Alireza Farsinegad; Omid Arjomand
Abstract
Using the Quranic, philosophical, mystical heritage and modern sciences and philosophies, Motahari presents the most complete interpretation of the theory of Nature. He first considers temperament, instinct and nature for man three times. The order divides nature into two parts, the nature of cognition ...
Read More
Using the Quranic, philosophical, mystical heritage and modern sciences and philosophies, Motahari presents the most complete interpretation of the theory of Nature. He first considers temperament, instinct and nature for man three times. The order divides nature into two parts, the nature of cognition and the nature of tendency, and mentions five tendencies for the nature of tendency. Influenced by other psychologists and philosophical and mystical traditions, Jung proposes the unconscious theory. He first divides the human psyche into two parts: the conscious psyche and the unconscious psyche. He then divides the unconscious into two types, the individual unconscious and the collective unconscious, and mentions different archetypes for the collective unconscious. The purpose of this study is to investigate and apply the general framework of these two theories, which has been followed by descriptive, analytical and comparative methods. The anthropology of both theories, the correspondence between the nature of cognition and the conscious, and the nature of tendency with the unconscious, the equivalence of individual nature with the individual unconscious and general nature with the collective unconscious, the similarity of the five nature tendencies with archetypes, carrying both theories to explain religious phenomena is one of the similarities of these two theories. Dedicating the theory of nature to the positive and transcendent aspects and addressing the unconscious theory to the positive and negative aspects of the spirit are the differences between these two theories.
zahra kalhor; Alireza farsinegad; kambiz kalhor
Abstract
Throughout the history of religious societies, the fate of the sciences, especially rational knowledge has always been at the hands of the theological doctrine of that society. In this research, we used a historical approach to describe and analyze the views of historians on how science and religion ...
Read More
Throughout the history of religious societies, the fate of the sciences, especially rational knowledge has always been at the hands of the theological doctrine of that society. In this research, we used a historical approach to describe and analyze the views of historians on how science and religion interacted in prehistoric times, ancient Greece, and the Middle Ages in the world of Christianity and Islam concludes that science and religion have had dynamic, two-way and diverse relationships with each other. However, since the formation of science, there was always a conflict between theological doctrine and science, especially rational knowledge, both in ancient Greece and the world of Islam and Christianity in the Middle Ages; Although Christianity and Islam both at the beginning of their emergence, led to the growth of science And science itself - the rational Knowledge specifically - also provided the required methods for explaining religious doctrine to Muslim and Christian theologians, but there has always been a kind of incompatibility between the mental–psychological structure of the interpreters of religious doctrine, and the findings of rational knowledge.
