فصلنامه قبسات
پیاپی 95 (بهار 1399)

The global theology is one of  the major issues of the philosophy of religion that seeks common theological principles and values,  accordingly, in order to fulfill the dialogue between the followers of the religions, to respond to their common theological needs. In the Western world, this issue has been accompanied by various theories, such as the theory of "religious pluralism", the theory of "transcendent unity of religions", the theory of "extreme inclusiveness" and .... But according to the teachings of Islam, it is possible to offer an explanation of the Universal religion and consequently of the global theology, which, while accepting the universal, its rationality does not lead to the harms of relativism and religious pluralism. Therefore, the global theology has a special logic in the intellectual system of Islam, while based on the principles and theoretical infrastructures, it has certain criteria and standard that will guarantee its theological and universal aspects. The criteria of global theology are: being divine , universality, comprehensiveness and immortality, and the foundations of global theology can also be classified in the axes of ontology, epistemology, anthropology, theology, and so on. According to the mentioned criteria and its foundations and infrastructures, it is possible to judge the mechanism of interaction and dialogue with the followers of other religions. Therefore, the present article tries to deal with the practical solutions of interaction with the followers of other religions as a result of this theology, by proposing the criteria and principles of global theology in a rational and narrative way.

Theories of the meaning of life are divided into two categories: non-absurd and absurd. The non-absurdist view is divided into two categories: meaningfulness and make life meaningful. The view that life is meaningful is also divided into naturalistic and super naturalistic. This article specifically addresses Taylor's views as a naturalist-subjectivist representative. According to Taylor, the human science can provide the conditions for a meaningful life. The facilities available in this material world help us to give meaning of our lives. Therefore, there is no need for a world beyond the material world to acquire the meaning of life. He considers the realization of meaningful life to be dependent on creativity with three characteristics: science, awareness, freedom, and a general plan for life. Some of the faults of this view are: The non-fulfillment of these three conditions completely is due to being limited in the circle of nature,  relativity is the meaning of life and the lack of proper justification for life after death and the inability to resolve feelings of emptiness and solitude and alienation.

New spiritualism is emerging not only in the form of alternative sects, but is also common among religious as a new culture of religiosity. The religious influenced by modern spiritualism, without belonging to any particular sect, They have resorted to a kind of self-made, eclectic and inner spirituality, and with little attention to institutional religiosity, they seek peace and inner satisfaction with their "personal style." Due to the spread of this trend among religious, especially liberal religious, the issue of the present study is how to identify this trend and explained how much a religious has entered into this new discourse. We will try, with the help of sociological research on the discourse of literature of the new spiritualists, to identify the signs of this new style of religiosity and provide the ground for identifying this unique and formless phenomenon. In the present article, the discoursiv signs of the new spiritual discourse are presented under the general headings of "introversion" and "worldliness", and with the help of the theory of self-centeredness as well as the theory of postmaterialism, various aspects of these signs will be discussed. Analyzing these signs, in addition to helping to identify new spirituality and differentiate it from the discourse of institutional religiosity, can implicitly show what challenges a religious belonging to the Abrahamic religions faces in this religiosity by accepting this new approach. These challenges stem mainly from the incompatibility of monotheistic / submissive thinking (the institutional Abrahamic Religions) with Individual / Autonomous Thinking (Modern Spiritualism).

In Allameh Tabatabai's works, two different approaches to the issue of discretion are presented: the adaptive approach and the authoritarian approach. Allameh Tabatabai's authoritarian approach is his innovative vision which is drawn through the credit of the obligation, as one of the credits before the community, on an individual and personal level - not a social one. Habermas also by authoritarian approach depicts human free will, through separating the realm of causality in the natural world from the realm of reasoning in the social world. This article seeks to answer these questions: What are the similarities and differences between the authoritarian view of Allameh Tabatabai and the authoritarian view of Habermas? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each of these two perspectives? Are these views acceptable and can they explain human’s free will? In this paper, these two perspectives on free will are compared and examined. Habermas's authoritarian view is similar to Allameh Tabatabai's authoritarian view in that he explains free will through a symbolic and credible world which is not subject to the law of causality and causal necessity. With the difference that in Allameh Tabatabai's approach, credit is a credit dependent on the creditor and one of the credits before the community. But in Habermas's account, credit is a social world that is independent of the established person and the person has not credited it. We conclude, by examining these two perspective:  both perspectives have their faults and cannot be considered an acceptable approach to explaining the issue of free will.

Fetrat is one of the most elaborate teachings of the Holy Qur'an, which refers to the special and distinct creation of man. This common human nature has been the subject of thought by thinkers during the history of religious and secular thinking. At the same time, as far as scholars' knowledge and research on anthropology is concerned, although the Qur'anic and narrative support has also strengthened it, it still seems to be the process and mechanism that manifests the formation of a common human nature in such a way that It does not provide scientific and religious ideas to each other. The present paper tries to present a rational-intellectual picture of fetrat that is compatible with the principles of verdict and validity and the scientific rules of genetics. From the evaluation of the various proportions that exist between the physical and spiritual aspects of man, a comprehensive interpretation of nature can be presented that is consistent and consistent with the human body and soul. The relation between the religious doctrines of fetrat and tinat on the one hand, and the nature of man on the other, can bring us closer to the possibility of adaptation between nature and the human genome.

One of the views on religious science is to application the distinction between context of discovery and context of justification in this problem. Context of discovery is process which through the researcher arrives at the theory and context of justification is an attempt to justify that theory. The distinction was proposed by a solution to the use of theoretical background in scientific processes. Under the influence of the philosopher’s opinions in adherents of the distinction in the philosophy of science. The distinction was taken also in the methodology of religious studies. Based on the twofold demarcation the interposition of the religious elements canceled in context of justification and the religiousness of science is related to the context of discovery. This theory on one hand is useful in that it defends the certainty of science but the other hand that not playing non-epistemic elements in context of justification, has problems. There are three major criticisms on this view: 1. Critique of the existence of the distinction in science, especially religious studies 2. Association context of discovery and justification in the current production of religion science 3. Interposition of the non-epistemic elements in context of discovery/justification of religious science and not merely context of justification. The purpose of this study is explanation and evaluation the strengths powerful and weaknesses of application the distinction in religion science.

According to the theoretical framework of Islamic thought from the perspective of Allameh Allameh Javadi Amoli which is based on the four main components of the final, efficient, material and formal causes, It is important to study the relationship (beliefs and values) of pure philosophy with the philosophy of Islamic humanities and also the relationship of additional philosophy with the collection of Islamic humanities in the production of Islamic humanities. From the perspective of this thinker, In the system of an idea or religion or objectivity, having a better explanation, writing and analysis of the truth of any subject depends on accurate identification and explanation of the four causes of that objective or credit subject. The efficient cause of the various emergence of additional philosophies to science or affairs is the general attitude (divine or atheistic) of philosophers of science towards man and the world. However, the scholar itself may be aware of it merely by its ertekaz. The final and necessary cause for wisdom, as well as additional philosophies is blessing and enlightening human beings and human society is in the light of science or the genitive case. The formal cause of added philosophies is the science philosopher's attitude towards Being, man, cognition, value, and other components that affect the framework, foundations, and logic of cognition of genitive science. Material cause and origin in additional philosophy is the same as genitive science. This science is the girder and container of objectification the aforementioned attitudes of the world (the formal cause or the type of formulation of that science). It is the same formulation, that is, the Postulates and the accepted presuppositions by that the scholar for that science that cause to become divine or atheism of Science. Therefore, in this article, the theological, ultimatelogical, ontological, epistemological, anthropological, sociological, historical, and cognitive value foundations are examined. Finally, the effects and results of these achievements on the promotion of the majority of the richness of Islamic humanities and its efficiency are considered. The method of this research is a combinatorial and necessary logic and to understand religion, which is explained in the article

The theories of "formalism" and "realism" in the views of philosophers of art and, consequently, in the views of the classical period of "film theory" can be traced in the unfinished conflict between "realist" and "idealist" philosophers, in beginning of the formation of the metaphysics of the West and the sayings and opinions of Plato and Aristotle to the controversy of rationalists and empiricists at the beginning of the Renaissance. Due to the formation of the cinema phenomenon at the beginning of the operation of the "Lumière" camera in the sphere of realism and Mahlis camera in the sphere of Formalism and the Wonderful effect of both on the development of the language of cinema, and the existence of strengths and constructive points in both theories, It seems doubtful that it is impossible to get out of obstruction the conflict. The article claims that the conflict is a "cognitive" one. And the Islamic thinkers' approach to the "ontological" approach in the realm of the imagination world will pave the way out of this impasse. As Gilles Deleuze, the last thoughtful thinker of film theory, seize this approach.