Essays in Philosophy and Kalam
Year:2012 | Volume:43 | Issue:87/2|Papers Count:11

The “mashriqiyya principle”, trusted by the Persian theosophists and the basis for their light wisdom that Suhrawardī tried to revive, is the principle of light and darkness. Philosophy of illumination (ḥikmat ishraq), as a discursive-intuitive philosophy, is a light-oriented metaphysical wisdom. In this wisdom, light is the secret of “awareness” and “self-consciousness”. Thus, the focus of attention in Suhrawardi’s philosophy is “knowledge” and the Illuminationist Philosopher is preoccupied with nothing but “Illuminationist knowledge”.In this metaphysical system, marifat (divine knowledge) is like a principle, which other discourses originate from and end up to. Pleasure, in this system, is not an entity apart from marifat.Illuminational Resurrection (maad), like perception and pleasure, is also analyzed on the basis of the mashriqi principle of “light and darkness”. Therefore, the ranks of the people, after being released from their stronghold of darkness, are determined and explained in terms of their enjoyment of rays of knowledge or the degree of their attachment to the darkness of purgatory.

Analysis of the meaningfulness of the language of religion is one of the most important issues concerning the language of religion. Despite the multiplicity and variety of viewpoints common in this field, the prevailing common ground in these viewpoints is the implicit acceptance of the positivistic standards of the meaningfulness of language. The existence of basic criticisms to these standards and the collapse of logical positivism bring up the basic question as to how and on the basis of what questions the analysis of the meaningfulness of the language of religion is examinable. Reviewing briefly the theories concerning the meaningfulness of the language of religion, this article first presents a definition of the meaningfulness of language, and then, on the basis of this definition, examines the meaningfulness of the language of religion on three pivots, i.e. the possibility of the meaningfulness of the language of religion; the possibility of incorporating the revelatory meanings into human words and propositions; and the possibility of understanding the revelatory meanings by the addressee.

The origin of the duality of the world of creation from Plato’s point of view is based on the fact that he classifies the world into two categories: the world of senses (ideas=muthul, generalities=kulliyat) and the world of intelligibles (image of ideas, particulars). Thus, by bringing up the issue of ideas and stating that these ideas are the realities of the beings of the intelligible world and the origin of the material world, he seeks to find an explanation for his philosophical and moral ideals.Plato’s luminous ideas, in terms of their reality of being, is not distinct from the reality of Ḥaqq (Truth, God), but is persisting in His essence (persistence by emergence) and is indeed one of the requirements of Divine essence and attributes.Mulla Ṣadra’s different paraphrasing and arguments about ideas, explain the kind of the relation of ideas with Divine essence and attributes. Although immutable entities (al-ayan-i al-thabita) have many similarities to Plato’s intellectual ideas, they have significant discrepancies, as well.The theory of muthul, in general, is accepted by the Muslim philosophers; Mulla Ṣadra, however, believes that none of the Muslim philosophers has been able to understand the theory of ideas. Based on his philosophical principles and with the help of such arguments as comprehension evidence and substantial motion, he tries to prove his impression of this theory.In this article, the writer tries to clarify the relation between Plato’s theory of ideas and Mulla Ṣadra’s immutable entities through examining the Islamic philosophy’s interpretations of the theory of ideas and stating Mulla Ṣadra’s arguments in proving this theory.

‘Abd al-Wahhab b. Aḥmad Sharani (898-973/1492-1565) is to be considered as one of the most important advocates of Muḥyial-Din Ibn ‘Arabi (560-638/1164-1240). He has written significant books in defense of and under the inspiration of Ibn ‘Arabi, the most important of which that can be mentioned are Al-Yawaqit wa al-Jawahir, Al-Kibrit al-Aḥmar, and Al-Qawaid al-Kashfiyya. It is worth mentioning that, with respect to his sharia-oriented Sufi background, Sharani has turned to Ibn ‘Arabi’s views in the above works and regarded what has seemed to him to be contrary to shari (religious law), as intrigues by Ibn ‘Arabi’s enemies and exonerated him of them. In some cases, he has rightly exonerated Ibn ‘Arabi of such ideas as incarnation, the unity and monotheism of Satan, and superiority of Wilaya over Prophethood; but he has not been able to sufficiently exonerate him from unity of existence, belief in the eternity (khulud) of the faithless, and Pharaoh’s faith. However, by defending him, he has prevented from his calumny and excommunication by his hostile opponents.

Given the importance of theology and best ways of knowing it in the Islamic culture, this article is intended to examine the method of self-knowledge according to the ḥadith, man ‘arafa nafsa faqad ‘arafa Rabba (he who knows himself knows his Lord) from the viewpoint of the Shia scholars and try to recognize the components of this noble ḥadith by way of analysis and examine its different experimental, philosophical, mystical, and Quranic readings (qaraats). It is concluded that any of the above-mentioned readings of the ḥadith would cause us to reach God but its Gnostic value is different, in a way that the Quranic gnosis is the most sublime gnosis and the experimental cognition stands lowest in rank.

In Aristotle’s view, the explanation of an object or an issue is carried out according to the real form or reasonable essence and the utmost objective (ghayat) it has and the goal it achieves. For instance, why do objects fall? According to Aristotle and his followers, motion is explained as per the innate tendency of anything seeking to return to its natural resting place. The resting place or “natural station” of fire is up and that of the earth is down. The heavier objects have a stronger tendency downward, hence should fall faster. The motion’s utmost objective – in both meanings of extreme and purpose and objective – is more of interest than the trends that take place in the meantime or prior to it. Thus, causality is described with respect to the future goals (ultimate causes) and essential inclinations (formal causes), rather than by the impressions of past events (efficient causes), which act upon passive and talented matters (material causes).The above words do not mean that observation had no place in Aristotelian science. Aristotle had personally done considerable researches on biological classification, which involved accurate observations. However, the issue of ultimate objective, i.e., assuming everything and every action as purposeful and with an ultimate goal, had not yield theories that can be tested by earlier experiences.