philosophy
Sayed Mortaza Hosaini; Parvin Nabian
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to study the epistemology of religious experience from the point of view of Rudolf Otto. Otto emphasizes the supernatural nature of this experience with a phenomenological approach and the separation of the noumenon from the phenomenon and the invention of a word called ...
Read More
The purpose of this article is to study the epistemology of religious experience from the point of view of Rudolf Otto. Otto emphasizes the supernatural nature of this experience with a phenomenological approach and the separation of the noumenon from the phenomenon and the invention of a word called the numinous. Otto states by expressing the elements present in the experience of the numinous that these elements are necessarily aware of their belonging, even though this belonging is ambiguous and does not enter the structure of understanding. Following Kant, by dividing the real world into perceptible and incomprehensible parts, he considers the numinous as non-perceptible, meaning that the truth of the numinous is inaccessible. Otto saw the truth of religion as the kind of experience that can evoke and transfigure. The unity of religions will mean that religious experience throughout history has a single truth that has manifested itself in various forms. Otto considers revelation in the Abrahamic religions as the manifestation and presence of God in the prophets. He believes that following the lifestyle (act, speech, and lectures) of the prophets, which is the product of this experience, causes us to perceive the presence of God through intuition and feeling.
Mehdi Zamani; Reza Taghian Varzaneh
Volume 11, Issue 43 , October 2015, , Pages 97-112
Abstract
In their meta-ethical views known as constructivism and prescriptivism respectively, John Rawls and Richard Mervin have criticized the traditional views toward objectivity from an anti-realistic position. Both thinkers reject the existence of the moral facts existing in the outside world independent ...
Read More
In their meta-ethical views known as constructivism and prescriptivism respectively, John Rawls and Richard Mervin have criticized the traditional views toward objectivity from an anti-realistic position. Both thinkers reject the existence of the moral facts existing in the outside world independent of the moral subject; they are also against the intuitionism as a representative of this conception of objectivity. Yet, these two thinkers introduce themselves as the believers of the objectivity of moral principles. They believe that verifiability and falsifiability, universalizability, and the possibility of the moral reasoning are among the requirements of the objectivity in ethics and that their views meet such requirements. These requirements are fulfilled by the key functions of "impartiality'" and "justice" in Rawls' theory and by the emphasis on "putting oneself in others' position" in Hare's view. To avoid subjectivity, therefore, they argue for another conception of objectivity of which the characteristic feature is totality and generality originated from Kant's thoughts. These two views are anti-realistic, but Rawls' theory has the features of both cognitivism and descriptivism; unlike Hare who is anti-cognitivist and anti-descriptivist. The purpose of the present essay is the study of the similarities and differences of these two views to objectivity in ethics.
ghodratollah ghorbani
Abstract
The importance of modernity is because of man's place as the axis of all beings and existents like God and the World, and they get their meaning and validity in the light of him. Although man has reason and freedom and he is the noble master of all creatures, in the meanwhile, he has many defects in ...
Read More
The importance of modernity is because of man's place as the axis of all beings and existents like God and the World, and they get their meaning and validity in the light of him. Although man has reason and freedom and he is the noble master of all creatures, in the meanwhile, he has many defects in his existence, and his accomplishments have been gradually increased during the centuries. Hence, we can say that man actually and absolutely does not have any perfection, and he cannot get his achievements perfectly. However, with changing in the relationship between man, God, and the world during the modernity age, the whole of man's approaches to God and the world changed, and this brings about some basic problems and crises. In this process, man gained and acquired a kind of genuineness and principality towards God and the existents of world that their place and importance, especially divine truths like God, were defined in the light of human epistemic abilities and their validity were depended on human knowledge. Hence, the place of divine truths was lowered to the limits of human understanding, which I call it the humanization of divine truths. On the other hand, because of his weakness for understanding the divine truths, man has gradually put them aside from his philosophical thought, and has recognized them meaningless. In the meanwhile, he has tried to understand the empirical world and its managing without considering what is beyond it. I call this demystification of the existents by the other areas such as ethics, politics, and even science, which all of them have been depended on the human being. Consequently, certainty and truth became humanistic, that is, man became as the axis of certainty and truth, which the most important result of that is the relativity of certainty and its restriction to human knowledge, will, and ability. This paper tries to discuss the above subjects, considering some of the important thinkers of modern and postmodern philosophy like as Descartes, Kant, Nietzsche, Sartre, and Heidegger. It also attempts to show that although Heidegger complained to subjectivism and modernistic approach of truth, his effort to redefine truth and certainty was not successful and could not rescue it from a crisis. That is because he could not go beyond human understanding to reach a holy and absolute certainty and truth, while – according to this paper – the only real way is paying attention to divine certainty, revelation, and God.
ala turani; fatemeh delshad
Abstract
This paper seeks to demonstrate Kant's and Avicenna's belief in the objectivity of time. First, their views on the generalities are studied and the manner in which they are extracted from tangible and external issues explained. Second, their views on the objectivity and nature of time are explained. ...
Read More
This paper seeks to demonstrate Kant's and Avicenna's belief in the objectivity of time. First, their views on the generalities are studied and the manner in which they are extracted from tangible and external issues explained. Second, their views on the objectivity and nature of time are explained. Time is a real perception according to Avicenna and a synthetic a priori concept according to Kant. Since the real perceptions and synthetic a priori concepts are the confluence of subjective and objective issues, the objective nature of time is established. Moreover, time-related issues, including the dependence of events on matter, time and its essence are addressed.
