abolfazl sabramiz; morteza haj hosseini
Abstract
Regarding the theory of mental existence, Muslim philosophers have presumed the issues of scientific reality and the match between objectivity and subjectivity. However, this presumption is faced with different challenges and it seems that indeed these challenges do not allow the mental existence to ...
Read More
Regarding the theory of mental existence, Muslim philosophers have presumed the issues of scientific reality and the match between objectivity and subjectivity. However, this presumption is faced with different challenges and it seems that indeed these challenges do not allow the mental existence to have the sufficient efficiency. On the other hand, the ideas of contemporary philosophers including Quine and Davidson essentially challenge the very idea of a match between subjectivity and objectivity, which is the prerequisite of the mental mode of existence. These philosophers believe that we have to use epistemology or semantics for addressing existential issues. We try to show that having accepted these criticisms, mental existence cannot fully play its previous role; however, by assuming the acceptance of the principle of mental existence and recognizing mental creatures, we can define a new role for this mode of existence. Here, we will question the relation between mind and mental creatures considering the understanding and construction of language expressions. Also, we will try to show that the response given to the question “how do we reach an understanding of sentences or lingual expressions?” based on prescriptive rules (grammar) is in odds with recognizing the characterization of mental creatures; accordingly, accepting the mental mode of existence will lead to the fact that language rules are descriptive and not prescriptive.
morteza haj hoseyni
Abstract
The philosophical critiques, in twentieth century, on binary paradigm caused the negation of the law of excluded middle as the same as it caused the establishment of many-valued logics and fuzzy logic, while the laws of excluded middle, identity and contradiction are all fundamental principles of thought ...
Read More
The philosophical critiques, in twentieth century, on binary paradigm caused the negation of the law of excluded middle as the same as it caused the establishment of many-valued logics and fuzzy logic, while the laws of excluded middle, identity and contradiction are all fundamental principles of thought and truth or falsity of each is derived from the truth or falsity of the others. This view point gives rise to some questions as follows: Can we deny these principles and are they fundamental? Otherwise how can we accept the claim of many-valued and fuzzy logicians indicate the negation of the law of excluded middle? Regarding these questions I first show, in this paper, various formulations of those three above laws and then I argue that the inability of binary logic and the necessity of establishment of many-valued logics and fuzzy logic are not in contrary to those three above laws. Besides, it is the connection of the present paper that Aristotle as the first philosopher who has elucidates the laws of contradiction and excluded middle was quite aware of the possibility of ambiguous in some propositions if they contain words which are equivocal. He also appealed to the truth values of both "partially true" and "partially false" to describe those propositions which at some level are vague.
