Editor's Note

per Sadra Islamic Philosophy Research Instituteتاریخ فلسفه2008-95892676-51602024-1015134articleEditor's NoteHossein Kalbasi Ashtarihkashtari@yahoo.com1Professor, Department of Philosophy, Allameh Tabatabaei University, Tehran. Iranدربارۀ «مکتب فلسفی تهران» و ویژگیهای این دوره از فعالیتهای فلسفی در ایران، پژوهشهای متعددی توسط محققان و برخی مستشرقان و اسلام&zwnj;شناسان، صورت گرفته و علاوه بر آن، در معرفی و احیای میراث علمی این مدرسه نیز تلاشهای سترگی بعمل آمده است. در اهمیت و جایگاه ممتاز این مدرسه، و موقعیت مکانی آن، همین بس که علاوه بر رونق کرسی تعلیم و تدریس چهره&zwnj;هایی مانند آقا علی مدرس زنوزی، آقا محمدرضا قمشه&zwnj;ای، میرزا ابوالحسن جلوه و میرزا حسین سبزواری (مشهور به حکمای اربعه تهران)، و تألیف و تصنیف ده&zwnj;ها اثر مهم و بدیع، و تربیت شاگردانی برجسته در این مدرسه، اوصافی نظیر «شهر هزار حکیم» را برای آن آورده&zwnj;اند. اما زوایای اهمیت این حوزۀ فلسفی، از جهاتی دیگر هنوز روشن نشده است. اینکه نخستین مواجهۀ جدی فلسفۀ اسلامی با مکاتب و فلسفه&zwnj;های غربی، در این دوره و مدرسه صورت گرفته و شاهد بر مدعا، اثر ماندگار آقا علی مدرس زنوزی ـ&zwnj;یعنی بدایع الحکم، در پاسخ به پرسشهای شاهزادۀ قاجار، بدیع&zwnj;الملک میرزاـ&zwnj; است، بخودی خود تأمل و کنکاشی بیشتر را میطلبد. تا آنجا که میدانیم، نخستین متنی که بسبک تاریخ&zwnj;نگارانه، بقصد گزارش مهمترین مکاتب و نحله&zwnj;های فلسفی غرب نگاشته شده، کتاب سیر حکمت در اروپا، بقلم محمدعلی فروغی است که با وجود استناد تامّ و تمام آن به منابع عمومی فرانسوی زبان، از قضا، بمدتی نسبتاً طولانی، مرجع اصلی دانشجویان و حتی استادان فلسفه بوده و اکنون نیز در نوع خود ـ&zwnj;بویژه در استعمال واژگان تخصصی و معادلهای آنها، و حتی سبک نگارش فارسی&zwnj;ـ کم&zwnj;نظیر است. پرسش اینست که قبل از نگارش این کتاب، منبع یا منابع مورد رجوع استادان و محققان این عرصه چه بوده است؟ تحلیل محتوای بدایع الحکم، هم در پرسشها و هم در پاسخها، نشان از آگاهی نسبتاً دقیق طرفین گفتگو از جریانهای فلسفی اروپای عصر جدید دارد و این خود از میزان التفات و ظرفیت و توان نظری پایه&zwnj;گذاران این مدرسۀ فلسفی نیز حکایت میکند. بی&zwnj;تردید جستجوی متن یا متونی مشابه با بدایع الحکم که در این دوره نگاشته شده، افقی جدید را بروی پژوهشگران و نسخه&zwnj;پژوهان این عرصه، میگشاید و احتمالاً به استخراج مؤلفه&zwnj;ها و عناصر مشترک این مواجهه، در آن مقطع تاریخی، کمک میکند، بویژه آنکه این پژوهش میتواند خط اتصال نوع آشنایی و مواجهۀ امروزه ما با مکاتب فلسفی غرب را تحلیل و بررسی قرار دهد. از سوی دیگر، شناسایی و گردآوری آثار پدید آمده در این دوره و فهرست&zwnj;نگاری آنها نیز کاری است لازم؛ که در این صورت، علاوه بر تدارک مجموعه&zwnj;یی از مدارک علمی مربوط به نسخه&zwnj;پژوهی، جریان تحول اندیشه&zwnj;های فلسفی دو قرن اخیر در این سرزمین را مینمایاند، چه در درون سنت دیرپای فلسفه و حکمت اسلامی، و چه در مواجهه و نوع تلقی و خوانش ما از سنتهای فلسفی مغرب&zwnj;زمین.http://hop.mullasadra.org/Article/48374مکتب فلسفی تهران بدایع الحکم سیر حکمت در اروپا آقا علی مدرس زنوزی بدیع‌الملک میرزاper Sadra Islamic Philosophy Research Instituteتاریخ فلسفه2008-95892676-51602024-10151526articleRevitalizing the Concept of Greek Logos in Heidegger’s Linguistic ContemplationHamidreza Erfanifarhamidreza.erfanifar@gmail.com1 Ali Naghi Baghershahibaghershahi@hum.ikiu.ac.ir2Seyyed Masood Seifseif@hum.ikiu.ac.ir3Mohammad Hasan Heidarim_heidari@ikiu.ac.ir4PhD Candidate of Western Contemporary Philosophy, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, IranAssociate Professor, Philosophy Department, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, IranAssociate Professor, Philosophy Department, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, IranAssistant Professor, Philosophy Department, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran<span style="mso-ascii-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi;">The concept of Logos has undergone a complicated process of development. This term was used for the first time by pre-Socratic philosophers as a fundamental concept in relation to the universal and regulative intellect. Heraclitus granted Logos an original status in philosophy. After him, some other philosophers used this term in different meanings and functions in Greek. In Christianity, Logos turned into a divine power and Christ himself. In the contemporary era, Heidegger used this concept in order to explain his perception of language and its relation to Dasein. In this paper, the authors aim to propound and investigate the meanings and concepts that the Greek tried to express using the term Logos based on available evidence in the history of philosophy in ancient Greece. Next, they analyze Heidegger’s standpoint on this old concept and his interpretation and use of Logos in revealing his intentions in terms of linguistic ontology. After comparing the Greeks’ ideas of Logos and Heidegger’s understanding of this term, they conclude that Heidegger chooses Logos because it allows things to be seen. This is because in his view language is not only a tool for communication but also a revealer of the truth of existents. Therefore, he has paid greater attention to this aspect of Logos. http://hop.mullasadra.org/Article/47161Logos language Existence Heraclitus Heideggerper Sadra Islamic Philosophy Research Instituteتاریخ فلسفه2008-95892676-51602024-101512748articleA Comparative Study of the Quality of Man’s Relation to Evil in On the Consolation of Philosophy and Book of JobMaryam SalemM_salem@sbu.ac.ir1Assistant Professor, Philosophy and Kalam Department, Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran<span style="mso-ascii-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi;">In On the Consolation of Philosophy, in line with Stoics, Boethius explains the nature of evil, the quality of the interference of the divine providence in the world, and the relationship between evil and destiny following a philosophical approach. In this book, evil is considered to be necessary for a changing material world. True happiness, which cannot be realized in an unstable world, is the same Pure Good or God. He also states that with Man’s becoming divine all evil things and pains are weakened and become good. In this approach, Man plays no role in creating evil. The same view of evil can also be witnessed in the Book of Job. At the beginning of the book evil is sometimes considered to be the effect of Man’s sins, sometimes an educational element for Man’s avoiding sin, and sometimes a divine test to confirm insistence on piety. However, at the end of the book, it reads that evil basically lacks an external existence so that it would require a cause. An analysis of these two books demonstrates that in both of them all divine acts are good and, by submitting to God’s Will, Man turns the excruciating pain of some divine acts that annoy him into sweetness. http://hop.mullasadra.org/Article/47472Job Boethius On the Consolation of Philosophy Book of Job fateper Sadra Islamic Philosophy Research Instituteتاریخ فلسفه2008-95892676-51602024-101514970articleAn Evaluation of Ibn Rushd’s Responses to Fārābī and Ibn Sīnā Regarding the Theory of the Distinction of Existence from Quiddity and its AccidentsGhasem Pourhasanghasemepurhasan@gmail.com1Nahid Sookhtanloo parto.soo1369@gmail.com2Associate Professor, Philosophy Department, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, IranMA in Islamic Philosophy and Kalam, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran<span style="mso-ascii-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi;">The discussion of existence and quiddity and the relationship between them is one of the fundamental debates in philosophy, and various portraits of this relationship can be shown in distinct natural, logical, and philosophical molds. The word “distinct” is a homonym in these cases and has a particular meaning in each one. However, these meanings have been frequently confused with each other in the history of philosophy. One of the innovations of Islamic philosophy is the theory of the distinction of existence from quiddity, which was only possible in the light of understanding the meaning of the truth of existence. Islamic philosophers, particularly Fārābī and Ibn Sīnā, tried to perceive existence differently from Aristotle and not to reduce the question of being to the whatness of objects because of their epistemological distance from the Greek tradition in philosophy. Nevertheless, this approach has also had its own critics. One of the philosophers who criticized the distinction of quiddity from existence is Ibn Rushd. He accused Ibn Sīnā of misunderstanding and heresy regarding the relationship between existence, quiddity, and accidents of existence and believed that Ibn Sīnā had confused the different meanings of existence and the one and had fallen in the trap of sophistry due to homonymy. Ibn Rushd maintained that the origin of the formation of objects is substance and considered existence to be merely a concept that can be abstracted from existing objects. His main criticism of Ibn Sīnā concerning this problem was that viewing existence as an accident for quiddity leads to several misconceptions such as equating existence with substance. However, Ibn Rushd himself had in fact failed to understand the meaning of existence as an accident in Ibn Sīnā’s view. He believed that Ibn Sīnā had equated existence and accident in the sense of a quiddative affair with each other, while Ibn Sīnā’s intention of occurrence of existence to quiddity as an accident was its addition to quiddity.  http://hop.mullasadra.org/Article/42606Quiddity occurrence Existence Ibn Rushd Fārābī Ibn Sīnāper Sadra Islamic Philosophy Research Instituteتاریخ فلسفه2008-95892676-51602024-101517186articleA Re-Reading of Aristotelean Matter and Form and its Effects on the Trans-Substantial Motion Based on New-Sadrian Philosophers’ ViewsMahdi Safaei Aslsafaei@ut.ac.ir1Leila Qomi Avilileila.qomiavili@ymail.com2Assistant Professor, Farabi College, University of Tehran, Qom, IranMA student of Islamic Philosophy, Farabi College, University of Tehran, Qom, Iran<span style="mso-ascii-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi;">One of the most important discussions in philosophy has been the formation of body from matter and form since long ago. This discussion began at the time of Aristotle and became accessible to Muslim philosophers through the translation of Greek texts. Following a descriptive-analytic method, this study aims to provide a response to the questions of what Aristotle meant by matter and hyle, and whether the trans-substantial motion is consistent with accepting the externality of hyle.  A study of Aristotle’s writings reveals that he did not believe in the external existence of matter, and that incorrect translations have led to a wrong perception of Aristotelean matter and form. He believed in a potency alongside objects that changes the quiddity of matter from being pure potency or non-existence to an ontological affair and yields some new outcomes. On the other hand, another misperception of his works dictates that creation from pure non-existence is impossible. Such incorrect translations have provoked the reactions of some Muslim philosophers to the objectivity and externality of potency against matter. In the Islamic tradition, the first step for negating the externality of matter was taken by Suhrawardī. By criticizing Ibn Sīnā’s arguments, he expressed his belief in the simplicity of matter. Mullā Ṣadrā, too, challenged the same view in certain places in al-Asfār, and the neo-Sadrian philosophers took the last steps towards the negation of the externality of matter through criticizing the related arguments and demonstrating the opposition of this view to the trans-substantial motion. http://hop.mullasadra.org/Article/46634Matter hyle Form Aristotle trans-substantial motionper Sadra Islamic Philosophy Research Instituteتاریخ فلسفه2008-95892676-51602024-1015187108articleAn Analysis of the Whatness of the Rise of Philosophy in ancient GreeceMohammad Ali Abbasian Chaleshtoriabbasian@pnu.ac.ir1Professor at Islamic Philosophy and Kalam Department, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran<span style="mso-ascii-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi;">A great number of Western historians of philosophy claim that philosophy emerged for the first time in Greece in the 7th-8th centuries BC. The question is why what is presently called philosophy came into being for the first time in ancient Greece and the West. The present paper focuses on the religious defects in ancient Greece as a determining factor in the rise of philosophy in this land. The main argument behind this response indicates that the religious culture of ancient Greece, because of its poverty in terms of worldview, epistemology, ethics, cosmology, and ontology, as well as certain limitations in subject, method, and end, paved the context for the rising and posing of some fundamental questions that were strange to that religion, which was naturally incapable of responding to them. It was at this point that philosophy emerged to answer such questions. The findings of this study indicate that if, instead of that poor and limited religion, there had been another religion there, ancient Greeks would have become needless of philosophy, or that part of philosophy that dealt with those questions. The replacing religion should have enjoyed the following features: 1) possessing a solid worldview and well-founded systems of epistemology, ethics, cosmology, and ontology; 2) being familiar with the raised questions in terms of method, subject, and end, and 3) enjoying the necessary conceptual and judgmental capabilities to deliberate over those questions. http://hop.mullasadra.org/Article/46956Philosophy religion ancient Greece Eastern religions fundamental philosophical questionsper Sadra Islamic Philosophy Research Instituteتاریخ فلسفه2008-95892676-51602024-10151109132articleThe Relationship between Science and Technology in Kuhn and HickmanAli Reza Mokarianpourmokarianpouralireza@yahoo.com1Reza SadeghiR.sadeghi@ltr.ui.ac.ir2PhD Candidate of Philosophy, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, IranAssociate Professor, Philosophy Department, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran<span style="mso-ascii-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi;">The concept of technoscience, as one of the central concepts in the philosophy of technology in the 20th century, has attracted great attention during the recent decades because of the existing concerns regarding the rise of artificial intelligence. In this paper, the authors compare two main views that have been presented in this regard in the 20th century. Larry Hickman, the American pragmatist philosopher, while accepting the concept of technoscience, introduces Thomas Kuhn as one of its opponents. Here, the authors investigate Kuhn’s reasons for rejecting the unity of science and technology and then criticize his view based on the fundamental principles of Hickman’s philosophy in defense of the concept of technoscience. Their main argument is that Kuhn’s view, although branded as a finding in the history of science, enjoys an ideological nature and weakens the objective bases of science. The significance of Hickman’s view lies in the fact that, relying on Dewey’s philosophy, he introduces technoscience as a teachable and, thus, manageable field.  http://hop.mullasadra.org/Article/46783Philosophy of technology technoscience Pragmatism Larry Hickman John Dewey Thomas Kuhnper Sadra Islamic Philosophy Research Instituteتاریخ فلسفه2008-95892676-51602024-10151133152articleConcept of God in Kitāb al-‘Ilal (Kitāb al-Iḍaḥ fil Khayr al-Maḥḍ li-Arisṭūṭālis)Hasan Abasi Hoseinabadih_abasi@pnu.ac.ir1Mastaneh Kakaiymastaneh.kakaiy@gmail.com2Associate Professor, Islamic Philosophy and Wisdom Department, Payame Noor University, Tehran, IranPhD in Philosophy, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran<span style="mso-ascii-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi;">The Book of Causes<span style="mso-ascii-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi;"> (Kitāb al-‘ilal), which is also called Kitāb al-khayr al-awwal and Kitāb iḍaḥ khayr al-maḥḍ, discusses the causes of the first objects. God, as the First Cause, is one of these causes. The questions that arise here include the following: What is the concept of God in The Book of Causes? Is the God in The Book of Causes existential or beyond existential? In this book, God has been discussed while employing a number of different terms and concepts such as Absolute Being, First Cause, Pure Goodness, and Super Being. The findings of this study, which was carried out using a descriptive-analytic method, indicate that, in the view of the author of this book, God is not only Pure Existence (as opposed to limited existence) but also Pure Goodness, and His being Pure Goodness is based on existence. He is also the First Cause in the sense of the true creating efficient cause. There are also some reasons for considering Him to be existential and beyond existential. The term Super Being for God – as opposed to limited and concrete existence – refers to “existence through participation”, which applies to all creatures. Moreover, it appears that among the three terms of the First Cause, Pure Goodness, and Pure Existence, the last one is more comprehensive than others in describing God. Existence is the basis for the other two concepts, namely, the First Cause, which is an efficient and creating cause that grants existence to all things and existents, and Pure Goodness, the goodness of which is mediated by its existence.http://hop.mullasadra.org/Article/46817God Absolute Being First Cause Pure Goodness Super Being Kitāb al-‘ilal (The Book of Causes)