JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHICAL THEOLOGICAL RESEARCH
Year:2012 | Volume:13 | Issue:2 (50)|Papers Count:19

Surawardi believes all philosophical concepts are universally subjective and maintains no merit of origin in external world for them even as objectivity with subject. Surawardi is strongly influenced by Peripatetic especially Bahmanyar in the major structure thought of this debate and to some extent on presentation of it. He presented all his explanations in a way to be agreeable with the essentialism of philosophical intelligibles. He regards predication of concepts on essences and external objects as subjective predication and addition of concepts to externals by faculties of mind. As it is Surawadi considers both descriptions and accidents of philosophical concepts to be subjective–like logical concepts.

The subject of divine attributes is one of the most extensive subjects in history of Islamic thought. Muslim theologians have divided divine attributes–looking for a better understanding of it-over different factors.One of them is division of the divine attributes into Active and Essential.Reflection on Active attributes helps to find two different groups of these attributes. The first group predicated on The Supreme by means of addition of actus; such as Reviver, Creator, Sustaining ….There is other wellknown group called Actual Attributes. In fact, they are the attributes of action of The Supreme and predicated on him-The Supreme by means of that action, such as Veracity, Justice, and Wisdom. In this essay, we are to prove the second group attributes besides its distinction with the first group attributes.

The fundamental concept of divine Wisdom grew out of deep discussions on God's Knowledge and it can be properly analyzed when related arguments about the purpose, agency and Providence of God are also treated and truly understood. Of Islamic Philosophers, Avicenna was the first to give a conceptual clarification of the divine Wisdom and explain its constituent elements. In analyzing and scrutinizing this concept, he refers to three components of knowledge, efficacy and pleasure contained in the notion of divine Wisdom. In order to explain the Wisdom of God, however, Ibn Sina appeals to other propositions in terms of his philosophical system including "the principle that the higher being does not care about the lower, " providential agency of Necessary Being, Knowledge by providence, act of knowledge by Necessary Being, order of causes and effects, essential goodness of Being.

In this essay, evolution of the word Originality in ancient languages is considered using historical semantics or philology that is study of the formation process of meaning. The hypothesis of this essay proves that the meaning of the word "Originality" in different cultures and ancient languages is Existence and Being as its common usage in Islamic philosophy. To sum up, Originality means Existence and Being. The content of philosophical meaning of this word has been included in Greek so this is why we have such an approach on this word. In the essay, we find this hypothesis completely correct, especially by referring to the famous text of Aristotle and his book Metaphysics.

Systematization, antimetaphysics and historicism cause to separate continental and analytical philosophies-two big philosophical realmsfrom each other. Yet, language could still live as matter of common concern amongst contemporary philosophers. To explain it more, language has alienated from its real function and has taken cultural and social content instead. While, Truth is not in line with the adaptation claims, and 5 became an intersubjective topic which drawn out through dialogue between traditions and cultures. This discourse re-examines the mentioned basis in the gist of Husserl, Heidgger, Gadamer and Wittgnstein's thoughts-the most eminent philosophers of these two realms of thinking.

This essay explains the meaning of knowledge and perception as well as different kinds and levels of them, moreover, illuminates sense perception from Avicenna, Surawardi and Mulla sadra’s point of view. Avicenna and Surawardi define knowledge and perception differently. But Mulla sadra criticized their explanations innovating in the definition of knowledge and perception. He believed the origin of knowledge and perception is Existence but not Essence. In Avicenna’s eye, knowledge and perception are divided into four main categories: 1: Sensory, 2: Imaginary, 3: Illusory, 4: Intellectual although Mulla sadra and Surawardi divided them into three categories. Having a closer look, surawardi inserted illusory knowledge in imaginary one, but Mulla sadra inserted it in intellectual knowledge.Avicenna regards sense knowledge as material one while it is regarded as abstract knowledge in Mulla sadra's eye. In fact, Mulla Sadra regards the created form by soul similar to the form of appearance as sense knowledge.

Forgiveness is one of the fundamental subjects regarded in several fields such as sociology, ethics, philosophy, psychology, and theology. The various definitions and explanations of Christian theologians and western psychologists on forgiveness indicate how comprehensive the subject is in Christianity. In this essay, we consider forgiveness at psychological and Christian theologians ' view and also the different kinds of forgiveness at both viewpoints.

Here, first, we are to define knowledge by presence and then have a brief 6 look at its history in Plato and Aristotles’s works. We also discuss its importance in Descarte’s philosophy besides the instances in his philosophy. Finally, we conclude knowledge by presence is actually the main subject of Descarte’s philosophy as though we might claim Descarte’s philosophy is established on Knowledge by Presence.

The theory of Existentialism-regarded as the grounds for transcendental philosophy-has changed completely Islamic philosophy, in addition, has been accepted as a dominant theory by philosophers in no time. On the opposite side, some philosophers refused to accept Existentialism theory, even tried their best to mount challenges to this theory. Surawardi and Seyyed Abdola’ala Sabzevari keep critical view on Existentialism, and are for Essentialism theory. To be precise, the two philosophers have used different reasons and methods as refusal of Existentialism theory. Sheykh Surawardi has given several reasons to confirm Essentialism theory so he is regarded as critics of Existentialism theory though he was living much earlier than Molla Sadra and his theory. Seyyed Sabzevari accepts clearly Essentialism by means of analysis and critique on the principles originated Existentialism-like “impossibility of composite instauration between Essence and Essentials” and “possible beings are composed duality of Essence and Beings” in addition denying of cognation principle and also univocality. In fact, surawardi accepts Essentialism theory taking the conceptual approach, while Seyyed Sabzevari accepts Essentialism by having an analytical approach and critical thinking of the principles of Existentialism theory. In this essay, the writer is to consider how valid and efficient the reasons for critique of Existentialism theory by Surawardi and Seyyed sabzevari are with the explanation of their different approaches.

In this piece of writing, we have considered the essence of intellect and its limit and ability in the cognitive process. For the purpose of this study, three different viewpoints- philosophy, Gnosticism and religion –have been considered. While considering various viewpoints, we’ve encountered disagreement, contradiction and diversity of opinions on intellect in itself 7 and its cognitive limit. All in all, we’ve met a comprehensive knowledge on intellect; meaning understanding. Intellect as understanding concludes that intellect prepares its ingredients and instruments from experimental, philosophy, Gnosticism, religion and other knowledge then analyses each of them. Each of these cognitive instruments has especial realm of study so none of them are able to know or deny the other. Conclusively, contradiction among them is sensible furthermore none can deny the other.