نشریه جاویدان خرد
سال نهم شماره 2 (پیاپی 22، پاییز و زمستان 1391)

The treatise published here is one of the shortest philosophical works which is attributed to Avicenna and so far has been published only once in the first volume of Buali’s Hekmat.The treatise is about those ideas which are in the soul and are in opposition with the reality. Two questions arise here: firstly, whether such ideas are imaginary or rational ideas are also among them? Secondly, will these ideas separate from the soul after death or do they permanently remain in the human soul?The author of the treatise firstly proves that the above mentioned ideas are rational as well as being imaginary and then proves that after death, these ideas will separate from the human soul and disappear.This treatise had been edited on the basis of 5 manuscripts of it preserved in “Ahmad Ṣales” and “Nour Othmaniyeh” libraries in Turkey, “Peterman library” and “Ayatullah Golpayegani Library” in the city of Qom, as well as “Tehran University's library”.

Suhrawardi has spoken in two ways about the world of ideas: firstly, being a report of personal and mystical experience of his own and other theosophists; and secondly, giving a philosophical explanation in demonstrative way. Philosophical explanation of Suhrawardi on justification of the world of ideas has been occurred through ontological justifying of some phenomena which we call it here non-foundational approach.In this paper, features and the role of the world of ideas are proposed, and then ontological explanation of the world of Ideas, according to Suhrawardi’s approach, will be explained. Then, ontological explanation of the world of Ideas, as a requisite of ontological view of Suhrawardi, according to the foundational approach will be explored. Finally, by pointing to the differences between the two approaches, it will be shown that deficiencies and ambiguities in philosophy of Suhrawardi have mainly arisen from the non-foundational approach in ontological justification of the world of Ideas.

The Muslim logicians’ approaches to analyze the relationships, their rules and applications, were not on the same level. They have deliberated the relationship between two concepts in a systematized structure, but have an incomprehensive discussion on the rules and inductive attributes of relationships, as they have not considered the distinction between different features of them. Therefore, they have made some fundamental mistakes in analyzing and codifying Aristotelian logic. practically speaking, the rules of relationships are not supposed to be part of Aristotelian logic; therefore, it is not possible to detect their views and theories about this issue, directly. The consideration of successor Muslim Logicians in referring to universals was in line with founding Logics of Sets. Also, this resemblance between Relationship Theory and Set Theory is apparent in their definition of relations. Taking into account the four relationships by traditional logicians, development of this theory in the light of their new terms among successor logicians, can be accounted as an evidence to refute this claim about their lack of consideration in Relationship Theory. In other words, although traditional logic is dependent upon single-monadic predication and intends to reduce all relationships to concepts, in some issues like the quartet relationships, as an introduction to set theory, they somehow faced with the issue of relationships, undoubtedly, there is no systematic discussion on relationships theory in Aristotle works and his adherent logicians.

Most of the Ash’ari theologians have preferred the theory of “acquisition” regarding the matter of how to assign actions to human; however, before them some Mutazilites such as “Najjariyya” and “Ḍerariyya” had believed in some forms of this theory. In contrast, most of the Mutazilites, and in particular “Jubaiyya” believed that, human is the creator of his actions. Ibn Arabi, while acknowledging the difficulty of the matter of acquisition or creation of human actions, frequently addressed and judged theories of “acquisition” and “creation” of actions.Although, Ibn Arabi has approved the religious and rational reasons of Mutazilites about the creation of actions, he considered the theory of “acquisition” evidenced by reason and Sharia and accepted some aspects of both of the competiting theories. Although he criticized both theories on many occasions, found his view closer to the Asharites. Neglecting the attribution of actions to God is the main deficiency of Mutazilites's viewpoint that is not compatible with real Monotheism. Theory of acquisition is also incorrect with respect to the negation of influence of human strength in voluntary actions, because it necessitates a kind of hidden polytheism. Thus, the explanation of Mutazilites and Asharites regarding the attribution of actions to human is at the lower grades of monotheism; but monotheism of mysticism goes beyond both of them.

In theology we mainly encouter with theological and philosophical approach to the divine world. But some theologians believe that these approaches are inadequate and so they prefer theology with mystical and illuminative approach. According to this approach, which has supporters in all religions, the task of theology is not to explain and describe the theological doctrines and then prove them by reason and religion. In fact, the task is to know God and to get closer to him by Divine illumination. One of the advocates of this approach in Christianity, following Augustine, is Bonaventure, a scholastic theologian in the 13th century. Bonaventure believes that there exists no firm theological order without divine illumination and the light of faith; that is, without divine illumination, human beings cannot know and attain any truths.

Talking about the nature and reality of human being in the transcendent theosophy is really innovative. Relying on his special theories and principles, such as primacy of existence, physical creation and spiritual duration of soul that the philosophers before him had no way through, Mulla Ṣadra brought about issues on human being which became the origin of some innovations in his philosophical system: infinity of human nature inability to limit the reality of human being are among them.Based on the preceding principles which refer to the special way of human existence, Ṣadr al-Mota’lehin talked about the transformation of human species. In that sense, the rational animal is considered as the moderate type and can be subcategorized to beast, ferocious, devil, and divine genus and Ṣadra, relying on his understanding of human nature, embarked on making substantial changes in important theosophical issues. The author in the present study is trying to explain the new theory of Mulla Ṣadra on human nature and to analyze the basic and fundamental principles of this viewpoint.

Mulla Ṣadra believes that natural universal is just a mental concept. But there are two different approaches towards the origin of its derivation. In the present essay this will be evaluated with two approaches: general and partial. In his general approach, because of his belief in the accidental existence of quiddity and its identity with the external existence, he maintains that the origin of natural universal’s derivation is quiddity. Consequently according to this approach, natural universal is posterior to quiddities. In his partial approach, natural universal is evaluated into ontological and epistemological spheres. In the ontological sphere, because of the negation of the external existence of quiddity and belief in its identity with external world, he maintains that the specified external world is the origin of natural universal’s derivation which soul derives it through its ascending process. In the epistemological sphere, natural universal is derived from the transcendent intellectual and ideal realities. Consequently in contrast with general approach, natural universal has priority to quiddity and also is more transcendent than it due to its origin of derivation.