Based on empiricism, if someone says that all the claims about the

factual world should be limited to the sensory things & none of the
claims about the necessity in the external world can be acceptable, we
would answer that the very idea is not acceptable.
...There is rationalism as a school of thought, on one hand, which says
the source of our knowledge is not limited to our external senses, & on
the other hand, there is empiricism, which denies all the sources,
except the external sources.
... Factual propositions: this type is when we talk about the external
world, so only experience can be the sources of our knowledge.
...The very general principle that every claim about the factual world
should be obtained through observations, is under question itself; this
very general idea should be justified.
...If someone takes a narrow approach & denies the validity of reason &
intellect, as a source of knowledge about the external world, it would
be impossible to convince him about necessity, universality, & other
similar philosophical terms.
...If David Hume claims that we take this approach for granted without
any argumentation, in order to organize our experiences & understand
the reality, rationalists, also, can claim in the same way, as the
postulate, we take the validity of reason for granted, in order to
understand the reality.
...Islamic philosophers, in the domain of epistemology, are in favor of
reason, as the true source of knowledge & they maintain that external
senses cannot make any law & principle.
...For example, I consider the concept of table, which is a contingent
concept, & then I want to see how it is related to the idea of reality &
being; it is a possible existence.

If something is real & its existence is gained from the very essence of
it; this is the idea of necessity, which is exclusively regarded as the
attributed of God.
...When we talk about reality & existence, then there is no room for
impossibility, because when it comes to being it means, this is
logically, at least, contingent.
...On the other side, Islamic philosophers say that necessity has not
only mental but also external relations.
...Spontaneously, man can find the relation between the self &
states. self as a source of independence, which is cause, & the
states, which are dependent on this origin of independence, are
called effects.
...For example, when we say: table is round, table & roundness are
two thing that indicate something in reality, but is does not indicate
any thing in reality; that is just a linking verb.
One cannot say that is is a logical type of existence; this is only a
mental existence & has no reality in the external world.
...They thought by linguistic analyses, they can remove the doubts &
theoretical problems, so they said philosophy is not a science; it is a
pseudoscience, because its subject matter, existence, is not
something real; it is only a matter of mind.
...Based on the knowledge of presence, Islamic philosophers explain
how we come to have the concept of being; there are two
explanations:
...Some philosophers like, Allama Tabatabaei, say that from this
connective concept, we come to the independent concept of being, so
the starting point of obtaining substantive concept of being is
copulative concept of being.

...If philosophy means a domain of thought & a systematic proposition,

then it is impossible for a system to be without concepts.
...To limit the task of philosophers to analyze the concept; this was
done by traditional philosophers from the very beginning, such as
Aristotle, & even Mullah Sadra.
...If we consider exclusive role for concepts, regardless of our facing
with reality, in this case, we can say that we do not have a proper
meaning of philosophy.
...1) To use compound propositions: it is when we characterize
somebody or something, with referring to a particular quality, for
example, the man is standing
2) To use simple propositions: this is when we do not characterize &
qualify somebody or something, for example, the man exists
In the belief of al-Farabi, the first original Muslim philosopher, this
distinction is not only made in the domain of thought, but it is also
made in the field of reality, as so far the reality is concerned.
Essence is not only distinct from existence in mind, but also there are
two aspects in reality:
... The other concept, which is the concept of quiddity, indicates
different things (e.g., humanity); this is linguistic analysis, so we
cannot be irrespective to it, but we should not limit the task of
philosophers in analysis
...We are in need of concepts, in order to transfer the content of our
experiences to other people, and when we convey our ideas, we need
words; here is the importance of language.
...Unlike the annalistic philosophers, who denied the reality of being &
regarded to existence only as a concept in mind, other philosophers

like Mullah Sadra, believe that existence is real & also the ground for
all realities.
...Arabs have different names for camels, because, once upon a time,
this was the main mean for transportation; in this case they could
easily distinguish among different sorts of camel, according to the
gender or age of the animal.
...In the history of philosophy, there is a famous controversy over
universals; there was difference of opinions among philosophers,
whether universals are only in mind or they have counterparts in
reality.
...In the viewpoint of Plato, universals seem to be before things; it
means that there was a form of man, for example, in a higher level as
a perfect immaterial abstract being, before a man comes to being, and
it is something real & pure.
According to nominalists, universals are after things; it means a man,
as an example, has come to being, and then human being for economy
of thought made a noun (which is man here), in order to characterize
the individuals, so the word humanity does not indicate any
counterpart in reality.
Between these too extreme views, there is another viewpoint, which is
called moderate realism: it maintains that universals are both in mind
& reality, but they are real in reality through the reality of individuals,
so man is realized through Ali, Hassan, John & so on.
...According to the third view, universals are not before things & not
after things, but in things; this is what regards to simple propositions.
...Later, the second teacher, Farabi, believed that existence is the
ground & cause for individuality, so universals cannot be realized in
reality, unless they are individuated.
...Later, Mullah Sadra (in following his teacher, Mir Damad) concluded
that being is not only the matter of mind, but also it is single reality,
which is identified by existence.

There is not dualisms in the strict sense of the term, for example, if I
touch a pen, I am just dealing with one single reality; there are not two
realities.
...In discussing of fundamentality of being, we discuss with a few words
& concepts; one of them is fundamentality, which is the source of
efficacy, the source of efficiency, and whatever acts that we are
discussing.
...The other term is quiddity (essence); it can be described in this way:
those general aspects & qualities that are mentioned in answering the
question what something is.
When we encounter reality & want to inform somebody about the
particular kind of reality, we make simple propositions, for example, we
say, Man exists.
...In so far, as the language is concerned, one might not decide the
state of affair based on concept, but we have no choice when we
discuss about reality, except to utilize the concept.
...The concept that makes the subject of our propositions, could be &
could not be, for example, when I say, man exists, it is not an analytic
propositions, it has instance in reality.
...In the addition of the concept of being to quiddity or essence, to say
that essence is different from being, again we are doing conceptual
analysis.
...Mullah Sadra says, in each case of encountering reality, we make a
proposition, for example, man exists.
...When Mullah Sadra says, being is real & quiddity is ideal, he means
that quiddity indicates some limits & features of reality.
...In fact, the whole system of the philosophy of Mullah Sadra is based
on some principles; one of which & the most important one is the
fundamental reality of existence.

...It can be inferred, from their works that peripatetic philosophers,

such as Farabi, and Avicenna, maintain the idea of fundamentality of
being.
... One way is to reflect & analyze these two concepts themselves:
the concept of quiddity, like ocean, table, and so on, and the concept
of being;
Mullah Sadra & his followers say, when we consider quiddity concepts,
they can be & they cannot be, so they do not demand to be real, in
fact.
Therefore, if I say, man does not exist I do not contradict myself, & if I
say, man exists I should present a reason for my idea & proposition.
...The concept of quiddity cannot be that by which we indicate reality,
so this concept in mentally constructed, a matter of mind.
...When we want to inform someone about the reality of something, we
need to make a proposition, which is made of two concepts (quiddity &
being).
...By this analysis (analysis of proposition), we come to the idea that
the concept of being is that by which one can inform the reality of
things.
...Concepts by themselves are general; they cannot make individual, so
being individual is grounded on the reality of being & this indicates
that being is the source of all properties, effects, characteristics,
qualities, and all features.
...Mullah Sadra, by maintaining this principle, concluded that these
characteristics, (means will, knowledge, life & so on) are considered as
properties & categories of being.

...But those, who have taken the position of fundamentality of quiddity,

said that when quiddity is related to God we can consider it as an
existent.
...When quiddity is related to God, then it can be said that quiddity is
existent, but quiddity is real & existence here, is just a notion that
ascribes & attributed to quiddity.
Mullah Sadra says that if the reality is given to a quiddity under the
name of existence, even after being related to God, then it should be
said that existence is real, not quiddity.
...Mullah Sadra has said that when something is created, it has
received the existence by God, so there will be levels of being, in
accordance with the degrees given to the thing.
...The idea of unity and multiplicity occurred to the mind of human
being from the dawn of the thought of philosophy, in ancient Greece,
and this idea continued to be discussed by philosophers & theologians.
...After establishing the fundamentality of being, and then after
understanding that the being as being is simple and not quiddity, the
question is that what is the origin for multiplicity?
Philosophers: quiddity is the source of multiplicity, so if beings are
different, it is because one is human being & the other one is horse,
camel, and so on.
...In this regard, Dawwani said that we might speak of the unity of
existence, which is reserved for God, and as well as, the multiplicity of
existence, which is related to others.
In Dawwani point of view, when we speak of the existence of God, and
the existence of others, these existences are different in nature; the
concept of existence cannot be ascribed to all of them in the same
way, but equivocally (with different meanings).

...Mullah Sadra, in refusing the position of Dawwani, says, what is the

distinction after a thing is related to God?, if no distinction is made,
then we cannot ascribe being to them.
If they have received the real existence, after being related to God, we
are able to speak of univocality of existence that is predicated to them
all.
...Peripatetic philosophers, like Al-Farabi, Avicenna, and their followers:
existence is fundamental, but because existence is simple, so there is
no common ground between a human being & other one;
Therefore, when we say, for example, God exists, human being
exists, mountain exists, each has its own existence & they are totally
distinct from each other.
According to peripatetic philosophers, there are different existences;
these multiple existences have just one common element, which is the
concept of being, but in reality, there is no unity.
...In this regard, Mullah Sadra says, if these existences are totally
different and there is no common aspect in reality, how is it possible to
abstract a single concept from these totally distinct things?
...Mullah Sadra: If one single concept is being abstracted from different
things, this is evidence that there is a common general element among
them; this is the position of unity & multiplicity of being.
...To explain about unity & multiplicity of existence, and to discuss
different positions taken by philosophers, theologians, mystics in this
regard;
...He says that we might speak of the unity of existence, which is
reserved for God, and as well as, the multiplicity of existence, which is
related to others.

...Unlike some philosophers claimed that quiddity is the source of

multiplicity, Mullah Sadra believes that quiddity is something totally
dependent on being, & quiddity is just a construction of mind.
If being is real & fundamental, whatever that we conceive about
multiplicity should be grounded on the being itself, not on quiddity that
is the construction of our mind.
...If being is real & fundamental, and multiplicity is real, as well, it
should have something to do with being.
...The previous philosophers knew that, in a very general way, God as a
perfect being must have knowledge, life, and other perfections, but for
them it was not clear that what the life of God is.
In the view point of Mullah Sadra, when one can see & understand the
nature of being, he can come to the understanding of life, knowledge,
and other perfections.
...If the nature of God is totally different from others, how we can come
to know Him & prove Him?
...If there is no affinity (), if God is totally distinct from creatures, in
such a high level that no one can conceive Him, it leads to
agnosticism; the way to
...The attributes of God are like our attributes, for example, our life is
something additional to our nature, so the attributes of God should be
considered in the same way, additional to His nature.
They take for granted the existence of God as primordial, immortal,
uncreated, and so on, but they try to understand the attribute of God
in the way to make them similar to the attributes of God.
...Logical explanation to enter this discussion: if we accept multiplicity
of being, then this question goes on that is there any relationship
between these phenomena or there is no connection?

...For those (like Sufis), who insist that there is only one thing in the
world (reality, truth, ), the principle of causality can only be
explained in terms of
...If we say, As there is unity in the world, there is multiplicity, as
well, then we can discuss how these things are related to each other.
...For some philosophers, the principle of causality means, this
ontological relationship is not tangible; it cannot be primary intelligible,
because the primary intelligible indicates the things that are tangible,
and they have separate counterpart in reality.
...For them this principle indicates an aspect of reality; the ways that
things are related in reality.
... Indemonstrability of the principle of causality: For some
philosophers it is self-evident; it needs no argumentation, because it is
the ground for all principles.
...There are some other philosophers that believe, the principle of
causality is based on the experiential knowledge.
...To give more explanation about the nature of this principle & the way
it can be demonstrated, and whether it needs any prove;
...According to one view, we analyze, in the first step, the way we are
related to the states of our mind, the way our mental conceptions are
related to our mind; form this deep relationship we can come to the
idea of causation.
...At the beginning, people thought that when we speak of causeeffect relationship, there is something as causality in reality.
...If we consider about the way God is related to the effect and the way
that something causes something else, we can understand that the

case is totally different; there is not any essence for the relationship of
the cause & effect.
This is the same when we act as a cause for something else; there is
not something out of us as causation; our mind produces the idea of
causation.
...The reality is that there is one independent existence as a cause, and
from the mere act of this single independent cause, some other things
come to being.
...The case in cause & effect relationship is totally different, because
in a true cause, there is no quiddity before the efficacy, but after the
efficacy that causes something to come to being, we can abstract the
notions.
Mullah Sadra, by deepening the idea, concluded that the cause &
effect relationship is not a categorical relation; it means this is not the
relations between two things.
The cause & effect relationship is one way; by the very act of causing,
God produces something, so before this acting, there was nothing, &
all the notions are abstracted after the efficacy.
...Aristotle believes that God makes some changes in the world &
produces something, as a final cause, but not something out of
nothing.
Later, by analyzing the way God is related to creatures, Farabi &
Avicenna said that God is an efficient cause, but not a moving cause;
the causality of God is in the sense of bestowing existence to things.
Mullah Sadra, as the founder of transcendent philosophy, said, when
we analyze the true efficient cause, we notice that there was nothing
before the efficacy.
...Those people who interpreted the principle of causality in the way
that everything is in need of causality, raised an option for the

existence of God and claimed that God as an existence needs a

cause.
Therefore, for these natural philosophers, there is nothing by the name
of the First Cause and different stages in the world come one after
another.
The fact is that these empirical philosophers did not scrutinize exactly
the nature of causality, and could not understand how something in
the world is related to other thing.
...Contingency: this is when something was not an existence in the past
and then appears and comes into being, so every event needs a cause.
...Possibility: if something can be and cannot be, so there is not a
necessary relationship between the existence and that essence.
...This is why a possible thing is in need of a cause, and if something is
necessary, there is no ground to be in need of a cause.
...The chain of causes cannot go on infinitely, so because of the
impossibility of it, there should be a first cause.
For philosophers, like Avicenna and Farabi, possibility was the criterion
for being in need of a cause.
...Mullah Sadra says, limitations and modes of being can be all
conceived, if and only if there is a being, so we should find the criterion
of the need to a cause in the being of something, not its essence.
...There is only a single unique independent being, and all other beings
are dependent on that cause.
...In the system of universe and the order of nature, different changes
produced by various factors and elements, but there is some specific
relations between a given cause and its effect.

...If someone insists that, there is no relation between cause and effect,
and no affinity, even in terms of existence, logically there is no way to
prove the existence of God.
In the western tradition, the philosophers such as Blaise Pascal (the
French philosopher), deny the absolute affinity between God and the
rest of the world, and conclude that one cannot argue for the existence
of God.
...Among Muslim theologians, there are some, who deny the affinity on
one hand, and argue for the existence of God on the other hand; these
two positions are incompatible.
...The approach taken by other philosophers is different; they believe,
the notions that we use about God are univocally (in the same
meaning), but the reality of such qualities are utterly different.
...Regarding the concern of theologians about the transcendence of
God, we may say that all the distinctions should be made not in terms
of concepts, but in terms of the very act of existence.
...Based on the position and principles of Mullah Sadra, the
homogeneity of cause and effect (whether the cause is God or
anything else) can be defended.
...For example, if God grants the existence to other things (to bring
them into being), means that God, already, has the higher level of
existence.
...For example, some philosophers said, God is simple, God is one,
there is no multiplicity in God, and there is no distinction between
the essence of God and his existence.
...For these philosophers, the system of the reality is hierarchical; God
is at the top as the highest, and then there will be the other lower
causes.

...For example, when we say man is contingent, means that the

essence of human being can be and cannot be.
...This is just a rational analysis to say that man can be and cannot be,
because in reality the man either exists or does not exist.
...Although man by its essence, is the instance for contingency, but if
its cause is present, it becomes necessary by others; this is the law of
necessity.
...He said the five senses, as the faculty of our knowledge, cannot give
us the idea of necessity, so we deny the principle of causality.
...It is impossible to accept the principle of causality on one hand, and
deny the necessity given by the cause to the effect on the other hand.
... The impossibility of circle; in epistemology or logic, it is impossible
to define two theoretical terms by each other (to define A by B, and
define B by A), because it entails a vicious circle.
Concerning the principle of causality, if A is the cause of B, B cannot
cause A, otherwise it will be the instance of a vicious circle.
...If A is the cause of B, it is prior to B, but if A is the effect of B, it
means it is posterior to B; one cannot be at the same time, prior and
posterior to something.
...This chain should be in a kind of linear way; so it is impossible for
something to be a cause of something else and at the same time, in
the same way, and in the same respect, to be the effect of that thing.
... The impossibility of infinite regress; in the chain of causes, there is
a causal relation between the events and the things in reality, but the
chain of causes cannot go on infinitely, without a drastic change in the
links of the chain.

...In infinite regress, if we focus on the nature of possible being

(dependent being), affirming the predicate needs no more
argumentations, because a dependent thing cannot come to being by
itself.
...In fact, in conventional chains, such as numbers, which are
dependent on our abstraction, we can enumerate 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and we
can add one more number to it.
...In the case of causal relations, when we speak of efficient cause (coexistence), Infinite regress is impossible for both theologians and
philosophers.
...The knowledge of God and the belief in Him can play a crucial role in
giving the meaning to the life of man; the positive individual and social
impact on every humans life.
...If it is self-evident, it is not in need of any argumentation, but if it is
theoretical, it should be analyzed and understood by referring to other
concepts and ideas.
...The proposition that God exists is self-evident can be understood as
this way: before the creation of human being, he was familiar with the
idea of the existence of God and His names and attributes.
...The fourth meaning of the idea that the existence of God is selfevident: Every human being can know God through the knowledge by
presence
...Belief in God is self-evident means that human being can understand
it through encountering, so the belief in God is Fitri (formed in
primordial nature of human being).
...The acceptance of the belief in God, as something primordially
connected to the nature of human being, does not mean that no one
has denied the existence of God.

...To study about the idea of the existence of God, and the fact that
according to some scholars, it is self-evident, and according to some
others, it is theoretical;
...The belief in reality is the idea of self-evident, but in the history, it
could be found some people (ancient skeptics) who denied the
existence and reality.
...The denial of ancient skeptics could not be used as the counter
argument for the self-evidence of the idea of reality; this is the same
for the denial of the atheists about the existence of God.
...According to what is mentioned in hadith, no one is able to
enumerate and restrict the ways to know God; they are as many as
human beings are:
...Regardless of what is going on in the universe, if philosophers focus
on some aspects of reality and analyze them, they will be able to reach
to the belief in God and demonstrate for the existence of God.
...This is when we focus on some aspects of reality as order and design
or as being created (they were not and then they came to be).
...They say that God, by definition, is the perfect being, and a perfect
being cannot be non-existent, so God necessarily exists.
...Then Anselm concludes that God cannot be conceived to exist only in
the mind otherwise it is not a being than which nothing greater can be
conceived, because the being that exists both in mind and reality is a
being than which nothing greater can be conceived.
...It proofs the existence of God, based on analyzing the concept of God
(either the concept of God or all being or the concept of necessary by
essence).
...Then Anselm concludes that God cannot be conceived to exist only in
the mind otherwise it is not a being than which nothing greater can be

conceived, because the being that exists both in mind and reality is a
being than which nothing greater can be conceived.
...He says, if something is necessary by essence, it cannot be
conceived, exclusively, in mind, but also it should be conceived to be in
the external world.
...If something is real, this thing as a pure being cannot be considered
as human being, mountain, wall, and any other thing, because the
starting point is realism; this is the most self-evident reality.
Allama Tabatabaei, as one of the followers of this argument, says, Allah
is as the same as pure reality on which no one has any doubt.
In the last analysis, even if we ascribe some characteristics to God like
hearing, knowledge, or any other thing, these qualities are not as the
same as those ascribed to human being.
...In considering every existing species, we understand that there is
nothing in their nature, philosophically, to explain their existence,
because they are possible, unless some else bring them into being.
...If it is possible itself, the case is the same (we need another thing in
order to bring it into being), and this chain cannot go on infinitely,
because of impossibility of infinite regress.
...To explain more about the argument of the sincere and enumerate its
advantages and also the advantages of the argument of necessity and
possibility of Avicenna and Farabi in comparison to other attempts in
this domain;
...According to the argument of theologians, if something has no
beginning, it is not in need of any cause.
...If something is real and by essence, does not need any argument
and premise in order to prove its reality, it is the necessary by essence.

...According to some formulation (such as Mullah Sadra), it has some

premises, for example, the fundamental reality of being, the
hierarchical nature of this being, the highest degree of being, and
finally, this highest degree of being is identical to God, who is
necessary by essence.
...They say, this essential necessary being has all the perfect
attributes, and does not have any imperfection.
In this way, they can easily prove the unity of God, because necessary
by essence is single.
...According to philosophers, the attributes of actions can be inferred
from the argument of contingency and necessity, and also the
argument of pure reality (infinite existence).
...is related to the content of the principle of causation; a contingent
cannot come into existence by itself, there should be a cause.
...It means that if God is an infinite period, there will be no distinction
between existence and essence.
...Although we are not able to understand the unlimited life, and the
divine knowledge as reality they are, but somehow, we can understand
what they are, because we have a share of them (life, knowledge, and
so on).
...The meaning of these attributes such as life, knowledge, and others
is the same for both God and human being; we ascribe these qualities
univocally.
...The essence of God is identical with His existence and all essential
attributes of God are identical to His essence; it does not mean that,
conceptually, they are the same.
...The attributes of actions, such as the act of creation, or giving life to
something, are different from the attributes of the essence.