فصلنامه معرفت فلسفی
سال هجدهم شماره 4 (پیاپی 72، تابستان 1400)

Explaining the realm of divine essence is among the most complicated and most controversial issues in theology, philosophy and mysticism. The present study uses a descriptive-analytical method to answer the following question: “In which ontological position do the transcendental theosophy, mysticism and Sufism regard the divine essence as established?” It then investigates those views to judge them. The transcendental theosophy, as far as it is committed to the gradation of existence, regards the divine essence as the most exalted order of the system of gradation, which is called “negatively-conditioned existence” due to negation of limits of the lower orders. The “negatively-conditioned existence”, due to being limited to negation, is a certain determination of existence whose accidents on existence require the aforementioned “negation.” Therefore, it cannot be considered as the needless essence of God. Mulla Sadra, like mystics, passes over the gradation and regards the realm of the essence as an unlimited existence beyond gradation and enfolding it. However, he follows the Caesarian statements and does not use the same expressions for that realm. The Sufis, with a wrong perception of the mystics’ statements, have regarded the divine essence as “the divisional negatively-conditioned existence” and spreading in everything. Thus, they have maintained that the divine essence has no actualized realization and is actualized by variation in things. Therefore, it requires things to be externally actualized. Mulla Sadra and Hakim Sabzewari have harshly criticized this view. The difference of the views of mystics, philosophers and some Sufis about the divine essence has some consequences, and investigating them gives a more precise image of the aforementioned views.

Some of the contemporary philosophers have commented on two subjects: (1) the principality of existence and the conventionality of quiddity; and (2) various types of intelligibles. However, the consistency between these two discussions needs to be scrutinized in the array of their views. Among those persons, we may name Allama Tabataba’i and Martyr Mutahhari. In the present article, we have shortly expounded the concluding views of those two philosophers and investigated the relationship between the two views for them. Generally, the separation of ‘veracity’ from ‘objective realization’ is resulted from the inconsistency between those theories; and ignoring this would result in separation of epistemology from ontology. In this article, in addition to investigating the opinions of the abovementioned philosophers, we have explained the relationship between the two discussions of ‘veracity’ and ‘objective realization’, and have used this in making the theory of principality of existence consistent with the discussion of types of intelligibles. At the end, we have presented a new classification of the types of intelligibles.

The critical analysis of teachings prepares the ground for their examination and elevation. Few teachings can be found that succeeded in obtaining a consensus and bringing about an agreement. Any teaching has, more or less, some opponents and critics. The philosophical thought has had numerous opponents with a variety of motivations and methods. The traditionalist group is one of them. Although this thought never turned into the dominant stream in the Shiite thought, there has been a taint of it in that sphere. Mulla Muhammad Amin Astarabadi, one of the pillars of traditionalism, reviews the opinions of philosophers in one section of his al-Fawa’id al Madaniyya, and uses an internal and referential approach to review and falsify the philosophical thoughts. In this article, we use an analytical-referential method to evaluate and judge his reviews.

In this article, the concept of genesis in Aristotle’s writings has been investigated both from the literal and from the terminological point of view, and the importance of its distinction from the revelational understanding and the Abrahamic religions has been minded. With explaining this concept, the importance of terms and concepts such as ‘creation’ and ‘generation’ gets evident, and the question arises as follows: ‘What can be the meaning of the concept of genesis, with its important role in various languages, according to Aristotelian and Greek understanding? Is this concept not closer to the notion in the revelational religions and creation?’ Therefore, in this article, we have studied and analyzed the term ‘genesis’ in three books written by Aristotle entitled physics, metaphysics, and On Generation and Corruption in order to have a better explanation of the distinction between this concept and the conventional religious understanding of concepts such as genesis and creation. With paying attention to Aristotle’s writings in this regard, we will find out that although Aristotle has approached the concept of ‘creation from naught’ in revelational religion with his idea of primal matter, this intellectual difference between Aristotelian and philosophical thought and religious thought is going on.

The discussion pertaining to the origination and eternity of the universe is rooted in the foundations of the theological and philosophical thoughts such as the effect’s need of the cause; the relationship of the ultimate cause and the effect; the cause and effect necessity; explaining the time and place and their relationship; explaining the divine essence and attributes such as knowledge, power, willpower, and the relationship between the attributes and the essence. Meanwhile, some of the theologians have chosen the temporal origination of the universe on the basis of their intellectual foundations and by considering the appearance of the verses and traditions, having presented some evidences and arguments for this. On the opposite side, the Muslim philosophers have criticized their evidences and reasoning to choose eternity of the universe. However, some other theologians have presented the theory of the imaginary time to evade the challenges of the temporal origination and proceed with its structural modification. One of the basic lines in this theory is the issue pertaining to the existence or non-existence of the imaginary time, which forms the argumentative dialogue among the philosophers and theologians. In this study, we have firstly investigated the opinions of the theologians in three lines of existence, nothingness and noumenality of the time. Secondly, we have explained the critiques of philosophers to the theologians’ opinions. Finally, it is clarified that in spite of the inconsistency between the views of the philosophers and theologians and the objections posed such as similarity between the existent time and the imaginary time as well as the absurdity of the nothingness of the imaginary time, we can consider both groups as having agreement in proving some sort of container for the beings beyond matter and in spite of disagreement in explaining the features and the source of abstractness of that container.

In this article, in addition to proclaiming a position regarding the typical unity or plurality of the human souls, we are seeking to find a proper resolution for the psychological riddle of the human’s quiddity. One of the issues in the philosophical psychology is the question regarding the typical unity or plurality of the human souls. The Muslim scholars have offered a variety of opinions in this regard and, in addition to presenting some arguments, they have used evidences from the Quran and hadith in establishing their idea. Some of the Islamic philosophers believe in the typical unity of the souls and some others believe in the species plurality of the souls. Among them, Mulla Sadra has presented a middle line in some of his books, believing in an initial unity in type of the souls and, at the same time, their typical plurality in the process of a substantial motion. This philosophical issue has a formative association with the psychological discussion posed under the title of the ‘human’s psychological nature’, wherein the scholars have offered various, an even contrasting, views. Some have regarded human’s quiddity as neutral, some have regarded it as having evil leanings, and some others have attributed good leaning to it. By resolving the issue of the typical unity or plurality of the souls in Islamic philosophy, a proper answer would be given to the question posed in psychology.

The theory of evolution gave rise to various philosophical and religious oppositions from the very onset. The conventional modern interpretation of this theory is also regarded in opposition to theism. Naturally, some attempts have been made, since the emergence of this theory, to show the consistency or inconsistency of the claims of this theory with religious doctrines. Elliot Sober, the prominent contemporary biological philosopher, has offered a novel account of the relationship of the evolution theory and theism. He attempts to show the presumptive nature of that theory and prove its consistency with the existence of the hidden determining factors (including God) on the one hand, and investigate the relationship between the claim of unguided nature of the biological mutations and theism on the other hand. The final achievement of his investigations is that the evolution theory is neutral regarding the theistic claims and thus observes the naturalistic methodological rules. In this article, we have expounded Sober’s position and have finally evaluated it. It seems that the image he presents of the unguided nature of evolution based on empirical evidences is incomplete, and he has unduly been transferred from unguided mutations to unguided evolution.