List of articles (by subject) Studies on Sadrian philosophers and commentators and critics of Mulla Sadra
-
Open Access Article
1 - A Study of Ḥakīm Khājūī’s Objections to the Gnostic Theory of Oneness of Being
Mahmud Seydi Mohammad Javad PashaeiAs the basis of theoretical gnosis, oneness of being has provoked several debates among thinkers in the history of Islamic philosophy. Mullā Ismā‘īl Khājūī, one of the thinkers and Mutikallimun of the Safavid period and post-Sadrian era, has criticized this theory and c MoreAs the basis of theoretical gnosis, oneness of being has provoked several debates among thinkers in the history of Islamic philosophy. Mullā Ismā‘īl Khājūī, one of the thinkers and Mutikallimun of the Safavid period and post-Sadrian era, has criticized this theory and challenged it from different aspects. Khājūī rejects this theory based on the ontological differences between the Necessary Being and possible beings, absence of absoluteness in the Necessary Being, the lack of a rational argument for demonstrating the oneness of being, and the inefficiency of the arguments of some gnostics and mystics on proving this oneness. However, the present study postulates that Khājūī’s criticisms originate in confusing the different meanings of certain key terms in philosophical sciences and kalām with those in theoretical gnosis. Nevertheless, it seems that in certain cases, such as gnostics’ failure in adducing a rational argument for demonstrating the oneness of being, his criticism is justified. Manuscript profile -
Open Access Article
2 - Listener (Locus of Manifestation) and Source (Emanator) Intellects in Jawadi Amuli (with an Emphasis on Misbah Yazdi’s Views)
Rohollah Adineh Roghayeh MosaviThe discussion of intellectual perception and the quality of intellection holds an important place in epistemology. Islamic philosophers have followed various approaches to explaining the mechanism of intellection. Mullā Ṣadrā has also used different expressions for cla MoreThe discussion of intellectual perception and the quality of intellection holds an important place in epistemology. Islamic philosophers have followed various approaches to explaining the mechanism of intellection. Mullā Ṣadrā has also used different expressions for clarifying the process of general perception. He views the intellect sometimes as a locus of manifestation or epiphany (listener) and sometimes as an emanator (source) of intellectual forms. Accordingly, each of the researchers and commentators of Sadrian philosophy has tried to justify the differences between the words he has used in some way. As a neo-Sadrian philosopher, Jawadi Amuli posits some discussions in his works that can introduce a new view of the process of rational perception. Following a descriptive-analytic method, the present study demonstrates that, Jawadi Amuli has directly referred to two types of rational perception and the necessity to separate them from each other. In one of them, the intellect is a listener, and the general perception is the result of conscious rational intuition and passivity of the soul. Here, perception is limited to a special group. In the other one, the intellect functions as a source, and the general perception is the outcome of mental and soulish activities. All people are capable of this kind of intellectual perception. Manuscript profile -
Open Access Article
3 - A Critical Study of Haeri Yazdi’s View of the Sadrian Semantic Function of “Possibility” in Explaining the Sinan Argument of the Righteous
Hamidreza KhademiThe argument of the righteous (Burhān al-Ṣiddīqīn) demonstrates the essence of the Necessary Being without resorting to an intermediary. This title was chosen for the first time by Ibn Sīnā in order to provide a new interpretation of an argument that Fārābī had previous MoreThe argument of the righteous (Burhān al-Ṣiddīqīn) demonstrates the essence of the Necessary Being without resorting to an intermediary. This title was chosen for the first time by Ibn Sīnā in order to provide a new interpretation of an argument that Fārābī had previously adduced. The argument of the righteous is one of the best and most concise philosophical and rational arguments on demonstrating the existence of God.This argument reasons from “being” to the “Necessary Being” so that none of God’s acts, such as motion or origination, functions as the middle term. Haeri Yazdi has tried to respond to the problems of this argument by explaining the meaning of possibility in the Peripatetic and Transcendent Schools of philosophy. Given his accurate analysis of the meaning of possibility, he believes that it can be used as a basis for proving the existence of the Necessary Being; therefore, it is not necessary to resort to the impossibility of infinite regression. Following an analytic comparative method and based on Mullā Ṣadrā’s valid criteria for the truth of the argument of the righteous, the present paper analyzes and examines Haeri Yazdi’s interpretation and shows that his view is not immune to criticism. Manuscript profile -
Open Access Article
4 - A Comparative Study of Muṭahharī’s Theory of Fiṭrah and Kant’s Practical Reason
Omid Arjomand Ghasem KakaieMurtaḍā Muṭahharī, one of the prominent thinkers in the field of Islamic Philosophy, and Immanuel Kant, one of the great thinkers of Western philosophy, have presented some innovative theories in the realm of philosophy. The “theory of fiṭrah” is one of the most signifi MoreMurtaḍā Muṭahharī, one of the prominent thinkers in the field of Islamic Philosophy, and Immanuel Kant, one of the great thinkers of Western philosophy, have presented some innovative theories in the realm of philosophy. The “theory of fiṭrah” is one of the most significant theories in Muṭahharī’s philosophical system. He maintains that Man possesses three levels of nature, instinct, and fiṭrah (primordial nature) and also divides fiṭrah itself into two parts: “fiṭrah of knowledge” and “fiṭrah of interest”. Most of Muṭahharī’s innovative ideas, particularly when explaining some topics “such as God, eternity of the soul, and ethics, have been presented in his discussions related to fiṭrah of interest.” On the other hand, as a distinguished and influential philosopher, Kant has criticized metaphysical issues, particularly problems in connection to God, immortality of the soul, and freedom, and transferred them to the realm of “practical reason” from theoretical reason. Muṭahharī’s theory of fiṭrah and, particularly, the discussion of fiṭrī interests and the related issues, such as demonstration of God, immortality of the soul, and ethics, are completely comparable to Kant’s theory of practical reason, specifically the discussion of the essential principles of practical reason, including freedom, eternity of the soul, and God. The purpose of this study is to compare Muṭahharī’s theory of fiṭrah and Kant’s theory of practical reason and to explain their common features, that is, the similarity of infinite perfection with supreme good, the similarity of their methods of demonstrating the eternity and God, and the similarity of their views as to status of philosophy of ethics. The author has followed a descriptive-analytic and comparative approach in order to conduct this study based on the data collected from these two thinkers’ works. Manuscript profile -
Open Access Article
5 - A Comparison of the Immateriality of Sensory and Imaginal Perceptions with the Growing Block View of Time
Mahdi AssadiOne of the important problems that has remained untouched in Sadrian philosophy is the growing block view of time. On the basis of the growing view of time is the non-existence of future, while the past and present have their fixed places. Muslim philosophers have not d MoreOne of the important problems that has remained untouched in Sadrian philosophy is the growing block view of time. On the basis of the growing view of time is the non-existence of future, while the past and present have their fixed places. Muslim philosophers have not directly addressed this idea; however, it seems to be necessary for demonstrating some statements of Sadrian philosophers about the immateriality of sensory and imaginal perceptions and memory. When we perceive something using our senses or imagination, the perception remains in our mind exactly in the same way that it had appeared. This paper is intended to illustrate that this view is, in fact, unrelated to immateriality and, in case of admissibility of its arguments, can only prove the growing block view of time. In line with this approach, the author has critically examined the literature on this theory in pre-Sadrian philosophers, particularly Suhrawardī’s claim as to attributing the idea of the growing block to some thinkers. Suhrawardī maintains that, as each of the motions has come into existence, so the whole of the motions have come into existence, and they are together in existence. Manuscript profile