MAQALAT WA BARRASIHA
Year:2004 | Volume:37 | Issue:75(2)|Papers Count:14

Rationality as logical consistency is, formally, directly related to logical derivations. The idea behind reductio ad absurdum is captured in this relation.

After taking into consideration different definitions of the theory of correspondence in truth ranging from Aristotle and Islamic philosophers to modern Western logicians, the present research deals with its major challenge, i.e. the liar paradox. Such Islamic logicians and philosophers as al-Taftazani, al-Dawwani, and Sadr aI-Din al-Dashtaki qave offered various solutions to that problem. Among Western logicians, solution of Russe1 and Tarskis theorem are considered the most well-known contemporary solutions. Following a comparative critical investigation of those solutions, an acceptable expounding of the theory of correspondence, based on the theory of "real fundamentality of existence" and the philosophical rule of "union of the intelligent with the intelligible" of Mulla Sadra, will be offered in such a way that no presented problem can shake it.

The deep belief in the axiomatic method in set-theory was devastated by Godel thirty years after Russell had destroyed Cantors intuitive set-theory. Paul Cohens article in 1963 was a landmark in the history of the subject. The problem is: how are the independent questions ofaxiomatic set - theory, to be understood and resolved? Along the way I have met naive realism, classical realism of Frege and Godel and finally I have advanced the scientific realism. The scientific realism is combined with naturalism, but not with Maddys type of it. The existence and nature of mathematical entities (such as sets) would be clear by comparing them with medium sized physical objects and theoretical unobservable entities of physics. In the case of the unobservable entities of physics we admit that they exist as far as our best scientific thoery tells us they do. In the same way to show that there are universals we do not try to give a pre - scientific philosophical argument, but rather we just show that our best scientific theories cannot do without them. We reject the cartesian demand for certainty beyond the scientific knowledge. We renounce any first philosophy -- any extra - scientific challenge with the radical skepticism it engenders. The same goes for semantics. There is no point of view prior or superior to our language. What we want id theory of have our language works -- a theory which would be a chapter of our scientific world - view. We stand within our current best theory of the world and ask how our beliefs connect us with the world. It cannot be something extra - scientific. Maddy says that mathematics is its own and only arbiter. But astrology and the contradictory systems of theology could be claimed to be their own arbiter. What distinguishes mathematics from these systems is its application in the physical world. Mathematics is interlocked with physics. To disentangle it from the natural sciences is to reduce it to a wall paper pattern. To my mind, Maddys "naturalism" is not at all naturalism. She divorces mathematics from natural science and insists on the a priori nature of mathmatical truth. But, our web of belief faces the tribunal of experience as a whole. We may nat factor out the spicial contribution of mathematics. Maddy accords mathematics suchseparable status. Were she to succeed, any a priorist foundationalist would be in her debt. She says: "Mathematics is not answerable to any extra - mathematical tribunal". Now any theologian may say: "Theology is not answerable to any extra - theological tribunal" or an astrologist could, in a similar way, say: "Astrology is not answerable to any extra - astrological tribunal".

Following evolution in sciences, philosophy of knowledge was considerably developed and ,thus, encompassed such various approaches as logical-philosophical philosophy of knowledge, psychology of science, sociology of science, and history of science. Alongside with the development in different sciences of their time, Muslim scholars have dealt with development of philosophy of knowledge as well. They have captured four major, different approaches in knowing sciences. Having an Aristotelian root, logical philosophy of knowledge is dealt with in logic books and is dependent upon a priori analyses as well as presentation of dominant principles and rules over SCIences. Investigating sciences comparatively, comparative philosophy of knowledge presents a pattern for their classification. That approach is an a posteriori study and is developed by Muslim scholars. Historical philosophy of knowledge is also of an Aristotelian root studying development of sciences and scientific theories through an empirical, a posteriori approach. Opening a discussion at the beginning of any science called the eight-fold heads, Muslim thinkers have in fact dealt with case-study philosophy of knowledge as well. In that case, conformity of logical philosophy of knowledge to a specific science has been challenging bringing about strategic questions to both realms of sciences and philisophy of knowledge.

The relation between religion and philosophy or narration and reason is among the major problems with which thinkers of various religions have been dealing for a long time. Muslim thinkers have not been an exception in this connection and have taken that problem into consideration in their works. In the Islamic culture it is very well known that theologians have been against philosophy, for they believed that essentials of philosophy are in contradiction to Shariah. The most outstanding figure to be against philosophy is considered Abu Hamid al-Gazzali, the great thinker of the fifth century, who has apparently harmed philosophical thought in the Islamic world more than anyone else by writing Tahafut aI-Falasifah. Followinga comparative method and taking into consideration the historical itinerary of the problem in question, opinions and essentials of al-Gazzali are compared with such philosophers prior to him as al-Farabi and Ibn Sina, such a well-known opponent of him as Averroes, a philosopher of the sixth century, and such a contemporary philosopher as Tabatabaee in the present essay in order to indicate that opposition of al-Gazzali as well as other theologians to philosophy has in fact been an opposition to some specific philosophical ideas and not to the philosophy itself. Consequently, to consider al~Gazzali an opponent to philosophy does not seem that correct.

Ontological expounding of the relation of the Almighty Truth with creatures is among most significant discussions with which aU scholars, including theologians, philosophers, and mystics, have dealt. That discussion is dependent upon "general principles" discussions on the one hand and is meant to offer an ontology in the theological thought on the other. Difference in the foundations of general principles has a remarkable int1uenceupon image of the relation of the Truth with creatures. The relation of the Truth with creatures refers to the relation between "maker and made" in theological image and to the relation between "cause and effect" in Peripatetic philosophical one. In the philosophy of Mulla Sadra, it takes another image through a new analysis of causality which can be referred to two main analogies of "sun and ray" and "fact and its mirrored form". After expounding those two images, along with mentioning some of their foundations and results, the preference of the second image to the first one is described.

The present discourse deals with "essential speech" and "literal speech" in Mawlawis works and indicates that, in a general view, division of speech and language into literal language and essential language (or speech) and into esoteric logos and logos enjoys a long background. Emphasizing remarkable int1uence of discussions raised in the realm of Ashari theology upon Mawlawis works in two distinct sections, speech in the realm of divinity as well as that of anthropomorphism is analyzed and investigated and then the said principles and essentials are compared with Mawlawis opinions.

The theory of mentally-posited perceptions is an innovation of M.H. Tabatabaee which, despite its relation with the background of philosophicaldiscussionsin the Islamicworld, is an innovative idea of its kind. This essay attempts to investigate axiological perspective of Tabatabaee in the frame of some questions related to that realm. Ontological status of the value, the relation between the value and the fact, the mode of producingvalues,andvalues being absolute or relative will be investigated.

In treatises of Ikhwan al-Safa, after mentioning historical background of the discussion of emanation system, two theories are expressed on the mode of generation of multiple from the one. According to the first theory, vertical levels of emanation are as follows: God > active intellect >passive intellect (universal soul) >prime matter >absolute body (second matter). According to the second theory, there is a correspondence between vertical levels of emanation and the chain of numbers (from 1 to 9), and that vertical chain is as follows: God >intellect >soul >matter >nature >body of sphere >four-fold pillars and four-fold natures >three-fold produced things. The first theory indicates debts of Ikhwan al-Safa to Plotinus, and the second one containing logical order of expressing history of emanation system expounds their debt to Pythagoreans. Making some changes in theories of Plotinus and Pythagoreans, Ikhwan al-Safa accepted them. Between the first and the second theories of Ikhwan al-Safa there is similarity from some aspects and distinction from some others. Ikhwan al-Safa offered the first theory in order to indicate tolerance for and proximity to philosophers. Because of being endowed with mysterious language and correspondence between the chain of levels of emanation and the chain of numbers as well as some other evidence in Rasail Ikhwan al-Safa and Mujmal al-Hikmah, the second theory is to be considered the final theory of Ikhwan al-Safa.

Shaykh Ahmad Ahsaee (1166 - 1241 AH.) has been considered among most int1uential figures of two recent centuries. Various innovations in theological questions, especially cosmology, are brought about by him. The present essay is in search for the answer to this question whether Ahsaee has taken his cosmological doctrines directly from Holy Imams - as he himself claims. Comparing some of his opinions with some pioneers of arena of thought, we have intended to indicate that he is int1uenced by various sources.

Taking into consideration the refutation of essentials of the theory of "general soul and souls of spheres", which is taken from ancient physics, the said theory is refuted in the present essay and its intluence upon Mulla Sadras understanding of Quranic verses is surveyed and criticized. In order to do so, all Mulla Sadras books are surveyed first and then those Quranic verses which are conformed by him to the general soul or souls of spheres are gathered. Taking into consideration other Quranic verses, their apparent meaning, and other existing evidence (including traditions), meaning of those verses are grasped; truth or untruth of their conformity to the said theory is clarified; and, hence, it is concluded that none of those fourteen cases claimed by Mulla Sadra to be matters of conformity of Quranic verses to that theory can be confirmed.

Discussions concerning "knowing God" and "theology in its most particular sense" are of special significance in the Islamic philosophy. The question of proving existence of God is of greater significance and is treated as the axis of other theological questions. The status and role of Ibn Sina and his intluence upon later philosophers on the one hand and fame of his demonstration in proving existence of God on the other, necessitates another deliberation upon that reasoning so that through analysis of its proofs its strength and weakness points are clarified, the twelve-fold problems raised against it are expounded, truth or untruth of those problems as well as their answers are analyzed and surveyed, correctness or incorrectness of Ibn Sinas claim, as well as Mulla Sadras, in calling it the demonstration of the most truthful is judged, and that historical dispute is finally settled.