Research Paper
davood hosseini
Abstract
In this study, my aim is twofold: first to establish a relationship between the meaning of “existent” and the existence of existence; and second to give a new argument for the existence of existence. I will argue that in the presence of reasonable assumptions which all are conceded by Mullasadra, ...
Read More
In this study, my aim is twofold: first to establish a relationship between the meaning of “existent” and the existence of existence; and second to give a new argument for the existence of existence. I will argue that in the presence of reasonable assumptions which all are conceded by Mullasadra, there is a close relationship between the fact that “existent” is semantically derived and the existence of existence. For this end, I first argue that, in the presence of reasonable assumptions which all are conceded by Mullasadra, “existent” with a semantically derived meaning is true of something if “existence” is true of something. Then, I will give some textual evidence that from Mullasadra’s point of view “existence” is true of something if existence exists. After that, I will give some textual evidence that for Mullasadra “existent” is semantically derived. These result a novel argument for the existence of existence, which does not have any predecessor in Mullasadra’s or his commentator’s texts.
Research Paper
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.
Research Paper
ahmad ali heidari
Abstract
Hermeneutics has a close relationship with the rhetorical tradition. From the time of Plato and the genesis of philosophical thought, emphasis was put on the distinction and independence of syllogism and rhetoric. However, thanks to Aristotle's meditations on the relation between these approaches, the ...
Read More
Hermeneutics has a close relationship with the rhetorical tradition. From the time of Plato and the genesis of philosophical thought, emphasis was put on the distinction and independence of syllogism and rhetoric. However, thanks to Aristotle's meditations on the relation between these approaches, the way was paved for similarities between the two fields. Philosophical hermeneutics in the 20th century, with an eye to the importance of rhetoric for human understanding and its relation with the life-world of humans, intends to include rhetoric using the concept of authenticity in Heidegger, the ubiquity of the element of understanding in Gadamer or Riceour's theory of metaphor and show both the identical aspects and the conflicting connection between hermeneutics and rhetoric; though it has doubts regarding the acceptance of the effects of this partial independence.
Research Paper
abolfazl sabramiz; morteza haj hosseini
Abstract
Regarding the theory of mental existence, Muslim philosophers have presumed the issues of scientific reality and the match between objectivity and subjectivity. However, this presumption is faced with different challenges and it seems that indeed these challenges do not allow the mental existence to ...
Read More
Regarding the theory of mental existence, Muslim philosophers have presumed the issues of scientific reality and the match between objectivity and subjectivity. However, this presumption is faced with different challenges and it seems that indeed these challenges do not allow the mental existence to have the sufficient efficiency. On the other hand, the ideas of contemporary philosophers including Quine and Davidson essentially challenge the very idea of a match between subjectivity and objectivity, which is the prerequisite of the mental mode of existence. These philosophers believe that we have to use epistemology or semantics for addressing existential issues. We try to show that having accepted these criticisms, mental existence cannot fully play its previous role; however, by assuming the acceptance of the principle of mental existence and recognizing mental creatures, we can define a new role for this mode of existence. Here, we will question the relation between mind and mental creatures considering the understanding and construction of language expressions. Also, we will try to show that the response given to the question “how do we reach an understanding of sentences or lingual expressions?” based on prescriptive rules (grammar) is in odds with recognizing the characterization of mental creatures; accordingly, accepting the mental mode of existence will lead to the fact that language rules are descriptive and not prescriptive.
Research Paper
hedayat alavitabar; fatemeh ghassempour
Abstract
The problem of "personal identity" is among the problems that are applicable to the resurrection life as well as the earthly one. Because based on personal identity and its criteria it would, on the one hand, be determined whether a person who is now, for example, seventy years old is the same person ...
Read More
The problem of "personal identity" is among the problems that are applicable to the resurrection life as well as the earthly one. Because based on personal identity and its criteria it would, on the one hand, be determined whether a person who is now, for example, seventy years old is the same person who was twenty years old fifty years ago, and it would, on the other hand, be known that whether or not the resurrected person is identical with the earthly one. Thinkers has introduced a variety of criteria for personal identity, of which one of the most important is "soul". But rejecting soul, as an immaterial substance, John Hick regards human being as a psychophysical unity and, as a result, "body" would be the criterion for personal identity. Taking bodily resurrection and reconstitution of body for granted, he demonstrates the identity between the resurrected and the earthly persons by showing that their bodies are identical. He, as mentioned above, means by "body" both the physical and psychological aspects of the human being which constitute a unity. Hick sets up three situations through which he tries to prove that though the body in the resurrection world is the "replica" of the earthly body, but nevertheless these two bodies and, therefore, these two persons are the same. Hick's view is criticized by philosophers such as Penelhum, Olding, Clarke, Audi and Flew, and he has replied to some of them.
Research Paper
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.
