JOURNAL OF RELIGIOUS THOUGHT
Year:2010 | Volume:- | Issue:36

In this paper, firstly, it is shown that the standard account of the concept ‘practice’ in the Wittgenstein’s philosophy is a therapeutic one. According to this account, the normative standard of the rightness and wrongness of the use of words cannot be put into words. This account can be seen as the negative aspect of the whole idea of normativity. Secondly, I argue that therapy alone is not adequate. In order to give a plausible account of the whole idea of normativity, the positive aspect of the concept ‘practice’ has to be presented. Thirdly, I suggest that distinguishing between the first order and the second order account of the concept ‘practice’ might be a way of explaining the positive aspect. According to the first order account, the constituents of the concept ‘practice’ have to be given. The second order account sketches out the idea that practice goes all the way down. Our confrontation with things in the world is based upon doing rather than theorising at the very basic level. Overt activities ultimately depend on mental activities.

One of the most important theories suggested in the modern period for the solution of the problem of causal relations between mind and body, and also between bodies, was Berkeley’s solution.Berkeley denies the material substance and also the distinction between primary and secondary qualities, and therefore introduces the material world as a collection of ideas. Consequently in his philosophy he denies the natural causation as the relation of cause and effect. In his positive theory of causation he interprets causes as agents, and considers free agents as the only agents. In his philosophy, therefore, causes are limited to minds or spirits, including infinite mind of God and finite mind of humans. He deduces activity of God’s mind from sensible ideas and activity of self from imaginary ideas. Here physical actions are the very ideas of sense or the real things. But the problem is that these actions are God's actions not mine. Moreover when Berkeley wants to prove the existence of the other human minds he proves them by their physical actions that are the very ideas of sense and this, makes the other problem that how both God’s mind and finite minds can cause ideas of sense. It seems that Berkeley for solving of this problem has involved in the occasionalism.

Defining the nature of prophetical revelation and recognizing of its reality are not so easy. There are several interpretations concerning its nature, the one we will discuss in this paper is considering it as a “religious experience”.Can we consider the “Qur’an” as a product of religious experience of the prophet Muhammad (p.b.u) ? Can we call the Qur’an as the word of God himself? Is this experience affected by spiritual character of the prophet? Based on this approach to the prophetical revelation, how we can say that the Qur’an is a miracle or is free from arrogation or failure? These are the questions discussed in this paper.

Ibn Sina considers the possibility of the quiddity as the criterion of the need of an effect to a cause, but Mulla Sadra criticizing this kind of possibility, insists on another kind of possibility- called poorly possibility – as a criterion. We will discuss in this paper first the Suhravardi’s view in this relation. We will show that Suhravardi frequently in his works considers essential poverty as the criterion of the need of the lights to their causes. From his point of view, the essences or the lights are nothing but the radiance or the Light of the lights. This has two consequences: 1- All the existent beings are nothing but relations to God; 2- All the acts in the world are nothing but God’s acts.

The problems of the nature of motion and how it exists in the external world are among the most important philosophical discourses that have preoccupied the philosophers from the ancient Greece up to the Islamic era. The philosophers have brought up four theories in response to the question whether motion, while maintaining its unity, is a discontinuous or a continuous matter in the external world. Contrary to the philosophers before him, Mirdamad is the first Muslim philosopher who has openly talked about the external realization of motion in its both famous forms: mediating and intersect. Mulla Sadra although not as openly as his master, has defended this theory with a criticism of the proofs of those who deny intersect motion. In this paper we will compare the viewpoints of these two philosophers on this subject.

Theology (Kalam).is a rational attempt to illustrate and defend religious belief. This branch of science has been criticized by both some faithful people and some disbelievers.Ghazali in some of his works has helped this science to improve and in other places has strong opposition to it. How we can reconcile these two opposite approaches.Is there any change or contradiction in his thought? In this paper we will discuss these questions and conclude that he suggests different approaches to religion for different people and his teachings in this relation have important implications in religious education.

Theologians attempt to find rational arguments for illustrating the roots of religion. One of the most difficult problems of Islamic theology is to demonstrate rationally the resurrection of bodies mentioned in the Qur’an. No philosopher has been successful in this course as much as Mulla Sadra. In this paper we will discuss his view concerning this problem. Based on eleven principles of his philosophy, he shows that human resurrection is both spiritually and bodily.