mostafa Abedi jighe; Mohsen Bagherzadeh meskibaf; mohammad Asghari
Abstract
To realize human autonomy, Descartes establishes the dialectical relation between consciousness and freedom through the three essential elements of understanding, will, and divine power. Through the free will of negative, as methodic doubt and the destruction of all presuppositions, the basis of consciousness ...
Read More
To realize human autonomy, Descartes establishes the dialectical relation between consciousness and freedom through the three essential elements of understanding, will, and divine power. Through the free will of negative, as methodic doubt and the destruction of all presuppositions, the basis of consciousness is referred to the human being and releases it from external authority. By building a knowledge based on the innate concepts that come from within and without mediation consciously re-establishes knowledge. In this way, human beings not only gain autonomy of understanding but also freedom through the effort of a systematic and restrictive understanding. Because with the entry of the limiting of understanding in the area of the will, freedom is no longer meant to be nonchalance and lawlessness. But freedom within the limits of certain judgments of understanding and its legislation and divine power are enclosed. Through this process, it is promoted to positive freedom. Descartes, by declaring that the natural imaginations are verifiably confirmed by divine confirmation, relied on God to guarantee the knowledge of the understanding and in this way, he describes freedom as God's guarantee. Therefore, in Descartes' philosophy, the realization of positive freedom under dialectical conditions form on the basis of the complex relationship between will, intelligence, and divine power, and all of the elements that constitute a whole will only have meaning with each other.
Azam mohseni; ali fathtaheri
Abstract
Kant and Levinas’s point of departure in their works was the criticism of the Western tradition. The former proceeded to criticize a tradition that gives credit to object versus subject which ultimately leads to the spread of skepticism in epistemology and ethics. By referring to the Copernican ...
Read More
Kant and Levinas’s point of departure in their works was the criticism of the Western tradition. The former proceeded to criticize a tradition that gives credit to object versus subject which ultimately leads to the spread of skepticism in epistemology and ethics. By referring to the Copernican Revolution and validating the subject both in ethics or epistemology, Kant seeks to guarantee the validity of knowledge on the one hand, and the applicability of ethics (where the agent of ethics is involved in its generation) on the other. Similarly, in the works of Levinas also the same attempts have been made, that is, he too proceeded to criticize the philosophical tradition in which “the same” and “self” are placed against “otherness” and “alterity”. He puts emphasis on both the Other and otherness and tries to build a metaphysic based on our relationship with the otherness (in a general sense) and other (in a specific sense). Levinas introduces “heteronomy” before Kant’s “autonomy” and builds ethics based on our relationship with the other. The present paper argues that in comparison with Levinas’s heteronomous ethics that relies on man’s sentiments and feelings, Kant’s autonomous ethics that emphasizes on a sort of common rationality among human beings seems to be more plausible and applicable in human society.
masoud seyf
Abstract
The main question of this article is whether it is possible in Kant's ethical theory that an ethical agent commits mistake in recognizing a right ethical judgment or not. In order to reply to this question, first the place of wrong ethical judgment in Kant's ethical theory is considered. Then, by referring ...
Read More
The main question of this article is whether it is possible in Kant's ethical theory that an ethical agent commits mistake in recognizing a right ethical judgment or not. In order to reply to this question, first the place of wrong ethical judgment in Kant's ethical theory is considered. Then, by referring to the two main ethical principles in Kant's theory, i.e. universality and autonomy, it is tried to show that these principles are united in Kant’s view and this unity constitutes the basis of his theory and makes him not to accept the possibility of wrong ethical judgment in his ethical theory.
susan babit
Abstract
A familiar criticism of Kant, made by Hegel and his followers, J .S. Mill and others, is that there are no maxims that are in fact contradictory, as required for morality on Kant's view. In this paper, I discuss the suggestion that our capacity for rational reflection itself implies universality, and ...
Read More
A familiar criticism of Kant, made by Hegel and his followers, J .S. Mill and others, is that there are no maxims that are in fact contradictory, as required for morality on Kant's view. In this paper, I discuss the suggestion that our capacity for rational reflection itself implies universality, and that it is this universality that obliges us to act morally. I consider the idea that self-understanding depends upon practical identity, and I argue that we are sometimes obliged to act morally because of the nature of practical identity and its role in deliberation and self-awareness.
