Journal Ontological Researches
Year:2012 | Volume:1 | Issue:1|Papers Count:6

Aristotle's view on the structure of being is based upon ousia, first matter, form, potentiality, actuality and entelecha. In spite of his detailed studies for introducing ousia, as the most fundamental problem in first philosophy, the concept has failed to be well introduced and remained ambiguous. Aristotle is not certain when introducing the cases of ousia. In some cases, he has known form, and in others the thing compounded of form, matter and accidentals as real ousia. Nevertheless, he has known matter as the cause for singularity and determination of natural beings. All three beliefs has been criticized. Aristotle, however, relying on such weak concepts, has been led to an unmoved ousia and described it as pure entelechia. This view is not correctly based either. In the paper some failures of his thought have been described.

Molla Sadra and Plantinga, the former from Islamic philosophy tradition and the latter from the western tradition, each has studied the important problem of evils on his own principles and views.Relying on principality and goodness of existence, God's attributes of omnipotence, omniscience and wisdom and the world order's state of being the best, evil's state of being non-existential, explaining cognitive evil, non-truthfulness of evils, superiority of goodness over evil and rejecting humanistic tendency in the field, Sadra has solved the problem.However, centering on reformed epistemology, some Christian theological and humanistic principles, describing the possible world and the relationship between human will and Divine Omnipotence, Plantinga has proved that reasonable problem of evil never contradicts the existence of God. Moreover, Plantinga has agreed that Divine omnipotence does not include J. L. Mackie; the two scholars think the same with belief in God, His being omnipotent, omniscient and goodness, though they differs in such fields as facing the problem, essential commenting and designation of the answer in the fields of ethics, nature and in defending Divine Justice, bestness of the world of existence and superiority of logical view.

Molla Sadra has used the expressions of principality of existence and abstractedness of quiddity in two meanings: 1- existence is objective while quiddity is not, 2- both are objective but one essentially and the other secondarily by it. With regard to the first, the world is only existence and taken the second, it is the world of existence and quiddity.The theories in the field can be divided in the two. As is understood in the first meaning, there can be no place for quiddity to be real but in the second it would be a real object. In this way, the meanings are not in agreement. It finally can be said that Sadra's system is opposed to a kind of contradiction and it is necessary for it to be based only upon one of the two meanings mentioned. This paper has explained the contradictions of Sadras system.

The first step in mystical epistemology is known as criticizing reason. There cannot, therefore, be found any mystic being able to speak of mystical thought. Ibn Arabi as the founder of theoretical mysticism in his system of epistemology has first sought to criticize philosophical reasoning and shown that pure perceptual knowledge is but a nonessential concept, an imitative mode of knowledge. In this way the product is not of any certainty and, therefore, cannot be reliable. For him, one may arrive at essential and true knowledge on God and creatures with imitating God.

The paper has studied Plotinus and Ibn Arabiss view on The One and Divine Essence; the former's The One neither may be spoken of nor be thought. No name, can be found for calling The One, nor can the name He. At the same time, he sees himself in need for naming it as The One as the best name and in some cases explains the reason why. In the latter, the term name refers to Divine essence being qualified, manifested and modified. When defining name an exit of Essence would occur; Essence in itself has no name and may not be known at all. Ibn Arabi, nevertheless, in some cases refers to the nameless Essence with negative terms and in others uses those terms as Absolute, Necessary and Absolute Being. Focusing on these names, distinguishing true names from untrue and modifying names from non-modifyings, one can explain the problem. It is considerable to know that Plotinus and Ibn Arabi both have stood in a distance from negative theology and have spoken of God positively. It is the reason why this paper has sought to explain the problem of calling a nameless truth by the two.

Paying special attention to Quranic verses and traditions, Feiz Kashani developed Sadra s philosophy regarding the multiplicity of human being in species. When treating the multiplicity of human being in species, he uses Quranic verses and tradition, it, however, does not mean the priority of philosophical way to traditional one. For, giving priority to traditional way in the background of his treatment, he seeks to explain hidden philosophical and mystical designations. The paper has put forth a possibility for treating the multiplicity of human being in species in Feiz on the principles of transcendent philosophy, first and then, the clear statements of Feiz have been referred to. This approach has been based upon the interaction of religion and philosophy.