In his books of al-Qabasat and al-Ufuq al-mobin, Mir Damad has presented two arguments against the annexed nature of existence. In this paper, the writer deals with two questions regarding these arguments. The first is whether Mir Damad’s arguments have a historical bac More
In his books of al-Qabasat and al-Ufuq al-mobin, Mir Damad has presented two arguments against the annexed nature of existence. In this paper, the writer deals with two questions regarding these arguments. The first is whether Mir Damad’s arguments have a historical background, and the second is whether their consequences support his theory on the derivation of “existent”. Here, the first question is answered briefly by presenting two of the most famous arguments of philosophers and mutikallimun (particularly, Suhrawardi’s famous argument and that of the commentator of Maqasid). Next, the writer provides some reasons indicating that not only are Mir Damad’s arguments different from them but they are also logically and polemically superior to them. Nevertheless, a complete response is given to the second question by arguing that if we take one of Mir Damad’s theories of existence (non-precedence of existence to the object) for granted, the non-annexed nature of existence would result in the non-derivation of the “existent”.
Manuscript profile
