Hamidreza Ayatollahy
Volume 11, Issue 1 , June 2022, Pages 1-33
Abstract
The answer to the question of the meaning of life has been the concern of many philosophers and thinkers. Some like Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, and Sartre have not given any meaning to life. But many others have tried to give different answers to this question and show with arguments that their point of ...
Read More
The answer to the question of the meaning of life has been the concern of many philosophers and thinkers. Some like Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, and Sartre have not given any meaning to life. But many others have tried to give different answers to this question and show with arguments that their point of view can better explain the meaning of life. This paper intends to first show the main viewpoints proposed in this field (such as God-centeredness, soul-centeredness, naturalism, subjectivism, and objectivism) along with their arguments and criticisms from competing viewpoints. Then, by evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of these views, it should be shown what characteristics a comprehensive theory for the meaning of life should have. Finally, the comprehensive and new viewpoint of the author will be presented and the reasons for preferring this perspective over competing views will be shown.
Tahereh Baghestani; Hadi Vakili; Naeme poormohammadi; Hosein Moosavi
Volume 11, Issue 1 , June 2022, Pages 33-52
Abstract
The problem of evil has occupied the human mind for a long time and thinkers have tried to answer it in many different ways. These ways are sometimes proposed to prevent the feeling of atheism or despair towards the creator of the universe and sometimes to reduce suffering or anxiety in life. In the ...
Read More
The problem of evil has occupied the human mind for a long time and thinkers have tried to answer it in many different ways. These ways are sometimes proposed to prevent the feeling of atheism or despair towards the creator of the universe and sometimes to reduce suffering or anxiety in life. In the tradition of Islamic mysticism, Ibn َArabi, who is the founder of the Akbari school, has provided a solution in this field based on his own mystical principles, namely, Nizam Ahsan, the system of divine names and attributes, fixed entities, and the personal unity of existence. In this article, we are trying to discover and reconstruct Ibn Arabi's answer in this context about the problem of evil based on the existential interpretation, based on these mystical foundations and with regard to contemporary approaches in the philosophy of religion. Based on this solution, from Ibn Arabi's point of view, evil is a relative matter and bound to the determinations and capabilities of the existing phenomena, and since according to the names of divine goodness, the whole system is good, and according to the theory of personal unity of existence, the truth of existence is unique to God. Giving meaning and consolation becomes possible with the presence of God.
Omidreza janbaz; Alireza fazeli
Volume 11, Issue 1 , June 2022, Pages 53-78
Abstract
The interplay between reason and faith, a fundamental query that has been a source of contemplation throughout history, has a social component. Thomas Aquinas, one of the most influential figures in the history of thought, has had a profound impact on modern society. His ideas were instrumental in the ...
Read More
The interplay between reason and faith, a fundamental query that has been a source of contemplation throughout history, has a social component. Thomas Aquinas, one of the most influential figures in the history of thought, has had a profound impact on modern society. His ideas were instrumental in the process of secularization, which sought to remove religious doctrine from public life. However, the views of today's society do not require the removal of religion from society, but its absorption and clear reception in the public arena and efforts to maintain the participation of believers in its members, under the condition of rational interaction. In this regard, late political theology, in view of the shortcomings of modern secular reason, by denying the "pure natural state", searches for some kind of equivalence between the natural and the supernatural. Therefore, Thomas's thought, which according to some, was a stimulus in the formation of the apparently secular society, a claim that has in front of it the documentation of the claim of strong Christian reading within religion, from another point of view, have a special role in the formation of the thought of the post-secular society. In this article, while examining the foundations of Thomas's thought in the formation of secular society, by reviewing several readings and controversies, in the shadow of the references of thinkers such as Milbank and Habermas, we will have reflections on the capacities of his position for the post-secular society.
maryam barooti; Mohammad saeedimehr
Volume 11, Issue 1 , June 2022, Pages 79-99
Abstract
The so-called principle of the simple (Qaideh al-wahid) can be considered as one of the most significant and challenging philosophical principles in the context of the Islamic philosophy. In his Remarks and Admonitios, Ibn Sina has discussed this principle under the title “admonition”. For ...
Read More
The so-called principle of the simple (Qaideh al-wahid) can be considered as one of the most significant and challenging philosophical principles in the context of the Islamic philosophy. In his Remarks and Admonitios, Ibn Sina has discussed this principle under the title “admonition”. For his commentator Khwaja Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, this means that Ibn Sina considers this principle as self-evident. Based on this, with a correct and precise concept of the components of the rule, we should accept it without any requirements to argumentation. In this article, we analyze each of the components of the principle by the method of conceptual analysis and then we examine the consistency between these components. The conclusion is that some of these components are inconsistent with the others and therefore there is no reasonable ground for admitting that the principle is self-evident.
gorbanali karimzadeh garamaleki; Abdullah HosseiniEskandian
Volume 11, Issue 1 , June 2022, Pages 101-118
Abstract
Since the day when mankind entered the field of existence, religion and religious beliefs have also been created, and the question of the origin of religion has always been a fundamental question that every human being has faced. In the meantime, some thinkers like Auguste Comte (1798-1857) consider ...
Read More
Since the day when mankind entered the field of existence, religion and religious beliefs have also been created, and the question of the origin of religion has always been a fundamental question that every human being has faced. In the meantime, some thinkers like Auguste Comte (1798-1857) consider the origin of religion to be human ignorance (Comte, 1998: p.231). Marx (1818-1883) considers religion to be a product of the ruling class to dominate the weak class of society (Marx and Engels, 2019: p.36), and Feuerbach (1804-1872) also believes that religion has a human origin (Feuerbach, 1854: p.104). Freud (1856-1939) also considers religion to arise from the repressed human desires and instincts (Freud, 1983: p. 80). Such atheistic approaches to religion are contrary to the view of Divine religions, which consider the origin of religion to be Divine revelation and the teachings of Divine prophets.One of the approaches to consider is the sociological approach of the origin of religion, and Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) is the most prominent sociological theorist and the one who had the greatest impact on the sociology of religion. Emile Durkheim's view about the origin of religion is one of the views that is widely discussed and known today and can be rejected from various aspects. In this research, an attempt is made to analyze and criticize his view from the perspective of Shahid Motahhari (1919-1979) and John Hick (1922-2012).MethodologyThis article analyzes Emile Durkheim's view on the origin of religion and its criticism from the perspective of Shahid Motahhari and John Hick, with a descriptive-analytical method and with a critical approach.FindingsDurkheim believes that to investigate the origin of religion, one should start from primitive religions (Durkheim, 2017: p.89). Durkheim believes that religions have an evolutionary journey that started with totemism and evolved into current religions (Moreno, 2011: p.109). Durkheim emphasized that religion is both a reasonable phenomenon and an eternal and undeniable reality. At the same time, Durkheim believes that the essence of religion is not in believing in a God beyond nature and the world (Durkheim, 1995: p.109). Durkheim considers the simplest existing religion to be "totemism" or the religion of the Australian aboriginal tribes. From Durkheim's view, totemism is important from two aspects; first, totem is the essence of religion, and second, totemism is a factor for solving conflicts between science and religion; because from his view, in today's individualistic and rationalistic societies, science has the supreme moral and intellectual authority. On the other hand, religion also defines certain frameworks for people, and science, by discovering the deep reality of all religions, does not create another religion, but creates the confidence that society has the power to create the gods it needs in every era (Ritzer, 2012: p.23).Discussion and ConclusionAccording to Durkheim, the origin of all religions is totem, and totem is also derived from society's propositions (Durkheim, 2012: p.67). Durkheim does not consider religion useful except for social benefits, and beyond that religion is useless, but this view has been criticized and is in conflict with rational principles. Shahid Motahhari has criticized Durkheim's view based on Islamic principles. From his view, as Durkheim thought, society is not the main factor in the birth of religion, culture, art, etc., and society should not be considered the real and effective factor in the birth of such important affairs in human life (Motahhari, 2003: p.76). He also has stated consequences such as monopolizing the function of religion in individual life and alienation for Durkheim's theory, and that such a view of religion, although it may be true for other religions, is not true for Islam (Motahhari, 2009: p.90). Shahid Motahhari also considers the belief in totemism, which is one of the principles of Durkheim's theory, to be illusory and unacceptable (Motahhari, 2010: p. 102). John Hick has also tried to challenge Durkheim's sociological view of the origin of religion (Hick, 1993: p.78). Hick considers Durkheim's statement that "society is the origin of religion" to be unproven and unjustifiable, which will never be able to explain the origin of religion well. From Hick's point of view, Durkheim's view can ultimately explain one of the effective factors in religious life, not the origin of religion. According to the criticisms expressed by Shahid Motahhari and John Hick on Durkheim's sociological theory about the origin of religion, it can be acknowledged that Durkheim's theory has no rational basis and proven argument.
somayeh Amiri; Abbas Ahmadi Saadi
Volume 11, Issue 1 , June 2022, Pages 119-132
Abstract
Each ethical school, according to its acceptable subject matter, offers different ethical needs and needs. For Kant, science is a knowledge that has a pre -authored theorems and therefore general and necessary. Any knowledge that is delicate does not deserve the name of science. Ethics, ...
Read More
Each ethical school, according to its acceptable subject matter, offers different ethical needs and needs. For Kant, science is a knowledge that has a pre -authored theorems and therefore general and necessary. Any knowledge that is delicate does not deserve the name of science. Ethics, as a science, also has preceding orders. Ethical "must" never derive from experience; That is, "it is" cannot be deduced. He considers these principles to be due to mental and intellectual forms. Unlike him, the contemporary Muslim thinker Haeri Yazdi refers to all the necessities and interprets them as a non -necessity. In the discussion of intellectual and practical intellect, Kant also described the origin of ethics as the practical reason, the non -empirical and realistic metaphysics that gives its own reality; But according to Haeri Yazdi, there is only one theoretical reason that is sometimes acted outside and is called practical reason. In this paper, it has been attempted to examine the analysis and comparison method of the philosophical foundations of these two philosophers that have made them different in their perspective. The issue of ethics among religious and epistemic issues is one of the issues that is of particular importance and requires special attention in the discussion. They usually divide the religious issues into three separate sections: beliefs, decrees, ethics, ethics, ethics, ethics, ethics And among all kinds of research on ethics (descriptive, normative, and transnational) research, transcript and analytical and philosophical studies on ethical propositions. Metro -ethics is a science that deals with the philosophical analysis of the meaning and characteristic of moral language, such as: "good" and "bad", "right" and "inaccurate" meanings. Therefore, transcendence is about grammatical ethics and seeks to explain the words and concepts used in this ethics. We are more dealing with the meaning of the word "good" in transcendence; That is, whether good is what we find in objects or something we can, such as: to see color or to feel pain that has been presented on transnational issues. (Palmer, 1995, 156) One of the philosophical issues in the science of ethics is what distinguishes the former elements from the empirical elements, and what is the justification for accepting the former elements? That is, how can we be able to achieve the principles of behavior that is binding to all human beings, in the context of ethics, "must" be "should" or nine? Can we argue for ethical propositions? Or how can we come from the real -life of the real sciences? What is the appreciation and validity of human behavior? There is no emphasis on the beings. Unlike him, Kant acted in the opposite of other scholars (and so -called Copernican Revolution), as well as in the case of moral affairs; That is to say, the predecessors concluded from the essence of self -esteem and the survival of the soul that man was obliged to ethical duties, but he considered the human being to be certain of the moral duties, then concluded the survival of the soul and the certainty of the existence of the Lord. Regarding the purpose of studying ethics, Kant generally believes that the task of the philosopher is to search and, if possible, prove the principle of supreme ethics. What is the purpose of moral duty or requirement and what is our justification for accepting that we are essentially a task? But the late Haeri, who founded his thoughts on the basis of conventional ontological ideas among Muslim thinkers, believes that the issue of ethical propositions and how to achieve them is one of the most important human concerns, the way to which one can be. Its personal and social happiness. Cutting human beings from moral life, or morality of relativity, can cause irreparable damage to man. But on the other hand, in dealing with serious questions in the field of ethics, one must look for reasonable answers. Both thinkers want to achieve this goal through reason. 2- Kant and the late Haeri Yazdi have both paid much attention to ethical precepts and values. Kant states that merely matching the verb and duty is not enough to know it. Rather, this must also have been issued for the purpose of doing so. Both have paid special attention to the issue of Hassan Faali in addition to the current good. But Kant has unfortunately gone on the way to the intention. Kant says it belongs to the intention of "respect for the law of reason". That is, moral work is something that has been done by the motivation of obedience to the law and the law of reason. The basic question that remains is that creating this intention requires a number of specific essentials. Whatever the basis, they need cognition. That is, they are based on the precepts of theoretical reason. In other words, that I want to act on my duty is because I know it perfection for myself. The intention of obeying the law of reason is issued by man when it values the respect of the law. But where does this value of the law come from? If this is also a moral sentence, there will be a seizure. And if it is a theoretical matter, it is the theoretical thing that man considers it to be perfection. Therefore, beyond the intention of doing the task is another intention, which is that I want to do it because I want to do it. However, Kant states that if anyone does something to do something, his job will not be a moral thing.
farideh lazemi; Zolfagar Hemmati
Volume 11, Issue 1 , June 2022, Pages 141-166
Abstract
IntroductionHume published Books 1 and 2 of his Treatise in 1739. By publishing these two books, he proposed views that were against many core teachings of Christianity. These themes were repeated more extensively at length in Hume’s First Enquiry, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Natural ...
Read More
IntroductionHume published Books 1 and 2 of his Treatise in 1739. By publishing these two books, he proposed views that were against many core teachings of Christianity. These themes were repeated more extensively at length in Hume’s First Enquiry, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Natural History of Religion, An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, Essays: Moral, Political, and Literary, The Letters of David Hume, in particular A Letter from a Gentleman to his friend in Edinburgh, Early Memoranda, and An Abstract of A Treatise of Human Nature, and the lessons and teachings of the Christian religion were undermined and discredited by his extreme skeptical arguments.The last paragraph of the third book of the treatise, which was translated into Persian by Dr. Jalal Paykani in 2017, makes it clear that Hume did not consider his philosophy to be important only theoretically. This passage states:An anatomist ought never to try to copy the painter, as though in his minute dissections and portraitures of the smaller parts of the human body he could give his figures any graceful and engaging attitude or expression! . . . But an anatomist is admirably fitted to give advice to a painter; indeed, it is hardly possible to excel in painting without the assistance of the anatomist. We must have an exact knowledge of the parts, their positions, and their connections, before we can draw with any elegance or correctness. And thus the most abstract speculations concerning human nature, however cold and unentertaining, become subservient to practical morality; and they can render this latter science more correct in its precepts, and more persuasive in its exhortations (Hume, 2018A: 431-432).According to this very important passage, Paul Russell in his recent paper, entitled “Hume's Skepticism and the Problem of Atheism”, Robert Fogelin in his book, entitled “Hume's Skepticism in the Treatise of Human Nature”, and the famous writer, J. M Robertson in the book, entitled “The Dynamics of Religion”, have mentioned that Hume's practical purpose of designing this collection of skeptical arguments is discrediting the religion. Recently, Mrs. Farideh Lazemi presents a very similar view in her doctoral thesis, entitled “The place of Religion on David Hume's Philosophy”. This researcher claims in the opening section of her work:Hume discredits the religious beliefs and teachings of Christian philosophy, such as the existence and attributes of God, the doctrine of the immateriality of the soul, the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, the doctrine of a future state, the doctrine of future rewards and punishments, the doctrine of free will, the nature and conditions of moral responsibility, and the consequences of this for human happiness and misery, and the connection between religion and moral principles, as well as the reasonability of testimony and belief in miracles, with a view to the re-direction of philosophical research in the field of life, with the special purpose of project of a “science of man”, that this irreligious purpose of David Hume's philosophy is by no means completely theoretical in its nature; Because the irreligious philosophy of this philosopher has an obvious practical intention, and that is to discredit the role of religion in human life (Lazemi, 2022: 21).The authors of this paper claim that despite the efforts of our prominent and young commentators who aimed to present a clear and good interpretation of Hume's practical goal, there are still some faults in their interpretations, which major of them are the lack of interest in Hume's naturalistic observations about the origins and roots of religion, and human's natural need for religion, the observations that, in our opinion, lead us to his optimistic approach to the presence of religion in human life, which is the main goal of this study. It is true that Hume reaches the negative conclusion that superstition is harmful and a remedy should be found for it, but he does not leave us at this point. In his works, he plainly aims to describe the detailed mechanisms that enable us to see religion as an original sin in human nature. In this case, there is no hope of us entirely purging humanity of these propensities and tendencies.A very important question can be raised here, and that is, why do we try to call Hume's attitude to presence of religion in human life is a moderate optimistic attitude? In response, on the one hand, it should be said that this commentary allows audience and readers of this philosopher to dislodge the most common attached title to Hume's religious position, that is; Extreme Pessimist. On the other hand, in recent years, Hume scholars have only focused on the negative and destructive aspects of his philosophical program and have not paid enough attention to the constructive and positive aspects of his irreligious program. Therefore, our interpretation warns us from giving one-sided emphasis to the critical features of Hume's irreligious philosophy. In other words, by this interpretation, we do not give emphasis to the negative and destructive aspects of Hume's philosophical program, but we are also able to understand the constructive and positive aspects of the irreligious program of Hume's philosophy of religion. It should be noted that in the contemporary era, and especially in the last decade, due to the lack of understanding of the continuity between Hume’s earliest work and his later works on religion, such an interpretation is ignored in the philosophy of religion of this philosopher. MethodologyIn this paper we have used an analytical-comparative method. At first, we have explained Hume's position regarding the theoretical and practical part of religion. Then, we have explained Hume's complex psychological and historical theories about the origins and roots of religion, about the justice/ religion analogy t, and about the important role of religion in human life. By using these two ways, we have criticized our leading and young commentator’s account of Hume's practical intention and have shown that Hume's irreligious program in its practical aspect represents moderate optimism on presence of religion in human life. FindingsResearch findings show that Hume's attitude to presence of religion in human life, at least in its minimal and inevitable form, is optimistic. Discussion and conclusionThis Research outlines, based on evidence and documentation, Hume's attitude to presence of religion in human life can be described as a moderate optimistic attitude, contrary to common view. The most important of these evidences are described in the following:Hume's naturalistic commitments: Hume's naturalistic commitments show that religion plays a fundamental and valuable role in human life and society- one that it is plainly unwise to disturb and dislodge.Hume was unwilling to discredit religion: Hume himself did not want to abolish religion and destroy it completely. He has directed his irreligious efforts only at the more destructive forms of religion. It is certainly true that most forms of Christianity Hume was familiar with would fall into this category. We have seen that his skeptical-academic arguments were aimed at only the dogmatic rationality of the defenders of the Christian religion, and therefore this conclusion does not commit him to any kind of common extreme pessimistic hypothesis regarding the presence of religion in human life.Hume's skeptical principles are in conformity with the first Reformers views: by presenting the connection between Hume's skeptical principles and natural religion issues, our findings indicate that Hume's extreme skeptical principles are in conformity with the first Reformers and also some Catholic thinkers, who were never deemed irreligious, that when Christianity was first established, their skeptical views were usual for religious teachers to preserve “the excellency of faith” and to denigrate natural reason.Hume's disloyalty to extreme optimistic principles: Although the need and propensity to religion will always be with us (i.e. original superstition), Hume is no fatalist in face of these natural forces. By unmasking religion, both with respect to its absurdities and corrupting tendencies, we can help ourselves overcome many of the difficulties we must inevitably encounter, given the human predicament. To this extent, Hume is an optimist. But this optimism subject is accompanied with a fair measure of pessimism.
Amirhossein Khodaparast
Volume 11, Issue 1 , June 2022, Pages 167-194
Abstract
Introduction: One of the very old and popular arguments for the existence of God is the argument known as the consensus gentium argument/common consent argument. According to this argument, the fact that so many people have acknowledged the existence of God throughout human history, and many of our contemporaries, ...
Read More
Introduction: One of the very old and popular arguments for the existence of God is the argument known as the consensus gentium argument/common consent argument. According to this argument, the fact that so many people have acknowledged the existence of God throughout human history, and many of our contemporaries, without colluding with each other or even being influenced by each other, believe in the existence of God, shows that there is a God. In this paper, first, we briefly introduce the Persian writings about the common consent argument, some of which have compared this argument with the innate-based argument on the existence of God. Then, to show a schema of this argument, we track its history back to Cicero and Seneca and get two readings of it: the reading based on inference to the best explanation and the reliability-based reading. Both of these readings are faced with the challenge that one can present a similar but atheistic version of theirs on the non-existence of God and conclude that the fact that so many people have denied the existence of God throughout human history, and many of our contemporaries, without colluding with each other or even being influenced by each other, do not believe in the existence of God, shows that there is no God. After raising this challenge, we look at it from the perspective of religious disagreement between theists and atheists, and considering their epistemic peerhood, we conclude that regardless of the criticisms that have been brought to both readings of the common consent argument, the mere religious disagreement can be a higher-order evidence that none of the versions of the common consent argument on the existence of God can prove their results. In fact, the theoretical framework of the epistemology of disagreement provides a new possibility for the critical evaluation of the common consent argument and shows its inadequacy.Methodology: This research proceeds according to the method of critical philosophical analysis, and in it, the conceptual and critical analysis of the most important views about the common consent argument on the existence of God will be at work.Findings: The common consent argument on the existence of God can be examined in the form of two different readings: inference to the best explanation and the reliability-based reading. The inference to the best explanation reading is to show that the best explanation of the preponderance of belief in God throughout human history and in vast geographical and cultural areas is to consider this belief as true. The reliability-based reading it to show that our trust in our own cognitive faculties necessitates our trust in the cognitive powers of others. Since throughout history and in vast geographical and cultural areas, a very large number of people have believed in God, our epistemic trust in ourselves obliges us to epistemic trust in them and believe in God. The dominant form of reading the common consent argument has been reading it in the form of inference to the best explanation, but the criticisms on this reading lead us to the reliability-based reading of it. However, it is not difficult to consider an atheistic version of the common consent argument as opposed to a theistic version of it: Since throughout human history and in vast geographical and cultural areas, a very very large number of people have not believed in God, our epistemic trust in ourselves obliges us to have epistemic trust in them and not believe in God. These two versions are apparently parallel, but one challenge, in particular, threatens the theistic version on two levels: the challenge of religious disagreement. At the first level, the challenge of disagreement with atheists may show that in the conditions of epistemic peerhood, the disagreement of atheists with theists may be considered as evidence against the common consent argument. On the second level, which is more important and influential, systematic religious disagreements between theists destroys the possibility of epistemic trust in their relative consensus. These disagreements show that there are disagreements behind this apparent consensus that make us doubt the way the religious belief-forming process works.Discussion and Conclusion: The common consent argument on the existence of God, which is essentially based on a kind of epistemic consensus, faces the important challenge of religious disagreement, an epistemic challenge that seems to prevent it from achieving its goal. Therefore, this argument, even in its new versions formed by philosophers such as Linda Zagzebski and Thomas Kelly, is not a complete argument.
Muhammad nejadiran
Volume 11, Issue 1 , June 2022, Pages 195-221
Abstract
The purpose of the present research is to investigate Ali Shariati's approach to the history of Islam as one of the contemporary religious intellectuals of Iran and to investigate his influence of Marx's theory of class conflict in the analysis and interpretation of historical phenomena in the general ...
Read More
The purpose of the present research is to investigate Ali Shariati's approach to the history of Islam as one of the contemporary religious intellectuals of Iran and to investigate his influence of Marx's theory of class conflict in the analysis and interpretation of historical phenomena in the general formulation of his religious views. By applying the theory of class conflict in the reading of Islamic history and religious texts, Shariati has extracted a revolutionary narrative from it, which is of particular importance in drawing the ideological image of religion in his thinking. The main issue is, what place has the theory of class conflict had in Shariat's historiography and Islamology? This research, using the analytical-historical method, wants to analyze the main characteristics of Shariati's narration of history and religious texts and differentiate his approach with Marxist ideas.Shariati's radical and revolutionary reading of Islamic history is the result of his being influenced by Marx's historical theories, but this does not mean the complete acceptance of the materialistic ideas of Marx's historical theories. Shariati's way of using the capacity of the theory of class conflict in presenting a new reading of religion by focusing on the history of religious texts is one of the most important findings of this research. The general result of this research shows that the separation of class conflict theory from historical materialism in the Marxist tradition is the most important feature of Shariati's radical and revolutionary reading of Islamic history.
Seyede Leila mosavi; Mahdi Akhavan
Volume 11, Issue 1 , June 2022, Pages 223-250
Abstract
The question of "the meaning of life" is one of the issues that are very important in our time; but the thought system in which Farabi thinks is such that the meaning of life is not questioned in today's common terms. The answer to the question of how the "meaning of life" is explained from Farabi's ...
Read More
The question of "the meaning of life" is one of the issues that are very important in our time; but the thought system in which Farabi thinks is such that the meaning of life is not questioned in today's common terms. The answer to the question of how the "meaning of life" is explained from Farabi's point of view depends on the study of his philosophical foundations to the extent that Farabi's possible answer can be deduced. Hence, the article leading to the answer to whether human life has meaning or not, and assuming the meaning is proven, what is this meaning from Farabi's point of view and how is it explained and under which of the theories is it placed, to examine the opinion. The second teacher talks about God, soul and happiness.Despite the fact that the discussion of the meaning of life is almost a new philosophical topic, in recent years it has attracted the attention of many researchers and writers around the world. According to this global approach, the researchers of our country have tried to provide answers against western theories by using rich religious (Islam) and philosophical resources. Some of these studies are sufficient to examine and analyze the theories presented by Western researchers and philosophers, and some of them independently present theories derived from Islamic philosophers (the meaning of life from the perspective of Ibn Sina, Ibn Arabi, Mulla Sadra, Allameh Tabatabayi...) But Farabi's philosophy has received less attention. The importance of Farabi as the founder of Islamic philosophy and one of the greatest commentators of Aristotle is not hidden from anyone. In fact, everything that others have claimed in Islamic philosophy, especially in the philosophy of ethics and practical wisdom, has its roots in Farabi's thought. Furthermore, the capacities in Farabi's philosophy regarding various moral issues and the individual and social life of human beings require, finding an answer to the questions raised about the meaning of life by studying and examining the works and opinions of the second teacher in a more detailed way. And this subject should be presented in the form of common literature. The assumptions of this research about Farabi are based on three principles: 1. As a Muslim philosopher, Farabi believes in God and life after death, and therefore the soul. 2. In logic, natural sciences, the problem of the soul, metaphysics and ethics, he is subject to Greek sages, especially Aristotle. 3. Farabi is virtue-oriented and goal-oriented in explaining moral issues.Based on this and according to the main research questions:Farabi believes in the meaningfulness of life and his theory is in the category of meaningful theories, and the dominant aspect of Farabi's view of the meaning of life is due to the important position of God and the soul (spirit) in Farabi's philosophy and the role they play in the plan of existence. Undoubtedly, it is a super- naturalistic view. But on the other hand, Farabi's attention to the category of "happiness" and "virtue-based ethics" is such that it brings this theory closer to naturalistic theories. With this basic difference that in Farabi's naturalism, human life does not gain meaning independent of the necessity of the existence of God and the immortal soul. Therefore, this theory can introduce another form of naturalism to researchers in the field of meaning.According to three components: God, immortal soul and happiness (not in the limited sense of pleasure); Human life has meaning only if a person acquires moral virtues in order to achieve the intellectual happiness that God has planned for him by choice and awareness. The highest degree of happiness is fully realized after the destruction of the body with the survival of the soul.Based on this theory;1. Willing is a necessary condition for the realization of happiness.2. Farabi is an eschatological philosopher who assigns goals for human life independent of God's purpose, according to his nature and existential truth, and he emphasizes on the belief that man "discovers" these goals with the help of his human powers.3. Good things are among the things that are desirable to the human soul, and the best of these things is "happiness".4. The desire for happiness is embedded in human nature, but it is not properly discovered until it is placed on the path of rationality; therefore, the meaning of human life, which is equivalent to achieving happiness, cannot be "constructed".5. Happiness, which includes the meaning of human life, is a single meaning that cannot be multiplicity; therefore, the meaning of life is the same for all human beings.6. In Farabi's ethical system, a person attains happiness after recognizing, choosing and continuously performing virtuous actions. Such an idea is reminiscent of "objectivist" theories.7. Life is not meaningful with mere theoretical knowledge and knowledge of good and bad. In addition, life does not become meaningful by chance and by chance without action. Such opinions are included under "pragmatic" theories.8. The idea of "perfect happiness" in Farabi's philosophy shows his "holistic" view about the meaning of life. In addition to the fact that it is necessary for all human actions to be virtuous to reach happiness, human life has a general meaning and can be evaluated.9. The highest good means, reaching ultimate happiness, is a kind of intellectual perfection that cannot be realized in the material world. Therefore, with the destruction of the body and the survival of the soul in the world after death, it will be fully and finally realized.In the end, it is suggested that, in order to enrich the subject under discussion, a comparative study between Farabi's theory and similar theories, including Islamic philosophy and Western philosophy, especially analytical and contemporary philosophy, should be done.
