فصلنامه آینه معرفت
پیاپی 81 (زمستان 1403)

The theory of the accidentality of unity is seen in many works of Ibn Sina. It has attracted the attention of his commentators and critics. The statement that unity is an accident does not mean that, in his view, unity is included in the nine accidental categories; instead, he intended the additionality of unity to its subject and such additionality, as long as it does not extend to external occasion, can also be interpreted based on analytic accident. Leaving aside his explicit statements regarding the external accidentality of unity, an examination of Ibn Sina's works, based on the question of the possibility of interpreting the accidentality of unity as an analytic accident, yields three types of statements:  (1) Statements that, at first glance, could indicate that "unity is an analytic accident." (2) Statements according to which, in the case of some entities, the identity of unity with existence is raised. (3) A statement that states the identity of existence and unity in an absolute way. A rational analysis of all these statements leads us to conclude that Ibn Sina's statement about the external accidentality of unity contrasts with some of his other statements. This conflict seems to be due to a change in Ibn Sina's thought or an inconsistency in his intellectual structure due to a lack of a clear understanding of philosophical concepts and their relationship to reality. In any case, his view on the accidentality of unity cannot be interpreted as the external accidentality of unity.

The principle of causality is one of the most fundamental principles in philosophical systems, although there are differences of opinion regarding its formulation and obviousness. The statement “every possible being needs a cause” is Ibn Sina’s formulation of it. From the perspective of most commentators of Ibn Sina, he believes in the self evidence of this principle. In his works, there are both interpretable evidences in favour of the self evidence of this principle and interpretable evidences against it, which may lead to illusion of contradiction among his statements. Some commentators have considered the existence of this conflict to be insoluble, while others have tried to resolve this conflict in favor of the self-evidence of the principle of causality. This research, which is organized by citing printed and manuscript sources and has introduced the views of some of these commentators for the first time, seeks to describe and analyze their views and evaluate them. The results of the evaluation show that, contrary to their views, the aforementioned conflict can be resolved in favor of the non-self-evidence of the principle of causality.

After the collection of Aristotle's works by Andronicus of Rhodes, the tradition of commenting on Aristotle's works began in a special and wide way. By examining the remaining explanations, it is highlighted that the tradition of commenting on Aristotle's works was carried out both for its own sake and for a better understanding of his opinions, which was usually used by the Peripatetics, or for a better understanding. Plato's philosophy that the Platonists usually interpreted Aristotle’s views with this aspect. A comparison of the comments of Ammonius, Boethius, and al-Farabi in the ninth chapter of the book on Aristotle on Interpretation indicates that each of these three philosophers had different concerns and approaches to the explanation of Aristotle's opinions. Ammonius, who is concerned with Aristotle and Plato, looks at the topics of this chapter with a theological approach, Boethius tries to defend Aristotle against the misconceptions of the essentialist Stoics in the space of propositions and the relationships between subjects and their predicates. Although al-Farabi is the inheritor of the tradition of Ammonius, he tries to explain this chapter in the same logical space and establishes the position of Aristotle's logic as a tool (organon) of philosophy.

In Indian mystical schools, the epistemic ability of reason is doubted. By utilizing the skepticism of the Upanishads, Buddhist materialism, and the method of the slippery eel while weakening and denigrating reason, Nagarjuna offers a unique method for discovering the truths of existence. The question is whether Nagarjuna's skepticism leads to nihilism. By following the roots of Indian skepticism in the Rig Veda, the Upanishads, and early Buddhist texts, and by analyzing Nagarjuna's polemical arguments, we find that while criticizing epistemological foundationalism and rejecting the principle of causality and emphasizing the distinction between the product of the intellect and the heart and the importance of practical conduct, he distances himself from nihilism and achieves a specific mystical realism. This mental and spiritual conduct causes the seeker to be granted divine gifts (Ibn ʿArabi) or chosen (Nagarjuna). Therefore, Nagarjuna's skepticism about the cognitive capacity of reason is a prelude to achieving wisdom derived from a faculty that Ibn ʿArabi calls the heart. A wisdom associated with a realist metaphysics according to which the entire world of phenomena is considered to be ontic qualities of the Almighty

The soul is an abstract concept that requires the use of metaphor for its comprehension. The human mind is inherently incapable of understanding intellectual concepts without the aid of concrete domains. Cognitive metaphor theory (conceptual metaphor theory) demonstrates how humans utilize metaphors to grasp intangible phenomena, wherein the target conceptual domain becomes understandable through mappings from a source domain. This study adopts a cognitive approach to explore the conceptualization of the soul in Ibn Sinā’s works through anthropomorphic metaphors, framed under the overarching metaphor "The Soul is a Human" and its subsidiary metaphors. The findings reveal that the soul is made comprehensible through metaphors drawn from domains such as human life dimensions, including birth, management, ownership, worship, physical activity, social interaction, legal frameworks, and negative human traits. These metaphors illustrate the relationship between the soul and the body as well as its connection to higher principles, including the Active Intellect.

In Augustine's thought, human nature is sick because of original sin, and this disease has also made humans incapable of achieving salvation and doing good deeds. Hence, it needs an external factor to be strengthened: grace. The result of Augustine's belief is that babies are guilty of physical birth in such a situation. In the meantime, Pelagius believes that Augustine's approach has results that undermine the tenets of Christian doctrinal principles. First, it deprives God of the attributes of justice and power, while the Bible considers God to be just because the Bible considers God to be Just and seeks a conception of man as a just creature. Secondly, It causes an unfair interpretation of Divine Grace that challenges other inner areas of human beings and reduces them to inefficiency. Therefore, to solve this problem, Pelagius first considers the human will to be free, and in the next step, he introduces human nature as pure and explains it with an Arian approach; he first explains grace and then confronts Augustine's interpretation of Paul. He also considers Augustine's evidence from the Bible metaphorical, thus declaring the infants free from any sin. In this study, we intend to investigate this issue descriptively and refer to original sources.

Pilgrimage is one of the concepts that has found new examples in the modern era. Tombs of artistic figures, war memorials, and unique media scenes are among the pilgrimage sites of the modern era. In this article, using a descriptive-analytical method, the semantic evolution of the concept of pilgrimage in the modern era has been investigated with regard to the concept of sanctity and the theological foundations of this era. According to the findings of this research, in the concept of pilgrimage in the modern era compared to the pre-modern era, there has been no specification or expansion but a semantic change. Accordingly, in traditional theology, sanctity was an intra-religious matter formed solely through a relationship with God. However, in the modern era, sanctity has become not about Divine revelation but a constructive, extra-religious concept that requires no religious affiliation. This conceptual evolution of pilgrimage is derived from some of the foundations of modern theology, including the emphasis on the interiority of God, extreme rationalism, individualism, religious experience, and humanism.