Volume 7, Issue 2 , December 2016, , Pages 117-158
Abstract
This article is an comparative study between Mulla Sadra and Tabatabai common approach regarding the efficiency of the causal argumentation, in the realm of philosophy. Mulla Sadra relying on the theory of simplicity of existence, and on which is simple have not essential definition and therefore no ...
Read More
This article is an comparative study between Mulla Sadra and Tabatabai common approach regarding the efficiency of the causal argumentation, in the realm of philosophy. Mulla Sadra relying on the theory of simplicity of existence, and on which is simple have not essential definition and therefore no argument, found that the causal argumentation is not useful to existence recognition. Sadra based on the rule Zavatol Asbab, says that the Aposteriori Demonstration sometimes completely invalid, and sometimes with poor performance valid. He then weaken or even condemn the role of argument in the realm of philosophy. Then resign to antilogical approach.. Tabatabai based on three cognitive science major rule, first, deny the causal argumentation then existence recognition too. Then design a new argument, the argument by the public obligations, Molazemate Ammeh. This problem shows the inability of the essential logic in the realm of existential philosophy. This article denes the efficiency of the causal argumentation, but believes that, the theory of argument by the public obligations, Molazemate Ammeh, is the worthwhile discovery, which compensates for shortcomings of the essential logic.
