چکیده:
The proof of 'establishing the power and the matter carrying it for a temporal accident' is among the proofs that philosophers throughout history have relied upon in the preliminary discussions of motion. Although a cursory look at the common expressions of this proof reveals the existence of verbal ambiguity of the word 'possibility' (imkan) in the middle term of the argument, which causes a disruption in the validity of the proof. Solving this issue based on the principles of Peripatetic wisdom is impossible; however, the importance of the subject led Islamic thinkers, especially followers of the School of Transcendent Philosophy, to address it by returning it to semantic unity and ultimately justifying the issue in light of the content of the primacy of existence and substantial motion; although, considering the views of Professor Javadi Amoli on this matter, other potential flaws arise in this proof. This article, using a descriptive-analytical method, aims to resolve the existing flaws in the premises and ultimately stabilize the proof.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Solving this issue based on the principles of Peripatetic wisdom is impossible; however, the importance of the subject led Islamic thinkers, especially followers of the School of Transcendent Theosophy, to address its solution by returning it to semantic unity and ultimately justifying the issue considering the content of the primacy of existence and substantial motion; although, considering the views of Professor Javadi Amoli on this matter, other potential objections arise in this proof.
From this definition, it is understood that first, temporal accidents are all contingent (possible in existence); second, they are limited to the beings of the material world; because their non-existence at a certain time cannot be combined with their existence, and this is the same as "non-existence in opposition" (عدم مقابل) and "non-conjoinable non-existence" (عدم غيرمجامع) (Sadr al-Mutallahin, 1981, Vol. 3, p.
Accordingly, essential possibility in temporal accidental beings must be expressed as the specific possibility of a thing that is constantly undergoing change (Javadi Amoli, 1375, vol.
The reason that was established for the possibility of every accident is not the comprehensive concept of possibility, but rather a specific instance of it, which is essential possibility; and by this amount, the potentiality-based possibility of material accidents is not proven before their realization (Javadi Amoli, 1375, vol.
To resolve this objection, the content of essential possibility must be returned to potentiality-based possibility, as contemplation on the primacy of existence and the basis of substantial motion reveals the necessity of unity in substance or the individuality of a thing during movement.
(
, 
, 
)
