MOLLA RECEP ALİ TEBRÎZÎ'NİN İSBÂT-I VÂCİB ADLI RİSALESİ BAĞLAMINDA MOLLA SADRÂ ELEŞTİRİSİ VE TEBRÎZÎ'YE YAPILAN İTİRAZLAR Mullā Rajab Ali Tabrīzī's Criticism of Mullā Sadrā in the Context of his Treatise Isbāt al-Wājib and Objections to Tabrīzī (original) (raw)

This study aims to discuss the criticisms of Mullā Sadrā’s philosophy in Mullā Rajab ʿAli Tabrīzī’s treatise “Isbāt al-Wājib” and the objections to Tabrīzī. Mullā Sadrā is one of the most important representatives of Islamic philosophy and contemporary Iranian philosophical thought. While he initially defended the philosophy of quiddity, which Suhrawardī represented, he later abandoned this idea and adopted the philoso- phy of existence. According to him, truth is equal to existence. For this reason, God, the greatest truth, consists of existence. Existence is a whole, but it has different densities. However, his philosophy of Transcendental Wisdom, which centers on existence, has been criticized in some aspects. One of these criticisms belongs to his contemporary Mullā Rajab Ali Tabrīzī. What makes Tabrīzī’s criticisms valuable is that he was a con- temporary of Mullā Ṣadrā, studied in the same area with him, was a philosopher like him and analyzed the issues philosophically. Tabrīzī does not accept Mullā Ṣadrā’s phi- losophy of existence and criticizes him under various headings in the aforementioned treatise. Tabrīzī begins his criticism of Mullā Sadrā with the issue of existence. He then criticizes the issue of attributes, the nobility of existence and the spiritual participation of existence, respectively. Various objections have been made to Tabrīzī’s criticisms of Mullā Sadrā. One of these objections is the idea that Tabrīzī evaluates the abstract understanding of existence in the mind and the understanding of existence in external reality in the same category. In addition, Tabrīzī has been criticized for considering existence as an accident, for adopting the theory of sudūr (emanation) despite his rejec- tion of spiritual participation in existence, and for his lack of quotations from thinkers of the past to support his own thought. In this study, his criticisms of Mullā Sadrā will be discussed using a dialectical method, and from time to time these criticisms will be criticized both by opposing views and by us.