نشریه اندیشه فلسفی
پیاپی 4 (پاییز 1400)

The present study is an interdisciplinary study for applying philosophy through its collaboration with psychology and literature. In this article, hope is examined according to the two Rumi and Marcel. The purpose of this study is to provide a basis for the work of philosophical counselors and psychotherapists. For this reason, the views of Richard Snyder, the theorist and founder of hope therapy in contemporary psychology, are also introduced in the present study to bring Rumi and Marcelchr('39')s views on hope closer to the topics of hope therapy, and the similarities are derived to be used by philosophical advisors. According to the findings of this research, the hope that Rumi speaks of is a clear and guiding hope that, if used properly, can become a positive moral trait in human beings; The hope that arises from manchr('39')s need for God and will always be the way to manchr('39')s spiritual progress. Marcel also considers hope as a tool for faith and closeness to the higher being, which causes a person to be spiritually ready to serve other human beings. This spiritual preparation frees man from the snare of the shattered world of which Marcel speaks. By comparing Snyderchr('39')s theory of hope and Rumichr('39')s view of hope, we find similarities between the views of these two philosophers in the components of hope. The examination of Snyderchr('39')s theory of hope and Marcelchr('39')s view of hope also reveals the intellectual similarity of the two thinkers on the vital role of hope in life.

Following the occurrence of unfortunate phenomena such as epidemics, floods, earthquakes, wars and the like and the sacrifice of many people in a short period of time and the inability of humans to control those phenomena, the God-believer's mind challenges to divine attributes, especially pure goodness, as well as his care for the universe, have been known throughout the history of science as the challenge of evil. Resolving this challenge from public opinion has always been the concern of God-fearing thinkers, and has led them to somehow establish the right connection between the pure good God and the material world full of evil, and to show the evil caused by imperfections. It exists in the material world and has nothing to do with God. This article tries to explain the philosophical answer of Avicenna and the mysticism one of Mulla Sadra and mystics, and to emphasize that since evil is presented in terms of multiplicity and nature, it is a mental matter and has no external existence. Just as multiplicity and nature exist outside as a result of existence and unity, so evil exists outside as a result of existence. It is also shown that Mulla Sadra's mystical answer is complementary to Ibn Sina's philosophical answer and is consistent with the principles of his transcendent theosophy. Ibn Sina's philosophical answer is useful in argumental philosophy and Mulla Sadra’s mystical answer is useful in contemplational theosophy. So each of these answers can be useful at different levels of thinking.

Emergentism bears similarities to the Islamic Transcendent Philosophy about the relationship between the soul and the body. At the same time, despite these similarities, there seem to be fundamental differences in the ontological picture of these two. The main issue of this paper is to identify these differences. The result of this effort can be summarized as saying that the ontological foundations of Emergentism are consistent with scientific findings, while this is not the case with Transcendent Philosophy, and that there are fundamental differences between the ontological picture of Transcendent Philosophy and Emergentism in relation to the soul and the body relation; Differences rooted in the contradiction between the classical or Aristotelian image of the world and the new scientific image of the that.

Including metaphysical issues, is the issue of the separate substances and how to recognize the separate substances. The complexity of the discussion of recognizing separate substances is such that philosophers offer different and sometimes conflicting opinions when considering and reflecting on it. Among the medieval thinkers are Avicenna and Thomas Aquinas, each of them, by mentioning several reasons, expresses two opposing views regarding the recognition of the separate substances; As in some cases, they consider it possible for the human soul to know separate substances, and in some cases, they do not consider the human soul to be able to know. However, the views of the two thinkers are hesitant and inconsistent, but by analyzing their views and following the presentation of a dual division for cognition, that is, cognition of truth and true cognition, the apparent conflict can be resolved and finally, declare that according to both thinkers, the human soul is able to know the truth of the separate substances, with the difference that according to Avicenna, knowing the truth depends on the impartiality of the external active intellect, while according to Aquinas, knowing the truth requires help of the inner active intellect.  On the other hand, both thinkers agree that it is not possible for the human soul to know the true essence of the separate substances, rather, true knowledge belongs to the separate substances and God, and finally, the true knowledge separate substances cannot be achieved through the acquisition of knowledge.

Thomism has had a continuous history from the 13th century and some think that in this regard it is quite unique. In each time, it experienced different forms and took different approaches, as in twentieth-century there are also transcendental Thomists and existentialist Thomists. However, it took longer until for analytic philosophy and Thomism to have interaction and it did not happen until the attempts by Peter Geach, Elizabeth Anscombe, and Anthony Kenny. Then, in the 1990s, John Haldane, drawing on these works, coined the term "Analytic Thomism". Here I explore this movement by focusing on some of its aspects. First, we will see the historical phases of Thomism. Then, we review the roots of analytic Thomism as we know it now. After looking at some examples of the works done in this tradition, some challenges for analytic Thomism are presented and discussed. At the end, by way of conclusion, a few remarks about “Analytic Islamic philosophy” are discussed.

Discovering the differences between the various systems of modal logics was one of the advantages of inventing Kripke semantics. One of the most obvious examples is the interpretation of the necessity of provability in provability logic, and according to Boolos in The Logic of Provability, by discovering this logic, we can say that the understanding of new issues in the field of argument was opened. In this paper, with a formal approach and with a descriptive-analytical and comparative method, the axiomatic propositional systems of the GL, Grz and H, and their possible world semantics based on Kripke semantics are studied, as well as the sequent calculus of GL (in Peano arithmetic) and GLS (in the standard model) were introduced, and finally, the meta-theorems of soundness, consistency and completeness of the GL were interpreted and proved.