Seyed Masoud Zamani
Abstract
According to the common sense, Dazein is the Heidegger's philosophical title on the general concept of man; i.e. man in the true sense. But a closer examination of Heidegger's works in the near future of existence and time shows that he in fact considers a particular type of human being. Thus, Heidegger ...
Read More
According to the common sense, Dazein is the Heidegger's philosophical title on the general concept of man; i.e. man in the true sense. But a closer examination of Heidegger's works in the near future of existence and time shows that he in fact considers a particular type of human being. Thus, Heidegger attempts in various ways to clarify Determinations and existences of Dasein. One of his ways is to examine the distinction that Dasein takes from metaphysics. Dasein has a strong link with metaphysics, which Heidegger explores in detail in his works of those years. He even says that Dazean is the same as metaphysics. Thus, when Dasein is really Dasein that it is in front of metaphysics and its guidance question. On the other hand, Heidegger sees metaphysics as a completely specific and historical phenomenon that has only been realized in the West and not in any other nation or culture. But because the existence of the Dasein is definite to western metaphysics and its history, so Dasein can not be any human.The most important consequence of the current research is that Heidegger, with Dasein, in fact, considers a European man.
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.
hamidreza mahboobi arani
Abstract
Despite many differences between Kant’s work and Nietzsche’s, there are some very interesting similarities between their prefaces to their two main books: Nietzsche’s Beyond Good and Evil and Kant’s Critique of Pure reason.In these prefaces, they both present critiques of dogmatism ...
Read More
Despite many differences between Kant’s work and Nietzsche’s, there are some very interesting similarities between their prefaces to their two main books: Nietzsche’s Beyond Good and Evil and Kant’s Critique of Pure reason.In these prefaces, they both present critiques of dogmatism and metaphysics and hope for a philosophy of future which is far away from dogmatism. For Kant, it is still a critical metaphysics which he himself has built its foundation in Critique of Pure Reason, while for Nietzsche it still needs much work to emerge. In the current study, it is tried to explain these themes in three parts. My introduction paves the way for showing the similarities. The second part indicates what Kant and Nietzsche exactly mean by dogmatism and why they both believe in its demise. Finally, I will end the study by expressing Kant’s and Nietzsche’s hope for a philosophy of future to which they regarded their books as a prelude.
Ahmad Asgari; sina salari khoram
Abstract
The parts I & III of Kitab al-Horuf deals with explaining the role of particles in expressing the philosophical notions. This, it seems, is a meta-ontological program that al-Farabi is developing. First, he puts a meta-ontological problem concerning the insufficiency of natural language to express ...
Read More
The parts I & III of Kitab al-Horuf deals with explaining the role of particles in expressing the philosophical notions. This, it seems, is a meta-ontological program that al-Farabi is developing. First, he puts a meta-ontological problem concerning the insufficiency of natural language to express the metaphysical thought especially the being, then he devises a specific logic for being and existents. It is clear that we do need a particular language for metaphysics. He develops this logic, i.e. a special syntax and semantics for metaphysics. He thinks metaphysics deals with meta-categories and if these are to be expressed adequately they must be expressed as particles.
mohamadbaqer ghomi; mohamadreza rikhtegaran
Volume 10, Issue 39 , October 2014, , Pages 27-44
Abstract
Abstract
When Nietzsche creates a contrast between Heraclitus’s philosophy and philosophical tradition, interprets it based on game and admires it, one must wait for this concept to perform a role in Nietzsche’s own philosophy. After this introduction, we will refer to some of Nietzsche’s ...
Read More
Abstract
When Nietzsche creates a contrast between Heraclitus’s philosophy and philosophical tradition, interprets it based on game and admires it, one must wait for this concept to perform a role in Nietzsche’s own philosophy. After this introduction, we will refer to some of Nietzsche’s thoughts based on which he puts himself in front of the metaphysical tradition, and we will show how these thoughts related to game. Becoming and the necessity of being appropriate, game-oriented view to the world, thought as game, opposing the metaphysical view based on dice games, and a view based on the immaculacy of game in a morality beyond good and evil are all evidences of Nietzsche’s use of this concept to oppose metaphysics. We are also witness to the presence of game in fundamental thoughts such as Will of Power and Eternal Return of the Same. From another viewpoint, the issue of interpreting and understanding Nietzsche's philosophy is still an unraveled mystery. Heidegger's metaphysical interpretation of Nietzsche has overlooked his concept of game in thought, and Jasperes also deems impossible any final interpretation of Nietzsche. But it is Derrida who interprets Nietzsche under the concept of Game of Symbols. In the end, we aim to show how understanding the concept of game in Nietzsche's philosophy can shed light on understanding the gist of his thought.
eynollah khademi; alireza arabi
Abstract
Bihar al-Anwar is the most important and comprehensive hadith collection compiled by the Shia scholar Allameh Majlesi, who represents the philosophical thought of transcendental hikmah or al-hikmah al-muta'aliyah at modern time. The annotations Allameh Tabataba'i made to this book are mainly criticisms ...
Read More
Bihar al-Anwar is the most important and comprehensive hadith collection compiled by the Shia scholar Allameh Majlesi, who represents the philosophical thought of transcendental hikmah or al-hikmah al-muta'aliyah at modern time. The annotations Allameh Tabataba'i made to this book are mainly criticisms of Allameh Majlesi's views and statements. A more comprehensive study of these annotations, thus, facilitates not only the revival of the annotation-writing and critical-thinking traditions but also the recognition of the differences and similarities of approaches and doctrines between these two great religious scholars. This research is an attempt to clarify, explain, analyze, criticize and study two of most controversial annotations Allameh Tabataba'i made to Bihar al-Anwar. It is worth emphasizing that the criticism of Allameh Majlesi's views made the present researchers devote a large part of the research to studying and clarifying them. Accordingly, they sought to study his definitions of reason according to the terms and idioms of three main schools of philosophy and recognize the reasons for his cynicism about the philosophers and their views. In addition, his approach to the study of religion and religious texts and his concerns about the metaphysical reasons are examined, and Allameh Tabataba'i's criticisms, claims and reasons are studied to demonstrate their veracity
reza dehghani; hoseyn kalbasi ashtar
Abstract
One of the main themes in Heidegger’s thought is the genesis of metaphysics. This matter plays a significant role in the fundamental question in the so-called Turn period. In this paper, we will concern about three approaches to the genesis of metaphysics in the mentioned period. Heidegger discusses ...
Read More
One of the main themes in Heidegger’s thought is the genesis of metaphysics. This matter plays a significant role in the fundamental question in the so-called Turn period. In this paper, we will concern about three approaches to the genesis of metaphysics in the mentioned period. Heidegger discusses these three approaches in his three different works: Kant and the problem of metaphysics; What is metaphysics? and Plato’s Doctrine of Truth. In Kant and the problem of metaphysics, he indicates a special interpretation of Kant's views according to the notion of "transcendence". In what is metaphysics? Heidegger discusses the issue through the concepts of "nothingness" and "angst", and in Plato’s Doctrine of Truth, he continues the issue via the interpretation of the "Cave Allegory". Although the released times of these three books is so proximate, Heidegger seeks the foundation of metaphysics in them through completely different approaches. In the first and second book, along with Kant’s project, he attempts to find a foundation for metaphysics through the concept of "Dasein". But in the latter book, Heidegger is in the pursuit of transition from metaphysics and calls metaphysics "forgetting of being". He explains that Plato's introducing "Ideas Theory" is an origin of metaphysics and a departure point from being and forgetting it. In this essay, proposing a general approach, we try to explain the mentioned three approaches and their similarities and differences.
ali morad khani
Abstract
This paper is a reflection on the interaction between metaphysics and science that has been existed since the pre-modern epoch, an example of which was actualized in Aristotle's system of metaphysics and science. Yet, this interaction was gradually undermined by the advent of scientific revolution especially ...
Read More
This paper is a reflection on the interaction between metaphysics and science that has been existed since the pre-modern epoch, an example of which was actualized in Aristotle's system of metaphysics and science. Yet, this interaction was gradually undermined by the advent of scientific revolution especially the classic period of science in the 17th and 18th century in modern epoch. In the 19th century, the appearances of positivism caused metaphysics lose its meaningfulness and laid it aside from the realm of episteme and then put it in the sphere of tastes, emotions and passions. In the 20th century, philosophies and metaphysical systems, in the common sense, failed to direct sciences and claimed a sort of independence from sciences through raising technical problems in fields of language and logic. However, this independence supported metaphysics and philosophy versus techno-science, in the meanwhile metaphysics lost another main role, the raising rationality in the field of sciences. This article explains this problem after a brief introduction and argues that pursuit of this issue is not a technical-academic problem but a matter of human life
mohammad ali dibaji
Abstract
One of the issues that is considered as a fundamental component of Hekmat (or philosophy), is the understanding of metaphysics. The problem is how and by which way we can understand the metaphysics? The answer of Aristotle and peripatetic philosophers is "reason" and "discursive method". But Suhrawardi ...
Read More
One of the issues that is considered as a fundamental component of Hekmat (or philosophy), is the understanding of metaphysics. The problem is how and by which way we can understand the metaphysics? The answer of Aristotle and peripatetic philosophers is "reason" and "discursive method". But Suhrawardi (who is considered as the founder of Illuminationist philosophy) added to it, The Mokashefah (spiritual discovery) and Taaloh (divinization), and in the same place separated his method from the early philosophers' ones. These two factors, according to Suhrawardi, are the ways for observation of incorporative world. In Suhrawardi's view metaphysics contains sensory, fantasy and rational concepts that the first is concluded from the two factors and then became discursive and used in philosophical propositions. This metaphysics requires a certain methodology that the article says about it: in the methodology of Suhrawardi, divinization and spiritual discovery are new ways to understanding metaphysics and specially the part that must to be call "meta nature". Also the methodology benefits from the symbolic and figurative language that reduplicates the capacity of philosophical meanings. On the base of that methodology, the formal language is unable to indicate the nature of things, and to understanding of metaphysics.
ali paya
Abstract
The issue of developing a rational framework for not only assessing scientific theories but also providing effective guidelines for satisfactory progress of science lies at the heart of modern methodological debates in the field of philosophy of science. During the past few decades, realists and anti-realists ...
Read More
The issue of developing a rational framework for not only assessing scientific theories but also providing effective guidelines for satisfactory progress of science lies at the heart of modern methodological debates in the field of philosophy of science. During the past few decades, realists and anti-realists of every hue have tried to produce viable theories for science. Any viable theory of science ought to be able to provide, among other things, satisfactory answers for the three following questions, namely, "What must the world be like for scientific knowledge not only to be possible but also to have the greatest chance of progress?"; "What aim and structure must science have to be successful, i.e., to give us knowledge of the observable as well as unobservable aspects of the physical universe?"; and "How must the methodology be like to maximize the success-rate of science?" In what follows, making use of the ideas of a number of realists writers including Karl Popper, Roy Bhaskar and Nicholas Maxwell, I shall try to tackle the above questions. The upshot of the arguments of the paper is that a new type of realist approach, mostly based on the views of mature Popper (Popper post 1960s) but also enriched by the insights offered by some other realist writers provides not only a powerful framework for making rational sense of science but also an effective research tradition for the advancement of science
