monireh palangi
Abstract
The present article is an attempt to assess the views of those philosophers who are the exponents or founders of a particular school of thought on emanation or making. In the beginning, it seems that we can generally divide the philosophers only into two groups: one group consider causality and making ...
Read More
The present article is an attempt to assess the views of those philosophers who are the exponents or founders of a particular school of thought on emanation or making. In the beginning, it seems that we can generally divide the philosophers only into two groups: one group consider causality and making in its usual sense within the framework of multiplicity and differences of beings, hence consider making as emanation, which results in the expansion of the scope of being or beings. The other group with respect to the pure unity of being think that the augmentation of the scope of being is impossible and interpret causality as manifestation or expression of that pure one being. But, despite this initial impression, we will find that in the second group thinkers like Mulla Sadra, despite their notion of the oneness of being and considering the exalted origin of being as al-fa'il bil-tajalli (agent by expression), advocated the possibility of being made the nature of being, and this idea is a noticeable view. On the other hand, we have philosophers, like Suhrawardi, who consider quiddities as made, and unlike others founded a system based on 'light' rather than 'being' or 'existence', and at the same time think about both 'light' and 'darkness' as something emanated or made. In this way, practically we are concerned with philosophers with different strains in this regard. Even if they are included within the first two divisions, because of their particular features, they will be separated from others in other sub-divisions. At the end, we will conclude that some philosophers never carried out a profound and comprehensive study on the meaning of emanation and making as fitted with rational and philosophical standards, and it seems that they dealt with the issue of causality insufficiently. With reference to their effective foundation, we considered that issue in order to show that some of them even failed to base this issue on their own ontology, so that they had two different approaches.
abdollah amini; mohammad javad safian
Abstract
The principle of sufficient reason is one of the most significant philosophical principles. Arthur Schopenhauer, the well-known German philosopher, has emphasized on this principle and taken it as the entrance key element to his philosophical system. He tries to characterize the limits and conditions ...
Read More
The principle of sufficient reason is one of the most significant philosophical principles. Arthur Schopenhauer, the well-known German philosopher, has emphasized on this principle and taken it as the entrance key element to his philosophical system. He tries to characterize the limits and conditions of application of this principle, and to avoid the inappropriate use of this principle outside the phenomenal reality domain. In his philosophical system, this principle governs the relations between phenomena and objects. Furthermore, the mentioned principle is not equal to the principle of causality, but it is more general than that. For the principle of causality is only one of the four forms of the principle of sufficient reason. This paper tries to discuss the content, application domain and importance of this principle in Schopenhauer׳s philosophy.
farah ramin
Abstract
Man’s free will is one of the important issues dealt with by two philosophers: Sadr-ol-Mote'allehin, founder of “transcendent theosophy”, and Jaspers, an atheistic existentialist philosopher. To compare the ideas of these two philosophers, regarding the differences between the basics ...
Read More
Man’s free will is one of the important issues dealt with by two philosophers: Sadr-ol-Mote'allehin, founder of “transcendent theosophy”, and Jaspers, an atheistic existentialist philosopher. To compare the ideas of these two philosophers, regarding the differences between the basics elements of their thoughts, a cautious approach is necessary. Included among the issues which bring Jasper’s philosophy close to that of Sadra are Jaspers' attention to Man and his emphasis on “soul” or “existence” as the essential part of human being, an element of which is the individual's free will, the definition of “free will”, “will”, and “freedom”, his viewpoint on a free human being and the relation between "free will "and “transcendence”. Offering the most primary views of the two philosophers on the complicated subject of Man’s free will, the present article is to point out the similarities and differences between the two philosophical traditions and make comments on the mentioned philosopher's way of thinking.
mohammad reza asadi; mohammad mehdi musavi mehr
Abstract
Heidegger is one of the earliest thinkers who, in technology, studied the existential status of technology, its dominant gist, and its relation to the modern science and art. This articles aims to show a more precise image of Heidegger's "nature of technology" and present a more ...
Read More
Heidegger is one of the earliest thinkers who, in technology, studied the existential status of technology, its dominant gist, and its relation to the modern science and art. This articles aims to show a more precise image of Heidegger's "nature of technology" and present a more proper assessment on the pessimistic or optimistic quality of his philosophy of technology. Heidegger believes that the "nature of technology" is not technical in any way. He passes over the instrumental meaning of technology and seeks an understanding of the "nature of technology" through Greek culture. Therefore, it introduces the concept of technology on the basis of a special interpretation of causality that is based on aletheia. Upon this basis, the modern technology is aletheia, but not the best and the most original aletheia of existence, because it aims to change the universe, rather than to elucidate, interpret and define it. Though the"nature of technology" cannot be meaningful without reference to man and his relation to the universe, such an aletheia dominates human being and controls him. The solution for human is to have a free relation to technology. This understanding of the nature of technology proves that Heidegger is not against technology, but he argues that it should not cause our negligence.
