One of the important issues which has always occupied man's mind is the contradiction between causal necessity and free will. The Confusion between will and choice, and wrong presentation of the problem of free will has immersed this issue in many ambiguities. Contrary to common conception, the central ...
Read More
One of the important issues which has always occupied man's mind is the contradiction between causal necessity and free will. The Confusion between will and choice, and wrong presentation of the problem of free will has immersed this issue in many ambiguities. Contrary to common conception, the central pillar of the problem is not the sequence of wills; rather, acceptance of causal necessity, and creation of will and its ending up to a cause outside man's soul directly create will in man's soul. The master of theosophers (Mulla Sadra) takes into consideration the main problem of determination in will and even accepts determinism of will and man's volitional actions. However, this does not mean that Mulla Sadra denies man's choice. Using the concepts of ‘agent by compulsion’ and ‘unity of divine acts’, he tries to explain that determination is in harmony with choice and man's acts are compulsory as they are volitional. Reconstructing the problem of free will, the present paper explains and criticizes Mulla Sadra's five answers to this problem. Finally, it concludes that causal necessity contradicts man's free will and choice, so accepting man's choice necessitates causal necessity denial
The Mulla Sadra’s view on the existence of philosophical secondary intelligible has been interpreted and expressed diversely. What is easily understood from Sadra’s statements is that the external aspect of philosophical secondary intelligible is distinguished from its descried aspect. This ...
Read More
The Mulla Sadra’s view on the existence of philosophical secondary intelligible has been interpreted and expressed diversely. What is easily understood from Sadra’s statements is that the external aspect of philosophical secondary intelligible is distinguished from its descried aspect. This discrepancy has not been truly stated by some Neo-Sadraian philosophers those who have interpreted Mulla Sadra’s viewpoint.
I think the source of the most misconceptions of the interpretations is because that the interpreters try to derive from his speeches a general principle for the whole philosophical secondary intelligible, while there are many evidences which indicate that he was not intended to present such a generalized principle.
In this article, at first, we refer to the space in which Mulla Sadra’s thought is constructed and then, review and evaluate Shahid Motahari, Maestro Javadi Amoli, and Maestro Yazdanpanah’s interpretation. Finally, through refer to the different words and interpretations of Mulla Sadra, we try to express the Mulla Sadra’s view about the differentiation of philosophical secondary intelligible
