نشریه حکمت اسرا
سال ششم شماره 2 (پیاپی 20، تابستان 1393)

In Commentary of changeable existence with the various foundations، there have been different expressions such as Generation and Corruption، Motion، Natural Occurrence and Perpetual Creation. In this research، the differences between perpetual creation and other meanings which is said about changeable existence is mentioned. And inconformity of perpetual creation with perpetual accident of Ash''arities which is erroneous expression، and also، substantial motion which is obvious and correct is have been explained. Finally، Existence of rational or revealed arguments for perpetual creation is rejected and for this objection is declaring that in perpetual creation «unity or priority and follower things can''t be retained» and it indicates that this unity which Joundi cites it through Efficient and breath of the All-merciful in Fas-e-Soleimani description is not providable.

Mulla Sadra is one of the Islamic philosophers who has rationally coherent thought of anthropology. Mulla Sadra clarifies human's existence from different philosophical, mystical, political and theological aspects, and shows their internal relations. In his viewpoint, human's dual dimensions, with emphasizing on spiritual one, is related to human's evolutional journey and is remembered the idea of trans-substantial motion of the soul in which corporeal creation is ended to spiritual permanence. In addition, human's evolutionary tendency, finally, draws the place of perfect human and his high stage in the chain of divine creatures that he due to having ontological, epistemological and moral virtues, is appointed to guide and govern other people in the forms like Prophethood, Imamate and Sainthood (Vilayat), according to God's commands. It seems, Mulla Sadra's anthropology is able accurately to picture some real virtues of human which can be applied in theorizing in anthropologies, social sciencese and humanities.

There have been numerous discussions over the sources of Ibn Arabi’s inspiration. One of the thinkers who has been named as an inspiration source for Ibn Arabi is Filon Eskandarani. With an emphasis on Filon’s Logos and Ibn Arabi’s Mohammadan reality, this article seeks to identify the similarities and differences between these two concepts. However, it is not intended to confirm that if Ibn Arabi had been influenced by Filon in the mentioned dimensions, since it is impossible to confirm or reject this. Both thinkers have provided descriptions and functions about Logos and Mohammadan reality that initially seem to be alike. Logos and Mohammadan reality can be viewed through three dimensions of ontology, epistemology, and function or value. From the ontological viewpoint, the relationship between the two foregoing concepts with God, universe, and mankind is examined. From epistemological stance, the role of the two concepts in identifying mankind and revelation is scrutinized. Finally, from the value or function standpoint, this question is answered that with acceptance of Logos and Mohammadan reality, what problems can be solved.

Illumination is the point at which the first Spydە morning sun appears to rise degrading light and knowledge. The result of the manifestation of the wisdom of illumination lights of reason on the basis of its population on the basis of light and topics related to it. The light and its degrees are the base of Illumination philosophy. Suhravardi is the first one who by inspiration of antique philosophers of Persian and Greece tried to found it. In spite of the Suhravardi”s endeavors in explaining and explicating Illumination philosophy, some of his views in this regard are not true and some other ones has implications and sequences that he hasn’t analyzed them. In this article, the author has tried to review Illumination philosophy in the regard of the Light and to prove that principle of this philosophy will explain and demonstrate some of philosophical problems that Peripatetic can’t not explicate them.

During long centuries, many philosophers have accepted strong foundationalism and have used it in their reasoning. But some contemporary philosophers like Alvin Plantnga have suggested a new theory called reformed epistemology. According to this theory, the basic propositions are not limited to number of propositions which are accepted by strong foundationalism, but rather there are many other basic propositions including the belief in God. So the result is that according to this theory, there is no need to reasoning for the existence of God and this belief is the basic belief. Alvin Plantinga refuted the strong foundationalim by three reasons. In this paper these reasons have been analyzed and criticized. And then five reasons to refute the theory of reformed epistemology have been explained. Plantinga himself have faced some of these reasons and have tried to reply them, but in this paper his reasons have been refuted and finally the theory of reformed epistemology has been rejected.

Based on the rule of everything "composed of the possible existence and nature", nature in its logical meaning or "thing boundary" is constant for all the creatures whom are possible except the God himself. Arguments to prove the unity of the self-existent or God depends on the nature of self-existent that presence of material-self unit described as natural as possible. In the other hand and according to the stipulation of Sabzevari and Mulla Sadra, abstract intellects placed in deist and divine Saq that certainly had the authority and best of organisms from essential amenities. The main purpose of this study is detailed explanation of this apparent paradox through analytical- descriptive methods, and pointing to the words of Sadra and Sabzevari in proof and deny the nature of paradoxes of halo lights. Finally, using the words of these two wise about other positions, Approach to congregate the proof and the negation of the essence of the intellects, which is expression of different meaning for proposed sense of rational nature, which is also parts of it too. It is the mentioned meaning of "absolute determination of existence" that it use in position for prove or deny the nature of intellects are explained.

A derivative (mushtaq) in Sadra’s philosophical jargon, he claims, is what mystics call as “name” (Ism). Elsewhere proposing a subtle distinction between names, descriptions and essences he mentions the word “name” on a par with derivatives. In Mafatih-alghayb he puts this view forward that opposite to real things, mental universal intelligibles are capable of being referred by names. Moreover he claims that there is a hierarchy (species, genus…) of names in divine world on a par with things in real world. Later he rejects the very point of view that only universal essences (quiddities) are capable of being named and surprisingly add particulars as well as secondary intelligibles to the inventory of those who are referred by naes. He seems to enjoy an incredible double status in talking about meanings; a narrow point of view and a wide one; the latter being more evident when addressing reference-less names and name-less references. To be sure, the most novel aspect of Sadra’s theory is on naming the God (Allah). In Al-Asfar, he argues that the name of the God is a name for everything, and the reference of his name, is what referred to by every name. Having this singular property be satisfied, it is hard, if possible, to match ordinary theories of meaning to that of Sadra. That’s why I think those philosophers, Sajjad Rizvi for example, who use modern jargon in their interpretations of Sadrian theory of meaning, do mistakes.