List of Articles theology

• Open Access Article
  • Abstract Page
  • Full-Text
  
  1 - Philoponus and the Development of his Philosophical Thoughts
  Farhad Assadi    
  Philoponus, the neo-Platonic Alexandrian philosopher of later periods, had become so knowledgeable in most sciences of his period that some gave him the nickname of all-knower (‘allamah). However, this was not the only distinctive feature of this thinker of Alexandrian More

  Philoponus, the neo-Platonic Alexandrian philosopher of later periods, had become so knowledgeable in most sciences of his period that some gave him the nickname of all-knower (‘allamah). However, this was not the only distinctive feature of this thinker of Alexandrian school. His philosophical thoughts underwent such massive fluctuations that some have praised his courage in criticizing and rejecting the views of his predecessors at the level of a hero and considered him as the forerunner of critical thinking, while some others have introduced him as a coward and greedy thinker who, for fear of his life and love of material things, yielded to the coercions of the Christian-Roman government and gave up his own philosophical achievements. The present paper aims to unveil the secret character of this philosopher with reference to the invaluable works of contemporary researchers and take a step, however small, in providing a profound and correct understanding of the development of philosophical thought in the history of philosophy. One of the cases that the writers highlight in this paper is the quality of the interactions between the Alexandrian school and the powerful Christian government. During this period, the context was provided for the growth and development of a number of philosophers and commentators, such as Philoponus, who disseminated Aristotelian philosophy. However, the most important achievement of this paper is probably an investigation of Philoponus’ critical approach to the views of Aristotle and his predecessors as well as a comparative study of his most important philosophical views during two periods of his academic activities. Here, the authors focus on some of his opposing and sometimes contradictory views which created great debates in their own time and exercised particular impact on the development of philosophical thought, including Islamic philosophy, in different societies. Manuscript profile
• Open Access Article
  • Abstract Page
  • Full-Text
  
  2 - Aristotelian and Avicennan Background of the Principles of Analogical Theology of Thomas Aquinas
  Mohammad Mahdi  Gorjian Mojtaba  Afsharpour
  Given its emphasis upon the text of the Holy Scripture, Thomas Aquinas’s theory of analogical theology is one of the most influential and multi-faceted theories regarding the knowledge of God and analysis of His names and attributes. Aquinas’s main purpose in discussing More

  Given its emphasis upon the text of the Holy Scripture, Thomas Aquinas’s theory of analogical theology is one of the most influential and multi-faceted theories regarding the knowledge of God and analysis of His names and attributes. Aquinas’s main purpose in discussing this issue in both of his great works, Summa Theologia and Summa Contra Gentiles, was to predicate the perfectional attributes of all creatures, including human beings as the most perfect of them, on God. He believed that this is possible by employing an analogical method of predication as opposed to equivocation and unequivocation. In this way, he attained a knowledge of the names and attributes of the Truth that enabled him to leave the negative theology of the Middle Ages behind and, in this way, avoid the trap of assimilating the Truth to the created. The essential element of Aquinas’s analogical theology is the “principle of the perfections of cause and effect”. The perfections of effect have an apriori supreme presence in the cause. There are two other principles in his works called the “argument of degrees of perfection” and the “principle of the priority of cause to effect”. He insists on attributing all these three principles to Aristotle and Ibn Rushd in order to introduce his own analogical predication as being rooted in Aristotle’s philosophy. However, the truth is that Aristotle never made any explicit reference to any of the claims made by Aquinas. Rather, the idea of God’s being above perfection and pure good, in the sense that Pure Perfection embodies all perfections of finite things, is among Ibn Sina’s achievements and innovations in theological discussions. In fact, Ibn Rushd’s words in this regard explain Ibn Sina’s theories although he wrote them in his commentaries on Aristotle’s words. Manuscript profile
• Open Access Article
  • Abstract Page
  • Full-Text
  
  3 - An Analytic Critique of the Reductionist Approach to Islamic Philosophy
  Zahra  Mazaheri Seyyed Mohammad Kazem  Alavi
  20.1001.1.20089589.1401.13.1.2.5
  One of the recent debates regarding Islamic philosophy focuses on its originality and the questions of the “possibility of Islamic philosophy”. This identity-related problem has a significant effect on the history and future of Islamic philosophy. The view of the oppone More

  One of the recent debates regarding Islamic philosophy focuses on its originality and the questions of the “possibility of Islamic philosophy”. This identity-related problem has a significant effect on the history and future of Islamic philosophy. The view of the opponents of the originality of this denomination, including Orientalists, Western historiographers, some Arab scholars, and those who are against any kind of religious philosophy can be considered to be reductionist. In their theories, they have reduced Islamic philosophy to a philosophy imitating Greek philosophy, Islamic Kalām and theology, and Arabic philosophy. Opposing Orientalists and historiographers view Greek philosophy as the base and Islamic philosophy as one of its branches. Some of the opponents believe that any attempt at establishing Islamic philosophy is in vain by insisting on the incompatibility of religion and philosophy. Moreover, by rejecting the possibility of religious philosophy, including Islamic philosophy, they maintain that the use of the word Islamic as an adjective for philosophy, as an intellectual science, is not justified and, thus, equate Islamic philosophy with Kalām and theology. Some other opponents, including Arabs, avoid the use of the phrase “Islamic philosophy”, and, by emphasizing the language of philosophical texts in Islamic tradition, call it Arabic philosophy. They limit Arabic philosophy to the Arab race and believe that this view is supported by history of philosophy. The present paper provides a critical analysis of the proponents of reductionist approaches to Islamic philosophy and aims to demonstrate and defend the necessity of its originality as a historical reality. Manuscript profile
• Open Access Article
  • Abstract Page
  • Full-Text
  
  4 - An Interpretation of the Dialogue of Laws from the Viewpoint of Leo Strauss Based on Fārābī’s Treatise of Talkhīṣ al-Nawāmīs
  Havva Jami Seyed Mohammad  Hakkak Qazvini Ali Naghi  Baghershahi Shervin Moghimi Zanjani
  20.1001.1.20089589.1402.14.2.1.3
  Presently, historicism is the dominant approach in interpreting philosophical traditions. This approach considers each science, particularly philosophy, to be in some way related to the specific lifetime of thinkers. Within this framework, historicist interpreters exami More

  Presently, historicism is the dominant approach in interpreting philosophical traditions. This approach considers each science, particularly philosophy, to be in some way related to the specific lifetime of thinkers. Within this framework, historicist interpreters examine Plato’s works in relation to four different periods, with the dialogue of Laws belonging to the latest period of his life, indicating a change in his approach. However, in opposition to any kind of historicist view, Leo Strauss disagrees with this division and believes that there is no change of direction in Plato’s overall philosophy – from the first to the last dialogue – and all of them address philosophical problems from a specific standpoint. We encounter this comprehensive approach also in Strauss’ reading of the dialogue of Laws. In fact, Strauss believes that, in order to grasp a real understanding of the dialogue of Laws, one must follow his method and consider Fārābī’s interpretation of this work in Talkhīṣ al-nawāmīs as a basis. Strauss also maintains that it is the only way through which one can go beyond the limits of historical interpretation. While providing a brief discussion of the historical interpretation of the Laws, the purpose of the present study is to examine Fārābī’s interpretation of the dialogue of Laws, Strauss’ critique and view of this interpretation, and the most distinctive features of Strauss’ innovative interpretation of this dialogue. Manuscript profile