Mahdi Behniafar
Abstract
This essay deals with Descartes' Provisional Morality and some of its epistemic requirements. Here, we shall introduce two rival readings of these principles, one of which does not give a plausible position to these principles and does not consider them to be an essential part of Descartes's system, ...
Read More
This essay deals with Descartes' Provisional Morality and some of its epistemic requirements. Here, we shall introduce two rival readings of these principles, one of which does not give a plausible position to these principles and does not consider them to be an essential part of Descartes's system, and the other assumes these principles to be both permanent and universal, and then present our explanation to the epistemic realm and also the human realm of these principles. First, we have presented our account of the relation between these Maxims with Cartesian key elements, namely Doubt and Method. Then we discuss the basic nature of Provisionality of these Maxims; a concept that is apparently normal but has relatively different results and requirements. I argue that the moral code has an epistemic character, not a time; time also depends on the events of Reason. Also, while we argued that these principles cannot be considered temporary, we have shown that the idea of some Descartes commentators that these principles, from the very beginning, were permanent and universal is a misconception that can't be imposed on Descartes. Based on our argument, these principles can be transformed into permanent principles in certain epistemic conditions that we have explained, but at the same time, in certain circumstances, they may also be disaffirmed and, as a result, become temporary principles. When these maxims count as the product of an argumentative process, then a non-argumentative description such as the conservatism of these principles will be an abnormal description that is unrelated to Descartes' will.
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.
luis pojhan
Abstract
For many religious people there is a problem of doubting various creedal statements contained in their religions. Often propositional beliefs are looked upon as a necessary, though not sufficient, condition, for salvation. This causes great anxiety in doubters and raises the question of the importance ...
Read More
For many religious people there is a problem of doubting various creedal statements contained in their religions. Often propositional beliefs are looked upon as a necessary, though not sufficient, condition, for salvation. This causes great anxiety in doubters and raises the question of the importance of belief in religion and in life in general. It is a question that has been neglected in philosophy of religion and Christian theology. In this paper I shall explore the question of the importance of belief as a religious attitude and suggest that there is at least one other attitude which may be adequate for religious faith even in the absence of belief, that attitude being hope. I shall develop a concept of faith as hope as an alternative to the usual notion that makes propositional belief that God exists a necessary condition for faith, as Plantinga implies in the quotation above. For simplicity’s sake I shall concentrate on the most important proposition in Western religious creeds, that which states that God exists (defined broadly as a benevolent, supreme Being, who is responsible for the creation of the universe), but the analysis could be applied mutatis mutandis to many other important propositions in religion (e.g., the Incarnation and the doctrine of the Trinity). I am not sure how these ideas fit into Islamic thought, but I offer up my paper to stimulate discussion between Christian and Islamic philosophy on the subjects of faith and doubt.
