University of Isfahan Metaphysics 2476-3276 18 41 2026 03 21 A Critical Study of the Relation of the Substantial Movement with the Constant and the Changing A Critical Study of the Relation of the Substantial Movement with the Constant and the Changing 47 66 29949 10.22108/mph.2025.144570.1630 FA Mahdi Assadi Associate Professor of Islamic Philosophy and Contemporary Wisdom, Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies, Tehran, Iran Journal Article 2025 03 04 <strong>Abstract </strong> Some scholars argue that Mullā Ṣadrā places more emphasis on proving substantial movement (<em>al-ḥarakat al-juharīyyah</em>) through the relationship between the constant and the changing than any other proof. They contend that if the moving substance is not interconnected with both the constant and the changing, then nothing else can establish such a connection. Therefore, substantial movement exists. The growing block version of Four-Dimensionalism and static Eternalism are sometimes presented to support this view as well. This paper evaluates and criticizes these claims comprehensively. We will employ a historical methodology to compile criticisms that have arisen throughout history and analyze them using philosophical reasoning and logical tools. We will also propose our own criticisms. The conclusion of our study indicates that none of the aforementioned claims are ultimately acceptable. For instance, if the above-mentioned argument for substantial movement is upheld, it leads to the reemergence of the constant and changing problem in a new context—particularly concerning accidental movement, which can be linked to both the constant and the changing - and the current defenses of the proponents finally cannot be acceptable as well. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the positions of Muṭahharī's growing block theory and Jawādī Āmulī’s Eternalism are contradictory to their own statements, as they have at times explicitly denied the existence of any constant entity within the moving material universe and any coexistence among temporal parts. <strong>Abstract </strong> Some scholars argue that Mullā Ṣadrā places more emphasis on proving substantial movement (<em>al-ḥarakat al-juharīyyah</em>) through the relationship between the constant and the changing than any other proof. They contend that if the moving substance is not interconnected with both the constant and the changing, then nothing else can establish such a connection. Therefore, substantial movement exists. The growing block version of Four-Dimensionalism and static Eternalism are sometimes presented to support this view as well. This paper evaluates and criticizes these claims comprehensively. We will employ a historical methodology to compile criticisms that have arisen throughout history and analyze them using philosophical reasoning and logical tools. We will also propose our own criticisms. The conclusion of our study indicates that none of the aforementioned claims are ultimately acceptable. For instance, if the above-mentioned argument for substantial movement is upheld, it leads to the reemergence of the constant and changing problem in a new context—particularly concerning accidental movement, which can be linked to both the constant and the changing - and the current defenses of the proponents finally cannot be acceptable as well. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the positions of Muṭahharī's growing block theory and Jawādī Āmulī’s Eternalism are contradictory to their own statements, as they have at times explicitly denied the existence of any constant entity within the moving material universe and any coexistence among temporal parts. https://mph.ui.ac.ir/article_29949_e04a34bd97ae73f8181a8de8ea814fad.pdf