MAAREF E AQLI
Year:2012 | Volume:7 | Issue:1 (22)|Papers Count:7

The present article, a research work on Islamic philosophy, seeks to present a comparative analysis of Divine Unity in Imam Ali's words in Nahj al-Balagha and the arguments for the unity of God advanced by Avicenna. It seeks to show that there is some sort of inconsistency between Imam Ali’s words in Nahj al-Balagha and Avicenna's philosophical arguments for the unity of God. To do so, the author explains the meaning of Unity of the Divine Essence in accordance with the two levels of ahadiyat (unicity) and wahidiyat (oneness), the relation between simplicity and oneness, the fact that the Divine Unity is the true and real unity (not a sort of numerical unity), and, last but not least, tries to provide an explanation of the Divine Essence with His qualities and the practical identity of all of His qualities. He concludes that the Divine Simple, Pure Essence is devoid of any multiplicity and that to attribute additional qualities to God's Pure Essence is not consistent with His Pure Simplicity.

Pondering on the concept of gradation in existence (equivocation), Avicenna and his followers found out that equivocation has nothing to do with essential entities. That is to say, some concepts such as genus, differentia and species are never subject to gradation (being equivocal) but they are always univocal, and since accidents in relation to their instances (referents) are either genus, species or differentia, they are not equally applied to all their referents. Thus, all essential concepts are equally applicable to their instances (being univocal) and it is only the accidental concepts like white and black (not whiteness or blackness) and hot and cold that undergo gradation. Sheikh Shahab al-Din Suhrawardi, however, maintains that gradation is applicable not only to accidental concepts but also to essential concepts. According to Sadrian philosophers, gradation falls out the realm of concepts, whether essential or accidental. Gradation, according to them, finds its way into real existence – not into its mental existence but only into its external existence. According to Peripatetics, you cannot distinguish between two things except though one of these three ways: through their total essences, through part of their essences and through things outside their essences. They believe one cannot make distinction between two things but in one of these three ways. Suhrawardi however, adds a new way of making distinction between them, which is nothing but through gradation in terms of "strength and weakness", "perfection and imperfection" and "priority and posteriority" of their existence. Unlike the previous three ways, here the point of difference is the same as that of commonality.

According to Mulla Sadra, real happiness is a pleasure of some sort that has its root in intellectual perception. It is nothing but a union with pure intellects, presence and observation of these shining essences in theoretical philosophy and attainment of the stage of justice in practical philosophy. From his point of view, ignorance and corporeality are two big obstacles in the way of attaining happiness. If the first obstacle is not removed, it will lead to the imbalance in the faculties of the soul, resulting in failure to gain access to real happiness. The second existing obstacle shows that one cannot attain real happiness but in the next world- not in this world. Drawing upon his particular philosophical principles such as the principiality of existence, grades in existence, transubstantial motion, homogeneity between knowledge and existence, Mulla Sadra explains how human beings can attain real happiness, making it clear that intellectual happiness is the climax of a man's evolutionary movement.

According to the rule "nothing issues from the One except one" or the law of ‘exuno no fit nisisunum’, a single simple cause produces a single simple effect, thus denying the emanation of many immediate acts from God ,on the one hand, and it seems to be inconsistent with the idea of Divine Omnipotence (absolute power) and Unity of the Divine Acts, on the other. In order to find a solution to this problem, one needs either to consider the law in question as invalid or to give a precise account of it in a way that it is not inconsistent with the afore-mentioned cases. To resolve this inconsistency, some Peripatetics and Illuminationists have proposed a common solution whereas some of the followers of the Transcendental Theosophy have given a new peculiar version of the law. It has to be mentioned that the clarification of this issue can help to clear up many doubts raised in philosophy and theology.

Based on different philosophies, the criteria for making a distinction between the corporeal and the incorporeal are different. The main criteria for distinguishing between the corporeal and the incorporeal are said to be: primary and secondary matter, capability of being referred to (or having physical quality) as an object of our sense perception, potentiality and perception. The present article aims to assess whether these criteria are helpful in distinguishing between the corporeal and the incorporeal. Based on the principle of priority of existence, the distinction between the corporeal and the incorporeal is existential, not essential [to use a philosophical term, something based on quiddity.] Based on the principle of gradation of existence however, the distinction between a purely corporeal and a purely incorporeal is relative and graded.Here we will prove that the distinction between material and immaterial goes to their existence rather than their capacity, movement, time, extension etc.

The issue of resurrection occupies a peculiar place in the philosophical systems of Avicenna and Mulla Sadra. Some philosophical principles concerning the essence of soul, spiritual creation of soul, transmigration and materiality of faculty of imagination have made it impossible for Avicenna to believe in bodily resurrection. A seemingly blind (mimetic) acceptance of bodily resurrection by Avicenna in some of his works has thus to be taken to mean ‘physical’ in some other sense. After pondering on psychological issues and proving principles like incorporeality of imagination and the fact that soul has a physical origination, Mulla Sadra was, however, able to explain bodily resurrection in a rational manner.

The study of history and development of mental existence casts light on the problems related to mental existence while discussing what philosophers say for or against it. This will also help to determine our present status in regard to this discussion and thus will pave the way for answering questions related to it. A study of differing views on the theory of mental existence shows that the problems caused by perceiving non-existents and the inexplicability of ignorance, falsehood and error have posed challenges to the theory of relation. On the other hand, epistemological realism, existentialism [or the principiality of existence], theological propositions and certain other philosophical principles constitute some philosophical positions which cause problems in theorizing about mental existence – whether ontological or epistemological – once one accepts them.