per Sadra Islamic Philosophy Research Instituteتاریخ فلسفه2008-95892676-51602025-0615334articleيادداشت سردبيرHossein Kalbasi Ashtarihkashtari@yahoo.com1Professor at Department of Philosophy, Allameh Tabatabaei University, Tehran. Iran<p>خرد جاویدان نام اثری است که بنا بر گزارش ابوعلی مسکویه (ت. 421ق) در کتاب آداب العَرَب و الفُرس، بخشی از آن طی جستجوی بسیار در شهر مدائن ـ‌یا شهری دیگر از ولایات فارس‌ـ بدست وی رسیده و سپس به ترجمة آن از زبان پهلوی اقدام نموده است. کتاب ابوعلی مسکویه در سال 1952 توسط محقق مصری، عبدالرحمن بدوی با عنوان حکمت خالده ترجمه و نشر گردیده و طی آن، جریان کشف نسخة اصلی توسط ابوعلی مسکویه بتفصیل بیان شده است. بگفتة مؤلف، خرد جاویدان منسوب به «هوشنگ پیشدادی»، پادشاهی از سلسلة پیشدادیان، جانشین کیومرث و قبل از پادشاهی طهمورث است که بمدت حدوداً چهل سال، سلطنت او برقرار بود و هموست که بروایت اوستا و دیگر متون کهن پارسی، ‌مانند شاهنامه، آهن و آهنگری و شیوه¬های حکومت و شهرنشینی را به آدمیان تعلیم داده است. همچنین تأسیس دو شهر بابل و شوش را بدو نسبت داده¬اند. بگزارش طبری، نسب هوشنگ با چهار واسطه به نوح نبی(ع) برمیگردد و از فرزندان «سام» شمرده شده است. هوشنگ و کتاب او فقط نمونه¬یی از دهها نام و چهرة تاریخی‌ـ‌اسطوره¬یی ایران¬زمین است که مجموعۀ اسناد و مدارک موجود، آگاهی تفصیلی چندانی دربارة شخصیت و موقعیت اجتماعی، فرهنگی و سیاسی آنها در اختیار ما قرار نمیدهند. موضوع اصلی خرد جاویدان، حکمت عملی و قواعد کلی آن است و ابن-مسکویه در دیگر آثار خود، مانند تهذیب الاخلاق و تطهیر الاعراق و تجارب الامم نیز به این بحث پرداخته است. در این آثار از عقلی سخن بمیان آمده که میان تمامی آدمیان و اقوام و ملل مشترک است و قواعد و احکام آن، به تحصیل سعادت حقیقی می¬انجامد. دربارة وجوه تاریخی، افسانه¬یی، ادبی و زبان¬شناختی شخصیتهای فوق و آثار و اقوال آنها، پژوهشها و اظهارنظرهای گوناگونی صورت گرفته که اکنون محل بحث ما در اینجا نیست. پرسشهای ما در اصل از سنخ تاریخ تفکر و تاریخ فلسفه است؛ پرسشهایی مانند اینکه ابوعلی مسکویه از کدامین خرد سخن گفته که قواعد و احکام آن میان تمامی ابناء بشر یکسان است؟ چرا و چگونه چنین خِردی به سعادت حقیقی رهنمون میشود؟ این خِرد با میراث و سنت ایرانی و آموزه¬های کهن پارسی چه نسبتی دارد؟ حدود دو قرن پس از ابوعلی مسکویه، شیخ مقتول، شهاب¬الدین سهروردی، در آثاری چون حکمة الاشراق و المشارع والمطارحات، ضمن برشمردن شاخه¬های غربی و شرقی «خمیرۀ ازلی حکمت»، بنیاد آموزه¬های هرمس حکیم در غرب و یونان را همانا «حکمت خسروانی» و «حکیمان فُرس» معرفی میکند. پیرامون این موضوع نیز پژوهشهای بسیاری صورت گرفته و میگیرد، لیکن حقیقت حکمت ایرانی و ابعاد و زوایای آن، همچنان دارای ابهامات فراوانی است؛ بویژه آنکه وجه تمایز ـ‌و البته رُجحان و اولویت آن‌ـ نسبت به سایر سنتها و مسالک شرقی در هند و چین و مصر و بین¬النهرین، چندان روشن نیست. سرانجام اینکه، با لحاظ نقش بیبدیل مقام نبوت و تعلیمات انبیای الهی (ع) در تعلیم و بسط حکمت راستین ـ‌که بسیاری از حکما بر آن اتفاق¬نظر دارند‌ـ بیان نسبت حکمت ایرانی با شجرة نبوت و بویژه تعیین گاهشمار آن، بمنظور فهم سیر و تطور تاریخی و مناسبات فی ما بین، از اهمیت دو چندان برخوردار است. بنظر میرسد در نخستین گام، مطالعه و تصحیح انتقادی منابعی چون تراجم و رجال و متون عقایدنگارانه ـ‌که تعدادشان نیز اندک نیست‌ـ برای گشودن بابی جدید در اینباره ضرورت دارد.</p>http://hop.mullasadra.org/Article/50546جاویدان خرد تاریخ فلسفه نویسی حکمت خالدهper Sadra Islamic Philosophy Research Instituteتاریخ فلسفه2008-95892676-51602025-06153524articleA Historical Comparative-Critical Study of Sense Perception in Plotinus and SuhrawardīMahmud Saidiym.saidiy@shahed.ac.ir1Associate Professor, Philosophy and Wisdom Department, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran<p>The quality of the knowledge of the world and Man’s encounter with external things through their sense perceptions marks the beginning of philosophical discussions. Great philosophers usually investigate such issues under the problem of vision. The present study comparatively examines the theories of Plotinus and Suhrawardī in this regard and demonstrates that, although these two philosophers belong to different philosophical schools, and although Suhrawardī had merely access to a part of Plotinus’ works, namely, <em>Athulujiya</em>, there are several similarities between their theories. Both of them harshly criticize the theories on sense perception, that is, the impression of scientific forms on perceptual faculties (the theory of Aristotle and his followers) and the reflection of light rays from the faculties of sense perception and their contact with the external object for perception to be realized (the theory of some pre-Socratic philosophers and Plato). Both Plotinus and Suhrawardī believe that the presence of the known before the knower and the lack of any obstacle between them results in Man’s perception of the external thing. At this time, the human soul attains an illuminative presential attribution of the perceived thing, which finally leads to the occurrence of vision. This theory is quite innovative and might be capable of solving certain philosophical problems regarding vision; however, there are some criticisms against it. For example, it cannot be applied to the hearing of sounds from behind a wall or smelling an odor in spite of some external barriers and, thus, is contradicted.</p>http://hop.mullasadra.org/Article/48448sense perception vision Plotinus Suhrawardī philosophical esoteric interpretation theory of impression beam theoryper Sadra Islamic Philosophy Research Instituteتاریخ فلسفه2008-95892676-51602025-061532546articleA Critic of Kant’s View of the Best Possible Order Based on Imāmīyyah TheologyFarah Raminf.ramin@qom.ac.ir1Zahra Farzaneganz.farzanegan@gmail.com2Professor at the Islamic Philosophy and Kalam Department, Qom University, Qom, IranPhD in Islamic Kalam, Qom University, Qom, Iran<p>The problem of moral evil and the quality of its justification within the framework of the best order is one of the fundamental challenges in philosophy of religion. During the early period of writing as a critic, Kant provided three arguments in defense of the theory of the best possible world, which indicates his transition from theoretical wisdom to practical wisdom. Following a descriptive-analytic approach, this paper initially examines the possibility and rationality of the theory of the best possible world in Emmanuelle Kant’s philosophy, which is based on the principles of practical wisdom. Then it deals with its consistency with the theories of <em>Imāmīyyah</em> <em>mutikallimūn</em>. Generally speaking, based on <em>Shīʻī</em> principles, two theories of “the best possible world” and the “only possible world” can be presented. Here, the authors have focused on the theory of the best possible world as the ultimate theory because of the inconsistency of causal necessity with the Will of God, as the creator of this world. Moreover, Kant’s conceptual reinterpretation of the “the best possible world”, which, based on <em>Imāmīyyah</em> verses and traditions, is consistent with the attribute of divine wisdom and God’s purpose of creating humanity, is propounded as an acceptable theory.</p>http://hop.mullasadra.org/Article/48645theory of the best possible world Kant problem of evil Imāmīyyah theologyper Sadra Islamic Philosophy Research Instituteتاریخ فلسفه2008-95892676-51602025-061534764articleA Study of the Possibility of al-Kindī’s Benefitting from Imam Ḥassan Askarī’s TeachingsMohammadhadi Tavakoliiranianhadi@yahoo.com1Assistant Professor, Islamic Philosophy and Kalam Department, Research Institute of Hawzeh and University, Qom, Iran<div class="lRu31" dir="ltr">
<div class="OvtS8d">
<p>The theological theorems of the People of the House (ʻa) can be viewed as one of the potential sources of Islamic philosophy in the course of its development. When investigating this potential source, the likelihood of the direct encounter of certain Muslim philosophers with Imāms (ʻa) can be considered an important proof for the justification and even realization of this possibility. A study of the legacy of predecessors leads us to at least two proofs regarding the contact of Yʻaqūb Ibn Isḥāq al-Kindī with Imām Ḥassan Asqarī (ʻa). One of them explicitly refers to al-Kindi, and the other refers to someone called “Yʻaqūb Ibn Isḥāq” with the nickname of Abu Yusuf. Based on the content of these two proofs, their comparison with other historical data, and the clear presence of Imām ʻAsqarī’s discussions in al-Kindī’s works, the possibility of a relationship between them seems quite justified. Accordingly, the study of the other works of al-Kindī and those of other Muslim philosophers in terms of their being influenced by the theological teachings of the People of the House (ʻa) is a rational undertaking.</p>
</div>
<div id="ow16"> </div>
</div>http://hop.mullasadra.org/Article/48043Imām Ḥassan Asqarī (ʻa) al-Kindī Abū Zayd Balkhī the Qur’ān vision of Almighty Godper Sadra Islamic Philosophy Research Instituteتاریخ فلسفه2008-95892676-51602025-061536598articleKant’s Epistemology in the View of Contemporary Iranian PhilosophersMasoud Omidmasoud_omid1345@yahoo.com1Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran<p>Since about a century ago, our country has been witness to the gradual rise of an important and blessed feeling in philosophical thought: A desire to foster a new atmosphere for philosophical thought. However, another issue has also risen in this period: Can entering a new atmosphere and starting a philosophical renewal be purely based on the essence of philosophical heritage and traditional resources in the modern historical era? The answer is no. For this reason, Iranian philosophers began encountering and conversing with modern philosophical schools or philosophical modernity. In the process of its development and evolution, this encounter featured verbal, political, ideological, and even entertaining aspects. Nevertheless, it gradually distanced itself from the surface and superficiality and moved closer to depth and profundity. Currently, focused attention on this philosophical encounter, along with thorough reporting and analysis, is of utmost importance, as it could give rise to a new school of philosophy in Iran and mark the beginning of the history of contemporary and modern philosophy in the region. Now, the question is if some research is supposed to be carried out on Iranians’ philosophical encounter, which methodology they should adopt to accomplish this task. It is suggested that these studies be specific, detailed, case-based, and limited, so that the multiple aspects of the subject and its strengths and weaknesses can be identified. Moreover, it would be very useful if such investigations and reports also include the related philosophical critiques and evaluations. This paper intends to provide a review and report of a philosophical encounter with Kant’s epistemology that was initiated by one of the six contemporary philosophical trends in the country, namely, the contemporary Islamic philosophy of Iran. The outcomes of this encounter include gaining certain insights and implications regarding Kantian studies, evaluating his ideas, and even potentially accepting them.</p>http://hop.mullasadra.org/Article/49336philosophical encounter with modernity Islamic philosophy Kant’s epistemology perception Critique acceptanceper Sadra Islamic Philosophy Research Instituteتاریخ فلسفه2008-95892676-51602025-0615399122articleBackground of the Issue of Causality in India with Reference to Nāgārjuna’s ViewHossein Saberi Varzanehh_saberi_v@ut.ac.ir1Azim Razavi Sufianiazimrazavi@ut.ac.ir2Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy of Religion, and Denominations, and Mysticism, Farabi College, University of Tehran, Qom, IranLecturer, Department of Political Sciences, Denominations, and Mysticism, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran<p>The problem of causality and the cause-effect relation is of prime importance in both metaphysical and theological discussions. It also plays a significant role in the foundation of empirical sciences, ordinary life, and common sense. This problem has also been propounded in Indian religious and philosophical schools in different forms and has developed various dimensions. Following a descriptive-analytic method, this study aims to explore three problems: 1) In which context has the philosophical discussion of causality in Indian philosophical been developed? 2) How do these schools explain the cause-effect relation? 3) What is the view of Nāgārjuna, the Buddhist monk and the founder of the philosophical school of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhyamaka">Madhyamaka</a>, in this regard? In sum, it can be said that the philosophical discussion of causality in India has a strong presence in theological (the relationship between the world and its origin) and eschatological (the relationship between source of pain and the path leading to relief) contexts. The philosophical schools of India have propounded five different theories on explaining the issue of causality and the cause-effect relation: 1) theory of internal causality, 2) theory of external causality, 3) synthetic theory, 4) theory of negation of causality, and 5) theory of dependent origination in Buddhism. Nāgārjuna, whose view of causality mainly enjoys a negative and contradicting aspect, has expanded the Buddhist view based on the theory of <em>Śūnyatā</em> (lack of <em>svabhāva</em> or inherent, independent existence), the mutual dependence between the cause and effect, and the differentiation between the cause and condition and rejected the first four theories by resorting to several arguments. Finally, it can be said that Nāgārjuna defends causality and attempts to reconcile it with his view that beings have no inherent existence.</p>http://hop.mullasadra.org/Article/48936India Causality Nāgārjuna Śūnyatā Buddhismper Sadra Islamic Philosophy Research Instituteتاریخ فلسفه2008-95892676-51602025-06153121144articleMaster-Student Interactions Between the Philosophical Schools of Mashhad and Tehran During the last two CenturiesMohammad Mahdi Kamalim.mkamali@yahoo.com1Mohammad Hadi Kamalikamali.mohammadhadi@gmail.com2Assistant Professor, Razavi Islamic Sciences Research Center, Islamic Research Foundation of Astane Quds Razavi, Mashhad, IranPhD in Transcendent Philosophy, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran<p>The master-student interactions between the philosophical centers of Mashhad and Tehran has played a significant role in enriching the scientific and philosophical atmosphere of Iran. The migration of philosophers and philosophy-lovers between these two scientific poles has facilitated the exchange of thoughts and teaching methods and greatly contributed to the growth and development of both schools. The Mashhad School of Philosophy, with a long background in Islamic wisdom and training of prominent philosophers, has always been recognized as one of the main centers of teaching Islamic philosophy in Iran. Moreover, the presence of distinguished masters there, has turned it into an attractive destination for lovers of philosophy and wisdom. At the same time, the Tehran School of Philosophy has played a significant role in developing and disseminating Islamic philosophy because of its political and cultural status, its benefitting from great masters, and its foundation of several scientific and specialized centers. Through investigating historical sources and available documents, this study analyzed the patterns of migrations between these two schools, the master-student interactions between them, and their bilateral impact on each other. The findings of this research demonstrated that master-student interactions, as the most central form of interaction, performed a noteworthy role in transferring knowledge, developing thought, and strengthening the foundations of philosophy in Iran.</p>http://hop.mullasadra.org/Article/49503Mashhad School of Philosophy Tehran School of Philosophy master-student interactions Islamic philosophy migration of mastersper Sadra Islamic Philosophy Research Instituteتاریخ فلسفه2008-95892676-51602025-06153145160articleA Study of the Development of Natural Universal in Islamic PhilosophyJavad Soufijavadsoufi14114@gmail.com1PhD in Islamic Philosophy and Kalam, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran<p>The problem of natural universal is one of the most challenging issues in Islamic philosophy, so that there are several ideas regarding its definition and its external existence. Some thinkers view it as a non-conditioned by division quiddity; some introduce it as a non-conditioned by the source of division quiddity, and some disagree with both of them. Unlike most <em>mutikallimūn</em>, who maintain that the natural universal has no external existence, Muslim philosophers believe the opposite. However, some of them, such as Ibn Sīnā, state that it exists by the existence of the individual, and some others, such as Mullā Ṣadrā, consider the natural universal to be an accidental existent. The present study, while providing an account of the historical development and evolution of the natural universal from the past until now and referring to the most important views of Muslim philosophers in this regard, aims to examine the roots of their differences as much as possible. It finally concludes that, given the fact that it has various modes in the outside, the natural universal is not universal in the external world; rather, it is better to say that it is a nature that the mind attains after analyzing the external world and is the origin of abstracting the natural universal. However, when it occurs to the mind, it becomes universal; otherwise, it is neither universal nor particular in the outside. Accordingly, it is known that what is in the external world is the individual, and nature exists by the existence of the individual; in other words, nature exists in the outside through the mediation of the individual’s existence. Mullā Ṣadrā also confirms the same idea that the natural universal exists in the outside by accident. Ultimately, the author resorts to the analysis of the natural universal’s mode of existence in the external world and concludes that it is a non-conditioned by division quiddity.</p>http://hop.mullasadra.org/Article/48358natural universal quiddity non-conditioned by division historical development