Philosophy of intellectuality and the problem of the unity of being

In the view of the Arif, the essence of the necessary existence is pure truth and "unconditional" existence. The essence has no certainty in this level and everything is unconditionally established in it. They called this level "ghaybul-quyub" (the unseen of the unseen) and "absolute identity" (Ibn Turke, p. 122), and it is above any certainty and beyond the limits of understanding. No description can be given to it and it is not known to anyone, not even to the prophets and saints. Its unity in this level is true unity and unity equal to existence, and there is no plurality (kasrat) in return for it. After the indefinite state of the essence, there is the state of ahadiyat and the unconditional level towards everyone except itself, which is the level of the disappearance of all names and attributes. In the view of the Arif, this level is a level below the essence, in that absolute existence is determined here and falls below its absolute level. After this, on a lower level, there is the level of unity. After the essence has manifested itself and wants to appear in any mirror, the stage of the multiplicity of the attributes in terms of meaning has begun. In this level, each of the attributes of the absolute being has found a possible essence, and this possible essence shows those attributes. Thus, the attributes manifest themselves in various ways and numerous names appear (Qeysari, Hawashi cilve, p. 287).

This explanation makes it clear that in the eyes of the wise, the complete simplicity and true unity of the necessary being are proven in their highest form. According to their right view, the essence of the necessary being is not limited by any plurality. In the eyes of the wise, absolute truth is only pure being, and other beings, which are its rays, are not with it, so that its essence is in the same division as other beings. The difference between philosophy and knowledge is that in knowledge, the necessary being is an unconditional being that appears and manifests in all levels. However, the philosopher does not approach the levels of being in this way. In philosophy, the necessary being is a part that is next to the plurality. The basis of philosophy is based on accepting the plurality of independent consequences next to the necessary being, and this belief has caused a gap in the roots of philosophy. The first level of the philosopher's knowledge of the essence of the necessary being is that he sees the necessary being as a part of being and in the division of possible beings. Thus, philosophy has been unable to prove the essential being's simplicity - that is, in such a way that no other appears alongside it and is not in the same division as other beings - and has questioned the true unity of the essential.

The problem of pure truth

Sci. Educ. Innov. Context Mod. Probl. P-ISSN: 2790-0169 E-ISSN: 2790-0177 Issue 2, Vol. 8, 2025, IMCRA

Philosophy has faced two problems in its intellectual view of the truth of being and the essence of the essential being. Religious philosophers have made very difficult intellectual efforts to solve these two problems, which have sometimes been unsuccessful.

The first problem: Philosophy is unable to prove the pure existence of the essential being -such a being that it is impossible for another pure truth to exist alongside it. The incompetence of various philosophical views in the face of this problem has been in several ways:

If we believe in the originality of essence and consider existence to be a word with a common meaning (synonym) among existents, so that each being is a completely different reality from the other, it is not impossible for there to be two pure beings, and it is possible to assume two pure necessary beings whose essence is unknown and whose truths are different from each other. In this case, philosophy is unable to prove the unity of necessary being. Since this theory is fundamentally false, there is no need to respond to it.

Based on the fact that existence is common in terms of essence and meaning, and by acknowledging that existence is a single reality, it is possible to rely on the principle of "pure truth is neither duplicated nor repeated", which is accepted by philosophers as false, and to consider necessary existence as a single truth. Because pure truth cannot be repeated, therefore God is pure being and will be one, ancient, eternal and without need.

However, the argument for pure truth faces the problem that, although the pure existence of each thing cannot be repeated, it is possible to imagine two purely true necessary beings that exist side by side and have two different truths. For example, the pure existence of the color white may exist side by side with the pure existence of the color black.

The theory of the degrees of being (tashqiq) was considered a great step in Islamic philosophy, and this theory also faces the same problem, namely, the problem of proving the necessary being as a pure truth. The problem is that in the theory of tashqiq, being is divided into two parts, the necessary and the possible, and according to this division, the necessary being belongs to the division of possible being and is one of the parts of being. The result of this division is not to consider the truth of the necessary as pure. Because the fact that a truth is pure means that there is no division of that truth and that it is impossible for another to exist in the same truth. Thus, we observe that all philosophical theories are incapable of solving the problem of the unity of the necessary being.

Philosophical solution to the problem

Sci. Educ. Innov. Context Mod. Probl. P-ISSN: 2790-0169 E-ISSN: 2790-0177 Issue 2, Vol. 8, 2025, IMCRA

The following way is proposed to solve this problem based on the theory of organization (the division of existence into degrees and levels or its intensity and weakness): Although according to the theory of organization, necessary and possible beings are parts of each other and cannot be pure truth, we must note that both of them are parts of a division, which division is pure truth and absolute existence. To explain it more broadly, we say that in the theorem “being is either necessary or possible”, there are two possibilities about the “being” that is divided.

Either this divided thing is not real in itself, but is a universal, for example, like essence and concept. That is, existence does not indicate an external truth, as in the theorem “being is what is common in meaning”, and is only a concept taken from individual individuals and attributed to them. Likewise, being is divided into necessary and possible or singular and plural in the initial divisions, and these are nothing but divisions. Therefore, this division is like the division in concepts. Accepting this possibility does not solve the problem of pure truth, because in this case we cannot have a truth called pure being. Although, “being” in this theorem has an absolute and broad meaning and encompasses all types of being. However, this designation is nothing more than a concept and is far from reality. Absolute being can be considered pure truth only when it is something real and genuine and its reference is real.

The second possibility is that being is not only a concept in this theorem, but on the contrary, being is a truth as “absolute being” in all initial divisions and has real levels (degrees) as reference, and thus is divided into necessary and possible. According to this possibility, the problem of pure being can be solved. Because, the existence of an absolute pure truth has been proven. The conclusion is that, according to the theory of formation, in addition to the body of necessary being and possible being, there is an absolute being and a pure being, which is truly and truly referred to, which has no counterpart and is completely simple. This absolute being is divisible by the theorem "being is either necessary or possible." Being in this sense unites at each level with that level, that is, it forms a union with necessary beings at its highest level and with possible beings at lower levels, and in the same way it is pure and simple.

However, this possibility, like the previous one, cannot solve the problem of the pure existence of the necessary being according to the theory of organization. Because, it is clear that the divided truth of the pure is a truth other than the necessary, and the necessary is not itself, but one of its parts. Since the divided truth is a pure existence and the necessary is one of its parts, the necessary being cannot be pure. Because it causes the multiplication of the pure existence, and the argument that “the pure truth is neither doubled nor repeated” invalidates this. Secondly, if the necessary being is pure, then the possible beings that are in the same division with it must also be pure, but this is impossible.

Sci. Educ. Innov. Context Mod. Probl. P-ISSN: 2790-0169 E-ISSN: 2790-0177 Issue 2, Vol. 8, 2025, IMCRA

Therefore, according to the theory of organization, it is impossible for the necessary being to be pure truth, and philosophy is also unable to prove that the necessary being is pure and truly simple and single (so that there is no other truth beside it).

The problem of composition

More advanced theories of philosophy and the principle of organization, in order to prove the pure truth of the necessary being, face another problem in addition to the above problem, and this is the complexity of the necessary being, the rejection of its simplicity, and as a result, the necessary being needs something other than itself. Because according to this theory, lower levels, after receiving existence as a cause, benefit from the truth of existence as a necessary and stand next to the necessary. As a result of this view, the necessary is composed of higher and lower levels of beings. This composition is considered the worst composition because it is made up of demand and deprivation, as well as existence and non-existence (2, p. 467).

Here, such a question may arise that the law of causality, which is accepted without exception in philosophy, considers the result to be an independent entity. The independence of the result means that although the result derives its existence from the cause, after it is derived from the cause it has an independent essence and property and stands alongside it with the perfections of existence that the cause gives it. This word means the acceptance of multiple beings alongside the necessary existence, and the unacceptable consequence of this is that we deny the simplicity of the necessary and admit that the necessary being is complex from existence and non-existence ()2, p.10.

The law of simple truth

We have clarified the inability of philosophical theories to declare and prove the pure truth and its true unity. The solution to this problem fell to the founder of the wisdom of the Ṭūṭālīyya, Molla Sadra. He received a spark by enjoying the pleasure of piety and bringing philosophy to the feet of knowledge, and by putting forward the law of the “simple truth of the whole” and reinterpreting the law of causality, he paved the way for philosophy to prove the true and complete simplicity of the necessary being, as well as the personal unity of being.

The most important step of the philosophy of the Ṭūṭālīyya in the matter of ontology can be considered the discovery of the law of simple truth. This principle is one of the greatest achievements of Molla Sadra and is the path leading philosophy to the true unity of being. According to this law, he considers the necessary existence to be the complete truth of being and does not accept any existence outside the necessary existence. However, Milla Sadra considers this path to be too diffi- Ka

Sci. Educ. Innov. Context Mod. Probl. P-ISSN: 2790-0169 E-ISSN: 2790-0177 Issue 2, Vol. 8, 2025, IMCRA cult for philosophy and states that it is impossible to reach the truths in knowledge through theoretical discussions: “However, it is impossible to reach the absolute unity of being, the truth of its essence and its manifestation in all beings, without setting aside theoretical discussions and using the scientific and practical method of the people of knowledge and knowledge” (3, p. 57). However, Mulla Sadra states that the claim of knowledge is not in contradiction with the theoretical principles of philosophy.

He says about this: “It should be known that proving multiple degrees for being and the multiplicity of beings according to the theory of organization (the degree of being) does not contradict the issue of the unity of being and the existent, which is the belief of the wise and which we have long wanted to prove” (4, p. 68).

Mulla Sadra states this law as follows:

“The necessary existence is all things and all beings, and all things return to it. For the proof is based on the principle that it is the simple truth of all things. Therefore, just as it is all being, it is itself all being. This truth is very difficult for anyone except those who have knowledge and innate philosophy to understand” (3, p. 128).

He explains elsewhere as follows: “The necessary existence is the simple truth, the ultimate limit of simplicity. Every perfect simple is all things and nothing is outside of it. This can be proven as follows: If something is outside the truth and identity of the simple, then the essence of the simple becomes the reference of the negation of this thing, and as a result of this negation, the perfect simple will be complex, with the truth of something and the negation of the truth of something being a component, and this is the opposite of simplicity” (4, p. 45).

The summary of the law of the simple truth of the whole is that a being that is perfectly simple, being far from any kind of composition, inevitably leaves no room for anything else beside itself and will be an unlimited being. Because, the existence of another being (beside it) means that the truth of that thing disappears in this perfect simple, and also that the simple is complicated by its own existence and the absence of that thing, and this is not true. Because the idea of another pure being beside it - even if with a different truth - is unacceptable.

Mulla Sadra, in his definition of “pure,” says: “The pure is that in it there is no defect or possibility, and no absence finds its way to it, and there is no multiplicity in it, so in this case nothing can be deprived of it except absence. Thus, it is the completeness of everything and the perfection of every defect” (4, p. 229).

Sci. Educ. Innov. Context Mod. Probl. P-ISSN: 2790-0169 E-ISSN: 2790-0177 Issue 2, Vol. 8, 2025, IMCRA

Mulla Sadra says in his book “Masha’ir” about the truth of the necessary existence: “Absolute and precisely necessary existence is the truth of being. It is a truth that has no limit or end, otherwise it cannot be an absolute existence. It is the goal of everything and the completeness of every truth, it is simple in every respect. It is impossible to suppose two necessary existences in the world of existence, because in this case each of them would have a perfection that the other does not have. Also, they would have one existence that the other does not have. Thus, they would have something and be deprived of something, which in this case also cannot be necessary existence. The result is that the necessary existence must be at the very end of activity, must have all the parts of existence and all the degrees of perfection” (5, p. 47).

In order to prove that the necessary is a complete being, Mulla Sadra brings the following argument in addition to the simple law of truth: "The necessary existence is the truth of being, and there is no poverty in the truth of being, otherwise there should not have been any necessary existence at all (because the meaning of the necessary is a being that does not need anything else, and the imperfect, that is, needs something else), and since the existence of the necessary existence is proven, this assumption is also proven to be false. Therefore, it is a truth that is free from every defect, and has complete, perfect, and infinite power and degree of existence. The defects and weaknesses of other beings are due to their being a result." He proves this issue in another way and says: “We know that if we deny a certain being in a being, that thing will be complex, consisting of being and non-being, and therefore it is not a simple truth. When we read this in reverse, we say that if every being is a simple truth, it is a universal thing (everything) and no being can be denied in it.”

A new view of the law of causality

However, the problem still remains in the initial divisions of being, that is, in the division of being into necessary and possible. Because, the law of simple truth is opposed to this initial philosophical division. The organization of the truth of being (division into degrees) has deprived all degrees of being of its single truth and has adorned all its individuals – whether necessary or possible – with being equally. This view contradicts the law of simple truth. The philosophy of reading faces such a problem by remaining attached to these two principles, namely the principles of the organization of being and its simplicity.

Here too, Mulla Sadra, by putting forward a very valuable initiative, overcame this obstacle facing philosophy and declared the relationship between the necessary and the possible in accordance with the simple truth of being, and thus took the final step towards the solidarity of reason and witness and philosophy and knowledge. Giving a new analysis of the question of causality and

Sci. Educ. Innov. Context Mod. Probl. P-ISSN: 2790-0169 E-ISSN: 2790-0177 Issue 2, Vol. 8, 2025, IMCRA changing the relationship between cause and effect into a relationship worthy of dignity and dignity was Mulla Sadra's great discovery.

Mulla Sadra writes in his work “Asfar”:

“The conclusion is that according to the people of truth and the followers of the philosophy of the sublime, the mind, the soul, the forms of species and all the degrees of existence are the rays of that true light and the manifestations of the Divine Being who is the guardian. The evidence proving this basic principle is a part of philosophy that my God has bestowed upon me by His eternal grace and with it I was able to perfect philosophy. This principle is very precise and intricate, and the path necessary to reach it is very difficult and very far from hand. God, by His mercy, made me aware of the falsehood of the eternality of possible essences and explained to me that existence is only a personal, unique truth, just as there is no other than Him in the world of existence and whatever exists in the world of existence other than Him is the ray of that Being and the manifestations of His Attributes. Those Attributes which are in fact the same as His Essence and, as the wise say, are a shadow for the possessor of the Truth compared to its Essence. are shadows” (4, p. 213).

Molla Sadra put forward the possibility of poverty instead of the possibility of essence of the pre-pathetics and considered the need of the result for the cause within the essence and truth of the result and thus did not recognize any existence for the result other than its dependence and dependence on the cause. In his view, the result is its dependence and dependence on the cause itself and nothing else has a truth other than that. Instead of the absurd and groundless theory that “the result becomes independent by receiving truth from the cause”, it is necessary to accept this truth that by creating the result, the cause actually only shows another face of its own existence and reveals one of its rays.

The result, that is, is that which has its existence and truth from the cause. Therefore, it is nothing other than dependence and dependence on the cause. The truth of the essence of the result is nothing other than the existence on which it depends, and non-independence and dependence are in its essence. It may be that those who believe in the real essence, since they consider the essence to be in a middle position between existence and non-existence, assume that there is no such dependence on the cause in the essence and essence stages of the result. However, since the essence is not real according to the view that existence is real, the existence of the result is nothing other than dependence and literal meaning. The result is dependence itself, and being a result is the same as receiving existence from the cause and nothing more, and also the cause is nothing other than making it exist. Mulla Sadra explains: “The cause that creates and the true cause is that causality is in its truth and essence, and it is purely a cause and a cause by its very nature, not just some- EC

Sci. Educ. Innov. Context Mod. Probl. P-ISSN: 2790-0169 E-ISSN: 2790-0177 Issue 2, Vol. 8, 2025, IMCRA thing that has the quality of causality. This should also be said about the effect. The true effect is that being the effect and being created is in its truth and essence, not just something that has the truth of being something other than the effect. Therefore, being the effect is inseparable from the essence of the effect, even in intellectual analysis, and these two things cannot be separated from each other even in intellectual isolation. Accordingly, since the cause is simple and does not consist of the essence of the cause and the composition of causality, the effect is also simple in this respect, and the essence of the effect is not separate from its being the effect. If we isolate the cause and the effect from everything except their essence and see nothing except their essence, it becomes clear that every cause is itself a cause and every effect is itself an effect.”

Conclusion

The founder of the philosophy of the study reaches the conclusion and the final step at this stage that there is no identity for the result at all other than the cause. He continues: “The meaning of the idea that the result has no truth other than being a result is that the result has no truth other than the cause. For if we see something as a result separated from the cause, this means that we have imagined a truth for it other than being a result, but it was previously clear that the result has no other property and identity than being a result. Therefore, the result has no other property than the property of the cause, because it has no other property than being dependent on and dependent on the cause.”

This is the same saying that the wise say, that is, existence is nothing other than necessary existence and the unity of existence. Mulla Sadra finally states this idea as follows: “Now that it has been proven that the chain of beings reaches the essence of simple truth without any defect or plurality - that essence which is the creator in itself and the cause of existence - it becomes clear that the truth and origin of all beings are one, and the rest are its manifestations, names and attributes. It has become clear that being is one and has no second, everything called being is one of the manifestations, its attributes and rays of its light of that one being. In short, if until now we have been talking about the existence of cause and effect, now we have come to know that there has been no precise view and the most correct view is the view expressed in knowledge that the only cause has truth and the effect is an aspect of its existence, and this aspect is nothing other than the essence and truth of the effect” (4, pp. 200-203). By this means, Mulla Sadra reached the issue of the “personal unity of being” that the scholars of gnosis declared and believed.