فصلنامه حکمت اسلامی
پیاپی 32 (بهار 1401)

As an ongoing concept in contemporary physics, determinism has embraced many changes during the history of physics; today it is one of the living issues of contemporary physics. Some scholars have deemed its removal as the main grounds for the development of classical physics into the modern one. There are several misunderstandings and scientific problems about this concept. Sound understanding and a precise philosophical analysis of the term can eliminate some of those problems particularly in physics. Accordingly, we follow up the literal and technical meanings and different kinds of determinism and then the course of its development both in science and Western philosophy. We thus come to know that determinism in classical physics and the “Laplacian definition” has assumed a perfect and global face; however, in quantum physics it proved to be a hard nut to crack. We have suggested a new framework for the concept of determinism thus providing a new approach to determinism out of its proposed conceptual implications. In the end, the authors try to clear up the incurred problem. They hold that they cannot get rid of the consequences of determinism thus it might not be eliminated from science, altogether. In the long run, Quantum mechanics goes to deny the perfect and global determinism, but might fall in some “imperfect local and statistical determinism”.

The main question of this paper is what Allamah Tabatabaii -particularly in his al-Mizan- says on sociology of religion. Having adopted an analytical-deductive method in his effort, the author has first tried to introduce religion from its early source i.e. from the divine will of law to its development in social life, and then to study different facets of religion -came to the attention of sociologists- coming up with Allamah’s views particularly in the light of his al-Mizan. According to the findings, Allamah’s definition of religion is epistemological. He also holds that materialistic definitions of religion suggested by some scholars do not seem correct. Having regarded the origin of religion from the supernatural  world, Allamah Tabatabaii holds some functions in the area of social life; mention can be made to the “management of social life and treating deviations”.

As the main index of mind, perception is divided into four categories in the current  Islamic philosophy. The most perfect perception is the intellectual one which is the differentia of Homo sapiens (rational soul) from animals. In what follows, the authors have dealt with how, in the course of its development, perception passes from senses to intellection and how it makes use of external factors -particularly Active Intellect- in order to get universals (of conception and assent). Peripateticism and transcendent theosophy proceed, in this issue, in a considerable harmony; nonetheless, due to their specific viewpoints on the very perception, they have adopted different views about the case. Peripatetics consider perception as a kind of abstraction i.e. detachment of the known from matter (and its accidents), but the followers of Mulla Sadra considers it some union between the knower (mind) and the known.Another concern of this essay is to explain how our mind deals with the Active intellect and their complicated mechanism as the main constituent of intellectual perception in the two schools

This paper concerns the nature of human beings in Mulla Sadra’s viewpoint. The examination of the issue directs our attention to the fact that man is endowed with specific qualifications and with how man participates in existence. This sort of being, i.e. participation in existence, not only shows that man is the two ends of the connected chain of being, but also reveals Mulla Sadra’s definition of man accordingly. As the two ends of the connected chain of being, man maintains a specific status in the system of universe whose base stands on theism leaving no room for humanism. As per the first view, man is the actual phase or outcome of the whole gradual course of man’s existence towards spiritual perfection to which man is the potential of it. As per the second view, however, man is only man without any other position apart from it. The latter view is the greatest challenge of man of today in terms of the worldview. Because it has suspended all lofty positions possible for man under the shadow of modern scientism limiting them within earthly man. Such an account of man, who in fact is both potential and actual, reduces man’s wants and interests to the social demands and arbitrarily lifestyle without any in-depth examination in the deep core of existence being carried out.

The world-picture concept is one main doctrine of Wittgenstein’s later philosophy. As per this view, due to his participation in the language games, every individual develops some mental framework whose shadow is cast over his approach to the world and epistemology directing his reason and true-false evaluations. The world-picture concept comes from the ground of society and culture and from one’s practical kind of choices. In this essay, the author aims to make an inquiry into the foundations and outputs of the epistemology of theory and to show that its result is the negation of meta-standard in epistemology. By this theory, one fails to defend epistemological realism. The world-picture theory made the ground for the progress of social epistemology. Despite Wittgenstein’s efforts to explain it, the theory suffers from several disadvantages: first is that it is self-contradicting. Second is that Wittgenstein’s analyses to prove the role of society in the formation of world-picture concept is imperfect for he failed to take into consideration many other options. Furthermore, in his theory, Wittgenstein has confused language and concept thus failed to precisely illustrate the relation between practice and belief. His analysis that belief is involuntary is not sound; it leads to epistemological relativism. The method adopted here is descriptive-analytic.

Temporal beginning of the world has since long drawn the attention of thinkers. Most philosophers have denied the possibility of temporal beginning of the world regarding the chains of time and past events infinite. In contrast, theologians hold temporal beginning for the world of creation. The possibility or impossibility of actual infinity of things is another issue and a matter of dispute among thinkers. Theologians hold that it is impossible, but most philosophers propose a few conditions for its impossibility. Nonetheless, the necessity of actual infinity of things have some advocates among recent thinkers. Cantor’s efforts proved that infinity in actu is in terms of logic neither refutable nor provable. Now most contemporary mathematicians have acknowledged that infinity in actus is not demonstrable nor is it possible to decide about. Aristotle, from one side, argues that the actual infinite of a thing being all its dimensions present simultaneously is impossible, and from another side, he does not hold a beginning for time; he holds that time is infinite and connected and that body is a continuous quantity, too. Great philosophers such as Avicenna, Suhravardi  , and Mulla Sadra agree with him about the issue. In their essay, the authors have demonstrated that Aristotle’s system of thought including above propositions is incoherent.

Some verses of the Qur’an suggest that the organs of disbelievers and evil-doers shall bear witness against them in the hereafter. Some scholars hold that witnessing of the organs is verbal which implies that they knowingly declare what they are aware of. Accordingly, bodily organs are aware of what our soul practices and they are resurrected in the hereafter in order to bear witness against the soul. This is one of Mulla Sadra’s theories and his followers have considered the knowledge of material organs as a proof of intelligence in solid bodies.In what follows, the authors have dealt with whether this verbal witnessing is reconcilable with Mulla Sadra’s fundamental ideas so that he can use it as the demonstration for the intelligence of solid bodies. The authors argue that the answer is negative, because the knowingly witnessing of the body against the soul implies the separation and independence of our elemental body from our soul in knowledge, action, and resurrection. This is while as per Mulla Sadra’s theosophy, the body and soul have unified composition. Our body is not the origin of any perfection or action independently of the soul and we will not be resurrected in our elemental body. Accordingly, we cannot resort to those verses of witnessing of the organs in order to demonstrate that solid bodies have intelligence.

One fundamental principle of good and evil theory is the semantics of the two terms and their relation to the five legal rules (obligatory, forbidden, recommended, reprehensible, mubah neutrally allowed); this is the point of controversy among theologians’. There are different views as to this relation among theologians. Sometime they have cast doubt on the very requirement of such a study.Having examined and evaluated the theologian opinions, the author has shown that there is no ground to cast doubt on the requirement and outcome of such a study, for it is one effective foundation of the branches of the theory of justice and that of good or evil. The examination of the above relation leads to the conclusion that the inclusion of the reprehensible under “good act” -practiced during the middle ages of Islam- was wrong and erroneous. In addition, the exclusion of mubah (the neutrally allowed) from “good act” is correct and valid and my favored view. The reason is that there is no contradiction in the duality of “good/evil”, rather there is an intermediate thing between them.

From among arguments for the incorporeality of the soul both in Western and Islamic schools of philosophy is that from indivisibility of the soul and mental states. Descartes is the most celebrated one who made use of this argument in the Western philosophy. After Descartes, this argument was undermined by criticisms leveled at it. In the Islamic philosophy, this sort of argument is referred to as the demonstration for the incorporeality of the soul, too. A few objections have been leveled at it; it is mostly assumed valid, though.
In his essay, the author tries first to give an account of the argument and then to answer the five objections raised by philosophers of mind and Muslim philosophers. Having adopted library-reference method and through description and analysis, he tries to clear those objections showing that the argument is valid and thus succeed in proving that the soul is incorporeal.