Journal Of Religious Thought
Year:2012 | Volume:- | Issue:41|Papers Count:9

According to classical opinion about understanding and interpreting a text, meaning of the text is independent of reading and exists prior to any interpretation of the readers; it depends only to the author's intention. Neopragmatism is a post-modern school which possesses an audience-oriented and subjective hermeneutics and which in its analysis of the process of interpreting text, gives the main role to the interpreter and sees very little portion for the text. In this paper, explaining the theoretical and philosophical fundamentals of neopragmatism's approach to hermeneutics (presented in Richard Rorty's and Stanley Fish's works), we will analyse and criticize this theory and show its weakness and shortcoming.

The question of determinism or free will has been a challenging problem in theology. Shi'i and Mu'tazili theologians defend free will and Asha'ri's defend determinism and sometimes give a theory named Kasb (acquirement) in this relation. Fakhre Razi is a great Ash'ari theologian. But he attemts to avoid pure determinism. In this paper we show how he tries to combine human power and freedom with determination that originates from divine omnipower. We will discuss that sometime he moves from Kasb theory to the theory of amrun bayn al-amrayn (a thing between determinism and free will), which is a characteristic of shi'i theology. But he cannot explain this theory. So he remains on the dilmma of determinism and free will and cannot give a clear explanation in this relation.

The main difference between religion and other kinds of phenomena is its sacredness. In this paper we will compare the phenomenological approaches to "The Sacred" maintained by two Muslim and Christian thinkers, Sayyed Heydar Amolia and Rudolf Otto. First we will explain what is meant by phenomenology. Secondly we will discuss different phenomenological attitudes (especially emotional and intellectual ones) to the phenomenon of the sacred. Finally we will compare the two mentioned thinkers on this subject. It will be shown that both of them reject the reductionalism and both see the sacred as "self-evident". Sayyed emphasizes on both emotional and intellectual attitudes but Otto's emphasis is only on emotional attitude.

Suffering is a cognition derived from feeling undesirable conditions. Different religions take it as an important event in religious life and especially discuss about its origin and its goal. Buddhism as a human-centeric religion deals with suffering, its reality and its causes. According to Buddhism, the origin of suffering is in man himself. This religion is to represent a way for salvation of all sufferings but it does not say anything about the origin and the goal of suffering because ontologically it does not believe in a purposeful and ultimate Being. But in the Bible, as a Theo-centeric text there may be three possible causes for suffering: man's act (for example sin), the act of a purposeful God, the act of an aimless and will-centered God. So, God's attribute (for example being purposeful or aimless) is very important in relation to man's suffering. Therefore we find both agent and ultimate causes for suffering in the Bible. It means that the Bible takes into account the origin and the goal of suffering. On the contrary, Buddhism considers only the origin of suffering and seeks a way to save us from it.

The doctrine of the immortality of the soul is one of the major and the most important theories in Platonism. Plato was an uncompromising spiritualist, neither materialist nor epiphenomenalist. He adduced several arguments for the immortality of the soul. Also in the works of Muslim thinkers we find arguments for the continuance and immortality of the soul. This paper attempts to compare Plato's arguments with Islamic thinkers' arguments, to clarify degree of Plato's influence on Islamic thinkers.

Understanding and analyzing the true meaning of divine attributes has been one of the most important questions of theologians, philosophers and mystics. Different views have been presented in this regard. Limitations of human language, from one side, and infinity of God's being from the other side have maken it difficult to achieve a clear explanation of divine attributes. Mulla Sadra says that divine attributes and human attributes share not only in expression but also in meaning and in a graded hierarchy so he makes it possible to preserve God's transcendence from one side and to understand the meaning of God's positive attributes, from the other side. Thomas Aquinas, also, attempts to avoid both anthropomorphism and isolation regarding God's attributes. He denys both sharing in expression and sharing in meaning in relation to divine and human attributes and defends the theory of analogy. In this paper we will discuss and compare these two views.

Ibn Arabi with his progressive mysticism reproduced the heritage of the previous great masters of Sufism in such a way that he is considered the forefather of the majority of mystical theologians and thinkers even up to the present time. The scope of his influence, from his own time to the appearance of Shi'ite mystics and theoreticians of the Safavid and the Qajar periods as well as contemporary thinkers is the evidence to the greatness of his soul and views. One of the most important aspects of Ibn Arabi's views in theoretical mysticism is on Sainthood (velayat) which can be divided into before and after Ibn Arabi. It is obvious that Sheikh Mahmud Shabestari's views in Golshan-e Raz is a continuation of the Ibn Arabi's tradition and his commentators such as Qaysari and Kashani. This paper is a study of the influence of Muhy al-Din Ibn Arabi's instructions on the views of Sheikh Shabastari about Sainthood and perfect man in Golestan-e Raz. Thus it is a comparative study of the views of Ibn Arabi and Sheikh Mahmud; and some inferences are made from other commentators of Ibn Arabi and mystics before him.

In the present paper I aim at epistemological assumptions defended by postmodern thinkers. I attempt to display the epistemological consistency between postmodern and religious viewpoints. In this regard I will articulate that postmodern thinkers distinguishing their epistemological ground offer and introduce a new world view by virtue of which human beings acquire more freedom. Man is not to discover a ready-made universe; rather he makes his world. This world-view has its origin in a particular cognitive view. It is argued that the idea of limitless God requires limitless world which is very difficult to be defended by modern world-view and its epistemological assumption. But post-modern system of epistemology provides a foundation by virtue of which the limitless God and world could be defended. Some thinkers view postmodern as a threat for theistic belief due to its theological consequences. On the contrary, others view postmodern as an opportunity since it produces a new world-view. In this paper I will argue for the consistency between postmodern cognitive ground and that of religion.