نشریه معارف عقلی
پیاپی 38 (بهار و تابستان 1398)

Considering a single soul for every single person conducting actions and perceptions with different faculties, Avicenna and Mulla Sadra, like some other philosophers, have rejected multiplicity of soul in human being. The research findings show that, from Avicenna’s point of view, soul is the cause, recruiter, and conqueror of faculties, but faculties are the effect, servant, and conquered units of soul. Although, in terms of concept and application, he regards the faculties apart from the soul, he attributes all their actions to the soul, and considers it the cause of all actions and perceptions.Holding that the relation between self and faculties is causality inthe sense of disposition (tashaun), Mulla Sadra does not consider causality in the sense of Peripatetic sufficient to attribute the faculties’ actions to the soul in the true sense. Therefore, he regards the faculties as the manifestation of the dimensions of the soul and a disposition of its own, which have no independent ruling, and hence, the actions of faculties are, in fact, the action of the soul, and the soul in its unity is its entire faculty.

This paper seeks to identify Avicenna & Mulla Sadra’s viewpoint on esoteric perceptions. Since, Avicenna considered the vegetable and animal souls to be physical, he also considers esoteric perceptual powers as physical, and imprinted in matter (body), and hence he specified a location for each in the brain; but Mulla Sadra considers the vegetable and animal souls to be nonphysical, and thus he has argued for the abstractness of the animal soul. Mulla Sadra also considers esoteric perceptual powers to be abstract from matter, and hence considers the specified location in the brain as the mere manifestations of those powers and a place for the realization of their faculty. Of course, there are many similarities between these two philosophers in defining, functioning and proving the esoteric perceptual powers. Recognizing the material and immaterial aspects of perception, Mulla Sadra's view on esoteric perceptions seems to be more comprehensive than Avicenna’s point of view.

It has been quoted that, equivalent to the species of the material world; there are immaterial objects in the abstract world that administrate the material beings. All material species are in constant motion to attach their lord of the species (latitudinal intelligence) seeking their original homeland and self. Many philosophers have regarded the connection to the Unseen worlds as the culmination of material evolution; but those who believe in the lord of the species holds that, there are immaterial objects in the abstract world which are the same with the material being in terms of nature and type. Of course, some philosophers disagree and do not believe in the latitudinal intelligence but longitudinal intelligence. Connecting to the tenth intelligence has been regarded as the culmination of material evolution in their point of view. The advocators of the lord of the species directly document the specific multiplicity to the latitudinal intelligence, but the denier of latitudinal intelligence document the specific multiplicity to the manifold dimensions of tenth intelligence. This paper seeks to analyze the ideas of Hakim Sabzevari, who believe in latitudinal intelligence, and Allameh Tabataba’i who denies this intelligence.

Regarding the existence of God, Russell believed in “agnosticism” or in other words, negative atheism. That is, just as he does not believe in the existence of God, he does not deny him. Using a descriptive-analytical method and focusing on Bertrand Russell's works, this paper seeks to challenge Russell's objections against the arguments for the existence of God. The findings show that, Russell has focused only on public information against the arguments for the existence of God and didn't provide any rational and reasonable reason.

This paper analyzes Allame Martyr Morteza Motahari’s view on the opponents of philosophy in the Islam culture. Totally, in his view, the opponents of philosophy are divided into five groups, Mu’tazilites, adherents of Hadith, Ash’arites, integrated perspective (the adherents of Hadith and sensual philosophers) and Muslim Mystics. The Mu’tazilites, however, were closer to the philosophical way of thinking than others, though, their approach was dialectical, not argumentative.The Mu’tazilites also disapproved of some philosophical views. The Mu’tazilites, of course, opposed some philosophical views. While avoiding any arguments in theology, the adherents of Hadith, they only resorted to the religious texts. The Ash’arites did not regard reason and rational arguments as an independent source, but as a subordinate source. Despite Hadithi attitude, the integrated perspective was also influenced by sensual philosophy. Muslim mystics’ opposition to philosophy, eventually, has not been for denying the value of intellectual arguments, but for the validity of intuitive arguments over rational arguments.

Some recent commentators of Transcendent theosophy have debated the denial of immortality of punishment based on analogical gradation in quiddity. Using a descriptive-analytical method this paper philosophically analyzes the denial of immortality of punishment through the conceptual analysis of analogical gradation in quiddity to clarify the possibility of correlation between analogical gradation in quiddity and immortality of punishment. Also, other questions that may intellectually impair the theological teaching of "immortality of punishment" will be answered in this paper.