We know that in Ṣadrian Philosophy changing of motion is usually the very constancy of it and just this explains the relationship between the constant and the changing. The important problem that here appears is whether anyone previous to Mullā Ṣadrā was the follower of More
We know that in Ṣadrian Philosophy changing of motion is usually the very constancy of it and just this explains the relationship between the constant and the changing. The important problem that here appears is whether anyone previous to Mullā Ṣadrā was the follower of constancy of the change? The main purpose of the essay is studying just this. What is certain is the fact that criticizing constancy of the change is of a long precedence in Muslim world and therefore we will show these historical criticisms in our paper based on the documents. But that many in resolving the problem of constant-changing relation have attributed constancy of the change to the previous Muslim philosophers does not seem to be so firm claim: although some thinkers previous to Ṣadrā have said about constant-changing relation that the sphere in its circular motion is permanent and constant, they have not considered this to be the final response to the constant-changing relation. Eventually, we will have a glance at the fact that Ṣadrian constancy of the change can be criticized because of, for example, the reason that if it is accepted this strange view would be required that the universal must be existent in the external world contradictorily both as one and many at the same time.
Manuscript profile
In Sadrian philosophy the change in motion is the same as its immutability, which justifies the relationship between the changing to the immutable. The question here is whether the theory of immutability of change had any supporters before Mullā Ṣadrā. The main purpose More
In Sadrian philosophy the change in motion is the same as its immutability, which justifies the relationship between the changing to the immutable. The question here is whether the theory of immutability of change had any supporters before Mullā Ṣadrā. The main purpose of this study is to provide an appropriate response to this question. This theory has been criticized by Muslim thinkers and philosophers for a very long time. Therefore, this paper provides a discussion of the most important of such criticisms based on available evidence. Some scholars have attributed the theory of immutability of change to early philosophers in order to solve the problem of the relation of the changing to the immutable and support their own views, which does not seem to be based on solid evidence. Prior to Mullā Ṣadrā, some philosophers maintained that the heavenly sphere enjoys continuity and fixity in its evolution; however, this cannot be considered as a final resolution to the problem of the relation of the changing to the fixed. Here, the author concludes that the fixity of Sadrian change should be criticized because it leads to accepting a view attributed to Rajol Hamedani about the “universal”.
Manuscript profile
