Kajian ini mengangkat pemikiran dua filsuf besar yaitu Martin Heidegger dan Mullā Şadrā dalam suatu kajian Filsafat Manusia dengan topik pembahasan ‘Struktur Fundamental Manusia’. Problem yang diangkat adalah bagaimana kesejalanan atau paralelisme gagasan keduanya mengenai struktur fundamental manusia. Penelitian ini berusaha mencari hakikat manusia menurut pandangan Martin Heidegger dan Mullā Şadrā kemudian mensintesiskannya dengan metode paralelisme. Penelitian ini penulis rasa penting, di samping untuk memperkaya dialog pemikiran antar peradaban, juga karena kedua filsuf ini memiliki kesamaan prinsip ontologis dalam fondasi filsafatnya (...) yaitu, Ada. Pandangan ini kemudian disebut dengan ‘reduksi ontologis’. Keduanya yakin bahwa tidak ada problem filsafat yang dapat terselesaikan kecuali pertanyaan tentang Ada terjawab secara memadai. Pandangan reduksi ontologis ini termanifes dalam bangunan pemikiran dan kritik keduanya, terutama dalam studi ini adalah gagasan mengenai manusia yang bersandar pada prinsip ke swa-buktian Ada. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini ialah metode komparatif khusus yaitu Paralelisme. Paralelisme adalah teori interpretasi atau metode komparasi khusus yang berupaya mencari paralelitas atau kesejalanan formulasi pemikiran antara dua filsuf yang memiliki perbedaan konteks, penekanan, pendekatan arah pemikiran dan solusi, namun memiliki karakteristik gagasan yang sejalan, sebangun atau paralel. Dari penelitian ini penulis menyimpulakan bahwa, Paralelisme Struktur Fundamental Manusia menurut Heidegger dan Mullā Şadrā menunjukan suatu kritik pada pandangan yang telah mengakar dalam diskursus filsafat Barat modern yang dipelopori oleh Rene Descartes. Heidegger secara terang menunjukan ketidakterimaannya pada pandangan tentang diri dalam filsafat Cartesian dan mendobraknya dengan gagasan manusia Dasein sebagai eksisten yang memahami dirinya sendiri dalam pra-struktur memahami, secara eksistensial dan mendahului suatu refleksi atau aktifitas kognitif apapun tentang diri Aku. Demikian pula Mullā Şadrā, walaupun hidup seabad dengan Rene Descartes, secara tidak langung mengkritik tradisi filsafat rasionalisme semacam itu dengan mengembangkan gagasan ilmu ḥudhūrī-nya, bahwa pengetahuan akan Aku atau diri ini bersifat imanen dalam dirinya sendiri dan mendahului segala bentuk konsepsi atau refleksi mengenai diri serta menjadi dasar bagi pengetahuan empiris. (shrink)

Following Avicenna, many Muslim philosophers and logicians have identified ‘intellectual universal’ (kullī ʿaqlī) with the very mental concept dependent on mind. Apart from the controversies about Platonic Forms, they argue that they cannot be the very universals in logic. Accordingly, Mullā Ṣadrā’s commentators have interpreted his view on intellectual universal in the Avicennian framework. In this interpretation, Mullā Ṣadrā has embraced Avicenna’s explanation about mind-dependent universal concepts; however, he has modified some details of the issue as per his theory of (...) the primacy of existence and Plato’s theory of Forms. Having explained Sabzawārī and Ṭabāṭabāʼī’s interpretation of Mullā Ṣadrā’s view in his article, the author goes to propose a different interpretation according to which intellectual universals are identical with Platonic Forms, rather than the mind-dependent universal concepts. This Platonic interpretation is supported by three sets of evidences from Mullā Ṣadrā’s own texts. It also shows how Mullā Ṣadrā has answered Avicenna’s objection about the use of Platonic universal in logic. (shrink)

The purpose of the present project is to study the Upaniṣads and Mullā Sadrā as expounders of mystical philosophy dealing with the question of the nature of Ultimate Reality and its concomitant issues. To be more specific, this study is an examination focused on the metaphysical theories propounded by them. The mystical and philosophical systems constructed by Upaniṣads and Mullā Sadrā are often viewed as being representative of absolutism found within their respective traditions. The striking differences generally perceived between aspects (...) of Hinduism and Islām have, however, somewhat prevented scholars to develop interest in the comparison of philosophies rooted in these two philosophical traditions. This study will be exploring the systems of these influential traditions to ascertain if this approach is true. (shrink)

The distinction between existence and essence in contingent beings is one of the foundational doctrines of medieval philosophy. Building upon Neoplatonic precursors, thinkers such as Avicenna and Aquinas debated its nature. However, one Islamic philosopher, who had an enormous influence on the development of philosophical discourse in Iran, subverted the traditional Peripatetic vision of reality and disputed the ontological nature of existence. Through a critique of the Peripatetic notion of existence, Suhrawardi demonstrated the irrelevance of the distinction for metaphysical inquiry, (...) which should, instead, rely upon an eidetic vision of the 'hierarchy of lights'. I shall explain why the later tradition advocated an essentialist reading of Suhrawardi and suggest that the Platonic hermeneutic of essential vision which Suhrawardi expounds, might be the reason for it. Later philosophers in the Islamic tradition had mistaken methodology for a description of reality. (shrink)

Due to the the movements in European thought from the 16th-17th centuries that have generated enough controversy around the ideas of ʻnatural philosophyʼ and ʻexperimental philosophyʼ, I think it would be appropriate to focus our attention on the evolution of the idea of ʻsubstantialismʼ in ʻtranscendental philosophyʼ from the Islamic philosophy. Mulla Sadrā was the most important philosopher and he established a truly hermeneutics on the idea of the ʻBeingʼ. Due tot the new fields of research into the prejudicative hermeneutics, (...) I can say that I will follow in this paper to manage this idea. I will follow the similarities between the Kitab written by Mulla Sadrā and the european idea of ʻnatural philosophyʼ, I will show some similarities between the ″Kitab al-Mashaʻir″ and ″Treatise on Heavens of Kant″, and i will bring those perspectives into a hermeneutical field of interpretation.The ideas of Kitab are very close to Heideggerʼs perspective on Being and aristotelian perspective of non-Being. Because of this reason, we say is necessary to.open a prejudicative perspective to investigate how works the play between Being and non-Being. (shrink)