نشریه تاریخ فلسفه اسلامی
پیاپی 2 (تابستان 1401)

One of the philosophical principles that contradicts the discussion of free will is the law of causal necessity. Philosophical predestination has threatened free will in many ways and has raised doubts in this regard. Philosophers and theologians have dealt with these issues differently based on their theoretical foundations. This paper expresses Allameh's views on free will as well as how he deals with this issue and to point out his innovations in this field. In the present study, in a descriptive-analytical method, the doubts raised through causality on the issue of free will are explained and by reflecting and examining Allameh's works and analyzing his statements, these issues have been investigated and answered. Despite the similarity of Allameh's words with other philosophers in this field, the type of content processing and the role of his foundations in the answers provided show the difference between Allameh's views and others. In particular, Allameh's innovative view is evident in the following options: the connection between necessity and contingent instead of precedence and posterity, the origin of absolute existence for the whole universe instead of science, the definition free will to freedom from others and self-actualization (existence of prosperity), the formation of longitudinal relationship of all dignity, the objectivity of God's activity and the autonomous agent in action.

Criticism of reason means the possibility of discovering reality by reason, not a new event but a long-standing event in the history of human thought, including the time when mystics' encounter with philosophers; because philsophers with the entry of the reason as the measure of measurement, may become indignant the master of mysticism, the mystics also consider its foot to be wooden and untidy. What is the reason for the indignation? Is all this opposition to reason based on true arguments? According to research, these arguments are generally for two arguments: one is entitled "mysticism is beyond reason" which refers to the critique of reason for its inability to comprehend mystical truths, and the other is entitled "reason is always subject to error" which refers to criticism of reason refers in terms of fallibility in the perception of facts. This article deals with both arguments according to the mystics’s words.

Among the arguments for God's existence relied on by Allameh Tabatabai in proving the existence of God are empirical arguments based on the quia proof (burhan inni). Some of the benefits of this argument are:being applicable to the general public who are unable to understand rational arguments or have become difficult for them to return to God-given inborn nature (fitra) due to drowning in material affairs and experiences. This paper deals with this category of Allameh's arguments, which include three types of argument- design proof, temporal originatedness (huduth) proof and motion proof- has examined the subject of the existence of God empirically from his perspective

The issue of the first formed organ in the human body has been considered by scholars for a long time, especially in the fields of philosophy and medicine. Philosophers have approached this issue from the perspective that they saw it as a prelude to solving the long-standing problem of the relationship between the soul and the body. The entry of physicians into this discussion is mostly for a better understanding of the evolutionary process of the human body. Avicenna as a philosopher and a competent physician, is one of the few figures who has comprehensively discussed this issue in his works from both aspects. In the history of thought before Avicenna, we encounter three different views about the first formed organ in the human body, which has respectively considered the heart, brain and liver as the first formed organ or the primary organ in the body. Avicenna, while rejecting the last two views in his works, finally accepts the first view and introduces the heart as the first formed organ in the body. He considers heart as the place for the vital spirit that this vital spirit in its turn is the ground for the faculties of human soul. He uses both empirical evidences based on ancient medicine and rational arguments to prove his claim.

In al-Suhrawardi's philosophy, there is a fundamental turn in the attitude towards the secondary intelligible. Mulla Sadra examines Suhrawardi's views on intelligibles, especially philosophical secondary intelligible, and takes them into a new system, and so far there is a popular opinion about these intelligibles. In the commentaries of philosophical books, Motahhari has made this discussion explained completely and expressed implications, and he has used this topic in his critiques of Marxism. In this article, while comparing the views of Master Motahhari and al-Suhrawardi, we intend to establish a dialogue between these two thinkers and specially to examine the objections of Master to al-Suhrawardi. In this way, the intellectual framework (paradigm) of al-Suhrawardi and Motahhari should be considered in the secondary intelligible, and in transferring concepts from any approach to another, its implications should also be transferred. It seems that according to al-Suhrawardi's approach, Motahhari's objections not acceptable, but Suhrawardi invalidates the opposite opinion due to the occurrence of a circle paralogism of in it.

The rule of “all temporal event is after potential and matter which carry it” is one of most important philosophical rules that has various consequences such as proving first matter or proving Tabataba'i’s theory on movement. This rule was mentioned by Aristotle and Avicenna has a strong demonstration for it, with preparations. But the demonstration itself was forgotten in argument of philosophers after him and its preparations were sit in place of it. This matter caused that some of philosophers accused him of verbal sharing fallacy. this paper seeks to right expression of Avicenna’s demonstration and to show some contemporary philosopher’s failure to reach new demonstration.