Modern Philosophy

Modern Philosophy

Identification:

• Author: Mohammad Reza Niknam (b. 1327)
• Title: Modern Philosophy / Niknam
• Publisher: Tehran: Sobhe Farda Publishing, 2014
• Physical Description: 90 pages
• ISBN: 978-600-6435-16-9
• Cataloging Status: FIPA
• Note: This book was previously published under the title Modern Philosophy by Zohoor Shafaq Publishing in 2007.
• Note: Second edition.
• Alternative Title: Modern Philosophy
• Subject: Islamic Philosophy – 14th century
• Library of Congress Classification: BBR14 / N8 F8 2014
• Dewey Decimal Classification: 189.1
• National Bibliography Number: 3684124

Preface

Throughout human history, human thought has undergone various transformations, with its structure and focus being the formation of philosophy and the human understanding of existence. The most complex of these ideas can be found in Islamic philosophy, which is notable for the abundance of individuals, diverse ideas, schools, and various periods. This work examines a newly emerged idea within this tradition that, after the school of the Neo-Sadrists in Qom, who sought to revive the philosophy of Mulla Sadra, analyzes and critiques that school, offering different perspectives based on rationalism and perceptible intuition while rejecting the ideas that oppose reason. In doing so, this work aims to present only the foundational aspects of this new school, favoring brevity and conciseness. A more detailed discussion of these topics can be found in other philosophical and mystical writings, with over forty volumes of philosophical works.

In our analysis and critique of past philosophical schools, we first distinguish between fundamental and derivative discussions, classifying them according to their importance and role in other discussions. We have removed non-philosophical topics and those related to other sciences and prioritized lively and contemporary issues. Therefore, while past philosophical texts are challenged, we cannot ignore their prominent works, particularly Asfar and other writings of Transcendent Theosophy. However, discussions that do not yield philosophical results have been identified, and their imitative propositions, especially the formal syllogisms borrowed from Ibn Sina, which have persisted for over a thousand years, have been excluded from philosophy.

The present collection of philosophical critiques, if pursued further, could lead to a monumental shift in philosophy, smoothing over many of its inconsistencies.

It is important to emphasize that philosophy is the rational nature of human beings and is not attributable to any particular religion, as philosophical discussions are the result of reason and evidence, while religious topics rely on revelation. Although religious foundations differ from religious issues and principles, they have an intellectual basis. In this regard, some legal and religious propositions, beyond relying on transmitted texts, also have a rational foundation.

The distinction between philosophical discussions and other sciences lies in the fact that philosophy carries the burden of proof. For example, it says that luck or fate has no basis, and all things in existence have their causes and means. But if one asserts the validity of fate, it must be proven. Hence, the work of the philosopher is to negate or prove. They declare what exists and what does not, while religion relies on revelation, and there is a fundamental difference between these two matters. Unfortunately, philosophical, theological, and mystical discussions have become conflated, with theological topics being introduced into philosophy or mysticism, creating much confusion and disorder, as the nature of theological discussions differs from philosophical debates, just as the philosophical method differs from the mystical approach. Despite this, they are often collectively discussed as if they were a single discipline.

After conducting theoretical research, a sound and complete belief must be acquired and clarified—distinguishing what is correct and essential from what is incorrect or subsidiary, and determining which is philosophical, theological, or mystical, so that ultimately, the confusion in the sciences of reason can be resolved.

Discussions must be chosen fundamentally and presented with solid, logical reasoning so that unfounded or weakly supported beliefs are identified. This is the least we owe to our ancestors and the greatest service we can offer to future generations.

Matters such as the nature of being, which we believe have no affirmative place in philosophy and belong to conceptual discussions, must be removed from philosophy, while dynamic, vibrant, clear, and new topics, which are absent in current works, must be pursued. Writing repetitive materials or parroting philosophy is of no use; rather, as heirs to this legacy, we should rethink and refine philosophical ideas so that fresh life is breathed into the moribund philosophy that has emerged in Islamic lands.

We must purify this heritage as heirs, and as living thinkers, we must present fresh, contemporary discussions. Accordingly, outdated or irrelevant topics that have no bearing on philosophy should be removed, and new, relevant topics should be incorporated into it.

The philosophy we currently possess is, to some extent, domestic and isolated. From beginning to end, it deals with a limited set of issues such as essence, existence, and causality—topics appropriate for previous eras but passed down to us as a legacy. As heirs, we should not only make use of this inheritance; we must also engage in production. This applies to all discussions of reason and transmission.

The question arises, then, where should we begin if we aim to restate our heritage? With due respect for the great thinkers of the past, and acknowledging the difficulties they faced, we honor their scholarly efforts and preserve what they wrote a thousand years ago. However, it is essential that their writings, thoughts, and challenges be critiqued and reconsidered in light of present circumstances. While figures such as Farabi, Ibn Sina, Zakariya Razi, Abu Rayhan Biruni, Bahmanyar, Qutb al-Din Shirazi, Khayyam, the Shaykh of the East, Jalal al-Din Davani, Shaykh Baha’i, Mirdamad, and Sadra still maintain the grandeur they had, the shortcomings of their ideas must not go unnoticed and must be subjected to critique and examination. With the passage of time and the opening of various fields of knowledge and awareness, the deficiencies and issues in the sciences of the past become evident.

For instance, Sadra, like Shaykh al-Ishraq, brought about innovations and destructions in his own philosophy and did not see himself as purely Peripatetic or Illuminationist. Instead, he embraced a selective approach, incorporating useful elements of Kalam, mysticism, and both Peripatetic and Illuminationist philosophy while critiquing the work of Farabi and Ibn Sina. Therefore, Sadra must be considered a very strong interpreter of philosophy, although he also provides significant contributions in certain areas of philosophy, with his works being of great value for serious consultation.

In essence, all the ideas found in the works of Peripatetic, Illuminationist, Kalam, and mystic philosophers before Sadra are present in his writings, and no philosopher can bypass them. Sadra’s intellectual legacy, which spans the entire course of his education, spiritual discipline, and intellectual production, remains central to contemporary philosophical inquiry.

After Sadra, however, many philosophers, even mystical thinkers, have merely imitated his works without offering serious critiques of his ideas. The work done after him has mostly been marginal, subsidiary, or merely descriptive, and if this trend continues, philosophy risks being reduced to a historical artifact, losing its vitality and relevance to contemporary issues.

In addition, Islamic philosophy is more of a rational and logical philosophy than an empirical one.

Although empirical philosophy, insofar as it is aligned with realities and follows a logical method, has its merits, very few Western philosophers engage in logical thinking.

Currently, the lack of emphasis in Islamic philosophy on empirical sciences, induction, and experience, alongside its focus on generalities, has led to its isolation.

Islamic philosophers, having retreated to generalities and distanced themselves from empirical sciences, have become isolated, and as a result, no one refers to them as a source of knowledge.

Islamic philosophers must pursue both rational and empirical sciences, in line with the guidance of the Holy Qur’an, in order to address the problems of society. The knowledge and sciences of Islam, when combined with piety, fairness, and constructive criticism (and not with impiety, imitation, ignorance, or indecency), can transform the Islamic world and elevate the Muslims. Based on this, the philosopher must engage with both the general philosophical ideas and the tools of empirical science, and should not abandon experience.

Unfortunately, our philosophical circles have become imitators of Western philosophers and have retreated into generalities. Yet Islam is not like this, and a purely mental and impractical philosophy is not true philosophy. The philosopher must be well-versed in both rational and general concepts and aware of empirical, specific, and inductive matters. They must also possess critical thinking skills, maintain a connection to worship, and continue to examine doubts regarding the existence of God in order to dispel them. Doubt does not lead to disbelief. Even Prophet Abraham (peace be upon him) had doubts, and his doubt was a sacred one when he said: “To reassure my heart” (Qur’an 2:260). The philosopher must pay attention to other sciences and societal matters as much as they pay attention to rational matters, in order not to remain detached from reality.

Although Western philosophers have turned to empirical sciences, they have not made religious knowledge the foundation of their thoughts. As a result, their philosophy has led to corruption, plundering, injustice, betrayal, violence, and promiscuity in society.

From Avicenna to Ibn Arabi, Mirdamad, and Mulla Sadra, all Islamic philosophers and mystics have been isolated in history. Consequently, the world does not know who Mulla Sadra is; even Iranians do not recognise the significance of Mulla Sadra.

An isolated philosophy cannot manage society. However, a philosopher should be a leader of society. The Prophets of God were the leaders of society. The current state of the world, its economy, and its culture are the result of Western philosophy—a philosophy that does not regard religious knowledge as its foundation, but rather opposes it. This highlights the pressing need for a philosophy that can manage both the world and the future of today’s world.

Praise is for God alone.

Chapter One: The Subject of Philosophy

Absolute Being

It has been established that the understanding of a subject precedes its definition. Philosophers consider the subject of philosophy to be absolute being, which encompasses both necessary and possible being. However, what is meant by absolute being? Absolute, in its essence, is neither confined to the necessary being nor to the possible being. In principle, the absolute as a concrete entity only includes the necessary being. After discussing general philosophical matters, this subject is proven, and it is neither self-evident nor a matter of common understanding. Philosophy proves absolute being in the following manner: contingent beings, in their essence, have no internal cause; therefore, there must be an uncaused cause, one that is not contingent and is connected to them. On the other hand, the contingent is limited, and the necessary being is not just necessary but also constrained. Hence, the absolute being in its concrete form is constrained, while the concept of being, which includes both necessary and possible beings, cannot be the subject of philosophy, as the necessary being has not yet been proven, and thus the concept cannot be applied to it.

Khajeh Nasir al-Din al-Tusi says: “Being here is the absolute being that applies to the being without a cause, which is the necessary being, and to the caused being.” Similarly, Mulla Sadra agrees with this view: “Absolute being applies to both the necessary and possible beings.”

Thus, Avicenna’s concept of being refers to the concrete being, not the concept of being. The philosophical view on the subject of philosophy is fundamentally flawed, and the subject is open to doubt and uncertainty. To assume that absolute being is self-evident is a result of deep engagement with the concept of monotheism, which assumes the absolute existence of God as self-evident. However, philosophical inquiry does not accept such an entry point.

The correct statement is that the subject of philosophy is absolute being, not being in the absolute sense. This is because absolute being itself is limited, and the description of the absolute concept of being is broader and refers to all beings, but cannot become the subject of philosophical inquiry.

Wisdom is a luminous truth, and the wise person is one who possesses wisdom and knowledge, performs good deeds, and touches upon existence and truth.

Knowledge, in the sense that “light is cast by God into the hearts of whomever He wills,” is wisdom. Knowledge is a light that God places into the heart of anyone He chooses, and it is clear that God pours knowledge into hearts that are pure and unblemished. Accordingly, it is stated: “Whoever purifies themselves for forty days, eating only lawful food, fasting during the day, and standing in prayer at night, the springs of wisdom will appear from their heart onto their tongue.” (1) From this, we can infer that an impure person does not possess wisdom. To have philosophy, one must purify oneself. One must live constantly in purity, for purity in a single moment is of no benefit; it must last at least for forty days and be sustained over time. The result of purity and sincerity is the emergence of wisdom. When a person purifies themselves and attains sincerity, a light appears in their heart that bursts forth suddenly, like a fountain of water. In this case, what comes forth from their tongue is the manifestation of inner wisdom. Wisdom is the light of the heart, and when it reaches its peak, it becomes manifest. Wisdom is light, knowledge, and truth, and it does not carry doubt, anxiety, disbelief, or sin. A sinner does not have a share of wisdom and should not be called wise. Therefore, it is possible for someone to be a philosopher, but due to impurity, not be wise. Thus, wisdom is superior to philosophy. A philosopher may be an idealist and create plastic, but the wise person or mystic does not only think; they act. Therefore, action brings knowledge, as it is action that brings knowledge and worship, and someone without action is not truly wise.

The Goal of Philosophy

The goal of philosophy is to reach the truths of the world and to approach the Divine and its manifestations, to attain the knowledge of things and to be in the presence of the Divine. Knowledge has two aspects: the theoretical and the practical. Its theoretical aspect is thought, and its practical aspect is the refinement of thought. Knowledge is not about continuous contemplation, but philosophy is about nearness to the truths, and nearness to the truths cannot be achieved merely through thought; practical refinement is also necessary.

Thus, the true saints and divinely learned scholars are the true wise ones. However, if knowledge and wisdom are separated, the philosopher is merely someone who creates things from chemicals, grass, or artificial agate, and their data, no matter how beautiful, is not true and is artificial, even though there is no difference between the two in beauty. Sometimes, artificial agate may appear more beautiful than Yemeni agate and can captivate the eye.

Criteria in Philosophy

A philosopher seeks reason and argument to choose thoughts and arrive at the correct opinion. A philosopher must not be gullible or naive; they must be diligent in their work and not negligent in their pursuit.

Reasoning is of three types:

1. Sound rational proof;
2. Pure religious evidence;
3. Intuition that does not contradict sound proof or pure religious evidence.

Indeed, by thinking, we understand what the mystic experiences in their direct perception, and the pure rational evidence is evaluated with one’s intellect and understood. The reasoning should not conflict in any way with external truths. However, what exists in philosophy or mysticism is not always this way; not all of its propositions are based on rational proof. Many of them are irrational, unfounded, and incorrect, just as many rulings and issues attributed to religion are not truly religious. Every individual and sect has stated something according to their own preference and inclination. We firmly believe that in religious and academic institutions, especially in the humanities, the field of “Pseudoscience Studies” should be established, so that baseless claims in intellectual, religious, and mystical discussions can be identified and removed. This is because much of what is said in the name of religion, reason, mysticism, or other social and traditional matters is neither religious nor rational, nor mystical, and lacks any solid reasoning.

For example, philosophers once believed that a body descends due to its heaviness! This is not the case; rather, the force of gravity pulls everything downward. Such examples can be found in philosophy, mysticism, jurisprudence, and other religious sciences, and thus the discipline of “Pseudoscience Studies” must take responsibility for identifying and exposing these fallacies, ensuring that they are eradicated from the minds and cultures of our people, insha’Allah.

**According to our perspective, there is no such thing as essence or the derivative existence of things outside of the mind. Essence is merely a mental and abstract concept, and there is no derivative existence in the external world. Thus, the Earth and the sky are existence itself; the Earth is one level of existence, and the sky is another. It can be said that beings are dual-named: one name represents existence, and the other is designated to distinguish objects from one another; because if everything were called “existence,” confusion would arise. Therefore, there is nothing but existence. With this explanation, the discussion of the primacy of existence does not arise to discuss the subsidiary nature of essence. Rather, it is the discussion of the ‘reality of existence,’ which has no opposite, and its conceptual opposite is false, not non-existence.

Based on this viewpoint, essence does not exist in the external world and is not compared with concepts; it is not the case that every essence has a concept, as only one thing exists, and that is existence itself, with nothing outside of it called essence.

On the basis of the reality of existence, the five universals must be regarded as the five concepts, i.e., genus, species, universal, particular, and type, rather than the five essences, because everything that exists is existence.

Philosophers say: “Know that every possible being is a composite of essence and existence.” With the term “every possible being,” necessity is excluded.

It must be stated that every possible being is simple and not composite; meaning it does not consist of two separate elements. If the composition of essence and existence were true, then three elements would exist, just as when water and earth mix to create clay, which is neither earth nor water, but a third thing. That is, true composition is productive and creative. However, with the composition of essence and existence, a possible being would emerge, whereas it is assumed that essence and existence are inseparable, so no true combination can arise, and for existence to exist outside, it requires matter. In this case, everything has an essence and an existence, such as a human being, whose essence and existence are that being. Therefore, everything analyzed in the mind consists of two things: an essence and an existence, and this occurs in the mind. However, if it is to exist externally, it must undergo three transformations for true composition to take place.

But this is not the case with nominal composition; for instance, a house is composed of parts such as doors, walls, and stones, which is nominal, and its components are reducible.

The composition of essence and existence is a mental analysis, a nominal composition, and is not a true composition in the external world. Therefore, it cannot be said, “they are one in essence,” because unity cannot occur with a single thing. Rather, unity is between two things, and according to Haji, this unity is either real or unreal.

Based on what has been said, in the external world, there is no ‘human being’ or ‘animal being.’ Instead, there is a singular reality that is ‘human’ or ‘animal,’ and that is existence. The composition of essence and existence is not a true, external combination, but a mental and analytical one. Moreover, every thing is only one thing.

It is the mind that analyzes everything into two aspects: essence and existence. This analysis does not lead us to assume that both exist externally. As we have established, essence does not exist in the external world; it is a mental abstraction. Haji has stated that it is impossible for both essence and existence to be primary; because if both were primary, it would lead to the contradiction that one thing is composed of two distinct elements. Essence is compatible with both existence and non-existence, as it can exist or not exist, while existence necessarily rejects non-existence. Thus, if both essence and existence were primary, it would result in two conflicting elements, which cannot be the case.

From what has been discussed, essence and existence are not parts of something, but rather are analogous to the relationship between the universal and the particular. A true composition of both would result in something new, but the composition of essence and existence is not a true combination, and if both existed externally, it would lead to the problem that one thing could not be two distinct things.

Hikmat Sabzavari goes on to explain that the union of essence and existence is a union of existence with non-existence, because essence is not separate from existence; it is its limit. Thus, if both essence and existence were primary, it would mean one thing could be two distinct elements. This brings us back to the point that one thing cannot be two things, as existence is necessarily infinite.

It must be noted that existence is distinct from the manner of existence, and the manner of existence is the end or limit of the thing. For instance, the end of the existence of a pen is when the pen is what it is, but the distinction between a pen and a fountain pen lies in the manner of existence.

Thus, the differences between things, or between limited existences, lie in the manner of their appearance. Since determinations and attributes differ, we cannot say they are absolute. When we speak of a pen, we refer to a specific thing we possess, and things that are not in our possession are not pens. In this explanation, the limit is the mental abstraction of the end of a thing.

In the external world, there are not two things called essence and existence; rather, there is one thing and one concept. Existence is primary, while essence is a limit, an abstraction, and a concept. Therefore, the phrase “they are one in essence” is meaningless. What exists externally is existence, but a limited existence. Essence, which is called the limit of existence, has no external reality; it is an abstraction from the end of the existence of a limited being.

Now, the question arises: what is the difference between limited existence and absolute existence? In response, we must say that absolute existence is that which has no end, no limit, and therefore no essence. If we consider essence as an external reality, we would have to say that the end and limit of things exist in the external world. But limitations are not part of essence; rather, they are abstractions from the end.

Therefore, existence is the ultimate reality, and essence is only a mental abstraction. The five universals transform into the five concepts—essence, genus, species, universal, and particular—and essence itself becomes a mental concept. There is no need to say that essence exists externally; rather, essence is an abstraction. For instance, a fingertip refers to the end of a finger, but it becomes something only when the finger ends. Without the end, there is no fingertip.

Essence is abstracted from the limit of existence and does not exist outside of it. In the external world, there is no such thing as essence, genus, or species. These are all concepts, and the only true reality is existence.

Therefore, speech is existence, not essence, and the true nature of speech is a level of existence, whether it is an accidental attribute, a substance, or light. God is existence, and since He has no limit, He is one. Even though He has countless attributes, all these attributes point to the same essence—His existence. However, a human cannot be said to be omniscient, as they are limited.

Limits are abstract concepts, and in reality, there is no such thing as essence. What exists is existence itself, and the attributes or different appearances of beings are simply various manifestations of this one existence.

It should be noted that the origin of good and evil is the same: evil, like good, is a manifestation of existence. Through arguments and evidence that will be elaborated in their appropriate places, it will be made clear that all evils and goods are manifestations of God’s names and attributes. God, in His essence, is both a guide and a misleader, as per His divine wisdom.

It cannot be said that the world is the best of all worlds and that everything in existence is pure good. There are also evils, afflictions, and calamities in nature, such as murders, plunders, floods, earthquakes, and deprivation.

Philosophers argue that the entire world of existence is pure good, and that all evils and afflictions are forms of non-existence.

However, the rational human conscience does not accept such a statement. Evil, like good, is existent, and no difficulty arises in this regard. Further elaboration on this topic can be found in our extensive critique of Sadraean philosophy.

What must be noted in conclusion is that based on the ideas presented and our perspective, philosophy takes on a new face, offering different theoretical and practical frameworks from the beginning of philosophical discourse to its conclusion. This perspective reshapes notions of God, possible beings, essence, substance, accident, and the five universals, giving them a new interpretation. Many of these ideas lose their original validity, and further details on this can be found in our extended philosophical and mystical writings.

It should be noted that we have two independent volumes devoted to the interpretation of ‘existence’ and ‘appearance.’**

Human existence is infinite, and while the physical body ceases to exist with death, its abstract essence remains. This is why the late Mulla Sadra describes human beings as “corporeal in origin and spiritual in perpetuity.” The abstraction that accompanies humans leads them to a state where they see nothing but the infinite; just as they can descend to a point where they see nothing but dates.

Every person who turns inward finds a truth within themselves that is infinite, and if they reach the abode of God, they don the divine robe and proclaim, “I am your Most High Lord” (Quran, 79:25). Indeed, humans are positioned in an infinite hierarchy according to their potential, but in actualizing this endless truth, they vary: “And hasten towards the forgiveness of your Lord” (Quran, 3:133).

Another argument for the immateriality of the soul

In addition to the previous argument, the soul has immaterial effects that indicate its immaterial nature. The effects of matter are transient, and it cannot be restored after its decay. However, the human soul possesses knowledge and memories that do not fade; even if forgotten, they can be recollected. Of course, material problems in the human body can prevent this. From this, it becomes clear that there is an immaterial aspect to human existence that does not bear the effects of matter, and it is this aspect that possesses knowledge. If the human soul or its thoughts and knowledge were material, they could not be restored after forgetting; however, since they are immaterial, this is not the case.

Similarly, negligence leads to the cessation of the soul and its separation from the body, whereas attention reveals the soul’s essence.

Death and dying; that is, the separation of the soul from the body, does not imply that anything exits from the human being. The soul and spirit are not separate from us to depart; if anything departs, it is the stomach, heart, lungs, or other organs. The soul is attached to the body, just as time is not something we exist within but rather our relation to time is what constitutes our experience of it. Of course, the soul’s attachment to the body is far stronger than our relation to time, because time merely serves as the medium for the unfolding of events, while the soul is the essential nature of the human being.

Regarding the narrations that describe the soul departing from different parts of the body, it should be understood that these refer to the cessation of the connections, not the actual departure of the soul. The soul and the human essence have various stages, but in all cases, the intellect is fundamentally incompatible with matter; these two are distinct, but we only perceive the human being as their physical body. The existence of the soul is rationally provable, not sensibly, just as we cannot sense the substance but can intellectually grasp it, while we only perceive the shape and color. Though we sense objects, it is the intellect that identifies them. The soul has a relationship with matter, but its essence remains distinct.

Furthermore, the effects of matter are subject to decomposition, meaning that when matter decomposes, its effects decompose as well. However, the soul and its effects are indivisible.

Humanity and its various aspects

It is important to note that the intellect, soul, spirit, and senses are all aspects of one singular reality. Each represents a different facet of this reality, but it is not the case that multiple distinct realities exist within the human being. Rather, there is one essence that has various degrees, and its different determinations and stages manifest in varying actualities. For example, when the lower soul becomes stronger, the inspired soul weakens, and vice versa. All the mentioned faculties represent the same underlying spiritual truth, but they exhibit diverse characteristics and vary according to their mode of manifestation, power, and action. Hence, the soul, body, spirit, and form are interrelated within the human existence, affecting one another. The purity of the soul and the condition of the heart alter the external appearance of the individual, and the connection between the spirit and the body does not imply that the human soul is material.