Mehdi Moinzadeh
Abstract
The Priority of the practical approach toward the world to theoretical approach is one of the most fundamental components of Heidegger’s “Being and Time”. In fact, Heidegger believes that the first disclosure of Dasein to the world is based on practice rather than speculation and even ...
Read More
The Priority of the practical approach toward the world to theoretical approach is one of the most fundamental components of Heidegger’s “Being and Time”. In fact, Heidegger believes that the first disclosure of Dasein to the world is based on practice rather than speculation and even Dasein is the same practice. Thus, according to Heidegger, the theory is only a derivative form of Praxis. Heidegger doesn’t refer to “Aristotle’s Phronesis” explicitly in “BT”. However, we can find the implicit presence of this concept all over the book to the extent that researchers like Volpi consider “BT” as a translation of Aristotle’s “Nichomachean Ethics”. I Will try, in this article, to present four tacit presences of Phronesis in “Being and Time” and to show that these four presences have founded on KAIROS that Heidegger emphasizes on it especially in the “Phenomenology of Religious Life” Lecture course.
Amin Shahverdi
Abstract
In this paper, the formation and development of Signification theory and its effect on Muslim thinkers are studied. In the ancient period, there were three important schools that investigated signals and issues surrounding them. First, Aristotle investigated signs at the outset of his “On Interpretation”, ...
Read More
In this paper, the formation and development of Signification theory and its effect on Muslim thinkers are studied. In the ancient period, there were three important schools that investigated signals and issues surrounding them. First, Aristotle investigated signs at the outset of his “On Interpretation”, as well as, at the end of his “Prior Analytics”. Second, physicians with classifying signs into two main groups made various comments about the argumentative role of them in inferences. Third, Stoics studied signs as a primary part of their logic and investigated arguments on the basis of them. In the Islamic period, Avicenna is the first logicians studying verbal signification meticulously and classifying it into three parts. Avicenna’s doctrines about verbal signification which are repeated in other logicians’ books are in accordance with Aristotle’s discourse at the beginning of “On Interpretation”. Natural verbal signification is added into logical books explicitly by Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī and after him, Afḍal al-Dīn al-Khūnajī and other logicians implied to it. Rational verbal signification is added to verbal signification in the works of Siraj al-Dīn Urmawī, Allameh Ḥelli, and Quṭb al-Dīn Shirāzī. Furthermore, Quṭb al-Dīn Rāzī with examining non-verbal signification extended the domain of signification theory, as well as he introduced a new definition of signification. This new definition of signification and attention to non-verbal signification possibly are rooted in Aristotle’s comment in the second book of Prior Analytics as well as Stoics and physicians' doctrines which were transmitted through theologians and Aristotle commentator into later logicians.
Mehdi Amiriyan
Abstract
Relying on the teachings of Aquinas, Oderberg as one of the analytic hylomorphists ascribes the unity of an object to form. His view is that if form is responcible for unity, it should be a simple entity not a composite one. In this article, we have shown that although one can find this view tenable, ...
Read More
Relying on the teachings of Aquinas, Oderberg as one of the analytic hylomorphists ascribes the unity of an object to form. His view is that if form is responcible for unity, it should be a simple entity not a composite one. In this article, we have shown that although one can find this view tenable, but his own specific metaphysics cannot support it. In doing so, we first focus on his explanation of form and analyze his argument for form. We argue that his view suffers from many weaknesses. In the sequel, we explained our own argument for unity of form, which is taken from Aristotle. At the end, we showed that even if we ignore the weaknesses of Oderberg’s argument and accept his claim to the unity of form, his metaphysics cannot support this theory.
Mustafa Zali
Abstract
One of the most controversial debates on Hegel’s Philosophy is the question of ancient or modern aspects of his philosophical system. On the one hand, focusing on Kantian dimension of Hegel’s Philosophy, some Hegel scholars have regarded his project as the completion and radicalization of ...
Read More
One of the most controversial debates on Hegel’s Philosophy is the question of ancient or modern aspects of his philosophical system. On the one hand, focusing on Kantian dimension of Hegel’s Philosophy, some Hegel scholars have regarded his project as the completion and radicalization of transcendental philosophy. On the other hand, some others emphasize on Hegel’s conception and elaboration and also transformation of classical metaphysical concepts of Plato and Aristotle; hence, he introduced his new ideas in the context of ancient metaphysical tradition. Focusing on Hegel’s interpretation of Aristotle’s concept of God as self-thinking nous, this study shows to some extent, in explaining the most important concept of his philosophy i.e. the Absolute and its synonyms, that he is indebted to Aristotle. Although with his own conception of this concept, he opens a modern way to reinterpret the concept of absolute. Accordingly, the identity of subject and object has overcome the Kantian duality between apperception and the world, and the rejection of nature’s actuality in its immediacy has preserved the Kantian criteria of the conceptual determination of the world.
Seyyed Jamal Same; Mohammad Javad Safian
Abstract
Aristotle is one of the philosophers who have influenced young Heidegger’s thoughts. The purpose of the present paper is to clarify certain aspects of this influence. During the years 1922–1926, Heidegger ponders deeply on Aristotle’s Philosophy. Among Aristotle’s works, Nicomachean ...
Read More
Aristotle is one of the philosophers who have influenced young Heidegger’s thoughts. The purpose of the present paper is to clarify certain aspects of this influence. During the years 1922–1926, Heidegger ponders deeply on Aristotle’s Philosophy. Among Aristotle’s works, Nicomachean Ethics draw more much Heidegger’s philosophical attention to itself. To understand Heidegger’s encounter with Aristotle, we concentrate on three important works of this period: “Phenomenological Interpretations of Aristotle” (1922), “Basic Concepts of Aristotelian Philosophy” (1924), and Plato's “Sophist”. The argument of the current study is that Heidegger’s interpretation of Aristotle during these years can be considered to be his first attempts and exercises leading to his special methodology, i.e. that of Phenomenological Hermeneutics. From this special perspective, we can consider phenomenological hermeneutics and most of other basic concepts of Heidegger’s thought in Being and Time, such as phenomenological deconstruction, care, and conscience as products of his contemplations on Aristotle’s thoughts during these years. Therefore, the leading question of this inquiry is this: What are the ingredients of Heidegger’s self-appropriating interpretation of Nicomachean Ethics? And through this question we aim to investigate the influence of these ingredients on Phenomenological Hermeneutics, the effect of young Heidegger’s reflecting on Aristotle on his understanding of technology.
zahra khazaei
Abstract
According to traditional philosophical literature, Akrasia is defined as acting against one’s best judgment. Philosophers have considered Akrasia as synonymous with the weakness of will. However, Holton considers these two phenomena to be distinct and argues that weakness of will is better understood ...
Read More
According to traditional philosophical literature, Akrasia is defined as acting against one’s best judgment. Philosophers have considered Akrasia as synonymous with the weakness of will. However, Holton considers these two phenomena to be distinct and argues that weakness of will is better understood as over-readily giving up on one's resolutions. This study seeks to show that these two phenomena – unlike Holton's claim – are not distinct, but the accounts of Akrasia and weakness of will take two approaches to explain the reasons behind quitting actions: (1) in terms of its relationship to the agent; and (2) in terms of its relationship to the action. The researcher attempts to show that Holton's interpretation of the weakness of will refers to the second perspective whereas Aristotle approaches it from two perspectives. However, on duly analyzing the elements put forward by Holton, we can see them to be consistent with those of Aristotle.
Yassaman Hoshyar
Abstract
According to some interpretations, Aristotle's metaphysics is not a coherent and unified work and does not follow a single issue; in other words, in each two or three books a subject is introduced as a subject of metaphysics. ; For example, in the fourth book, Aristotle refers to a new phrase “being ...
Read More
According to some interpretations, Aristotle's metaphysics is not a coherent and unified work and does not follow a single issue; in other words, in each two or three books a subject is introduced as a subject of metaphysics. ; For example, in the fourth book, Aristotle refers to a new phrase “being qua being” and in the seventh book, he used the term “Ousia” as the subject of this episteme. In this paper, we try to clarify Aristotle's view of these terms, as well as their relationship with each other, and also with other concepts that play an essential role in Aristotle's metaphysics (such as the concept of essence and form). In this way, it becomes clear whether an alternative interpretation can be presented to show that Aristotle has been able to establish a new episteme with a new and unique subject in this book and has been able to respond to the difficulties of the Beta book (aporia of Beta) as a the guideline of Metaphysics. By concentrating on four books of Metaphysics (I, III, IV, and VII), this article tries to investigate the above items and show Aristotle's innovations in some positions, as well as some aspects of his philosophical differentiation of Plato's philosophy.
seyyed ahmad hosseini
Abstract
A problem pertaining to Aristotle’s psychology is about where its right place is. Should it be studied in the physics or in metaphysics or some part of it in physics and some other in metaphysics? There are two views concerning the place of psychology according to Aristotle’s philosophy of ...
Read More
A problem pertaining to Aristotle’s psychology is about where its right place is. Should it be studied in the physics or in metaphysics or some part of it in physics and some other in metaphysics? There are two views concerning the place of psychology according to Aristotle’s philosophy of science. The first view which is the predominant holds that psychology is a physical science. This view insists on the close relationship between soul and body. The second view says that psychology has indeed two distinct parts. One part being studied in physics and the other part in metaphysics. According to this theory, the material souls are being studied in physics and the immaterial souls in metaphysics. It is true that the two theories find evidences in Aristotle’s books, but this article criticizes them and shows that in spite of the Aristotelian texts, one cannot consider psychology as a physical science.
qassem pourhassan; sakineh abouali
Volume 11, Issue 43 , October 2015, , Pages 7-25
Abstract
Abstract
Evaluating and considering of immateriality and immortality by three philosophers naming Aristotle's (322-384 H.Q), Avicenna (370-428 H.Q), and Aviross (520-595 H.Q) constituted the core of this article.
Contradiction and ambiguities seen in some of Aristotle's ideas is considered as the origin ...
Read More
Abstract
Evaluating and considering of immateriality and immortality by three philosophers naming Aristotle's (322-384 H.Q), Avicenna (370-428 H.Q), and Aviross (520-595 H.Q) constituted the core of this article.
Contradiction and ambiguities seen in some of Aristotle's ideas is considered as the origin of the differences of his exponents about this matter. Philosophers such as Alexander Aphrodisias and (2 and 3 BC), Aviross attributed materiality and mortality of individuals’ souls and also Avicenna attributed immateriality and immortality to Aristotle. Some definitions of Aristotle on soul based on immateriality and immortality as well as his emphasis on soul simplicity is an expression of accurate viewpoint of Avicenna, not related to Aviross. Avicenna relying on the lack of dividing the location of intelligible forms and also according to personal science of self-esteem proves personal souls immateriality and survival of them. But, Aviross was not able to prove the personal souls immateriality based on the unity of intellect course and the relation of potential intellect and active intellect and eventually, Then did not consider them as immaterial and one.
Saeed Darvishy; Gholamreza Zakiany
Abstract
Aristotle is one of the important sources for studying pre-Platonic philosophers, among whom Heraclitus was the subject of Aristotle’s main focus. His focus on Heraclitus was most importantly for the reason that Heraclitus was, as Plato states, the intellectual godfather of sophists and was, according ...
Read More
Aristotle is one of the important sources for studying pre-Platonic philosophers, among whom Heraclitus was the subject of Aristotle’s main focus. His focus on Heraclitus was most importantly for the reason that Heraclitus was, as Plato states, the intellectual godfather of sophists and was, according to Aristotle, the intellectual godfather of Plato himself, too. Aristotle therefore sought to make fundamental critiques of teachings of Heraclitus and to thereby attack foundations of sophist and platonic thoughts as well. This paper aims firstly to show how and in which domains teachings of Heraclitus influenced teachings of sophists and Plato’s thoughts. It seems that Heraclitus’ works to reject authenticity of sensibles and particulars convinced sophists in their idea that there is no truth, and made Plato to claim that, since there is no truth in sensibles and particulars, one should search for another container which would, based on teachings of Parmenides, provide degrees of solidarity in order for one to acquire knowledge and thought. The container Plato introduced was his theory of ideas. After examining the influence of Heraclitus on sophists and Plato, the paper then looks at Aristotle’s critiques of two famous teachings of Heraclitus, namely, the doctrine of Universal Flux and that of Identity of Opposites, and demonstrates which particular thoughts of Plato or sophist paradoxes can be the target of the criticisms. It seems that the criticisms endeavour to imply that sensibles do have some sort of solidarity. Sophists teachings will thereby be rejected altogether and Plato’s thoughts on his ideas and his creation of their container will be pointless.
zohreh abd khodai; hoseyn kalbasi ashtari
Abstract
The concept of time, its existence, ontology, and epistemology are considered as a pivotal philosophical issue from the ancient Greek time up to now. Aristotle explicitly deals with this subject. His notion of time can be also seen in Avicenna’s writings. This point have arisen many questions and ...
Read More
The concept of time, its existence, ontology, and epistemology are considered as a pivotal philosophical issue from the ancient Greek time up to now. Aristotle explicitly deals with this subject. His notion of time can be also seen in Avicenna’s writings. This point have arisen many questions and discussions concerning that whether Avicenna as a commentator of Aristotle simply narrates Aristotle’s view, or he elaborates and develops Aristotle’s idea and presents his own view. The aim of this paper is to study this issue and discuss about the viewpoints of some Muslim scholars who believe that Avicenna’s idea is not fundamentally different from that of Aristotle. In addition, we study the viewpoints of those who believe that although Avicenna uses the same structure as Aristotle did, his specific considerations make his theory of time distinctive. The paper elaborates that, in some senses, there are at least two differences between these two philosophers: regarding the derivative / non-derivative conceptions of time, and regarding the divisibility / indivisibility of time.
hoseyn kalbasi ashtari; hasan ahmadi zadeh
Abstract
The issue of “Finity or Infinity of Space and Time” is one of the most important problems in the western and also in the Islamic philosophy. The history of the debate about this problem is interwoven with the history of differnet views of philosophers and theologians. In the western philosophy, ...
Read More
The issue of “Finity or Infinity of Space and Time” is one of the most important problems in the western and also in the Islamic philosophy. The history of the debate about this problem is interwoven with the history of differnet views of philosophers and theologians. In the western philosophy, Aristotle is the first thinker who presents a detailed and articulated discussion about the finity or infinity of space and time. In On Heavens, he asserts that considering the Infinity is a crucial step in the way of understanding the truth. This issue is propouned again in the Islamic world, especially by Avicenna, in a different articulation, but by the same attitude. Avicenna presented arguments in an Aristotelean way in favor of finity of space and infinity of time. In this paper, we are to analyse and consider the views of the mentioned great peripatetic philosophers on the finity of space and infinity of time.
fatemeh sadegh zadeh ghamsari
Abstract
Among the perceptual faculties of soul, common sense has a special place. Without giving a clear picture of it, Aristotle attributes functions such as perception of common sense impressions and sense impressions by accident and recognition of aspects of distinction between objects and comprehension of ...
Read More
Among the perceptual faculties of soul, common sense has a special place. Without giving a clear picture of it, Aristotle attributes functions such as perception of common sense impressions and sense impressions by accident and recognition of aspects of distinction between objects and comprehension of feeling to this faculty. Whereas Aristotle has clearly rejected common sense alongside the five senses, Ibn Sina and his followers regard it as one of the internal senses and attribute some of soul`s functions to it. Islamic philosophers, notably Ibn Sina, by removing certain ambiguities , putting forward reasons for proving it, and by enumerating other functions for it have reinforced Aristotle`s theory. It seems that common sense at most can be regarded as a vehicle for accepting and perceiving the sense impressions or the head of external senses; it employs the senses and then perceives the sense impressions. For this reason the act of issuing any judgment should be regarded as act by soul or attributed to the faculty of thinking. Despite the fact that the subject of knowing soul from Aristotle and Ibn Sina`s point of view have always attracted the attention of various thinkers and also each for his own part has done his best it enrich this subject, nonetheless it should be said that there are still questions that can be raised about the relation and interaction between soul, external senses, common sense and faculty of thinking that can only be illustrated properly by an exact study of subjects such as sense perception, imagination and faculties of soul.
alireza mohammadi barchani
Abstract
According to the Aristotelian tradition, a tragedy consists of several elements: mythos, character, diction, reflection, orchestra, and sound. Aristotle recognized three parts of the mythos in a tragedy: peripeteia, anagnorisis, and catastrophe. He, through his critical views about the essence of tragedy, ...
Read More
According to the Aristotelian tradition, a tragedy consists of several elements: mythos, character, diction, reflection, orchestra, and sound. Aristotle recognized three parts of the mythos in a tragedy: peripeteia, anagnorisis, and catastrophe. He, through his critical views about the essence of tragedy, searched for the philosophical features of tragedy more than the dramatic attributes. With reading the classic tragedians, we find that a fatal flaw (hamartia) leads to the downfall of a tragic hero. This paper details the matter by presenting the viewpoints of several thinkers and writers, and by doing so, reviews the tragic features in the classic tragedies of Aeschylus. The main issue in these dramas and writings is to dramatize a well-known man who represents the most profound sufferings and conflicts of humanity, both morally and metaphysically, and finally comes to a catastrophic end through some action of his own. But all of these lead him to a tragic, and hence, a "painful" knowledge. The tragedians, in addition to their dramatic attitude to the tragedy, had a philosophical presupposition and believed that the Orchestra is as a scene of the world; a play world. Thus, the tragic attitude of the whole world would be examined in this paper.
