حکمت و فلسفه

As a rule, the introduction of scripts usually contains basic hints that through forthcoming lines will be explored and developed in more detail. The same is true about the introduction of Plato’s Politeia or Republic Book One. The mentioned dialogue is about the constitution of polis in philosophical manner, but it does begin with a religious narration about a civic foreign religion and gradually develops into the philosophy of city-state. This occasion makes it necessary to have a deep look at this phenomenon and see what implicit points are contained. In this regard, it seems that the pair hiera / hosia can provide a suitable conceptual framework for ordering and understanding of the introduction.

The importance of modernity is because of man's place as the axis of all beings and existents like God and the World, and they get their meaning and validity in the light of him. Although man has reason and freedom and he is the noble master of all creatures, in the meanwhile, he has many defects in his existence, and his accomplishments have been gradually increased during the centuries. Hence, we can say that man actually and absolutely does not have any perfection, and he cannot get his achievements perfectly. However, with changing in the relationship between man, God, and the world during the modernity age, the whole of man's approaches to God and the world changed, and this brings about some basic problems and crises. In this process, man gained and acquired a kind of genuineness and principality towards God and the existents of world that their place and importance, especially divine truths like God, were defined in the light of human epistemic abilities and their validity were depended on human knowledge. Hence, the place of divine truths was lowered to the limits of human understanding, which I call it the humanization of divine truths. On the other hand, because of his weakness for understanding the divine truths, man has gradually put them aside from his philosophical thought, and has recognized them meaningless. In the meanwhile, he has tried to understand the empirical world and its managing without considering what is beyond it. I call this demystification of the existents by the other areas such as ethics, politics, and even science, which all of them have been depended on the human being. Consequently, certainty and truth became humanistic, that is, man became as the axis of certainty and truth, which the most important result of that is the relativity of certainty and its restriction to human knowledge, will, and ability. This paper tries to discuss the above subjects, considering some of the important thinkers of modern and postmodern philosophy like as Descartes, Kant, Nietzsche, Sartre, and Heidegger. It also attempts to show that although Heidegger complained to subjectivism and modernistic approach of truth, his effort to redefine truth and certainty was not successful and could not rescue it from a crisis. That is because he could not go beyond human understanding to reach a holy and absolute certainty and truth, while – according to this paper – the only real way is paying attention to divine certainty, revelation, and God.

The rationally and theologically analyzed meaning of Badā, as one of the most fundamental theological doctrines of the Imamites (Twelver Shiism), is not heretical but is compatible with Intellect and Narrations. The Sunnites disapprove Badā in their narrative and theological works and regard it as a heresy. On the contrary, the Imamites believe that if the real meaning of the term is clarified, which is the main purpose of the present paper, all Muslims will accept it. This paper briefly reviews the views of famous Sunnite scholars regarding Badā, and then by using analytical method discusses in detail the idea of Shiite theologians about this concept. Critical issues such as literal and technical meanings of Badā, the difference between Badā and Naskh (Abrogation), the relationship between Badā and God’s knowledge will be discussed. The article concludes that Badā is a concept compatible with the two most important sources of Islamic doctrines, that is, ‘Aql (Intellect) and Naql (Narrations); we are drawing on these two sources because of their relationship with Shiism and Sunniism as two Islamic sects.

Plato is the first philosopher who states his political views in a sound philosophical system. The testimony to this statement is his two important works, i.e. Republic (Politeia) and Laws (Nomoi) in which one can trace his political views. Plato’s political writings indicate that his life as a great philosopher has never been devoid of the political and social issues of his time. The fusion of politics, metaphysics, ethics and education in Plato’s works demonstrate that he was involved in political and social problems in an important and eventful period. Since no thought is created without passing through the historical bottlenecks, an attempt is made here to examine the impacts of Greece’s eventful and flourishing period, i.e. the fifth century B.C., on Plato’s political views as the recognition of the effective factors influencing the views of a philosopher which will help the researcher understand the historical trends.

Fārābī discusses art in two levels: art as it is, and art as it should be or the utopian art. Considering art as it is includes desirable and undesirable arts. But the utopian art or art as the working of the utopian artist consists only of desirable ones. When describing the desirable art, Fārābī focuses on bringing goodness and happiness into imagination and moderating the feelings. Undesirable and wicked arts are just on the opposite side of desirable ones. They seek to corrupt thoughts and tend to immoderate sensual qualities and moods. In Fārābī's view, people understand the intelligible truths and meanings through imagination. Furthermore, the arousal of people’s feelings and emotions often originates from the imagination and the imaginary forms. The ultimate goal of the utopia is that the public achieve the intelligible happiness. Given that the public, based on their nature or habit, are not able to perceive the intelligible truths, the intelligible happiness should be transferred to their imagination. The utopian artist is able to embody the intelligible happiness using sensory and imaginary forms and he/she brings the intelligible happiness close to people's minds through their imagination.

The concept of time, its existence, ontology, and epistemology are considered as a pivotal philosophical issue from the ancient Greek time up to now. Aristotle explicitly deals with this subject. His notion of time can be also seen in Avicenna’s writings. This point have arisen many questions and discussions concerning that whether Avicenna as a commentator of Aristotle simply narrates Aristotle’s view, or he elaborates and develops Aristotle’s idea and presents his own view. The aim of this paper is to study this issue and discuss about the viewpoints of some Muslim scholars who believe that Avicenna’s idea is not fundamentally different from that of Aristotle. In addition, we study the viewpoints of those who believe that although Avicenna uses the same structure as Aristotle did, his specific considerations make his theory of time distinctive. The paper elaborates that, in some senses, there are at least two differences between these two philosophers: regarding the derivative / non-derivative conceptions of time, and regarding the divisibility / indivisibility of time.

The issue of causation is one of the most important philosophical issues, so that without having a good understanding of this concept, it is impossible to understand the world. Any kind of discussion, speaking, and experience, or any human action is based on some kind of understanding of the concept of causation and accepting its reality. The issue of causation can be discussed from various aspects. Modern Western philosophers including Hume and Kant have treated this issue from epistemological point of view. But Muslim philosophers consider it as an ontological one. Mullah Sadrā as a great Muslim philosopher has dealt with this issue and has given its correct meaning with reference to its various forms in his works particularly, in his main book al-Asfār. By proving the principality of existence and mentally-positedness of quiddity, he claimed that it is not possible to explain causation on the basis of quiddity and quiddative possibility. At first, he explained causation on the basis of gradational unity of existence, but since this unity may lead to the separation of cause and effect, he finally by following a mystical approach to this principle, shifted from gradational unity to the individual unity of existence. He explained the principle of causation with reference to the mystical oneness of being, since there is no room for multiplicity. In such an approach, effect will be nothing other than a symbol or sign and has no identity other than a kind of mirror