KHERADNAME-YE SADRA
Year:2006 | Volume:12 | Issue:45|Papers Count:8

In the field of religious studies, like any other field, the development of each phenomenon is due to one or some causes. Scientific inquiries into the issue of religious experience, a relatively new phenomenon, are not exceptions in this regard, and various factors have played a role in their development. They include harsh attacks against natural theology, Protestants' views and their conflicts with Catholics, their critique of the Scripture, the influence of Lord Herbert and those who were of the same mind with him, and the impacts of Enlightenment philosophy, idealism, Romantism and Pietism, and Kant's ideas.

Traditionally, truth has been defined as the correspondence between the mental concept and a fact, so that the former (concept or judgment) signifies a fact.The above definition was first given by Aristotle. It gradually found its way into Islamic philosophy and was accepted by a great number of philosophers.In addition to the common definition of truth, some other definitions were later provided by those following the theory of coherence and pragmatism, for example. In all these definitions, truth is considered as the description of the proposition.In this paper, the writer, in addition to clarifying the viewpoints of Mulla Sadra and Heidegger concerning the concept of truth, explains why these two philosophers find the Aristotelian definition of truth to be insufficient and pay attention to the one provided by pre-Aristotelian Greeks. According to them, truth must be defined in the realm of the presential knowledge and in the sense of unveiling existence and its levels.In the ontology intended by Mulla Sadra and Heidegger, truth in the sense of the description of the proposition or judgment is criticized.However, it is not denied. In other words, in this view truth in its common meaning is only one of the levels of truth rather than all of it. Here, it has also been called "sidq" (truth) or "logical truth".

Proving the existence of God has always been at the core of philosophical discussions. One of the arguments employed in order to demonstrate the existence of God is the argument of motion. In this paper, the writer has tried to compare the notion of the First Mover from the viewpoints of Aristotle and Mulla Sadra, as two prominent Greek and Islamic philosophers. He has also explained the possible differences between the ways they have tried to demonstrate the existence of the First Mover.

One of the most important purposes of education is to train a "perfect man". However, the concept of the perfect man Js one of the topics that have been discussed by philosophers, sages, and gnostics since long ago. It is also of interest to psychologists nowadays. The Iranian ancient schools of thought showed their attention to the idea of the perfect man by referring to certain concepts such as the "eternal man", or the "primary man".Nevertheless, the origin of this idea is considered to be the Islamic-Iranian gnosis. Hallaj, Ibn 'Arabi, 'Abdulkarim Gilani, 'Aziz al-Din Nasafi, Shams Tabrizi, and Rumi are among the most prominent gnostics who, due to their interests, have portrayed the picture of the perfect man following a Gnostic approach based on love, unveiling, and intuition. Iranian philosophers and sages such as Farabi, Ibn Sina, Miskawayah, and Khwajah Nasir al-Din Tusi followed a philosophical and rationalist approach towards the perfect man. However, Mulla Sadra described perfection based on both approaches.In this paper, which is the result of a comparative study, the writer has initially tried to discuss the significant theories of the above-mentioned philosophers and thinkers in this regard briefly. Then he has compared them with each other in order to determine their commonalities and differences.

Death and immortality have always been among the most fundamental topics occupying man's mind. In fact, the issues related to the quality of immortality after deaths have always enjoyed newness, and various theories and ideas have been presented in this regard. The theory of metempsychosis introduces one of the oldest human beliefs. Like other early philosophers, Suhrawardi also dealt with this issue in detail in his various works except for Hikmat al-ishraq. He mainly talked about the impossibility of metempsychosis and its absurdity and followed the theories of Peripatetic philosophy in this regard. However, his denial of this issue, specifically in the above-mentioned book, lost color, and it seems that he did not intend to give up this theory. The purpose of this paper is to study and discover his final view in this regard.The paper concludes that, considering his own principles, Suhrawardi must have been against metempsychosis; however, his final words in Hikmat al-ishraq, which, in a way, represent his ultimate view of this theory. Show his doubts in this regard. Thus we can neither accept that he finally refuted metempsychosis nor agree that he believed in it. Perhaps his doubts and hesitations in this respect were inspired by lack of a distinction between resurrection and metempsychosis in the words of the people of intuition, his own intuitions, as well as the secretive nature of the words of ancient Iranian and Greek philosophers.

The present paper deals with man's descent and ascent in the arcs of descent and ascent. It explains man's evolution in the world on the basis of certain philosophical principles. Since this process has no end and is rooted in man's essence, his development will continue in the intermediate world (barzakh) and the Hereafter. However, considering the infinity of the Divine Essence, Names, and Attributes, if man wishes to become theosis, he cannot stop at any point of this process of development and must go on until eternity.

Logos is the key to knowing Heraclites. In order to perceive his ideas in this regard, it is first necessary to take some preliminary steps, as follows:1. Paying attention to the hidden meaning of Logos rather than focusing on its literal translation. None of the equivalents of this word in other languages truly represents its meaning.2. Analyzing the process of the development of the concept of Logos and trying to obtain a more thorough and unbiased perception of the original meaning of Logos, as intended by the Greek and without imposing the modem principles of knowledge on it.3. Gaining familiarity with the culture of ancient Greece and the views of ancient Greeks concerning the world in order to explore the complicated and intricate relations between Logos and other basic concepts such as manifestation, truth, and nature.4. Learning about Heraclites' profound views regarding Logos in Greek culture and his contributions to the enrichment of this concept.5. Perceiving the principal, sublime, and harmonious worldview that Logos has created in order to unite the three fields of thought, ethics, and language with each other.After going through the above stages, one can provide a convincing answer to the following question: Is Herac1ites a philosopher who speaks ambiguously or a multi-dimensional thinker and one of the most prominent of all brilliant figures of the field of human thought whose figurative language requires a thorough study of Greek culture in order to be understood perfectly?