Abstract The quality of bodily resurrection has been a complicated problem throughout the history of religious, theological and philosophical thoughts. Theorists have been trying to strengthen the grounds to overcome the problem. Transcendent Philosophy explains these grounds and principles to solve the problem. One of the most important of these tenets is the knowledge of the soul and its principles. Through the theory of ‘bodily origination and spiritual survival of the soul’, Transcendent sages have been paved the way. But in this theory the relation between material body and immaterial soul in bodily resurrection seems problematic also. Hakīm Modasses, with his special method, tried to explain this relation and stated his principle in bodily resurrection problem. His theory is based upon ‘dynamic body toward static soul’. In spite of depending on the principles of transcendent philosophy, it leads to logically different conclusion. This variation is innovative but it would be finally evaluated as a turning to theological conclusions which is could not be regarded as a little difference. In the realm of soul-body relationship as the most prominent principle to the bodily resurrection, the explanation of Hakīm `Āqa `Ali Modarres clarifies some essential difficulties and pave the way to more precise consideration on this basic religious belief. This prevents the superficialist attitudes toward religious belief and thought

Abstract In this essay I try to analyze briefly the claim and proofs of Mu‘tazilite’s nonbeing objects (thubūt), Russell's earlier view in Principles of Mathematics, and Russell's later view on negative facts. I, then, indicate that since these claims have been defended and reconstructed even in the recent years, it is necessary to reevaluate such views. Since we should not regard their counter–intuitiveness as sufficient in criticizing them, I attempt to show some of their logical unacceptable consequences: if they are true, they ontologically will result in an infinite regress

Abstract The root and source of the unity of existence is mysticism, and it has been entered into philosophy from this realm. Perhaps the first philosophical explanation of the mystics’ unity of existence doctrine has been done by Dawwani. But this philosophical explanation has some unjustified and irrational consequences and accessories. Sadra, also, makes his best efforts to give a philosophical explanation of mystics’ unity of existence of doctrine. He did that through abandoning the theory of analogical unity of existence and suggesting a new philosophical system, whose pieces have been mentioned in Asfar (Volume II) and other places of the book and also in the book of Igaz an-naimin (Awakening the sleepers). By this way, he not only has not ended philosophy, but has brought it into a new realm of philosophical thoughts. So, we must design this new philosophical system to understand this important stage of his philosophy, especially to understand his philosophical explanation of personal unity and its valuable accessories. In this paper we describe briefly the philosophical system and the ontology of Dawwani’s approach, and attempt, as much as possible, express his philosophical explanation of unity of existence through an optimistic outlook. Then we will show that even though there are some the similarities between this explanation and Sadra's philosophical explanation, Dawwani’s approach is self-inconsistent and that is why we will criticize it ultimately. Afterwards, we continue to express the Sadra's philosophical explanation of mystical unity of existence. So the object of this paper is to compare these two philosophical explanation, reveal their strengths and weaknesses, also the relationship between these two explanations. It will be clear that Sadra's philosophical explanation is worthy and reasonably defensible through a new philosophical system which has been followed by Sadra and he has referred to it in his books, not in the analogical unity of existence

Abstract From Allameh Jafari’s point of view, the real meaning of human life will be obtained by the progression and reach to intellectual life. This issue is directly related to human cognition and attending to his/her place as the pivot of existence and the substitute of GOD in the world. Human ego is a lawful existence which is improved based on these laws and also in accord with the whole of the meaningful existence. The origin of these laws and human forces is ‘self’ which is more valuable than natural existence of human being. Then mere attention to natural existence of human being will deprive him/her from attention to Transcendental valuable capacities; because with the actualization of the celestial and spiritual forces of human, he/she can make his/her life meaningful and also can be improved. This article will try to investigate the meaning of life based on the Allameh Jafari’s point of view

Abstract One of the most difficult topics in metaphysic is that how multiplicity of beings has been aroused from simple reality. Sufism Moslem scholars like Mohyedin Arabi has a special viewpoint which called ‘Individual unity of existence theory’. Mullah Sadri axiomatized this theory through the principles of his philosophy and defended of its rationality. In this paper I will show that individual unity of existence theory has three main problematic consequences; first, denial of casualty; second, fatalism; and third, Panentheism. So in this essay finally will be shown that accepting the theory will be ended up in atheism so will be resulted in anti-rationalism

Abstract Most of the researches who have thought on Time from the Islamic, Peripatetic, and Sadraian point of view, have concentrated on the relationship between motion and Time. This concentration perhaps caused the other faces of this sophisticated and ancient metaphysical problem be neglected. One of the most important of them is the subjectivity or objectivity of the time. This paper wants to review the answer of Mulla Sadra’s philosophical thought to this important question. So at first I try to explain the distinction between ‘Date’ and ‘Tense’ as two separated concepts of the time. Then, I will show that the Ibn Sina and his Muslim followers’ understanding of time, is based on the first concept (Date), and on the other side, the Muslim theologians (like Ash’arites) have a similar concept. So in The Final Step of this research, it will be shown that on the principles of Mulla Sadra’s thaught we can consider Time as a completely mental factor, so it has not been derived from any objective matter, like the ‘motion’. But we accept that this conclusion would be denied by the most followers of Mulla Sadra

Abstract Self-existent in its essence has multiple inherent and real qualities. On the other hand, self-existent has the most simple and pure essentiality. The summation of the extreme simplicity and the diversity of God’s qualities is done based on the Mulla Sadra’s perspective on the essence of simplicity, relying on the rule of simplicity of essence in its gradation. The particular point of view offered by Mulla Sadra about the traits leads to attributing some more special characteristics to the divine existent. The purpose of the current study is to explain the characteristics offered by Mulla Sadra, concentrating on the Sadraian rule of the simplicity of essence and its gradation