The theory of Ideas is one of the important philosophical theories which has influenced the views of most philosophers in various periods, and many of them have confirmed or rejected it. The majority of Muslim philosophers have also had to investigate this theory and fi More
The theory of Ideas is one of the important philosophical theories which has influenced the views of most philosophers in various periods, and many of them have confirmed or rejected it. The majority of Muslim philosophers have also had to investigate this theory and finally accept it in general. However, they have often interpreted it within the framework of their own philosophical system. Mulla Sadra believes that he has presented an interpretation of the theory of Ideas based on his own philosophical principles which is completely compatible with Plato’s intention. The question is, given the fact that the theory of Ideas is inconsistent with Mulla Sadra’s philosophical principles from many aspects, such as those related to his psychology, was his philosophical endeavor successful? The present research aims to provide an answer to this question through analyzing and exploring the psychological concomitants arising from this theory. Here, after a thorough investigation of the psychological dimensions and concomitants of this theory and explaining Mulla Sadra’s view and defense in this regard, the writers portray the inconsistencies between the psychological principles of the Transcendent Philosophy and the concomitants of the Platonic theory of Ideas while providing a general explanation of Sadrian psychology. Following this, they question Mulla Sadra’s strict defense of this theory. Finally, they conclude that Plato’s belief in the pre-eternity of the soul, his theory of reminiscence of knowledge, and the restriction of his psychology to rational immateriality and its separation from corporeal body, versus Mulla Sadra’s theory of the corporeal origination of the soul and his belief in the acquisition of knowledge and the copulative existence of the soul are among the most important differences between the philosophical schools of these two philosophers. As a result, any attempt to reconcile their views with each other would be futile.