JOURNAL OF FACULTY OF LETTERS AND HUMANITIES (TABRIZ)
Year:2006 | Volume:49 | Issue:199|Papers Count:9

The main question of our paper is: how Ibn-sina and Mulla-Sadra demonstrate the completeness of the existent world, despite the evils which we see clearly in that? Our answer is that these two philosophers take an apriori approach on this problem and say: Since this world has been created and is governed by God, who is All- Complete, and nothing can prevent him from what he wants to do, so the world must be complete. On the natural and ethical evils we see in the world, they say: (1) these are very little in respect to good things; (2) we can show by argumentation and analysis that these are nonexistent (that is, privations); and (3) these evils are the unblessed offshoots of the change, the evolution and the contrariety of the natural world, which are it's essential part; and their elimination is equal to eliminate the very natural world, which, in its turn, is equal to eliminate the much good. The result of their argument is that our world is best possible world and it is impossible to have another world in place of it.

Logical paradoxes are self vicious reference sentences that are there lies contradiction in assumption of both its truthfulness and its falsing, hence. For the reason that logical Paradoxes challenge the varacity of the most important theories of logic and philosophy such as statement's ability to truthfulness and falsity the correspondence theory of truth, law of the excluded middle and the system of Aristotelian bivalence, finding a reliable solution for them has always been one of the most important apprehensions of moslem logicians specially in 7 th century and also some western Logicians.So that approximately ten solutions for paradoxes have been presented by them all of which have been introduced, analyzed and criticized in this article generally. Among the presented solutions, Khaje Nassir and following him, Taftazani and Sadroddin Oashtaki, believing in hierarchy of the statement and discrimination of the statement and predicate or priority and posteriority of the truth, managed to achieve an appropriate solution of paradoxes. In recent centuries Alfred Tarsky, a western Logician, introduction the hierarchy theory of language has managed to devise a salution for these paradoxes.But, regarding the possibility of formulating new reinforced assertions of paradoxes, it seems that none of the stated solutions in this article is acceptable.Therefore, the author suggests that adopting the multivalence system of logic and accepting neither-true, nor - false statements which has been contemplated by some prior theologians and is more adaptable with skeptical ontology of Molla Sadra can be acceptable solution.

In the realm of education, self confidence and belief in the importance of thinking and human inference are very significant and basic. Without ignoring the importance of other methods of cognition, this paper aims at highlighting the role of thinking. The type of thinking that is based on local and regional culture of any nation, and' is used for finding solutions for the new problems and making the life.Enjoyable In our opinion, the problems of education in our time are of those types which would remain unresolved by traditional methods, and which require finding and/or creating new methods. While trying to keep a balance between the different points of views in this paper, art attempt has been made to focus more on the role of accepting responsibility. It is because in our educational system it is assumed that there is a greater need for thinking, inference, and finally self confidence.

Intellect is the most important characteristic of human and a valuable tool to understand realities. As philosophers emphasize more on it especially to understand metaphysics matters make a motivation for Gnostics to disagree with it. Ibn-e 'Arabi has criticized intellectually the wisdom in his works and has made its power and weakness points. He considers the ability of wisdom just about nature and life but indicates its weakness in metaphysics and understands the almighty God. Since understanding an object is due to dominate of wisdom, and second wisdom is concrete and concrete doesn't have way to absolute, and third intellectual cognition matters aren't corresponding with knowledge about that world.

The present essay inquires Cornford's view about Plato's accusation. According to this accusation, Plato in Theaetetus wrongly introduces Protagoras as a thinker who believes in « impossibility of being contradictory qualities in the same thing» and finally interprets Protagoras' doctrine as a kind of subjectivism or relativism. On the contrary, Cornford declares that historical Protagoras believes in «coexistent theory of contraries in the same thing». Corn ford thinks this false interpretation depends upon Plato's wrong explanation of homo mensura. Thus on Cornford's view, introduced Protagoras in Theaetetus has a gross difference from historical and real Protagoras.Cornford's view rests upon two points: (1) text of Theaetetus (esp. 152) and (2) report of Sextus Empiricus. Reconsidering both points, we criticize Cornford's view via two reasons: logical reasoning and historical reference.

According to the theory of Molla Sadra, primacy of existence (asalat e wujood) constitutes reality. Existence is one but graded in intensity. These (tashkik e wujood) two principles namely reality of existence and analogical gradation hold a definite role in the foundation of accepted concept in this paper.Non-acceptance of the two mentioned principles leads one to various results particularly in this case the consequent non-acceptance of substantial movement to understand reality of existence and analogical gradation.One must not fail to compare Molla Sadra's theory with, philosophy of peripatetic.The assumption of this paper claims that substantial movement both in representation and judgment is based on reality of existence and analogical gradation.

Reasons have classified in tow hierarchy in Transcendental Philosophy, in length and in width all of them are possible, extensive, unique, independent, eternal, wise, general and not material and essences.Although the plurality of this beings and also the existence of them have not been proved in Transcendental philosophy, but they have main ontological position in this philosophical system and without them the existence of world and the relationship between world and god, who is extensive and unique, will not be possible.In this way the position of the gods of nature who are responsible to manage every material kinds, is very important.The epistemological position of this beings is also important in Transcendental philosophy and Agent Intellect as an Idea of human being is the preparing cause for making rational cognition, and without it not rational cognition but also no cognition at all may happen.Molla sadra and his student tried a lot to explain and clarify the essence, existence, ontological and epistemological position of intellects, but they did not become successful and there is a lot of criticism about the theory of Intellects, especially about the epistemological position of them, so that it is not so easy to permit this theory.