Ma`rifat Falsafi
Year:2019 | Volume:16 | Issue:4 (64) |Papers Count:8

The present article is seeking to answer two questions regarding Suhrawardi’ s philosophy: (a) what is the subject matter of Suhrawardi’ s Philosophy? And (b) what evidence can be presented in favor of Suhrawardi’ s metaphysics? Metaphysics in Islamic world has witnessed three orientations called masha’ i (peripatetic), ishraqi (illuminism), and Sadra’ i. Each of these three orientations has determined some subject matters for their metaphysics, presenting evidences for them. In this atmosphere, questioning the subject of metaphysics and its philosophical status in Suhrawardi’ s philosophy has been somehow neglected. Here, to answer the first question, we have rejected the no subject-centered approach (focus on method, the end, the philosopher, and … ) regarding Suhrawardi’ s philosophy, accepted the subject-centered approach and put forward numerous opinions (including non-existence, thing, virtual light, sacred light, and the absolute light) to acknowledge the dichotomy of ‘ light’ and ‘ darkness’ as the subject matter of Suhrawardi’ s philosophy. To answer the second question, we have adopted a comparative and interactive method, and stressed on the criteria, origins, and presuppositions of the philosophical views of masha’ i and Sadra’ i philosophies on determining the subject matter of philosophy, to establish theoretical evidences and reasons for philosophical justification of the dichotomy of light and darkness for metaphysics. Thus, the present article is an attempt for discovering the philosophical shell of Suhrawardi’ s intuitive jewel and his illuminations regarding the subject matter of metaphysics as far as its nature and philosophical status are concerned.

Various spheres such as religious beliefs, natural and cosmological opinions, and the intellectual sphere regarding ontological and epistemological issues can be regarded as the historical background for dividing the being into immaterial and material. Although the philosophers of Milesian and Eleatic schools were the pioneers of this philosophical division, Plato and Aristotle were prominent philosophers who highlighted such a division with specified criteria. This trend went on in an evolutionary form during the history of philosophy, and changes appeared in standards of separating immaterial beings from material beings along with changes in other philosophical subjects. In the course of history, the philosophers have suggested various criteria and features for separating immaterial beings from material beings, features such as extension, spatiality, having location and position, being dividable, being perceptible and sensible, and having matter and knowledge. Some of these criteria refer to the difference between material being and the world of intellects, not between material and immaterial beings. Some of them have drawback, but some can be accepted with modifications or without them.

The existing division [of things] into ‘ immaterial’ and ‘ material’ is one of the important and vital divisions in philosophy. Paying attention to it will answer many philosophical problems. Muslim thinkers have discussed material and immaterial beings in their works and have presented definitions for them. In their definitions, they have stated features of the immaterial and material beings and the criteria for distinguishing them. Scrutinizing those criteria and their foundations would reveal challenges. In the present article, by reviewing and investigating criteria such as matter, quantity, form, state, length, width, volume, color, being in the matter and being with the matter, potentiality, change, motion, capability of being externally divided, time, place, personality and particularity, put forward by Muslim thinkers, a new criterion for distinguishing material beings from immaterial ones is established based on which a material being is a being that is perceived through senses or is dependent on it. An immaterial being, however, is a being neither sensible through senses nor dependent on it.

Since long ago, the reality of ‘ destiny and providence’ has been the focus of presenting various views and discussions among the thinkers of philosophy and theology. Mulla Sadra is among those philosophers who have stated the reality of destiny and providence. By presenting a new and different design, he believes that ‘ destiny’ (Qazaa) is the scientific and rational realities of all beings essential to Almighty God’ s essence and is considered as a part of the divine realm. Mulla Sadra believes that God’ s creative foreknowledge, which is a simple synoptic truth, is turned into objective foreordinations through stages of ‘ Umm al-Kitaab (the Mother Book), Lowh Mahfuz (the Guarded Tablet), and Lowh Mahw wa Ithbaat (the Tablet of Effacement and Affirmation). Using religious themes, Mulla Sadra regards the home of the Quran’ s seven heavens to be the Tablet of Effacement and Affirmation wherein the scientific foreordinations for the ideal being is determined. In the present article, while stating the stages of destiny and providence, the relationship between ‘ destiny and providence’ and the Quran’ s seven heavens has been stated.

Although philosophy is responsible for investigating the general ordinances of existence, investigation of the ordinances of non-existence are also organized in philosophy. Mulla Sadra and Martin Heidegger have both paid special attention to investigating the ordinances of non-existence. The present article deals with a comparative investigation of this issue in these two great philosophers’ view. In this query, it is clarified that in Mulla Sadra’ s thought, while non-existence has a conceptual unity, it has two applications: (a) contradictory of existence, and (b) lack of perfection. Heidegger, however, regards four meanings for non-existent as follows: (a) non-existence as the total negation of beings; (b) non-existence as the indeterminate existence; (c) non-existence as the total poverty of beings; (d) non-existence as nothingness.

Transmigration as a philosophical idea to answer the issue of the destiny of man’ s soul after his death is among the important issues in the sphere of studying the soul. Most Muslim philosophers have regarded transmigration as an impossible idea, putting forward arguments for their view. Muhammad bin zakariya and Shahabuddin Suhrawardi, however, have a special position in this regard. Thus, the present article deals with their views. Here, it is clarified that Muhammad bin Zakariya Razi is regarded as the first prominent philosopher supporting the idea of transmigration in the Islamic world, and this doctrine has its roots in his philosophical worldview in the realm of eternity of the soul and matter. In most of his works, Sheikh Ishraq mentions the theory of impossibility of transmigration, but in Hikmat al-Ishraq, he considers the arguments of adherents of both impossibility and possibility of transmigration as weak. Between these two views, there are disagreements on ‘ the amount of paying attention to transmigration’ , ‘ the sphere of possibility of transmigration’ , ‘ the amount of innovation in this issue’ , ‘ the methodology of discussion’ , and ‘ the relationship between transmigration and temporality or eternity of the soul’ . These two views are common in ‘ possibility of freedom from cycle of transmigration’ and ‘ negation of impossibility of some types of transmigration’ .

Presenting a distinction between ‘ primary’ and ‘ common’ predication by Mulla Sadra resolved many philosophical problems including the issue known as mental existence. However, it raised some problems itself. To resolve the latter issues, some efforts were made including separation of primary predication as a qualification of proposition and primary predication as a qualification of subject. For the author of the present article, this separation is not so precise, because the primary predication as a qualification of subject is indeed not the so called logical predication; rather, it is some division of subject in two bases. In this article, we present a new and very simple method which can substitute the separation of primary and common predicate with no difficulty. This solution is, in short, that in proposition, the attribute is from the essential qualities, states, and features of the subject and must inevitably be abstracted from a certain subject and be attributed to the same subject, not to be abstracted from one subject and be attributed to another one. More precisely, when a subject is able to be considered from different angles, first it must be determined from which angle the subject is considered in a certain situation so that the predicate is abstracted from the subject in proportion to that very situation. A predicate must not be abstracted from one subject on one basis and be attributed to it on another basis. In his book entitled Sharh Manzuma, Murteza Mutahhari has dealt with this subject: “ Is the difference between primary essential predication and common technical predication in the predication itself or there is indeed no difference in predication at all and this difference returns to the difference in subject? ” One of the important findings of this study is the distinction between two modes of narrating mental conceptions; that is, narration of the mind from the object itself and narration of the mind from the mind – a distinction that is one of the main elements of the new solution.

The theory of spirituality and rationality believes that the institutionalized religion in the modern world cannot play its traditional role in tranquilizing human being and freeing him from pain and suffering; and it is only the religion that is capable of doing so. Since this theory has defined its mission for the modern human being, it considers itself committed to postmodern parameters. According to this theory, the spiritual man is the postmodern spiritual man with the features and parameters consistent with him. In stating the features of the spiritual man, Malekian is faithful to some postmodern features, but enumerates some more fundamental features for the spiritual man that gets him out of the circle of devotion to the postmodern foundations and models. The spiritual man with the recently mentioned features is realizable just in the system and structure of traditional religion and it is not possible to generate the spiritual man on the anthropological bases and the models of secular spirituality, or he would be a dual man who has gathered inconsistent features (religious and postmodern).