Volume 5, Issue 2 (2025)
jpt 2025, 5(2): 179-190 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Mikaeili M, Jafari Valani A. Criticism of the Duality of Causality-Coincidence and the Solution to the Challenge Arising from it Based on Lewis's Idea of Possible Worlds. jpt 2025; 5 (2) :179-190
URL: http://jpt.modares.ac.ir/article-34-79947-en.html
URL: http://jpt.modares.ac.ir/article-34-79947-en.html
1- Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Theology, Shahid Motahari University, Tehran Iran
Abstract: (731 Views)
The duality of causality-coincidence is one of the important issues in the history of human thought. The theory of causality in Islamic philosophy was formed on the axis of essential possibility and, after passing from the elementary period, reached its peak in Allameh Tabataba'i. On the other hand, the theory of coincidence reached its pinnacle of development in David Hume. The parties to the dispute argue around this axis whether the preference of existence over non-existence in essences requires a preferred cause or not. Regardless of whether the aforementioned preference is due to a cause or chance, the more important question is whether the occurrence of the aforementioned preference in essence is possible or not. If this preference is impossible, the necessity of a third perspective and a departure from the aforementioned duality is established. This article aims to address the challenge as mentioned earlier and propose a solution based on Lewis's concept of possible worlds. Of course, this perspective has no connection to Lewis's causal perspective.
Keywords: Causality, Coincidence, Possible Worlds, Essential Possibility, Allameh Tabataba'i, David Lewis
Article Type: Original Research |
Subject:
Metaphysics (Islamic)
Received: 2025/03/11 | Accepted: 2025/04/18 | Published: 2025/05/16
Received: 2025/03/11 | Accepted: 2025/04/18 | Published: 2025/05/16
References
1. Abbasian Chaleshtari MA (2000). Causality. Articles and Reviews. 68:219-243.[Persian] [Link]
2. Ghasemi A (2016). Analysis of causality in hume and its comparison with the views of Morteza Motahari. Hekmat Sadraei. 5(1):87-98. [Persian] [Link]
3. Ghorbani Q (2007). Causality from the perspective of Western empiricists and its critique from the perspective of transcendental wisdom. New Religious Thought. 9:161-198.[Persian] [Link]
4. Hume D (1969). A treatise of human nature. London: Penguin Book. [Link]
5. Hume D (1988). An enquiry concerning human understanding. Chicago: Open Court. [Link]
6. Maleki F (2021). Causality from Hume's perspective and its criticism based on the thought of Ibn Sina. Rushd Journal of Quranic Education and Islamic Studies. 116:31-32.[Persian] [Link]
7. Nolan D (2005). David Lewis. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press. [Link] [DOI:10.1017/UPO9781844653072]
8. Sadr MB (1982). Logical bases for induction. Beirut: DAR AL TAAROF LELMATBUAT. [Arabic] [Link]
9. Salem M (2012). The place of Sinai causality: A historical survey. Hekmat Sinai. 48:55-76. [Persian] [Link]
10. Tabataba'i MH (2006). The end of wisdom. Qom: Imam Khomeini Educational and Research Institute Publication Center. [Arabic] [Link]
11. Tabataba'i MH (2010). The beginning of wisdom. Qom: Islamic Publishing Institute. [Arabic] [Link]
12. Tabataba'i MH (2011). Principles of philosophy and the method of realism. Tehran: Sadra Publications. [Persian] [Link]
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |