Manouchehr Shaami Nezhad; Hosein Atrak; mohsen jahed
Abstract
The issue of death is one of the most important issues of human existence and one of his existential concerns. From birth to death, humans always carry the anxiety of death with them. Many thinkers have proposed solutions to reduce death anxiety. Yalom and Mulla Sadra have also discussed the nature of ...
Read More
The issue of death is one of the most important issues of human existence and one of his existential concerns. From birth to death, humans always carry the anxiety of death with them. Many thinkers have proposed solutions to reduce death anxiety. Yalom and Mulla Sadra have also discussed the nature of death based on their foundations. Yalom considers death as a pure nothingness and based on a naturalistic approach presents some existential solutions like relying on human communication, creativity, and rippling. Mulla Sadra based on a supernaturalistic approach also considers death as an existentiale. By analyzing his philosophical foundations some solutions like having a transformational and procedural approach to death could be deduced from his philosophy for reducing the anxiety of death. In this research, the authors first compare the views of these two thinkers and then try to find an integrated solution to reducing death anxiety.
Morteza Hosseinzadeh; Sahar Kavandi; Mohsen Jahed
Abstract
The truth of knowledge was considered by western philosophers and epistemologists long time ago unclear sentence. They were mostly foundationalists or coherentists in the justification element. Muslim philosophers specifically paid attention to the problem of knowledge, and defined it as constant certainty ...
Read More
The truth of knowledge was considered by western philosophers and epistemologists long time ago unclear sentence. They were mostly foundationalists or coherentists in the justification element. Muslim philosophers specifically paid attention to the problem of knowledge, and defined it as constant certainty corresponding reality. In consideration of ternary definition of knowledge, it can be deduced that Muslim philosophers accepted the corresponding theory in truth element, and accepted foundationalism in justification element. Though, epistemological model of Sadra is different from those of Muslim philosophers in consideration of different evaluations of statements, and emphasis on different role and place of proof and mystic intuition in reaching knowledge, and on the other hand, by accepting that knowledge is existential, and by reducing conceptual knowledge to immediate knowledge. Understanding of Mulla Sadra's theory requires examining his method of the justification element. Various aspects are indicated to distinguish between the Transcendent Philosophy and other philosophical schools. In this view, mystic intuition can play a justifying role. From viewpoint of Mulla Sadra, what should be followed are proof and mystic intuition. In the Sadra’s system, revelation is the criterion for evaluation of mystic intuition. So, reaching knowledge demands the existence of proof or mystic intuition, and the truth of the latter should be evaluated by the revelation. Epistemic system of Sadra is formed by three elements of proof, mystic intuition, and revelation being interrelated to each other. Explaining the epistemological role of proof, mystic intuition, and revelation addresses the context of justification, uncovering the theory of the Transcendent Philosophy about the knowledge. Methods This study describes the problems, analyzes them, and in some cases, criticizes them using a literature review. Results and discussion After determination of the ternary epistemic elements, viz. proof, mystic intuition, and revelation, it can be concluded that real knowledge is gained through proof or mystic intuition. In an initial look, it seems that proof and mystic intuition are different, but since he believes that real knowledge is the immediate knowledge, it can be believed that proof and mystic intuition are single and the same, and that the reality of both is the existential encountering with non-material reality. Each of proof and mystic intuition is preparing a cause for encountering non-material existence and gaining knowledge. After considering the theories that set forth the justifying element in the Sadra’s system, and examining their faults according to this system, another theory is reached herein about justifying element, which is not just foundationalism or coherentism. Conclusion In our opinion, in consideration of epistemological foundations of the Transcendent Philosophy, one cannot believe that Mulla Sadra's theory of justification is the same as those of other Muslim epistemologists. Mulla Sadra's theory of justification is a compound one that authors named it as “existential foundherentism”. From the viewpoint of Mulla Sadra, proof and mystic intuition (purification of the soul) are the preparing causes for the existential encountering of non-material existence, and consequently, for justifying the beliefs. Coherentism of Mulla Sadra and his reliance on proof is the realm of conceptual knowledge. This means that in the realm of conceptual knowledge, he believes in two kinds of statements, i.e. foundational and non-foundational, and justifies the latter by the former. Mulla Sadra's cohrtentism implies his belief of conceptual knowledge to be compatible with immediate knowledge, the latter being compatible to the former. In consideration of Mulla Sadra's foundation, the reality of proof and mystic intuition is unique and the same, and that reality is immediate encountering the object of knowledge. This encountering, as a result, is a product of proof or purification of the soul, that is, both promote the existence of the knower and put him/her in the presence of object of the knowledge, and just here, object of the knowledge attends for the knower and the identity of knower and known occurs. The compound theory named “existential foundherentism”, pays attention both to the role of proof and the mystic intuition. Although in some of his works, Mulla Sadra only emphasizes the proof for justifying the statements, his final viewpoint is to follow proof or mystic intuition, and that proof proves, hence it cannot be incompatible with the mystic intuition, and real proof is not against to the mystic intuition.
