Hamidreza Ayatollahy
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
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
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
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
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.
farideh lazemi; Zolfagar Hemmati
Abstract
Hume 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 ...
Read More
Hume 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.
