Journal Of Religious Thought
Year:2008 | Volume:- | Issue:28|Papers Count:9

The main question of this paper is: "What is the criterion in Ontological Argument (Burhane Siddiqin)?" This question can be analyzed into three questions as fallow: (1) what are the characteristics of this argument? (2) Which characteristics are to be considered as the criteria of it? (3) Which characteristics are to be considered as the advantages of it? This paper aims to answer these questions and comes to the conclusion that there are five characteristics for this argument:1. The Necessary Being is to be proved by considering the existence.2. The argument must produce the same result even if possible existents are denied.3. The argument must be independent of the proof for the impossibility of the vicious circle and the infinity regress.4. Real and actual attributes are to be used in this argument.5. The argument is not influenced by the acceptance of possible existents or the rejection of them. Having read the paper, one will find that the first and the second characteristics are together the criteria of the mentioned argument, and the third is not relevant to it, while the fourth and fifth ones are the advantages of it.

In this paper, I am going to present an argument in favour of the generalistic and atomistic position and criticize the particularistic and holistic view with regard to the way in which different morally relevant features are combined together in different contexts. According to the argument, the holist (particularist) is confronted with a dilemma. The first horn of the dilemma concerns the problem with the idea of the contribution a morally relevant feature makes to moral evaluation. The second horn of the dilemma deals with the point that the holist’s metaphysical account with regard to the way in which different morally relevant features are combined together is vague. Having seen the dilemma, I am inclined to conclude that the particularist's argument with regard to the way in which different morally relevant features are combined together in different contexts is implausible.

One of Mulla Sadra's views concerning the Intellects is the observing of the intellectual form from the distance. Being influenced by Sohravardi, Mulla sadra states that reasoning results from observing the reasonable facts.The objects of this observation are Active Intellects or Platonic Ideas. This observation sometimes occurs directly and sometimes reflexively.The relation between the soul and the perceived object is an illuminative one and therefore the resultant knowledge is an intuitive knowledge.Weakness of the soul and the intensity of the object of this perception cause the ambiguity and thereby the universality of the object of the knowledge. Therefore we would have in our mind the acquired science not the bestowed science.

Intentionality is the most important and influential idea of Franz Brentano. He was not in fact the originator of this theory, but revived a view tracing back to Aristotle, Islamic philosophers and medieval scholastic philosophers, introducing it to the modem western philosophy but he also undertook to develop and elaborate it. This theory constitutes one of the key elements of Edmund Husserl's phenomenology.Brentano's initial view concerning intentionality appeared in his crucial work, Psychologie vom empirischen Standpunkt (Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint) in 1874. Showing preference and independence of psychology in relation to the natural sciences he described the basic characteristic of psychological phenomena, including thought, from the physical phenomena such as color and sound as regards to intentionality of psychological phenomena. According to him, our perceptions, like seeing and hearing are always about objects which possess "intentional existence" rather than "real existence".Brentano, by making additions to 1911 edition of his work changed his original viewpoint. In his new point of view, he insisted on the intentionality, but rejected the idea that the objects of thought possess "intentional existence" rather than "real existence". The difference between mental relation and other relations is in the fact that in the latter, such as being smaller or larger, both terms-both the fundament and the terminus- should really exist; yet in mental relation, only the person thinking is required. The terminus of the so-called relation does not need to exist in reality at all.

Any philosophical approach to the plurality of the religions should provide the requisite linguistic bases and foundations. These should keep the completeness and consistency of the pluralistic theory and preserve the truth, the meaningfulness, and the realistic aspect of the religious realism. They also should resolve the conflict between the religions propositions nevertheless they should not yield to the plurality of the Ultimate Reality. In this paper we study these elements by comparing two versions of Hick and Byrne, two contemporary religious pluralists.

Theologist, philosophers and mystics have different views on the oneness and manyness of the world. lalal al- Din Davani has also an specific view named "tasting of divinity" (dhawq altaalluh). It is one of his most important views which later thinkers have noticed. According to him, we can call God "existence" because he is really existence but we can name other things as "existents" only because they are related to the existence (God) not because they possess existence. In this paper we first will explain Davani's view, then we mention some criticism on his view especially that of Mulla Sadra, finally we judge it according to the reason.

The mind-body problem is one of the most important problems that philosophers and scientists have ever emphasized.Although the previous scientists were certain that there were two different kinds of states and events in human interacting each other, nowadays sciences like neurophysiology have reached important results about this issue.Some philosophers believe in physicalism in respect to physical and mental states and events. Some others, disproving physicalism, have proved that human have a nonphysical substance in addition to corporeal body.But most of them (dualist philosophers) haven't succeeded to justify how these two substances are related to each other. It seems that Mulla Sadra has succeeded to solve the mind – body problem by accepting that "the soul originates from the body".