hamedeh rastaei jahromi; Aliasghar Mosleh
Abstract
Although the matter of the “Other” have not been considered by Muslim scholars as an independent issue, there is capacity to discuss the matter in all schools of thought in the Islamic world, especially that of mysticism. For this reason, one can examine the “other” in the works ...
Read More
Although the matter of the “Other” have not been considered by Muslim scholars as an independent issue, there is capacity to discuss the matter in all schools of thought in the Islamic world, especially that of mysticism. For this reason, one can examine the “other” in the works of Ibn Arabi as a representative Islamic mysticism and search his intellectual foundations. The fundamentals such as the symbolism of divine names, the widespread adoption of the field of salvation, and the inaccessibility of the whole truth can clarify the position of this well-known mystic against the “other”. One of the most important foundations of Ibn Arabi’s ontology in his approach to the “other” is the symbolism of divine names and considering the “other” as one of the divine names. Avoiding monopoly on truth and knowing the “other” from bliss and salvation is also a positive view towards the “other”. Ibn Arabi’s emphasis on the lack of clarity of the truth and it not being exclusive to a particular group or sect will lead to search for truth in the religion of the “other”.
amir nasri
Abstract
Pseudo-Dionysius's view on evil was influenced by Neoplatonic tradition. Like Neoplatonic philosophers, he believed evil to be the absence of good and of no actual existence as all creatures were good and shared this quality. In other words, things lacking good would have no existence at all. Accordingly, ...
Read More
Pseudo-Dionysius's view on evil was influenced by Neoplatonic tradition. Like Neoplatonic philosophers, he believed evil to be the absence of good and of no actual existence as all creatures were good and shared this quality. In other words, things lacking good would have no existence at all. Accordingly, Pseudo-Dionysius defined evil as lack of perfection and related it to the descent of the soul or the fall of man. In his view on evil, Pseudo-Dionysius was mostly influenced by Proclus, with whom he shared the belief that matter should not be considered evil, a view which stood in opposition with those of Plotinus. Furthermore, He was more concerned with philosophical issues than theological ones. Therefore, his views are penned in a language borrowed form Neoplatonic philosophers which bears little resemblance to the rhetoric of the Holy Scriptures.