MAQALAT WA BARRASIHA
Year:2005 | Volume:38 | Issue:77 (2)|Papers Count:13

The present paper stresses the nobility, necessity and significance of the element of sociology as one of the pillars of opening dialogue by highlighting two elements of philology and sociology in any talk. From Mowlavi's viewpoint, dialogue has been founded on the pillar of connective dialogue between the sides of talk and establishment of mutual relations between speaker (writer) and listener (reader). He has described this mutual relation and sociological approach of word in the language of "connection", "absorption" and "gravitation". From this perspective, presence of addressee or listener or reader for establishment of verbal connection is not necessary. Also verbal talk or silence will not have any effect on establishment of this verbal interaction. In this connection, it is noteworthy that Mowlavi's has defined gravitation, attraction and connection in the sense of any link and connection and challenge. Therefore, relations founded on conflict, contradiction and difference such as friendship, enmity, live and hate are worthy of presentation in this realm, as it does not necessitate a type of relation and interaction minus other aspects and do not find expression beside, in front of or in contrast to "me".To continue, we will pursue the sociological element of dialogue with comparative perspective with "Logic of Dialogue" by Michael Bakhtin and the "world of Relations" by Martin Buber. The stress laid by the two ideas on social disposition and... of language as well as allusion to definition, concept and various levels and different forms of dialogue from the perspective of Bakhtin in this discourse will be studied. The said discussions in this talk help us arrive at the conclusion that where there is the element of sociology and interactive action, dialogue has been established knowingly or unknowingly or advertently or inadvertently because the meaning and concept is in progress and transfer in the distance of the two horizon whether the element of linguistics is available or not.

Muslim ligicians faced with problems in justifying certain simple reasonings (Such as equivalence syllogism) and these problems were rooted in their commitment to categorical syllogism. In this regard weakness of early logic has nothing to do with relation as such that is, it is not such that early logic was unable to prove those reasoning which contained relation due to possessing relation. On the contrary, their main problem was that they relied on the analyses of propositions in terms of subject and predicate and focusing their attention to categorical syllogism. That is, in any reasoning subject predicate and middle term should be ascertained and evidently such process is not possible every where.Therefore, equivalence syllogism reveals a defect in Aristotelian system of subject predicate - relation. For, on the one hand, Aristotelian version of syllogism requires that the premises of syllogism should be analysed into terms and each term in modern logic term is a single positional predicate. While equivalence syllogism is formed of certain premises that involve relation or categorical section of multi - position predicates. Hence referring equivalence syllogism to the conjugate syllogism is not devoid of objection.

First emanation is spoken of in different works by illuminative philosophers. Suhrawardi in his Talvīhāt, AIwāh, Partawnāmah, Fi E'tiqad I àtiqad al - Hokamā, Yazdānshenākht, AI - lamahāt and Kalimāt al - Tasaww of the order of emonation has been regarded to be triple just as had been taken as Avicenna originality.The works mentioned, however, are methodologically different. Though he has presented the subject - matter in a peripatetic manner. He seeks to agree with a position to some extent different from the peripatetic one.In his AI - Mashar à wa'l - Mutārihāt the problem goes forth profoundly. Suhrawardi presents his own special opinion at last. There can be found some differences and resemblances between Suhrawardi and Pārābi' s views. Both are opposed to a common objection. Suhrawari's view depends upon fundamentality of light and includes an opinion on intellects in width. In his view on the order of emanation, violence, loving, intuition and illumination are of vital role.

The Ptolematic system based its world view on the existence of eight spheres which in turn determined astronomical and physical calculations. The first Islamic philosophers (Farabi and Avecenna) added another sphere which they named MOHADED AL-JAHAT. The arguments of Islamic philosophers rest solely on the latter sphere and the other eight spheres are not discussed. Despite the invalidity of the Ptolematic system following Copernicus theories, nothing was done to reduce the credibility of this ninth sphere because it was never really an integral part of that system as its arguments rested on philosophical evidence and not physical ones. The issue which this article seeks to address is why Islamic Philosophers felt a need to add this sphere and why they became devoted to it. In Islamic Philosophy, this sphere has two main roles. First, it determines the two principle directions, or in other words, up and down these directions are used to determine the natural position and movement of all objects. Second, this sphere guarantees absolute time and time results from the movement of this sphere. In this article, we analyse the reasons that these philosophers developed this theory and how new theories have affected the MOHADED AL-JAHAT. We show how we can still substantiate their views and why and how with new scientific theories, especially in Relativity, their arguments are no longer credible.

Reflection on how to confront with the discussing manner of philosophers and theologians and tasting treatment of mystics in methodological divine problem-solving has challenged the transcendent philosophy. Discussion and tasting from Sadra's point of view are two approaches of acquiring knowledge and the limitation of each depends on certain circumstances. Both levels have ranks and similar results too, and must be used as an innate tendency in truth- seeking but each domain and also its certain conditions are different. The acceptance of criticism and criterion are the other opposite position and distinctions of the both approach. Analyzing Sadra's view on the nature of discussion and tasting and also differences and similarities of the both show that he considers them as stages of a scientific manner so that each should be the complement of the other. His model for this integration is interdisciplinary study.

Among the affairs connected to the relation between God and human being, Imam Khomeini and Kierkegaard in their works have considered some issues commonly one of them is "Adam's descent" which was the cause of entrance of the first human being to the world.Imam believe that this incident is the main key to the gate of God's blessings and was the cause of extending his blessing in human's universe, but Kierkegaard considers Adam's disobedience and eating "The forbid tree" as a punishment against the sin. Kierkegaard also believes that God loves mankind so much as he gravely makes himself appear in the form of a human being and descends to the Earth to suffer his pains. This unique relation which Kierkegaard interpreted it as "showing God himself in the form of human being" is not believed by Imam.It seems what Imam explains as the position of God's successor allocated for perfect human, and also in making clear the creating human in the shape of God; it is exactly the same unique relation in the Islamic culture.This is the second issue in this essay and the last issue is "to be tried in and subjected to suffings" by which the foundation of faith as a bridge between God and mankind is built. To Kierkegaard the criteria of stability of faith is the degree of submission to the God's orders, although it is a passive submission and with dissatisfaction. But Imam believes that the quality of faith is fully related to the manner of submission and concludes that the end of the faith is to be completely said by whatever from him in another word it means submission by full gladness and not absolute submission.

How language represents the world? This is a question has long been a major concern of philosophers of language. Many philosophers, such as, Frege, Russell and the early Wittgenstein, thought that understanding the structure of language could illuminate the nature of actual world. They believe that the main business of a declarative sentence, contrary to a performative one, beside expressing an epistemic - semantic entity, which is called "proposition", is to describe, or report, some state of affairs, which it must do either truly or falsely. But in Austin view there is no substantial distinction between declarative and performative utterances. Since in uttering the sentence we are doing some actions, as well, such as, making statements, descriptions, applications and promises, giving orders, offering apologies, and so on. These actions, which are called , speech acts, are of many types. Any utterance has a performative aspect, or illocutionary force, that determines the kind of action which is performed. Moreover, any utterance has some effects on the hearer, which are called perlocutionary acts. According to speech Acts Theory, speech acts, including illocutionary and perloctionary acts, are not only subjected to semantic and epistemic rules governing what is being said by a speaker, but further they are a matter of governing rules and presumptions of speech Acts Theory, such as the speaker and hearer intentions, their attitudes and the mutual contextual beliefs between them. Speech Acts Theory has some important consequences and effects on Semantics and Religious Epistemology, which will be discussed shortly in this article.

In traditionalism point of view, Tradition has a relationship with the Truth. Tradition can determine and manifest as well as truth in proper forms, due to time and place needs of human beings. These proper designations and determinations, however, remain always in relation with primary tradition and truth. Religion and revelation are both designations and determinations of the primary Truth. Philosophy (metaphysic), mysticism (tasawut) and theology are the ways of cognate with tradition or genuine Truth. Through this knowledge, role of the perfect and Elect Men is the most prominent. Traditions arc able to develop and progress, but they should always accept changes in regards to their original source. Attention to the manifestations of tradition makes man (the artist) reflect the tradition in his art in a symbolic and allegoric form. These symbols and allegories provide the means of relation and link between human beings and primary Tradition (Truth).

The most fundamental problem in Aristotelian metaphysics is the problem of being. It is assumed that the problem of being or "is" in all levels of its philosophical growth - although not similarly - has been put forward to Aristotle. This problem is expressed widely and specifically in metaphysics. Aristotle in metaphysics has expressed the science of being and has proposed numerous and varied subjects in different ways pro rata for it, as well. He considers metaphysics as a science of studying being in itself at the beginning of forth book, and in the other parts of the book, metaphysics is described as a science which deals with the divine immobile thing, separated being, and it is also described as a science which discusses the highest principle and sources and causes of being. and elsewhere as a science of substance or primitive substance. Hence from the olden times commentators and interpreters of Aristotle and Aristotelians have difficulties and controversies in specifying of the subject of metaphysics which in the end results from interpretation of Aristotle beliefs about being in itself for centuries ,results in two different interpretations: ontology and theology ,the Greece interpretation as separated being, Moslem philosophical interpretation ( Farabi & Avicenna ) as an absolute being - these two interpretations have been proposed so far. This research is reporting and analyzing the two interpretations to explain the distinction between Islamic philosophy and Greece one and tries to compare Aristotle and Farabi's beliefs in the case.

Abbad B. Solaymān is one of Persian scholars who was educated in Mu 'tazili school in 3rd century AH. The most important chrematistics of Mu'tazili school was its opposition to the Anthropomorphists (Moshabbaha). Following Neoplatonic ideas, they believed in transcendent God Who has no attribute. They saw God's attributes as His essence. In other words they believed in a God Who is not like to His creatures. He is wholly other. Abbad B. Solaymān went beyond his Mu'tazili colleages and believed in absolute transcendence. Inspired of ancient Greek philosophers, he believed in two dimensions in cosmos. The first dimension is related to before being in which there were things and quiddities without existence. Second dimension was after creation one, in which God created this cosmos, the cosmos of creation. God has no relation, even cognitive relationship, with the second dimension of cosmos. So Abbad wants to reject any relation of God with this cosmos and deny His likeness to it. He holds that God is wholly other. His belief has different consequences. One of them is that he believe in eternality of cosmos, and this makes him to be a philosopher in place a theologian.

Hakim Omar Khayyam was a peripatetic philosopher but he believed in originality of essence and mentality of existence.In some of his works he offered three arguments in support of this theory and tried to answer six objections against it. According to Omar Khayyam, since the concept of existence is a common attribute and the most evident concept that we have, it is taken as the subject of philosophy. In this theory, the concept of existence is an analogical notion which refers to real, mental and all other form of beings.