Milad Nouri Yalghuz-aghaji; Majid Ahsan
Abstract
Modern thought, focusing on spatiotemporal connections of human beings and emphasizing science, technology, and earthy bliss, has ignored the idea of ultimate and otherworldly bliss as a form of asceticism. It thus filled with Nihilism and Dysphoria. It was while human beings in the classic world emphasizing ...
Read More
Modern thought, focusing on spatiotemporal connections of human beings and emphasizing science, technology, and earthy bliss, has ignored the idea of ultimate and otherworldly bliss as a form of asceticism. It thus filled with Nihilism and Dysphoria. It was while human beings in the classic world emphasizing the hereafter bliss were ignoring the importance of life and happiness in this world. Nowhere, neither the results of modern thought nor the classic lifestyle cut off the earthy bliss is desirable. The issue is how to achieve an attitude beyond their problems and obstructions? This article has turned its attention to this issue through a descriptive-analytical method. It seems that on the basis of the Primacy of Existence (Isalat al-Wujud), any duality is artificial and unreal. Insisting on the unity of the modes and moments of reality, we can emphasize the unity of the soul and body, saying that happiness in this world and that world are in parallel. The result according to us is that the path of heaven passes through the earth, and the prosperity of the other world as the interior of this world can be possible only through the prosperity and protection of the present one.
Morteza Pouyan
Abstract
There is no doubt that both Mulla Sadra and Allame believe that philosophical necessity holds in external world; they begin their philosophy by necessity as well. Necessity is actually the origin and basis of all beings and truths in external world, one can even argue that it is the same as the objectivity ...
Read More
There is no doubt that both Mulla Sadra and Allame believe that philosophical necessity holds in external world; they begin their philosophy by necessity as well. Necessity is actually the origin and basis of all beings and truths in external world, one can even argue that it is the same as the objectivity of things. It is, whatever being devoid of necessity, is devoid of objectivity and reality. But Mulla Sadra and Allame differ in the origin of such necessity. Each of these philosopher’s abstract necessity from one thing. Whereas Mulla Sadra takes necessity from being, Allame takes it from reality as such. In other words, for Mulla Sadra the basis of philosophical necessity of things lies in the being and for Allame in reality as such. Mulla Sadra, therefore, begins his philosophy from being and Allame from the reality of things. In this paper, we consider first the question of how they differ in the origin of abstraction of philosophical necessity and then the question of which philosophical and practical consequences follow from these two views.
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.
reza akbarian; amili noigeliz
Abstract
Even though Mulla Sadra and Jacob Boehme come from two different traditions and despite the absence of philosophical formation of the latter, a similar visionary experience led them to lay the basis of a conception of man which has many shared aspects. The issue of the relation between his body and soul ...
Read More
Even though Mulla Sadra and Jacob Boehme come from two different traditions and despite the absence of philosophical formation of the latter, a similar visionary experience led them to lay the basis of a conception of man which has many shared aspects. The issue of the relation between his body and soul enables us to seize some of these similarities, especially concerning the aim of man's terrestrial life in light of eschatology. In both cases, terrestrial life enables man to grow progressively his own "body of resurrection" which will remain in the outer world after the death of his material body. However, on the basis of his conception of the principiality and unity of existence as well as its modulated nature, Mulla Sadra presents a conception of the relation of body and soul characterized by a deep unity, and introduces the central notion of creative imagination, whereas Boehme conceives their relation through a frame of his ontology marked by a perpetual opposition of contraries. Nevertheless, both thoughts grant a great importance to body since, although it is the place of perpetual temptation and may induce man’s fall, it is also, and above all, a "temple" in which a celestial body is progressively constituted. This "body of resurrection" will remain after the death of the corporal body, taking the shape of the person's thought and acts during his terrestrial life. Therefore, this vision led both philosophers to account for the personal dimension of resurrection, and the centrality of the individual.
