moha,mmad shah hoseini; mohsen jahed; Rahim Dehghan
Abstract
Mulla Sadra considers humans to be a single species in the ecstasy of the world, and at the same time, he introduces human beings as multiple and different internally. His interpretation of multiplicity is something which is in change moment-by-moment. This duality in relation to unity has created the ...
Read More
Mulla Sadra considers humans to be a single species in the ecstasy of the world, and at the same time, he introduces human beings as multiple and different internally. His interpretation of multiplicity is something which is in change moment-by-moment. This duality in relation to unity has created the suspicion eclecticism in his views and has made the disentanglement of duality difficult. He accepts the criteria through which theologian come up with a new species and considers the speech capability of human beings as a criterion for considering all human beings belonging to the same species; however, relying on his theory of substantial motion, he sees human beings as becoming new moment-by-moment. This ambiguity, which can be attributed to the lack of formation of science of logic based on transcendental theology, has make it difficult to clarify the criterion based on Mulla Sadra’s point of view. The present study is concerned with the duality of unity and multiplicity of the human species, and the goal is to resolve the duality. However, the conclusion is that, although the idea of plurality of human species has a clear framework originated from transcendental theology, it is not easy to integrate this idea with the emphasis that Milla Sadra has made on the unity of human species in the ecstasy of the world.
Mohammad Hossein Ansari Cheshmaeh; Rahim Dehghan; Ebrahim Nouee
Abstract
In the field of ethics, the theories of natural law and the inherent good and evil are sometimes considered the same. The reason is that the theory of natural law has not been clearly defined and no attempt has been made to identify he differences between the two theories. According to the findings of ...
Read More
In the field of ethics, the theories of natural law and the inherent good and evil are sometimes considered the same. The reason is that the theory of natural law has not been clearly defined and no attempt has been made to identify he differences between the two theories. According to the findings of the present study, there are six key differences between the two: (1) In the theory of natural law, contrary to the theory of intrinsic good and evil, recognition of values is a kind of reminder; (2) in the theory of natural law, ethics is based on human capacity, intrinsic needs and orientations; (3) In the theory of natural law, the origin of the propositions of practical reason goes back to fundamental goodness which is rooted in the natural needs and desires; (4) These two theories are formulated in two completely different intellectual traditions, one in the Aristotelian ethics and the other in the Islamic ideological theology; (5) The theory of natural law has more successful applications; (6) The interpretation of the theory of natural law is different from that of the theory of intrinsic good and evil. Relying on intrinsic goodness, the theory of intrinsic good and evil, seeks moral truths among facts outside human existence, such as the essence of action based on rational arguments, while the theory of natural law lays the foundation of moral laws in natural capacities of human existence. Adopting an analytical-descriptive method, the present paper tries to explain the differences between these two theories.
