The Ontological Purposes as a Criterion for Classifying Types of Wisdom

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Ph.D. student in Islamic Philosophy and Wisdom, Islamic Azad University, Central Tehran Branch

2 Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Islamic Azad University, Central Tehran Branch, Tehran, Iran

10.22061/orj.2021.1499

Abstract

One of the brightest points of view of Muslim scholars is their reflection on the criterion for distinguishing sciences. The popular opinion is that the purpose and subject as a criteria have been the tools for distinguishing between two or more sciences. This article answers two central questions in this regard. One is whether the criteria used by scholars to differentiate between sciences have an ontological origin or it had abstract origin. Another question is whether the answer to this question will have a significant effect on the philosophical issues. Studies of this article will shed light on three issues: First, scholars have used the end, not only as a criterion for distinguishing between two or more sciences, but also as a criterion for the large classification of sciences (theoretical and practical). Second, the end of all knowledge is not merely a  non- factual value, but an existential end. Third, if the said end is existential and objective, the distinction between the various forms of wisdom is also objective and real, and this means that none of these sciences can play another role. One of the important results of the ontological approach in the division of sciences, especially in practical wisdom, is that the separation of home management from civil politics is a real separation and the rules and requirements of these two fields cannot be considered in another field. The virtues and perfections of the soul, the categories in society (civic wisdom), the categories in individual life (morality), and the categories in the family (home wisdom) can be studied. Thus, as much as individuality and individual life are genuine, family and community are also original, and this is contrary to the opinion of many late individualist thinkers.

Keywords

References

Bidhandi, M [Criteria for distinguishing between theological and non-argumentative sciences], Journal of Knowledge  1995,) 12 ): 59-66, Persian.
Rashad, A, [The logic of science classification], Journal of Mind . 2016, )65): 5-28. Persian.
Gholami, R, [The meaning, basis and background of the classification of sciences in Islamic civilization and an idea to achieve a new classification of political sciences] Journal of Fundamental Research in the Humanities 2016) 3( :53-85. Persian.
Mostaghimi, M; [A comparative study of Ibn Sina's theory on the classification of sciences], Journal of Philosophical Theological Research, 2008 )37( :175-198. Persian.
Javadi Amoli, A, [Rahiq Makhtum) Sealed pure wine(] Vol. 1, Qom, Esraa Publications; 1997. Persian.
________, [Principles of ethics in the Qur'an], Qom, Esraa Publications; 2006. Persian.
Tusi, N, [Nasiri ethics], edited by M .Minavi and A.Heydari, Tehran, Kharazmi Publications; 1994. Persian.
Oboudit, A, [Sadra's system of wisdom 2], Qom, Imam Khomeini Research Institute Publications; 2007. Persian.
Motahari, M, [Collection of effects , Vol 7 ], Tehran, Sadra Publications; 2008. Persian.
Ibn Sina, [Al-esharat va Al-Tanbihat], Qom, Al-Balaghah Publishing;1996. Arabic.
_________, [shefa (elahiyat)], edited by Hassanzadeh Amoli, Qom, Book Garden Publishing; 1997. Arabic.
_________, [shefa (mantegh)], corrected by Zayed, Saeed, Qom, Ayatollah Marashi School Publishing; 1984. Arabic.
_________, [al-mantegh al_mashreghiaan] , Qom, Ayatollah Marashi School Publishing; 1985. Arabic.
Tabatabai, M, [talighat bar asfar], Qom, Islamic Encyclopedia Publishing; 1959. Arabic.
_________, [Al-Mizan], Vol. 20, Qom, Islamic Publications Office; 2014. Arabic.
_________, [hashiya  bar kefayah], Vol. 1, Qom, Allameh Tabatabai Scientific Foundation; (no date). Arabic.
Farabi, M, [Al-Tanbih ala  Sabil Al-Saada], Heydarabad, Press Office of the Encyclopedia; 1927. Arabic.
___________, [Al-Siyasah Al-Madinah], translated by J. Sajjadi, Tehran, Printing and Publishing Organization; 1992. Arabic.
Shirazi, M, [Al-Mazaher Al-elahiyya], correction, research and introduction by M. Khamenei, Tehran, Sadra Islamic Wisdom Foundation; 1999. Arabic.
____________, [al-shavahed Al-Rububiyyah], translated by J. Mosleh, Tehran, Seda va sima Publications; 2010. Arabic.
____________, [majmoue rasael: eksir al-arefin], edited by H. Shafieiha, M. Mohammadi, Y. Yathribi, Tehran, Sadra Islamic Wisdom Foundation; 2011. In Arabic.
Journal of Ontological Researches
Volume 9, Issue 18
March 2021
Pages 347-374

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics