abdolali shokr; sedighe mirzaee
Volume 12, Issue 45 , April 2016, , Pages 65-78
Abstract
Acceptance and affirmation of principality of existence, requires the acceptance of existence being made. Therefore, principality of existence is in cohesion with it's made; although there are some differences between the two subjects. On the basis of Transcendental Wisdom, criterion of being made is ...
Read More
Acceptance and affirmation of principality of existence, requires the acceptance of existence being made. Therefore, principality of existence is in cohesion with it's made; although there are some differences between the two subjects. On the basis of Transcendental Wisdom, criterion of being made is determined based on copulative existence. Copulative existence means total dependence on other. What is absolutely dependent on the cause, it is a real made of it. In Sadra's school, there are differences between the meaning of copulative existence and copulative existence in the proposition one, something that has been neglected in Kant thought. As critique to Anselm's ontological argument, Kant believes that the existence does not cause any increase in the subject, but it is only copulative existence. Criterion of being predicative is increase in subject. This expression is different of something research in transcendentalism; because Kant refers only to the copulative existence in proposition. But Mulla Sadra refers to another kind of copulative existence which obtained from the analysis of the principle of causality. According to this view, all possibilities will be absolutely related to God. He divided the propositions into composition whetherness and simple whetherness. Predicate in the second one, is existence. Kant says that these kinds of propositions are meaningless. He believes that proposition 'God exists' is not synthetic and not analytic. But Mulla Sadra says that proposition 'God exists' means: the affirmation of the self-identity of a thing. So, in simple whetherness proposition, predicative existence does not increase in subject, because of the quiddity being mentally-posited and fundamental reality of existence.
monireh palangi
Abstract
The present article is an attempt to assess the views of those philosophers who are the exponents or founders of a particular school of thought on emanation or making. In the beginning, it seems that we can generally divide the philosophers only into two groups: one group consider causality and making ...
Read More
The present article is an attempt to assess the views of those philosophers who are the exponents or founders of a particular school of thought on emanation or making. In the beginning, it seems that we can generally divide the philosophers only into two groups: one group consider causality and making in its usual sense within the framework of multiplicity and differences of beings, hence consider making as emanation, which results in the expansion of the scope of being or beings. The other group with respect to the pure unity of being think that the augmentation of the scope of being is impossible and interpret causality as manifestation or expression of that pure one being. But, despite this initial impression, we will find that in the second group thinkers like Mulla Sadra, despite their notion of the oneness of being and considering the exalted origin of being as al-fa'il bil-tajalli (agent by expression), advocated the possibility of being made the nature of being, and this idea is a noticeable view. On the other hand, we have philosophers, like Suhrawardi, who consider quiddities as made, and unlike others founded a system based on 'light' rather than 'being' or 'existence', and at the same time think about both 'light' and 'darkness' as something emanated or made. In this way, practically we are concerned with philosophers with different strains in this regard. Even if they are included within the first two divisions, because of their particular features, they will be separated from others in other sub-divisions. At the end, we will conclude that some philosophers never carried out a profound and comprehensive study on the meaning of emanation and making as fitted with rational and philosophical standards, and it seems that they dealt with the issue of causality insufficiently. With reference to their effective foundation, we considered that issue in order to show that some of them even failed to base this issue on their own ontology, so that they had two different approaches.
