Research Paper
khashayar boromand; hassan husseini
Volume 11, Issue 41 , April 2015, Pages 7-28
Abstract
Abstract
The critical theory of technology is a title that Andrew Feinberg predicates to the results of his thoughts about technology. This title indicates explicitly that Feinberg is interested in critical thinking arising from the Frankfurt School. In the critical theory of technology, technology ...
Read More
Abstract
The critical theory of technology is a title that Andrew Feinberg predicates to the results of his thoughts about technology. This title indicates explicitly that Feinberg is interested in critical thinking arising from the Frankfurt School. In the critical theory of technology, technology is considered neither evil nor accepted its development to its present form. On the one hand, Feinberg points to the risks of the dominant technology space and on the other hand, he believes that the technological development isn't dangerous completely. In the critical theory of technology, the technologies are analyzed in both functional and external realization. According to this analysis, undesirable consequences of modern technology will be obvious in its current form. Feinberg does not suffice to disply such undesirable consequences and he considers releasing from the dominant technology based on democratic values. In his view, the liberation strategy is trying to realize another form of modernity that is formed based on a wider range of values. In this article, firstly we will explain the main elements of critical theory of technology and then we will point to emancipatory aspect of Feinberg approach for going out of the dominant technology space and realizing of alternative modernity as his ideal. Finally, there are mentions about some of the problems with this approach and the relationship between the critical theory of technology and the share of national culture in technological design.
Research Paper
hussein rostami jalilian; mohamad reza assadi
Volume 11, Issue 41 , April 2015, Pages 29-48
Abstract
Abstract
This paper pursues Heidegger’s interpretation about the relation between Spirit and time (Being) in Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit. To this end, Heidegger’s critique of Hegel on the relationship between time and Spirit; Heidegger’s interpretation of the Phenomenology ...
Read More
Abstract
This paper pursues Heidegger’s interpretation about the relation between Spirit and time (Being) in Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit. To this end, Heidegger’s critique of Hegel on the relationship between time and Spirit; Heidegger’s interpretation of the Phenomenology as exemplifying the Cartesian-Fichtean metaphysics of the subject; and its role in articulating the modern metaphysics of ‘subjectivity’ were examined. The purpose of this dialogue is the evaluation of problems like meaning of being, the relation between time and spirit, the problematic of finitude of being and infinitude of Spirit in philosophical confrontation between Hegel and Heidegger. Finally it is concluded that in Heidegger's view, time and temporality constitutes the nature of Spirit in Hegel's philosophy, and Hegel's Spirit is “…the absolute self-presentation of reason (ratio-logos) that it manifests itself as parousia of the Absolute. With this Heidegger’s interpretation of Hegel's concept of experience as subjectivity of subject, in his view, Hegel's philosophy inevitably leads to modern metaphysics of subjectivity which achieves its culmination in the modern technology. I argue that the Critique of some commentators to Heidegger is that he forgets those aspects of Hegel’s philosophy in his confrontation with Hegel like thinking of intersubjectivity, the historicity of the experience of spirit, the role of the problem of negativity in dialectical movement and his critique of modernity.
Research Paper
Abdul Razzaq Hesamifar
Volume 11, Issue 41 , April 2015, Pages 49-68
Abstract
Abstract
The refuting of private language is one of the important ideas of later Wittgenstein; a language whose words are only known for its user. To justify impossibility of the private language, Wittgenstein in his diary argument shows that it is impossible for a person to name one of his own sensations ...
Read More
Abstract
The refuting of private language is one of the important ideas of later Wittgenstein; a language whose words are only known for its user. To justify impossibility of the private language, Wittgenstein in his diary argument shows that it is impossible for a person to name one of his own sensations by using a sign like “S” and to write it in his diary and then he cannot register its repetition in his diary. There are many interpretations of this argument. Some consider it as an argument against the validity of memory and some others consider it as an emphasis on the necessity of rules for using the words in a language. Skepticism in the validity of memory sometime is related to the ability of memory in keeping the first sensation and sometime is related to the ability of memory in correct remembering of using of a sign in the past. The commentators mostly accepted the first part and according to their view, since there is no objective criterion for assessment of use of a sign, the possibility of assessing the correctness of memory function in private language is denied. In this article, some interpretations of diarist argument are investigated.
�Q�ҁQ�ӁQ�ӁQ�ӁQ�ӀQ�ӁR�ӀR�ӀQ�ӀQ�ҁQ�ҀQ�ӀQ�یشتر شق نخست را برگرفتند و به هر حال امکان احراز درستی عملکرد حافظه را در زبان خصوصی به این دلیل منتفی دانستند که معیاری عینی برای بازسنجی کاربردهای یک نشانه وجود ندارد. در این مقاله برخی تفاسیر از استدلال خاطرهنویس بررسی شدهاست.
Research Paper
mojtaba derayati
Volume 11, Issue 41 , April 2015, Pages 69-86
Abstract
Abstract
The discussion of the criterion of individuation has been an important and complex metaphysical debate in the history of philosophy and this is related with what its presence makes us to reach from the general or universal person to the fiddling person. The interpreters of Aristotle's philosophy ...
Read More
Abstract
The discussion of the criterion of individuation has been an important and complex metaphysical debate in the history of philosophy and this is related with what its presence makes us to reach from the general or universal person to the fiddling person. The interpreters of Aristotle's philosophy are disagreeing about the criterion of beings individuation in his view. The most commentators believe that the form or matter and qualified matter or realized form in the opinion of others, is the criterion of individuation in Aristotle's view. In the beginning of this article, we will review the difference in application of concepts such as individuation, identity and plurality in the texts of Aristotle. Although these three concepts are closely related to each other, but the commentators have been wrong in judging of criterion of individuation for incomprehension the difference between them. Then, we will study and review all terms of Aristotle's texts that various commentators resort or can resort to them in confirmation of their claim about the criterion of of individuation in Aristotle's view and we will show strengths and weaknesses of the various claims. Finally, we will discuss about this question that whether the criterion of individuation basically is an Aristotelian problem or not.
Research Paper
fatemeh soleimani
Volume 11, Issue 41 , April 2015, Pages 87-106
Abstract
Abstract
One of the most important issues in epistemology is the relationship between will and knowledge. Replying to this question that “whether the knowledge is a voluntary doing or an involuntary action and according to theologian. Necessary’’ is one of the Old issues of theology ...
Read More
Abstract
One of the most important issues in epistemology is the relationship between will and knowledge. Replying to this question that “whether the knowledge is a voluntary doing or an involuntary action and according to theologian. Necessary’’ is one of the Old issues of theology and philosophy. On the subject of faith and its truth or the knowledge of God, Theologians confronted with this question whether the knowledge of God is voluntary or involuntary and emergency. Herein, from Mu'tazila groups, Nazzam and Jahiz offered theory of natural knowledge, however, these two views is not completely similar. The natural knowledge theory of Al-Jahiz is more complete and pervasive than the subject of faith and the knowledge of God, so that al-Jahiz is accused to the Algebraic knowledge and impossible task in the view of Mu'tazila. In the explanation and analysis of natural knowledge theory and by examining of scattered contents in many and different sources from Al-Jahez, It will appear that a part of human knowledge achieves involuntary and influenced by emotional factors and internal and external demands over the years of his life and also a part of it forms voluntarily and independent of the influence of emotional factors and human's needs.
Research Paper
yahya solati
Volume 11, Issue 41 , April 2015, Pages 107-126
Abstract
Abstract
The Quality.of Issuing a plurality of unity is the Important and central issues in philosophy that Islamic scholars are interested in it for two aspects: THE agency of God and the appearance of Multiplicity in world. Ibn Sina and Suhrawardi have explained emanation theory based on “Al-Vahed’’ ...
Read More
Abstract
The Quality.of Issuing a plurality of unity is the Important and central issues in philosophy that Islamic scholars are interested in it for two aspects: THE agency of God and the appearance of Multiplicity in world. Ibn Sina and Suhrawardi have explained emanation theory based on “Al-Vahed’’ axiom. In this context, despite differences in principles, they have done in a certain way, so that Ibn Sina explains this theory based on dual necessity and possible directions in decuple reasons and by assuming of the credit plurality of first reason, while Suhrawardi has examined in detail contrast and the difference between the Light of Lights (Noor ul-Anwar) and first light (Noor-e Avval) by mentioning to imperfection of these two aspects and he points to endless chain of the longitudinal and transverse lights according to the broad directions of illumination (Eshragh) and observation. Also, He proves the category of the Lord of the varieties based on the principle with an emphasis on imaginary world. Thus, he replaces the mutual interaction of Illuminative optics (Noorshenâsi-e Eshraghi) with uncompromising necessity and one-sided Peripatetic ontology. About Creation, Suhrawardi knows divine Knowledge from the kind of the Eshraghi increase by rejecting of ethereal (Enayati) science and he attributes the process of the formation of the universe to the amazing system of Lights (Anwâr).
Abstract
The Quality.of Issuing a plurality of unity is the Important and central issues in philosophy that Islamic scholars are interested in it for two aspects: THE agency of God and the appearance of Multiplicity in world. Ibn Sina and Suhrawardi have explained emanation theory based on “Al-Vahed’’ axiom. In this context, despite differences in principles, they have done in a certain way, so that Ibn Sina explains this theory based on dual necessity and possible directions in decuple reasons and by assuming of the credit plurality of first reason, while Suhrawardi has examined in detail contrast and the difference between the Light of Lights (Noor ul-Anwar) and first light (Noor-e Avval) by mentioning to imperfection of these two aspects and he points to endless chain of the longitudinal and transverse lights according to the broad directions of illumination (Eshragh) and observation. Also, He proves the category of the Lord of the varieties based on the principle with an emphasis on imaginary world. Thus, he replaces the mutual interaction of Illuminative optics (Noorshenâsi-e Eshraghi) with uncompromising necessity and one-sided Peripatetic ontology. About Creation, Suhrawardi knows divine Knowledge from the kind of the Eshraghi increase by rejecting of ethereal (Enayati) science and he attributes the process of the formation of the universe to the amazing system of Lights (Anwâr).
