فصلنامه قبسات
پیاپی 84 (تابستان 1396)

Determining the essence of the concepts and propositions used in the theories of humanities is one of the basic discussions of the philosophy of humanities. The essence of these concepts and propositions absolutely depends on the essence of the subject of these sciences. One of the most outstanding Islamic scholars, Allameh Tabatabai, practically theorizes some aspects of humanities. Studying his approach in these theorizations, especially in his Al-Mizan interpretation, and reflecting on the context of his theory of the conventional shows that in his idea, the subjects of the humanities may be divided into two main groups: real and conventional; and most of them are social-conventional subjects mentally created by social actors. As a conclusion most of the concepts and propositions used in the theories of humanities are conventional; this has a great impact on the purpose and method of these sciences. In other words it expands the purpose of research to understanding, interpreting, and criticizing the present condition and leads to sketching an ideal system and makes it necessary to have a comprehensional the formation of a syllogism – the dialectical form - and theorization in these subjects. Posing these kinds of subjects also helps the researcher in the production of Islamic humanities to choose a correct and appropriate purpose and method in the different subjects of humanities.

The positivistic, interpretive and critical paradigms have each presented a special picture of the humanitie's subject and have included some parameters which are mutually exclusive. Explaining the paradigmatic parameters involved in humanitie's subject based on the view of Allameh Tabatabai, and elaborating their conceptual and ontological differences with the three existing paradigms in this article, I have shown that human is regarded as abeing who benefits from reason and rationality, constant (innate disposition) and variable aspects, ability of subjective consideration , creativity and relative choice – which is in front of determination and delegation -, and having the capacity of being misguided or deviated, which can be under the relative authority of external parameters.

Seyyed Mohammad Hakkak*
Mutual Hindering proof is one of the proofs for God's unity. This proof is mentioned in Verse 22 of Surah Anbia'. Philosophers and theologians have extracted and set this expression based on the content of this verse. They believe this proof concerns the unity of the Creator and the necessity of being and also believe, in addition to presenting a theological and philosophical proof, they have in fact interpreted the verse as well. For example Professor Motahhari is among this group while Allameh Tabatabai believes this proof concerns the unity of Divinity because this has been the conflict between Quran and the idolaters not the unity of the Creator which was accepted by the idolaters. He explains the proof in his Al-Mizan and Nahayat-ol-Hekmah such that it ends up with the unity of Divinity, i.e. the owner and manager of the world. In fact he does not mention the verse in Nahayat-ol-Hekmah and does not mention the discussions of the theologians and philosophers in Al-Mizan such that he even avoids using the word mutual hindering. Recounting the discussions of professor Motahhari and Allameh Tabatabai, I will compare and evaluate them from the point of view of philosophy and interpretation.

Authority, in Clifford's view, means that beliefs are based on mere personal conventions. He has criticized authority, based on this definition, and claims that relying on authority results in lack of reasoning in beliefs; and since all beliefs should be based on reason and reason is the only criterion for distinguishing between correct and incorrect beliefs, thus any belief based on authority is incorrect because it lacks reasoning. He absolutely denies the authority of the Prophet of Islam (PBUH) and the principles of justification of religious beliefs in Islam because of an incorrect comparison between Islam's and Christianity's teachings. He tries to maximally rationalize beliefs and claims all religious beliefs are rationally indefensible. He is the first Western epistemologist who has talked of the justification of religious beliefs in Islam. Clifford condemns believing in something without enough evidence and reason and says any belief without enough reason is wrong and immoral and also says this is true for all beliefs, including religious and non-religious beliefs. I have tried to investigate and criticize Clifford's definition of authority and in consequence, his critique of the justification of religious beliefs in this article.

Heidegger explains the two subjects of being and existence in his philosophy. He believes the essence of existence may not be objectively understood and should be interpreted in the light of the interpretation of human's existence, i.e. Dasein. He interprets Dasein in his special hermeneutical and phenomenological frame and then uses it to identify existence. Human's existence, in his view, is of openness compared with the world of existence and other beings and has special abilities thus Dasein is an existential matter which opens a window to existence. Dasein does not have a constant and distinct essence like other beings, therefore defining human being as a rational animal or the other definitions are not correct. According to his hermeneutics, Heidegger believes human being never understands something with an empty mind; rather his presuppositions and existential views accompanies him in each of his understandings. Human's apprehension is based on his fixed structure; because Dasein has a past, history and culture and human being starts understanding new things based on this special structure. Therefore each person with a different understanding would have a different essence. The question is: does Heidegger's view deny any kind of constant essence for human being or not? Some believe the result of his view is that there is no constant and common essence and nature for human being but I believe this conclusion is not certain, although it seems logical to some extent, due to the complexity of Heidegger's philosophy and some of his interpretations and words. Yet Heidegger 's view may be criticized from many aspects because there are certainly some constant points hidden in human's essence and their differences is due to human's various blossomed and non-blossomed talents. On the other hand according to some of Heidegger's expressions and some interpretations of his words, a kind of stability is considered in the essence of human being.

One of the most important questions in philosophy of religion and modern theology is the salvation of the followers of other religions, well discussed by Karl Rahner and professor Motahhari. Comparing the ideas of the two great scholars, I have proved that we can talk of a theory of anonymous Muslims similar to the general model of the theory of anonymous Christians of Karl Rahner. Professor Motahhari poses innate and real Islam, compared with regional and formal Islam, and says the followers of other religions who are not officially and nominally called Muslims because they have not understood the rightfulness of Islam, but have innate Islam and cordial submission, are considered unofficial and anonymous Muslims and thus benefit salvation which is similar to the inclusion of the theory of anonymous Christians for non-Christians.

In a general classification, the theories of normative ethics are divided into norm-based (foundationalism) and practice-based (particularism)theories. According to the norm-based theories, a general norm or a multiple of them should be used to judge the ethical truth of an act. Norm-based theories are either multi-norm or single-norm theories. Single-normative theories try to find a single abstractive norm to recognize all ethical duties. Maybe the most popular single-normative theory is Kant's theory. Kant's most popular interpretation of the categorical imperative is the rule of universalizability. I will compare Kant's theory of universalizability with Golden's rule. In this research I have used librarian research methods and content-analysis method. The result of this comparison is that each of the two norms are preferred over the other in some aspects but in general, the Golden rule is more sufficient and efficient compared with the universalizability rule of kant.

The discussion and elaboration of the method of discoverity and investigation and production is inevitable in understanding any phenomenon including comprehension of a system. This point would be much more important in the case of striving to form a social system deduced from a Holy Book. If the method of investigation in a system is not researched as a basic issue, a correct sketch of the system would not be possible as well. Methodology is the interconnection between philosophy and the theories which logically form all the subjective and objective aspects of a system and puts them as a puzzle together. The Holy Quran, with its extensive resources, presents a comprehensive approach based on which the realistic methodology is deduced. The comprehensiveness of these resources results in the comprehensiveness of this methodology as well which has special characteristics. I will study the continuity of the systematic elements of the general system in this article stressing on the methodology of investigation and reproduction of a social system.