نشریه متافیزیک
سال یازدهم شماره 1 (پیاپی 27، بهار و تابستان 1398)

Maurice Blanchot proposes fragmentary writing as a way of thinking/writing that essentially indicates incompletion as well as a rupture from totality. He believes that fragmentation emerges in the form of an imperative that not only affirms finitude but also reflects the infinite openness of thought and writing, apart from systematic or dialectical thought. Understanding the importance of fragmentary writing as an exigency which emerges after the completion of the systematic thought’s energies, may depend on a special reading of history that rests on return and recurrence rather than development or accomplishment. By introducing the doctrine of the Eternal Recurrence along with the Overman, Nietzsche, also committing to the fragmentary space, images a world in which man faces with finitude and to affirm it is the only way to pass by nihilism. By analyzing the role and characteristics of fragment in Blanchot’s thought, this study tries to read it along with the doctrine of the eternal recurrence, in order to discuss the exigency of fragmentary writing facing with the thought of the Whole and the need to affirm finitude.

On the basis of the the authenticity of the existence, Mulla- Sadra believes that everything , whether subjective or objective, is real to the extent it exists. But non- existence is nothing and pure untruth. The question that is raised here is whether non- existence has any role in understanding and realization of existence. If yes, then what are those roles? Although existence is the subject matter of philosophy, and it is only existence that has real denotation, our focus on this subject has led us to neglecting of non- existence and its functions. Analyzing the role of non- existence in the emergence and understanding of plurality, and all depend on an understanding of non- existence, its meaning and realizations. Mulla-Sadra considers no authenticity for non- existence and defines it as the lack of existence, but he implicitly considers a role for it in understanding of existence. Addressing the definition of non-existence, its types and its applications in various areas, this paper studies the importance of non-existence in Sadra's philosophy. Accordingly, it is argued that as there is variations in existence, there seems to be degrees of intensity or weakness for non- existence in Sadra’s philosophy. In a sense, in one realization of existence, there is no non- existence while in a weak version of existence, non- existence is pervasive. Without an understanding of non-existence, it is not possible to understand other philosophical concepts including paradox principle, authenticity of existence, variations in existence, substantive motion, and self-evolution.

One of the most essential and controversial terms in Art Theory is Mimesis. According to their philosophical views, Plato and Aristotle - who are among the first art theoreticians- each had his own interpretation of Mimesis; And this difference of views is one of the most important elements in evaluating of artworks along the aesthetic history. In this paper we tried to give an almost comprehensive understanding of the concept of Mimesis with contemplation in origins of this word and in its cognates in Greek language (mimos, mimema, mimeistai). Along that, we studied Greek texts that these words were used in them and thereby we tried to determine why these two philosophers - Plato and Aristotle – had adopted two different attitudes towards the concept of Mimesis. The outcomes of our analyses showed that mim-rooted terms in pre-platonic texts signified on transference of meaning through "enactment". Their origin was ritual and their primary object was human or animal behaviors and acts. Moreover, primary medium of this concept was dance and then it generalized to other types of art. What was common in all these words was the idea of correspondence or equality; In other words, these works or acts had chosen a hypothetical equivalent in real world as a role model. Yet this correspondence was not a pure copy but rather in some cases, this hypothetical pattern even had no concrete existence.

The main purpose of this research is to disregard the most important reason for moral skepticism, regress argument that is obtained with the help of basic ethical beliefs through moral intuition. According to intuitionist Ethical fundamentalism, The chain of justification of moral beliefs leads to those basic beliefs which ultimately leads to one of the hypotheses of the regress argument to be answered. In this approach, rational and ethical intuition can be considered as the source of justification for these basic beliefs. not in the sense that these intuitions are one of the foundations of the inference and are the foundation. In this sense, the "predicate-to-subject ratio" is perceived and implicit in moral propositions evidently through moral intuitions And the basic beliefs derived from these intuitions are considered as intuitive ethical beliefs. In this paper, first, the basic ethical beliefs and ethics are explained, and then the origin and justification of such beliefs are explained.

Abstract The Traditionalists’ theory of knowledge is philosophically grounded in Plato's epistemology and ontology. Based on this, and in harmony with the intelligible and the tangible realms, human intelligence acquires knowledge at two levels or two degrees. The intellect is at the highest cognitive level and is capable of perceiving universal truths. At a lower level, there is reason that is itself a partial aspect of the intellect. According to these two forms of intelligence, there are two types of knowledge: one, of the metaphysical knowledge, and the other, of the reasoning. The intellect comprehends metaphysical truths intuitively, immidiately and at once, but the perception of reason is partial, gradual and intermediate, and through the process of reasoning. Recognition arising from the intellect, is true and complete, but the recognition resulting from reason is limited and incomplete. Reason deals with concepts, but in intellection, the subject and object of knowledge are united. The sensory knowledge and the rational cognition, can cause to awaken the intellect and recall univresal ideas, if the subject has certain qualifications.

The epistemological discussions are directed to identify human’s mental abilities in modern time. Kant’s description and explanation on the cognitive and ethical judgments is completed with the description of the cognitive faculties including sense, imagination, understanding and reason. But the mental abilities of human aren’t limited to understanding and reason. Kant says from genius and taste in the third critique. In the paper is studied and evaluated Kant’s works and their interpretations in order to achieve an acceptable result about relationship between taste and genius by emphasis on aesthetic experience in formalistic approach. In this approach, the subject and object are involved in the production and perception of the artworks. Taste is essential in the perceiving and judging of the artworks, that is, it strengthen objectivity, and genius is essential in their production, that is, it strengthen subjectivity. In the other words, taste is for the selection and genius is for the change of a thing. This reminds the fundamental assumption that sensory experiences without conceptions are blind and conceptions without sensory experience are empty. Accordingly they are co-event in evolutionary process in the social and cultural context. The method of the research is analysis of the data derived from library study Kant’s works and his commentators.

Moral dilemmas are situations in which the agents are provided by two conflicting moral judgments but it's not possible for them to act upon both judgments at the same time. Proponents of moral dilemmas say that agents in conflicting situations, have to act in a way that it is morally wrong. Agents will experience negative feelings such as guilt, regret and remorse, no matter which alternative is chosen by them. Opponents, on the other hand, argue in contrary and say that these situations don't avoid incoherence in a moral theory. They claim that although a good moral theory should be action guiding in any situation, it shouldn’t provide the agent with two conflicting moral judgments. Moral dilemmas violate the principle of being action guiding in a moral theory. Proponents often argue in virtue ethics framework and believe that virtue ethic theory is coherent and action guiding and it provides an appropriate explanation for moral dilemmas.

In the paragraphs 5.6 – 5.641 of his Tractatus, Wittgenstein refers to some important points about mind and solipsism of which three interpretations has been presented: The first one is the Orthodoxy interpretation according which meanings are given to words by metaphysical ego or subject through picturing and via a psychological process. This metaphysical ego, however, is distinct from the empirical ego and there is nothing in the world which correspond it and of course it is presupposition of the existence of world. It is impossible to have meaningful talk about it and it can only be shown. The second interpretation is therapeutic interpretation which unlike the realistic and metaphysical approach of the orthodoxy interpretation, it has an unrealistic and no metaphysical approach. It held the relation between the ideas of the former and the latter Wittgenstein. The third interpretation is the ethical interpretation, according which the propositions of Tractatus have practical values. In this interpretation the solipsism of Tractatus is regarded as a mystical and ethical act rather than a metaphysical and epistemological theorem and the target of it is to make change in spiritual life of human beings.in this article the three interpretations have been analyzed and evaluated.

Paradigm is a central concept of Kuhns philosophy of science that described in a holistic structure. Kuhns appeal to this concept is in fact a dissolution, not solution, of empiricists analytical puzzles and his historical and socialogical puzlles make a real revolution in the literature of philosophy of science which needs time to show its entire face and its final consequences. Kuhn in defining Paradigm is closely and clearly influenced by Gestalt psychology and though this concept has not the same application in the Kuhns literature but Kuhn always use it to reflect the holistic aspects of scientific knowledge. this article by revision of several usages of this concept will discuss from holism as their common element. In the debate of capacities and limitations of kuhns holistic approach we first review his attempts for elimination some vaguenesses and then evaluate his seccess.

Rorty's approach to metaphysics is pragmatist, and thus encountering with it based on the utilitarianism and efficiency of the thoughts. Like many postmodern philosophers, he also denies the concept of truth. He uses pragmatic thoughts and modernist ideas. The rejection of the mind as a reflection of nature, anti-representativeness, anti-essence, and emphasis on language are preliminaries, which Rorty denies the truth through them. From Rorty's point of view, human beings in every situation redefine or recreate himself and this is a development, which continuously considered in both individual and social statue. Rorty divided the education into two periods: pre-university and university. In the pre-university period, there is the elements of convergence that leads man to the community. At the university and post-university levels, there are heterogeneous elements, which encourage man to individuality and self-creation. If Rorty has been able to achieve a well-defined and efficient frame for the contemporary societies by presenting neopragmatism in the field of education, is the question here. In this article at first, we will explain Rorty’s approach to education, then examine critiques of his approach to education, and in the last step, we will explain the possibility of using Rorty’s views in relation to the conditions of today’s societies. Keywords: Pragmatism, Neopragmatism, Education, Richard Rorty

To say that “there is a prime number greater than a hundred” implies “there are numbers”. It seems that Carnap accepts the former and rejects the latter. How? And if his view on ontology, more exactly on metaontology, effects such a result, should we think of his view as paradoxical? The author don’t agree on the light of dividing ontologists in three categories. Indeed, there are two genuine question in ontology: “what is there?” And, “what is the criterion of existence?” Ontologists in the first category think that the answer of the first question stands on the answer of the second question. I call them ‘metodologist’. Ontologists in the second category, ‘particularist’, think that the answer of the second question stands on the answer of the first. Ontologists in the third category radically reject the possibility of answering to those questions. I call this category ‘ontological second level skepticism’ and attribute it to Carnap. Finally, I demonstrate how by this attribution Carnap’s view is not paradoxical. On the other hand, by putting Carnap in the ‘Refer-Without-Tears’ camp, in opposite of ‘inconvenience refer’ camp, I show how he refers without ontological concerns.

One of the major theories in the philosophy of science is the distinction between context of discovery and context of justification, which still is debate on its dimensions and equipment. Reichenbach and Popper each have a different purpose on this issue. Reichenbach, with the design of the distinction, could respond to criticism of induction. Popper also discussed the distinction between discovery/justification in order to solve the problem background of knowledge. From the perspective of both philosophers, the context of discovery cannot uniquely have chosen, and methodology is merely determined by context of justification, but each of them has special components for this methodology, especially in the conceptualization of rational reconstruction. The application of the distinction discovery/justification by Reichenbach and Popper in the philosophy of science, can it can be criticized and reflected in several ways. first the conversion of the distinction discovery/justification from harmless distinction into an absolute metaphysical dichotomy, which is made by making an optometrist and framework in the process of scientific research, mobility and dynamism from the researcher. Second, separation context discovery and justification originated from a simplistic look at the flow of science production, so these two positions should have considered intertwined. Third, the role played by presuppositions in rejecting/accepting hypotheses as an arbitration that reflects the impact of historical, psychological and sociological components on the process of the formation of science. Fourth, the interaction of the internal and external structure of science in order to, properly understand the main aspects of scientific developments.