف، مردم هر تمدن و فرهنگی براساس موقعیت و شرایط زیستی خویش، نگرش مختلفی به خلقت انسان می یابند؛ به گونه ای که برخی پیدایش خویش و جهان مادی را به دیده مطلوب نگریستند و درمقابل آن، ملل و اقوامی که با مشقت دمخور بودند، آشفتگی زیستی خود را به مبدا نخستین مربوط ساختند و هدف از خلقت خویش را بیگاری برای خدایان و طرح دیوان قلمداد کردند.
    کلیدواژگان: آفرینش انسان، ایران، میانرودان، مزدیسنی، مانوی، زروانی
  • مسعود مطهری نسب، علیرضا آقاحسینی *، مجتبی سپاهی صفحات 157-174
    چگونگی تاثیرگذاری الهیات بر تمدن ها و مبانی الهیاتی در دو وجه وحدت گرا و کثرت گرا و همچنین نحوه تاثیرگذاری بر جهت گیری تمدن اسلامی و تمدن غربی امری است که قابلیت پژوهشی عمیق دارد. خوانش تمدنی بر الهیات مسیحی و به طور خاص، الهیات پروتستانی و الهیات اسلامی و سنت گرایی اسلامی و همچنین تاثیرگذاری این دو الهیات و مناسبات آن دو بر تمدن اسلامی و غربی در عصر پسامدرن، مسئله اصلی این پژوهش هستند که با روش تحلیل مقایسه ای انجام شده اند. نتایج به دست آمده نشان می دهند در هر دو الهیات، جنبه هایی از وحدت گرایی و کثرت گرایی وجود دارد؛ اما کثرت گرایی در الهیات مسیحی و وحدت گرایی در الهیات اسلامی غلبه دارد. الهیات مسیحی از دوره رنسانس به این سو دچار تکثرگرایی شده و با ایدئولوژیک شدن مسیحیت، کثرت گرایی دینی، نقش مشروعیت بخشی در ظهور پست مدرنیسم داشته است. از سوی دیگر، الهیات اسلامی از ابتدا مبتنی بر نگرش توحیدی بوده و باوجود ظهور سنت گرایی و جریان های روشنفکری، جنبه وحدت بخش خود را تا به حال حفظ کرده است.
    کلیدواژگان: تمدن غربی، تمدن اسلامی، الهیات، وحدت گرایی، کثرت گرایی
|
  • Muslem Najafi *, Sayyed Murtaza Huseini Shahrudi Pages 1-28
    The modern human, from one side, by different causes was involved in running away from the devoutness; and from other side, for getting the more freedom in thought and deed, denied essence and innate in human being.But does the human really lacking essence and innate? Can human sellect every goals and meaning and then any styles of life free from this problem?
    Without doubt, purpose and meaning of fortunate life should be setting proportionate to natural structure (for example protection from the equable temperature of body) and instenctive structure (as suitable feeding). But, in addition to nature and instinct, dose human have a innate structure that needs to observe its circumstances for earning happiness?
    In Aristotelian philosophy the beings was defined according to their "substance" and accidents (essence and appearance) in ways "complete essential definition" and "complete or defect descriptive definition". For example for human definition it was applied "rational animal" statement and for horse "neighing animal" statement. The assumption of such definitions is accepting "essence" (substance) or special quiddity structure, including natural, instinctive and innate structure in human and other live or no live beings (essentialism). And those people such John Locke and existence philosophies considered the human as a "tabula rasa" or unwritten tablet.
    In view of Allame Tabatabaee, that he retrieved it from Islamic tradition and rational and historical documents, because the species of created beings are leaded naturally toward their ideal aims or happiness by God, the human being that was made with innate structure is leading toward resolving the defects and earning the happiness life. Of course the human, because of his free will and power of election, sometimes is ignoring this innate structure and acts opposite it and thus makes damage and misfortune for him. But Kierkegaard, as "the father of existentialism", takes precedence the existence of man on his essence and he originally denies essence, substance and special innate for man.
    Allame believed the man have common fortunate and misfortune, because they have common knowledges and tendencies, thus they need common dirrection, tradition and religion. But Kierkegaard believed the paths of fortunate and misfortunate for men are differents, because they have not common essence and innate. Every body make his special essence and substance with his free will. He can ellect one of the triple directions or spheres (aesthetic, moral and religious) and anyone shouldnot be fuss and blame.
    In view of Allame, the religion and Sharia law that descended from Heaven is compatible with innate and essence of human and fortunate of whole of human depended on following it. But Kierkegaard, as an fideist christian, believed the way of his fortunate and salvation depended on following Holy Book and he has most recommendated, pointly or clearly, about following this way.
    Allame believs that to determine aim and meaning of life without considering the essence and innate is unrealistic deed and harmfull for man's fortunate and safety. But Kierkegaard, in his famous opinion, do not think a limitation about acceptence in electing one of the triple spheres; because he thinks the human is nothing, hollow and pure contengent. However in his non-celebrity opinion, he clearly or explicitly believes the man has a substance and original innate and evantually he respected of his living in religious sphere and maybe his instability in selecting a meaning of life for himself due to such instability and dichotomy in his theory about innate.
    In view of Allame the properties of innate matters are non-adventitious public, stableness at the same ability to strenthen and weaken and self-explaining. It is obtained such signs in second view of Kierkegaard.
    In most remarks of Allame it is obvious that he believes some innate matters are actually at birth and immediate knwoledge (in presence). And he believes other innate matters are potential. Kierkegaard, in his famous view that repudiates innate and substance, indeed denies it's actuallity and opptionality. But his second view suggests that he accepts actually and involuntary innate that of course human can pass from it's unnecessary items with his free will.
    Allame believes the factors as the false education and training remove man from his first primitive innate and involve him following his or other's carnal desires and causes him unfortune. In despite of the acceptence first innate, this changing way suggests man's freedom. Kierkegaard, as other opponents of innate for the purpose of genetic and legislative freedom, disagreed with innate; unaware that the agreement for innate don,t conflict with freedom. Of course he, in his second view, accepted this compatibility within innate and freedom.
    Allame agrees with innate acknowledge and tendency to truth, beauty and generality of religion, however in the details of religion he clarifies that the knowning God, tends to God, monotheism in person, adjectives and actions, prophecy, Velaya (guardianship) and Islamic law are innates. Kierkegaard, in his first view, believed the human even is empty of innate of God knowing. But in his second viewpoint and specially in his opinion that agreed with "subjectivism", he confesses the being of God and His attributes as oneness, power, knowledge, mercy and etc. Then with rejection of materialism, he declares that the only way for salvation is christianity.
    In view point of Allame, throldom, worship, purification and knowledge of soul are primary and middle meanings of life. The main and final meaning of life is divine knowledge or approach to God. And these are according to man's substance and innate. In this condition human in this world gets tranquility, happiness, hopeness, justice, freedom and security; and in afterlife he gets fotunate. Kierkegaard confesses that the morality is innate and moral is a passage to religiousness and faithfully life and man's fortunate are depending to haltering carnall desires and as a result religiousness. He believes the life in aesthetic sphere and even in moral sphere led to failure and hopelessness.
    Thus the most important common points in views of Allameh and Kierkegaard, the material, spirituall, worldly and heavenly fortunate depend on faith to God, religiousness and thraldom to religious teaches and following this way to devine knowlegde and mysthetic nearness to God.
    Keywords: substance, innate, the meaning of life, the innate religion, Allame Tabatabaee, Kierkegaard
  • Sayyed Morteza Tabatabaee*, Gholamhossein Tavakkoli Pages 29-44
    This paper is going to introduce and compare Seyyed Hossein Nasr and Andrew Feenberg’s views on technology, and speak of their different solutions to get rid of the problems of modern technology. And finally, it presents a strategy which is approved by both of them and helps us to deal with technology better. The order of the issues discussed in the article is as follows: firstly, their discussions with regard to the technology in three areas of “nature of the modern technology”, “its pathology”, and “the proposed solution to deal with its problems” will separately be presented; secondly, their views are compared and their common points as well as their differences in the three areas and in general are pointed out; and eventually, a consensual solution to encounter this modern phenomenon better is provided.
    Nasr believes that modern technology after industrial revolution is essentially different from traditional technology. Unlike traditional technology, modern technology has a secular humanistic value orientation, has a close relationship with modern dominating science, and has cut off its relationship with art. This technology has done a lot of damages to the human in three areas of individual life, social life, and environment including the decline of creativity and skill, dullness and boredom, the increase of greediness and consumerism, and the emergence of spiritual crisis (individual life), population explosion, and the intensification of global poverty along with the social class gap (social life), air pollution, global warming, extinction of many animal species, and abusing the animals for medical experiments (environment). To encounter this modern phenomenon and its damages, Nasr believes that we should avoid modern technology and return to the traditional technology as much as possible.
    However, Andrew Feenberg takes a non-essentialist and historical look at modern technology and states that it should be examined in two different levels: 1. Primary level of decontextualizing and 2. The level of recontextualizing. Accordingly, in the early level of instrumentalization, the instruments and humans are separated from their original contexts based on their affordance and in the form of some tools and machines are only reduced to their useful features. But, in the second level, regarding some social requirements such as aesthetic and ethical consideration, these simplified objects which are in the form of tools and machines are designed and, in fact, recontextualized. Feenberg takes three major features for technology into account: 1. Social relativity, which means that the success of the technology is defined differently in different communities; 2. Value-orientation: what it wants to say is that in the second level and based on various designs, technology brings along certain values; 3. Undetermination: which is saying that technology does not have unilinear progress, and people can change its evolution process. With regard to the pathology of the modern technology, Feenberg follows the leaders of Frankfurt School, and mostly emphasizes the damages which lead to the increase of global poverty and social class gap. Finally, his solution is to democratize the designing and producing process of technology; that is people should try really hard to gain enough information about various types of technology and by planning the protest campaigns either correct or stop the production of harmful technologies.
    Comparing these two point of views, one can say that at least apparently when it comes to providing a strategy not only do they reject each other’s solution, but also contempt and redicule one another. However, as far as the pathology is concerned, they have many common points. Unlike Feenberg, Nasr, first of all, does not mention any positive points about modern technology at all, and has a very pessimist look at the consequences of this phenomenon. Secondly, Nasr believes that these damages are caused by modern technology, but Feenberg argues that the damages are caused by the designing phase of some of the technologies. Thirdly, contrary to nasr’s pathology, Feenberg pathology does not talk of spiritual pathology and is only concerned with worldly and material issues. Finally, the comparison shows that these differences are due to the fundamental differences between the two in the important stage of phenomenology of technology, because Nasr has an essentialist and quite negative view toward technology, but Feenberg’s view is historical and constructive. Despite the fact that both of them consider technology as an unneutral and value-oriented phenomenon, Nasr believes that technology has a special culture, that is the materialistic culture of the earth which is pursued by great greed while Feenberg does not think so. At last, Nasr speaks of reforming the production of modern technology so desperately that one senses determination, but Feenberg, pointing out undetermination, rejects this desperate view.
    Regarding the large number of differences between these two views, at the first glance it seems that finding a consensual solution would not be possible; however, given that both of these thinkers put the main burden of responsibility on the users and peoples’ shoulders, one can come to one consensual strategy: people should say no to the technologies which are in conflict with their desired culture as much as possible, and also avoid buying and using damaging technologies. This type of dealing, as Nasr believes, requires standing up to the disruptive technology, and, as Feenberg expects, is quite democratic and popular. In other words, showing no passivity in the face of the disruptive technologies, and actively boycotting them is a sensible and effective deed which provides a better future for mankind.
    Keywords: Modern technology, alternative technology, traditionalism, critical theory of technology, Nasr, Feenberg
  • Sayyed Mehran Mousavi *, Mahmoud Karimi Pages 45-62
    By a comparative study of the quality of the early stages of the creation of the universe – mentioned by the common name of the earth and the heavens - in the Quran and the Torah, we notice the similarities and differences in the structure and contents of these two books.
    There is no doubt that the main reason for the similarities between the contents of the Quran and the Torah is their unique source i, e. the divine revelation.
    By comparing the two books in addition to finding out the similarities and differences between the perspectives of these two religions about "the beginning of the world", we may pave the way towards better understanding and exegesis of the verses of both books.
    By examining the creation story in the Torah and the Quran, we found certain similarities and differences. Out of this comparison, the following results come out:The order of creation mentioned in the Torah is very important. But the verses of the Quran relevant to the creation of the world, are seen in different chapters sporadically.
    In both books, Allah is the original creator of the world and everything. This world had no raw material before creation. Although this is not explicitly mentioned in these two books, by extracting the meaning of the verb "F-T-R/ÝØÑ" (in the Quran) and "B-R-A/ÈÑ" (in the Torah) that involve the meaning of creation from "naught" the idea can be established that creation of God is an innovation.
    In the Torah, we find mention of the darkness in the beginning of the creation and, accordingly, the Jews believe that darkness is a created being and not merely the absence of light. But in the Quran, there is no mention of creation of darkness in the beginning of creation.
    Both books have mentions the presence of water in the beginning. Torah, apparently, quotes that the water had covered the entire surface of the earth, so that there was no water -free land there. From the expansion and extension of these waters, the sky appeared. But according to the Quran, the sky was created from smoke. Indeed, according to some Islamic traditions, the smoke emanated from these waters. Also the Quran, like the Torah, talks about the conception of extension and expansion of the "sky".
    The Torah says: "The Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. " A similar verse in the Quran says "æ ˜Çä ÚÑÔå Úáی ÇáãÇÁ" Throne of God was upon the water. Of course, the meaning of "spirit" and "Throne" are quite different.
    In the Torah, the creation of light, and naming it the "day, " and then naming the dark part as the "night", before the creation of the heavens, and even other astronomical objects, is a matter of the first day of creation. Thus "day" and "night" are two different concepts that are meaningful independent from the sky and the sun and the stars. But in the Quran, we don`t see such a distinction of the concept of "day" and "night" from that of the sky and the sun. So there is no mention of a distinct creation of day and night at beginning of creation, before creation of the heavens, the earth, the sun and the moon.
    In the Quran and the Torah, the creation of the universe was not posthaste but it happened in six days or six periods. There is a difference in the Torah saying, on the seventh day God rested. In the Quran, we do not see such a point. However, in several verses of the Quran, it has been implicitly mentioned that God did not rest, and some verses explicitly purify God from any suffering while creating the heavens and the earth.
    About the order of creation, according to the Torah and the results reached in detail; first, the land itself was created which was formless and empty. So, it was covered with water entirely, then the heavens were created through the extension of waters. Then the Earth's lands, unsmooth pieces of land, and plants were created on it. According to the Quran, at first, the Earth itself and its mass is created, then the creation and extension of the sky emenating from smoke_ then spreading the earth and finally, other objects of the earth like provisions, mountains and pastures have been created.
    About the number of heavens, the Holy Quran, explicitly, speaks about the existence of "seven heavens". Some of these heavens, the sky of this world, have an unspiritual aspect. All astronomical objects, the Sun and the Moon are located in this sky (the first one). On the other hand, according to certain verses of the holy Quran, we should consider immaterial and spiritual aspects for some of these skies. Also, according to Jewish beliefs, there are seven levels or floors for the sky. But in the Torah, the existence of "seven heavens" is not mentioned explicitly. Furthermore, as is mentioned in the Quran, according to some verses in the Torah, the sky is divided into two parts: the material (physical) part, and the spiritual one.
    Keywords: beginning of creation, stages of creation, comparing the Quran, the Torah, formation of the universe, Quranic verses concerning cosmology
  • Naser Gozashte *, Ali Ramezan Damavandi Pages 63-76
    We seek to use the genealogic method of Michel Foucault, the contemporary French Philosopher, in this article to find the roots of Mutazilites ideas in Zoroastrian texts. Foucault, due to his approach, peruses the real signs from the present time to the past and looks for the overturned history. It means that he takes his approach from the present time to the past and makes them connected. Accordingly, He uses the genealogic method in his analyzes. In the present article, we begin with the simple accusations which Mutazila faced with in discussions and debates with other Muslim sects. They were accused of being Zoroastrian, Shuubi and Ahle Tavil. They were also accused of being Qadar-Garā (the distribution of good and evil things between God and human being), rationalist and justice oriented. In other words, they accused them of interpreting Islam with Iranian teachings and excommunicated them. The question, which our article tries to answer, is: Were these accusations true considering political and religious motivations? Our findings are followed by these Historical, theological and religious manifestations: 1- Some of the Mutazila were from Mawāli (Iranian) and non Arab people. 2- Qadriye was the sect which made the backgrounds for the arrival of Mutazila and they believed that Human being is not under compulsion and God does not do evil things. The enemies of Qadariye referred to a hadith attributed to the Prophet of Islam against Qadariya. 3- Mutazilites believed that religiousness is not limited to performing religious rituals and religion needs rational-mental and theological foundations. In other words, they believed that Religion is based on a religious-theological system and the basis of this system is the mind. Zoroastrianism also has such a structure; the religious system of this religion is a God-centeredness and mind-based one and has a theological and religious structure as its foundation. Another part of religiousness in Zoroastrianism is performing the rituals and deed related to worship and praying. 4- The existence of theology among Mutazilites depended on argument and debate. Theological Arguments were much common in Zoroastrianism as well and the books Matikan Hezar Dadestan and Dēnkard are good examples of that. The mind that is the foundation of wisdom in the system of Mutazilites is indeed the mind dependant to morality or a control on good and evil and it has a same function in God and human being. In Zoroastrianism, mind or wisdom is one of the most important and fundamental concepts. According to the Words of Zoroaster in Gathas, it can be said that wisdom is the distinctive part of this religion from other religions. The importance of wisdom in this religion is so high that the meaning of the name of its main god is the lord of wisdom.
    Keywords: Mutazila, genealogy, teodicy, comparative theology, zoroastrian texts
  • Mohammad Hossein Kiani * Pages 77-90
    This question is whether humanism couldnt attract true and authentic insights of religion? A positive response to this question will approve a humanistic religious experience, but humanistic religious experience probably is not true; because religious experience cannot be essentially humanistic. In my opinion, if humanism attracts the insights of religious experience, it can shape the "egoistic spiritual experience". Egoistic spiritual experience is the result of companionship between religious statements and humanistic beliefs which is rooted in a new spirituality (emulation of some religious beliefs) that influenced by humanism. In fact, the Egoistic spiritual experience is a thesis prescribed to answer basic question considered above.
    Based on the conceptual analysis of the three words "experience," "spiritual" and "prescribed", the Egoistic spiritual experience will be defined. In this regard, Egoistic spiritual experience means direct knowledge of a man from his internal capabilities which is emerge in the internal and individualistic activities rooted in the thoughtless experience and meditation in itself. The person for this knowledge should be used to replicate some of its activities; the activities which are purely spiritual and subjective. Diminished Sample of this experience occurs at some of the focus sports. Precisely these experiences occur in the form of Yoga and meditation.
    It is claimed in the philosophy of Yoga; the Yogi increases gradually his ability and personal insight practicing and understands himself more deeply. The philosophy of Yoga in particular is providing a way to achieve spiritual consciousness. What Yoga demands is the stopping all knowing, manipulation, operations, activities and mental cognitions, and also disabling the full mind. Full disable of mind to know new and pure knowledge, without any thoughts and impressions of all previous mentalities is what Yoga wants. Yoga should be a practical process for purification, refining breath and focusing on the essential distinction between soul and body and subjective attachments. This process is crystallized with the advent of self-consciousness. In fact, the aim of Yoga is a firsthand knowledge about the nature of sprit and that such knowledge teaches us that nature is independent from anything else in the world. But achieving to this knowledge requires limiting and ignoring the function of the body - the senses, mind, and reason.
    Today, meditation is done in many forms but there is only one single goal in the apparent differences of meditation. That is: "Stopping the minds from attention to external objects and events that are causing distress because to achieve to a superior knowledge." In general, the relation between Egoistic spiritual experience and meditation from the perspective of the view is that the nature of this experience can be seen at the end of meditation; if the nature of Egoistic spiritual experience is inner awareness of the features and capabilities of the inner person, meditate is autonomously following the inner world to achieve superior knowledge. So the superior and excellence aware that an individual will achieve only in the inner world is the purpose of meditation and it is the existential experience - spiritual egoism.
    So we can conclude that Egoistic spiritual experience is a humanitarian effort in hopes of attracting the enjoyment of religious-mystical experiences. Egoistic spiritual experience is a kind of moving in order to achieve a consistent experience with religious-mystical experiences, but in its opposite. This kind of experience that is concluded from pleasure and comes from the problems of contemporary man is based on the vision of modernity focusing on Yoga and Meditation. This is poses two important points: first, a new meaning of spirituality in the twentieth century as spirituality combined in this word to discover unknown dimensions. Second, the nature of this knowledge is completely autonomous. That is, trying to experience it completely out of the frame of mind by every human being and understanding based on desires and works influenced by it.
    Keywords: spiritual experience, self-consciousness, inner- knowledge, yoga, meditation
  • Mahdi Motia, Somayeh Naderi * Pages 91-110
    The aim of this study was to find a Quranic-mystical definition for “Ahadiat” (oneness). For the Quranic part, it focuses on Tohid Sura, as the one that informs of the notion of Ahadiat, which is at the apex of monotheism. This information comes in an impossibly simple form through a negative structure different from usual demonstrations. Mysticism is a practice whose fundamentals are also monotheistic and is rooted in the Quran. Therefore, this study first follows Quranic implications of “Ahad” (the One) using a semantic approach (i.e. through morphology, associate and succession relations, context) and by analyzing Islamic narrations and interpretations. It then compares the results with definitions in mystical tradition to illustrate the concept’s perceptual space. The Quran and Islamic narrations use negative descriptions for Ahadiat: presence, names and attributes, need, disjunction-based relationships, dissimilarity, similarity, and independence are all detached from this concept. Similarly, in mysticism Ahadiat is a degree detached from presence, names and attributes, divinity, relation, speech, and address. These detachments can be referred back to the detachment of “relation”, as the Sura is an answer to the question of the relationship between God and Being. This denial of relation should be defined together with the concept of “Samadiat” (needlessness), which signifies the closeness of God with Being. However, even “closeness” is unexpressive of the nature of this connection; it is so close that there remains absolutely no space for “otherness” or “independence”. This is why “relation” is detached from Ahadiat. The oneness of God with its creation has also been uncovered by pantheistic mysticism through the theory of manifestation. But, are Ahadiat and “unity of God and creation” really understandable? Ahadiat is, indeed, understandable, although it is used in an indefinite form. God (Allah) is both “Ahad” (the One) and “Samad” (needless); thus, it is as if the goal of being is oneness. Oneness is accessible, and only in oneness is oneness understood. It is a different type of understanding, totally beyond reason. It is only realized in “unity”. Both the Quran and Mysticism annunciate the possibility of unity with Ahadiat. This unity is achieved through love. Samadiat implies perfect goodness and something that can be loved, while Ahadiat is a degree beyond Samadiat, and therefore, even a loving relation is unexpressive of it. In Mysticism, Allah has two manifestations: one is a product of the quality of the recipient (the container) – the lover’s manifestation, and one emanates the quality itself – the beloved’s manifestation. Human being is the only creature capable of love of God, and can acquire the capacity to understand Ahadiat through the beloved’s manifestations and successive annihilations (unification with the beloved). In a sense, man’s existence is transformed in the course of perfection and moving toward the absolute truth: not only God is individualized in man, but also man is completely unified with God. In the latter, there is no bifurcation of the lover and the beloved – all is the beloved. The Muhammadia truth, which is the source of creation and worldly relations, is an example of this unity. It is seen that the Sura begins with “Ghul” (say), and the Prophet “says” about Ahadiat. It is worth mentioning that, this study implicitly shows that mystical knowledge is built on top of Quranic concepts.
    Keywords: Ahad, Allah, Samad, Vahed (the Only), relation
  • Mahdi Imamiijomeh, Sepideh Razi * Pages 111-124
    This study is an attempt to find one of the main sources of Mulla Sadra's Intellectual-philosophical foundations. Mulla Sadra's ontology configuration, relying upon simplicity, unity of right of reality, existence influence, etc. corresponds to the statements of Imam Ali (PBUH) in the description of Allah, the Almighty, in Nahj al-Balaghah including such features as absoluteness, non-numerical unity, negating dualism of God and the disjunction from existences etc. , in a way that the theology of Imam Ali (PBUH) may be regarded as one of the main elements of the configuration of Shiite intellect as well as the basis of Mulla Sadra's ontology. Therefore, the semantic and content structure of these two theological systems - theology of Imam Ali (PBUH) and Mulla Sadra's ontology - can be analyzed both in terms of attributes and characteristics and in terms of principles and founding features. As an example, one can refer to the Imam Ali’s (PBUH) statement regarding some of the above principles in Nahj al-Balaghah two of which are shortly dealt with in the following:Unity of existence and nondisjunction of necessary bein from the possibilities
    Unity of existence mainly emphasizes on simple and absolute existence and there is no plurality in it. Imam Ali (PBUH) says in Nahj al-Balaghah: ãóÚó ˜õáøö ÔóیúÁ áÇó ÈöãõÞóÇÑóäóÉ¡ æóÛóیúÑõ ˜õáøö ÔیÁ áÇ ÈöãõÒóÇیóáóÉ “that there is none with whom He may keep company or whom He may miss in his absence” (Nahj al-Balaghah, 1986, sermon 1).
    In his book entitled “Asfar”, Mulla Sadra had made many remarks upon the non-separation of existence and its unity as the main pillar of the philosophy of transcendental wisdom in a way that in one his works says: ãæÌæÏÉ ÈæÌæÏ æÇÍÏ ÈÃä ی˜æä ÔÎÕ æÇÍÏ ÐÇ ÏÑÌÇÊ æÌæÏیÉ ÈÚÖåÇ ÃÑÝÚ æ ÃÔÑÝ ãä ÈÚÖ ãä ÛیÑ ÇäÝÕÇá æ ÇÝÊÑÇÞ ÈیäåÇ existence of every entity is unique and the degree of existence of some of them is higher and nobler than other entities without any distinction or disjunction between them (Mulla Sadra, 1984, 342/5).
    Also in discussing the proof of the first cause and its non-separation from its effects that whatever they have is from the first cause, he says: «ÇáæÌæÏ ÚáÉ æ ãÚáæáÇ… Åáì ˜æä ÇáÚáÉ ãäåãÇ ÃãÑÇ ÍÞیÞیÇ æ ÇáãÚáæá ÌåÉ ãä ÌåÇÊå æ ÑÌÚÊ Úáیå ÇáãÓãì ÈÇáÚáÉ æ ÊÃËیÑå ááãÚáæá Åáì ÊØæÑå ÈØæÑ æ ÊÍیËå ÈÍیËیÉ áÇ ÇäÝÕÇá ÔیþÁ ãÈÇیä Úäå»
    Existence of cause and effect…. . between these two true matters, there exists cause and effect is an aspect of cause aspects and causality and its influence which is called cause refers to its alteration and different aspects of finding himself rather than this point that effect has no reality other than the reality of its originating cause and it is not separated from it. (ibibd, 299/2) therefore:Negating dualism of God and God nondisjunction from existents in theology of Imam Ali (PBUH)
    E
    Unity of Existance in Sadra’s Viewpoint
    Non-numerical unity of the reality of existence and God, the Almighty
    In Nahj al-Balaghah, it is repeatedly discussed about the divine essence which is of non-numerical unity and that He will not be described through numerical unity. Indeed, divine oneness is not of a kind to be regarded as a numerical unity otherwise He will be bound with restrictions.
    «áÇ یÔãá ÈÍÏ æ áÇ یÍÓÈ ÈÚÏ»
    He is not confined by limits (as deserving restriction is possible, not obligatory) nor counted by numbers (because it is true unity and the secondary will not be imagined for Him) (Nahj al-Balaghah, 1985, Sermon 228)
    Also in another sermon, He says: «ÇáÃÍÏ áÇ ÈÊÃæیá ÚÏÏ»
    He is One but not by the first in counting (true unity and unique and there cannot be imagined the second for Him) (Ibid, Sermon 152, Motahhari, 2011, 16, 398)
    Sadra, in describing non-numerical unity of the reality of existence, states: «Ãä ÐÇÊå ÊÚÇáì ÕÑÝ ÇáæÌæÏ ÇáÐی áÇ ÃÊã ãäå æ ÇáæÌæÏ ÃÚÑÝ ÇáÃÔیÇÁ æ ÃÈÓØåÇ ÝáÇ ãÚÑÝ áå æ áÇ ˜ÇÔÝ ÝáÇ ÌÒÁ áå ÎÇÑÌیÇ æ ÅÐ áÇ ãÇåیÉ áå ÝáÇ ÌäÓ áå æ áÇ ÝÕá ÝáÇ ÍÏ áå áÊјیÈ ÇáÍÏ ãäåãÇ ÛÇáÈÇ æ áÈÓÇØÊå æ ãÇ áÇ ÍÏ áå ÝáÇ ÈÑåÇä Úáیå ÅÐ ÇáÍÏ æ ÇáÈÑåÇä یÊÔÇјÇä Ýی ÇáÍÏæÏ ÝÐÇÊ ÇáÈÇÑی ããÇ áÇ ÍÏ áå æ áÇ ÈÑåÇä Úáیå»
    , that is, the essence of God is the sole essence that nothing is more perfect than it, and this essence is the most indivisible and the most well-known of all entities; and, therefore, there is no definition for it, and it has no external elements, and there is no quiddity for it, no genus and no difference can be ascribed to it. Thus, it has no limitations because any limitation often contains difference. Another reason for its having no limitations lies in its indivisibility and that for which there exists no limitations has not any arguments, as the arguments and limitations have boundaries in common (Mulla Sadra, 1981:42-43). Finally, it can be claimed that having no elements, limitations, and arguments have caused essence, with regard to its prevalence in all entities, to have a oneness other than numerical oneness.
    From the above statements it can be concluded that:Non-numerical oneness of God in the words of Imam Ali (PBUH) D the non-numerical oneness on the statements of Mulla Sdara When examining deeply the remaining words of Imam Ali (PBUH), which are prsently available and rethinking the philosophical principles of Mulla Sadra, the close relationship between these can be found. It can be obtained as the results of this hypothesis, as a general consequence, is that the Islamic philosopher's thoughts, especially those of Mulla Sadra, have their origins and roots in the statements of the Innocent. Perhaps one of the reasons of the sustainability and long life of the main principles of Mulla Sadra, in spite of the passage of several centuries after these principles have been stated, is the connection of these thoughts to and their origins from the words of God and the Innocent. Even though we may not believe in this connection, the basic similarities between these principles can be considered as a reason for the right course of Mulla Sadra's thoughts. It should be noted that every statement, save that of the Innocent, has the possibility of being mistaken and fault, and those which are in our mind are general ones. This is a strong reason that the philosophy of Islam is not the same as the Greece or the Western philosophy. Finally, as a general and brief look, some of the similarities between the principles of Mulla Sadra's philosophy and the statements of Imam Ali (PBUH) have been mentioned:The essence of God is not definable D For essence; there is no definition, neither based on limitation nor by demonstration.
    Absoluteness view on God D Absoluteness of essence.
    The unity of manifestation of God D Eternal manifestation of essence is the reality of its secrecy.
    The reality of the pluralism of the entities from the viewpoint of Nahj-o al-Balagha D The reality of the objective world and the creatures while having the unity of the essence.
    The unequalled presence of God in all entities D The accidental occurrence of existence to quiddity.
    Keywords: God, reality of existence, unity, systematic ambiguity, self, manifestation
  • Seyyed Mohammad Ali Dibaji * Pages 125-138
    The title “metaphysics” was coined by the proponents of Lucium (the scientific- philosophical school of Aristotle) for a collection of handwritten notes which Aristotle himself called it “PROTE PHILOSOPHIA”. It has been paraphrased in two different ways; the first has had a learning aspect while the second has had a ranking one. The semantic-historical question is that whether Avicenna was on his previous position after knowing “Aims of Aristotle's Metaphysics - Al-Farabi” or whether he accepted this term? And if not, what term and why he has chosen instead? And finally, how would have been his point of view among other following philosophers. The answer of the questions in summary is:The “Aims of Aristotle's Metaphysics” which has been written by Al-Farabi, shows that the meaning or aims of metaphysics has been vague in Bagdad school. The difference between André Nikos, who has coined that term, and Nicolaus of Damascus shows the background of this vagueness until the middle Platonism ,and even shows it until the last period of Aristotle-Lucium school: André Nikos may have been coined the term metaphysics just for learning aspect while Nicolaus of Damascus applied it for the ranking priority of meaning and also the metaphysical terms.
    Al-Farabi not only wanted to cast light onto the vagueness but also coined a new term to redirect to metaphysics which its result was the first philosophy division into total knowledge of God and God’s Knowledge which the former refers to general things and the latter refers to Mofariqa’t. Avicenna, although found his book useful in justifying Aristotle’s aims, he has not yet found the term metaphysics appropriate to show the content of the first philosophy therefore, he evaluated “before physics” much better. He, however, accepted Al-Farabi’s position due to the discussion over both meanings therefore, he came to the word “theology” with the summing up between Al-Farabi and hi idea. He, then, applied the term instead of metaphysics while he sometimes applied “the knowledge of God” but he did not consider it as the synonym of theology.
    In the history of philosophy, all philosophers, as the follower of Avecina, applied the word theology instead of metaphysics except Bahmanyar who has used the term metaphysics instead in the majority of his work such as Al-TAhsil; the term has been approved even by his strict critics as Shahrestani and Al-GHazali applied it.
    The influence of Avecina can be seen in Thomas Aquinas work such as “Summa theologiae”. He , even,avoid the misunderstanding of the word by dividing it into existentialism, the first philosophy and the knowledge of God in his Averroes age of philosophy; this misunderstanding would be seen in Decart and Wolf as the effective critical philosopher of metaphysics where they discuss about the distinction between metaphysics and theology , or the division of metaphysics into general and specific part. This distinction, however, was the source of misunderstanding of theology as the mere knowledge of God, and still is there in the contemporary philosophical literature .
    Keywords: Metaphysics, Theology, the knowledge of God, the history of philosophy, Avicenna, eastern philosophy
  • Hamiad Kavyani Pooya * Pages 139-156
    Myth or creation story is a symbolic narration in a culture and among people, which narrates about the beginning of this world and emergence of people. Some features of these creation myths are the same, there exist effective characters and a general plan in all of them. The creation and the functions of such features have made significant forever changes in the world. Therefore, the attitude towards creation in the primitive civilizations and the way human assumed to whom his creation belonged were highly important. In addition, why questions about the creation and other such issues which have been answered among the primitive civilizations are significant too. Considering the believes about the creation among the primitive Mesopotamian (Sumer and Babylon) and Iranian (Mazdean, Manicheism, and Zurvani), it can be concluded that each of the ancient civilizations and religions considered a philosophy for the way human being was created and its goals. Additionally, it is worth mentioning that these believes stemmed from their environments, life-styles, and experiences. For instance, in the Mazdean, this world was assumed to have a life-time and each of the concrete created ones (such as, the sky, earth, water, etc.) were supposed to be created in different stages of time. In the same religion, some event related to the world and creation (its process and philosophy) belonged to devil forces and its interferences, and human being accompanied with the concrete ones were assumed to be created by the goodness forces (Ahouramazda) in order to comfort and repel evil. Thus, breeding and living a merry life in this world were of the most important goals of creation. However, in the Manichaeism, since being close to the Mesopotamian believes which were full of ravages, there existed an inappropriate attitude towards the world and its creation. Following such believes, in Manichaeism, the creation of human being was assumed as the result of an devilish conspiracy which intended to captivate fairness in contrast to the Mazdean’s. The Mazdean considered human body as being made of soil or plants that led breeding and living as absurd concepts. This assumption was almost similar to the Mesopotamian people’s believes and religions because, in some Mesopotamian narrations, human being was the result of wars among Gods and emerged out of Devil Gods’ blood to serve them and let Gods free from sufferings of labor.
    According to the presented reasons and in response to the major question of why these differences in those myths and religions exist, it is required to mention that such views towards the processes and goals of human creation are considerable from different aspects. Firstly, the attitudes of different nations depending on their places and periods which they lived at, governments and conquering powers, and life-styles and economic conditions shape differently. Investigating Iranian ancient history, we can find that Iranians had a consistent government over its one thousand two hundred years history (from the Median to the emergence of Islam), and they experienced only four Iranian governmental series and one short-period Aniranian one. As a consequence, the people of Iran have lived peaceful lives without incursions. Clearly, the Mazdean who occupied most of the Iran’s population then, assumed the world and life as favorable. They viewed that they and the concrete world were created for God’s desire in order to have a convenient life. In contrast, nations like the Mesopotamian the was placed in-between the incursions of different governments and powers, lived a very suffering life. Then, they related their own affliction to the primitive origin and assumed their goal of creation as being forced labors for Gods. Likewise, there exist some similarities about the creation philosophy among the ancient nations and religions. Some of these similarities were caused by the common experiences and similar environments and life-styles of these people, and some other similarities were the consequences of adapted believes. One of the similarities between the myths of Mazdean and Manichaeism (Babylonian) was that the concrete creation was the result of the body of Gods (Kingo) or Human Gods (Keyumars) and their combination with soil resulted in creation. In the Babylonian myths, Gods’ blood integrated with soil that led to creation of human male and female, and in the Mazdean myth, a part of Keyumars (his sperm) was integrated with the soil and resulted in the first human couple on the world. We can consider similarities and differences of creations in Mazdean, Manichaeism, and Mesopotamian from another perspective. Therefore, in all these three religions, myths of this created world and concrete creation were based on the bodies of the characters beyond human being, the only difference was, in the Mazdean myths, this character was anti devil (Keyumars) and belonged to Gods in the Gods’ side. However, in the Manichaeism and Mesopotamian (Bablyonian) myths, the creation stemmed from the body of devilish Gods, or processed in the hands of demons out of their own skin and flesh.
    Keywords: creation of man, Iran, Mesopotamia, Mazdean, Manichaeism, Zurvani
  • Masoud Motahari Nasab, Alireza Agha Hosseini *, Mojtaba Sepahi Pages 157-174
    How theology has influenced civilizations, the issue of theological basics in two monist and pluralist aspects, as well as how it has influenced the orientations of Islamic and Western civilizations are profound investigable issues. The civilization reading of Christian theology and particularly Protestant theology versus Islamic theology, and specifically Islamic traditionalism as well as influences of these two types of theology and their effects on the two Islamic and Western civilizations in the postmodern era is the main problem of the present study which is conducted with descriptive and comparative method.
    Exclusivism, religious relativism, Religious Pluralism, inclusivism, is the branches of Christian theology that has been civilizational reading. On the other hand, it is traditionalism, relativism, and monotheism, Islamic theology that has been civilizational reading.
    As the results indicted, in spite of the fact that there are monist and pluralist aspects in both theologies, pluralism is dominant in Christian theology and monism is prevalent in Islamic theology. Since Renaissance, Christian theology has faced pluralism and by Christianity’s ideologiation, religious pluralism has played the role of legitimation in the advent of postmodernism.
    On the other hand, Islamic theology has been based on monist attitudes from the beginning. In fact, despite the advent of traditionalism and intellectualism, it has kept its monist nature. Eventually, based on the issues discussed in this paper, Islamic civilization and Western civilization, at the level of ontological foundations, have very few points of interaction and dialogue, but at the level of methodology and epistemology, Islamic civilization is the relative ability of dialogue and interaction with other civilizations.
    Keywords: Western civilization, Islamic civilization, Theology, Monism, Pluralism