Sophia Perennis
Year:2020 | Volume:16 | Issue:36|Papers Count:12

Explaining individuation and mind-body relation are the two salient challenges for substance dualists. Hylomorphists following Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, like Oderberg, claim that they have met these challenges adequately. In this paper we focus on the first problem. At first we explain Kim’ s challenge of pairing for substance dualism. Accordance with this problem, there is no necessary relation between soul and body, so Cartesian dualist can’ t explain how a soul relates with a body not another one. After that, with focus on Hylomorphism, we argue that this view faces the same problem. For this, we argue that although form has a necessary relation with matter but because of form and soul are not identical, so this view faces the pairing problem. For doing this, we distinguish between substantial and accidental changes and argue that corruption of form and generation of soul is substantial change. Then we argue that there is no identity between previous form and soul, so hoylomorphism is not in a better position with respect to substance dualism to solve the pairing problem and individuation of soul. Then we argue that there is no identity between previous form and soul, so hoylomorphism is not in a better position with respect to substance dualism to solve the pairing problem and individuation of soul.

Sheikh Ishraq has independent treatises on prayer and sanctification. In addition to his philosophic works, alms have been mentioned that, in general, they can be divided into two categories of prayer (Do'a and Salavat) and sanctification (tasbih and taghdis and salā m). In this paper, the attention of a philosopher to prayer is examined by examining the kinds of sanctification used in the works of Sheikh Ishraq. For this purpose, the Sheikh Ishraq's advice to prayer is considered, and the prayers of the seekers addressed to the Lord and the angels, and the prayers of the Lord and the angels in the lawyers are mentioned in the works of Sheikh Ishraq. It has been shown on this basis that prayer are part of the system of prennial philosopy that is suited to Suhrawardi's Ishraqi's journey. It is also mentioned to his prayers for the stars and souls of spheres, and the related of this prayers to occult works. And it has been shown that despite the falsehood of the intensity of the theory of the spheres his prayers with the stars remain valid.

One of the greatest divine blessings in the mystical journey is spiritual life, which is considered by many mystics and wise men. Mrs. Andril Sufi, the Christian scholar and Mulla Sadra Shirazi, an Islamic philosopher, also tried to understand what the spiritual life and the quality of their achievement were. These two thinkers, in a common approach, consider human being as having three intellectual, voluntary, and emotional contexts, but in the primacy and superiority of these areas and the influence of each one on human spiritual life, they disagree. With the priority of feeling on reason and will, Andrilil considers spiritual life to be one of the three virtues of worship, cooperation, and loyalty, and on this basis, the individuals who live in this life have the characteristics that include harmony, mildness and confidence of the heart. Knows that they will be away from any fuss. Mulla Sadra of Shirazi, with prior knowledge of the field of thought on other places of the soul, believes that spiritual life is created with the first stage of theoretical rationalist movement, and the soul, after being immersed in theoretical reason, can be practiced through practical actions such as the notion of omnipotence, meditation and love Mutafat has a number of life that is the result of the acquisition of special abilities for the soul, including the rebellion of certainty and insight, the creation of forms, the avoidance of evil and the deceit of the darkness.

According to the received view of philosophical naturalism, it has two different types which are characterized as two philosophical theses: ontological naturalism and methodological naturalism. Following this account of naturalism, one may pose the question: what is the relationship between the two theses of naturalism that has led to philosophers calling both ‘ naturalism’ ? There are four views about this matter: no relationship between two theses, the epistemic priority of ontological naturalism over methodological naturalism, the epistemic priority of methodological naturalism over ontological naturalism, and relationship but no priority. In this paper, we examine these views and try to show that none is satisfactory and adequate. The problem, we believe, comes from the received view of naturalism, and therefore, an alternative view of naturalism may help to solve the problem. In the end, we propose an alternative view of naturalism and try to show that it can dissolve the problem of the relationship between two theses of naturalism.

Dr. Seyyed Hossein Nasr, the greatest living traditionalist philosopher in contemporary world, has defined a fundamental element as a principle for Sophia Perennis which is metaphysical distinction between Intellectus and Ratio. To him, The Sacred Knowledge is the fruit of Divine Intuitive Intelligence but Science or Modern Philosophical Schools is the result of human Rational Faculty, thus distinguishes The Sacred Knowledge, by clarification of its inherent essence, from Philosophy. According to him, the Ratio is the reflection and reverberation of Universal Intellect upon human mind and thus the logical rationalization is purely the formal and exterior expression of The Subject from experience of The Object which is metaphysical Reality and is prior to Ratio and Subject Itself who processing the act of Reasoning. The outcome of Nasr’ s argumentum is the ‘ Illuminative’ and Donated characteristics of Sacred Knowledge which diffuses from Universal Origin upon the human Hearts, the seat of Intelligence, unlike philosophy which is attainable by acquisition. Mystically speaking, the Sacred Knowledge is as ‘ State’ and not as ‘ Station’ , thus it is considered as ‘ The Bestowals’ not ‘ The Earnings’ . Referring to the essential works by Nasr and other Traditionalists, in this article which has been done in analytical-descriptive method, first we analyze the metaphysical principles of the Sacred Knowledge which is the Traditional Oriental Metaphysics both in East and West and then study its relationship with Philosophy and Theology.

Some contemporary scholars in some of the allegations of Sadr al-Mota'alahin believe that MullahSadra believes in the invisible divine knowledge of being connected with nature, in addition to his inward knowledge and active knowledge In this research, after reviewing the documentation, one can conclude that, although some of the documents of this ruling are controversial, but Sadr al-Din doesn't denies the previous contradictory knowledge of being connected to nature for God. And it speaks of a theological form in which the essential of nature is obligatory and does not require any forgery and influence, and they are not considered components of the universe. Which considers this mode of knowledge necessary for the prior knowledge inherent in and based on the simple reality.

Suhrawardi's view of "other-consciousness" has encountered with Mulla Sadra's critique. Suhrawardi believes that the self-conscious existent is "the light in itself". He considers that the "other-consciousness" is the result of the self-conscious existent's luminous relation to other existent or acquiring their intelligible forms. Mulla Sadra argues that Suhrawardi's analysis of "other-consciousness" is incorrect and reasons leastwise three arguments against the Suhrawardi's theory about "luminous relation". Mulla Sadra although has accepted the Suhrawardi's analysis of "self-consciousness", but he has interpreted the "light" (noor) in Suhrawardi's view as the existence (wojood). This article-after expression three Mulla Sadra's critical arguments to Suhrawardi-criticized them. According to the authors of this article all three of Sadr's arguments in the critique of Suhrawardi's analysis of "other-consciousness" are defective. Furthermore, we believe that the Mulla Sadra's interpration of "light" (noor) in Suhrawardi's statement is incorrect. The purpose of this article is only to illustrate the defectiveness of his critical arguments to Suhrawardi and it is by no means a positive defense of Suhrawardi's point of view.

Ibn-Arabi disapproves of the concept of Otherness (i. e. differentiation from God) in the world of existence; therefore, in the creator-creature puzzle, he explicates the existence of creature in such a way that it leads to personal pantheism. By coining the term “ permanent archetype” , he considers a new identity for “ everything but God” , which, though not identical to divinity, is not different in nature from that. Creation results from the creator’ s self-awareness, which is the cause of the permanent archetype. Bidel was strongly influenced by Ibn Arabi’ s mystical conceptions, so far that he can be considered as the last of the commentators of Ibn Arabi. Bidel meticulously recites the teachings of philosophical mysticism in the form of poetic wisdom in his imaginative poetry. Bidel’ s explication of Ibn Arabi’ s mystical teachings is irreplaceable, at least in the poetical works of sufism literature. Employing the great capacities of Persian poetry as well as semantic and lexical figures of speech, Bidel attempted to symbolize the mental and abstract teachings of mysticism. By expounding the concept of permanent archetype and the issues thereof, this study investigates Bidel’ s poetic imagery of this bewildering concept from a comparative perspective.

Theory of causality and causal law for philosophers is something that Russell considers ridiculous because of its specific features, namely necessity and generality, but as with empiricists such as Hume, he generally does not deny causality. To solve the skepticism problem that could to cause scientific obstruction after Hume's critiques of causation, he proposes new theories about the type of relationship between events that he calls "Causal Lines". Russell's purpose of this theory is to propose principles that can help to obtain finite probability for predicting events. Thus, Russell does not claim that the thematic principles that help us to infer uncertain events can lead us to conclusive conclusions, but that they only can lead us to deduce probable results. Therefore, in this paper, Russell's type of inference and its related thematic principles are examined, and in addition to explaining the concept of 'Causal Lines', its relation to the identity of physical objects is discussed. Finally, the objections of Russell's theory, introduced by Wesley Salmon, a proponent of causal process theory, are discussed.

Explanation of God's agency is one of the most important topics in philosophical theology. The causality through self-manifestation (Fa'aliyyat Bi al Tajalli) is perceived as Mulla Sadra's chosen point of view in his works. According to it, God, based on his knowledge of the creatures, which is the same to essence of God, but is the same to his knowledge to Himself, is the immediate creater of all creations, so that the creations are Dependent Creatures in their essense, and God is the only original being. However, Mulla Sadra in some of his works, discribtes the theory of causality through providence (Fa'aliyyat Bi al inayat), that is considered as Peripatetic philosophers' view, as his chosen theory in circumstance of God's agency. So, using this term by Mulla Sadra has led to this ambiguity that wht's the ultimate view of Mulla Sadra in this issue, and what's the different between Mulla Sadra and peripatetic philosophers in this topic. This article has describsed the solutions suggested by Sadrai Philosophers, and finnaly, has chosed Mulla Ali's view as a correct. Based on chosen solution, the term of (Fa'aliyyat Bi al inayat) isn’ t specific for peripatetic philosophers, and their specifics views, aren’ t inherent of this term.

Chance is the efficient cause itself but it appears as if it somehow has final cause. The critical means to enter into the analysis of luck is adapting an account of luck tailored to the realm of agency and along with the contrast between beneficial occurrences from which the for the sake of something is absent with the those in which it is present. Aristotle considers chance as "how occurrences with certain ends take place while they do not happen by nature or as the result of thought. He also mentions in Metaphysics that just as being is either intrinsic or coincidental, in the same ways it is possible to be a cause. Since the main component of chance is the irrelevancy of the end to the result, therefore luck is a cause by accident among those things that are for the sake of something that are according to choice. Aristotle’ s argument for the priority of per se causation for the sake of something and the consequent impossibility of chance causation per accidens apart from it, forms the core of his account of chance. In investigating the relationship of chance and frequency of an event, there are many doubts in coextensivity of the rarity of happening of an event with it being accidental. Thus, for the analysis of chance, understanding the relationship between an analysis based on the ‘ always/for the most part/rarely’ classification and a teleological analysis considering the opposition between the per accidens and the per se, is necessary.