نشریه متافیزیک
سال هفتم شماره 1 (پیاپی 19، بهار و تابستان 1394)

Thought of progress has been considered as one of the presuppositions of the West modernity. Having accepted this idea, we should regard it as one of the bases and foundations of early modern philosophy, and consider Descartes, known as the father of modern philosophy, as having a major role in its formation. There is a strong relationship between the West philosophical thought and the change of the idea of progress to one of the undisputed facts of the west civilization, and this issue can be seen clearly in Descartes thought system better than anywhere else. The present paper intends to show the leading position of Descartes’ thought system in the institutionalization of the concept of progress in the West philosophical system in three main parts: 1. Authority fighting and its relation with Cartesian’s Doubt, 2. The genuineness of the worldly life in Descartes’ thought system, and 3. Establishing the foundation of modern science. This article is based on the modern forerunners’ change of opinion about the philosophy mission in the world. It makes attempt to demonstrate in order to achieve the thought of progress, some prerequisites are necessary; and these prerequisite, though not exclusively, in their best and most complete form are generally achieved in the West philosophical thought and are particularly accomplished in Descartes’ philosophy.

This article, which deals with Plato’s political thought in Laws, makes an attempt to study the position of law in Plato’s thought and its differences from philosopher’s governing with regard to Plato’s view on reason. In other words, it is going to examine the evolutionary process of Plato’s political thought and its epistemological foundations from philosopher’s governing to law governing. Therefore, this paper intends to show that the change in Plato’s epistemological formulation based on reason has led to the change of the content of his thought about various issues including political thought as well as the political organization of the city; and this very change can be seen in his writings when one goes from Republic to Laws. Regarding the philosopher’s problem in running a city, the result of Statesman and Laws is the necessity of law and managing the city based on a set of rules in which all the details are pointed out. Law is a keyword which Plato regards as the answer to the city problems and an alternative solution to the philosopher’s governing.

The concept of recognition, borrowed from Fichte, has undergone considerable modifications in Hegelian thought. It played a significant role in establishing Hegel’s own philosophy and theory of mutual recognition as an intersubjective and social relation. In order to explain Hegel’s approach to the concept of recognition, we need first of all to assess the place of this concept and its importance in Fichte’s philosophy. This task enables us to find out some differences in Hegel’s and Fichte’s attitudes and get closer to the true sense of recognition in Hegel’s system of philosophy. This article consists of three major parts: first of all, it is going to concentrate on the problem of freedom and autonomy in German Idealism especially in Kant. Secondly, it checks out the problem of consciousness of freedom from a Fichtean point of view. And finally, it talks about Fichte’s influence on Hegel which led to formation of the concept of recognition particularly in Jena period.

This paper intends to carry out a comparative study on Plato and Heidegger’s views on language. What allows such a comparison is that according to both Plato and Heidegger, the question of language is connected with the question of Being. In other words, they study the nature of language "in its relation to Being". Therefore, both Plato and Heidegger believe the true nature of language is "revealing and disclosing the Being or beings". However, their difference lies in their apparently similar attitudes towards the nature of language because the procedure of disclosure of Being in language, and the limits of this disclosure are different according to each of these two thinkers. This difference has finally its root in their fundamental views on man, Being, and their relationship.

Plotinus considers Demiurge as intellect and the Platonic ideas as its thoughts. At the same time, he does not regard the existence of these thoughts as dependent on the intellect's reflection, but each of them as an independent particular intellect, whose self-thinking requires all ideas to be thought, as if it is identical with the whole hypostasis of intellect. This theory, which is called "Internality Thesis", is one of the outstanding features of Plotinu's philosophy and one of the most problematic issues in Neo-platonic philosophies. This theory has been reflected in Theologia to some extent and is one of Mullā-Sadrā's resources to believe in the unity and multiplicity of intellect as the first emanated being. This paper, after discussing the Plotinus theory and its context, is going to study Mullā-Sadrā's view on the unity and multiplicity of intellect, and his being affected by Theologia as well as by the verses and traditions.

Among various readings of late Wittgenstein, Bernard William's interpretation has been noteworthy and a matter of controversy among commentators. Based on William's point of view, moving from Tractatus to Philosophical Investigation, Wittgenstein passes from "my language limits equal my world limits" and in other words from transcendental solipsism to transcendental idealism or "our language limits equal our world limits". His main goal is to explain that in transition from "I" to "We", one cant get rid of transcendental idealism concerns. It should be noted that Williams regards Wittgenstein as a transcendental idealist in a special meaning. This article first of all tries to present an accurate explanation of William's interpretation. Regarding this, some great Wittgenstein commentators who pay attention to this interpretation, i.e. Ilham Dilam, Dereck Bolton and Norman Malcolm, are appealed for help. Following this, the interpretation is going to be analyzed and criticized.