فصلنامه حکمت و فلسفه
سال دوازدهم شماره 3 (پیاپی 47، پاییز 1395)

Lyotard, influenced by Wittgenstein and language games asserts the primacy of "diversity and difference" in But, society Habermas seek "consensus" and therefore domains an organic whole society and one that is looking at Structuralist view Saussure's language. Wittgenstein in "functional theory of meaning" interprets the language in which, speaking of "life forms or forms of the game" and "event locations" is present. Thus, he can no longer look from the perspective of holistic, rational and systematic in there. In contrast, Habermas Looks holistic, as Wittgenstein and Lyotard rejected language as well as rational and holistic look at the language of the cast. In this article,is it attempted to criticize to the radical view of Lyotard and his interpretation of language games and then to criticize Habermas, with adjustments in the views of these two philosophers, conflict the solve between them. In this way, the use of mediation CM-theory agonism- and philosopher Charles Taylor -idea multiculturalism-as two other Wittgensteinian or at least very impressed by her, are responsible for the reconciliation between the of views the Lyotard and Habermas. The main question is what the is between relation the is Wittgenstein and Anti-Wittgensteinian thought of language? The main claim is that is not ratio the accompanied.

This paper examines Nelson Goodman’s position on the ontological problem of value of art, in other words, the question of ‘what kind is the relation between valuable feature(s) of artworks to them, in Goodman’s aesthetic cognitivism. In the first place, by examining several issues about (1) the types of the relations between valuable feature of an object to it, (2) the types of the relations between valuable feature of a work to it, and (3) Goodman’s position on the normative problem of value of art, provides the rudiments to solve the above question. In the next place, it suggests that although Goodman is a cognitivist, in the normative issue of value of art, and cognitivism is an anti-essentialism position, it is not that his anti-essentialism is entirely consistent with cognitivists’ anti-essentialism. Goodman and cognitivists are partners in the beliefs that cognitive value attributed to art is (1) plural and (2) is not unique to art. But, do not share the biliefs that (3) the value is common in all works of art and (4) the relation between the value to artworks is intrinsic. However, he does not violate anti-essentialism, although 3 and 4 makes him close to essentialism, Because Goodman’s common cognitive value is not unique to works of art.

This paper discusses the moral system in Rene Descartes’ thoughts. First, it will be shown that Descartes has undeniable ethical concerns even if we refuse to accept his systematic and coherent moral theory and, more precisely, that he has an independent book in moral philosophy. For instance, in several works he hints at or affirms various principles based on which we can attribute a moral theory to him.
Next, we will refer to the nature and structure of Descarte's moral theory. For this purpose, we explain our own interpretation of his moral beliefs and its fundamental elements as we study and criticize other points of view. During the discussion, we will briefly touch the categorization of his moral philosophy in relation with recent classifications in this area. As we will see, it has four fundamental elements: virtue, science, limited knowledge and happiness are four fundamental elements that we think Descarte's ethics containing them and without one of them our interpretation of this issue will be incomplete or even wrong.

There are true contradictions in Ibn ‘Arabi’s theory of the Oneness of Being. The most important one occurs in his explanation of the relation between Being and beings. According to Ibn ‘Arabi, Being is identical with beings as well as it is non-identical with beings. Different philosophers, through hundreds of years, tried to dissolve this contradiction by giving consistent readings of Ibn ‘Arabi’s theory of the Oneness of Being. We will not follow this path. Instead, we accept those true contradictions and, thus, take the theory of the Oneness of Being to be a dialetheist theory. Our claim is that one can have a paraconsistent semantics of the theory of the oneness of being. To do so, we appeal to Graham Priest’s Gluon Theory. Gluon Theory concerns the problem of unity, i.e. what makes the plurality of an object’s parts into a whole. Gluon theory is a dialetheist theory and, thus, its semantics is a paraconsistent one. After giving a dialethiest reading of Ibn ‘Arabi’s Theory of the Oneness of Being, and explaining Gluon Theory, we will propose a translation of the former theory into the latter one. We will try to show that how Gluon Theory can explain the Theory of the Oneness of Being. In this essay, our focus is on the relation between Being and beings and, thus, other aspects of the Theory of the Oneness of Being will not be our main concern.

In Phenomenological approach , regardless of the rules and rationality, the body is seen as a phenomenon that puts the subject exposed to the experience and sensibility. In this approach, the debate over the relationship between the subject , the world and the body is not based on the ontology of the subject and not on the basis of his knowledge of the world , but based on his experience and somatic proximity with the world. This paper seeks to address the phenomenology of Husserl , Merleau-Ponty and Levinas , with a focus on the body and the concept of embodiment , analyzes the contact points as well as differences in approaches and ideas of this philosophers. In the current study, based on the views of the philosophers, we are trying to respond to intertwined questions which are all linked with the body and embodiment of the subject . Also, we want to know how embodiment subject understands the world. The result is that, the body is not the means or the way to understand the world, but embodiment is the situation for vital living in the world and the possibility for our moral living whit the other.
This article by phenomenological approach based on the books and articles by means of descriptive - analytical and critical comparison of the philosophers , seeks for answers to the research questions.

Undoubtedly, “Physis” is one of the most prominent philosophical terms of Aristotle in the way that it can be seen as the basis for knowing from his point of view. Unfortunately, the neglect of some of Aristotle's teachings about the concept, has caused a lot of false judgment and perceptions about the philosopher. According to the author, one of the most important lessons is the close relationship of this concept with another key concepts of his philosophy, the “Logos”, forgetting that it was due to some of the contradictions and conflicts in the philosophy of Aristotle especially in the realm of knowledge. Detailed in this close relationship leads to another neglected doctrines of Aristotle's philosophy, the relationship of cognitive propositions and truth with political considerations. We shall show, by providing a reading of Aristotle's philosophy, which considers the relationships, that it can open the way for the elimination of some of the difficulties and conflicts that have been attributed to his thought. Therefore, in this study we examine the relationship between knowledge and Politics, through rereading relationship physis and logos in Aristotle's thinking.