Roqayeh Mazaheri; Shahin Aawani
Abstract
From Kant’s view, freedom is the universal property of humans as the autonomy of will. He established morals on the ground of freedom through legislation of Practical Reason. In Kant’s philosophy, freedom is a ground, based on which humans have dignity as an individual and human beings. The ...
Read More
From Kant’s view, freedom is the universal property of humans as the autonomy of will. He established morals on the ground of freedom through legislation of Practical Reason. In Kant’s philosophy, freedom is a ground, based on which humans have dignity as an individual and human beings. The concept of freedom is conjunct with moral law and practical reason and is not found in the scope of nature. The moral law being freedom in a sense elevates humans from the scope of nature and gives them value and dignity, which is based on freedom and autonomy. A moral human creates value for the world, and human is the end of creation. The Intermediator of human relationship as a moral being and the end of nature is the freedom concept. This article is written concentrating on Kant’s view of “The relationship between dignity and humans freedom”. Freedom is neither an objective matter nor the subject of cognition because the concept of freedom is related to the rational world and is realized in the behavior and disposition of humans. Everything has a price or dignity in the land of ends. Whatever has a price could be traded, but what is more valuable than any value and has no equivalent whatsoever is dignity. The humanity of humans is the only being that has “dignity” as long as it is capable of having morality.
Mohammad Reayate Jahromi
Abstract
Referring to the fundamental and universal principles of human rights, Allameh Jafari believed that the divine religions, and at the top of them, Islam, are the culmination or peak of human rights. The comprehensiveness of Islam is evident and obvious in explaining rights and duties from its attitude ...
Read More
Referring to the fundamental and universal principles of human rights, Allameh Jafari believed that the divine religions, and at the top of them, Islam, are the culmination or peak of human rights. The comprehensiveness of Islam is evident and obvious in explaining rights and duties from its attitude to human being as "universal man" in the form of "universal face". Referring to natural roots of five bases of universal human rights, he believes that they believe that Islam and the West have an "eighty percent" agreement on human rights. Islam also emphasizes the principles of the right to life, human dignity, education, liberty and equality and in some cases, including Islam's specific look at the definition and value of humans, there is a twenty percent difference between Islam and the West. But in Kant's thought, the rules of human rights are “priori” rules of practical reason. Kant says fundamental rights are "universal". Allameh accepts these rights and emphasizes on the necessity of their adjustment according to the norms of other cultures. The Kantian human rights are rooted in reason, not revelation because they are derived from the text of Protestantism, which has led to the secularization of the religion. Kant's utopia in the form of the "Commonwealth Society" is the product of such an approach. Religion does not play a role in Kant's human rights and it is moral absolutely. While human rights in terms of Allameh Jafari come from the revelation and they are conformed to religion despite being ethical. The paper will present the points of sharing and differentiation between Allameh and Kant by focusing on the concept of right.
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.
