علی فتح طاهری

Gilles Deleuze, the notable post-modern philosopher, in his two-volume cinematic books Cinema 1: movement-image (1986) and Cinema 2: time-image (1989) recognizes two major periods in history of cinema (classic and modern) in terms of representing movement and time respectively. Referring to various films of modern cinema especially post-war European cinema like Italian neorealism, Cinema2 speaks about the possibility of direct presentation of time in cinematic works. Explaining Deleuze’s theories and his two formulations of direct presentation of time as ‘pure optical situations’ and ‘sheets of the past’, in this essay we try to give an analysis of the two most important films of Iranian history of cinema: Still Life (1974) and Prince Ehtejab (1974). Finally, we will conclude that these films are not mere representation of preexisting philosophical concepts, rather in contrast to linguistic thought, they provide some kind of visual and non-linguistic philosophical meditations of time, cinema of time

The issue of causation is one of the most important philosophical issues, so that without having a good understanding of this concept, it is impossible to understand the world. Any kind of discussion, speaking, and experience, or any human action is based on some kind of understanding of the concept of causation and accepting its reality. The issue of causation can be discussed from various aspects. Modern Western philosophers including Hume and Kant have treated this issue from epistemological point of view. But Muslim philosophers consider it as an ontological one. Mullah Sadrā as a great Muslim philosopher has dealt with this issue and has given its correct meaning with reference to its various forms in his works particularly, in his main book al-Asfār. By proving the principality of existence and mentally-positedness of quiddity, he claimed that it is not possible to explain causation on the basis of quiddity and quiddative possibility. At first, he explained causation on the basis of gradational unity of existence, but since this unity may lead to the separation of cause and effect, he finally by following a mystical approach to this principle, shifted from gradational unity to the individual unity of existence. He explained the principle of causation with reference to the mystical oneness of being, since there is no room for multiplicity. In such an approach, effect will be nothing other than a symbol or sign and has no identity other than a kind of mirror