فصلنامه ذهن
سال بیست و سوم شماره 4 (پیاپی 92، زمستان 1401)

One of the most fundamental basis in the production of human sciences is its methodology. Most methodological issues are directly rooted in knowledge such as epistemology; Therefore, the methodology of humanities feeds mostly on epistemology. The center of gravity of the epistemology of the humanities is: the nature of propositions of the humanities, the source studies of the humanities and the issue of its validation. The answer to these problems is different, depending on the type of intellectual paradigm, and each of them has specific methodological results. Common humanities methodology is rooted in rational approaches and trends, especially epistemology in the West; These issues can be shown in modern epistemology based on dominant paradigms such as "positivist", "hermeneutic" and "critical" as theoretical frameworks in the field of common humanities. Of course, different paradigms, especially in Western civilization, have common epistemological principles in this sense; For example, the approach of "nominalism", subjectivism (originality of the knowing agent), rationalism, "empiricism", "pragmatism" and the like are common epistemological principles in most western schools, and in addition to these principles, every Which of the existing paradigms also have a specific epistemological approach. But based on the intellectual system of Islam, other methodological results will be obtained.

 Method of Study:

This article tries to use the method of rationalphilosophical analysis to briefly point out the methodological results of common humanities based on epistemology in dominant paradigms and then to explain the methodological findings of Islamic humanities based on Islamic epistemology in the intellectual system of Allameh Misbah Yazdi.

Modern epistemology - based on dominant paradigms such as positivist, hermeneutic and critical - some epistemological issues of Islamic humanities and its methodological results were discussed, especially in the opinions and works of Allameh Misbah. The epistemological issues raised in this article are: the nature of propositions of humanities and the source studies of humanities and its validation issue. It was said that the answer to these problems depends on the type of intellectual paradigm, and each of them has specific methodological results. In this article, an attempt has been made to present the mentioned issues based on the Islamic intellectual system, especially in the opinions of Allameh Misbah Yazdi, to point out the methodological findings of each one, and the mechanism of the influence of epistemological issues in methodology was also briefly shown.

Based on ontological and epistemological realism, a bridge was built to methodological realism, and based on that, in the problem of source studies of human sciences, diversity and plurality of sources and epistemological tools were investigated. Based on the diversity of epistemological sources, another finding was obtained under the title of methodological pluralism and the pattern of combining methods. In the end, based on fundamentalism, the methodology and the process of reasoning in the justification and validation of human sciences were stated.

Methodology is a process knowledge that consists of several steps, and research strategies are one of these steps and among the key topics of this knowledge. Therefore, one of the necessary tasks for a precise understanding of the methodology of Islamic philosophy is to know the research strategies of this philosophical trend. The strategy is the direction of the research and the type of techniques, methods, approaches and attitudes used in the research. Explaining that when we face a problem, we must specify what our problem is? How do we approach the problem to solve it? Where is the starting point for problem solving? Do we have an end point for problem solving or do we reach an end point in the process of problem solving? That is, do we have a general answer that we want to reach or do we not know what answer we want to achieve? What are the techniques we want to use? What are the problem solving methods? What are problem solving approaches? What are the problem solving attitudes? What is our design to solve the problem? Facing these questions, we have to adopt a suitable strategy. Professor Mohammad Taqi Misbah Yazdi is one of the great Islamic philosophers and thinkers, who in Islamic wisdom, including the methodology of Islamic wisdom; He has a precise, critical and innovative view and has placed his philosophical thoughts in the field of confrontation with the thoughts of Western philosophers .

Method of Study:

 In this article, the authors focus on the book of Misbah's Philosophy Education using the interpretive strategy and explanatory-analytical method and extract the strategies of Misbah's mixed philosophical research from this work. Because this book is one of the important works of philosophizing of Islamic philosophy, which contains the philosophical views of Professor Misbah Yazdi, and is not a summary, description and interpretation of the views of other Islamic philosophers.

We have divided the strategies of philosophical research into two simple and mixed parts, which simple research strategies include deductive strategy, analytical strategy, inductive strategy, interpretive strategy and intuitive strategy. Also, mixed strategies are the result of mixing two or more simple strategies with each other. Professor Misbah in his philosophical views of the mixed strategies of 1- analytical-deductive; 2- analytical- deductive-interpretive second type; 3- analytical- deductive-interpretive second type-intuitive; 4- analytical-interpretive first and second type; 5- analytical-interpretive type two; 6- analytical-interpretive second type-inductive; and 7- analogical-interpretive second type has been used .

Research strategies are one of the stages and steps of the methodology of philosophy, which are not exclusive to a philosopher and philosophical school; Rather, every philosophical research has a research strategy. Of course, a philosopher may not use mixed strategies and believes in simple strategies or may use other types of mixed strategies. Research strategies, direct the flow of the philosopher's philosophizing and knowing these strategies and their application in philosophizing will make this flow purposeful.

For analysis and formulation of "truth", several theories have been stated, one of which is the correspondence theory. Correspondence means that proposition is in accordance with reality or (according to the Islamic philosophers) Nafsal-Amr, it indicates connection between proposition and reality or (according to the Western philosophers) the fact; That is, in correspondence theory, true statements represent reality. Although correspondence, with its maximum adherents among Western and Muslim philosophers, guarantees the discovery of knowledge of reality; However, there have been problems with it, some of which have been answered, but some have regressed this theory and even put the philosopher in position of presenting an alternative theory such as coherence, pragmatism, etc.

Method of Study:

 The current research has been carried out with the aim of analytically explaining the evolution of Sadra's view in the issue of correspondence, through the descriptive-analytical-rational method, explain Mulla Sadra's answers to the problems of correspondence theory and designing and drawing his alternative theory .

Problems of the correspondence theory based on the duality of the mind and the object are: the union of substance and accident, the inclusion of something under two different categories, etc., which is known as the problem of the “mental being” among Muslim scholars and Mulla Sadra's answers to those problems are classified in Three levels : 1. Separation of Hamle_avvail from Hamle_shaaye according to the essence of knowledge, which solved the problem of the union of substance and accident and the inclusion of an object under two categories .2. The theory of existential correspondence between mind and object, according to the existence of knowledge and separation of knowledge from mental being, relying on the originality of existence and gradation in existence, which is result of the objective correspondence of the superior existence of essence to its special existence . 3.Deviating from the correspondence theory and returning all human knowledge to the knowledge by presence which is infallible, and its infallibility is justified in such a way that since the knowledge by presence is without the mediation of the mental form, then in it, the correspondence of knowledge with the intelligible is not a question, but knowledge is the intelligible.

The result is that analytical explanation of the evolution of Mulla Sadra's view in the issue of correspondence is based on two cl aims the first claim (which is a more modified state than the second) replaces existential correspondence with substantive correspondence, which is the middle view and the second level of Sadra's theory and it can be taken from the basics of: the originality of existence and gradation in existence. In the second claim (which is a more perfect state than the first), based on principles such as: The immateriality of knowledge, Unification of the intelligent, intellect and the intelligible, the presence of all knowledge and the infallibility of knowledge by presence, there is no place for correspondence theory; Because correspondence is only discussed in the field of acquired knowledge, and this is the final view and the third level of Sadra's theory .

what is the paring problem? And how is it an obstacle to substantial dualism? Paring problem is why and how can a particular soul belong to a particular body. Resulting from inability to answer this question, it is claimed that causal interaction between an immaterial soul and its material body is impossible. In this research, the concept of the pairing problem is explained and its contrast with substantial dualism is exposed. The important point is whether or not this problem is under the mental causation. We have considered this problem to be different from the challenge of mental causation and we have provided an explanation to explain this difference. According to a new explanation of difference between paring problem and mental causation, it seems that paring problem has a long history in Islamic philosophy. On the other hand, what is Mulla Sadra's solution, as one of the most prominent Muslim philosophers, for this problem? Among other philosophers Mulla Sadra evaluates this problem precisely. we have investigated this problem from Mullah Sadra's view by considering Mullah Sadra's principles, especially by proposing two important interpretations on the union of soul and body from Mullah Sadra's view, i.e. The interpretation on the unity of soul and body to their existential distinction by Professor 'Oboudiyat and the interpretation on the existential identical beetween soul and its levels by Professor Yazdan Panah.

Methods of Study: 

The method of discovery in this issue is library investigation and the method of evaluation is rational critical analytic.

It seems that the interpretation on the union between soul and body in Mulla Sadra's view is a key point in solving this problem. So, two interpretations on the union between soul and body in Sadra's view have been expressed; the existential distinction of soul and body and the existential identical to soul and its body. Apparently, According to an interpretation on union, i.e. the existential distinction of soul and body, the soul and its levels are two different beings. So, based on this interpretation, the dilemma remains. We have concluded that according to existential distinction version, it would be impossible to provide an acceptable analysis for this problem. As a result, a possible explanation for solution this dilemma may be the interpreting unity of the soul and body as the existential identical between soul and its levels, i.e. the view that Claims soul and its levels exist with one being. Of course, we should consider other important principles in Sadra's psychology as well.

In this article, first of all, we have considered paring problem to be different from the challenge of mental causation and we have provided an explanation to explain this difference. Secondly, this problem has a long history in Islamic philosophy, and before the philosophers of mind, Muslim philosophers have dealt with it. Thirdly, a possible explanation for solution this dilemma may be the interpreting unity of the soul and body as the existential identical.

Structural realism is one of the influential views in the contemporary philosophy of science that has been welcomed by many realist philosophers of science. John Worrall systematically introduced this view, and others have developed it. The aim of this study is the investigation the relationship between the formation of the structural realism view and the diverse views of physicists regarding how reality is represented in scientific theories. In addition, it addresses the question of how John Worrall's structuralism developed from physicists' views on physical reality and the representation of reality in scientific theories.

Method of Study:

 The method of this article is conceptual analysis. In this article, we first deal with some cases of the history of physics and quote the opinions of some famous physicists about the realism or antirealism of scientific theories. In examining their comments, we will show how the two different approaches to scientific theories have been and how they have moved together .

It can be considered that, contrary to the ordinary view, which in many cases is assumed that philosophical theories emerge from controversy among philosophers, in this case, it can be seen that John Worrall's theory of structural realism is rooted in philosophical controversies among physicists. Through the comments of Henri Poincaré, John Worrall reached a solid and well-considered view of the realism of scientific theories, with which one can even answer some of the problems expressed in antirealism about scientific theories, especially the argument that Larry Laudan has made so clear and orderly, and even beyond that, we can absorb some antirealistic views in structuralism. The two famous arguments that he tries to incorporate into his theory are the «No-miracle argument» and «Pessimistic meta-induction», which we will partially address in this article. He chooses the path between the two views to introduce his structuralist view which, in his opinion, is well compatible with both of these arguments, and as a result, he wants to show that it is possible to remain realistic about scientific theories, in this sense that we can still maintain the claim that scientific theories inform about reality and show us the reality of the world, but in terms of structure. In summary, we will reach the following conclusions from the review of the opinions of some well-known physicists in the history of physics, as well as a more detailed review of the opinions of Henri Poincaré and John Worrall.

Contrary to the common view, which is considered in many cases, philosophical theories arise from disputes among philosophers, John Worrall's theory of structural realism is rooted in philosophical disputes among physicists; in the sense that the emergence of structural realism arose from a historical context, and had roots in the thoughts of some physicists, including Maxwell, Hertz, Boltzmann. The thoughts of these prominent physicists progressed step by step and led to the emergence of an implicit attitude about structuralism, which was more clearly expressed in Henri Poincaré, and then John Worrall, inspired by these ideas and especially influenced by the view Poincaré introduced his structural realism more coherently and showed that the continuity that we need in the changes and instability of scientific theories to achieve scientific realism must be found at the level of structures. By introducing structural realism, he reconciled two important arguments that did not seem to be easily compatible with each other, emphasizing continuity in the structure of scientific theories rather than continuity in content, and showed that there is continuity in the great body of science.

The present research is aimed to evaluate conceptual domains via evaluating conceptual metaphors and conceptual keys of word “guidance” on the basis of Charteris-Black’s (2004) viewpoint on critical analysis of metaphor. The research is made within all verses of last twelve minuties of the holy Quran. The conceptual keys are conceptualized in the particular lexical factors’ format and are explained by specific conceptual domains via its descriptive– analytical method and it’s cognitive linguistic framework. The data collected from the aforementioned verses are shown in the form of tables, including conceptual metaphors and conceptual keys related to the word guidance, together with explanations for each table. Due to the limited space of the article, similar verses have not been mentioned in the paper.

is to analyse which conceptual domains are used to explain conceptual metaphors and conceptual keys of the word “guidance” within the Quranic corpus. Black's approach in explaining the conceptual fields of the Quranic verses, is a new approach in the field, which by presenting extensive dimensions of conceptual metaphor analysis and with a critical method, provides a suitable platform for research in various discourse areas, especially the holy books. The importance of his approach is not because of the introduction of the conceptual areas of metaphor, but because of the introduction of methods of using metaphor in persuading the audience to accept discourse, in line with the goals of the speaker. According to Black, metaphor is a literary technique to persuade the audience to accept a certain point of view. He deals with the use of metaphor in concealing the underlying persuasive role, which is often not clear and transparent, and with a critical approach to metaphor, he tries to show the political and ideological motivations in the texts. Based on this, he considers a conceptual metaphor to be the result of a number of metaphorical expressions and believes that the conceptual key is a higher-level metaphor that expresses how multiple metaphors relate to each other. According to him, conceptual metaphors and conceptual keys express the motivation of specific higher-level metaphors and indicate the type of ideas related to the source area that is supposed to be transferred to the metaphorical destination area. Black proposes the definitions of metaphor in terms of linguistic, cognitive and pragmatics; he believes that metaphor is one of those conscious choices of language that hides the underlying social processes and its analysis is an effective factor in identifying textual content.

The research results determines the following 14 conceptual domains within the Quranic corpus: religion, journey, consciousness, monotheism, light, inspiration, authority, remedy, piety, judgment, effort, reward, climate, creation. Examining the use of these domains in the critical approach to metaphor and what words these areas use to encourage the audience to accept metaphors shows that the most use of conceptual keys has been in the field of religion, which is with the words of the Qur'an, prayer Prophet, revelation, zakat, Islam, faith and monotheism.

Sabzavārī, with technical knowledge of the principles of ontology and the knowledge of soul, has established reasons for the unity of intellect and the intelligible (ittihad al-‘aqil wa-l-ma‘qul), including the proof of the objectivity of the mind and the mental. The basis of achieving the purpose of this argument is the precise ontology of the levels of mind and object and how the mind and mentalities are related. Rereading this reason and its validity to prove the unity of the intellect and the intelligible, and the separation of the first-order and consistent elements from the peripheral and second-order elements, as well as the statement of some foundations related and special to the Transcendental Philisophy, such as the quality of truth that exists on mentalities, the thing (or fact) itself’ (nafs al-amr), the affirmative and negative relationship of mind and mental, the identity and nature of science, and the unity of soul and powers, is unprecedented, and this article aims to point out the strength of the issue of the unity of intellect and the intelligible with the approach of proofs.

Method of Study: 

Studying the main elements of the argument and its foundations, with explanatory and analytical methods, can show the degree of implication of the argument and its effective role in proving the problem.

The relationship between mind and mental has two negative and positive aspects. The negative aspect negates the relationship between the placed and the place and the immanent rising in order to reach the affirmative position and the relationship of the emanational rising, which is of the illuminative correlation (al-idafa alishraqiyya) style. This negative aspect is enough for Sabzavārī to establish a proof of unity. Just as the nature of external exists is the same as the external so the nature that mental exists has a relationship of objectivity with the mind. Many problems and defects on the mental existence are caused by blaming the view on the negative side, but the dignity of the mind in relation to perceptions, even to sensations and imaginations, should be changed from passivity and ability to activity and creativity. In addition to paying attention to the negation of the relationship between the placed and the place and the establishment of the relationship of the immanent rising between the mind and the mental, the posieive position of the transcendental theory should be sought in two other things, which are: attention to the identity and nature of science and the relationship between the soul and the powers.

From this point of view, the proof that the sameness of mind and the mental, explains and proves the issue of unity, that the mind is the levels of reality and does not have duality in the reality, reality and external. With a step-by-step approach to seek confirmation, first the mind and the mental are compared with the reality and the external, but according to the ontological criteria of the Transcendental Philisophy, there is no analogy and comparison, and the same principle of the unity of the reality and the external is also true for the mind and the mental, and different principles the sameness of reality and external is the guide to this.

The occurrence of errors in human knowledge is an important epistemological topic in philosophy. Error in “acquired knowledge” (al-‘Ilm al-husuli) means the mismatch of the mental form with the reality outside it. But the error in “present knowledge” (al-‘Ilm al-hudhuri), since the mediation of the mental form is not mentioned, has been a place of reflection and controversy. Since intuitive knowledge (al-ma’rifat ush-shuhudiyyah) is a type of present knowledge, and the mystic claims it relates to the known truth, it is necessary to investigate the validity of intuitive knowledge and its criteria. Sadr ul-Muti’allihin’s great emphasis on intuitive knowledge and its place in the knowledge of existence doubles the necessity of investigating the authenticity of intuitive knowledge and its criteria .

This library research aims to investigate the meaning of error in intuitive knowledge and the criteria for measuring its truth from his point of view by referring to the works of Sadr ulMuti’allihin.

.1 Accepting the possibility of error in intuitive knowledge, Sadr ul-Muti’allihin insists on the measurability of intuitive propositions. According to Sadr ul-Muti’allihin, the devil (ash-Shaytan) and his suggestions (Ilgha’at), as well as the philosopher’s moral weaknesses, are two important factors causing errors in intuitive knowledge. .2 Sadr ul-Muti’allihin considers Revelation (Wahy) and Intellect (‘Aghl) to be the most important measure of intuitive knowledge. According to him, Shari’a is the surest way to reach the truth. Sadr ulMuti’allihin’s repeated emphasis on the importance of the Shari’a and his great effort in adapting his philosophical findings to the principles of the Shari’a indicate the special place of the book and tradition in his epistemological system. According to Sadr ul-Muti’allihin, Intellect has a special place as the second measure of intuitive knowledge. Based upon this, one of the important goals of Sadr ul-Muti’allihin is to combine intuition and evidence. From his point of view, although mystical revelations are superior to proof in terms of certainty, intuitive knowledge not only does not oppose true proof, but intuition without proof goes astray.

Sadr ul-Muti’allihin considers the heart to be the place of the Devil’s inspirations, and emphasizes that just as the existence of inspiration is certain, the existence of Satanic temptations is certain. Therefore, it seems that at least in some types of acquired knowledge, there is a possibility of error. In addition, the mystic may fall into error in the position of communicating or interpreting and explaining intuitive knowledge. Therefore, Sadr ul-Muti’allihin insists on the quantification of intuitive cases. Sadr ul-Muti’allihin considers revealed knowledge and Intellect to be the most important criteria for measuring intuitive knowledge, and regarding the Shari’a, he warns that it should not be influenced by superficial perceptions. And regarding Intellect, he emphasizes that if the intuitive claims of mystics are contrary to clear rational and logical laws and principles, they are rejected. Of course, at the same time, he pays attention to the limitations of Intellect and emphasizes that some intuitive knowledge may not be grasped by Intellect, and in these cases, Intellect cannot issue a verdict either positively or negatively