فصلنامه معرفت فلسفی
سال هجدهم شماره 2 (پیاپی 70، زمستان 1399)

The idea of primary and secondary intelligible is deeply rooted in logics. Evolution and development of the interpretation of secondary philosophical intelligible was done by Mulla Sadra and Shahid Sadr. In that stage, in addition to separating the logical and philosophical secondary intelligibles, they dealt with an exploration in the reality of the secondary philosophical intelligible and explained external accidents for philosophical concept in addition to external qualification. This view was founded by Mulla Sadra in philosophy and by Shahid Sadr in ‘principles of jurisprudence’. This study uses a descriptive-analytical method, aiming at exploring and comparing Mulla Sadra’s and Shahid Sadr’s views in interpreting the secondary philosophical intelligibles. Through this inquiry, it is clarified that Mulla Sadra, in first look, has accepted the view famous among philosophers after Muhaqqiq Qushchi, putting forward the idea of mental accidents and external qualification for philosophical concepts. But in the final look, he criticizes that view and does not accept the separation between container of accidents and qualification. Shahid Sdar, in numerous occasions, investigates the issue of secondary philosophical intelligible in the science of principle of jurisprudence, and makes use of it in resolving some issues of principle, jurisprudence and theology including plurality of title and the entitled, affairs belonging to natures or individuals, analysis of the truth of ownership, and the type of propositions pertaining to good and evil.

Dividing propositions into basic and non-basic has a fundamental role in explaining the epistemological discussions and judging various views in epistemology, and especially in foundationalism. The main question of the present article is as follows: “What is the criterion of dividing proposition into basic and non-basic in Muslim thinkers’ view?” Besides, are the basic propositions epistemologically certain? Does the originality of the basic propositions have a relative criterion? In this article, we answer the abovementioned questions through a descriptive-analytical method. In Muslim thinkers’ view, the criterion for dividing the propositions into basic and non-basic is the need to reasoning and no need to it. Accordingly, as far as reasoning as a method of thinking is concerned, propositions are divided into basic and non-basic. The former are not necessarily certain and include presumptions as well, and even include imaginary propositions which do not need affirmation. Some origins, such as primary premises and intuitive cognitions, are, regardless of the goal of reasoning and where they are applied, all the time and absolutely needless of reasoning. However, some of them are only such in their own figure. Thus, one can say that the basic nature of some propositions of origin is, in a sense, relative; but the other group is absolute. Therefore, it seems that the scope of propositions known as basic is narrower, and that just a group of them does really and absolutely enjoy criterion and are needless of reasoning. Besides, if the criterion for dividing propositions is their being in need of affirmation, the art of poetry gets out of the sphere of affirmation and must not be considered one of the origins of affirmation.

The present article analyzes the nature and the function of epistemological virtue in Ernest Sosa’s view. In Sosa’s epistemic system, virtues are defined as trustable faculties that play a basic role in producing, justifying and explaining knowledge. Perceptive faculties along with intellection, deduction, and introspection are among the epistemic faculties that would lead, if working rightly, to knowledge, and add features of deservingness, skillfulness, and soundness to belief. Recently, Sosa mentions character virtues and agentive virtues which play a role in creating knowledge, but do not produce belief. Even the agentive virtues do, despite being necessary, produce judgment, not belief. Sosa considers having an epistemic view as the distinctive factor between animal cognition and speculative cognition; and although he attempts to explain why, how and to what extent each of the virtues play a role in the process of producing and justifying belief, his narrow look at the limit and nature of the virtues necessary for creating knowledge makes his view face, despite all its attractions, with difficulties that we deal with in the final section of the article.

The practical philosophy seeks to recognize truths originated from human’s will that are in line with his felicity, and seeks to act according to those truths. This philosophy is among the argumentative sciences, because human’s willful action, which is the subject of practical philosophy, is considered among those truths that lead to human’s felicity or misery; thus, investigating its features and effects is done through argumentative and certain method. The philosophers’ belief in the argumentative nature of the sciences of practical philosophy is also an evidence for this. Of course, some philosophers have not asserted the argumentative nature of the practical philosophy; however, in view of the fact that they have regarded the practical philosophy as a philosophical science, one can accept that in their view, the practical philosophy is an argumentative science. Opposing to this view, some such as Muhaqqiq Isfahani maintain that propositions in the practical philosophy are not argumentative and certain, and that these propositions are among the generally accepted ones. This is, however, not acceptable, because it neither enjoys the support of certain proof, nor is it consistent with the philosophers’ statements.

Along with the deductions in Aristotle’s logics, Charles Sanders Pierce introduces another deduction called ‘abduction’. Among its features, one can refer to “being in the second form”, “minor deduction”, and “causal explanation”. He attempts to find an origin for abduction in the ‘apagoge’ discussion in Aristotle’s Prior Analytics; but as Florez holds, he has made a mistake and must search for it in the Posterior Analytics. In this regard, Florez claims that the two discussion of “explanatory analogy” and “cognitive faculty or acuity” in Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics can be introduced as an origin for abduction.  However, we would show through a descriptive and analytical method that Florez claim is not right and one cannot completely conform them to the features of abduction and find a discussion in Aristotle’s logics that completely corresponds to the parameters of Pierce’s abduction.

Form the viewpoint of evolutionary naturalism, the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design, and the evolution theory reject the belief in supernatural identities and causes. However, it seems that one must distinguish between the evolution theory as a scientific theory and the “evolutionary naturalism” as a philosophical view. Naturalists such as Dawkins claim that “Evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design.” However, it is by presuming ontological naturalism that one can arrive at such a conclusion from the evolution theory. Of course, by accepting the ontological naturalism, there is no need to the evolution theory to prove a universe without design. The ontological naturalism can result in such a conclusion once it comes together with anything else. In this article, we show that the arguments presented by naturalists cannot show that there are no supernatural identities and causes; and thus, the naturalists cannot reject the possibility of entrance of such identities and causes into the explanations regarding the features of the natural universe unless they do not let their entrance a priori and according to a philosophical approach.

The issues of subjectivity and objectivity in philosophy have affected various spheres in human’s life. Among them is the sphere of ‘philosophy of art’ and especially the recognition of beauty. Mulla Sadra and Kant are two Muslim and Western philosophers who have explored this sphere and offered influential theories. By comparing the views of the two philosophers, one can concluded that both of them somehow believe in the mind’s intervention in perception of beauty. Kant, however, does not accept the objective beauty behind the subjective beauty, and traces back all beauties to the mind and the feeling perceived thereby. In contrast, Mulla Sadra considers the mind to be involved in perception of beauty and maintains that beauty is perceived in a level higher than the material world; but he regards the truth of beauty as personified in the external world in view of the fact that it is among the properties of existence and aligned with it. Mulla Sadra subsumes beauty in the classification of philosophical intelligibles and Kant considers it merely subjective; in practice, thus, none of them regards an independent existence for beauty.

The question about the “meaning of life” is an inquiry deeply rooted inside all human beings. Thus, the man has always been in search of a persuasive answer to it so that he may be able to achieve the spiritual tranquility by relying on that answer, and become hopeful in his life. That question is among the questions arisen for all those who arrive at a deep self-awareness. By the deep self-awareness, we mean human’s attention to his own existence, to the question about where he has come from, where he is going to, and what the philosophy and goal of his life are. The philosophers have presented various interpretations regarding the meaning and the goal of life. Some of those interpretations are materialistic and some others are unrealistic and imaginary. In contrast, some philosophers seek the meaning of life in theism. In monotheistic worldview based on Islamic teachings, the life becomes meaningful with faith in God and servitude to Him. In this article, we seek to investigate this issue form the viewpoint of Islamic teachings.