METAFIZIKA
Year:2020 | Volume:3 | Issue:1 |Papers Count:6

The article concerns the philosophical interpretation of letters in the poems of the great Azerbaijan poet Imaddaddin Nasimi. The study consists of 4 parts. First, the information about “ Khuruf al-Mukatta’ a” from Koran and from ancient wise ideas represented in the themes of poems by Khalladj Mansur and Nasimi has been expounded. A very important point stressed here is that the letters of language, which a person percieves the Truth and communicates with the Creator of Spirit in, also play a role of a key to the Divine Truth. The second part of the article is devoted to the question of what kind of truth is delivered by letters as it is expressed in Nasimi’ s poems. The great poet used the method similar to method used in Holy Koran considering the letters as symbols. The study revealed that the poetry by Nasimi is a proclamation of the Mystery of letters from the beginning up to the end, and the poet is doing that in a logical way, referring to Koran and strictly following the spirit and the letter of Allah and His book. The third part of the article contains the discussion of the letters – Kaf-and – Nun-as being an expression of the process of creation. It is also marked here the fact that the matter is not only about the God but about a Man. Being a vicar of Creator a Man is a Creator too but within the frames and abilities established by the God. If a man was created by the force of Kaf and Nun the word is a creator of him and the meaning for creating of him as well. From this point, there are no limits for word. It can increase and reduce depending on measure of thinking. The last part represents the philosophical interpretation of the famous phrase “ Ana al-Hakk” which was first formulated by Mansur Khaladj and demonstrates a whole depth of Nasimi’ s poetry. This phrase is a manifestation of self-expression of the man who is in unity and harmony with the Creator, and Nasimi’ s poetry is an accumulation of wisdom expressed in this unity.

Knowing and applying correct spelling rules in Persian based on the Arabic alphabet, has been a pressing problem of the day and always challenged thinkers since ancient times. A number of objective changes and processes that occur during the development of the language are in some sense reflected in the spelling. Considering the peculiarities, complexities and difficulties of the Arabic graphics in Persian, scientific thinkers, sometimes teachers, just fans of this language have simply worked hard to eliminate and amend writing difficulties, without interrupting Arabic graphics. It is known that the line is the reflected image of the language in writing. As the language complies with a number of rules called "grammar", the writing must also follow a set of rules and regulations that we call “ orthography". After years of research, countless suggestions, recommendations and discussions, finally, in 1380 (2002), The Academy of Language and Literature of the Islamic Republic of Iran has published a booklet entitled دستور خظ فارسی “ Persian Orthography” . Here are some of the important factors related to the Persian language writing system: protection of the Persian language written image and independence; agreement of writing and pronunciation; simplification of reading and writing. In this study, we will discuss the “ alefe masgure” (short alef realized by letter « ی» in writing) which is irrelevant to the Persian script, in other words, it does not meet above-mentioned important factors, key features of the Persian orthography. A lot of words and compositions derived from Arabic in both classical and modern Persian are written with this "shortened alef". Actually, just here, an agreement and harmony between the writing and pronunciation are broken.

Ibn Khaldun is an undisputed greatest thinker and scientist in the history of Islamic thought. He is known mostly as a founder of the Philosophy of History, the Science of Sociology and the Umran theory. Having been formed at the period of weakening of the Islamic philosophical thought and generally-the activity of science, his philosophy was great importance at evaluation of such correlations as between the philosophy and religion, and the reason and faith. The debates around these notions risen at the dawn of the history of Islamic thought have been keeping their actuality until today. In this context, Ibn Khaldun being a scientist and a founder of the Umran theory was that who evaluated the relationship between the religion and philosophy in a cold-minded realistic and objective way because he considered this problem not just as a religious or philosophical phenomenon but as an inseparable part of the Umran theory from the point of social history. He revealed the compatible, common and extremely different points within the notions of religion and philosophy. According to Ibn Khaldun, the human Reason can’ t be applied in the field of metaphysics and religion. He also insisted that the laws can be adopted exclusively in the field of revelation and faith. Ibn Khaldun stressed that the religion and philosophy differ from each other in objects, methods and aims. Therefore, he considered impossible the existence of the rational metaphysics and theology. At present article, we’ ve tried to consider the fundamental views of Ibn Khaldun towards the basics of correlation “ religion-philosophy” and “ reason-faith” from the point of philosophy and science.

The accurate meaning, importance and significance of Intellect and Reason as well as their boundaries and frames have been always a subject to contemplations of philosophers-epistemologist through the history. There is strong disagreement between the Western thinkers and Muslim philosophers who are considered to represent two main directions in thought within the problem of boundaries and frames of Reason. Taken as a whole, the beginning and the end of epistemology is a study of the nature of Reason. There is no consideration of the problem of Reason in the Transcendental Philosophy of Immanuel Kant, especially within the metaphysical sphere. He considers Reason to be antinomic to the Metaphysics area. The key question is whether the fallacy of the Reason criteria in Metaphysics is systematic or occasional. The answers of philosophers are different. The article concerns the aspect on what the Reason thinks about itself and how does it think about things differing from it. One can also trace how a founder of the Transcendental Philosophy Immanuel Kant plunges into the depths of what he himself called dogma. Indeed, Immanuel Kant’ s method and way of revealing the boundaries and frames of Reason differ from methods of Muslim thinkers (arifs) and philosophers. He considers impossible and wrong the invasion of Reason into the supernatural and metaphysical spheres. Thus, Immanuel Kant makes a distinction between Nature and supernatural Metaphysics. More over, Reason should be satisfied by only phenomenological knowledge in every sphere. Muslim arifs had never denied power of Intellect and Reason in the sphere of Metaphysics. Having faced paradoxes and antinomies, especially in the case of transcendental philosophy the Islamic philosophers and thinkers were able to overcome this dangerous crisis of Reason, and similar to Kant they didn’ t reject Metaphysics. It should be marked that aim of Muslim arifs in their mystical works was to put the Reason on the level below the level of Intuition. They didn’ t intend to downgrade or to offend the Reason or to consider it worthless. From the point of Muslim arifs and philosophers the Reason can’ t reveal the highest levels of Metaphysics. These stages can be only found through Intuition. The Muslim arifs commited the correct behavior and clear investigation for the study of the higher levels of Metaphysics. That’ s why the Intellect and Reason can just explain, analyze, apply and compare those investigations.

As one of the most important theoretical physicists of 20th century, Einstein’ s perspective on human science has foundations that cannot be isolated from his view of science. Physics understanding of that time was built on Newton’ s theory of causality and cases (phenomenon) were tried to be evaluated within the framework of a strong cause-effect relation. Although Einstein revised the Newton theory and caused radical changes in science, as stated in his own words, Newton’ s causality theory is the basic criterion for Einstein’ s view of life. For this reason, as Einstein explained all the phenomena in the universe with a cause-effect relation, he has also made the causality theory as a criteria while looking for basis of human actions and intentions. He presupposed serious physical obstacles, when considered human behaviors in the context of the freedom problem. However, there is another factor that can harm human freedom. Some of the genetic and biological hereditary characteristics of the person are quite efficient on his tendency. In addition to this, the issues of will and morality that cannot be evaluated separately from the freedom issue, also felt the need to be clarified at this point. Hence this situation will confront us with the problem of the source of morality. In this study, Einstein’ s view of human freedom and morality will be studied and tried to be enlightened.

One of the most important issues discussed by philosophers is the nature of man’ s happiness and its relationship with the pleasure. St. Thomas Aquinas in Christian tradition and Sadr al-Muta’ allihinShirazi in Islamic tradition has discussed in details this issue. Both of them maintain that man attains happiness when his intellect, as the Characteristic of human being, fulfills its potentials and apprehends the highest intelligibles. Also because they consider pleasure as the conception the things which are pleasant and agreeable to powers, man can reach the excellent and the most perfect pleasure through the perception of the highest intellects. Nonetheless they differ in that St. Thomas considers pleasure as concomitant to happiness and MullaSadra believes in the identity of the happiness and the pleasure. To put it in a different way, while St. Thomas categorizes the happiness and the pleasure respectively as action and affection, Mulla Sadra holds that these two concepts, though different with regard to their meaning, denotes a unique reality which is simultaneously both happiness and pleasure, so they are not included among the categories. This is to argue that pleasure could be understood in terms of attainment to the complete form of happiness and in regard to the awareness of that perfection.