مجله فلسفه و کلام اسلامی
سال چهل و پنجم شماره 1 (بهار و تابستان 1391)

Suhrawardi’s thoughts and works have had an important impact on formation and developing of Mulla Sadra’s philosophy, especially theory of “Primacy of Existence”. Although it seems that Suhrawadi did not accept this theory, his exact view about it is not known. We can ascribe four features to him: 1. Suhrawardi who believes in the Primacy of quiddity, 2. Suhrawardi who believes in the Primacy of Existence, 3. Suhrawardi who believes in the Primacy of light or lights. 4. Suhrawardi who decided to constitute a new philosophical school known as the philosophy of illumination that argues about light and problems related to it without clarifying relationship between light and primacy of existence or quiddity. In this article we defend the fourth theory against the three others.

It is a well-known position that al-Ghazali believes in the disability of reason to know moral goodness and badness, and it is in need of religious laws to know them. But is this because of his belief in reason’s structural disability or is it based on another ground? In this paper we take into consideration this view-point and investigate its real foundations. We show that al-Ghazali seriously believes in the structural ability of reason in knowing ethical goods and evils. According to him, reason can know good and evil if it would be free from the impact of moral pollutions, so that in the prophetic level of knowledge it would be able to receive the truth from God as it is. This opinion has been proved through analyzing three bases in al-Ghazali’s thought: 1. The prophetic level of knowledge is a rational level; 2. Reason can know good and evil in itself; 3. Moral pollutions have profound influences on reason in apprehending moral affairs.

This essay is about Mulla Sadra and Allameh Tabatabaei’s views on the concept and extension of the “world of zar (pre-existence)” (the pervading meaning of verse 172, Al-Araf, Holly Quran). In this research, based on Sadra and Tabatabaei’s basic thoughts and by using the descriptive and analytic method the following results have been achieved: 1. The existence of the world of zar is proved by Sadra and Tabatabaei’s transcendental wisdom; but, the extension of this concept is divine knowledge or the world of intelligence in Sadra’s philosophical thought and spiritual world (Malakout) in Tabatabaei’s. 2. Tabatabaei and Mulla Sadra both believe that human beings have two stages of life: the first stage is before the corporeal world and the other is after this world. In views of Tabatabaei, the stages of human being’s life are in full agreement with the grades of universe: the human being is passing the three stages of his life in the three following stations of the world: intelligence world, spiritual world and finally the corporeal world, to obtain all of his maturities according to his abilities.

To analyze the dialectical reasoning, in Topics, Aristotle reduces any dialectical proposition to a subject which is ‘species’ and a predicate which is either ‘definition’, ‘genus’, (‘difference’,) ‘property’, or ‘accident’, and then he says that the ten categories provide the matters of these predicables. Porphyry in Isagoge substitutes the ‘species’ for the ‘definition’ and exhibites these five universal predicates as the necessary or useful introduction to the Aristotelian doctrines of categories, definition, devision, and proof. Farabi combines Aristotelian Predicables with Porphyrian Five Universals and make a new catalogue of universals. He also explains that the five universals are final elements of all definitions and reasonings in all sciences. Ibn Sina in the logic of al-Shifa’ which is the best representative of the nine-part logicography in Islamic world, applies the five universals in the same function as Porphory does in Isagoge; but in the logic of al-Isharat which is the first compelet representative of his bipartite logicography, he applies them only as an introduction to the theory of definition

Some contemporary logicians have introduced a new simple method of logical consequences and reduced all immediate arguments to Conversion and Obversion. By dint of positive and infinite terms, one of the logicians, Reza Akbari, increased the four traditional quantified propositions to 32 ones: the 4 well-known positives, 4 subject-infinites, 4 predicate-infinites, 4 two-sided-infinites, and the same 16 with ‘A’ and ‘B’ in which converted. Akbari, also, stated among some of the 32 propositions the interrelations: the opposition square, conversion, conversion by contradiction, obversion, inversion, and two new relations: “contraposition of the subject” and the “unknown”. This theory extending the classical 4-quntified-theory can be named “32-quntified-theory”. In this paper, I show that the 32 propositions are equivalent four-by-four, hence, we can reduce the 32 propositions to 8 ones and their relations to the six: equivalence, implication, inconsistency, inclusive ‘or’, exclusive ‘or’ and none (which is the same as Akbari’s “unknown”. By this, I decrease the perplexities of the theory and express so easily and elegantly the relations between the eight in a cube similar to the “Square of Opposition,” which I call the “Cube of Opposition.”

Moral relativism is the philosophical theory that morality is relative that different moral truths hold for different individuls or different societies. Individual and social differences and variety of needs in different ages has posed this question whether morality is relative or absolute? Although Kant and Mulla Sadra belong to different reflective systems but both have common problems in this topic. Both have founded moral laws upon "practical reason" to deliver them from relativism risk. In Kant, "moral law" and "pure practical reason" have universality, and human as "pure intelligence" and "tendency toward highest good" becomes eternal. In Mulla Sadra, human is a "comprehensive reality" that comprehends universal realities in speculative sphere and particular acts in practical sphere. Also on the basis of "Imagination immateriality" and "individual unity of soul", human and soul habits are eternal. In this article we critically analyze and compare viewpoints of Kant and Mulla Sadra about the problem of moral relativism.

Existence of suffering in life is undeniable. But, why does suffering exist? What is its cause? Are there any meanings for this life? Is it possible to escape from suffering? Dostoyevsky, who believes that suffering is an inherent element of human life, tries to represent the problem of suffering and men's reactions to it in his works. He believes that not only suffering does exist, but also its existence is necessary for human’s happiness. In this article, through studying Dostoyevsky's novels, we try to survey his opinion on this problem. Dostoyevsky accepts the existence of variety of sufferings, such as existential suffering, nihilistic suffering, suffering due to atheism, and despair suffering. He believes that when man put God away in his life, the consequence would be absurdity and despair. Dostoyevsky considers the belief in God and immortality as basic element to remove the disorders, disappointments and depression due to suffering.

Emotion is one of the human soul’s aspects which have a complex relationship with action and cognition. Martha Craven Nussbaum considers emotion as one of the figures of cognition and believes that emotion is the recognition of a person’s very important living aspects which are not under his control. In her view, emotion is based on the subject. This notion proves that emotion is a part of cognition. When we consider the subject of cognition as an aim in the emotional issues, we should pay attention to this point that this method of cognition shows some differences from the other forms of cognition. So, Nussbaum considers this theory, which emphasizes not only the cognitive emotion but also considers this evaluative subject a purpose, as cognitive-evaluative view of emotion.