فصلنامه معرفت فلسفی
پیاپی 4 (تابستان 1383)

The discussion focuses on the limited variation in the philosophical schools of thought in Islam and the great diversity among philosophical schools in the West.Peripatetic philosophy has its roots in Aristotelian philosophy, which was elaborated and developed by Fārābi and Ibn Sīnā, characterized by its emphasis on reasoning. On the other hand, Philosophy of Illumination, introduced by Shaykh Shihāb al-dīn Suhrawardi, suggests that gaining access to philosophical facts requires spiritual purification and moral refinement as well as intellectual reasoning, in order for the philosopher to realize facts by intuition through illumination. This philosophy gives greater weight to divine vision vis à vis reasoning. The main characteristic of uadr al-Muta’allihīn’s transcendental philosophy is its synthesizing of the rational, gnostic, and narrative methodologies. The three abovementioned schools of philosophy are the main trends in the field of Islamic philosophy.On the other hand, the European philosophies, their dispute with the church notwithstanding, at the outset had a Peripatetic imprint, adopted from Ibn Sīnā’s works. Thomas Aquinas’ philosophy is a telling example. Nevertheless, after Renaissance, fundamental philosophical principles were generally put to question, and materialist schools developed. Radical differences between Western schools regarding their basic ideas, the evidences they produce concerning the physical and incorporeal worlds, and their emphasis on individuality, have caused a large variety of philosophical schools to appear. In the Islamic world, however, philosophy is in the service of religion; therefore, differences are mostly methodological.

Transcendental Philosophy might be understood in two ways: first, as referring to metaphysics in general, and secondly as a school of philosophy treating philosophical issues through its unique methodology. This study focuses on the methodology of the Transcendental philosophy as explained by uadr al-Muta’alihīn, and its critiques. Obviously, following this methodology leads to consequences different from those of the Peripatetic philosophy, theology, and apologetics. There are even some differences between them and what illuminationist and gnostic methodologies produce. The methodology of Transcendental philosophy has two aspects: negative and affirmative. The insufficiency of reason to understand all facts, the inefficiency of gnosis to access all realities, and the vulnerability of Sharī‘at in the face of superficial and shallow interpretations shape its negative side. The affirmative facet, however, includes elaborating on the role of reason and gnostic intuition, the quality of their fusion, and the function of Sharī‘at on the crest of the two as an emender, ratifier, and equalizer in their way to the discovery of truth.Transcendental philosophy does not consider mere acquisition of a set of concepts, technical terms, and subjective statements as the aim of education, but rather, the goal is seen as attainting that kind of knowledge which accompanies the spiritual perfection of its subject. The methodology of this school enjoys a firm epistemological base, though suffers from some deficiencies.

The question of knowledge is among the most important subjects heavily discussed in Islamic philosophy, especially in the philosophy of Mullā uadrā. This essay explains briefly Mullā uadrā’s theory on the nature and levels of knowledge.Having offered a short history of the subject in the Islamic philosophy as an introduction, the following issues are examined:a)Mullā uadrā’s innovations in the field of the philosophy of knowledge,b)The nature of knowledge in the philosophy of Mullā uadrā,c)The levels and stages of knowledge in the philosophy of Mullā uadrā.

Following Ibn Sīnā and Fārābi, most Muslim philosophers adhere to the system of genus and differentia, essential and accidental in definition, and the idea that perfect definition includes all the essentials of the definiendum. However, they have held that producing a perfect definition is one of the most demanding tasks in logics.Baghdādi, for his part, suggests the ease of perfect definition in all disciplines by proposing the idea of a conceptual and nominal definition. Shaykh Ishrāq also, while criticizing the peripatetic theory of definition, confirms Baghdādi’s proposal. The two logicians reject any factual relation between a name and its referent, and between a definition and its definiendum. They assume that a name is ascribed to a referent as it is known to us; therefore, one’s knowledge of the referent determines its definition.According to the author, there is no monotonous relation between a definition and its definiendum, or between a name and its referent, that is universally applicable. Therefore, things are not always defined on the basis of one’s knowledge of it, though the relation between a definition and its definiendum, or between a name and its referent, is acceptable by and large.

Hegel is a difficult philosopher, and his writing style is so complex that his interpreters struggle for understanding his views. This is why some admire him for his religious ideas, while some others accuse him of pantheism, panentheism, or even atheism. It appears that Hegel considers himself a devoted Lutheran Christian, rejecting such charges against him.Having studied Hegel’s views for twenty five years, Desmond, the contemporary philosopher, has written his Hegel’s God: A Counterfeit Double?, explaining Hegel’s view on God and religion. This book, filled with complex philosophical terms of Hegel, as well as Desmod’s own novel vocabulary, is generally reviewed and criticized by the author of this essay. This study reminds its reader, time and again, that one should refrain from hasty judgments about such a philosopher as Hegel, and should take other viewpoints, introduced by Hegel’s commentators, into consideration.

The issue of mass-energy equivalence, originated from Einstein’s theory of special relativity in 1905, has been the focus of debate in academic circles for one century. Various ideas suggested by different philosopher-scientists have increasingly intensified the challenges and complexities surrounding the subject. All along, two sets of the indications and applications of special relativity have been philosophically investigated: first, finding out the epistemological and ontological consequences of equivalence equation through a rigid philosophical analysis, and second, ontological substantiality or non-substantiality of energy. So far, no philosopher or physicist has been able to produce a conclusive answer to these two questions; an answer that is based on a logical, ontological, philosophical and physical system, and can be used to explain the nature of energy. This article provides an overview and a general classification of the viewpoints suggested in this regard, by both Islamic and Western philosophers.