نشریه حکمت اسرا
سال پنجم شماره 4 (پیاپی 18، زمستان 1392)

The conflict between science and religion is still one of the controversial issues among researchers. What is meant here by science is the experimental science and what is meant be religion is the collection of teachings that the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and his descendants) reached through intuition and we try to understand them through traditions or intellect. The approach presented by Ayatollah Jvadi Amoli’s has effectively solved the problem of the conflict between science and religion، by proving that all the experimental data (certain or reliable data) are divine and religious (in the general sense of the words) and that the experimental data related to the practical domain of the responsible individuals are also religious (in the specific sense of the word)، and also by proving the existence of fundamental solutions for the elimination of the apparent confliction of the experimental and religious findings. Achieving such a result was only possible due to some premises that are fundamental to the understanding of his approach; this paper is an attempt to explain some of the principles of the issues that would help understand the aforementioned approach. The explanation of some of the principles of Ayatollah Javadi Amoli’s approach will clarify the fact that some of the critiques that are leveled against his approach are due to inattention to his intellectual principles.

Perhaps the most important issue regarding the language of religion is the issue of the “significance، reference، and the epistemological importance” of the religious propositions; that is to say، are the religious propositions، and in particular، the propositions concerning Allah and his attributes، significant، referring، and indicating of real issues or not، and that is the language of religion edifying or non-edifying? To answer this question، it can be said that a general categorization would reveal that the philosophers of religion have two views in this regard: based on the first view، which is derived from the view of the early Wittgenstein and the Vienna Circle، religious propositions are nonsense and meaningless. The second view، which considers the language of religion as meaningful، is divided into two sub-groups: the first group considers the language of religion to be edifying and the second considers it non-edifying. One of the most significant theories of the second group is the one that considers the language of religion to be “symbolic” which has been proposed by Paul Tillich. In this paper، following the explanation of this theory and the presentation of the most important critiques leveled against it، a number of verses in the Quran will be interpreted which are considered، by six Quranic exegetes whose views are being discussed in this paper، i. e. Tabarsi، Zamakhshari، Fakhr Razi، Ghashiri، Meybodi and Tabatabaii، to be among the instances in the Quran in which symbolic language has been used. The results indicate that، despite all the critiques leveled at the assumption of the language of religion being symbolic، we have but، at the least، to assume that some of the phrases and terminologies used in the Quran have symbolic meanings، and are not realistic indications of the world.

The issue of mental existence had been one of the most complicated problems in the Islamic philosophy before Mulla Sadra، and it had been discussed by most of the Muslim philosophers and theologians، but none was able to overcome and solve it. Mulla Sadra، however، was able to solve this problem by developing the primary prediction and ordinary prediction and presenting their difference. By exiting knowledge from the realm of essence and entering it to the realm of existence، he was able to develop an innovative approach with regard to this issue and solve its most precise problems. When Mulla Sadra brought knowledge out of the realm of categories and considered it as an entity، which ran counter to his antecedents، he was enabled to make a distinction between knowledge and mental existence and to consider mental existence as a subcategory of knowledge. Moreover، he was also able to consider the conformity of mind and entity as a result of the objective conformity of the superior existence of the known essence to particular existence، by categorizing the existence in the analogical gradation of ordoessendi and by proposing the idea of the true and subtle prediction of the essential conformity of mind and entity، which ran counter to the idea of his antecedents.

Visiting professor، University of Tehran، Farabi branch This paper seeks to study the history of Platonic ideas in the works of Islamic thinkers. The theory of Platonic ideas is of great ontological، epistemological، psychological، ethical، theological، and aesthetic significance. Since the time of Plato himself the issue of Platonic ideas has been subjected to an abundance of discussions، verifications and critiques، both by the western and the Islamic philosophers. A historical content analysis of the views of the Islamic thinkers including Farabi، Avicenna، Sheik Shahabeddin Suhrawardi، Mohaqeq Davani، Mirdamad، and Mulla Sadra، indicates that، firstly، the theory of Platonic ideas has both undergone numerous adjustments and modifications by the Muslim thinkers and has been adopted selectively and its ethical and aesthetic aspects have not been given any attention by them. Secondly، their reasons for the rejection or the substantiation of the theory of ideas are insufficient and، thirdly، the illuminist and mystic philosophers (in the general sense of the words) have shown more interest to accept it.

Faculty member، department of Islamic philosophy and theosophy، Ferdowsi University of Mashhad The debate between Allameh Tabatabaii and Allameh Tehrani on the issue of the annihilation of the subsistents in the essence is one of the few debates that have not ended in their agreement on a single conclusion. The question of the subsistents being annihilated، on the one hand، and at the same time، their existential aspect in the omniscient presence for the creation of the universe، on the other، make it difficult to understand this issue. However، by searching through the numerous resources written by the father of the theoretical mysticism and the developer of the subsistents، and by pondering them، it will be possible to pave the way for solving this problem. Initially، and with an epistemological view one can say that a laic Sufi interpretation of the concept of annihilation has led to the belief that the creatures live in this world so that they would ultimately be annihilated in Allah Almighty; however، in reality، and considering the theories of bin Arabi، it is a mistake to think of annihilation after proving the existence، and anyone who looks at his own ego and being، without annihilation and existence، will have gained knowledge of Allah Almighty. From an ontological perspective، the difference between the borrowed existential existence and the existence which is fundamentally real and the subsistents can assist us properly solve this problem. That is to say، what is، in fact، considered to belong to non-existence is the illusory existence، which is، the rules of the subsistents in the borrowed form of the existential existence and exiting this illusion would be the true understanding of the existence.

One of the arguments made for proving the existence of Allah which was considered to be a valid argument before Mulla Sadra، was an argument which was based on the concept of the set of possibilities and their need of a cause beyond themselves. Avicenna had put forth this argument and Sheik Shahabeddin Suhrawardi considered it needless of the refutation of infinite regress. The fact that this argument was not in need of the refutation of infinite regress made it very significant، but Mulla Sadra considered this argument، without the refutation of infinite regress، a void argument and، even with the addition of the refutation of infinite regress، he did not consider it an independent argument. The present paper seeks to investigate this argument and answer the critiques leveled against it by Mulla Sadra and، ultimately، it considers this argument to be valid with an aggregate perspective taking it as a mirror of the contagion of command، though Mulla Sadra’s critiques of those، who consider an existence for the aggregate beyond the beings، seems to be valid.

The study of the logics governing knowledge can be considered as one of the fundamental issues in philosophy. Moreover، various approaches of different philosophical schools of thoughts to this issue bring about different implications for the other issues that are discussed simultaneous with it. Based on the claim made by the present paper، the universality of knowledge is an outcome that stems from the principles of Mulla Sadra’s theosophy concerning knowledge. The authors seek to explain how man finds the potential for leaning more knowledge through his existential association and his special knowledge reserve، by emphasizing the concept of the universe in this theosophy and some of its specific principles، such as trans-substantial motion، existential unity، knowledge، universe، and the caused. The social world، which has sought the possibility of a mutual understanding based on this belief، and the possibility of the religious knowledge، which has attended to this perspective with a novel view of the religious knowledge، employing Ayatollah Javadi Amoli’s approach to this issue، are among the issues that are discussed along with this matter and at the end of this paper the foundation on which this issue is based will be discussed.