Contemporary Wisdom

Existential Foundherentism of Mulla Sadra in the Justification Element

Document Type : Biannual Journal

Authors

Morteza Hosseinzadeh 1
Sahar Kavandi 2
Mohsen Jahed 2

1 PhD Student of Islamic Philosophy and Theology, Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, University of Zanjan, Zanjan, Iran

2 Associate Professor of Philosophy, Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, University of Zanjan, Zanjan, Iran

https://doi.org/10.30465/cw.2018.3272
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 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.

Keywords

Mulla Sadra
Epistemology
element of justification
foundationalism
coherentism
existential foundherentism
خسروپناه، عبدالحسین و حسن پناهی آزاد (1388)، نظام معرفت‌شناسی صدرایی، قم: سازمان انتشارات پژوهشگاه فرهنگ و اندیشۀ اسلامی.
خسروپناه، عبدالحسین و حسن پناهی آزاد (1389)، هستی‌شناسی معرفت، تهران: امیرکبیر.
خواجوی، محمد (1378)، ترجمۀ اسفار اربعة، ج 2، تهران: مولی.
دنسی، جاناتان (1385)،آشنایی با معرفت‌شناسی معاصر، ترجمۀ حسن فتحی، تبریز: مؤسسۀ تحقیقاتی علوم اسلامی انسانی دانشگاه تبریز.
رهبر، حسن، شمس‌الله سراج، و سیدیحیی یثربی (1396)،«نقد روش‌شناختی جایگاه عرفان درمقام داوری در روش‌شناسی فلسفۀ ملاصدرا»،آینه معرفت، س 17،ش 51.
شمس، منصور (1392)،آشنایی با معرفت‌شناسی، تهران: طرح نو.
شیرازی، محمدصدرالدین (1360)،أسرار الآیات و أنوار البینات‏، تهران: انجمن اسلامی حکمت و فلسفۀ اسلامی.
شیرازی، محمدصدرالدین (1361)،الحکمة العرشیة، تهران: مولی.
شیرازی، محمدصدرالدین (1363)،مفاتیح الغیب، تهران: وزارت فرهنگ و آموزش عالى، انجمن اسلامى حکمت و فلسفۀ ایران، مؤسسۀ مطالعات و تحقیقات فرهنگى‏.
شیرازی، محمدصدرالدین (1425)،الحاشیة على الإلهیات الشفاء‏، قم: بیدار.
شیرازی، محمدصدرالدین (1354)،المبدأ و المعاد، تهران: انجمن حکمت و فلسفۀ ایران‏.
شیرازی، محمدصدرالدین (1363)،المشاعر، تهران: طهوری.
شیرازی، محمدصدر‌الدین (1366)،تفسیر القرآن الکریم‏، قم: بیدار.
شیرازی، محمدصدرالدین (1420)،مجموعۀ رسائل فلسفى‏، تهران: حکمت.
شیرازی، محمدصدرالدین(1981)،الحکمة المتعالیة فی الأسفار العقلیة الأربعة بیروت: دار إحیاء التراث العربی‏.
صلواتی، عبدالله (1394)،«تعین معرفتی فلسفة ملاصدرا و نقددو دیدگاه»،حکمت و فلسفه، دورۀ 11، ش 2.
عبادی، احمد (1393)،«تأملی بر دوگانه‌انگاری مقام گردآوری و مقام داوری در مطالعۀ دینی»،اندیشۀ دینی، دورۀ 14، ش 53.
عبودیت، عبدالرسول (1390)،درآمدی بر نظام حکمت صدرایی، قم: مؤسسۀ آموزشی و پژوهشی امام خمینی.
علیزاده، بیوک (1376)،«ماهیت مکتب فلسفی ملاصدرا و تمایز آن از مکتب‌های فلسفی دیگر»، خردنامه، دورۀ 1، ش 1.
فعالی، محمدتقی (1380)،«توجیه ترکیبی در حکمت سینوی و صدرایی»،ذهن، دورۀ 2، ش 5.
فعالی، محمدتقی (1380)،«عیار نقد: ارزیابی نقدی بر مقالۀ توجیه ترکیبی»، ذهن، دورۀ 2، ش 8.
قاسمی، زهرا و محمد سعیدی‌مهر (1389)، «مبناگرایی در بوتۀ نقد»،دوفصل‌نامۀ فلسفی شناخت، دورۀ 1، ش 62.
فرامرز قراملکی، احد (1377)، «روی‌آورد بین رشته‌ای و هویت معرفتی فلسفۀ صدرایی»،مقالات و بررسی‌ها، ش 63.
کشفی، عبدالرسول (1383)،«فروکاهش (تحویل) نظریۀمعرفت‌شناسی مبناگروی به تلائم»، مجلةدانشکدۀ ادبیات و علوم انسانی اصفهان، ش 39.
کشفی، عبدالرسول (1383)، «تعریف سه‌جزئی معرفت و شرط چهارم»، پژوهش‌نامۀ فلسفۀ دین، دورۀ 2، ش 1.
کشفی عبدالرسول (1385)، «دسته‌بندی نظریه‌های توجیه معرفت‌شناختی»، نامۀ حکمت، دورۀ 4، ش 2.
کیاشمشکی، ابوالفضل (1386)،مجموعه‌مقالات منتخب دومین همایش جهانی حکیم ملاصدرا، تهران: بنیاد حکمت اسلامی صدرا.
گرگین، باقر، نجف یزدانی و علی نصرآبادی (1395)، «مبناگرایی حداکثری ملاصدرا و توجیه معرفت»، پزوهش‌های معرفت‌شناختی، دورۀ 5، ش 12.
 
Cain, Jonathan L(2013),Moral Foundherentism, Mississippi: Honors Teses.
Haack, susan(1993),Evidence and Inquiry Towards Reconstruction in Epistemology, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers.
Haack, Susan(1993),Evidence and Inquiry: Towards Reconstruction in Epistemology, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell.
Lightbody, Brian (2006),“Virtue Foundherentism”,criterion,no. 20
Christias, Dionysis (2015),A“Critical Examination of BonJour’s, Haack’s, and Dancy’s Theory of Empirical Justification”, Logos and Episteme, vol. 6, no. 1.
Contemporary Wisdom
Volume 9, Issue 1
June 2018
Pages 23-45

Home

Guide for Authors

Submit Manuscript

Reviewers

Contact Us