مطالب مرتبط با کلیدواژه
۱.
۲.
۳.
۴.
۵.
۶.
۷.
۸.
۹.
۱۰.
God
منبع:
pure life, Volume ۲, Issue ۲, Winter ۲۰۱۵
175 - 223
حوزه های تخصصی:
Bu məqalədə İbrahimi dinlərdə; yəni yəhudilik, məsihilik və islamda Allah-taalanın həqiqəti haqda olan fikirlər sizlər üçün açıqlanacaq və sonda müqayisə olacaq.
A Comparative Study between the Attributes of Jesus in Christian Theology and Muhammadan Reality in Islamic Theosophy(مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
منبع:
پژوهش های فلسفی پاییز ۱۳۹۹ شماره ۳۲
29 - 47
حوزه های تخصصی:
In this paper, the attributes of Jesus as the second person of Trinity in Christianity and Muhammadan Reality in Islamic Theosophy were compared. The term ''Muhammadan Reality'' in Islamic Theosophy refers to transcendental and divine being of Muhammad rather than his human and historic existence. According to this research, both Jesus and Muhammadan Realities have divine attributes. They are lights of God, the Word or the Pen of God, the creators of the word, omniscience, omnipotent, omnibenevolent as well as the intermediaries between God and humans. In this study, it is demonstrated that what happened to Jesus in Christianity, it has also happened to Muhammad in Islamic theosophy with some differences. The influence of Greek philosophy, especially Platonic, in ascribing these attributes to Jesus in Christianity and Muhammad in Islamic theosophy is undeniable. There is a strong temptation among the scholars of both religions, Islam and Christianity, to extend Jesus and Muhammad to the level of divinity and godhead.
Mulla Sadra and God's Detailed Knowledge of Things
منبع:
فصلنامه حکمت و فلسفه ۱۳۸۴ شماره ۳
61 - 76
حوزه های تخصصی:
Plato maintained that God's knoivledge of things consisted of se!f existent externalforms, i.e. Ideas. Plato's belief has been criticized lry Mui/a 5adra and others. Avicenna believes since God is the knower of His own essence which is the complete cause of things, He is the knower of things. His knowledge of things is a general kn01v!edge and general, in this sense, means lack of transformation of knowledge in accordance witb the transformation of knmvn object. The philosophers after Avicenna criticized him, because his belief necessitates the obstacle of the evacuation of the essence of God from peifection and the dread of subsistence of the empirica! knowledge is essentialfor one who is by essence and act non-material. 5hqykh Ishraq maintains that things, whether material or non-material, are presentfor God, the Exalted, by their own concrete existence. There are also criticisms on 5hqykh Ishraq 's notion, among them is that his opinion on the presence of material things is prohibitedfor God, the Exalted, because materiality and presence do not aggregate. 5adr ul-Muta'alehin has affirmed the detailed kno1vledge of God through the principle of "simple reality is all things" i.e. the knowledge of the Necessary Being of all things is actualized in the stage of His essence before the existence of those things. Allameh Tabatabaii rationalizes the detailed knoivledge of God by the existential application of God which is essential for the assumption of necessity of the existence in• itse!f.
Mulla Sadra and God's Detailed Knowledge of Things
منبع:
فصلنامه حکمت و فلسفه ۱۳۸۵ شماره ۷
69 - 84
حوزه های تخصصی:
Plato maintained that God's knoivledge of things consisted of se!f existent externalforms, i.e. Ideas. Plato's belief has been criticized lry Mui/a 5adra and others. Avicenna believes since God is the knower of His own essence which is the complete cause of things, He is the knower of things. His knowledge of things is a general kn01v!edge and general, in this sense, means lack of transformation of knowledge in accordance witb the transformation of knmvn object. The philosophers after Avicenna criticized him, because his belief necessitates the obstacle of the evacuation of the essence of God from peifection and the dread of subsistence of the empirica! knowledge is essentialfor one who is by essence and act non-material. 5hqykh Ishraq maintains that things, whether material or non-material, are presentfor God, the Exalted, by their own concrete existence. There are also criticisms on 5hqykh Ishraq 's notion, among them is that his opinion on the presence of material things is prohibitedfor God, the Exalted, because materiality and presence do not aggregate. 5adr ul-Muta'alehin has affirmed the detailed kno1vledge of God through the principle of "simple reality is all things" i.e. the knowledge of the Necessary Being of all things is actualized in the stage of His essence before the existence of those things. Allameh Tabatabaii rationalizes the detailed knoivledge of God by the existential application of God which is essential for the assumption of necessity of the existence in• itse!f.
Merleau-Ponty, Theology and GOD(مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
منبع:
پژوهش های فلسفی زمستان ۱۴۰۱ شماره ۴۱
348 - 372
Somewhat surprisingly, a number of scholars have recently claimed to find an implied theology in Merleau-Ponty’s philosophy. This surprising because the author does not state anywhere in the body of his work that he seeks to align his philosophy with a theology, in fact he states just the opposite, as we shall see. While it is true that Merleau-Ponty does dialogue with certain views of Christianity, and while it is true that he does argue for a religion that treats the divine as “horizontal” rather than “vertical,” that is, as part of human life rather than beyond it, the sympathetic goal of his reflection here is to suggest a Christianity that is more humane and less dogmatically hierarchical, that is more centered in human experience rather than an absolute other. His goal here is certainly not to claim this theology as an essential part of his philosophy. As he says, the role of the philosopher should not be to prove or disprove the existence of God but to consider what God means to human beings in the movement of history. A number of Merleau-Ponty’s own texts will be consider here in some detail along with a variety of texts that claim that his works harbor a hidden theology.
Being Commanded by God: Katharsis for Righteousness(مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
حوزه های تخصصی:
Many people in Jewish, Christian, and Islamic monotheistic traditions testify to their experience of being commanded by God to do something or to be a certain way. Is this kind of testimony from experience credible in some cases, and, if so, on what ground? The main thesis of this article is that it is credible in some cases and a suitable ground is available in the morally purifying experience of the human conscience. The article looks to the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament, and the Qur’an for relevant testimony to the importance of righteous divine commanding experienced by humans. The relevant commands are not abstract or merely theoretical but grounded in human moral experience and potentially motivating for righteous action. The article doubts that God would be God if there were no divine commanding given directly to receptive people in their moral experience. It contends that God would not be a morally righteous guide of the divine kind needed for the worthiness of worship by humans in the absence of God’s commanding people directly in their experience.
The Explanation of the Relationship between Religion and Philosophy Based on Concreteness of Absolute Spirit in The Phenomenology of Spirit
منبع:
Theosophia Islamica, Vol ۲,No ۲, Issue ۴, (۲۰۲۲)
32 - 59
حوزه های تخصصی:
According to The Phenomenology of Spirit , the religion and philosophy are considered as important stages of the history of consciousness, and the absolute spirit is to become self-conscious of itself, as spirit, in the process of genesis of these two stages. The central issue of the present article is answering the following questions: “What relationship does Hegel establish between delicacies of religion and philosophy?” “Are religion and philosophy considered, in his thought, as double truths for each of which separate realms exist or these two are different stages of one single truth that express the spirit’s self-consciousness of itself in two stages?” To answer these questions, the writer attempts to show, through a descriptive-analytical method, how Hegel offers a theoretical explanation for substituting the image of national and ethnic religion for its traditional image by making the absolute affair to the ethnic spirit. Besides, it shows how Hegel – unlike the transcendental philosophy and exalted philosophy – on the one hand turns God and absolute spirit from non-understandable ideas to cognitive and conceptual ones, and on the other hand, removes – in this way – the duality of the realm between religion and philosophy and establishes an internal relationship between them. Through creating a dialectic relationship between religion and philosophy, he finds the possibility to remove the contrast between the myth and the realm of systematic knowledge. And by making it close to the framework of system of knowledge, he introduces the myth not in contrast to rational knowledge, but as the outset of the way whose truth the rational knowledge is going to explain.
Emergent God in Neutral Monism(مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
منبع:
پژوهش های فلسفی - کلامی سال ۲۶ بهار ۱۴۰۳ شماره ۱ (پیاپی ۹۹)
141 - 170
حوزه های تخصصی:
The aim of this paper is to dissociate Metaphysics and Theology. In Metaphysics, I propose a Neutral Monist foundation of the Being of Reality, which is, therefore, not material or ideal, but a cosmic field of possibilities that generates both domains. God is conceived as one possibility embedded in the Being of Reality that may or may not become actual, depending on conditions established by the evolution of the Cosmos.As far as we know, the conditions for the actualization of God are satisfied by human consciousness. The relation between the Being of Reality and its outcomes, as the realization of God in human society, is one of actualization of potentialities, as in Aristotelian philosophy. This approach leads to a Feuerbachian view of God as emergent in social conscious experience, achieving embodied expression in human social practices, from the legitimate symbolic message of prophets, in sacred texts, rituals, images, buildings, and social institutions implemented by religious organizations.
Whether Hegel is a Pantheist? Spinoza in Hegel’s Pantheism(مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
منبع:
پژوهش های فلسفی پاییز ۱۴۰۳ شماره ۴۸
133 - 146
حوزه های تخصصی:
Does Hegel embrace pantheism? He faced accusations from his orthodox peers who adhered to Pantheism, a phrase that was commonly associated with atheism during his day. This study presents a counterargument to the assertion made by several contemporary orthodox contemporaries that Hegel is pantheistic. Hegel can be classified as a semi-pantheist. The manuscript is divided into three distinct sections. In the initial segment, I examine pantheism as posited by Spinoza, the pioneering contemporary pantheist whose contributions exerted a profound influence on other German thinkers, including Hegel. In the subsequent part, an examination of Hegel's pantheism will be conducted through an analysis of the concept of God or the Absolute. In the third section, an analysis is conducted on Hegel's notion of the features of the Absolute, and a comparison is made with Spinoza's God or Nature in order to ascertain if Hegel can be classified as a pantheist. It is believed that Hegel has a dissenting stance towards conventional pantheism, particularly that of Spinoza. Therefore, it can be inferred that Hegel's pantheism differs from Spinoza's. Hegel can be classified as a semi-pantheist.
Panentheism versus Pantheism in the East and West with Special Reference to Shankara and Ramanuja's Views: an overview(مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
منبع:
پژوهش های فلسفی پاییز ۱۴۰۳ شماره ۴۸
161 - 172
حوزه های تخصصی:
Panentheism and pantheism represent one of the most profound, even startling parallels across the world’s great metaphysical traditions about which the present article seeks to explore and carry out a comparative study of certain Eastern and Western philosophers with special reference to the views of two chief exponents of Advaita Vedanta of Indian philosophy, Shankara and Ramanuja. Both these terms, touch on the relation of God and the universe with the difference that the former seems to be rigid, motionless, and abstract and lacks a kind of religious fervor in its approach, while the latter is presumed to be concrete and palpable and seeks to reconcile philosophical thinking with the demands of religious feelings as well. God in pantheism is compared to the God of Spinoza, the Neutrum of Schelling, and Shankara's concept of indeterminate Brahman. In contrast, in the West Hegelian Absolute, and Ramanuja's qualified Brahman in Indian tradition, both are accredited with panentheism in which a personal God, identity-in-and-through-difference, has all auspicious qualities. Though these philosophers are from totally different temperaments and cultures, their philosophical method has certain similarities that have been examined in this work.