Research Paper
philosophy
Mohammad Hosein Esfandiari
Abstract
IntroductionQuantificational pluralism is, more or less, the recognition of a plurality of distinct quantifiers in describing the ontological status of the world. This position arises from the historical idea that things exist in various ways, and in other words, they differ in their mode of being. ...
Read More
IntroductionQuantificational pluralism is, more or less, the recognition of a plurality of distinct quantifiers in describing the ontological status of the world. This position arises from the historical idea that things exist in various ways, and in other words, they differ in their mode of being. A simple example is paying attention to the ontological aspect of abstract objects and concrete objects. A believer in quantificational pluralism, for instance, considers a difference between abstract being and concrete being and therefore thinks that this difference should be reflected in their metaphysical language. Therefore, assuming that the quantifier represents our ontological commitments, she uses two different quantifiers to refer to these two different beings: ∃a, which represents the abstract being, and ∃c, which represents the concrete being. Or, for example, a quantificational pluralist uses two distinct quantifiers to refer to the existence of God and the existence of creatures, arising from the alleged fact that God and creatures have different modes of existence.There is a fundamental question facing quantificational pluralism: if, according to this approach, we accept a plurality of quantifiers, should we discard the generic quantifier– the one employed in the semantics of predicate logic that encompasses all things within its domain? Esfandiari (2024) previously penned an article advocating for the acceptance of generic quantifiers within quantificational pluralism. In that article, the author presents four arguments in favor of this view. But there are criticisms of this acceptance in the literature. In other words, the acceptance of the generic quantifier has elicited opposition and seemingly poses challenges to quantificational pluralism. In this paper, we will examine these opposition and challenges.MethodologyThe research method used in this article is descriptive-analytical.DiscussionIn this article, four arguments are presented against the compatibility of accepting the generic quantifier with ontological (quantificational) pluralism:First. The Shorthand Argument. This argument considered a type of rigorous logical argument, is proposed by Merricks (2019), who demonstrates that combining the generic quantifier with ontological pluralism leads to problems and contradictions for the latter.Second. The Argument from Incompatibility with the Intuition of Pluralism. In this argument, Merricks (2019: 601-602) refers to the thoughts of Moore and Russell, whom he considers to be among the first pluralists and believers in multiple ways of being. According to these two philosophers, as Merricks points out with references, pluralism is indicative of the basic intuition or idea that things exist in two different ways: abstractly and concretely. In such a way that if a thing exists abstractly, it does not exist concretely, and vice versa. In other words, there is no ontological similarity between these two categories of things. Merricks considers this belief to be the central intuition and the main motivation for pluralism. Therefore, this fundamental intuition is incompatible with the acceptance of the generic quantifier; because belief in the generic quantifier indicates that there is a way of being (generic being) that both categories of things share, and this means that there is a kind of ontological similarity between them.Third. The Argument of Vulnerability to Confusing Existence with Essence. This argument was proposed by van Inwagen (2014) and, in brief, states that accepting the generic quantifier is in fact accepting a unique mode of being (which is also accepted by monists). However, if after accepting the generic quantifier, like a pluralist, we also accept restricted quantifiers, then this argument tells us that restricted quantifiers represent nothing but different kinds or essences of things and have no relation to the way things are. Therefore, using restricted quantifiers to represent the nature or essence of things and attributing a mode of being to them is incorrect.Fourth. The Argument of Historical Discontinuity. In summary, this argument suggests that accepting the generic quantifier is incompatible with the historical motivations of pluralists for endorsing pluralism (Merricks, 2019: 603-604). I have first reviewed the historical motivations of pluralism in at least five (or six) cases, which are: theological motivations, metaphysical motivation, logical motivation, phenomenological motivation, and anti-ontological-pragmatic motivations. Then, I have articulated Merricks' arguments about the incompatibility of those motivations with accepting the generic quantifier.While presenting each of these arguments against the acceptance of the generic quantifier for ontological pluralism, I have also critiqued them and shown how pluralism can still accept the generic quantifier.ConclusionIn this article, I have presented four arguments based on which quantificational pluralism should not accept the generic quantifier. Criticisms were also raised against each of these four arguments. As a result, focusing solely on these criticisms, and disregarding the arguments in favor of accepting the generic quantifier in the literature, it can be said that it is better for pluralism to accept the generic quantifier. Firstly, because this acceptance, ironically, leads to the historical coherence of this approach, since pluralists generally accept the generic quantifier as well. Secondly, because the possibility of accepting the generic quantifier leads to a weaker version of pluralism, which in turn makes pluralism more comprehensive and general and increases its ability to face potential objections. Thirdly, because a version of pluralism that allows for the acceptance of the generic quantifier provides a better and more accurate reflection of the original idea or intuition of this approach; since this approach has been formed around the ontological differences of beings, and at its core, there is no necessary requirement to deny the ontological similarities of beings. So, by allowing the acceptance of the generic quantifier for pluralism, we have proposed a better reflection of its central idea. Fourthly, accepting the generic quantifier completely exonerates pluralism from the accusation of conflating existence with essence. Based on these reasons, as the final conclusion of this article, I have provided a definition of quantificational pluralism:Quantificational Pluralism: Recognition of a plurality of existential quantifiers that represent different ways of being and ontological differences among things. In addition, the generic quantifier that all things are in its domain is also acceptable.
Research Paper
philosophy
Meraj Jamshidi; Mahmoud Sufiani
Abstract
Extended AbstractThe article explores how art, with its imaginary character, plays a pivotal role in Heidegger's later philosophy. Art is seen as a means to establish a world and reveal the Holy, thus fulfilling the destined task of a people. It is posited that art, in its imaginative essence, serves ...
Read More
Extended AbstractThe article explores how art, with its imaginary character, plays a pivotal role in Heidegger's later philosophy. Art is seen as a means to establish a world and reveal the Holy, thus fulfilling the destined task of a people. It is posited that art, in its imaginative essence, serves as a medium through which the Holy can manifest and the historical reality of a society can emerge. The article delves into Heidegger’s shift from his earlier focus on temporality in Being and Time to a later focus on art, arguing that imagination connects these two phases of his thought. This transition also emphasizes art's role in revealing the Holy in the poetry of Hölderlin.In his seminal work, Being and Time, Heidegger investigates the structural components of Dasein, the being that is concerned with its own existence. His analysis leads to an in-depth exploration of time and temporality as the fundamental horizon for understanding Being. However, throughout this philosophical inquiry, Heidegger also hints at a more poetic understanding of Being, one that he does not fully explore in Being and Time. Heidegger gestures toward a mode of Being that is accessible not through rational analysis but through a poetic lens, a perspective often taken by poets, who see the world not just as a collection of entities ready-to-hand, but as an unfolding of deeper meanings. Heidegger later develops this poetic insight in his writings on art, where he positions art as a mode of revealing the truth of Being.One of the key questions the article addresses is the relationship between Heidegger’s early preoccupation with time and his later focus on art. The transition is not a radical break, as some might suggest, but a natural development of his earlier thought. In Being and Time, Heidegger argues that temporality provides the framework for Dasein’s understanding of Being. In his later philosophy, Heidegger expands this notion, suggesting that imagination, the same faculty that allows Dasein to project itself into the future, also underlies artistic creation. Imagination gives form to the fluid, existential temporality that Dasein inhabits. Thus, Heidegger’s shift from time to art represents a deepening of his inquiry into the nature of Being.Art, in Heidegger’s later thought, is not merely a form of aesthetic expression but a way of revealing the Holy dimension of Being. Artworks such as Hölderlin's poetry, which Heidegger extensively interprets, open up a space where the Holy can appear. Heidegger's interpretation of Hölderlin suggests that poetry has a unique ability to disclose the hidden dimension of the Holy, bringing it into the light without fully revealing its mystery. This is because, in Heidegger’s view, the Holy is inherently veiled—it withdraws even as it reveals itself. Art, with its imaginative and symbolic nature, is uniquely suited to this task of partial disclosure. Through art, the Holy manifests as a "clearing" where truth can emerge.The article asserts that the imaginary nature of art is central to its ability to reveal Being. Imagination, in Heidegger’s philosophy, is not simply a subjective faculty of the mind but a fundamental feature of the existence of Dasein itself. It enables Dasein to navigate between different modes of being, from the practical engagement with the world (ready-to-hand) to the poetic or aesthetic encounter with the world. Art, as a product of imagination, opens up the possibility for new ways of relating to the world and to Being. The artwork, therefore, does not just represent the world but actively creates a new world, a new mode of Being.Heidegger sees art as foundational to the establishment of a historical world for a people. This view is particularly evident in his essay The Origin of the Work of Art, where he argues that a great work of art brings forth a world, a coherent historical reality in which a people can dwell. For example, a Greek temple is not merely an aesthetic object but the focal point around which the historical world of the Greeks is structured. Similarly, Hölderlin's poetry serves to ground the historical identity of the German people by revealing their Holy mission. The work of art, in this sense, is not just a reflection of a pre-existing world; it is the very ground on which that world stands.In the modern age, according to Heidegger, the Holy has largely withdrawn, leaving humanity in a state of spiritual homelessness. This condition is what Heidegger describes as the “flight of the gods,” a time when the Holy no longer appears in the public realm. However, art still holds the potential to reconnect humanity with the Holy. By revealing the hidden dimension of Being, art can offer a glimpse of the divine, even in an age when the gods seem absent. Art thus has the potential to redeem modern humanity from its spiritual malaise by reawakening a sense of the Holy and providing a new structure for the revelation of Being.The article concludes by emphasizing the central role of art in Heidegger's later philosophy as a medium for the revelation of Being and the Holy. Art is not merely a cultural artifact but a way of engaging with the most fundamental questions of Being. Through its imaginative and symbolic nature, art opens up new possibilities for understanding the world and our place in it. In this sense, art serves as both a foundation for historical worlds and a means of reawakening the Holy in a secular age. The task of art, according to Heidegger, is to guard and preserve the truth of Being, ensuring that humanity remains open to the mystery of Being.
Research Paper
philosophy
mojtaba akhoondi; dawwod rahimi
Abstract
IntroductionThe significance of the humanities in contemporary human life has led to increased interest and scrutiny. However, diverse definitions and foundations within the field have resulted in confusion and ambiguity regarding its impact and meaning. One effective way to address these challenges ...
Read More
IntroductionThe significance of the humanities in contemporary human life has led to increased interest and scrutiny. However, diverse definitions and foundations within the field have resulted in confusion and ambiguity regarding its impact and meaning. One effective way to address these challenges is to revisit its philosophical foundations and redefine them. Charles Taylor, as a prominent contemporary thinker, has provided a distinctive reading of these foundations, which has become a cornerstone for Western humanities. This paper aims to explore the nature of the rationality governing the philosophy of humanities from Taylor's perspective.Research Question(s)What is the rationality that governs the philosophy of the humanities from Charles Taylor's perspective? Literature ReviewSeveral articles have been written in Iran regarding Charles Taylor, reflecting the diversity of topics due to his engagement with various discussions. These can be broadly categorized within the realm of Taylor's post-structuralist thoughts and their practical extensions, particularly in the fields of ethics and spirituality, which are among his areas of expertise. Notable articles include "Charles Taylor's Thoughts on Ethical Philosophy" (Haider Shadi: Farhang Letter, No. 53), "Recognizing Cultural Differences in Public Life: An Examination and Critique of Charles Taylor's Theory" (Seyed Mohammad Ali Taghavi: Mofid Letter, No. 44), "Ethics of Authenticity" (Fatemeh Sadeghi: Methodology of Humanities, No. 30), "The Consequences of Modernity for Spirituality: A Critical Examination of Charles Taylor's Views" (Vahid Sohrabi Far and Bagher Talebi Darabi: Sociological Studies, No. 23), "Human-Centeredness, the Heart of Secularism: A Comparative Study of the Views of Professor Javad Amoli and Charles Taylor" (Zahra Davarpanah and Saeed Binayi Motlagh: Social Theories of Muslim Thinkers, No. 1), "Charles Taylor's Reading of Authenticity and Its Implications in Defining an Authentic Teacher" (Mostafa Moradi: Philosophy of Education, No. 5), "A Critique of Harry Frankfurt's and Charles Taylor's Views on Human Agency Based on Islamic Theory of Action and Its Implications for Education" (Mohammad Reza Madani Far et al., Research Journal of Educational Foundations (Educational and Psychological Studies in Mashhad) Vol. 6, No. 1), "Moral Self-Following from the Perspective of Taylor's Ethics of Authenticity and Its Considerations in Education" (Marzieh Aali and Mohammad Ravanbakhsh: Philosophy of Education Vol. 3, No. 2).Additionally, the article "From Explanation to Critique: A Critical Examination of James Bohman's and Charles Taylor's Views on the Relationship Between Science and Values in Social Sciences" which does not address ethical issues or spirituality (Hamed Bekran Behesht: Methodology of Humanities, No. 112), only generally discusses the relationship between values and science, specifically within a part of the humanities—namely social sciences—without delving into fundamental philosophical discussions.In foreign literature (non-Persian), several credible articles were found that, although they share some similarities with the topic of this research, cannot be considered significant precedents due to fundamental differences between them. Below are these articles along with explanations and their differences:"Rationality and the Human Sciences: A Taylorian Perspective" Author: Michael J. Thompson Published in: Human Studies Year: 2015 This article examines the concept of rationality from Taylor’s perspective, emphasizing that rationality in the humanities must go beyond limited rational criteria and positivism. The author analyzes the role of language and culture in shaping rationality, asserting that rationality should be understood within its social and historical context. Difference: This article emphasizes the concept of rationality but focuses more on cultural and social influences without delving into a deeper analysis of the philosophy of humanities."The Challenge of Rationality in Human Sciences: A Taylorian Critique" Author: Sarah L. Smith Published in: Journal of Philosophical Inquiry Year: 2018 This article critiques rational approaches in the humanities from Taylor’s perspective, addressing their challenges. The author examines the limitations of positivist rationality and behaviorism, emphasizing that rationality must encompass an understanding of human meanings and intentions.Difference: While this article critiques existing approaches, it does not engage in a foundational analysis of the rationality governing the philosophy of humanities; instead, it focuses more on practical challenges.The subject of the present research on the rationality that governs the philosophy of the humanities from the perspective of Charles Taylor is pristine and without precedent due to its focus on fundamental and a priori analysis in this field. Although the articles introduced criticize and examine the approaches to rationality in the humanities, none of them specifically analyze rationality and the philosophy of the humanities fundamentally. This indicates the innovation and importance of this research in the field of philosophy of the humanities. MethodologyThis research employs a qualitative methodology with an interpretive approach, focusing on analytical-critical insights derived from primary sources authored by Charles Taylor in Latin. The aim is to extract Taylor's views on rationality governing the philosophy of humanities directly from his works, ensuring accurate interpretation and analysis. Discussion Taylor’s defense of interpretivism contrasts sharply with naturalistic approaches that attempt to model human actions based on natural sciences:- He asserts that human actions are inherently meaningful and intentional, distinguishing them from mechanical explanations typical in natural sciences.- The critique extends to behaviorism, which neglects the agent's intentions and meanings behind actions.- This dualistic view highlights challenges in establishing a comprehensive methodology for humanities that effectively addresses human behavior's complexities. ConclusionThe present research on the rationality governing the philosophy of the humanities from the perspective of Charles Taylor is pristine and without precedent and background due to its focus on fundamental and a priori analysis in this field. Although the articles introduced criticize and examine rationality approaches in the humanities, none of them specifically analyze rationality and the philosophy of the humanities in a fundamental way. This indicates the innovation and importance of this research in the field of philosophy of the humanities.Taylor criticizes positivist and behaviorist approaches by emphasizing the specificity of the humanities and its close connection with our definition of ourselves. He believes that theorizing inevitably affects and changes our understanding of ourselves and our worldview. This view of his indicates the fundamental differences between the humanities and natural sciences, because the goal of natural sciences is to explain phenomena objectively and impartially, while the humanities cannot be impartial and objective.Taylor emphasizes that human actions have implicit meanings and that explanation in the humanities involves understanding these meanings. He defends the dichotomy between natural and human-social sciences and rejects the unity of method. His critique of naturalism in the humanities suggests an interpretive or hermeneutic approach as the appropriate methodology for this field.Finally, this research shows that in order to achieve a comprehensive approach to the study of the humanities, it is necessary to pay more attention to the meanings, intentions, and cultural contexts of human actions. By criticizing the modeling of human behavior based on natural sciences, Taylor emphasizes the importance of teleological explanation. Therefore, understanding the rationality that governs the philosophy of the humanities from Taylor’s perspective not only helps to redefine this field but also offers solutions to face the existing challenges.This research clearly shows that adopting an interpretive and hermeneutic approach to the study of the humanities can lead to a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of human behavior. Given the complexities of human behavior and the need to understand its implicit meanings, new approaches must be considered to respond to the challenges in this field.The method used in this research is qualitative, with an interpretative approach and with an analytical-critical view (method).According to Taylor, the rationality governing the philosophy of human sciences is not an inconsistent and contradictory concept or even a critical attitude, but rationality includes something more than avoiding inconsistency and beyond a formal concept. Therefore, he proposes a pragmatist view of his understanding of rationality, that is, the more technologically advanced society is, the more rational it is. In fact, Taylor's emphasis is on the language of eloquent comparison and the world of common reference and pragmatist rationality, and this is the ideal philosophical basis of humanities in his opinion. (Findings)
Research Paper
philosophy
Abolfazl Sabramiz
Abstract
IntroductionThe frame problem was first introduced by McCarthy and Hayes (1969). In short, the initial issue was that there are no clear principles indicating what an action changes and what remains unchanged at a given time. This interpretation is called the frame problem. Over time, other interpretations ...
Read More
IntroductionThe frame problem was first introduced by McCarthy and Hayes (1969). In short, the initial issue was that there are no clear principles indicating what an action changes and what remains unchanged at a given time. This interpretation is called the frame problem. Over time, other interpretations have emerged, such as epistemological readings categorized under "updating beliefs" and issues of relevance. Philosophers like Fodor have also examined the metaphysical aspect of the frame problem, questioning the metaphysical basis of conventional understanding.Research Question(s): A key question in understanding the frame problem is how we access our cognitive background of the world. More precisely, it asks how our cognitive background is present within and operates alongside our current knowledge. The problem extends to how we selectively retrieve relevant information while ignoring irrelevant details. Literature Review2.1. The Epistemic and Cognitive Dimensions of the Frame ProblemThe most significant interpretation of the frame problem is its epistemic aspect, which relates to updating beliefs and issues of relevance. For example, Dennett (1978) describes the puzzle of how a person, who holds many beliefs about the world, can update these beliefs when taking an action that relies on firm beliefs about the world.Initially proposed in its logical form, the frame problem evolved into a philosophical issue within two decades. Fodor (1987) argues that this issue is deeply philosophical, directly related to human knowledge, and should be studied by philosophers and cognitive scientists rather than being relegated to artificial intelligence.2.2. Cognitive Background and Knowledge RetrievalUnderstanding language expressions requires not only linguistic and semantic knowledge but also knowledge of the world. Similarly, recognizing a piece of cloth as a valuable object, like a flag, depends on prior cultural and social knowledge. Our knowledge is rooted in stored cultural, historical, social, and linguistic frameworks, which constitute our cognitive background. When encountering a new situation, relevant information is retrieved while irrelevant information is ignored—this is a central concern of the frame problem.2.3. Linguistic and Contextual FactorsIn the philosophy of language and linguistics, a key question is how we access our linguistic ability (a person’s institutionalized linguistic knowledge). Linguistic ability can be seen as background knowledge that enables us to understand the meanings of linguistic expressions. Additionally, social and contextual features of speech help us produce or interpret statements appropriate to a given situation. Accessing these features requires background knowledge of the world. MethodologyThis paper examines the frame problem through an interdisciplinary approach, drawing from philosophy, cognitive science, and linguistics to explore how cognitive background knowledge influences problem-solving and belief updating. DiscussionTo illustrate further, consider the cognitive process involved in understanding a simple conversation. When someone hears a sentence, they do not merely parse the syntax and semantics; they also draw on their knowledge of the speaker, the context of the conversation, and relevant world events. This complex integration of information is largely unconscious and highlights the depth of our cognitive background. The frame problem, therefore, is not just about identifying relevant information but also about understanding the mechanisms through which our minds filter and integrate vast amounts of knowledge in real time.Another example can be seen in cultural artifacts. When individuals from different backgrounds encounter a cultural symbol, their interpretations can vary widely based on their unique cognitive backgrounds. For instance, a national flag might evoke feelings of patriotism and sacrifice in one person, while for another, it could signify oppression and conflict. These differing perceptions underscore the importance of background knowledge in shaping our understanding and reactions. ConclusionThe frame problem spans multiple domains, from logic and epistemology to metaphysics and cognitive science. It raises fundamental questions about the nature of human cognition, how we process information, and how we adapt our understanding in dynamic environments. As our world becomes increasingly complex, addressing the frame problem becomes even more critical. Ultimately, the frame problem challenges us to deepen our understanding of the intricate processes that underpin human thought and knowledge.Acknowledgments:This article is an extract from a research project with the code 4001460, which was supported by Iran National Science Foundation (INSF).
Research Paper
philosophy
Faraz Attar
Abstract
IntroductionSusanna Schellenberg, over a decade, developed the idea of capacitism in order to explain the perceptual experience. Capacitism declares that perception is constituted by employing perceptual capacities, i.e. capacities in order to discriminate and single out instances from the other. The ...
Read More
IntroductionSusanna Schellenberg, over a decade, developed the idea of capacitism in order to explain the perceptual experience. Capacitism declares that perception is constituted by employing perceptual capacities, i.e. capacities in order to discriminate and single out instances from the other. The theory argues that analyzing perceptual experience in the framework of capacities reveals that the dichotomy between relationalism and representationalism is indeed a false dichotomy. For short, relationalism maintains that the mind-independent, external object is a constituent of perceptual experience. On the other side, representationalism believes that the representational content is a constituent of perceptual experience. It is widely believed that once you support one side, you should drop the other side; since the supposed dichotomy between relationalism and representationalism is commonly accepted. Capacitism, on the contrary, argues that perceptual experience is essentially relational and representational. Both object and content are constituents of perceptual experience.Literature ReviewCapacitism claims that perceptual experience is essentially relational and representational. In order to justify the claim, the theory introduces Fregean particularism and distinguishes content type from token content.Fregean particularism is a specific version of the particularity thesis. According to the particularity thesis, the mental state brought about by perceptual relation to a particular, is constituted by the particular. In the context of perceptual content, the particularity thesis implies that the mental state brought about by perceptual relation to a particular, has the feature that the mental state’s content is constituted by the particular. With the preliminaries, Fregean particularism espouses the idea that perceptual capacities constitute perceptual content and, since perceptual content is constituted by a particular, the content is singular. The singular content is the Fregean mode of presentation. Perceptual experience has a content type and a token content. The content type has the following structure: represents the Fregean mode of presentation. indicates de re discrimination and singling out of object , and indicates de re discrimination and singling out of token property . Veridical perception, illusion, and hallucination have a common content type.But the veridical perception’s token content is: The token content informs us that the perceptual experience actually discriminates and singles out the object and token property .In contrast, the token content of illusion, that is: points out that the experience discriminates and singles out the object , but could not discriminate and single out any token property.Finally, the token content of hallucination, that is: points out that the experience could not discriminate and single out any object and any token property.Thus there is a fundamental difference between the token contents of veridical perception, illusion and hallucination. The former has a full sensory awareness relation to the world, but the two others lack that.Content type is constituted solely by employing perceptual capacity. In the case of veridical perception, illusion and hallucination perceptual capacity is employed, hence the content type of the experiences are the same. The content type is responsible for the experience’s phenomenology. The fact explains why the experiences look the same.But token content is constituted by both employing perceptual capacity and particular in the environment. Therefore veridical perception’s token content could not be the same as illusion’s and hallucination’s token content.Thus capacitism shows that perceptual experience could be essentially representational and relational. Perceptual content is a constituent of perceptual experience and token content, in turn, is partly constituted by particular in the environment. MethodologySchellenberg claims that the traditional dichotomy between relationalism and representationalism could be best described as the dichotomy between austere relationalism and austere representationalism. But both the austere theories are erroneous.I’ll show that why relationalism should be austere. There is no way for relationalism to block the argument from hallucination, except that it adopts the disjunctivist approach. i.e., to maintain that there is a fundamental difference between veridical perception and hallucination. But Schellenberg strictly declares capacitism as a non-disjunctivist approach. How capacitism could be non-disjunctivist and meanwhile refute the argument from hallucination?Pursuing the answer, I’ll argue that Schellenberg’s insistence on the non-disjunctivist approach is not well-established. Furthermore, I’ll illustrate the new dichotomy beneath her capacitism. ConclusionI address two problems of the approach. First, capacitism insists that the theory is a non-disjunctivist one. I argue that the insistence is unjustified and based on the blurred demarcation. There is no significant difference between capacitism and some versions of disjunctivism, notably content disjunctivism. However, capacitism doesn’t imply radical disjunctivism, namely metaphysical disjunctivism.Second, the more fundamental analysis of the topic shows that the relationalism-representationalism dichotomy is still present at the core of the capacitism. Which analysis of perceptual experience is more fundamental: analysis of its content type or its token content? If the content type was more fundamental, then the representational aspect of capacitism would be bolded, and if the token content was more fundamental, the relational aspect would be highlighted.Adopting a relationalist attitude, we could still believe that blocking the argument from hallucination is the main task. Hence veridical perception should be of a different fundamental kind. How does capacitism dwell on the issue? Capacitism utters that veridical perception and hallucination have the same content type, but different token contents. Accepting a relationalist attitude would lead to privileged token content over content type. Veridical perception and hallucination are of different fundamental kinds due to their different token contents. Thus analysis of perceptual experience via its token content is more fundamental than via its content type.If we focus on the relational aspect of perceptual experience, token content becomes more fundamental. On the other side, if we give weight to the representational aspect, content type becomes more fundamental. We could discriminate relational capacitism from representational capacitism.Capacitism just points out that some versions of relationalism and representationalism are not inconsistent. The theory doesn’t indicate that there essentially is not a confrontation. Capacitism, at its best, relocates the confrontation from the consistency-inconsistency category to a more essential-less essential category. But the relocation doesn’t imply that the dichotomy is false.
Research Paper
philosophy
Bayan Karimi
Abstract
IntroductionThe possibility of a dialog and the establishment of a balance between the thoughts and theoretical foundations of Sartre and Lacan is ambiguous and somewhat complex, especially since various interpretations have been offered regarding the realization of such a dialog. Some argue that the ...
Read More
IntroductionThe possibility of a dialog and the establishment of a balance between the thoughts and theoretical foundations of Sartre and Lacan is ambiguous and somewhat complex, especially since various interpretations have been offered regarding the realization of such a dialog. Some argue that the thoughts of Sartre and Lacan are in irreconcilable contradiction to each other and can only be evaluated as two heterogeneous thoughts opposing each other. In particular, there is a deep and serious divide in their political and theoretical approaches, which makes it difficult to find a topic for dialog between them (Tolini and Muller, 2015: 89). Others take more radical approaches to the relationship between the two, and since Sartre's thought is intertwined with freedom and consciousness and Lacan's with overdeterminism and the unconscious, they consider Lacanianism to be synonymous with opposition to Sartre. On this basis, anyone who agrees with Lacan's thinking and accepts his approach to subjectivity and the Other is incompatible with and alien to Sartre's thinking (Almen, 2006:11). The aim of this study is to deconstruct the subject in the face of the Other and also to find moments that challenge the traditional readings of Lacan and Sartre. The basic question of the present study is: What role does the other play in the construction of the subject of Sartrean existentialism and the subject of Lacanian psychoanalysis, and is it possible to establish a dialog and a balance between these two approaches? Despite Lacan's criticism of Sartre's mythological reading of the concept of freedom and Sartre's criticism of psychoanalysis as a deterministic discourse, both emphasize in their philosophical and metapsychological positions the constant presence of the other and the search for a way to liberate the subject. The concepts of Sartre's "fundamental choice" and Lacan's "fundamental desire" in the present and the inescapable authority of the other express an escape towards the realization of freedom. Subjects want freedom and individual identity, but there are contradictions that make it difficult for the subject to choose and satisfy desire. Finding moments in which these contradictions are resolved in both schools of thought, existentialism and psychoanalysis, is difficult and complex, but possible.Literature ReviewNumerous books and articles have already been published on Lacan and Sartre. For this article, we have used "Jacques Lacan" by Shaun Homer (2004) and "Ethics of the Real" by Alenka Zupančič (2000). As far as the comparison between the two is concerned, two important articles were used: "Sartre and Lacan: Considerations on the Concepts of the Subject and of Consciousness Psychoanalysis and History" by Tolini and Muller (2015), and "Analyzing Gaze in Terms of Subjective and Objective Interpretation: Sartre and Lacan. In Human Studies" by Sharma and Barua. While the latter two works focus primarily on the concept of the gaze and subjectivity, this article attempts to present an independent interpretation of psychoanalytic concepts, the Other, and their relationship in shaping the subject, as well as to establish a hypothetical dialog between these two philosophers.MethodologyResearch was conducted fundamentally based on the study of library sources and articles published in international journals and internet sources. The research method is library-based, based on the analysis of Sartre and Lacan's works. This study uses a descriptive-analytical and comparative method.DiscussionLacan's psychoanalysis and Sartre's existentialism have similarities in their exploration of the nature of human subjectivity and the omnipresent 'other'. Sartre is more closely associated with Lacan's psychoanalytic structuralism than is generally assumed. Lacan's account of the unconscious structure overcomes many of the problems that plagued Freud's psychological reading, which portrayed the unconscious as a realm governed by a kind of preconscious awareness, language, and symbolic order. Lacan's unconscious thus provides a direct link between this fundamental psychoanalytic concept and Sartre's existentialism. Sartre's attempt to overcome the aspects of the unconscious that he found problematic leads him to an interpretation that Lacan might have agreed with. This encounter has significant implications for the reassessment of Sartre's ambiguous and complex relationship with psychoanalysis, as most commentators have noted that Sartre's critique was directed at the unconscious and the determinism of Freud's modern psychology, rather than Lacan's psychoanalysis (Flynn, 2014: 221). Below we will assess some of the central concepts in Lacan's and Sartre's thought and examine their encounterConclusionThis study attempts to reassess and reinterpret the philosophical and psychoanalytic positions on subjectivity. It shows that by redefining the subject and the unconscious and emphasizing the role of choice and desire, we can offer similar interpretations of other concepts within these discourses.On this basis, psychoanalysis is not a deterministic approach that is opposed to the freedom of the subject, nor does the concept of the unconscious negate human agency and freedom. Sartre's emphasis on freedom is based simultaneously on the situation of the subject and the omnipresent existence of the Other. The subject is thus in a state of confusion and entrapment and tries to breathe in such a space. Both psychoanalytic and existentialist discourses strive to free the subject from deceptive situations and symbolic structures. Lacanian psychoanalysis cannot be reduced to structuralism, since Lacan never attempted to abolish the subject and does not see it merely as a reproduction of the symbolic world. Sartre's subjectivity cannot be reduced to pure voluntarism or absolute freedom, since it is dependent on events and the Other always surrounds it. There is always something in the subject that transcends the domination of others and the symbolic realm. Moreover, the Other itself cannot be a solid and complete entity and is always confronted with a fundamental failure.
Research Paper
philosophy
محمد مهدی کمالی
Abstract
IntroductionOne of the new phenomena of the modern era is the possibility of changing gender through surgery and the formation of a new society called the transsexual society. Unlike hermaphrodite, who has both male and female genitals, trans refers to a man or woman who has a completely male or female ...
Read More
IntroductionOne of the new phenomena of the modern era is the possibility of changing gender through surgery and the formation of a new society called the transsexual society. Unlike hermaphrodite, who has both male and female genitals, trans refers to a man or woman who has a completely male or female body, but has opposite sex tendencies and considers himself mentally and psychologically male or female, contrary to the sexual structure of his body. Today, gender reassignment has become somewhat socially and culturally acceptable and is even being accepted in jurisprudential and legal terms, but is gender reassignment really possible from a rational and philosophical perspective?In this article, we will look at the subject of trans from a philosophical perspective and examine the possibility of changing gender through surgery from the perspective of the psychology of Islamic philosophy and based on the principles of Sadra'i philosophy. The most important issue that will be examined in this research is whether the soul, like the body, has a gender or not. And if the answer is yes, does changing the body's genital structure also change the gender of the soul or not? Is the transgender community's claim that a male soul resides in a female body or vice versa reasonable? Is it possible for a male or female soul to grow in a body that is not of the same gender? Islamic philosophy, especially transcendental wisdom, has valuable discussions about the soul and the body and their relationship that can guide us in understanding and confronting this phenomenon and answering the above questions. Literature ReviewAlthough there has been considerable research on the issue of trans and gender reassignment by academic centers, research on this issue has not been conducted from the perspective of philosophical psychology. Most of the research conducted is from the perspective of medicine, jurisprudence, law, sociology, and mental and psychological problems. Islamic philosophy has rich discussions about the soul and its relationship with the body, which can help us in solving the enigma of trans and commenting on the possibility of gender reassignment and, consequently, whether it is permissible or not. MethodologyIn this study, using a descriptive-analytical method, we first examined the issue of soul and gender, and then we explored the issue of trans and gender reassignment. In this regard, we will also take a look at the findings of empirical sciences regarding how gender is formed in the womb. ConclusionBased on the findings of this study, changing gender through surgery is either fundamentally not possible or, assuming it is possible, is not logical. If the soul has no gender and gender is the body, and the person's body is perfect in terms of masculinity and femininity in every way, there is no logical justification for surgery. And if the soul has a gender, then due to the proportionality between cause and effect, or matter and form, it necessarily has a gender that matches the body. In other words, whether the soul forms the body and their relationship is a cause-and-effect relationship, or whether the body is completely formed by God and the soul has no agency in its creation and the body is merely a place for the soul, in any case, there is a complete correspondence between the soul and the body, and it is not possible for the soul and the body to be opposites in terms of gender. Therefore, it is fundamentally impossible to change gender; because surgery does not change the truth of masculinity and femininity, but only the appearance of the body; that is, the inner and true nature of a person, which is his soul, is unchanged and remains the same. Therefore, it can be said that the only result of surgery is the creation of imperfect men-like women and imperfect women-like men. It is necessary to re-emphasize that the issue of transgender people is different from bisexual people, and what was said was about transsexuals, not bisexuality. Trans is a type of mental illness in which a person suffers from the illusion of gender crisis and imagines himself as a man or a woman, contrary to the natural structure of his body. One should not play in the field of illusion of this person and fuel his illusions. Rather, instead of surgery, he should be given psychotherapy and removed from the illusion of gender disorder.
Research Paper
philosophy
mansoore doagoo; jalal marami
Abstract
IntroductionThe Holy Quran, as the divine word and an eternal miracle, has consistently been the focal point of scholars and thinkers. This sacred text, serving not only as a source of guidance and human development but also as a literary and artistic masterpiece, has always been a subject of examination ...
Read More
IntroductionThe Holy Quran, as the divine word and an eternal miracle, has consistently been the focal point of scholars and thinkers. This sacred text, serving not only as a source of guidance and human development but also as a literary and artistic masterpiece, has always been a subject of examination and contemplation. Surah Al-Ikhlas (The Purity), with its concise structure and profound meaning, is among the Surahs that have attracted the attention of interpreters, theologians, mystics, and literary scholars throughout the history of Islam. This Surah, which expresses the oneness of God in a clear and direct manner, can be studied from various perspectives.With the advancement of linguistic sciences and the emergence of new approaches in literary criticism, it has become possible to examine the linguistic structures of the Quran with a fresh perspective. Stylistics, as one of these approaches, examines the specific characteristics of a text, including its linguistic structure, word choices, and sentence composition. This article analyzes Surah Al-Ikhlas using the principles of stylistics and with a mystical approach. The primary goal of this research is to elucidate the relationship between the linguistic structure of Surah Al-Ikhlas and the mystical concepts of Tawhid (Oneness of God), particularly the concept of “unity in diversity.”Background ResearchNumerous studies have been conducted on the stylistics of the Holy Quran, each examining this divine text from a particular angle. Articles such as “The Stylistics of Surah Maryam” by Mohammad Khaghani and Mohammad Jafar Asghari analyze synonymous relationships, internal coherence, and rhythmic elements to explain the unique style of this Surah. The article “Stylistics of Surah An-Nazi’at” by Abolhassan Momennejad and colleagues, focusing on the phonetic analysis of words, shows how the sound of words influences the transfer of meaning. Additionally, the article “Stylistics of Surah Adh-Dhariyat” by Shaban Nosrati and colleagues examines the phonetic, morphological, and literary levels of words and refers to the structural coherence of this Surah. These studies demonstrate that the stylistics of the Quran is an effective approach in studying the various aspects of this book.Regarding Surah Al-Ikhlas, articles such as “Al-Tawhid fi Surah Al-Tawhid” by Ahmad Ezzat Adnan and Abdullah Ezzah and “A Study of Rhetorical Manifestations and Beauty in Surah Al-Ikhlas” by Ali Oust Khanjani, have focused more on the rhetorical and interpretative aspects of the Surah. The article “The Manifestation of Tawhid in Surah Al-Ikhlas” by Ali Asghar Mirzaei also dealt with Surah Al-Ikhlas with a mystical view and tried to express the deep meanings of Tawhid in this Surah. However, these articles have focused more on the mystical interpretation and rhetorical analysis of the Surah, paying less attention to the stylistic analysis of the Surah, with a mystical approach.Therefore, this article, with the aim of filling this research gap, seeks to examine Surah Al-Ikhlas from the perspective of mystical stylistics. This article not only examines the various linguistic levels of the Surah but also analyzes the relationship between the linguistic structure and its mystical meaning. The main emphasis is on how the linguistic structure of the Surah, especially the existing oppositions in it, reflects the concept of “unity in diversity” in mysticism.MethodologyThe research method in this article is a combination of descriptive-analytical methods and stylistic approaches. In the first stage, information related to Surah Al-Ikhlas and the concept of mystical Tawhid was collected using interpretive, literary, and mystical sources. Then, using the principles of stylistics, the linguistic structure of the Surah was analyzed at different levels, including the phonetic, lexical, syntactic, and rhetorical levels.At the phonetic level, the sound features of the words and the repetition of sounds in the Surah were examined. At the lexical level, the selection of specific words and the semantic relationships between them were analyzed. At the syntactic level, the structure of sentences and how they relate to each other were analyzed. At the rhetorical level, literary devices and their role in conveying the meaning of the Surah were examined.In the next stage, using a mystical approach, the relationship between the linguistic structure of the Surah and the mystical concepts of Tawhid, especially the concept of “unity in diversity,” was explained. This explanation is based on the idea that the linguistic structure of the Surah, especially the oppositions within it, reflects the concept of “unity in diversity” in mysticism. In other words, how multiplicity transforms into unity and vice versa through the linguistic contrasts in the Surah is examined.Findings and ConclusionThe findings of this research show that Surah Al-Ikhlas, with a concise yet meaningful structure, represents a complex linguistic system that serves to explain the concept of mystical Tawhid. The oppositions present in the Surah, at various levels, particularly at the phonetic level (repetition of the letter “dal” and repetitions of the word “huwa”), semantic level (contrast between “lam yalid” and “lam yulad”), rhetorical level (sentences beginning as “fasl” and ending as “wasl”), and also the compositional system (beginning and ending with the pronoun “huwa”), indicate a unity that appears within diversity.These oppositions not only express the explicit oneness of God but also lead to the formation of a circular system that goes from unity to diversity and then back to unity. This circular system, in fact, reflects the concept of “Wahdat al-Wujud” (Oneness of Being) in mysticism. In other words, from the mystic’s perspective, everything in the world is a manifestation of the one divine essence and originates from it. This circle, beginning with “huwa” and returning to “huwa”, shows that the origin and destination of all existence are Him, and everything is in Him.Furthermore, the study of Surah Al-Ikhlas from a mystical point of view shows that the mystic, by understanding this unity, reaches a state of bewilderment and annihilation in the presence of the divine essence. This bewilderment indicates the ultimate understanding and knowledge of the mystic about the divine essence, which is beyond any description or expression. This article shows how the linguistic structure of Surah Al-Ikhlas not only explains the concept of divine Tawhid but also reflects mystical experience.
Research Paper
philosophy
Abdollah Mirahmadi; fatemeh sarlak
Abstract
Introduction Mohamed Arkoun, a contemporary Algerian thinker and Islamologist, has investigated the interpretation and historical reading of religious texts. He believes that the Qur'an was compiled as an oral text in certain political conditions and this affects the understanding of its meanings. Archon ...
Read More
Introduction Mohamed Arkoun, a contemporary Algerian thinker and Islamologist, has investigated the interpretation and historical reading of religious texts. He believes that the Qur'an was compiled as an oral text in certain political conditions and this affects the understanding of its meanings. Archon emphasizes that interpretation, beyond the traditional interpretation, requires a new and analytical approach that examines the linguistic and cultural structures of the text. Archon's interpretative and historical reading of religious texts deals with the deep examination of religious texts with an emphasis on historical and cultural contexts. The necessity of this approach lies in knowing the hidden dimensions of the meanings of texts and their connection with social and historical realities. The importance of this study lies in reviewing the traditional interpretations and providing new methods of religious discourse analysis, which can help to better understand religion in the contemporary era. With linguistic and semiotic analysis, Archon seeks to open new horizons in the interpretation of religious texts. Based on such reasoning, he does not look at the text of the Qur'an as a divine and revelatory text, but considers it a human text that is historical. Also, Archon considers the Qur'an as a text that is open to all meanings and no interpretation can close it to other meanings or be a final meaning. In other words, meaning is not a divine essence, but it is a human, historical, relative and variable understanding. Therefore, according to the doubts that have been raised in connection with the characteristics and nature of the language of the Qur'an, the root analysis of this issue seems necessary.In this research, in addition to stating part of Archon's methodological foundations regarding the language of the Qur'an, the following questions are answered:What is the interpretation and historical reading of Archon with religious texts?Which methodological methods did Archon use in the field of Quranic language?What are the consequences of the historical criticism of the Qur'an from Arkon's point of view?In Archon's point of view, what are the most important standards and modern methods in reading religious texts? Research Hypotheses. Archon seeks to provide a new interpretation of the religious text in order to present a historical and interpretive reading of it. While emphasizing the liberation of the Quran from traditional and modern interpretations, he believes in understanding it as a historical text in its time frame.Archon's four main methods in the field of the language of the Qur'an are: the philosophical hermeneutic approach, empiricism and Nasuti's approach to revelation, mythological approach to the Qur'an, analogy of the Qur'an and the Testaments.The lack of revelation and humanity in the text of the Qur'an is the most important consequence of the historical criticism of the Qur'an in Archon's belief. With the explanation that from Archon's point of view, the Qur'an has changed its meaning from oral speech (revelation), which was holy and inaccessible, to written text (mushaf) and unholy. Therefore, it is possible to discuss the preference of readings and narratives and their development with the method of historical criticism and reopen the final text. Research background Although many works have been written about Arkon's thought and character, there is no independent work in the field of "interpretative and historical reading of Muhammad Arkon in the religious text". However, it has been mentioned in some articles and books. In the meantime, the following writings can be considered to some extent in line with future research:The book "Analytical Reading of Muhammad Arkun's Thoughts (Religion, Text and Truth)" by Mustafa Hassan, translator: Majid Minhaji. The article "Modernist Reading of a Religious Text in the Thought of Muhammad Arkun and Nasr Hamed Abu Zaid" was written by Muhammad Khalid al-Shabaab, translated by Majid Minhaji and Muhammad Ali Rashidi. The focus of this article has been on the hermeneutic reading of the religious text according to Archon. The article "Criticism and Review of Mohammad Arkun's Reading of Tradition and Modernity" was written by Ali Falah Rafi and Majid Minhaji. In this article, the re-reading of Muhammad Arkon's new religious tradition and project, i.e., "Criticism of Islamic Reason" and its influence on Arkon's historical methodology are stated. The article "Investigation and Analysis of the Influence and Application of Western Approaches in the Reading of Religious Text in the Thought of Mohammad Arkun", was written by Majid Menhaji and Mehdi Sadatinejad. This research is focused on new Western approaches to reading the religious text of Archon. Unlike the above writings, in the present article, with a descriptive-analytical method, the analysis of Archon's thoughts in the methodology of Quranic language, historical reading and interpretation style of religious text has been specifically and independently analyzed.The final resultArchon's goals in the field of critical reading of religious text are: providing solutions to overcome the decline of Islamic civilization, projects of criticism of Islamic reason, applied Islamology and future-oriented quantitative reason. In the meantime, Arkon has benefited from various modern Western approaches and schools in his projects, especially Islamology. His linguistic-semiotic approach is influenced by Dossaurus and Paul Ricoeur. The headlines of his applications in this approach are: conducting objective studies and away from dogma; the hermeneutic distinction between the original scriptures and other texts derived from the hermeneutics of the sacred text; cleansing the language field from dry, peripheral and hereditary connotations; creating a fundamental, scientific and philosophical method for analyzing Islamic thought. Also, his application cases in the historical analysis approach are categorized in the following axes: organizing and leveling mechanisms for investigating intellectual challenges; studies related to development and progress and their factors and components; criticism of religious phenomena and theological approach as a valid tool for examining the first texts, i.e. Quran, Sunnah and religious thought; returning the original text to its linguistic level. In general, Arkon, with its historical and interpretive approach, seeks to free the Quran from traditional and modern interpretations to be understood as a historical text in its time frame. Therefore, in Archon's approach, there are three types of anthropological-historical, semiotic-linguistic, and belief-interpretive readings for the Qur'an.
Research Paper
Mohammad Mohsen Haeri; Davood Hoseini
Abstract
Recent years have seen a surge of attention to the problem of logical pluralism; most of which has been a reaction to Beall and Restall’s account of logical pluralism as the existence of more than one equally correct semantic relation of logical consequence. The underlying thesis is that the indeterminacy ...
Read More
Recent years have seen a surge of attention to the problem of logical pluralism; most of which has been a reaction to Beall and Restall’s account of logical pluralism as the existence of more than one equally correct semantic relation of logical consequence. The underlying thesis is that the indeterminacy of the notion of validity goes beyond what the inductive-deductive distinction can precisify. The notion of deductive validity itself is indeterminate as well and this indeterminacy has its roots in the indeterminacy of the more fundamental notion of case. Cases are what make the premisses and the conclusion of an argument true; the most notable example being the Tarskian models for classical logic. Deductive validity is the preservation of truth across all cases. This paper argues that unless this account of logical pluralism is supplemented with an argument in favor of the equal legitimacy of the purported cases it becomes merely a semi-controversial exposition of how different logics can be generated.
