نشریه حکمت صدرایی
سال دوم شماره 2 (پیاپی 4، بهار و تابستان 1393)

The doctrine of “reality and tenuity” is a demonstrative-mystical one which has been grasped by Mullā Sadrā through an interdisciplinary approach and speculation over key passages of scripture and has been used then for exegesis of all scriptures. Using this doctrine، he has been able to present an authorized understanding of the issues in philosophical theology and rational cosmology without falling into either mere transcendence or sheer similarity. According to this doctrine، there are at least two major stages of beings: Reality as Sovereignty and tenuity as descent from the former stage. This doctrine، which is analogous to gradation in manifestations، considers the reality to be descended in the stages of tenuity. Thus، according to this doctrine، there is a unity of reality in all stages of existence and individual Oneness of Being. Hence، the pure existence manifests itself in the world of Divine Names and then descends from world to world. So، there are some passages of scripture which could not be interpreted without taking this doctrine to be granted. These passages are those which include some beliefs such as Firstness and Lastness of God، the unity of His outwardness and inwardness، coexistence of God and creatures while being necessary، descent of beings from the hidden Divine realm، and the influence of Divine Names on existence of beings and the emanation of existence.

In Islamic philosophy، presential knowledge has been presented in the works of Suhrawardī. After him، Mullā Sadrā has developed the concept. Suhrawardī has defined knowledge as manifestation and light and Mullā Sadrā has used this definition. While opposed to Suhrawardī on the vision issue، Mullā Sadrā is influenced by him in some other issues such as the problem of acquiring imaginative perceptions. There are a number of disagreements between Suhrawardī and Mullā Sadrā including vision issue، materiality or abstractness the imagination، and attachment of soul to intellectus agens or its identification with it. Besides، there are many agreements between them as well. For instance، they agree on definition of knowledge. These agreements and disagreements have been emerged from principles used by each of them، including soul’s activeness or passiveness in comparison to the forms and non-essential definition of knowledge. For example، whether soul is active or passive in comparison to the forms will lead to different theories on vision issue. On the other hand، agreement on non-essential definition of knowledge will lead to agreement on definition of knowledge.

One may have perceptions and experiences in the world which is not agreeable to his nature. On the other hand، it is undeniable for theologians that there exists a Wise، Omnipotent، and absolutely Just God. The contemporary formulations of the problem of evil are often based upon these inconsistent perceptions. These inconsistent perceptions may raise the question why such God have created such world. Mullā Sadrā has two approaches (in the metaphysical realm as well as the perceptual one) to the issue. In the first approach، He focuses on the world a priori and analyses the issues metaphysically، that is he adopts the theory of negativity of evil to solve the problem. In the second approach، however، he accepts the existence of perceptual evil and، taking this intuition to be granted، tries to solve the problem. According to him، perceptual evils are actually evils per essentia and also doubled evils. Nevertheless، for solving the problem، one has to consider the cognitive faculties of perceiver rather than the createdness of the world.

Many of Muslim scholars have cited the following Sacred Hadith in their books: «I was a treasure that was not known، so I loved to be known. Hence I created the creatures and I made Myself known to them، and thus they came to know Me.» Some have doubted the authenticity and the content of the hadith، but many have verified it and tried to draw out the implications of its content. With a descriptive-analytic attitude، this article shall study this hadith from the perspective of the founder of Transcendent Philosophy and some of his disciples. Mullā Sadrā regards God as purpose of Itself as well as that of other beings، adjusting the former to the divine name «the First» and the latter to «the Last». He interprets the hidden treasure as a reference to “the stage of Unity”. Besides، he mentions four methods in order to explain concealment and manifestation of God in this hadith. Also، this hadith can be considered as an exegesis of 51:56 (I have not created jinn and mankind except to serve Me)، based on which worship is wisdom and anthropos teleios، as the mirror of all divine attributes، is regarded as the final goal of all creation.

In this essay، it will be proved that unactualized propositions، which have subjects that are impossible to exist، should be reduced to conditional propositions and their primary structures are not categorical. But on the other hand، if we want to accept “the theory of mental being”، these propositions must be considered as categorical propositions in order to be included by “the rule of subordination”. So، if we accept that unactualized propositions are categorical، the arguments for the “theory of mental being” will be denied. However، we can prove the theory by the notion of “direct knowledge”.

The salvation of the adherents of religions is one of the controversial issues in the philosophy of religion. Among Islamic scholars، Mullā Sadrā is of thinkers who explain salvation in the light of factors beyond the rightfulness and verity of religions. The significant point is that his view on this issue is entirely based on his own epistemological foundations about “revealed propositions truth-apt” and “the possibility of achieving the truth” of these propositions. In his views، although the revealed prepositions could be attributed as true or false، factors such as lack of access to fact and noumenon، indescribability of some degrees of reality in verbal propositions form، and also the dissimilarity between the speaker’s and the audience’s perception level in revealed propositions make it generally difficult to acquire these propositions. So، according to Mullā Sadrā’s opinion، salvation is possible in the light of other factors such as obedience to God and worshipping Him.

This research is aiming at analyzing Mullā Sadrā''s view on the theory of impossibility of knowing the reality of objects. Sadra criticizes the theory of impossibility of knowing reality of simple objects as well as that of impossibility of knowing reality of all objects. Sadra believes that although we know natures of things، we do not know the reality of existence. This means that we know the reality of things and the lack of knowledge of their attributes and properties does not infer the lack of knowledge of their nature. But it seems to us، based on different interpretations of the relationship between nature and existence in Transcendent Philosophy، that it is impossible to know what the nature of objects is and at the same time remain unaware of the reality of their existence. Besides، the reduction of reality to nature in these theories is not the case. According to Mullā Sadrā، we can know reality of objects via presence not conceptual knowledge.

Philosophers usually believe that causality entails the existential diversity of the cause and the effect. However، for the cases in which there is not any existential diversity، they assert that causality is actualized as well. According to Mullā Sadrā، this kind of causality has to be known by rational analysis. So، the causality does not imply existential diversity. The theory of analytic causality entails development of the meaning of causality and we have to propose a definition of causality which is consistent with both analytic and existential diversity. According to principles of Transcendent Philosophy، there are two definitions of causality which is consistent with both analytic and existential diversity. While the former is “the dependence between two being”، the latter is “the dependence between two referents”. Since the diversity of “being” and “referent” does not essentially entail “existential diversity”، if two “beings” and two “referents” are actualized by two “existence”، the causality is objective and if not، it is analytic. Based on these definitions، causality does not entail existential diversity. Rather، it entails mere diversity، either existential or analytic. There are a number of applications for analytic causality including causality of essence for its implications، causality of contingency for need، the causality in conjunctive-categorical argument، causality of accident for accident، causality of substance for accident، causality of form (genus) for matter (difference)، and causality of the matter and the form for the essence.