Bayan Karimi; Seyyed Mostafa Shahraeini; Yusef Nozohur
Abstract
Spinoza is the first and the most important political philosopher to have considered Democracy as the best government. The superiority of Democracy in Spinoza’s political philosophy is based on the metaphysical foundations of his thought. Spinoza has taken two stands regarding the human nature; ...
Read More
Spinoza is the first and the most important political philosopher to have considered Democracy as the best government. The superiority of Democracy in Spinoza’s political philosophy is based on the metaphysical foundations of his thought. Spinoza has taken two stands regarding the human nature; on the one hand, he represents a naturalistic explanation for human-being and introduces Conatus or self-preservation as the first and the most fundamental feature of all natural beings, including human nature. On the other hand, his perfectionist metaphysical system calls for choosing a superior model for human nature by which it can be shown how to be liberated from passions of the soul and to put human beings in the limits of reason by detaching them from irrationalism of desires. Spinoza considers Democracy as superior for it is the most natural and the most rational kind of government; the most natural as it has the highest similarity with the natural state of mankind in which human is free to protect his nature and he has the right to do everything in its power; the most rational as the more the decision makers, the less the possibility of domination of ruinous and irrational passions. Our main question in this paper is how the superiority of Democracy over other governments is the outcome of metaphysical system. The central claim in this paper is that Spinoza’s assertion about superiority of Democracy is comprehensible only when we grasp his interpretation of human nature which is based on his metaphysical foundations.
Seyyed Mostafa Shahraeeni; Seyyed Mohsen Azadikhah (Bize)
Abstract
Despite being accused of scepticism in his own and later times, Descartes was not a sceptic at all but he used doubt as a means to reach an end. In every instance he speaks of true philosophy and metaphysics, he invites the audience to dismiss from their minds anything which can be the subject of the ...
Read More
Despite being accused of scepticism in his own and later times, Descartes was not a sceptic at all but he used doubt as a means to reach an end. In every instance he speaks of true philosophy and metaphysics, he invites the audience to dismiss from their minds anything which can be the subject of the slightest doubt. What we need to take into account is that doubt and scepticism can be of use only to the level at which we succeed to establish a solid ground, and that after that level only an analytical method will help us in building a solid construction of knowledge. The aim of the present paper is to demonstrate that, unlike prevalent beliefs, doubt is not Descartes’ method but is his procedure for employing his method, which is indeed analytical. The role doubt plays for the Cartesian thinker is to provide a ground of certainty which can support the new construction of knowledge he intends to build. Descartes in fact uses doubt as a helpful tool for implementing analytical methods in the area of metaphysics.
