List of Articles argument

• Open Access Article
  • Abstract Page
  • Full-Text
  
  1 - Hakim Sabziwari’s View of the Correlation Argument on Demonstrating the Union of the Intellect and the Intelligible
  Mohammad Hadi  Tavakkoli Hussein Ali  Shidanshid
  Like Mulla Sadra, Hakim Sabziwari is an advocate of the theory of the union of the intellect and the intelligible. However, unlike him, Sabziwari has spoken differently and adopted different positions regarding the correlation argument, which is Mulla Sadra’s most impor More

  Like Mulla Sadra, Hakim Sabziwari is an advocate of the theory of the union of the intellect and the intelligible. However, unlike him, Sabziwari has spoken differently and adopted different positions regarding the correlation argument, which is Mulla Sadra’s most important argument for demonstrating the above theory. Sabziwari has sometimes called it imperfect and referred to its defects and, at other times, he has viewed it as a perfect argument and defended it. This paper analyzes and examines his different statements about the correlation argument. In conclusion, the writers maintain that Hakim Sabziwari’s interpretation of Mulla Sadra’s argument is a specific one which is, in some cases, inconsistent with Mulla Sadra’s words. They also question his reasons for rejecting this argument; however, they declare that Sabziwari’s various positions with respect to the correlation argument could be considered to be, more or less, consistent with each other. Manuscript profile
• Open Access Article
  • Abstract Page
  • Full-Text
  
  2 - Validity of Aposteriori and Apriori arguments based on the Principle of the Possessors of Causes
  Mohammad Ali  Nouri
  Logicians view both aposteriori and apriori methods of reasoning as arguments. However, the question is whether both of them enjoy equal levels of validity, and whether both attain logical certitude. Based on the principle of “the possessors”, stating that the knowledge More

  Logicians view both aposteriori and apriori methods of reasoning as arguments. However, the question is whether both of them enjoy equal levels of validity, and whether both attain logical certitude. Based on the principle of “the possessors”, stating that the knowledge of existents which have a cause can only be attained through the knowledge of their cause, Ibn Sina maintains that only the apriori argument, which attains perfect certitude, enjoys logical validity, while the aposteriori argument lacks validity since it does not attain logical certitude. However, he considers the aposteriori argument to be valid and a tool for attaining certainty through general concomitants. Unlike Ibn Sina, Mulla Sadra views all aposteriori arguments to be valid because, in his view, the existence of the effect certainly indicates the existence of the cause. As a result, the knowledge of the existence of the effect leads to the knowledge of the existence of the cause. This paper demonstrates that Ibn Sina’s idea in this regard is justified, while that of Mulla Sadra is illogical and unacceptable because of its inconsistency with well-established logical principles. Manuscript profile
• Open Access Article
  • Abstract Page
  • Full-Text
  
  3 - An Analytic Study of Ibn Sina’s Argument of the Righteous Based on its Logical Structure and Limits
   
  Ibn Sina’s argument of the righteous is one of the most important arguments on demonstrating the existence of God in Islamic tradition. After Ibn Sina, a number of prominent Muslim philosophers and mutakallimun welcomed this argument and carried out some profound studie More

  Ibn Sina’s argument of the righteous is one of the most important arguments on demonstrating the existence of God in Islamic tradition. After Ibn Sina, a number of prominent Muslim philosophers and mutakallimun welcomed this argument and carried out some profound studies in this regard in order to reveal its strengths and weaknesses following a critical approach. In spite of such efforts, there are still some ambiguities about this argument which demand more scientific research. In the present paper, the author has analyzed the form, content, and limits of the argument of the righteous based on logical principles and has demonstrated that it is an existent-oriented (not the concept of existent) and apriory argument on the basis of the impossibility of infinite regression and distinct from the argument of possibility. He also acknowledges that the argument of the righteous is no different from creature-oriented arguments in terms of epistemological value. Manuscript profile
• Open Access Article
  • Abstract Page
  • Full-Text
  
  4 - A Critical Study of the Objections against Ḥakīm Ghomsheī’s Argument on Demonstrating the Necessity of God’s Existence
  Reza Hesari Mojtaba Mirdamadi Abolfazl Rezai
  Several arguments have been adduced on demonstrating the individual unity of being. Most of these arguments, which have been presented by such gnostics as Dāvood Qayṣarī, Ḥamzah Fanārī, and Ibn Turkah, suffer from some defects in terms of a confusion of concept and refe More

  Several arguments have been adduced on demonstrating the individual unity of being. Most of these arguments, which have been presented by such gnostics as Dāvood Qayṣarī, Ḥamzah Fanārī, and Ibn Turkah, suffer from some defects in terms of a confusion of concept and referent. In his glosses on Tamhīd al-qawā’id (the section on the arguments on the demonstration of the individual unity of existence), Ḥakīm Moḥammad Rezā Ghomsheī has presented an argument which demonstrates the pre-eternal necessity of God. However, three criticisms have been advanced against it. The first concerns the meaning of the absolute nature of being, which has been stated ambiguously. The second criticism questions the confusion of concept and referent. The first part of the third criticism targets the whole argument, based on the presupposition of the realization of the essence of nature, and its second part objects to the consistency of the realization of the essence of the nature of existence with limited existences, as acknowledged in Ghomsheī’s argument. Finally, the fourth focuses on the absence of any kind of innovation in this argument. Following an analytic-comparative method, this paper examines all these criticisms and responds to the first three of them. Accordingly, the authors acknowledge the truth of Ḥakīm Ghomsheī’s argument by presenting a detailed discussion in this paper. Manuscript profile
• Open Access Article
  • Abstract Page
  • Full-Text
  
  5 - The Use of Intellect and Reasoning in Demonstrating Divine Attributes in Mullā Ṣadrā’s View
  Mozhgan Fatahi Ali  Arshad Riahi
  20.1001.1.15600874.1400.27.2.3.1
  Mullā Ṣadrā states in his works that the employment of the intellect and intellectual reasoning is efficient in the independent demonstration and understanding of divine attributes. By explaining Mullā Ṣadrā’s method of using the intellect, it becomes clear that he has More

  Mullā Ṣadrā states in his works that the employment of the intellect and intellectual reasoning is efficient in the independent demonstration and understanding of divine attributes. By explaining Mullā Ṣadrā’s method of using the intellect, it becomes clear that he has formulated his discussion based on proof and has presented some extensive and cohesive discussions about divine attributes so that the most important of which have been clearly explained and demonstrated. Based on the present study, the most important philosophical arguments and principles which Mullā Ṣadrā has explained and demonstrated in this field include ontological proof, principle of “Truth in its simplicity contains everything”, principle of “The giver of something cannot lack it”, and principle of “The Necessary Being is necessary by essence from all aspects, and providence. Mullā Ṣadrā’s extensive discussions on divine attributes, which are based on rational arguments, indicate his belief in the truth of the intellect’s independent function in this field, on the one hand, and confirm its capability in the field of epistemology of divine attributes in an independent form, on the other hand. The result of this study is the development of an approach based on distinguishing the two independent and instrumental functions of the intellect, which has not been considered in other studies previously. Not distinguishing between these two functions has resulted in attributing an irrational and unverifiable or even eclectic nature to the methodology of the Transcendent Philosophy. As a case study on divine attributes, the present study explains the rational, verifiable, and philosophical dimensions to the Sadrian Transcendent Philosophy. Manuscript profile
• Open Access Article
  • Abstract Page
  • Full-Text
  
  6 - A Critical Analysis of the Five Arguments of the Falsity of Infinite Regress of Efficient Causes in al-Asfār al-Arba‘ah
  Maryam  Khoshnevisan Seyyed Sadr al-Din  Taheri Babak  Abbasi
  20.1001.1.15600874.1401.27.3.8.2
  This study investigates and criticizes five of Mullā Ṣadrā’s main arguments for the falsity of the infinite regress of efficient causes. Given the fact that many philosophers use this principle in order to demonstrate the existence of the Necessary Being, a study of the More

  This study investigates and criticizes five of Mullā Ṣadrā’s main arguments for the falsity of the infinite regress of efficient causes. Given the fact that many philosophers use this principle in order to demonstrate the existence of the Necessary Being, a study of the objections targeting its arguments is of great importance because of its relationship with proving the existence of God. In order to achieve the purpose of this study, four arguments have been examined and criticized separately, and the fifth argument has been referred back to the fourth in terms of content and method. These arguments include “limit and middle”, “conformity”, “the most concise and precise”, “correlation 1”, and “correlation 2” arguments. The criticisms of the arguments of the falsity of regress and the importance of the falsity of the regress of efficient causes in developing some of the arguments adduced to demonstrate the Divine Essence have provoked philosophers, both Islamic and Western, to seek for other arguments to prove the existence of God in order not to rely on the falsity of the regress of causes. It is worth noting that they have had some success in this regard. At the end of this paper, without discussing the arguments and while summarizing and concluding the remarks, the authors refer to two famous arguments: Mullā Ṣadrā’s argument of the righteous in Islamic philosophy and Anselm’s ontological argument in Western philosophy. These two arguments are semi-casual and semi-analytical because they are not based on any premise that needs to be proved. Manuscript profile