Different Types of Intellect in Mulla Hadi Sabziwari’s View
Subject Areas :سيدمحمد حسيني نيك 1 , سيد هاشم گلستاني 2 , فتحعلي اكبري 3
1 -
2 -
3 -
Keywords:
Abstract :
There are several different interpretations of the intellect, and a number of different duties, types, and levels have been attributed to it in conformity with each interpretation. Among them, reference can be made to fitri intellect, theoretical intellect, practical intellect, universal intellect, active intellect, basis for obligation, etc. In the same vein, gnostics and sufis have even referred to obligation and escape from the intellect. In this paper, following an analytic-descriptive method and based on a new ontological and epistemological division, the writers have tried to examine the different types of the intellect from the viewpoint of Mulla Hadi Sabziwari. In the ontology of the intellect, this concept is considered as a level of existence or an existent which is discussed in the framework of universal intellects, particular intellects, and the ten-fold intellects. Moreover, the relationships and differences between them are explained therein. From an epistemological approach, the intellect is viewed as Man’s faculty of perception. The writers also explore the natural intellect, empirical intellect, theoretical intellect, and practical intellect and their levels, the simple intellect, and the differentiated intellect alongside the epistemology of the intellect. The findings of this study indicate that, when explaining the different types of the intellect, we sometimes deal with the human intellect (levels of the rational souls, particular intellect, or livelihood intellect) and sometimes with non-human intellects (universal separate intellects) and, since the ascended and descended intellects are two levels of the same species, they connect with each other in the arches of ascent and descent. The findings also reveal that the intellect which gnostics usually reproach is the imperfect particular intellect, which is under the influence of fanciful thoughts, and it is the habitual and natural intellect which is the criterion for obligation.
