Ayeneh Ma‘refat
Year:2008 | Volume:- | Issue:16|Papers Count:9

The issue of explaining the process of knowledge and cognition has been one of the most important concerns of philosophers throughout the history of thought and a source of many differences in opinions and disputes. In a nut shell, it can be said that in the modern era after Descartes and ultimately in Kant, philosophy has been reduced into epistemology and in a sense it has become a synonym to it. A comparative study of the formation of knowledge and/or comparing some of the elements involved in the process can not only reveal the strengths and weaknesses of the two philosophical traditions but it can also pave the way for more research and collaboration for getting at more desirable results. This article is intended to step in this direction through comparing the philosophical secondary intelligible in the context of the tradition of Islamic philosophy with the Kantian understanding categories.

Allame Rafie Ghazvini has three short Arabic notations on " Alghabasat" written by MirDamad. The first notation is on the theologian’s interpretations of the true nature of the ultimate quest in bringing the universe into existence. The God’s ultimate quest in bringing the universe into existence has been the subject of discussion in Muslim scholastic philosophy, theosophy and mysticism. Some theologians have denied God’s ultimate quest, while some others have proposed that the ultimate quest is to benefit the creatures. Both of these views are criticized by the theosophians.From the theosophians’ point of view denying any ultimate quest would necessitate preponderance without a preponderator and benefiting others would lack the status of purpose. In spite of their agreement on this issue, theorsophians differ in their views on ultimate quest. Some have interpreted it as ‘divine knowledge of the goodness system, some as the‘holy divine nature’ and some others as just ‘benevolence and generosity’.What is common to all these is that all interpretations come down to the true essence of divine unity. The present article intends to investigate this issue consistent with Allameh Rafie Ghazvini’s notations.

The issue of good and bad has been one of the most important issues which has attracted the attention of scholars. The theologians called Adliehinsist on the essentiality and rationality of moral goodness and badness of the rational individual’s actions. On the contraryAshaere insist on the divinity and legitimacy of such actions. The central question is what Muslim theologians meant by the words ‘good’, ‘bad’; ‘essentiality’, ‘rationality’; and divinity, legitimacy. In this present article, four distinct meanings are attributed to ‘Good’ and ‘bad’ and it is demonstrated that the disagreement between the Muslim Philosophers can be traced to the fourth meaning. Therefore, considering the domain of reality (ontology) together with the domain of knowledge (epistemology) the following four probabilities are discussed for the fourth meaning.A) ‘Good’ and ‘Bad’ are ontologically based on divine will and they will be known by revelation.B) ‘Good’ and ‘Bad’ are ontologically essentials of the actions and they will be known by revelation.C) ‘Good’ and ‘Bad’ are ontologically based on divine will and they will be known by independent reason.D) ‘Good’ and ‘Bad’ are ontologically essentials of the actions and will be known by independent reason.Ashaerehsupport the first option but Adlieh support one of the three other options.

Since a long time ago, real happiness along with perfection, good and pleasure has been the subject of discussion among philosophers. Different views have been expressed on these concepts particularly happiness due to their complexity. So far, no criterion has been provided to be used for the evaluation of the multiplicity of views. The present article is an attempt to provide a common ground through exploring the hidden aspects of happiness and revealing its different layers in the context of this world and the hereafter from the perspective of Mulla Sadra. For this purpose, the concept of ‘comprehensive happiness’ with the approach used by Molla Sardra as the major hypothesis and the concepts of‘material and sensual happiness’, ‘spiritual happiness’ and ‘esoteric and internal happiness’ as the competing alternative hypotheses are examined and analyzed.Relying on certain theoretical grounds such as the principality of existence, the gradation of existence, thetheory that the soul is originally material but later becomes spiritual, the substantial movement, the free will, the relation between this world and the other world, the unity of soul and its faculties and the unity of knowerand known, the article tries to demonstrate the advantage of Mula Sadra’s views over the other theologians’ views on the concepts mentioned above.From Sadra’s point of view, happiness is either real or unreal. Each one is either related to this world or to the world after. These four are either related to external senses, internal senses and stimulating faculties or to theoretical and practical intellect. Real happiness goes to human intellect, as the happiness realized through intellect is more perfect, more intense, more inseparable and more inclusive. The happiness realized by theoretical and practical intellect is minimal, middle or maximal.

The basis of illumination wisdom is the supreme light which is considered as the originator of existence. The supreme light is related to the royal and Pahlavi wisdom of ancient Iranians and also the wisdom of ancient Greek.Sohravardi is considered the reviver of this wisdom in the context of Islamic wisdom and theosophy.The highly frequent use of the word ‘light’ and its synonyms in Moulana’s poems demonstrates the special position that this word has in his thought system. Accordingly, this article tries to investigate and manifest the content similarities and interrelations in the way light has been used in Sohravardi’s works and Moulana’s poems.

The most important rational reason provided for the principle of leadership is the "boon rule". Based on this rule, the imam and his appointment is a boon and the boon is incumbent on God. So the appointment of imam is a boon. In relation to the major premise of this syllogism, there are differences between the Shiites’ and Sunnites’viewpoints. The minor premise, that is the appointment of imam as a boon, has been explained in different ways. Explaining spiritual perfection, social perfection and the preservation of shariah are some of the statements mentioned under this rule. In this article an attempt has been made to reveal the similarities and differences between the theologians’ view of this rule and the way it is dealt with in the Ahl Bayt narratives in terms of the minor premise using a comparative method of study. The article then tries to use the Ahl Bayt narratives to renovate the“boon rule”.

In the discussion of Descartes’ doubt, it is often an emphasis on a few elements or components without a focus on those elements one by one.This article is intended to focus on doubt in Descartes ' philosophy and with an analytical philosophical look on his views and works introduce the different aspects of doubt as they mesh to form a net in his philosophy. To this end, the article deals with a number of elements like definition, criterion, framework, aim, principles, kinds, justification, domain, limits, etc. The purpose is to suggest that through considering these different elements one by one and as a whole we can see Descartes’doubt from the horizon of an independent philosophical theory.