نشریه پژوهش های هستی شناختی
پیاپی 21 (بهار و تابستان 1401)

The realization of multiple significances in a unified reality is a significant principle that may seriously disrupt our epistemology and ontology if an adequate interpretation is not presented or accepted. Based on this principle, in the external world, no consequence is basically realized, and at the same time, reality can be considered as an instance of significance and various consequences. Reality is absolutely non-complex and through its non-complexity, it is an instance of various consequences. The mind does not self-foundedly take significance from the external world, rather it is the non-complex reality that allows the mind to abstract its significance. Thus, the significances are indeed realized in the external world, and at the same time, the reality is an absolute non-complex and no consequence and plurality can make it pluralistic. This is obviously manifested in Existentialism. according to the correct interpretation of Existentialism, reality is not merely of existence or essence; neither existence is the source of abstraction of essence nor conversely, rather the non-complex reality is the source of abstraction of both and the plurality of both. Thus, reality is actually derived from both, but with its non-complexity. The difference between the significance of existence and other significance is that it can be realized through its essence, but other significances are the true realization of the consequence.

The relationship between life and knowledge in the view of Plotinus and Sadr ol-Mote’allehin and the comparison between their perspectives are of importance due to the fact that the ontological connection between life and knowledge in the opinion of the two philosophers conveys their intellectual affinity. Contemplation in the view of Plotinus is a sort of general and pervasive knowledge that exists in all the stages of being; the idea or knowledge that is recognized as the sameness of life by Plotinus. In Sadr ol-Mote’allehin’s view, knowledge as well as life are not only subordinate to being but also its exact sameness. Therefore, knowledge and life have unity in existence. Belief in the sameness of life and knowledge as well as the creatures’ living and knowledgeable existence, Reduction of life into knowledge, and the common foundations of the ontological relationship between life and knowledge -sameness of their origin and end, their graded reality, their common source in nature, and the world’s living and knowledgeable existence- in the view of the two above philosophers, have paved the way for a comparison between their perspectives. The result of this comparison is finding intellectual affinity and consensus between the two philosophers about the type of relationship between life and knowledge.

With a thorough investigation in the works of Muslim philosophers we see the principle “Every contingent thing is composite duality, composed of quiddity and existence”. Which means that all contingent entities have the essence. However, there is another principle “The soul and above of it are mere identically and pure being” which has been accepted by companions of the philosophy of Illumination and Transcendent wisdom. according to this principle in an Initial Review, non-material objects do not have the essence. The main question of this investigation is if there is any contradiction between these two principles and if there is not, what would be the answer of philosophers to the seeming contradiction. some believe there is a contradiction between these two principles and the final idea of Mulla Sadrā is one of them. On the contrary, some believe there is no contradiction between these two principles. The author does not regard the answers of the philosophers to be satisfactory and criticizes them. Hence, studying the different meanings of the essence, provided another answer in this paper.

"Ontology" is one of the important topics in the field of philosophy and mysticism in which mystics have had a special view and interpretation. Abu Abdullah Neffari, as one of these mystics, has presented the report of his mystical experiences in two books, "Al-Mawaqif" and "Al-Mukhatabat" in numerous sections and in a very complex language, and his ontological view can be deduced from those matters. The question of this article specifically is, what are the characteristics of "ontology" in Neffari’s mystical thought? In this article, the authors have extracted and compiled the "ontological" content of his mystical thought through a descriptive-analytical method and have come to the conclusion that Neffari -based on the division of existence and naming it "Maswa" and "letter" and symbolizing the beings of The world- has expressed his contents and also has given a hierarchy to the universe which are "low", "middle" and "high" and has described attributes for each order. These levels are hierarchical. He believes in the duality of existence from both aspects of "creatures" and "Godhood", and he believes in the phenomenological and mirror aspect of existence for the transcendent, in the "middle" and "higher" levels, and also he paid attention to the issue of veils in behavior for the mystic in the universe. “Speaking” is another rule of existence in his mind.

Contemporary Platonists acknowledge that some abstract objects, such as mathematical objects, exist necessarily, eternally and independent. On the other hand, biblical theism and classical theism acknowledge that God is the sole ultimate reality. This is the challenge that Platonism has posed to the theology of the Scriptures and classical theology, as a result of which God is not the only independent, necessary, and uncreated reality. William Craig, a contemporary American theist philosopher, believes that theism is undone by Platonism. Thus a theist cannot hold a Platonic realist view of abstract objects; And believes that abstract objects exist and are also uncreated, necessary and eternal. Craig believes that believing in beings with these qualities is incompatible with God's perfection, and the doctrine of creation. Craig cites some biblical verses to prove his view of the incompatibility of Heavyweight Platonism with traditional Christian theism. He believes that by moving from a realistic to an  Anti-realistic view of abstract objects, the above challenge will be solved. Craig's arguments do not seem to be defensible in view of wisdom rudiments   in the science of Asul (the science of principles) And the use and generalizations of the creation from the verses cited by him is not correct. In the end, Craig's main claim of passing from the Platonic realism to the view of anti-realism seems perfectly justified, although his method does not seem correct.

For Heidegger, ontology begins with a critique of the metaphysical history after Plato, explaining the ontological distinction, the dangers of modern science, and mathematical thinking in shaping the nihilism of modern man, and finally the poetic view of Mathematics continues to develop the world for Dasein. For Heidegger, Being is the pure richness that manifests itself in various ways in Dasein, and mathematical thinking, not the guide to existence, is the main cause of its neglect, as well as its neglect, throughout the history of metaphysics. Alan Badiou, on the other hand, considers mathematics to be ontology in his most fundamental philosophical case, and exposes the differential versions, which he claims to be a staunch critic of the anti-mathematical view and, instead, of Heidegger's poetry. In this article, we try to present Badiou's critique of Heidegger's approach to mathematics, to mention his reasons for the mathematical view of what he calls poetic ontology, and finally to show Badiou, no matter how objectionable Whether his criticisms of Heidegger are justified or not, but in order to achieve his goals in ontology, he is forced to formulate and present them.

In proposing his doctrine of creation, Avicenna is under the influence of Aristotle and Neoplatonian theory of emanation as well as Islamic theologicians and religious texts. This is why his thought is basically different from previous thinkers. While he defines “the agent” as “emanatory” and “cause of existence”, he believes that the relationship between the beings and the agent is based on an existential relationship. With minor amendments, his theory of “creative foreknowledge” can be proposed as a prominent theory about the origin of emanation of beings. He examines divine knowledge by referring to “knowledge by presence” and “unity of the knower and the known”. Given his comments about knowledge by presence, the divine knowledge about the created beings including mubda'at, mukhtara'at and mukawwanat can be explained based on his theory. Particularly, he explains divine knowledge about the created beings through the divine knowledge of his own essence. Then the emanation theory has not been neglected by later philosophers and has been considered as one of the most rational interpreatations of God as the creator and agent and of the creation of world. In this article. We have tried to explain the relationship between the creator and the created based on the emanation theory of Avicenna. The theory of emanation along with We have tried to explain the relationship between the creator and the created based on the emanation theory of Avicenna. The theory of emanation along with the divine knowledge has been proposed as the basis of “creation out of nothing” (creatio ex nihilo).

This descriptive-analytical study seeks to examine the logic of understanding the speech from Qazi Abd al-Jabbar Mu'tazili’s Viewpoints. In his view, the way to achieve the correct meaning of the divine speech is the disciplined intervention of the ways of knowledge and also the description of the divine wisdom in understanding the divine speech. In his view, the regularity of these factors requires reliance on some ontological presuppositions that play a key role in clarifying the nature and ways of knowledge. By specifying the correct meaning of the ways of knowledge, he proves the attribute of wisdom in the same human meaning, that is, "one who does not do ugly things" about God, and examines its implications in understanding the divine speech. In his logic, the role of the narrator in many verses is summarized in the confirmation of rational data, which, contrary to his claim in creating unity of procedure, provides the basis for differences of opinion in understanding the divine speech.

Research regarding any academic topic possesses the required importance and necessity and this importance and necessity is twofold regarding foundational issues and especially if the research topic is one of the topics on which other philosophical issues depend. Certainly, the necessity of research regarding that is considered one of the first priorities. Thus, the topic “Critiquing the View of the Attribution of Existence to Quiddity” holds such importance that if the view of the non-consequentialist critics were to be correct; it would inevitably result in an impasse in the Avicennan philosophical system. In fact, it can be claimed that the measure of the importance of the study, assessment, and reaching the right judgment in this regard is beyond any philosophical issue. And it has been indicated regarding the history of the research that apart from ancient philosophical texts and related works that have been addressed in the three philosophical systems of the Islamic world, no independent works that have addressed this topic have been considered.To find the answer to the main question of the research which is whether the view of the attribution of existence to quiddity is internally incompatible with the essential foundations of Avicenna’s ontology, the author first indicates the difficulty of the attribution of existence to quiddity through the problem statement of the study, explaining the point of conflict, and a short explanation regarding the main terms because considering the founders of the Avicennan, Illuminationist, and Sadrian philosophical systems consider the existence of two primaries in the external world to be incorrect, the question regarding the relationship between existence and quiddity in the mind and external world, and explaining the manner it happens, beyond the primacy and the mentally-positedness of each existence and quiddity, the main concern is that each philosophical system must present a clear answer for that because all three philosophical systems are in consensus on the issue that the relationship between existence and quiddity in the mind is in the form of analytical attributions; that is, existence is attributed to quiddity; however, Shaykh al-Ishraq cites Avicenna’s statement in which he asserts the attribution of existence to quiddity as well as the interpretation that has been made from the words of his student Bahmanyar and assumes that attribution according to Avicenna refers to external attribution and accordingly, in the first judgment with the Peripatetics in the book Ḥikmat al-Ishrāq, he claims that the Peripatetics have based their philosophy on existence whereas existence is mentally-posited and he presents six arguments for the claim that the external attribution of existence to quiddity is incorrect.

In this paper, the author has tried to describe the nature of philosophy and the definition of a philosopher via studying and investigating the Ibn Sina's works, This method has several benefits: 1. It is known that what some scholars of the history of philosophy (e.g. Majid Fakhri) have said without researching Ibn Sina's view is incorrect. It turns out that some later philosophers after Ibn Sina (e.g. Mullah Sadra) have mentioned them in their books in their own names and without quoting Ibn Sina. 3. It leads to the conclusion that Islamic philosophy should be learned from its main source and Ibn Sina's authority accepted - the same method that Abdul Karim Shahrestani has used in his book "Al-Mulla Wal-Nahl", which preferably considered Ibn Sina's views and opinions in introducing Islamic philosophy rather than other Muslim philosophers, and referred to him as "the sign of the people".

The problem of human and analyzing his identity is one of the foundations of Mulla-Sadra and Heidegger’s thoughts. Their conception about humans, despite all the differences, have some similarities. The common view about the problem of humans and Being has brought special proximity between them. Both believe in a special existence for humans among all other entities. Mulla-Sadra believes that the self’s knowledge by presence of himself is identical with the self and entails its knowledge by presence of the body; and the body conjuncts self with the world. This knowledge by presence is identical to humans’ openness toward the world; since the self’s intention is always toward his surrounding environment. By this intention, he can preserve his being. Heidegger believes that Human continually projects into the world and this projection steams from his openness toward the world; that is, Dasien consistently appropriates himself and other entities, and due to this appropriation fulfills his projection. Heidegger divides humans into authentic and non-authentic. Non-authentic human follows Das-man and endoxa, however, the authentic human recognizes himself determined in a specific time; thus perform his effort following his situation and purposes and to fulfill his true identity. Mulla-Sadra also thinks that the realization of human dispositions is beholden by humans’ interaction with the world in which he/she dwells in it. Humans can make their world more open and advance it through their activities. Mulla-Sadra and Heidegger both emphasize humans' interaction with the world and his world-constituting ability, and both think of humans’ transcendence based on humans' activity and the kind of the world that he/she constitutes.

One of the three constituent elements of all classical metaphysics is the theory of Soul. Along with the soul, Kant also introduced the world and God as other pillars of transcendental metaphysics, and explained their relation to each other as the outlines of the "science of philosophy" in the third critique. In order to achieve this, he believes that each of these three pillars needs to be analyzed in the context of critical philosophy so that the historical knots of traditional metaphysics can be opened and philosophy can move forward and progress like basic sciences such as mathematics and physics. In the transcendental dialectic of the Critique of Pure Reason, he examines the claims of the metaphysical's counterfeiters in four well-known fallacies, and shows why they are barren. In addition to describing the approach of traditional metaphysicians during this two Kant's serious discussions of the soul- one as a condition of cognition and the other as part of traditional metaphysics and its implicit fallacies- this paper seeks to show how the soul as one of the pillars of the Science of Philosophy and the "complete philosophical system" is formulated in Kant's critical philosophy, and for this formulation how to reject Cartesian psychology.

This research wants to find the answer of this question that in defining soul by Al-Ghazali, how much he has followed Aristotle and is Al-Ghazali's interpretation of the Aristotelian psychology, a theological interpretation, or philosophical one, or both of them.Aristotle, while presenting two types of natural and metaphysical definitions of the soul, in natural definition, considers the soul relation to the body and in metaphysical definition, independent. He considers the knowledge of the soul in relation to the knowledge of the living being, but Al-Ghazali, with a religious approach and from the perspective of Shari'at, considers the knowledge and truth of the soul, related to the truth of death and self-knowledge; emphasizing the need to know the human soul to achieve divine knowledge. He considers the soul as a mirror, looking into which, one may meet God. In his philosophical definition of the soul, Al-Ghazali like Aristotle, states that the soul is the first perfection and believes that the soul is perceived only by reason.

In peripatetic philosophy Existence is the subject matter and it is the basis of the Peripatetic’s philosophical system, including theology, cosmology and ontology. Suhrawardi analyzes the view of Peripatetic philosophers about existence in the light of its relation to essence. In his view, existence as a general concept is only in the mind But peripatetic philosophers consider it an objective matter and have confused the rules of mental concepts with objective matters. Hence, Suhrawardi believes that the Peripatetic philosophers in the discussion of existence have been confronted with the fallacy of mind and object, which leads to internal incompatibility in the Peripatetic philosophical system. By expressing this confusion, he concludes that existence is a consideration of mind and therefore, changes the problems of philosophy from ontology to theory of light. In this article, by analytical and critical method, first discuss Suhrawardi's understanding of existence and its relation to essence, and then, relying on the views of Peripatetic philosophers, we express Suhrawardi's misunderstanding from his point of view, and in the last stage, Suhrawardi's opinion is criticized in detail. Among Suhrawardi's fallacies in understanding the views of peripatetic philosophers about existence, we can state the Epistemological fallacies in understanding of existence, confusion of accident with accidental, confusion of nonconditioned essence with the conditioned with something essence, confusion of reason with mind, confusion of kinds of distinctions between existence and essence, and confusion of secondary philosophical ineligibles with logical.